In essence ,this is what I said that got every one's turp in a twit.
In my judgement ,Manet's painting was an unfinished painting ,and
perhaps abandon.
But it's composition ,to me remained strong. The unfinished evidence
is clearly
visible to me and Manet himself, unless was going blind.
mando
On Nov 17, 2009, at 5:52 AM, William Conger wrote:
My reasons re Manet's compositions were stated in my comment you
responded to.
Mando said the composition failed because Manet "lost it",
supposedly in reference to the multiple "gaze" positions, and
something about Suzanne's hand...(the "ambiguity of time and
space...the "glimpse" of the slice of life idea, etc.). You're just
making up things to say, again...from another universe...so I can't
recall anything you said about the picture.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 7:43:07 AM
Subject: Re: Where do opinions come from
William has not explained how anything that Mando or I have written
contradicts his "expert comment" - so once again
he's advocating reason and scholarship without bothering to
practice it.
.......................
Here's my expert comment: Manet's painting of the Bar is poorly
composed if
we
judge it by the conventionalized story-telling art with eros
standards of 19C
salon painting. His painting is well composed if we judge it by the
standards
that developed after Cezanne. What makes Manet's compositions
interesting in
that respect is his prescience and ability to actually present
pictorial
ideas
that had been slowly emerging since the 1860s (ideas centered on the
pictorIalism of time vs, the frozen moment of painting, and the
slice of life
pictorialism that imitated the darting of the eye over the field of
sight.
In
addition Manet purposely quoted other artists, like Courbet, in his
work, to
underscore the assemblage notion of time, experience, seeing).
Miller's proclamations to apotheosize the so-called individual
opinion, as if
it came directly non-stop from God, unaffected by any mortal
breath, are
ridiculous in a list devoted to discussion and inquiry of ideas,
and history.
He goes so far as to honor this absurd solipsism as "integrity".
If that's
what integrity rests on, smug and arrogantly dumbfounding
ignorance, then
the
concept it points to is newly impoverished and shriveled beyond
compare.
The literature re Manet in the history of art and criticism is so
abundant,
and
so varied and so well examined by so many thoughtful and educated
people who
have actually seen his paintings, etc., that it is the folly of
complete
fools
to interject their unreasoned, unreflective, unknowing,
inexperienced, and
totally irrelevant opinions into the mix and then, with the splotchy
nuttiness
of a tyrant insane, to declare such inanities as proof of
integrity. With
such
oddly strange views as Miller's, and Mando's? regarding the Bar
composition,
one would be better off covering over the painting altogether in
an effort
to
deny that Manet was in fact a great artist who influenced art and
to deny
that
it contradicts their opinions in every stroke of paint.
Some artists are content to stand aside from art history and do
artisanship
or
shine up yesterday's beauty. Fine. But ambitious artists want to
be in the
thick of ongoing art history, to make a contribution, to kick 'em
in the ass,
to help symbolize their time, to lavish praise on the gods for
keeping the
whole messy reality alive and ever new, complex, paradoxical,
promising,
frightening, present. Manet is such a great friend to anyone who
can actually
look at painting.
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?
cp=thjkrHS0KOCMMUA00xsOUAAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
