[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest               Friday, 23 April 1999       Volume 07 : Number 538

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ed <ewa@gis.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:45:58 -0500
Subject: [Baren 4134] Re:abstraction and meaning 

Interesting discussion:

It brought to mind a  passage from Edward Harrison's "Masks Of The Universe" ;

"Throughout history devout people have felt convinced that their universe was the 
Universe , their mask the true face. Always the universe in which one lives is thought 
to be the Universe......Each universe is a self consistent system of ideas....A universe is 
a mask fitted on the face of the unknown Universe.--

Gail W. brought to our attention a  website that contains an interesting and I think a 
related  essay by the contemporary artist Anselm Kiefer , entitled;

  TO SEE A WORLD--Art and the I of the Beholder     at:
http://www.shambhala.com/wilber/html/art.html

Thanks Gail :)

Edo

------------------------------

From: kim and paul <topcogs@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:09:01 +0000
Subject: [Baren 4135] Re: Baren Digest V7 #536 

to comment on music and abstract art:

	Does anyone remember the cloud photographs Steiglitz made........he 
said he did them because he felt they were the closest representation 
he could make to describe his feelings about music.
	I agree that flowing into an abstract mode of image-making comes only 
after careful and deliberate examinations of the tangible world.  
Abstract art is something metaphysical to me.
	Besides, I can't even sit down and attempt abstract art without some 
music playing; lately it has been ambient techno.  Music and abstract 
art compliment each other or maybe even help to explain each other.

- --Kim Kaschimer-Medina

------------------------------

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:27:14 -0500
Subject: [Baren 4140] re:various replies 

I have been quietly keeping up with the latest bunch of postings that's come
thru in the last few days. Welcome to all the new members onboard since my last
posting. Thanks Jack for putting the DB video together.

***

Ruth had asked for feedback on her three prints on "Who's Baren".

I enjoyed these prints, the colors and the multi-textured elements of the
composition. I find a bit of humor in your work, am I right ? I can only guess
by the title of the prints as to your meaning & message. I particularly liked
"Dancing".

***

Michael has opened up a can of worms with his abstract works. Let me ask a silly
question here. If the artist has an idea and he manages to put that down on his
work; to his complete satisfaction....what is the difference between that type
of work (abstract to who ? certainly not the artist!) and a more "readable"
piece of work ??? Is the definition of abstract art that type of art which the
viewer can't easily come to terms with ? w/o the artist spelling things out ?

I also enjoyed Michael's prints. The black & white and the soft edges appeal to
me. I don't really understand the work. I don't know what the message is, but I
"liked" the prints ( or did I liked the technique ?).  What do I see  ? Someone
mentioned the word "organic" in an earlier post. I see a micro-world, sort of
the types of worlds that come from aerial photographs that come off satellites.
I see "living things" "down there" within Michael's world of small microscopic
details, a small world turning & & very much living. Very much like looking at
micro-organisms thru a microscope. Or like when a piece of food gets spoiled and
grows fungus (Michael I don't mean that your prints are rotten!). I see these
little growing organisms frozen in time/print. This is what I saw in Michael's
prints.

***

I have not been able to reach Graham's site for the last two days.....anyone
else having trouble ? I'll take everyone's word that his latest print (Four
Acts) is great.

***

David's Surimono print ?  Won't go there ! I am waiting for the real thing in
the mail and want to be surprised!. I have purposely stayed away from any url's
that would give me a preview of coming attractions. Unfortunately some of you
have hinted thru your emails about the subject matter (horses/snow ???)  and
dave has mentioned the large number of impressions (20)....so I am now getting
very impatient !!!

***

Maria Arango's site is a delight and I loved her work. She seems to have a
passion for her native landscape. Nice work!

***

With Baren Exchange #2 just around the corner....is almost time to get down to
serious business. Just a note...I was sort of disappointed with the lack of
commentary that Baren #1 received. I think some of us were anticipating more
discussions/critiques.....(specially those of us starting out with water
printing) from the pros at Baren.  Part of the exercise was to share, to get to
know each others work,  but also to learn from the old-timers.  What happened ?
Does anyone else feel like I do ? How can we make the Baren #2 experience better?

JULIO  {:-)

------------------------------

From: Jacob Roquet <roquet@giex.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:42:39 -0400
Subject: [Baren 4141] Abstraction vs reality 

Agatha hit the nail on the head... isn't this fun to be able to have such
dynamic discussions.

Here's my two cents:

I grew up in blue collar steel towns of South Chicago, Illinois and Gary,
Indiana in the 50s and 60s. I always loved to draw and make silly things
which was not considered a very practical thing to be doing  in such
practical towns. But I _was_ good and people liked what I did. And this was
OK as long as you planned to work in the Mills. The working artist, the
Studs Terkel (sp?) kind of artist was OK. These were places where our dads
worked long hours and came home dirty and tired and our mothers worked hard
taking care of their large families. All my friends had five or six
siblings. One had 16 brothers and sisters. They were all good Catholic
families.

When I was seventeen I attended the Art Institute of Chicago. Oh, I was
excited to be able to really learn how to draw people and draw things
better than I ever imagined.  I was going to learn to draw beautifully.

My first day I was so disappointed.  We weren't going to draw we were going
to get a dose of what it meant to be a conceptual artist and  a performance
artist. My first drawing class, though truly titled "drawing," was not
drawing at all but a conceptual class. I went twice and dropped out. I was
too young to understand but I knew somehow this was not for me.

Going back to school in the late 60s and early 70s there was more of the
same. But I was older now. And new that this WAS the way to go. Almost all
of my instructors were graduate students and they were doing the latest and
the hottest abstract work. As most students do, we thought that was what we
were supposed to do. And we did it. And some of us did it well.

But something was still missing for me. I still wanted to draw. I mean draw
real things. I was great at the surface image. I was the king of viscosity
printing. My techniques  and my images were innovative and adventurous.
Though I admit today some of these images were quite good and even fall
into the category of "good" to "excellent" art, most of my work was hollow.

In the early 80s I became a sort of self-taught "revivalist" draftsman, a
closet realist. I even learned traditional painting and drawing processes,
things I was never taught in school. My work gained a new life, a new
direction. But then a strange thing began to happen. Eventually this work
felt hollow as well.

Now abstraction is sneaking its way back into my life. This dark little
fellow is rearing its distracting head.

Think of it this way. Imagine reality (objective images) as the salad bar
and abstract as the fried shrimp and flounder. Some days we want to watch
our weight. We eat the cottage cheese. Other days the fried stuff sure
looks good and besides, you paid for the buffet and you might as well get
your money's worth. And this is where we are all fortunate. We have access
to the full art buffet to take as much of what we want one day and as
little the next.

Be careful virtuosity and its result, vacuousness. This applies to the
abstract work that is the center of this discussion but also David Bull's
work as well. If you think about it,  both of your work may be more similar
than you think.

Virtuoisty and technical skill do not make art, they only make images.
Where's the beef.

Please be patient with my words. This subject is a hard one to work out.
Let's continue the dialgue.

Jake

------------------------------

From: mkrieger@mb.sympatico.ca
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:31:17 -0500
Subject: [Baren 4143] A foreign language? 

Gary wrote:
>perhaps that I don't _know_ how to look at abstract art.   I can find no
>handles there for me to grasp and no desire to look much at it, but
>there is a possibility that I have not learned how to do so.   Mary, I
>found some illumination in your posting,..But if there is a way to "see"
>something here, I'd sure like to know more about it.
 
>Perhaps representational art is based on the more solid footing of a
>common language, whereas abstract or non-representational art is based
>on creating a_ new_ language.  We can hear a song in a foreign language
>and still recognize a beautiful melody, though in my opinion the song is
>more beautiful if you also understand the words.

I think that you are on the right track comparing being able to
appreciate abstract work to learning a foreign language. I find it
interesting that so many people are able to understand and appreciate
Impressionist work today. When it was created, people thought was rather
garish and amorphous.

IMHO, twentieth century art moved so quickly through a variety of big
stylistic idioms that many of us were left in the dust, coughing and
trying to see which way they went. There is a common language to
abstract work and it is built on the visual language of previous
centuries. The more exposure you have to 'abstract' images the more your
eye and brain have an opportunity to acquire their vocabulary. You may
never prefer them but you may at least understand what the artist was
getting at.

I think it is a bit of a red herring to talk about viewers supplying
meaning. I know this is very frequently talked about - not only on Baren
but elsewhere. I don't really think it is seriously meant - at least not
in the way that the artist had no meaning in mind until his/her audience
supplied it. It is generally good policy not to argue with buyers - if
they think it looks like their Great Aunt Hattie ...fine, as long as
they buy it. Many of us say it and some of us think we mean it - but I
am very skeptical.

Is there any abstract work that you find easier or more difficult to
understand? Gary? Dave?

Mary Krieger
Winnipeg

------------------------------

From: James G Mundie <jimandkatemundie@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:25:10 -0400
Subject: [Baren 4144] abstraction 

Hello, fellow Barenets. 

I'm just coming out from under an oppressive and hectic schedule. 
Preparing new works for a show and whatnot.  However, I did catch a bit
of this new thread about the relative merits and drawbacks of
abstraction, so I thought I'd intrude my way into this discussion.

As artists -- no matter whether our styles are "abstract" or
"representational" -- we are all engaged in abstraction to one degree or
another.  Think of it as translation, if you like.  The degree to which
whatever intended message comes across depends a great deal on what the
viewer brings to the experience.  To one viewer, a painting by Goya is
merely a pretty picture; another sees layers of sardonic humor,
commentaries on class structures, universal truths about human foibles. 
One viewer sees a Kandinsky and appreciates the sinuous quality of line,
the harmony of forms, the musical quality; for someone else, a Kandinsky
is a meaningless jumble.  Is one interpretation less valid than another? 
Perhaps... but not necessarily so, if one believes that the sensation of
viewing is entirely personal.

For my part, I like to lead the viewer in a certain direction as a
starting point for their own discoveries and connections.  I'd rather not
spoon-feed a "message" or whack them over the head with an "agenda". 
Now, can one see things in a work of art that aren't there and weren't
meant to be?  Certainly. Michael's mention of someone spotting the
Ayatollah in his prints is one good example, and people have often looked
at my pieces and told me interpretations of my work which I found utterly
bizarre.  C'est la vie.

The very act that we all go through to make our prints is one
outrageously abstract process -- especially for you, Dave!  Twenty
impressions?  Sheesh!  And let us not forget that many would look upon
the very forms of your new  print after Harunobu and label it "abstract
art".  Look at those long willowly limbs and the texture of the tree. 
The overall forms may be recognizable as hand, head, tree, etc., but they
bear very little resemblance to the "real" objects they suggest.  An
ukiyo-e beauty is more like a Brancusi or Modigliani than a Michelangelo.
 Which is more "real"?  It depends on the viewer's experience and desire
to interpret.  Superficially, Michelangelo's work seems more "true to
life" than a Brancusi; but ol' Mike's shapes are weird, too.     

I don't mean to say that any picture is a work of art.  Far from it. 
There is a lot of crap out there causing unwanted visual noise and
distress.  Livingrooms and office lobbies are full of it.  "Art" does
entail elements of skill, technique, subtlety and inspiration which the
usual sofa-sized starving-artist oil lacks.

Herein ends my ramblings... for the moment.

Mise le meas,
James Mundie, Philadelphia USA

------------------------------

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:54:59 -0400
Subject: [Baren 4145] A foreign language? 

Mary wrote,   
>Is there any abstract work that you find easier or more difficult to
>understand? Gary? Dave?"

Well, speaking for myself, no.   Probably a less complex image is one I
would prefer, but I still don't know if I would understand it, or rather
myself in looking at it.   If you recognize something, you can relate to
it.   If you don't, how can you?   Yes, you can read something into it but
it seems to be without the guidance of the artist, at least there seems to
be no discernible guidance from the artist and consequently it seems no
more than a Rorshach exercise.  It's not art, but a mental puzzle in
dimensional form.

Let's go back to the comparison of music.   A note by itself means very
little if anything.   How it is used in a composition, and in an
arrangement with others can make it, as well as the others, extremely
beautiful.  If you simply take the same notes with no guiding emotional
intuition, and jumble them together, you may be using the same elements of
the grand composition, but it is meaningless noise.   It is the
composition, and the effects of that composition on our emotions that makes
it meaningful.   Now when I look at abstract art, there may be artistic
elements in it, texture, tones, colors, shapes, but it is not composed in
such a way as to mean anything to me, and consequently it is of no interest
to me.  It is visual noise.

I would like to hear from one of you abstract artists on how you develop
one of your compositions.  Maybe that would be more enlightening.   How do
you conceive of the work from start to finish?  What decisions go into it,
what are your emotional attachments to the work and upon what are they
fixed?  What  determines where you go with it, how you develop it?  What
are you using to judge its development and its completion?  How can you
tell over a period of time whether you are getting any better at it?  Do
you consider yourself to have a "style"? and if so, how do you see it? 
What does the work _mean_ to you?  Maybe that would give me some better
insight into the question.

Gary

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V7 #538
***************************