>a "professional appreciators of art" is just a salesman.  The people who 
>buy are
> investors.  You and I are true art appreciators.

You are right, but I am speaking of art-museums, too. Here in Europe most 
museums are in possession of the state - the people working and teaching 
there do not win or lose by their opinion of paintings. Still, their 
opinions do shift for invalid reasons. If you praise a picture for muted 
colours, you should not praise the very same picture later for vibrant 
ones - the exact opposite.

The same goes for forgeries. In Berlin's national gallery of arts they have 
a painting called "Man with golden Helmet", a painting praised as a 
masterpiece of Rembrandt, a painting "embodying the style of baroque", THE 
piece of pride of the whole gallery.

After highly specialized research involving x-rays and more it was shown 
that the painting was not painted by Rembrandt himself, but by an unknown 
pupil of Rembrandt. And, lo and behold, the famous painting was not so good 
anymore, and they wanted to remove it from the collection.

Well - the painting was old and of the period, done within Rembrandt's 
workshop. Either it always looked good and was and is still a masterpiece or 
it always did not look good and was never a masterpiece at all. It should 
not matter who actually painted the thing - the artistic merit should either 
have been there or not, regardless of the painter. All else has nothing to 
do with art itself.

Same goes for forgeries: if a forgery is so good it cannot be distinguished 
by a visual inspection of professionals, the result is as good or bad as the 
original. When a forgery is so good that it has been exhibited in a museum, 
it should not matter if it is "genuine" or not - the picture should speak 
for itself.

Post a reply to this message

TC wrote:
> You are right, but I am speaking of art-museums, too. 

And if you pour two glasses of white wine and put a drop of red food 
coloring in one, then give it to wine tasters, they'll describe the flavors 
completely differently.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> >a "professional appreciators of art" is just a salesman.  The people who
> >buy are
> > investors.  You and I are true art appreciators.
>
> You are right, but I am speaking of art-museums, too. Here in Europe most
> museums are in possession of the state - the people working and teaching
> there do not win or lose by their opinion of paintings. Still, their
> opinions do shift for invalid reasons. If you praise a picture for muted
> colours, you should not praise the very same picture later for vibrant
> ones - the exact opposite.

yes.

> The same goes for forgeries. In Berlin's national gallery of arts they have
> a painting called "Man with golden Helmet", a painting praised as a
> masterpiece of Rembrandt, a painting "embodying the style of baroque", THE
> piece of pride of the whole gallery.
>
> After highly specialized research involving x-rays and more it was shown
> that the painting was not painted by Rembrandt himself, but by an unknown
> pupil of Rembrandt. And, lo and behold, the famous painting was not so good
> anymore, and they wanted to remove it from the collection.
>
> Well - the painting was old and of the period, done within Rembrandt's
> workshop. Either it always looked good and was and is still a masterpiece or
> it always did not look good and was never a masterpiece at all. It should
> not matter who actually painted the thing - the artistic merit should either
> have been there or not, regardless of the painter. All else has nothing to
> do with art itself.

yes.  It is a genuine representative of the period after all.

> Same goes for forgeries: if a forgery is so good it cannot be distinguished
> by a visual inspection of professionals, the result is as good or bad as the
> original. When a forgery is so good that it has been exhibited in a museum,
> it should not matter if it is "genuine" or not - the picture should speak
> for itself.

Yes, but these guys are into the cult of personality, a weakness of western
culture.  The lone artist as a romantic hero.

Most art nowadays comes from the artistic skillset of teams of hundreds of
people, like Pixar movies or Nintendo games.  Still we insist that only Andrew
Staton or Shigeru Miyamoto receive the praises in place of the whole team.  I'm
sure it was the same for Michaelangelo and company.  A master coordinating and
many pupils assisting and giving their personal input to the whole.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Most art nowadays comes from the artistic skillset of teams of hundreds of
> people, like Pixar movies or Nintendo games. 

I was amused by one comment I read, where the folks who worked on the 
special effects for Avatar were complaining they had no union, and hence 
their credits showed up "after craft services!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/27/2010 10:12 AM, Warp wrote:
>    I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to with "three sets of
> commandments".
>
Umm..

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

The "holy book" can't even make up its mind what they are, exactly. Note 
- The original Hebrew makes no distinction between the "first" and the 
"second" in the Christian version. So, graven image is no a separate 
entity from "other gods" in that context. Then, some people **love** to 
use useless ambiguity to justify silly thing, like the, "right to own 
Star Wars death lasers = right to bare arms!". You just know that 
argument is going to come up, when someone figures out how to make a 
blaster rifle...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

message de groupe de discussion : 4bfeccb3$1@news.povray.org...
> After highly specialized research involving x-rays and more it was shown 
> that the painting was not painted by Rembrandt himself, but by an unknown 
> pupil of Rembrandt. And, lo and behold, the famous painting was not so 
> good anymore, and they wanted to remove it from the collection.

I doubt that the curators thought that the painting was "not so good 
anymore". It is just that, once established that the painting was not from 
Rembrandt, its historical and artistic significance became different and 
murkier. For instance, it could be a faithful or crappy copy of something 
that Rembrandt did (but has been lost since), or an original work from an 
unknown genius. In any case it cannot be studied from a "Rembrandt" 
perspective anymore. The painting no longer tells us anything about 
Rembrandt, all the "Rembrandt" features people admired in it have 
disappeared and whatever it told us about Rembrandt must now be erased from 
art books. It's now in its own little isolated bubble of art history. It 
does not mean that people should not enjoy it, but it cannot be looked at 
and appreciated the same way as before.

G.

Post a reply to this message

> I doubt that the curators thought that the painting was "not so good 
> anymore". It is just that, once established that the painting was not from 
> Rembrandt, its historical and artistic significance became different and 
> murkier. For instance, it could be a faithful or crappy copy of something

Why? It is the painting that is important, not the painter. At least in my 
point of view.

Either the painting was good or was bad. If it was good and a fine example 
of the baroque style, it still is or still should be. It was painted in the 
period - so much is clear. My point is that it should not matter who did the 
work - the work should speak for itself.

> unknown genius. In any case it cannot be studied from a "Rembrandt" 
> perspective anymore. The painting no longer tells us anything about 
> Rembrandt, all the "Rembrandt" features people admired in it have 
> disappeared and whatever it told us about Rembrandt must now be erased 
> from art books.

I grant you that. If you are not interested in baroque art but in 
"Rembrandt" (the painter) you are right. But if it was considered a 
masterpiece of the baroque style of art (which it was for decades) then it 
still should be considered a masterpiece - regardless if it was painted by 
Rembrandt or John Doe.

Post a reply to this message

TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> > I doubt that the curators thought that the painting was "not so good 
> > anymore". It is just that, once established that the painting was not from 
> > Rembrandt, its historical and artistic significance became different and 
> > murkier. For instance, it could be a faithful or crappy copy of something

> Why? It is the painting that is important, not the painter. At least in my 
> point of view.

  Because history of art is not only about the art but also about the
artists. If you are writing a history book about a certain artist, you
only want to study artwork from that precise artist, not artwork that
might look somewhat similar but not made by him.

  You might not appreciate the persons themselves and their personal styles,
but others do.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:15:27 +0200, TC get-enough-spam-already-2498.com>  
<do-not-reply@i-do> wrote:

> Yesterday I stumbled upon some pictures of the Sistine Chapel. And once
> again I was reminded of the hypocrisy of man.
>
> Do not get me wrong - the images are nice and exceptional pieces of art.
> Which means I like them, especially in their restored state. Nonetheless,
> how can it be that the Pope, the steward of Christ, is elected beneath a
> blasphemous image?
>
> When, as a child, I first looked upon the "Creation of Adam", my first
> though was: nice picture. My second thought was: isn't there a  
> commandment
> telling us "thou shalt not make an image of god"? How can it be that in  
> one
> of the most holy places of Christendom there is an image in violation of  
> the
> commandments themselves, a sacrilegious blasphemy beneath which the  
> Vicar of
> Christ is elected?

No, it does not say not to make an image of god:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
  	
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing  
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in  
the waters beneath the earth:
  	
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD  
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the  
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
"Deut 5:7,8,9 KJV

It is clear that it says to to make an image of anything at all for the  
purpose of worship. There was artwork on the tabernacle for instance. But  
they were not allowed to worship the art, but God.

>
> I am no believer. "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" would condemn too many
> people for too puny a sin to be just (most Chinese, Indian, Japanese,
> African, all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, Mormons, Shakers, and
> many, many more). So, as an unbeliever, the image does not offend me.

I suppose this is based on Hebrews 10:26
The Bible doesn't say you can't be saved if you don't go to church. It  
says to watch that you don't fall away from God.

> But to
> any Christian (and any Jew and Muslim) it should be most offensive. Yet  
> it
> was commissioned by a Pope. Hypocrisy.
>
> The pictures are a reminder of the hypocrisy and foolishness of man in  
> yet
> another way. When I was young, the pictures were still in their
> non-restored, dark state. The frescos were plain dirty from the fumes of  
> the
> candles - a state not recognised by most professional appreciators of  
> art.
>
> So Michelangelo was praised in textbooks for the use of muted colours
> befitting such a holy place. Nothing bright and colourful. Woe to the
> student who would say otherwise when writing a test in "Arts" concerning
> this subject.
>
And the colours of the origninal priests clothing was very bright, red and  
blue and gold. I don't know where they got the notion that the Bible says  
you must be sedate in everything....

> Now, after restoration, the colours are bright and beautiful. Lo and  
> behold:
> now Michelangelo is praised for the use of those bright colours,  
> befitting
> such a holy place.
>
> Sorry folks: either the one or the other - all else is just hypocrisy and
> shows the foolishness of man - especially the foolishness of professional
> appreciators of art.
>

People take the Bible and try to use it to control others. You get a  
totally different picture if you only look at the Bible and not how people  
are abusing it.

Frankly, i don't fair to dismiss the Bible because of the way people abuse  
it.

Unfortunately you will get double standards everywhere, not just in  
religion.

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> 
>> Same goes for forgeries: if a forgery is so good it cannot be distinguished
>> by a visual inspection of professionals, the result is as good or bad as the
>> original. When a forgery is so good that it has been exhibited in a museum,
>> it should not matter if it is "genuine" or not - the picture should speak
>> for itself.
> 
> Yes, but these guys are into the cult of personality, a weakness of western
> culture.  The lone artist as a romantic hero.
> 

True but there is also an appreciation of the 'hand' of the artist, at 
least with painting, that there is something special about the 'touch' 
that can render the genius of the mind uniquely into paint.  And that is 
not only a western thing.  I wonder if it is not elevated even higher in 
the eastern traditions of calligraphy

Post a reply to this message