but, I couldn't not post this one. I would stop flipping pages on this one...cut it out and find an old frame to put it in. If I quit now my career as a painter would have to be considered an unqualified flash of genius in the history of the universe. If you look close you'll see a bag of chips. I'm almost afraid to attempt another.
'Course, Allan hates it...and that's not speculation. Martha gave it a quick glance and in her best Stepford wife, "Oh is this another one of your masterpieces?" She stopped short of calling me darling but, the glazed look in her eyes said it all. I don't even have to ask Adam...The Sister is more certain now in her suspicions that I've completely lost my mind...and whatever Nat has to say will only make her more sure of her stance on my mental health.
Don't care haters...don't care.
I know it's better than this...
I was gonna be less hateful about Haring but, I been thinking about it today...I just can't get down with his cartoons. I watched the Universe of Kieth Haring this weekend. Obviously his work's not garbage but, I just do not like it. Too deliberate I guess. One of the interviewees talked about artists having a strong hand..."all you have to see is a couple of lines and you know it's Keith." Well yeah...it's the same male cartoon over and over again.
Have any of y'all seen the story boards he did, I guess, as a way of releasing the guilt he felt over racism...even though on the inside he supposedly "never really felt white". You let me know your reaction when you get to the panel of the white man raping the black man. This is what happens in the minds of people who grow up in lily white northern towns when they think about race. Bizarre!
Strong hand maybe but, an identity that in some ways was as weak and foul as stagnant water.
He's from the same scene as Basquiat, the no wave crowd, Fab Five Freddy and them...New York in the early 80's but, I just don't dig it...at all.
I don't want you to think I have no interest, or just disregard you work. I usually look at these post a number of times and think about them. I just think any conversation on art is utterly irrelevant. If two people are in agreement; then its just an excercise in mutual admiration, if they disagree its all, frequently vain, attempts at to make some higher intellectual point in a top trumps stylee. The heart of the matter is do you like it? IF someone doesn't the rationale is irelevant, art critics may find it curious to pick over the bones of why, but basically only so the can reiterate the disagreement above, and dismiss the above individuals perception on the grounds of A, B, or C.
ReplyDeleteWhere does this leave us? Well heres what I think:
I am not a fan of this one sorry dude, as much of what you do is very A-tonal in the black and white spectrum. I like the black line, or particularly its top left and right are great. I like the white, or at least like what the white is trying to do... not sure that makes any sense, lets say the Whites intentions are good! The red and yellow colours I don't like, I particularly dislike the yellow, but toegether with the white and black, it unbalances it in my eyes. It gives it that grayscale neutral vibe. I do like the brush works marks, or tonal opacity in the red, but I don't like the opacity of the black and yellow in places.
I'm not sure why I think the above, differing aesthetics is all. Has any of this helped you? Probably you find that all the reasons I dislike it for are what you love. I always hated the discussion section at art college, it just felt like people were trying to objectify and rationalise a thousand little emotional and cultural triggers, but they could never tell you why. It is tough to put forward an opinion on art you don't love or hate, as lets be honest we just draw blanks and have to start looking for things.
... Also, is that an ACME safe, man is it a two part painting? This one goes under the previous one? Hey, is it a triptych, and there is a third for the top one with a cliff edge and road runner on!
Actually the yellow should be solid...cheap paint...and the black's not meant to be opaque in certain areas...that's dirty water.
ReplyDeleteYou're right.
I have to be less lazy...less chintzy.
You and I have a running fundamental disagreement about the role and function of aesthetics. I do agree that it's a potentially mind numbing and tedious subject but, so is ethics.
Maybe Andy Warhol would be a good place to try it again.
One thing you don't have to worry about with me is saying what you really think. I wasn't kidding about Allan hating my art work and freely saying so...
As for Acme...I am loath to discuss the source of my inspiration.
You know me and my two obsessions: detail and quality. The actual composition is there, just the finishing and the colours let it down.
ReplyDeleteI just haven't ever really understood what you expect from any agreement, or disagreement, over the role of aesthetics? Or indeed discussing it? Are you looking to find anything from it, or is it just pleasure in discussion? I mean the latter is cool an all, but I always sense there is something you are looking for, or trying to figure out, which I just don't think is there to discover?
But hey, It is all becoming clear now; these are all abstractions of cartoons. Is there one with a blue bird running away from you really fast?
Seriously?
ReplyDeleteAfter the exchange we just had...you, who I know doesn't care for this sorta thing, critique the painting and come up with the same problems that I, who painted it and love it, saw...you're sticking with this idea that aesthetics is pointless, non-existent...that there is only only taste shaped by environmental pressures?
aesthetics isn't pointless or non-existent of itself, its just pointless to pursue as a dialogue, as I don't think there is anything to understand or attain, no conclusions to be found.
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps a little has got lost in translation. I don't think there is a higher aesthetic to be found 'within' the realm of abstraction, because by its very nature it invloves distilling based on personal, and environmental pressures. By definition, things you choose to abstract can vary immensly, from in synchronisation with mine to totally opposed. I suspect were we to take copies of this drawing and work on it for an hour each to 'perfect' it, we could go with very different directions.
Aesthetics isn't pointless...but it's pointless to discuss and there's nothing to learn from it?
ReplyDeleteThen you redeem the whole thing by making some really strong statements.
Abstraction is not High Art...and here's why.
I'm still trying to decide where I come down on that. If we were bring intent into the equation it would be easy but, I don't think you can.
Two things...I don't think the paintings are high art and they aren't abstractions of objects...as such.
Obviously we wouldn't come up with the same picture. It still stands that you knew something was off with the painting as is.
Aesthetics is personal. So to the individual it is all, and as such, not pointless.
ReplyDeleteAny attempt, to discuss it will reach no solution, no conclusion, but thats different to learning. However, I don't see the point in that learning, and I believe its a tunnel with no end. Its something that has driven the greatest artists mad, attempting to find the end.
Abtract, and abstractions of objects are totally different concepts. I used abstraction, meaning, an attempt to create the perfect aesthetic without rendering an image of say a beautifull sunset, or even the oblique rendering of such. I.e unique creation, not replication or reinterpretation. The attempt to capture the beauty of the light of a sunny afternoon without resorting to painting dappled light on an italian courtyard, or even more challenging painting 'anger'. This is where I think the mutually comprehensible becomes the impossible, or rather the personal and subjective. As such, dialogue never resolves... error 404 page not found.
Saying I recognised something off, well many might not, many might hate it completely. I see this merely as an overlap on our taste... an infrequent one too to be honest. How do you explain all those times we totally don't agree, if there is indeed a higher aesthetic? Am I just wrong, and if so what does that say about when I am right?
^^ P.S Aesthetics is personal. I am not talking about literal definitions, just my personal opinion on it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you truly want to see where there may be room for pure aesthetics I think Aboriginal Art is where you need to look, but I'm not coming with you, you can go bonkers on your own!
If Aesthetics is personal then it's not Aesthetics...beauty can't be anything without also being nothing.
ReplyDeleteWe have agreed and disagreed on matters of taste...and though we've come close, we have never really ever been able to get past the issue of taste.
You have been entirely consistent in your position on this and other similar matters...
Aw screw it. I think I'm just gonna go steal my neighbors flower pots... :)
Can i just have your ear when u cut it off??
ReplyDeleteBry surely you know why he cut that ear off and for what purpose.
ReplyDeleteI'd grab some of his porch furniture too whilst I was over there dude :)
ReplyDelete"If Aesthetics is personal then it's not Aesthetics"
^^ yeah its what makes it so hard for the most part, this is where I struggle with words and literal definitions. It is hard to deny something when millions of people think and indulge in it, so as a practice it 'exists' I just think as a seperate entity it doesn't. I think it is something people indulge, or force, rather than that which occurs naturally, which is then the realm of the personal. I think people think they are dealing with aesthetics, but as you say; I believe at that point it has become subjective, they just struggle on with maintaining objective points, but I don't think it is their gut response, which what I think if aesthetics existed it would appeal to, and the better it got the more it would. As you say not high art, better search aboriginal, viking art, or even modern marketing graphics, for anything approaching (but the latter will be impossible to investigate with a western audience as they will be so poluted with moral and political attitudes.
It is a place where I think Tolkien had a massive understanding, his philosophies on subcreation are fantastic. He believed it from a christian stand point, but as with many of his ideas they hold water without perfectly well too.
Also he didn't cut his ear of, it got cut off by an ACME backpack helicopter. True Story.
It doesn't have anything to do with literal definitions...words don't come before their definition...it has to do with the reality of ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are, God love you, some truly bizarre, or if you prefer...absurd ideas in that last comment :).
Let's put aside for a moment the notion that Plato, Hegel, Kant, et al were either intellectual charlatans or too dumb to know what they were on about or, that something can't be good and not to one's taste or vice versa (you've never seen a good bad movie and Orwell's idea of good/bad poetry is nonsensecle)...You've just posited that if there is a such a thing as beauty it is to be found at the furthest from human existence :).
Why do you hate humanity?
:)
Ah man, I just lost a post again )-: so freakin disheartening when that happens. Its always when I don't cut and paste it first
ReplyDeleteI'll have a look later or tommorow and just add this. By 'I' struggle with literal definitions, I meant exactly that, I am too sloppy and slap dash with some words, too carefull with others, and struggle putting my point across with a limited vocabulary. It wasn't point I was making :)
Finally why did I propose beauty as furthest from human existence? If anything I though tthe logical conclusion was that beauty in a truly aesthetic sense; i.e on a massive global appeal scale, is only truly found in nature, of which humans are a part, and is almost impossible to abstract.
I'm gonna give you a second or two to gather yourself then...that is truly one of the most infuriating moments the interwebs have to offer.
ReplyDeleteThen I'll explain why you have shown yourself to be a hater of human beings.
Just pickin' at the idea that only an aboriginal existence (unspoiled by the environmental pressures of human civilization...to an extent) would allow one produce or even recognize beauty.
ReplyDeleteNot so much of a challenge really (you said other things) more like raspberry.
I see a window frame and curtains, black, like the mystery of night; drawn back to expose yellowing revelation of dawn light. Except this is no ordinary window: it appears to be set on the outside of a brick house wall looking in. This, in turn, suggests the house is a metaphor for the human body; the window our eyes; the lids, curtains of the night and yet, one suspects, the light within the house never rests.
ReplyDeleteThere, I just LOLed myself.
And me.
ReplyDeleteHey dude, sorry mental weekend there. Thought this week was gonna be better, until I spent twenty minuites looking for my keys this morning to finally find them in the bin in some cold mashed potato.. cheers isaac. Bins were due for collection today too :/
ReplyDeleteAborginal art I think is close to approaching it, just the art style, the abstract pattern. I wasn't making any point about an Aboriginal existence influencing this, you came up with that all on your own, and I guess you could go on a tangent to discuss if that has any bearing or not. Personally I think they are just people like us, and its actually down to the drugs :D.
SO did you think I was being all hippie about it then?
1) hi I'm Adam, have we ever spoken before
2) where the hell did my example about marketing graphics fit in with this?
O.K how about this, new tack. Aesthetics is not a seperate entity. It does not of itself exist, as currently quanitfied. The belief in Aesthetics surely demands there is a destination, a perfection that all would agree to. There is, in short, a perfect picture that 'could' be achieved. I don't believe this, I think it is merely the commonality of taste, the overlap of individuals preferences. Granted, as a creature with common spectrum of vision, and a similar existence, there is plenty of overlap amongst many of us, but to be fair ourside of nature (not sure how Awe fits into this) the overlap gets smaller very quickly.
If the accusation that you hated the entire human race, or that I'd pointed out you (said other things), certainly the raspberry tipped you off about where the conversation was heading on this end.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, we have talked many times and as I said you've been entirely consistent in all these conversations. We're meat puppets. No Truth, no Love, no Beauty, etc...just consensus based on experiential and environmental pressures...sussed by facilitation.
I'm not being snide...or flippant. I don't think, for instance, that you love your boy any less than I love mine...it's just an academic point and unavoidable conclusion based on what must add up to months of discussion.
It should be pointed out that what we have really been discussing here is Beauty...not aesthetics. You've made several aesthetic points throughout...most obviously that there is no such thing as Beauty, or if there is it would depend on absolute agreement and that being impossible practically makes the idea pointless.
Arrrrrrrgh...posted on it's own before I'd finished.
ReplyDeleteI'll get back to it later.
Cool beans. the t'internets does indeed suck sometimes :D
ReplyDeleteIt is inevitable we discuss beauty, because beauty is the point of aesthetics, or least wise the destination or goal of it.
I would also like to point out that saying 'No Truth, No Love, No Beauty' sounds wrong, It does exists, they are was of describing something we experience. Love is what it is, a name for a feeling, an emotion, and impulse caused by several things we have discussed previously, and a way for us to communicate this to others. Same for Beauty, sure it exists, as a judgement I level, a judgement which can often be shared with others. But not as Aesthetics would have it, something which exists beyond this.
As independant enitities, something of themselves, something seperate.. no, I see no reason why at all.
To be honest how you get there, or why you think it is there, matters little to me- why should it? Why is there any need for us to agree on this? Some people just have a hard time accepting that if you think what I think, then those emotions are still Real and valid, there is no reason not to indulge them.
Yeah beauty...not Beauty, morality not Morality.
ReplyDeleteHow bout this...if I said I saw a beautiful sunset or a beautiful car...would your initial reaction be Erik saw something he thought was beautiful or, would you assume you had some idea of what I meant by beautiful and contemplate the object...breezing past the idea of beauty.
ReplyDeleteBased on this:
ReplyDelete"as a creature with common spectrum of vision, and a similar existence, there is plenty of overlap amongst many of us"
Basically both, I'd think you saw a sunset you thought was beautifull, and that I'd reckon the sunset was probably beautifull too. I'd give the car the benefit of the doubt, mentally probably with some post it note stuck on it, but mostly think it was your judgement.
I haven't yet seen an ugly sunset, but then again I have disagreed on what my favourite sort of sunset is... so whilst what you see might be beautifull, it may be common factors we share, or indeed it may be different factors that are both present that we find.
The key point here is that there is a fundamental difference between commonality of taste, and aesthetics, though the end product in the real world works practically the same. With Aesthetics there is a possible higher goal, with commonality of taste there is a percentage to be achieved. Neither are worth pursuing unless you are into marketing (hence my very early example).
I've been reading you brother...that's why I asked the question I did.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly not trying to score any points...just trying to nudge the conversation in a certain direction.
I have over the years, I think unfairly, picked up a reputation for being caustic in these discussions...
Commonality is the exactly what we're discussing...what we have in fact discussed off and on throughout. Taking the discussion to a place where the fact that you bought all the wrong records or that you think Wes Anderson movies are stoopid doesn't matter...a place where hipster preening isn't allowed and we can hopefully avoid the asinine discussions that have put you off the subject all together.
A place where one can point out specific corrections to improve a painting they don't like.
Commonality, Beauty, etc...call it whatever and I don't care about the mechanism. There is a realm of thought that doesn't depend on peoples individual taste.
Jees I wish this were taking place face to face, typing a retyping and belh! We'd a got this junk out the way and had all the interesting diversions by now.
ReplyDeleteI think we are not nessecarily as far apart thinking wise as it seems, but I think It DOES depend on peoples taste, perhaps because there is a degree of self similarity within an indivduals taste and wider patterns, I'm not sure?
Everyday I make these judgements, I think I got pretty good at spotting the overap. Not 5 minuites ago someone asked me why the four pictures on a report cover looked wrong, I moved one to the top, and we both throught it was an improvement, as did the PM. proof of Aesthetics! Except the director thought it was wrong. Taste, aesthetics, were they wrong?
grrr, lost a bit out of the second paragraph too!I was just pointing out that the corrections I pointed out were to make it more appealing to me, to my taste, it also was to you, does that mean it was to everybody? Because you'd have to be sure everybody agreed that was the thing to do if this was the case?
ReplyDeleteA total consensus on what beauty is would completely negate the need for Aesthetics.
ReplyDeleteObviously we don't have that.
Aesthetics provides a way to discuss beauty and art intelligently...which is impossible if everything comes back to personal taste.
Beauty becomes meaningless, fungible...except for the individual who has the power to validate or dismiss at will. It's his world...the rest of us just live in it.
Where you been anyway?