close deceased influences

John, may I then re-formulate: "Oh, poor God, appearing in a late night show with

letterman".

Kristina, it is Dora Maar. Picasso wasn't too gentle with the ladies. And Wegman's art

is for the dogs. More examples of 20th C 'consumer' art that says little. It's not his

fault, society has changed, TV has been created and (most) art has died.

John, glad we can agree about Guernica. It is terific, even in reproduction. Earlier on,

his use of a beat up camera with distorted (broken) lens apparently catalysed his

approach to cubism. Non-Russian cameras are too precise and 'real' in their

reproduction to be very useful for art (sorry, Argus!).

Just think how Weston's Pepper or nudes, or the (forgot his name)'s St.Louis arch

might look through a broken and prismatic lens?

Wow, that was a long interesting thread read. I will add my 2 cents.I think that no art is created in an" empty space". influences or call it inspiration are present in all art movement developments. Even the cave drawing artists were inspired by the nature around them.

Some of the impressionist artists worked together in small groups, and were inspired/influenced from each other, even each has developed his own style.

As an example is the Futurism movement, which was strongly inspired/influenced by Picasso and Brak. Picasso was influenced by Paul Cesanne. Umberto Boccioni, and Gino Severini,( Italian Futurism) both strongly influenced by Picasso's Kubistic works, and it is only two of many....

The history of the arts is full with examples.

Pnina, a good case, but when push come to shove, it is (I believe) the independent

mind and the independent creativity powers of that mind that are most responsible

for the product. Influences are background inputs or events, like the effect of the

particular society we live in and its influence on our values and the way we behave

(probably the reason that true art is in such a dilemna today, as most potential

appreciators of it do not want to make the effort to come to terms with it - much

easier to absorb the "industrial art" messages, the calmant drugs of commercial

culture). Art rises above those background influences and asserts its maker's

independent spirit. Above all else.

Perhaps appropriate to mention that Bobby Fisher died today in his refuge of Iceland.

An independent spirit in the high art of chess, and personal opinions. A school drop

out, but very much beyond the capabilities of his own chess contemporaries

(excluding Spasky). Erratic, perhaps, but an independent artist. His terminal age of 64

equals the number of squares on the chess board. "...Will you still love me and will

you still grieve for me, when I'm 64?...

Arthur, right you are! the independent mind and spirite! of the artist is important for what a real art ( artist) want to express.it does not contradict his/her " back load" of all the hisrory of art, conscious ot not, but present never the less...

"...Will you still love me and will you still grieve for me, when I'm 64?..." did you refere to yourself? ( joking of course...)

The words as presented (if it is meant to refer to song lyrics of The Beatles) are a telling

misquote.

John Kelly mentioned the concurrence of inspiration and hard work with respect to

Picasso.

The quote as stated (transformed to be about the iconic emotions of love and grieving)

expresses a similar romantic side of the coin to the one expressed by the vision of the

inspired, independent/solitary/lonely artist on a desert island far from other artists.

Genesis: "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep."

The artist as God.

The actual words of the Beatle's song are "Will you still need me, will you still feed me,

when I'm 64?"

Nuts and bolts. The song is about down-to-earth (even selfish) realities of growing old

and staying alive, worrying about the future, as much as it is about transcendent emotions

like love and grief.

As a matter of fact, the Beatles, breakthrough artists and musical/creative geniuses that

they were (it's OK if you think it was all Lennon, the argument can be made even though I

don't accept it), were heavily influenced by Elvis.

John Lennon: "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis,

there would not have been The Beatles."

Later, along came Ravi Shankar and, well . . .

I was referring to former hero Bobby in his isolation from the country he

apparently both loved and hated. The Beatle's song (my misquote was intentional)

was an afterthought, after reflecting upon the number of squares of the chessboard.

Not very pertinent to the subject of the post, I admit.

While still off-subject, I have to say that for me the big difference between the

brilliant performer and interpreter Elvis, and the Beatles, is that most of the Beatle's

songs wre written by them, whereas most (if not all) of Elvis's songs were written by

others, sometimes by little recognised Black Americans . Our local Celine Dion is not

my choice of singer to listen to (beautiful voice, but too much 'screaming'), but she

appears more like Elvis in terms of performance impact and interpretative talents (3

years at Vegas with packed houses is proof, I guess), but as far as I know does not

compose most (or all) of her songs.

It is hard, though, to find popular and jazz singers (especially?) who are not

influenced greatly by others. It seems a necessary part of the road to recognition and

stardom. Other popular 'performers', like the Simpsons, are quite original in concept

(albeit comic-strip derivatives), as are two of our local stars, the "Tetes-a-Claques"

and "God created La Flaque". I'm on safe ground here, as no more than about 7

million viewers will have seen them.

Speaking of 7 million. The number of TV viewers to watch 'Loft Story' on May 10,

2001, and the same day Adam Biro happily recognized that sales of hisbook on art

had reached an impressive 3000 copies.

The Beatles' rise to stardom may prove how important presentation (performance) is. Don't

know if they would have gotten where they got to without the hair, smiles, charm, and

brazenness. They owe a lot to Elvis who, to be sure, could not compose his own songs.

Shankar probably influenced them on a deeper level, but only once they had already captured

hearts and minds willing to go along on the new ride.

Don't know if they would have gotten where they got to without the hair, smiles, charm, and brazenness.

That might have helped them initially as with any performers, however, it was their innovative song writing skills which kept the there.

Allen, please expand on your concern about "pollution."

I have not got a concern John, more of awareness. Pollution, in the context we are discussing, is where you are not using your own mind to think but using other minds to do it for you. Your individuality is lost to a pack mentality.

Allen, I'm glad you "concern," because I did read anxiety about pollution in some of your posts.

The idea of pollution isn't as weird as some might think, it's normal for many: I mentioned a Navajo issue and it's typical of other tribal people, certainly including Jews.

Personally, I hope I'm open to inspirations that come from others...I don't have a tribal identity that's at risk.

If I understood inspiration or influence to be similar to "pollution" I think it would mean my identity was fragile.

...sorry..I meant to say "I'm glad you didn't mean "concern"..but maybe "glad" isn't quite appropriate.

...because if someone IS "concerned" about pollution by others, it's not necessarily an unreasonable anxiety, especially for people who, like many Jews, remain connected to their tribal values.

To generalise I think that the majority of folks are in agreement regarding influence, inspiration etc. I think we are all "dancing with semantics" which is often the case on this forum.

To go off topic I thought "dancing with wolves" was an excellent film dealing with preconceptions.

I actually think there's a quite obvious and healthy disagreement about the role of

influence that goes way beyond semantics.

I think some think artists must use influence, relish it, depend on it, work with it, and

expect it in a very direct and overt way and there are some that think it much more

secondary to the independence and isolation of the artist.

I don't think it's about how we use the word "influence." I think it's about different

approaches to art and creativity.

much more secondary to the independence and isolation of the artist.

I think some think artists must use influence, relish it, depend on it, work with it, and expect it in a very direct

Sort of sad that though they have lost their mind to others. I wonder if they have to put their hand up to go to the toilet.

Methinks you are painting a very hard grainy image in words, going to the extremes of the spectrum, Fred.

I think it's about different approaches to art and creativity.

You could be right,Fred. If you are then i will have to believe in zombies and the living dead. Perhaps those B films got it right.

way beyond semantics.

Fred,examples,of this way beyond semantics.Educate me my friend.

Throughout this thread, you have been posing the extremes, talking either about

education and the historical influences we are all under all the time or else about losing

one's mind to others. You've ignored the concrete examples given and the links of

important and direct artistic influence that comes on a spectrum well between those two

extremes you keep falling back on. It feels like some sort of silly game that you would

now accuse me of being the one who goes to the extremes.

". . . lost their mind to others. I wonder if they have to put their hand up to go to the

toilet."

I imagine that's not how Lichtenstein, de Kooning, Warhol, and Pollock saw it. I doubt

that's how the curators of the show at the Whitney (linked above) saw it either.

I doubt any of them saw it simply as incorporating the historical influence we all

incorporate or as giving up their individuality. I think the artists in question and the

curators saw is as I described it, "use influence, relish it, depend on it, work with it, and

expect it in a very direct and overt way."

While some may be stuck in semantics, others focus on the clear and important, if subtle differences in the concepts to which words attempt to point. Concepts justify words, words are not concepts.

"Pollution" is a charged, negative, fear-relate term...it has two or three very specific meanings. Some of us worry about the pollution of our vital bodily fluids....

Think Dr Strangelove...Col. Jack Ripper's "pollution of vital bodily fluids" ...unfortunately not on youtube, but here's the invention of Photo.net:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD7_7SXsHU8&feature=related

Fred, examples of this way beyond semantics!!!!

The rest of your thoughts l need to think about to give you the respect of discourse you deserve.

Allen--

I think John put it well in the post just above yours, regarding semantics.

...more on purity...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AfuRdwyPC4&feature=related

Pollution" is a charged, negative, fear-relate term...it has two or three very specific meanings

The "word" was written in stone, never to change. So it was written.

Words are made of rubber; they can be used in a different ways, a context to imply a different meaning....

Think of the word "gay" changed by colloquial use.

Gentlemen,and scholars,time for a photo break.....

I will call this photo....<div></div>

Actually like this one better, it adds more colour to the words

;)<div></div>

. You've ignored the concrete examples given and the links of important and direct artistic influence that comes on a spectrum well between those two extremes you keep falling back on. It feels like some sort of silly game that you would now accuse me of being the one who goes to the extremes.

What concrete example? Some words on Wilkpedia about influences written by someone? You claim they were direct influences which shaped and created them as Artist...just another stone on a building block...get real. Look beyond such simple thoughts. Most Artists worth the name were far beyond such school education regardless of what after school clubs they belonged to.