[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking. Baren Digest Sunday, 25 April 1999 Volume 07 : Number 542 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Luedtke Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:48:33 -0400 Subject: [Baren 4181] Re: Abstract Maria wrote.... > Either way it's probably okay, no? Like a beautiful melodic voice > speaking poetry in a foreign language--who cares what the meaning is!? > Would we or would we not recognize it is poetry? And should we in order to > enjoy?" and........ > I find Michael's and Ruth's prints inspiring, beautiful (like the rain on > the street) images that make me stop and look twice, three times, and more, > without needing to know what they are about or what they mean." If you find beauty in it Maria, the argument is over, and you are right. That is the main thing, and I would never contest what _you_ feel about something. We should enjoy all we can, and it is the lucky ones of us who can enjoy more without question. Gary ------------------------------ From: BHearn2001@aol.com Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 21:40:09 EDT Subject: [Baren 4182] Re: Baren Digest V7 #526 Will the person who listed the two sources for acid free boxes please do so again. I accidently signed off email while they were highlighted. thanks, bhearn ------------------------------ From: Sherpsm@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:00:38 EDT Subject: [Baren 4184] Re: Baren Digest V7 #526 On the Care and Storage of Prints Two sources for archival storage items. In no particular order. Light Impressions 1 800 828-6216 www.lightimpressionsdirect.com PO Box 940 Rochester, NY 14603-0940 And University Products, Inc. 1 800 628 1912 www.universityproducts.com 517 Main Street PO Box 101 Holyoke, MA Both have extensive catalogues with all kinds of things to spend one's money on. Joe ------------------------------ From: Sherpsm@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 01:10:46 EDT Subject: [Baren 4185] Re: tradition or "where do I get these crazy ideas?" Gary writes > But drop the thread of common understanding, and suddenly the thing is > directionless, obtuse, up for anything, down for nothing. Indeed. Art can and has illuminated and defined cultures. Some "Primitive" cultures had no word in their language for "Art." It was their way in the world. They lived IN their art. Today we eat up and spit out traditions and some bad art does get spit up with it. I do not what to confuse abstraction with Bad modern art. Bad modern seems to be a product of self gratification with no respect and knowledge of an artistic tradition. OK finished Joe ------------------------------ From: Jack Reisland Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:03:31 +0000 Subject: [Baren 4186] Re: tradition or "where do I get these crazy ideas?" Gary Luedtke wrote: > But drop the thread of common understanding, and suddenly the thing is > directionless, obtuse, up for anything, down for nothing. That's just my point. First, realize that there is abstraction, and then there is abstraction. When I'm saying that all the old rules of viewing art are out the window, I'm talking about the Jackson Pollock abstraction. Once the painting (print, sculpture...) is just about the process, the relationship between the artist and his canvas, then you've got Mr. Pollock closing his eyes and pounding on the typewriter with a stick, and telling you that the "manuscript" produced is about the artist and his relationship with his keyboard. There are no old rules for interpreting that. It's not that we are missing the key to be able to read it, it can no longer be read by any means, at least not as we used to understand the the word "read". Jack Reisland ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 18:24:56 +0900 Subject: [Baren 4187] Re: crazy ideas ... Gary wrote: > > But drop the thread of common understanding, and suddenly the thing is > > directionless, obtuse, up for anything, down for nothing. and Jack answered: > That's just my point. First, realize that there is abstraction, and then there > is abstraction. > ... pounding on the typewriter with a stick, and telling you that the > "manuscript" produced is about the artist and his relationship with his > keyboard. I certainly agree that Pollock's painting is 'about his relationship with the canvas'. My problem with that (and I think Gary's too), is that this is an 'of course' kind of thing. Of course the act of painting is about this kind of relationship. As is the act of writing, composing ... ... and breathing. A person - a canvas - a paintbrush ... We _know_ these things are part of the process of painting. They don't need to be described for us, to be 'explained', to be 'related'. It's what message the painter _sends_ with this process that is important. And if the only message is "Hey look at me, I'm _painting_!", then I don't think it was worthwhile ... I guess I'm starting to go around in circles a bit here, because I keep coming back to the same thing. A print like Michael's is indeed a print made in a language I don't understand. On my cable radio system there are broadcasts coming in from around the world - many of them in languages I don't understand at all. The difference? I am quite certain that in those radio broadcasts there is a lot of real meaning hidden away - the lack of understanding is in the person receiving ... me. But with the prints, I am not so ready to admit that the lack is on _my_ side ... Dave (It's too bad Michael is so busy this week ... he must be watching all this stuff go by with quite some frustration ...!) ------------------------------ From: Cucamongie@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:04:13 EDT Subject: [Baren 4188] Re: abstract or not? First of all I wanted to say that I've been enjoying reading these discussions about abstract art, etc. and hearing different viewpoints on the subject - Gary wrote: > What I am saying, from purely my view, from analyzing my own feelings, > is that the type of art known as Abstract Art is meaningless to me. I guess one of the reasons I've been reluctant to comment amidst all this discussion is that while it's fun to hear different people's viewpoints and takes on it, it's a discussion bound to ultimately go around in endless circles because all of this is so subjective -- either art speaks to you or it doesn't, whether it is "abstract" or not -- and everyone has their preferences - I personally don't understand someone who blocks out a whole genre of art when each piece and each artist can be such a different experience. I have seen plenty of realistic paintings which feel totally empty to me, and I have seen abstract paintings that move me a great deal - and vice versa. What has "meaning" to one person can be totally confusing or boring to another person - it all depends on how art is interpreted and processed by the individual viewer - the same goes for movies, music, etc. I personally don't have to have a tangible "meaning" that I can verbally explain in order to enjoy something - most of the time I react to art on a much more gut level. Enough said for now - it's early here & I'm not sure if I'm making sense or not - Best to all - Sarah ------------------------------ From: Aqua4tis@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:34:43 EDT Subject: [Baren 4189] Re: abstract or not? hello everyone, this discussion is so good ive decided to save and print it before i do though, i thought id ask if its being saved already. also can anyone suggest a really good book on the hanga method of woodcutting and printing? thank you georga ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V7 #542 ***************************