PDA

View Full Version : Still THE artist of the last century!!



meshpig
04-24-2008, 02:01 AM
Francis Bacon

Haven't looked at his work for a while, not since that "love is the devil" British Council film some years ago which like all films about painters never really works.

Around then I was working for someone who'd known him well in the 60's. My cynicism about ART stops here, I think he's THE artist of the last century!

http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5828746879538593625&q=francis+bacon&ei=mTYQSOLZEZSO4wKfioisBA&hl=en

I mean more for those who haven't wrapped their head around what this dude was up to with images.

m

Iain
04-24-2008, 03:39 AM
I've used some of his and Lucian Freud's paintings on walls in my interiors. Usually I get asked to change them but the more discerning architects tend to approve :)

I'm sure he'd love being referred to as "this dude" :D

bjornkn
04-24-2008, 04:01 AM
Which brings up a question - how are the copyright rules when using paintings on 3D walls? I've been worried to use any "real" paintings on walls because I was afraid about being sued..

BTW, Bacon is defiinitely one of the greatest painters of the last century. Very influental, but not really well known like Picasso, Warhol etc.

Iain
04-24-2008, 04:14 AM
Which brings up a question - how are the copyright rules when using paintings on 3D walls? I've been worried to use any "real" paintings on walls because I was afraid about being sued..



It's an oft-asked question and there doesn't seem to be a black and white answer.

What I believe it boils down to however is that you aren't doing anything more illegal than if you had the painting displayed on your monitor. The image itself isn't making you any money and you aren't making any ownership or copyright claims over it.

If you extend the idea, we wouldn't be able to use copywritten furniture designs or any kind of brand placement in a rendering.

parm
04-24-2008, 04:47 AM
Copyright laws apply to paintings, and other works of art. In just the same way as any other medium.

The expectation is to seek permission of the copyright owners. Before using imagery of this kind.

cc3d
04-24-2008, 05:18 AM
Copyright laws apply to paintings, and other works of art. In just the same way as any other medium.

The expectation is to seek permission of the copyright owners. Before using imagery of this kind.

Absolutely, if you are using someone else's artwork in any way as part of your work, you must have permission or you are violating copyright laws. The same applies if you are using any part of someone's work. There are many violators these days and most aren't pursued. However, imagine you get some of your work to sell big or make a lot of $$ (or notoriety) with something, it may be worth their effort to make you pay up big.

Actually, the same applies for the protected furniture designs, etc. Good example, the GMC Hummer 3D mesh. This HAS been persured legally in some cases. It all comes down to what somebody is willing to persue legally, but any copyrighted/patented design is protected against this use. There's a lot to know about this subject and when things get big for you, you should know them. It can cost a ton of $$$ just to brush past this issue the wrong way. Trust me.

Iain
04-24-2008, 05:33 AM
So could you be sued for selling a photograph of a room which has a limited edition print on a wall?
Or which has an Eames recliner in the corner?
A Porsche outside the window?

Someone on CGArchitect posted up a UK legal document (probably in complete breach of crown copyright) a few years ago and it seemed very unlikely from reading it that incidental use does infringe copyright.

Obviously the intent is not to sell the item or to document it without permission so the legal question would have to be is the painting/chair/San Pellegrino bottle incidental or is it the focus of the work.
Ie are you profiteering from use of the item in your render? The fact that it could be replaced with another, similar piece or removed with no financial detriment to the render means probably not.

meshpig
04-24-2008, 05:39 AM
Charming video though don't you think?

m:)

Iain
04-24-2008, 05:58 AM
Charming video though don't you think?

m:)

Can't see it :cursin:

cagey5
04-24-2008, 06:16 AM
Did you take out the double http:// at the start?

cc3d
04-24-2008, 06:33 AM
So could you be sued for selling a photograph of a room which has a limited edition print on a wall?

Most definitely



Or which has an Eames recliner in the corner?


Yes, but less likely.



A Porsche outside the window?

Technically, yes, but very inlikely. It has their logo on it as well. This would be the sinker.

This all applies to images you're making $$ from. Nobody's going to sue someone they can't get $$ from.

In an extreme example, if you create an image that will be used by Met Life in a major ad and this image has has somebody else's work in it, even incidentally, they can can sue and win a share of your proceeds.

Just like any other works or intelectual property. You can get sued (and lose)for using one of Madonna's song's as your on-hold music for your telephone service if you're not paying royalty for it.

Bottom line: You can be sured for anything.

bjornkn
04-24-2008, 07:15 AM
Looks like this copyright stuff is still a can of worms?
Has anyone heard/seen a story about someone being sued for such "crimes"?
A local ice cream factory in my town used a public fountain made by a local artist in the background on one of their ads/brochures. They were sued, and lost. But I don't think the photographer was sued... ;)
http://www.flekkeroy.no/bautaer/Nupenparken/nupenparken.htm

PS. I produced those blue porcelain tiles for him, in my pre-3D ceramic days, but I never got any money after they sued, even though they were clearly visible on the photo ;)
But, as you can see, others, like in that link, never get sued. AFAIK there is a thcik, black line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use.
Kjell Nupen, the artist was heavily influenced by Bacon BTW, especially in his younger days, to bring this back on topic ;)
.

cc3d
04-24-2008, 04:27 PM
It's really a clear line, if you're selling work, do not use any elements that were created by someone other than you unless:


you have permission (in writing) to use it

it's in the public domain



Here's the flip-side to this, these laws are here to protect you, not prevent you from working. I sold some work to a client in 1994 that they had contracted for several uses. They ended up trimming it down to just a brochure page. A year later a Colleague show me a trade magazine ad with my image as the centerpiece. Ka-ching$$. Didn't take more than a phone call from my attorney to get the check in the mail.

Make sure your contracts specify limited use and the details of what that means.

This is a great bargaining tool when selling work. Depending on how you finagle prices, sometimes you can offer full use rights to make up for a bad reaction to high quote. OR, when a client really likes a quoted price, you can point out that it is the price for using the image for only 15 minutes :thumbsup:

I won't give away all my techniques, I might sell one of you something one day:D

meshpig
04-24-2008, 06:59 PM
Can't see it :cursin:

Sorry, I always muck these things up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5828746879538593625&q=francis+bacon&ei=mTYQSOLZEZSO4wKfioisBA&hl=en


m

parm
04-25-2008, 12:17 AM
Sorry, I always muck these things up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5828746879538593625&q=francis+bacon&ei=mTYQSOLZEZSO4wKfioisBA&hl=en


m

I remember that.

I do agree, it's a great and memorable interview. A perfect example. Of a three dimensional human being, refusing to fit into the two dimensional medium of television.

Thanks. :)

meshpig
04-25-2008, 02:24 AM
I remember that.

I do agree, it's a great and memorable interview. A perfect example. Of a three dimensional human being, refusing to fit into the two dimensional medium of television.

Thanks. :)

Yes, good call.

I could be wrong but say... Damien Hirst might be hugely successful but as an artist merely does Bacon and Meat in a strictly museological manner.

I think it's so important to know one artist well and not be inclined toward all and sundry.

One of the great books on Bacon was actually written by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze sometime in the 1980's. The "Logique De La Sensation":

http://www.cinestatic.com/trans-mat/Fisher/FC1s5.htm

Good call because Bacon was doing in the 1960's what the so called postmodernists now are claiming to be so new!

Contrary to the episode of Conceptual Art and the paper tiger of "painting", there's no radical new beginning for painting. It still seems to be so much the case that we are "besieged" by images as Bacon and before him , Cezanne was saying over 120 years ago.

Food for thought.

m

meshpig
04-25-2008, 02:40 AM
Sorry... that link is actually to a tawdry lot of crap. I'll find a transcript.

m

meshpig
04-25-2008, 03:04 AM
This is better;

http://www.upress.umn.edu/excerpts/Deleuze.html

There used to be an actual transcript of a few chapters in English which seem to have been withdrawn now since as far as I know, no legal version has been fully translated from the French.

I've read a University translation of it and to me it's also one of the great books by Gilles Deleuze too.

m

gerry_g
04-25-2008, 06:39 AM
Bacon may have been an artist, but his agents idea of his artists paintings worth was to hold a tape measure against it and make a financial calculation simply based on square footage (as opposed to artistic worth presumably), and no doubt the the end buyer would be an investment bank or a pension fund who would stick it in a vault until it was time to auction it for a tidy profit.............art is dead

meshpig
04-25-2008, 07:35 AM
gerry_g,

That almost goes without saying. I mean I agree, "ART" is not only dead but a false concept to go on with.

- Never mind the morons who don't/can't make use of it in any other way.

Like if you have ever bothered to go see the Mona Lisa you can't help but come away laughing because it's so ludicrously famous, small, hidden and you think why the F did I bother?

Whatever people do with Bacon's in the "real world" is neither here nor there, his genius was to impart something as wholly intense via the back cover of a magazine.

Which, if you read the Michel Leiris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Leiris

and the Deleuze texts ( both do the most pertinent thing of isolating the images from the literature) they both do it justice, so to speak.



m:)

parm
04-25-2008, 08:04 AM
I think it's so important to know one artist well and not be inclined toward all and sundry. m

Do you think so?

Need it be like supporting football teams? I feel the opposite way really. It's very easy to miss out on things of value. I prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt. I've rarely come away with nothing, having taken the trouble to look.


Good call because Bacon was doing in the 1960's what the so called postmodernists now are claiming to be so new!

Contrary to the episode of Conceptual Art and the paper tiger of "painting", there's no radical new beginning for painting. It still seems to be so much the case that we are "besieged" by images as Bacon and before him , Cezanne was saying over 120 years ago.

Food for thought.


Well, Bacon was the beneficiary of numerous earlier, (and some contemporary), 'radical new beginnings for painting'.

By the middle of the 20th century. Painting was in a very comfortable and settled position, conceptually. A lot had been made possible and had been understood. Painting could be used to do things, that just can't be done any other way. Painting had become the expressive medium par excellence.

Bacon fitted nicely into that slot. He was a painter that just got on with the business of making paintings. Fluently using paint to the purpose for which it is best suited. At the same time he extracted whatever he needed from the existing canon. Which is really all that Post Modernism boils down to, in a practical sense anyway. But painting is just one facet, from a very broad spectrum of Art practice. Not all aspects of art had, or even yet have, the benefit of perspective and maturity that painting enjoys.


I could be wrong but say... Damien Hirst might be hugely successful but as an artist merely does Bacon and Meat in a strictly museological manner.

I don't think you're altogether wrong there. But. It is the museological manner of his work, that largely accounts for his success.

Because it has allowed him to define his own unique voice, (style if you like), fluently in the medium of his choice. In a way that has hither to, eluded most other artists.

parm
04-25-2008, 08:13 AM
Bacon may have been an artist, but his agents idea of his artists paintings worth was to hold a tape measure against it and make a financial calculation simply based on square footage (as opposed to artistic worth presumably), and no doubt the the end buyer would be an investment bank or a pension fund who would stick it in a vault until it was time to auction it for a tidy profit.............art is dead

There's quite a large collection of Bacons at the Tate. And even the privately owned works. Do see the light of day from time to time, in touring exhibitions.

Iain
04-25-2008, 08:22 AM
no doubt the the end buyer would be an investment bank or a pension fund who would stick it in a vault until it was time to auction it for a tidy profit.............art is dead

I think it's ludicrous behaviour like that which keeps art alive. It supports the idea of art being something special.

On the other side of the coin, I've never seen so much in the way of exhibitions and public art initiatives as I do now so I think art is alive and well.

meshpig
04-25-2008, 08:35 AM
Do you think so?

Need it be like supporting football teams? I feel the opposite way really. It's very easy to miss out on things of value. I prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt. I've rarely come away with nothing, having taken the trouble to look.



Well, Bacon was the beneficiary of numerous earlier, (and some contemporary), 'radical new beginnings for painting'.

By the middle of the 20th century. Painting was in a very comfortable and settled position, conceptually. A lot had been made possible and had been understood. Painting could be used to do things, that just can't be done any other way. Painting had become the expressive medium par excellence.

Bacon fitted nicely into that slot. He was a painter that just got on with the business of making paintings. Fluently using paint to the purpose for which it is best suited. At the same time he extracted whatever he needed from the existing canon. Which is really all that Post Modernism boils down to, in a practical sense anyway. But painting is just one facet, from a very broad spectrum of Art practice. Not all aspects of art had, or even yet have, the benefit of perspective and maturity that painting enjoys.



I don't think you're altogether wrong there. But. It is the museological manner of his work, that largely accounts for his success.

Because it has allowed him to define his own unique voice, (style if you like), fluently in the medium of his choice. In a way that has hither to, eluded most other artists.

... and send it off into space no doubt as the pretensions, bureaucratic and timely egotism of an era which is incapable of accepting other generations have also lived life on Planet Earth.

Everyone knows how art works, Bacon at least had the audacity to stage the event to the bitter end ( dying in the company of 3 nuns in Madrid) which you can't say for boring old Warhol who sat in bed like a limp rag writing shopping lists.

Good for Formaldehyde as a medium of choice and Hooray for the various forms of State Assistance for the Arts across the globe... they win, now we can all go renovate our bathrooms with the proceeds!

I'm just saying, amidst all this clamor.. try arguing this stuff on a University site?

m

parm
04-25-2008, 08:52 AM
.Everyone knows how art works, Bacon at least had the audacity to stage the event to the bitter end ( dying in the company of 3 nuns in Madrid) which you can't say for boring old Warhol who sat in bed like a limp rag writing shopping lists.m

What on Earth do you mean by that?


Good for Formaldehyde as a medium of choice and Hooray for the various forms of State Assistance for the Arts across the globe... they win, now we can all go renovate our bathrooms with the proceeds!


Do you think formaldehyde is what is meant by medium in this case?

AFAIK. Damien Hirst does not and never has, received state funding for his artwork. Maybe as a student, grant possibly.

meshpig
04-25-2008, 09:22 AM
I mean "pretentious" not pretentions.

And what radical things are you talking about in painting exactly?

-The gyst of Picasso was that the 'Figure' is "abstract" enough in it's deformation. Cubism was a derisory term coined by some art critic.

-Bacon went on to describe the opposite of "abstract" painting as Hemiplegia! Like if you cut the figure out you only have half the capacity vis-a-vis the landscape.

As in Figuration pertains to a body, as it were and abstract form pertains to a mind.

Go figure!

Nice, but no football team here ... I was thinking more along the lines of Derrida's obituary where he was asked if he had read all the books in his library. To which he replied, "no, I've only read 4... but I've read each very carefully"

m

meshpig
04-25-2008, 09:40 AM
What on Earth do you mean by that?



Do you think formaldehyde is what is meant by medium in this case?

AFAIK. Damien Hirst does not and never has, received state funding for his artwork. Maybe as a student, grant possibly.

No, I'm saying so much for all this art. There's no use trying to make "creativity" the exclusive domain of soggy reruns of the Enlightenment.

-I couldn't care less about Dainien Hirst. Precious!

m

parm
04-25-2008, 10:28 AM
And what radical things are you talking about in painting exactly?

Well, everything that brought something new to the table of course. Things that made something possible, intellectually or practically, that prior to. Was not. Everything from the invention of perspective to abstract colour field painting.

You mentioned the Mona Lisa earlier, and what a let down you found it. Well, Leonardo invented the device, of, offsetting the head and shoulders in portraiture. Observing that it gave the illusion of life to the image. Things like that happened periodically throughout Art History. And got taken up and used by subsequent generations. These advances in artistic thinking. Came along, at an unusually copious and rapid rate from around 1860 to the 1950s. Which is the period I mean when I spoke of radical changes. So many important, (as important as the Leonardo example), advances took place. I scarcely know where to start.


-I couldn't care less about Dainien Hirst. Precious!

Personally I don't care for much of it myself either.

But it's there. Take it or leave it. It's an option. That's all.

meshpig
04-27-2008, 03:42 AM
As you say it's an option, but what bugs me is that nothing much escapes the self congratulating logic of TV.

-As in "All this art" just seems to follow the same end and amounts to nothing much by the same token.

I rarely go to galleries/openings anymore because I get tired of being lectured to by the subalterns of the art system.

m

parm
04-27-2008, 06:24 AM
Bugs me too. I mean I've got a television. But I don't switch it on much these days.

Endless tedious Awards shows; Baftas, Emmys, Grammys, Oscars. The TV, Film, pop-music and sports world all getting together, for a self congratulatory pat on the back. Audiences composed entirely of 'A-listers' and 'B-listers' assorted industry bigwigs. But beamed into the homes of millions of their, presumably, adoring and grateful consuming public. Who are these people? They've already got the best, most fun and highly paid jobs in the world. And still crave the reassuring ego boost of an award.

The other thing I can't stand is the programs about programs. As in "The hundred best soap powder commercials" or "Top one hundred screen snoggs"

In fact thinking about it. Add in the TV cooks who elevated to celebrityhood. Then become self styled arbiters of moral and ethical issues. Same goes for actors and pop singers that have too much to say about things, That if they deserved their high incomes would'nt have time to know anything about.


"All this art" just seems to follow the same end and amounts to nothing much by the same token.

I agree about the television stuff. But am very puzzled by how you connect it with with Art. You say it amounts to nothing much. But what exactly would you have it amount to?

meshpig
04-27-2008, 07:56 AM
I agree about the television stuff. But am very puzzled by how you connect it with with Art. You say it amounts to nothing much. But what exactly would you have it amount to?

OK, to me "Art" has already been dealt with and ages ago (Marcel Duchamp et al)... pretty much in the same way as people no longer believe in God.

Simple stuff really; and to simplify further, you can see people are still fighting and killing each other as if God once did actually preside over a given Nation rather than vice versa etc.

So, this same situation is also nothing new. Probably dates back to the cave drawings at Lascaux and so "Art" is forever charged with the same infinite possibilities which are, in the world of IT and strong information easily wiped-out.

-"Art" amounts to little in the same way a birdsong is drowned out by a jack hammer. At least Art does amount to a birdsong but that isn't what this great bevvy of "Culture" is aimed at.

-What I admire in Bacon is the petite, renegade little alcoholic poof with such great "voluptuous", masculine strength just like he says.

m

parm
04-27-2008, 05:55 PM
OK, to me "Art" has already been dealt with and ages ago (Marcel Duchamp et al)...

I don't see it like that at all. Far from it .

What Duchamp and others did. Was, extend the creative possibilities available to artists. It's no different, essentially, than the invention of oil paint for instance.

Yes, there's nothing new. But only because humanity is nothing new. In spite of radical changes in living conditions. People are basically the same as they ever were. The human condition. Is still our most cherished subject, we find common currency within it.


-What I admire in Bacon is the petite, renegade little alcoholic poof with such great "voluptuous", masculine strength just like he says.

I'm sorry to read that. It was clearly on the agenda for the program though. Television does relentlessly pimp the cult of personality.

For me, the highlight of the show. Was, his simple expression of what Art means, and what it means to be an artist.


MB: "Why, do you want to do that?"

FB: "Because I love to, and I happen to be a painter. That's all."

That, and his frank acknowledgment. That blind luck, had a significant role in his financial success.

meshpig
04-28-2008, 03:35 AM
Yes, you can read Duchamp like that. I don't because that angle leads to just building more museums and filling them with museum art. I mean I appreciate Daniel Buren and his particular take on that.

I'm being personalogical again but I like the aspect of the Duchamp who retired to NY and sold a few more pieces to keep his wife going after his death.
I also recall an interview with him on TV where he got very irate about the Fluxus Group whom he claimed were doing "nothing new". So, to me he wasn't, although his work was tied to the museum, just an advocate.

I think you'll find also that the "cult of personality" has always surrounded Bacon because for several decades, that's pretty much how the Art Garde thought of him and painting.

-I don't understand why you object to "art having been dealt with" or that art is a false concept?

As in the first lesson in Art History is how the Venus of Wilendorf was one of the earliest signs of "civilization" and is believed to be a ritualistic in nature etc.

Art academics of any persuasion BTW usually won't budge when you try to say "art" must have existed before any ritualized use of objects by humans because animals also have distinct artistic traits. if you see what I mean?

So, to me Bacon is a very great artist because he's not doing art in the institutional sense. Neither do I think you can take what he says at face value... ie. the very strong opinions he has contrary to the "abstract formalists" about the gold frames and indeed the need for a painting to be framed and under glass; a very clever ruse, talking of personality.

Art isn't the exclusive domain of "creativity" which is the point. Not that "everyone is an artist" but that "art" belongs to those who use it.

... thus the reason I find the proliferation of art museums and museum-art around the world so uninteresting is because museums are generally and by definition already full of interesting objects to look at.


Sorry to bore you with my humble opinion.

Thanks

m

parm
04-28-2008, 09:45 AM
Agreed. Bacon was surrounded by the cult of personality. But, I still see it as a harmful distraction. Just like: Price Tags, headlines and reviews. It gives an alternative, to looking at the actual artwork.

I don't necessarily object to "art having been dealt with." If what you mean by that. In Duchamps case. That he dealt with Art, as a subject matter. I think that is by and large correct. But it doesn't obviate the need for others to deal with the same subject, should they choose to. Any more than it disqualifies Irises as valid subject matter, because Van Gogh had already dealt with those.

On the second note. I'll have to admit. I don't really know what a true concept is.

I don't see what you mean. About Art existing before the ritualized use of objects. Or about animals having distinct artistic traits. Where's the evidence for that?


Art isn't the exclusive domain of "creativity" which is the point. Not that "everyone is an artist" but that "art" belongs to those who use it.

That's very interesting. I'll think about that.

On Museums. All I ask is. Think about me. Negotiating my way around the hoards, in the Royal Academy tomorrow. To see the Lucas Cranach (http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/cranach/) exhibition. What other option is there? How else can relatively large numbers of people experience painting and sculpture?

Digital media and the internet. Will, I'm sure. Expand the ways, in which people are abe to communicate, in a meaningful way. Who knows what kind of Art, will be fostered from the new collective consciousness of the www. Who can say? Physical museums and galleries could well be dispensed with. Also the opportunity for participation will be enormously democratized.


Sorry to bore you with my humble opinion.

I'm very sorry if I've given that impression. I'm enjoying the conversation.

meshpig
04-29-2008, 02:15 AM
Oh, good. Me too... I've never been very capable where it comes to writing what I think, they seem to be 2 entirely different processes and writing seems to lose out.

However:-


I agree about the television stuff. But am very puzzled by how you connect it with with Art. You say it amounts to nothing much. But what exactly would you have it amount to?

By "museum" I mean the Institution in the abstract (rather than the function of the building); the bureaucracy, the "system" of Art.

I know "system" sounds like a fabulously impracticable generalization but really I'm just extending what you described as "price tags, reviews" etc.
as interlocutors interfering with the "work".

Isn't the trick with Bacon insisting his paintings be framed and under glass a
clever way or an anticipation of the fact that paintings are viewed in galleries?

On the contrary, Piet Mondrian went the other way and tried to make an infinite plane where the architecture and the painting intersect. That worked too but because, as Bacon argues "abstract painting" is missing it's own point of reference, Mondrian ended up on bottles of hair spray and as icons of progress and modern interiors. Too fragile maybe?

I hardly ever feel I'm being bombarded by architectural forms, there's a reasonable distance between it and me but when I pass by a 3m high revolving billboard ( a purposeful image) on the street with a pouting lipstick ad, I am affected badly because it's "in my face".

Badly because my affectedness has nowhere else to go other than back to the thud of signification, the narrative, the "message". I'm forced to witness the inexorable take of hard information from nothing to an instant of thinking lipstick in a few seconds.

The point being that an image affects you no matter what, ( something happens rather than nothing) and I don't see any argument there one way or another for or against "spontaneity", "immediacy" and all that because one is affected.

I'm sort of saying Bacon... all myths aside, is actually streaks ahead of the show/critique realism of Pop in terms of how "we" are actually subjected to images. Repetition is only one component.


- Evidence for the "artistic traits of animals". It's speculative in a sense, there's an Australian Finch which decorates it's nest, Bower birds and blue, "musical" birdsongs as opposed to territorial ones. But what interests me is the archeological perspective. What humans were up to before "History"?

Can you imagine that the Klasies River people on the tip of southern Africa 120 000 years ago didn't sing hunter gather songs when they hunted and gathered? Didn't use make-up and decoration, wave feathers and dance? We just don't know but my guess is they did.

m:)

parm
04-30-2008, 05:11 AM
Yes. An anticipation of the fact that his paintings will be viewed in galleries. And. Crucially. An acknowledgment that Art is artificial. It can only exist in a social, economic, cultural and political framework. Without other human beings around to interpret these things. They are, essentially meaningless. They would just fade and eventually disappear.


I'm sort of saying Bacon... all myths aside, is actually streaks ahead of the show/critique realism of Pop in terms of how "we" are actually subjected to images. Repetition is only one component.

I don't know whether I can agree with that quantitatively. Subjectively. I am more disposed toward Bacon than Warhol. The only part of the TV show that I really objected to. Was the qualitative assertion, in 1982, that Bacon is the greatest living painter. Complete hyperbole. And very unhelpful for the audience, anyone involved in art.


- Evidence for the "artistic traits of animals". It's speculative in a sense, .......

We certainly appreciate and find quality, in the beauty of the natural world. We can't be sure if the same is true for other animals. Do other animals enjoy our music? or objects?

Well Magpies and jays, are partial to our glittery trinkets and shiny paper foils. I've heard more than one Blackbird, imitating the sound of a car alarm or electric alarm clock. The dawn chorus that nightmares are made of, beckons in the not too distant future, I fear.

It remains. That we are the only creatures, that leave non genetic, persistent evidence of our existence and behavior.

meshpig
05-01-2008, 12:20 AM
Yes. An anticipation of the fact that his paintings will be viewed in galleries. And. Crucially. An acknowledgment that Art is artificial.
It can only exist in a social, economic, cultural and political framework. Without other human beings around to interpret these things. They are, essentially meaningless. They would just fade and eventually disappear.


Undoubtedly, I'm not disputing any of that. But, for example; would you say that Byzantine Art is "Art" or the Venetian Painting which undermined it? Was the Academy "Art" of the Impressionists?

I'm not sure you can say there's any permanent causal relationship between "art" and the gallery, since a commercial gallery as we know it now was not so long ago a spot in a shop window (at the time of the Surrealists ) because the museum had shut them out. As you say who knows what might come of the www.

I prefer Bacon in books to be honest, of course we don't have the same density of activity here as in London... besides, I doubt "Art" in this organized sense is the only manifestation of "Art", as it were.

That doesn't mean to reach outside of the social context, more that as humans we struggle with all the forces at work in the world on many different scales simultaneously.


It remains. That we are the only creatures, that leave non genetic, persistent evidence of our existence and behavior.

Yes, but "evidence" that we are always in the process of reinventing as part of the same behaviour, precisely because it does fade away and become meaningless albeit it slowly.

That Art is always in the abstract, a fleeting glimpse of what motivates life on earth beyond mere drudgery and survival...


Do other animals enjoy our music? or objects?

No, but you can't say music as we understand it arrived with us since birds have been arranging sounds for millions of years.

Neither can you say definitely that a bird isn't affected in much the same way by it's "music" as we are ours. We enjoy birdsongs because they sound amazingly similar to whatever sound does, in all it's complexity ... for us.

-Evolution says, if something is here today it's because it was also there yesterday. I think we have to wait and see where genetics leads and no, I'm not a chauvinist to science.

There was a time when humans left little or no evidence of their existence ( say the klasies River people 120 000 yrs ago) yet more or less had all the same innate aspects of human behaviour we do now ... like they probably made love in much the same way as humans have since, not like apes etc. They laughed, smiled, farted, joked and went up and down the coast of Africa for 50 000 years learning how to.

It's hugely romantic, but not if you think that distant ancestor is still kicking around in our brains today and that knowledge in other fields is an accumulative process (science, maths etc.) whereas in Art, as Bacon put it: "knowledge doesn't accumulate". You know, the Moderns and the Cosmos: "Art is always and everywhere the same thing", Mondiran. The Surrealists and the seance.

If you get my drift?


m

meshpig
05-01-2008, 01:08 AM
PS.


The Moderns and the Cosmos: "Art is always and everywhere the same thing", Mondiran.

Should be: "Art is always and everywhere the same".

m

meshpig
05-13-2008, 07:26 AM
... sorry, did I say something ridiculous?

My guess is you don't "naturally" relate now to the pop music of Circa 1890 any more than a bird relates to a TV.

As Beethoven said - "Only the pure in heart can make a good soup."

m

PS. Remind me not.