Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM Charles Haynes wrote: > Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal > at the Tate. I now "get" him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could > not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work > reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However > once I was actually *there* with them I was stunned. I sat down and > didn't move for a good fifteen minutes. I was shocked at my reaction > frankly. > I was reminded[1] of this thread when watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aGRHOpMRUg Thaths [1] Can't believe I remembered a thread more than a decade old.
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On 4/24/07, Lawnun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the status of the prior owner? When I read the economist piece, it struck me that part of the allure for both Sotheby's and to that extent, The Economist, was the fact that you had a consignment "by one of the richest men in America." Sure, the artist only got paid $10,000 or less. Cheeni
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal at the Tate. I now "get" him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However once I was actually *there* with them I was stunned. I sat down and didn't move for a good fifteen minutes. I was shocked at my reaction frankly. -- Charles On 4/24/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. Deepa. On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any > painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as "stripes" of > color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more > compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or > even a print or photo of the painting). You really have to see them > in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole > effect. They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving. > They are interesting to experience from different perspectives; > because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision > with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of > different color fields resolves in your eye. Such a simple thing > (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully. Impossible to > cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the > layering of color that achieves the end result). You can actually > see that it took some time to make each one. Again as architect > Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to > me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that > makes you sigh when you recognize it. Rothko was channeling that > quality in paint and canvas, IMHO. > > Danese > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > > stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth? > > > > apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david > > rockefeller who's selling it. > > > > -rishab > > > > 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg > > 2. > > http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? > > story_id=9061031 > > > > > > >
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On Thursday 26 Apr 2007 7:19 am, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers > > showed their film of a train pulling into a platform > > I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've > looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas? > > -- ams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBQ9wAAW_zs
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: but i think you will agree that the "public" is not a apriori conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not emerge spontaneously. There was a recent thread here regd. The Washington Post's experiment with Joshua Bell playing at a subway station. It was reported that every child that passed by wanted to stop, only to be pulled along by busy parents on their way to work. Would you say that points to the existence of a "shared code of appreciation" that's 'just there'?
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp Super... Subbana always reacted sharply to the criticism that Neenasam's activities at Heggodu are irrelevant in a poor country like ours. "The hypocrites in the capital talk of culture. When they come to a poor village, they talk of food shortage. Some of them have a genuine but naïve concern. They are ignorant. "What they do not realise is the complexities of the human mind and its requirements. Moreover, Neenasam developed naturally from among the people here. So where is the question of relevance or irrelevance?"
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
Is there anything that's not up on youtube? super! thanks. well, if the Lumiere's are there then Feynman has to be there too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfVX3f5q30 On 4/26/07, Aditya Chadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there anything that's not up on youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers > > showed their film of a train pulling into a platform > > I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've > looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas? > > -- ams > > -- Aditya (http://aditya.sublucid.com/) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
At 2007-04-25 19:53:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Is there anything that's not up on youtube? Wow. I didn't even *think* of looking on Youtube. Thank you! -- ams
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
Is there anything that's not up on youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers > showed their film of a train pulling into a platform I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas? -- ams -- Aditya (http://aditya.sublucid.com/)
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers > showed their film of a train pulling into a platform I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas? -- ams
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
wow. On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:26:37PM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote: > I would imagine that the 'public' in the village of Heggodu[1] > wouldn't be that befuddled by say something like absurd theatre . > > [1] ttp://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationSubbannaKV.htm > http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and >failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form this tension between "communication vrs intent" has a long history and something that gets hotly contested when in comes to contemporary art practice. the crucial point is here that of the "public". avant garde art practice has always fashioned itself under the shadow of the rupture. they visualised their practice as constantly breaking new ground and so an initial incomprehensibility was very much a part of the process. now, those heroic postures of high modernist avant garde art - particularly architecture, with its determined refusal to listen to the voice on the street that actually wanted decorative French railings instead of stark, minimal facades - has been critiqued and unpacked in quite a great degree of detail in recent years. i will not get into that here. but i think you will agree that the "public" is not a apriori conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not emerge spontaneously. to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers showed their film of a train pulling into a platform, it scared their audience who were experiencing the cinematic image for the first time. They were scared that the train would move into the theatre and run over them. I would imagine that the 'public' in the village of Heggodu[1] wouldn't be that befuddled by say something like absurd theatre . [1] ttp://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationSubbannaKV.htm http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp On 4/25/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is malevich: The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form. [1] -rishab 1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote: > minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. > And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one > almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black > square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?" -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
It feels nice that one can get so much good information to understand art... Being rather art-illiterate (I can appreciate good landscapes, is all), I have newfound respect for art. But, I still do not understand art any better than I did yesterday. I guess this is how my wife feels when I keep talking about how Queen, Rush, Floyd, Zeppelin & Tull make awesome music. :-) Thank you all very much for the wonderful education. And Danese, you rock! That explanation was superb. Venkat Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is malevich: The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form. [1] -rishab 1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote: minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?"
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is malevich: The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form. [1] -rishab 1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote: > minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. > And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one > almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black > square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?"
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
thanks for that interesting take on Rothko, Danese. minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?" Now, the thing is that for artists like Malevich or Mondrian (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/mondrian/mondrian_blue_plane.jpg) you cannot just see them just in terms of plain geometry – their formal language has to be contextualised within the larger history of 20th (as well as late 19th) century art. Being continually immersed in a media saturated environment, it might get a little difficult for us to appreciate the revolutionary impact that the formal experiments of Malevich or Mondrian had on 20th century visual language. How it freed painting from the tyranny of representation ( a painting that looks like a bridge on the river, or a bunch of grapes and apples) and in thus opening up the space for abstraction, significantly expanded our visual vocabulary. A visual vocabulary that is now very much a part of our everyday 'colloquial' usage. For example, look at the Economist cover with its grey band on top and the red rectangle on the upper left corner. Now squint your eyes, defocus on the black text, and just concentrate on that grey and red rectangle. I will not get into questions of "balance", "(a)symmetry" etc here, but just alternate your gaze between the Economist rectangles and some more Malevich paintings and you will soon get a sense of the complex genealogy that binds the two. cheers, abhishek On 4/25/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:39 +0430, Deepa Mohan wrote: > That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. yes... and it's clearly a more complex than malevich's "black square on white" which is (brilliantly) ... a black square on white [1]. -rishab 1. http://www.russianpaintings.net/articlepics/malevich_black.jpg -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:39 +0430, Deepa Mohan wrote: > That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. yes... and it's clearly a more complex than malevich's "black square on white" which is (brilliantly) ... a black square on white [1]. -rishab 1. http://www.russianpaintings.net/articlepics/malevich_black.jpg
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
Agreed. An excellent description. As I've only seen the copies (or images on the web), I never really saw how a Rothko work commanded the $ that it does. I have a new appreciation. On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the status of the prior owner? When I read the economist piece, it struck me that part of the allure for both Sotheby's and to that extent, The Economist, was the fact that you had a consignment "by one of the richest men in America." Obviously, prior ownership translates in Hollywood film memoribilia (e.g., Audrey Hepburn's little black dress worn in Breakfast at Tiffany's), but does the same hold true for art? Carey http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/05/arts/EU_A-E_MOV_Britain_Hepburns_Dress.php On 4/24/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. Deepa. On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any > painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as "stripes" of > color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more > compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or > even a print or photo of the painting). You really have to see them > in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole > effect. They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving. > They are interesting to experience from different perspectives; > because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision > with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of > different color fields resolves in your eye. Such a simple thing > (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully. Impossible to > cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the > layering of color that achieves the end result). You can actually > see that it took some time to make each one. Again as architect > Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to > me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that > makes you sigh when you recognize it. Rothko was channeling that > quality in paint and canvas, IMHO. > > Danese > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > > stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth? > > > > apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david > > rockefeller who's selling it. > > > > -rishab > > > > 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg > > 2. > > http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? > > story_id=9061031 > > > > > > >
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. Deepa. On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as "stripes" of color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or even a print or photo of the painting). You really have to see them in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole effect. They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving. They are interesting to experience from different perspectives; because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of different color fields resolves in your eye. Such a simple thing (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully. Impossible to cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the layering of color that achieves the end result). You can actually see that it took some time to make each one. Again as architect Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that makes you sigh when you recognize it. Rothko was channeling that quality in paint and canvas, IMHO. Danese On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth? > > apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david > rockefeller who's selling it. > > -rishab > > 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg > 2. > http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? > story_id=9061031 > >
Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder
$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as "stripes" of color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or even a print or photo of the painting). You really have to see them in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole effect. They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving. They are interesting to experience from different perspectives; because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of different color fields resolves in your eye. Such a simple thing (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully. Impossible to cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the layering of color that achieves the end result). You can actually see that it took some time to make each one. Again as architect Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that makes you sigh when you recognize it. Rothko was channeling that quality in paint and canvas, IMHO. Danese On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth? apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david rockefeller who's selling it. -rishab 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg 2. http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? story_id=9061031