discussion about art: part n+1

[laurent-paul]

^^ I probably shouldn't post on forums just after having a nice diner a few glasses an no edit option.

 

It will just add a bit of surrealism I guess. Hope the idea(s) is/are understandable

[jtk]

Laurent-Paul, you were quite clear.

 

But your particular "art world" suffers lack of scholarship if it thinks the egos of painters in Venice and Florence "didn't really come into the creative process."

 

Similarly, missing the "transcendence" that can be found today in the work of painters worldwide suggests a visual malady.

 

Labeling the work on walls in Lascaux as "art" seems a time-traveling form of cultural imperialism. I suggest William Kittredge's "The Nature of Generosity" for an understanding that respects those cave painters as leaders of their society's young men.

 

And finally, the notion that Egypt's static millenia, culminating as musty history, predicts the future for Shakespeare seems a wildly extended, irrational hypothesis.

 

Shakespeare created something far more sophisticated than anything we know of the Egyptians. He actually created humans in his plays, the way novelists do. Egyptian sculptors intentionally deprived their subjects of humanity, often working to make them look like each other... the most beautiful examples of their work are in their way little different than photos of Paris Hilton. Perhaps beautiful, but empty.

 

As well, Pharoanic webmasters notoriously failed to back up and distribute their culture... Shakespeare's webmasters can't make that suicidal mistake, Wm's horse is already out of the barn (as we say in the West) :-)

[aplumpton]

Laurent-Paul and John, though continents apart (I presume), your sparring on these

points of nationalistic artistic prowess is fun to read, but hardly very instructive in

respect to the declaration of the post. Good wine no doubt flowed at your tables.

Visit Peche-Merle, John (Lascaux is closed off now), notfar from Lascaux, if you want

to see the original 15000+ year old art. It is a moving experience, not for the

chronological distance from our period, but for the acts of invention, peformed in

less than 5th Avenue studio conditions (narow and constrained passages in unlit

caves, at great distances from the entry, using but basic materials).

 

To say that Egyptian art is similar to an image of Paris Hilton is perhaps to credit that

popular rich little girl icon with more beauty than she actually possesses (but perhaps

this is but an international divergence on thedefinition of beauty?).

 

Back to Andrei. I am confused about the context of his remark, which I cannot accept

as stated. Art can depict death in ways we have difficulty imagining. It seems a rather

superficial remark, as that about optimism and pessimism, and talent or not.

[laurent-paul]

John and Arthur,

 

I am actually very much longing to answer John's last post, but was very affraid about that very point : that this was becoming a diaolgue getting away from the subject of the thread and was interesting only for me and perhaps for you John, as you took the time to write, but perhaps not for anybody else.

 

I have been trying to make my point about Tarkovski's quote, but unfortunately, it seems only my disgressions were taken into account.

 

I'm going to sleep now, hoping the wine will have been fully processed

 

laurent

[nicolerenee]

Personally, I think Phylo may have gotten closest to (what seems to me) to be the intention of quote. Not that art cannot contain images of death or depict it but that art in itself requires an act of creation and, therefore, afirms the ultimate act of creation, LIFE. Death co-exists with life and defines it but when I create a piece of art, it takes on it's own existance seperate though connected with mine. This seems especially brought home to me while pregnant :)

 

As far as ancient egypt and shakespere...all of the ancients lived too close to the earth to have the inclination to spend the time creating commentaries on humanity no matter how profound. Death was much closer for them I think and their art(only commisioned and kept by rich VIP's and found mostly in tombs), if I understand ancient egypt correctly, was uniquley meant to be the shadow of what they would take with them in the afterlife which was always on the doorstep.

[nicolerenee]

Oh, John; would recomend to you "Shakespeare by Another Name" by Mark Anderson. About a guy name Edward DeVere. He's got me convinced.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Nicole, as another great shpwman once opined "there's a sucker born every minute". Something the Elizabethans would have roundly agreed with. The DeVere myth has been disproved pretty substantially.

[nicolerenee]

Aw, man, dont bust my bubble I really liked that one! How did they do it?

[jtk]

I'm no Shakespeare scholar or enthusiast...he's too hard to read (same with modern playwrites)...but after all, he was a playwrite and actor, not a novelist ...his work wants interpretation by actors and directors in order to click for people like me..I see somebody's Shakespeare live at least once a year and always love it, even when I struggle to follow.

 

See Kurisawa's "Throne of Blood" and Polanski's "Macbeth"..don't believe the critics, both are much closer the Macbeths I've seen, performed on stage, than they understand. Both brilliantly filmed, worth watching for that reason alone.

 

Witches were a worry of King James, Shakespeare's royal patron...watch for them in both films.

 

http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=190

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19710101/REVIEWS/101010319/1023

 

 

Here's a gripping read. The author uses an astounding amount of solid information to imagine Shakespeare into his historic context, to show how he and his works might-have/probably developed. Almost a novel, many of the connections are conjecture, but it seems a more probable story than I've heard elsewhere.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/09/13/040913crat_atlarge

[jtk]

"There's no optimistic or pessimistic artist. There's just talent and mediocrity."

 

That feels like a faulty translation.

 

With very little Russian, my sense is that its someone's off-kilter English.

 

I doubt this is how Tartovsky would express the idea in Russian, and I suspect he didn't say it in English (Schnabel said it).

 

I'd guess he means something like: "There's no optimism or pessimism in art, there's just talent and mediocrity."

 

Sounds like he's addressing art, more than artists: he doesn't find optimism or pessimism in art, he only sees the talent or mediocrity in art works.

[GerrySiegel]

I never could get much into Shakespeare and still have trouble with the plots and the language of the plays. I listened to a radio interview on NPR with actor Peter O'Toole. He said he also was not so keen on the plays but adored-his words-the sonnets. And had many of them memorized. I have been reading a fine guided tour book of the 154 poems; " Shakespeare's Sonnets with a New Commentary by David West." (2007,Duckworth) A way to munch one's way into S. like at a wine and cheese tasting. Nice.

[albert_richardson1]

Of course Tarkovski is wrong! At least he was not completely right. The idea that art once created take on a life of its own that outlasts its maker and even in some cases the culture that made it possible is not original. Some objects have been found that may be nearly as old as man, but with human origins going back into obscurity scientists have yet to map, who can tell for sure? A broad enough view leads to the observation that everything is in the middle of something. Eventually all that exists will be transformed into something else. Nothing is Eternal and certainly not art.

 

I would rather Tarkovski had asserted that Art lingers in old age like man himself. That is, once the cultural context that guides the experience and understanding of art passes, art objects enter a dream-like state wherein they continue to be present in life, but without the vitality they once had. We see ancient objects, for example, as amazing creations and admire the craftsmanship in them, but it is impossible for us to put them in context to understand how they fit into someone's daily life.

 

Really ancient artifacts have no contemporary basis for understanding at all. Objects with no mind left. Is the stone totem woman an important part of some lost religious ritual, or simply a little girl's toy? Digital burnout. The detail can never be filled in no matter how you try. Not really dead, but perhaps loss of provenance is the art equivalent of advanced senility or even Alzheimer's.

 

So art is impartial he says. Inanimate objects have no emotions of their own. Nothing new here! (I like the idea that Tarkovski refers to art and not artists. Clearly humans do have emotions and attitudes that can be called optimistic or pessimistic, and objects do not.)

 

But what's the point? Does Tarkovski think that of all people he has a better take on talent and mediocrity than other people? He strikes me as taking an elitist stand that expresses not a useful insight into art, but rather a testimonial to his own snobbery. It reveals him as a difficult person to have known in person! Doesn't this seem to you to be the kind of remark a "made man" in Hollywood might say at a cocktail party to impress the naive?

 

The question inside the question for Ellis to address to the forum to consider is what prepares a person to recognize artistic talent specifically in the area of photography? Is it possible to get beyond "I'll know it when I see it!"? Who would he suggest as an exemplar of outstanding contemporary photographic talent? What makes their work so interesting? Efforts to answer the last question can lead to the personal development of artistic taste, and taste informs appreciation. These are foundation blocks for recognizing talent because they give you the tools you need to be able to describe what you see.

 

(I hope that I don't sound antagonistic in these things. This is the sort of questioning that can lead one to write books to figure out. Nevertheless, I would be genuinely interested in Ellis's answers.)

[jtk]

Tartovsky didn't make that statement, Schnabel did.

 

I think he was being cute, not quoting accurately, and perhaps simply not articulate: http://www.artquotes.net/masters/schnabel/julian-schnabel-quotes.htm

 

 

Gene, I suggest "Will In The World" (above)...it opened my eyes to some of the plays, especially Macbeth. It's as exciting as LaCarre.

 

As well, it provides one of the credible explanations for the sonnets Vs the plays (as does an one of my favorites, Anthony Burgess...in "Golden Apples Of The Sun")

 

The two films I linked are great, scary entertainment...exactly what Shakespeare was most into. Polanski's Macbeth (and Shakespeare's IMO) might be thought of like an especially violent Western, think Sam Pekinpah. Kurisawa's comes at Shakespear's from a different angle. Same, same.

 

Shakespeare's plays are meant to be interpreted by actors. Reading them is tough and although they were tremendously popular in print during his life, his game was the stage.

[Norma Desmond]

Also check out Baz Luhrman's '96 update of Romeo + Juliet.

 

Pointedly contemporary, today's actors and look, yesterday's language and undying story.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/

[nicolerenee]

Albert; Just because we cant fully understand the use of the artifacts we've found in ancient culture doesnt mean we cant appreciate the beauty of what they've made and marvel that peoples we've considered to be uncivilized or whatever had a great capacity for making art. Who cares if it was a religious tool or a little girls toy?

 

Fred: Did you like that one? I was kind of bummed out by it. Not the style of the movie but it didnt sound like most of the actors even understood what they were saying.

[Norma Desmond]

I loved it. I thought they all understood it quite deeply.

 

I think Luhrman was playing with the uncomfortableness of the language in a modern setting

and, in not adapting it to present-day vernacular got it (especially as the movie progressed)

to make perfect sense and said something both about the effect of context on language, its

fluidity and changing nature and, ultimately, its timelessness.

[laurent-paul]

A little bit off topic, but don't overestimate sombody like Leonardo Di Caprio who was "unfortunate" enough to have been cast in a massive romantique blockbuster. Have a look at "Total Eclipse" or "this Boy's Life" for example.

[laurent-paul]

^^^ Of course to be read ^^^ Don't underestimate

[Norma Desmond]

Laurent--

 

I agree. I think both Leo and Clare Danes are fine actors and added a lot of dimension to their

roles.

[nicolerenee]

I think both are fine actors, I particularly liked Leo in Blood Diamond. I agree Fred, about the uncomfortablilty of the language in present day settings, but it seemed to me they just missed something in the intonation and delivery that took some of the depth away from the words. There are quite a few actors out there who just have a gift for being able to deliver Shakespeare in a way thats a little more understandable.

 

Ofcourse, part of it may have been that I was quite a bit younger when I saw the movie.

[jtk]

It's worth remembering that Shakespeare, although a word man whose scripts were best sellers in his day (documented by the royal tax collectors), was primarily an entertainer of masses.

 

Those masses were also word people, even those that didn't buy scripts, perhaps more like an urban rap audience than NPR/BBC's.

 

As word people, Shakespeare's audience barely shared a common language: English was just beginning to become standardized, had truncated written vocabulary, and was little read...no daily newspaper, no paperbacks. Some say Shakespeare, through his popularity "invented" our English...just as Elvis popularized black and redneck music and poetry through his. The Beatles were pale mushrooms in Elvis's shadow...

 

Shakespeare's audience loved violence and gross humor as well as soap opera, was also hungry to hear about their nation's history (Shakespeare knew/invented a history for them).

[Norma Desmond]

"The Beatles were pale mushrooms in Elvis's shadow..."

 

John spoketh, thus spoketh John.

[jtk]

Rolling Stones are more Marlowe-like. Shakespeare owed much of his success to Marlowe, whereas Beatles owed theirs to Elvis. Without Elvis, the Beatles would have been lucky to be a suburban skiffle band.

 

Stones sang for revolution, Beatles sang against it.

[Norma Desmond]

"just as Elvis popularized black and redneck music and poetry through his"

 

For me, it isn't about the multitude of facts surrounding the writers or the bands or how

or why they became popular. It's about how the words and the music reach me.

 

Beatles reach me on a deeper and more profound level than Elvis, who I love.

 

I did the Stones vs. Beatles thing all through college and am over it, but your premise

about revolution is shallow.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Stones sang for revolution, Beatles sang against it."

 

Oh please, tell me another one...

 

closer to the political mark is the couplet in The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again": "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."