3 Love Poems

October 21, 2014

3 LOVE POEMS

I don’t know why
she loves me
Who am I
to disagree

Danger! Danger! Danger!
there’s a danger to your heart
when you are so vulnerable
and you’ve lost someone you love
(lyric)

Summer of love
Winter of discontent

Smoke in the Town (art)

October 18, 2014

Photo 3

Ted Talk on Sleep + My ideas take it further

October 18, 2014

Jeff Lliff ted talk on sleep as brain cleaning, and how it’s done.

My suggestion is that this brain cleaning carries over to all blood barriers ( brain and spine, parts of the ears, eyes, male testes, joints.)
That it correlates to
NREM sleep for brain and spine cleaning
REM sleep for rest of body cleaning of blood barrier areas. (If not how are they cleaned – the same question asked of them as asked of cleaning the brain of waste)
That sleep is not for the brain alone, but includes resetting the digestive system (we can’t eat and sleep at the same time), and preparing all body waste out for wake up.

Flowers (art)

October 17, 2014

Photo 2

3D Art Theory

October 17, 2014

The THREE DIMENSIONS OF ART* (an art theory)

By taking 3 criteria, (picture a sort of ‘art geometry’ with 3 lines making up all 3 dimensions), we can see art as a panorama with many aspects – all of which are valid in making great art.

1. Realism or conceptual art are two ends of one line.
2. Art as an object in itself or art as symbol of something else, are two ends of a 2nd line.
3. The medium used to make the art is the 3rd line.

1. REALISM <————-> CONCEPT AND ABSTRACTION
2. ART AS OBJECT <————-> ART AS SUBJECT
3. THE ART MEDIUM USED.

Those 3 lines or 3 dimensions listed above, also define a big part of the new POSTMOD ART, a new type of art that is all inclusive.
1. REALISM TO CONCEPT ART AND ABSTRACTION

Right now there is a great divide in art. It’s been going on for over 100 years. It’s time to end it. The divide is between realism and ‘modern art’ as if one is right and the other is wrong. Both can be fine art.

This divide mostly started when the Impressionists broke away from the French Salon and it’s type of painting. From then to now, there has been an understood divide in art that implies that somehow realism is old fashioned (and can’t develop) while a more modern art that is more abstract or free form is the only thing that should be considered modern and up to date (though it can become just as generic, stilted, and conservative as the salon art, it first rebelled against!)

Let’s look at three examples of this art divide:
1. THE FRENCH SALON versus THE IMPRESSIONISTS
2. MATISSE AND PICASSO versus JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY
3. DUCHAMP, POLLACK, and CONCEPTUAL ART, versus ROCKWELL and WYETH (The ASHCAN SCHOOL and PHOTOREALISTS)

THE FRENCH SALON versus THE IMPRESSIONISTS
On the Salon side there were artists such as William-Adolphe Bouguereau. Bouguereau painted realistically, with some exquisite nudes and portraits of young women. But many of his works, though technically excellent, were somewhat stilted, and formulaic.
On the other side were the Impressionists such as Monet, Renoir, and Degas. Their works were a breath of fresh air from the conservative Salon. They were full of vivid color, and the charm of every day life; though at times they were sketchy and their work seemed sloppy, or unfinished.

MATISSE AND PICASSO versus …. just about everybody!
Matisse and Picasso were on the front lines of art that shocked. The first was a ‘wild beast’ and the second was a ‘cubist’. The world around them was barely catching up to accepting the Impressionists, and they had hardly even heard of the post-impressionists, who got their recognition much too late.
Luckily both Matisse and Picasso had long lives, and that allowed them to break a lot of rules, bring a lot of vibrant change to art, and become the two most celebrated painters of their century. Though in fairness not all of their experiments worked, and often we praise what they could do at their best and excuse the rest.

DUCHAMP AND POLLACK AND CONCEPTUAL ART versus ROCKWELL AND THE WYETH FAMILY
Here the art divide was very wide. On the modern, and up to date side, were Duchamp who wrote his own rules for painting, or in the case of readymades, no painting at all. Duchamp in turn, certainly had an influence on the later art movement called Conceptual art , where the concept was the art. And too there was Pollack who was known for his action paintings where he would throw, splatter, or drip, paint on a canvas on the floor.
But many more traditional viewers just shook their heads at all these art experiments, and preferred the humorous story paintings of Norman Rockwell, or the subtle but realistic landscapes and portraits of Andrew Wyeth, or his father, a noted illustrator. (And don’t forget other schools of realism like the Ashcan school, whose subjects, average people, were a little too real for the public; or photorealists, who painted as exact as the photos they painted from, or modern ‘lowbrow’ artists.)

So things are muddled, it’s kind of confusing, but which side was right? Here’s my answer:

I love art, and I love painting. But I love BOTH kinds of painting. I am an artist. And I’ve done art all across the divide, from realism to conceptual art and I love doing it all.

I appreciate technical excellence when it’s used to make a great painting – part of the fun of painting is to find a painter with great technical skill – but I also appreciate the freedom that allows innovative artists to take art into new areas that the rest of us could not even imagine. Why do I have to take sides when I like – no love – both sides?

Modern artists have had to fight the traditionalists to get fair respect. I understand that. But at some point that division into ‘us’ or ‘them’, may go too far, and those on the supposed cutting edge have become so insular and isolated that they forgot to acknowledge and appreciate the achievements of the past and the other half of their contemporaries. Why is it either or or? Why can’t both sides be appreciated – specially at this point in time when we’ve just finished the trek from realism to conceptual art.

History of ART in three sentences:
Art went from total structure in realism (painting exactly as is) to total freedom in conceptual art (painting rules invented by the artist). OK, we’ve gone through the complete range. Now instead of being stuck in only one or the other – total realism, or total choice and concept – we have the choice to do either, or anything in between, or all of the above.

Let’s shift the emphasis. Instead of two different camps in a great divide, fighting each other; great art, is about quality and innovation in whatever art you do. Then the future is open to all.

2. THE ART AS OBJECT OR SUBJECT

There is a second great divide in art. This divides art into:
1. Object – the painting in itself is the object and has no outside meaning – or
2. Subject – the painting presents a meaning that goes beyond what’s painted.
Like the first divide, POSTMOD art says both are valid, and neither is more right or more modern.

OBJECT Painting: The subjects can be anything: portraits, still lifes, landscapes, abstractions, etc. But what stands out is the painting itself and that’s enough. It doesn’t stand for anything beyond that. The 20th century ushered in all kinds of object art ‘isms’. Here are some main ones:
1. Impressionism
2. Pointillism
3. Fauvism
4. Cubism
5. Abstraction
6. Photo Realism

SUBJECT Painting: This type of art covers all subjects too. But what is key is the thought or substance behind the art. During the 20th century the vanguard of modern art seemed to bounce back and forth from Object to Subject. Then too some areas of the world favored one over the other. Major schools of subject art included:
1. Expressionism
2. Dadaism
3. Surrealism
4. Conceptual Art
5. Pop Art.

3. THE MEDIUM USED

This is simply the medium used to make the art; oil paint, acrylic, watercolor? Pen, pencil, a print, computer? etc.

TEST

Take any work of art from any period in history and apply the 3 dimensions to it. This gives you not only more understanding of the art work itself, but also helps you place it in the panorama of all art. And it helps you see that art varies, but all varieties can be great art.

=============
Background to the 3D Art Idea:
This three part art dimension idea, came in stages. The first one was obvious. The 2nd one, more tricky, and the third went through changes.

I read a book where art was discussed as object versus subject, and that solidified the problems I had with the second line.

I had the third line first as a timeline – that’s when in history the art was made. But that never seemed to quit fit. Choosing the medium the art was made in, did. And with 3 time lines, I conjured up a bit of geometry – and saw this as a fleshed out art theory in 3D! – Tom


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 131 other followers