From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 03:41:06 MDT
Here, Newberry is mostly reacting to me and Anders. This is not because
he was ignoring posts by others, but because he had not read them yet.
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
From: michael_newberry2001 michael_newberry2001@yahoo.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Heroism in Newberry's art
I winced when I read from Dan's posts about my work being "cartoonish",
"[a] sort of a movie poster for the Pussycat Theater", or like "a bad
ballet step."
I am a big defender of everyone to have their personal taste in art,
there is an earlier post here to that effect. I have had thoughtful
friends and collectors who love some of my work and hate other works
(though they do not express it with Dan's kind of spiteful glee). But
personal taste is just that, personal. But I do not detect an ounce of
respect from Dan. He doesn't have to like my work but I have earned the
right to be respected: I am a full-time working artist, throughout my 25
years of making work have only worked from my soul. And since I do not
like the state of the Contemporary art world, I am working to change it
through writing, lecturing, and creating the Foundation for the
Advancement of Art; all in a professional capacity.
Dan does make a good point about the state of art today:
"Surely, much of this doesn't make it to the big museums, but that's
mostly because many positions of control in those institutions are
filled by academics who have an agenda tilted toward Modern and
Postmodern work -- or have little patience for work that doesn't fit
into what they consider the progress of art."
This is a point that The Foundation for the Advancement of Art addresses
by bringing scholarly attention to LIVING artists that are making
historical advancements in art.
Another good point he makes is:
"I don't think heroism is or should be the ruling value in art."
I completely agree, heroism is mostly a philosophical value and only
partially aesthetic. Though, it is interesting to note that postmodern
art is including painting and sculpture in their museum exhibitions but
only if their subject is shocking, i.e. disgusting. Painting should be
judge on its composition, form, color and light theory, balance, among
other values. Additionally, an artwork can be judge whether it is
making advancements by historical context--for example, the French
Impressionists brought amazing freshness to their canvas by
incorporating revolutionary color theory. Just looking at color,
compare them with Rembrandt (my favorite artist) his works are made
mostly from black, brown, and ochre.
I enjoyed the forwarded post by Anders Sandberg:
"Well, there is a certain exuberance in them - very objectivist, but
almost bordering on new age aura paintings. :-) I think I can see the
author's point. But isn't heroism about fulfilling or exceeding one's
potential? In that case these pictures don't have much of that, they
mostly depict moments of *being*, they do not depict what people *do*."
He says " But isn't heroism about fulfilling or exceeding one's
potential?" I know it is not just me who thinks this but how could
Icarus better fulfill and exceed his potential than by landing? I would
like to quote here in full Dr. Stephen Hicks comment about Icarus
Landing. Also, I would like to note that Dr. Hicks, among other
philosophical topics, lectures on the philosophy of art:
"About the Icarus painting. The colors and composition are superb. His
body seems real - the arms especially - as though he actually is in the
act of alighting. And the thematic elements are so rich - reversing both
the Greek and Christian messages: success following boldness rather than
failure following boldness; and a quietly confident success rather than
suffering and sacrifice.
"You have done for the Icarus legend what Ayn Rand's character Richard
Halley did for the Phaethon legend. I was reminded of Susan McCloskey's
lectures in Boulder in 1998, in which she explained how Rand took the
epic figures and forms from the two major traditions in western
civilization, the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian as exemplified in
the characters of Odysseus and Jesus, and with her characters in Atlas
both incorporated and transcended those traditions. Your Icarus does
that with the substance and symbolism of the Greek Icarus and the
Christian crucifixion."
Back to Anders note. I find the difference between "being" and "doing"
in painting is very interesting. The moments I am catching in most of my
major works are about the "end-point". If I were to climb a mountain,
the most exciting part is having reached the summit, after huge exertion
of labor to arrive at a moment of relaxing and taking in the whole
experience. I would want to show that person's state of being and their
environment, not the act of them getting there.
Coming up at the TOC's summer conference I will be giving the lecture:
The Enlightened Hero and Heroine. I will discuss how heroism is
portrayed in history and how today's artists are adding to its meaning
by including individuality, self-awareness, and drive towards
fulfillment. Among others I will be including the works of Marine
Vaugel and Stuart Feldman:
http://www.netreach.net/~aisa/index.html
I would also like to thank Monart for his post.
Michael
~ * ~
Starship Forum website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/
Starship Forum archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/messages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:13 MST