I think text and image conflict sometimes, maybe out of frustration an artist
needs to verbalize because of not realizing a fully coded image. If it's not
handled
in an inspiring manner, text and image can look awkward and highly
self-conscious.
Unless the wording is an integral component that compliments the form of the
work,
I see it as an embarrassing short coming with regard to fine art.


Lisa Holmes wrote:

> That the use of text on art work (prints, mixed, digital and oils) has become
popular. If a visual image is great, should there be text?  Does a great image
require futher ezplaination or is this an additional complimentry feature of the
work?
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !





----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

I am a classical oil portrait painter and I often use text - names - in my
portraits. It is always well integrated into the design and thus becomes a
design element, not an "explanation" of anything. This is not a new trend in my
particular field,
as it has been an important element in portraiture since the 14th century. At
the present time, however, the use of text is largely uncommon. I don't know
why.
Karin Wells
www.prtraits.com/wells

Chris Zielski wrote:

> Lisa Holmes wrote:
>
> > That the use of text on art work (prints, mixed, digital and oils) has
become popular. If a visual image is great, should there be text?  Does a great
image require futher ezplaination or is this an additional complimentry feature
of the work?
>
> Hi, I am new to this list (just lurking to get a feel for things here :) ) but
wanted to post on this topic.
>
> I work in textiles primarily, and have recently started incorporating text
into my work.  For me the element of text has nothing to do with explaining the
piece.  It is more about exploring word associations and connotations through
the
> juxtaposition of words/ phrases with visual elements.
>
> If the text is well integrated into the piece, there shouldn't be a question
of whether it "needs" to be there -- it is just a part of the experience.  If
the work can exist successfully without the text (or perhaps the text without
the piece)
> than perhaps they are not truly integrated?
>
> Chris
>
> http://www.nacs.net/~preed
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !





----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Donald A Jusko wrote:

> "The most praiseworthy form of painting is the one that most resembles what it
imitates." Leonardo
>
> And what Andy would have said about that?  Not that I care, but somebody
might.

I think he would have agreed.  Artists have often reflected their world
and society, from Rennaisance to the present day.  Warhol chose business
as his subject.  The silk screen processes and multiples resemble
closely  features of his subject.

Strolls

"Painting surpasses nature because natural products are finite in
number, and the works which the eye commands of the hands are infinite"
								 Leonardo




----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Lisa Holmes wrote:
>
> That the use of text on art work (prints, mixed, digital and oils) has become
popular. If a visual image is great, should there be text?  Does a great image
require futher ezplaination or is this an additional complimentry feature of the
work?
>

Some thoughts...

1) Since the advent of conceptual art, the work can be entirely text.

2) Text can make great images in its own right.

3) A great image can stand on its own two feet.

4) Renaissance artists often used symbolism in a time when few could
read.  They sometimes also used text.

As you can probably guess - I have no problems with text in artworks.

Strolls



----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Lisa Holmes wrote:

> That the use of text on art work (prints, mixed, digital and oils) has become
popular. If a visual image is great, should there be text?  Does a great image
require futher ezplaination or is this an additional complimentry feature of the
work?

Hi, I am new to this list (just lurking to get a feel for things here :) ) but
wanted to post on this topic.

I work in textiles primarily, and have recently started incorporating text into
my work.  For me the element of text has nothing to do with explaining the
piece.  It is more about exploring word associations and connotations through
the
juxtaposition of words/ phrases with visual elements.

If the text is well integrated into the piece, there shouldn't be a question of
whether it "needs" to be there -- it is just a part of the experience.  If the
work can exist successfully without the text (or perhaps the text without the
piece)
than perhaps they are not truly integrated?


Chris

http://www.nacs.net/~preed



----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

That the use of text on art work (prints, mixed, digital and oils) has become
popular. If a visual image is great, should there be text?  Does a great image
require futher ezplaination or is this an additional complimentry feature of the
work?



----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Lisa Holmes wrote:

> If the artist is unknown, are there stylistic characteristics, expressive
properties, and/or special subjects that constitute evidence that an art work
could be attributed to a woman rather than a man?

Woman that have had the time to practice have always been as practiced as men.In
fact I have one woman in mind I would put on top.
1832, Elizabeth Vege'e-Lebrun, 1775-1842, France. She improved art over 17th
century France, with
her colors and gestures. She showed the new colors the best in my opinion,
excellent drawing, the
"high-artist" of the time.
Who would you place next to her as the male, pick from any time slot.

> Are there some kinds of strengths or mistakes that are clues to the gender of
an artist?  Is it possible to read certain properties into works as the artist's
social condition or religious convictions or emotional state? What are your
thoughts?


Don Jusko
Traditional Realist
Painting Maui on Location
150 paintings with painting tips on line.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/index.htm

"The most praiseworthy form of painting is the one that most resembles what it
imitates." Leonardo

And what Andy would have said about that?  Not that I care, but somebody might.




----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Dave Stull wanted to respond to ELF's email, but had technical difficulties and
asked me to post ELF's email and his response. -- koko
------------------------------------------------------------
ELF WROTE:

You pick on artists as example who are so revered as to make
disagreement with you akin to blasphemy.  If you move even slightly closer to
the fringes of art, to (as mentioned in my response to Graham Levi) Dali or
Warhol, then the "opinion" begins to rear its beautiful or ugly (another
opinion) head.  If history can be any sort of guide, then there are other
currently "undiscovered" works of art that will, at some future date, be as
revered as the ones you mentioned, but today they lie unappreciated.

Not only do art and artists get tossed about in this sea of "opinion", but so
does "science" and the men of science. A book with the title (if memory holds)
"Ideas in Conflict", written by a NASA rocket scientist (memory of author's name
fails me, its been 15 years or more) provides a short biography of 10 renowned
scientists (most living) who have been ostracised and persecuted in our day as
much as Socrates, Copernicus, and Galileo were in theirs.  Velikovski, and
Bertrand Russell are in the
modern list.  Their persecution comes from an establishment calling itself
"Science" which claims to be seeking the truth, but fail to let opinions
contrary to their present dogma to be discussed.

We have a similar Cadre of the faithful in art.  Opinions contrary to  "THE
ACCEPTED ART" are distasteful. Therefore the opinions are discredited.  And,
also discredited are those who state those opinions.  Kill the messenger, win
the war, right???  Wrong.  For with time, a new Cadre with a different bias will
assume power.

The "critic" exposed here is not a critic of some imagined ---PURE ART or TRUE
ART---, but a critic of a society (which historically seems to include all
societies) that establish maxims and rules that exclude individuals by
establishing one opinion or set of opinions about our physical world as 
---TRUTH.  They thereby avoid the wearisome problem of having to discuss the
issue.

What if I see a "better" David inside that block of marble...  Or, perhaps I
might see a Mohammed, or Zwingli, or Roger Williams ..., but too late,
Michaelangelo has already ruined the stone for me.

Of course.... that is just my opinion.  And, yours may be just as valid.

....elf...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dave Stull's Response:

ELF,

      Art is an endeavor...an activity. Artists are people who engage in that
activity, and art objects are the result and documentation of that activity.
Viewing art objects may well be completely subject to opinion, as you suggest,
but viewing art objects is not art itself. My post may have been crude and a bit
"hot-headed", but I find it annoying to see it suggested (as a critic would be
arrogant enough to do) that what the artist has done is of no consequence, but
what the mighty viewer thinks he is seeing is paramount, and therefor the
viewer's 'opinion' defines all of art.

      This is a lie. The art is the activity that the artist engaged in that
produced the art object. The art was NOT a matter of opinion. It was an activity
predicated on a specific set of intentions, and then carried out. The fact that
the viewer may have difficulty understanding the exact nature of this intent,
and therefor must form an 'opinion'
about what it may have been, does not mean that the object itself is the product
of opinion, as that cute but misleading phrase suggested. Opinion is in the eye
of the beholder, not in the art or the art objects themselves.

      Duchamp made a great many objects that caused, purposely, a wide variety of
opinions on the part of those who viewed them. Yet Duchamp was not 'making
opinions', he was making art. His particular artwork happened to be about
opinion, and this adds another layer to the conceptual event, but he still knew
exactly what he was doing. What HE was doing was not an opinion. It only became
opinion after the fact.

      I do not make opinions, I make art. People form opinions about it
afterword. This is fine, but their opinions are not the art itself. And I
resented the belittling inference that what I make is merely opinion.

Dave S. (Purex)


-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=18
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

If the artist is unknown, are there stylistic characteristics, expressive
properties, and/or special subjects that constitute evidence that an art work
could be attributed to a woman rather than a man?  Are there some kinds of
strengths or mistakes that are clues to the gender of an artist?  Is it possible
to read certain properties into works as the artist's social condition or
religious convictions or emotional state? What are your thoughts?


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Good Monday To You all!!  We now have a large number of participants in our
newsgroup.  A good time to review some rules.  Thank you Graham Levi for
providing me with this information!!

------------------------------------------------------------

Internet Etiquette

Adapted from Internet Etiquette, by Stan Horwitz (stan@...)

The Internet is a  vast community of people from all  over the world. In this
global electronic community, the  only impression other people have of you is 
based on what you  say through your writing and  how well you
say  it. A  thorough knowledge  of  E-mail etiquette  will help  prevent
misunderstandings. The  following tips apply to  sending any information you 
write  over the  Internet  (i.e.,  Usenet, Listserv,  and  E-mail):

Use mixed case text in your  writing. Uppercase text denotes shouting so you 
may  offend some  people  by  typing  in  all uppercase  text.  All uppercase
text is also hard to read.

Never send  chain letters via the  Internet. Sending a chain  letter can annoy
recipients  and cause  hostility. Some  recipients will  return so many copies
of the letter to you  (mail bombing) that it could crash the system you  use for
E-mail. Other  people will report you  to your local system administrator who
might  suspend your Internet access privileges.

Include a subject heading in each  E-mail message you send. Be sure that your
subject  heading is  brief and clearly  indicates exactly  what you intend to
write  about. This helps people organize  and prioritize their incoming E-mail.
Many  people will ignore a message if  it does not have
a subject indicated or if it is  vague. They feel that any message which does 
not  include  a  clearly  written  subject  isn't  worth  reading. Additionally,
if you  reply  to  a message,  make  sure  your reply  is relevant to  the
subject of the  original message. If not,  the thoughts you  intend to  convey
in  your  message won't  match up  with what  the subject  says  it should  be 
about.  This  will confuse  your  readers.

Don't post  the same  message to many  different Usenet  groups. Posting the 
same   message  on  several Usenet  groups  at  once is  called crossposting.
Many people read several  groups and they get annoyed when they see the same
message  appear in different places. Crossposting also wastes network resources 
and people's time. Post your  messages only to the minimum number of groups 
necessary.

Don't  post a  message  on a  group  unless the  topic  of your  message
pertains to the  topic of discussion on that group.  For instance, don't post a 
question about a  computer problem on  a group that  talks about science 
fiction movies.  Before you  post a  message to  any discussion group, read
through  that group's postings to be sure  you know what the group's discussion 
is all about.  If you're  not sure about  the topic, ask on the group.

Don't be afraid to post a message on a discussion group if you think the message
is appropriate  for the group. No one will  bite you for posting a  message as 
long  as  you don't  consciously  try  to offend  anyone. Electronic discussion 
groups work  best when a  large number  of people contribute  to the 
discussion.  This free  exchange  of information  or opinion is what  helps to
make the Internet a  dynamic global community.

As you  begin to  learn about  the Internet  and its  various discussion groups,
you will  probably want to try your hand  at posting messages to some groups.
The best way to learn  about this is to send a test message to a  group,
however, people who  have been participating in  that group (particularly busy
groups) hate to  see test messages interfere with the flow of the discussion on
there. For  that reason, a few groups were set up just  for testing purposes. On
listserv, you're welcome to  try your
hand at posting messages to test@... if you're on the Internet or 
test@templevm  if  you're  on BITnet.  For  Usenet  groups,  there's alt.test,
misc.test.  Most Usenet  group hierarchies  have a  test group within  them. 
Please  use  these  groups  for  your  testing  attempts.

Be careful  in what  you say  and how  you say  it. E-mail  is faceless.
Unintentionally   offending  someone   is  easy   because  your   facial
expressions  cannot be  seen and  the emotion  in your  voice cannot  be heard. 
If you're  joking,  say so  or  use a  smilie  face symbol.  For
example, use :)  to denote a humorous  smile. A list of  smilie faces is
available  via  anonymous  ftp  on ftp.temple.edu  and  on  many  Gopher
servers.

If you receive a lot of  E-mail which you requested, you are responsible to 
read it  on a  timely basis.  Don't let  your account  overflow with E-mail.
This  can easily happen with  some busy Listserv groups.  If you don't regularly
read E-mail from a  particular list, sign off  it. Many
discussions have  archives which can  be retrieved from  the appropriate
Listserver. If  you go away  for a while  and cannot check  your E-mail, suspend
your Listserv subscriptions until you return.

The Internet  is neither  private nor  secure. Some  people can  look at almost 
anything you  send through  the Internet,  even private  E-mail. Don't  send
confidential  information  (i.e.,  social security  numbers, credit card
numbers, etc.) to anyone else via the Internet.

Things that are NOT good netiquette...

   (a) Posting a single article or substantially similar articles to an excessive
number of newsgroups (i.e., more than 20) or continued posting of articles which
are off-topic (e.g., off-topic according to the newsgroup charter or the article
provokes complaints from the regular readers of the newsgroup for being
off-topic).
   (b) Sending unsolicited mass emailings (i.e., to more than 25 users) which
provoke complaints from the recipients.
   (c) Engaging in either (a) or (b) from a provider other than VAIS and using an
account on VAIS as a mail drop for responses.
   (d) Continued harrassment of other individuals on the Internet after being
asked to stop by those individuals and by VAIS.
   (e) Impersonating another user or otherwise falsifying one's user name in
email, Usenet postings, on IRC, or with any other Internet service.  (This does
not preclude the use of nicknames in IRC or the use of anonymous remailer
services.)
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your attention in this matter....




----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Hello there you little diamond!!

I went to your site and was duly impressed by your great work.

I took notes for twenty years while painting on location here on Maui.  I tested
everything that could be mixed with pigment, in every concentration.  I studied
the mediums of every great artist through the ages and tested them all to come
up with my favorite mediums for murals, impastos, glazing and normal painting.

Let's compare favorites.

I just got a new Copal medium from Garret, they sent it to me to test.
If they had read my course notes they would know how I dislike copal, but they
say there's is different, better.  So I want to add it to my tests.

To get my favorite mediums go to my index page of frames and bring the course
into the top frame.

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/index.htm

I'm just guessing, but I bet we come pretty close to the same mixes.  Scroll
down to the "MAKING MEDIUMS" index link for the info..

Aloha from Maui, talk to you soon.



Karin Wells wrote:

> I think I'll unsubscribe to these discussions. Nothing personal, but I really
was looking for creative technical discussions of oil painting. Please let me
> know if there are any groups of this nature that I may have missed. Since I
make my living as a full-time painter, this "theoretical
> stuff" sounds a bit too much like useless art speak to me - and God knows, we
painters have enough of that nonsense to contend with. It has been my
experience, that when artists gather, we don't talk like this with each other -
we reserve it for  "collectors" and "gallery people" because they seem to expect
it of us. I am glad, however, that you folks care enough to spend your time
seriously discussing great art principles and ethics and I would like to think
that it will become a growing trend in society.
> Thanks for allowing me to participate for awhile. I would appreciate your
comments if you care to send them.
> Karin Wells
> kcwells@...
> www.prtraits.com/wells
>
> MGibb21521@... wrote:
>
> > This is a good topic for thought . . .
> > Mine is:
> > Beauty is such a subjective term, yes, there is a common deffinition, that
we all understand as beauty, however, is it the saftey in numbers that makes us
all agree to that deffinition? Ugliness then, is different, a risk, not what is
expected.  Beauty(in its social deffinition) can be so indulgent that it is
truley ugliness at it's worst - ugliness from it's soul, because of it's
insulting shallowness. Personally, I find beauty to be because of
non-traditional traits, expression, uniqueness.  A surface that causes you to
look further, be it an object, a person - whatever.
> >
> > ----
> > Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> > To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> > To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> > --
> > Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !



--
Don Jusko
Traditional Realist
Painting Maui on Location
150 paintings with painting tips on line.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/index.htm
                                                                                    
*

If you are worried about the volume and content of the lists discussions
(as one writer was recently) and you use MS Internet Mail, (or Netscape
navigator) you can easily go to the "inbox assistant" under mail, and sort
everything with "world
arts association" in the subject title into one folder, so as not to
clutter your in-box with hundreds of letters.




----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

The ESSENCE of art is OPINION???

I don't think so.

Is the essence of Michelangelo's 'David' opinion? Is the essence of Picasso's
'Guernica' opinion? Is the essence of Surrat's 'Sunday Afternoon in the Park'
opinion? Hardly!

Only a critic would write something that stupid (and self-serving). By calling
all of art opinion, they can at once degrade it (critics are mostly art-haters
in disguise) while inflating their own part in it to the realm of 'mighty
arbiter'.

C'mon artists! Don't fall for these 'clever' attempts at smearing art just
because they sound a little catchy! Think!

Dave S. (Purex)



-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=17
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

That's odd.... (but true)

But isn't the essence of art also a consensus of opinion?

Graham

----------
> From: elf@...
> To: worldart@...
> Cc: pooka2@...
> Subject: Re: [world arts association] beauty vs ugliness
> Date: Sunday, 26 July 1998 9:05
>
> This is a good topic for thought . . .
>
> Several days ago I read a comment about art by an associate that I
thought rather cryptic.  Now, after reading a few responses in the Beauty
vs Ugly discussion, I am convinced it has merit.  He says anyone may quote
him as long as they give proper credit (And I hope he didn't pick this up
subliminally from some other egotist.)
>
> It goes thus:
> "The essence of Art is a Difference of Opinion."
>  Dann Flesher"
>
> It fits....
> ...ELF...
>
> > Mine is:
> > Beauty is such a subjective term, yes, there is a common deffinition,
that we all understand as beauty, however, is it the saftey in numbers that
makes us all agree to that deffinition? Ugliness then, is different, a
risk, not what is expected.  Beauty(in its social deffinition) can be so
indulgent that it is truley ugliness at it's worst - ugliness from it's
soul, because of it's insulting shallowness. Personally, I find beauty to
be because of non-traditional traits, expression, uniqueness.  A surface
that causes you to look further, be it an object, a person - whatever.
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> > To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> > To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> > --
> > Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=13
> Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
>
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

This is a good topic for thought . . .

Several days ago I read a comment about art by an associate that I thought
rather cryptic.  Now, after reading a few responses in the Beauty vs Ugly
discussion, I am convinced it has merit.  He says anyone may quote him as long
as they give proper credit (And I hope he didn't pick this up subliminally from
some other egotist.)

It goes thus:
"The essence of Art is a Difference of Opinion."
  Dann Flesher"

It fits....
...ELF...

> Mine is:
> Beauty is such a subjective term, yes, there is a common deffinition, that we
all understand as beauty, however, is it the saftey in numbers that makes us all
agree to that deffinition? Ugliness then, is different, a risk, not what is
expected.  Beauty(in its social deffinition) can be so indulgent that it is
truley ugliness at it's worst - ugliness from it's soul, because of it's
insulting shallowness. Personally, I find beauty to be because of
non-traditional traits, expression, uniqueness.  A surface that causes you to
look further, be it an object, a person - whatever.
>
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !
>
>



-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=13
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Reading this month's issue of Wired magazine and have come across an artical
called (In)visible Hand.  Gunther von Hagens gets under your skin --
permanently.  To make his job easier the German anatomy professor developed
plastination, a method of preserving the post-mortem body down to the smallest
visible detail.  For his specimens, the arterial blood vessels in a body were
drained and then injected with a colored polymer; the compound was then hard
cured and all surrounding tissue was stripped away.  Von Hagen's work is on full
display in "Koeperwelten" (Body Worlds) an exhibition that graphically revels
the human form in various stages of anatomical undress.  The show has a catalog
available in German and Japanese and is available.  Fax: 011-49-6221-332859.

Barnabas Strickland
http://home.earthlink.net/~theconceptco/Barnabas.html
b-art@...


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

I think I'll unsubscribe to these discussions. Nothing personal, but I really
was looking for creative technical discussions of oil painting. Please let me
know if there are any groups of this nature that I may have missed. Since I make
my living as a full-time painter, this "theoretical
stuff" sounds a bit too much like useless art speak to me - and God knows, we
painters have enough of that nonsense to contend with. It has been my
experience, that when artists gather, we don't talk like this with each other -
we reserve it for  "collectors" and "gallery people" because they seem to expect
it of us. I am glad, however, that you folks care enough to spend your time
seriously discussing great art principles and ethics and I would like to think
that it will become a growing trend in society.
Thanks for allowing me to participate for awhile. I would appreciate your
comments if you care to send them.
Karin Wells
kcwells@...
www.prtraits.com/wells

MGibb21521@... wrote:

> This is a good topic for thought . . .
> Mine is:
> Beauty is such a subjective term, yes, there is a common deffinition, that we
all understand as beauty, however, is it the saftey in numbers that makes us all
agree to that deffinition? Ugliness then, is different, a risk, not what is
expected.  Beauty(in its social deffinition) can be so indulgent that it is
truley ugliness at it's worst - ugliness from it's soul, because of it's
insulting shallowness. Personally, I find beauty to be because of
non-traditional traits, expression, uniqueness.  A surface that causes you to
look further, be it an object, a person - whatever.
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !





----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

This is a good topic for thought . . .
Mine is:
Beauty is such a subjective term, yes, there is a common deffinition, that we
all understand as beauty, however, is it the saftey in numbers that makes us all
agree to that deffinition? Ugliness then, is different, a risk, not what is
expected.  Beauty(in its social deffinition) can be so indulgent that it is
truley ugliness at it's worst - ugliness from it's soul, because of it's
insulting shallowness. Personally, I find beauty to be because of
non-traditional traits, expression, uniqueness.  A surface that causes you to
look further, be it an object, a person - whatever.


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Sorry, lost my train of thought there...

THEREFORE, I feel the concept of 'ugly' comes from the biological
definition of ugliness - that which we would not seek to be genetically
splices with - and in the artistic or aesthetic sphere, ugliness is not
really a concern at all; as long as formalist principles are stimulated....

Graham


----------
> From: Lisa Holmes <artspeak@...>
> To: worldart@...
> Cc: Taro Kimura <hx2t-kmr@...>; guillaume paris
<spirited@...>; Christine Dumbsky <christine@...>
> Subject: [world arts association] Relationship of Beauty to Ugliness
> Date: Saturday, 25 July 1998 0:41
>
> There is an undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists
have long disagreed over how to characterize that opposition.  Is
everything ugly necessarily not beautiful and vice versa?  Or are there
beautiful ugly things and some things that are ugly despite their beauty?
Is our society and art museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not
to upset the public?
>
>
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

More Responses to a hypothetical situation I posted on
  	 some of the art newsgroups, and the responses were as
  	 follows....do you have any thoughts?
  ------------------------------------------------------------
> ETHICS IN ART
>
> You are a friend of a very famous artist who secretly admits to you that the
one of their most famous works was in fact
> created by a visitor to their studio.  That by mistake it was sent out to the
gallery and later sold to a museum.
>  As his friend do you keep the secret, or do you expose the work as a fraud? 
Revealing what you know may result in endless lawsuits and deep embarrassment on
all sides.  Is the authenticity of a work important in our society anymore?
>
>
>Koko
>World Arts Association
>http://www.artspeak.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard Will wrote in the last message:
> Perhaps I betray my early scientific training, where the value of an idea is
not dependent on the person who puts it forward. I have never been happy that
the aesthetic value of an art object, or the justification of placing it in a
museum, should depend on the name of the artist. Certainly it should not be
exhibited under a name known to be false, but should the object not speak for
itself?
>
> Of course I accept that in a history museum, for example, everyday objects may
be worth exhibiting only because of their historical associations, and the
accuracy of representational art may depend on the circumstances of its
creation, but is "fine art" not exhibited primarily
> because it is in itself interesting, stimulating, provoking of thoughts and
emotions, etc.?
>
> So my answer to this question, so long as the museum's legal title to hold the
object is still valid, would be "Change the label, keep the object".
>
> Leonard Will
> --
> Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
> Information Management Consultants
> Tel: +44 181 372 0092
> 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 7BQ, UK
> Fax: +44 181 372 0094
> L.Will@...
> URL: http://www.willpower.demon.co.uk/
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
He (Leonard Will) took the words right out of my mouth.  Of course I can't lay
claim to a scientific background.  But pretty much, the work should stand on its
own, and who knows, we've found another great century artist lurking in
the shadows of a better known one.

O
Olivia S. Anastasiadis, Curator
Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace
18001 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Yorba Linda, CA  92886
(714) 993-5075 ext. 224; fax (714) 528-0544; e-mail:  oa@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   The idea that a work of art should "stand on its own," is certainly a nice
one, isn't it? Then again, such a notion reveals the canyon between theory and
practice that museum's face every day. Let's face it folks, the Picasso-looking
painting that the neighbor kid painted will ever be as important as the Picasso
that Picasso himself painted.
And, there are great arguments on both sides of the canyon.

John Handley
JHANDLEY@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
One has to remember that Picasso was one of the first modern artists to use the
media to shape acceptance of his work. Still, it was a long time before
'contemporary' art was accepted as worthy of collecting.

Asking the question "what is art?" opens a huge abyss of debate--as will on the
question of "if" art can "stand on its own." For example, the motivations which
led to the Armoury Show, and the successive tidal wave
of support and detraction, make what happens when art world fault-line finally
slips into the media and public attention. At that Armoury Show, the works there
were not accepted by any of the existing major museums--but many are now the
mainstay of those same museums.

The NEA and NEH can be targets of Repulican mortar-fire, as they are by the
neo-nazi Christian Right. In the wake of a smoke cloud from such a successful
barrage, would be acceptance of an artistic banality like the 1930's Nazi German
pap.

Of course, when the "great masters" were working, weren't there other artists
who were being excluded in those mono-lithic structures of support and
acceptance? Does "official art" leave room for art "to stand on its own?"

Dave Wells
bootbnd@...
Olympia WA
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hello.

      I am not police. As a friend I would recomend that my artistic pal go to
the museum, explain the accident, and offer to exchange another artwork for the
one in question. But should he decide not to do that, I would then leave it be.
If at some point there should be some investigation, he would have to understand
that I won't lie for him, but otherwise I feel it is his business.
     Some would complain that I'm allowing him to steal money, etc., but as far
as I'm concerned art has nothing to do with money anyway. And since we cannot
avoid improperly mixing the two, than all art objects are worth whatever they
fetch, reguardless of the illusionary stipulations placed upon it by the
economic public. They shouldn't have thought they could buy integrity in the
first place, as real integrity wouldn't require a price. Which is precisely why
I would have advised my friend to choose the path of integrity on his own.
Because it has a value outside of the
money.

           Dave S. (Purex)
davestul@...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Lisa,
    If you keep the secret, you've made the original that remains in your studio
"worthless." However, that
alone means nothing. When you make a genuine error, discover it, and fail to
correct it, you've devalued
yourself. You must tell and let the chips fall where they may. If the curator
who "authenticated" the fraud
is ethical, he/she will be grateful more than embarassed.
     It is a standard ethical practice, that when an artist - usually a student -
copies and old master (or
anybody for that matter), one will change "something" in the painting (i.e.,
size, signature, etc.). Please
check out my website for two "old master" copies (Hals and Lawrence) and you'll
see what I mean.
Karin Wells kcwells@...
http://www.prtraits.com/wells
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As the friend of an arist who makes such a confession, it may be wrong for you
to betray his confidence. It would be more appropiate to encourgage the artist
to
take the rectify the situation. Since the work was done by a visitor, it would
be reasonalbe to expect the visitor to find out anyway ..especially if the work
has made the artist famous. The axe is likely to fall eventually.
Garland Hopkins
http://home1.gte.net/garland9/index.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=6
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

The Original Question:

There is an undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists have
long disagreed over how to characterize that opposition.  Is everything ugly
necessarily not beautiful and vice versa?  Or are there beautiful ugly things
and some things that are ugly despite their beauty? Is our society and art
museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not to upset the public?
------------------------------------------------------------
I have no trouble with beauty being only skin deep, some word has to describe
the surface appearance. Let another word describe other attributes, keep it
simple. The taste of beauty changes and it is sex related.  In my mind you can
have a perfect diamond, not a beautiful diamond.  Beauty describes sexual
appearance.  That word, like "art" has become to mean to many things.  The
beautiful art of cooking.... geez Of course this is only my humble opinion.  You
can think anything you like.

Don Jusko
donjusko@...
http:www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/index.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Beauty and ugliness are subjective to the beholder, but because we humans are
fairly similar, we tend to have a general consensus as to what they are at any
given time. Times change, however, and so does that consensus eventually.

To an artists, 'beauty' and it's antithisis are tools, not ideals. We use them
as appropriate, just as we use any other tool: like symmetry, balance, hue,
technique, subject matter, historical reference, ect. If beauty were all we were
after, we would not be artists, but decorators.
If craft were all we were after, we would not be artists, but craftsmen. If
function were all we were after we would be manufacturers. If fame and money
were all we wanted we would be entrepreneurs. The public may be interested in
art, mistakenly, for one of these other purposes, but an artist by the
definition of the word, is not.

The next logical question is, "So than what ARE artists doing?". That is not so
easy to answer. I prefer to define art by what it is not, but that usually
pisses people off, like I'm playing a trick on them. So I'll be romantic instead
and say that artists are discovering and
sharing their inner spirit with others, through the physical act of creativity.

How's that????

Dave S.
davestull@...
http://www.enteract.com/~davestul/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> There is an
undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists have long disagreed
over how to
characterize that opposition.  Is everything ugly necessarily not beautiful and
vice versa?  Or are there
beautiful ugly things and some things that are ugly despite their beauty?

Trite but true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

> Is our society and art museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not to
upset the public?

I wish they were. It would make a trip to the modern section of an art museum
more pleasant.

Karin Wells
kcwells@...
http://www.prtraits.co/wells

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX





-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=7
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

Excuse my last mail: here is the intended mail.

This is undeniably an interesting question! I presume that there are two
answers, one aesthetic, the other biological. I think galleries are full of
paintings that stimulate the viewer through pure form and function. In the
late 20th Century, after an extended formalist art tradition, I am very
turned on by colour, shape, tone etc; and in my own work, I find beauty in
these things. Converging with this, is a concept of 'the natural' where
beauty is self-evident through things natural - be they created or organic
- illusory or real. Is it in opposition to this, that we find the other
side of beauty, the biological imperative of sexual attraction? This is the
other form of beauty, that which encourages propagation or the spreading of
our genetics. Is there a link between aesthetics and biology?

Graham


--------------------
Visit my art gallery at http://pacific-pages.com/leviart/
--------------------
> From: Lisa Holmes <artspeak@...>
> To: worldart@...
> Cc: Taro Kimura <hx2t-kmr@...>; guillaume paris
<spirited@...>; Christine Dumbsky <christine@...>
> Subject: [world arts association] Relationship of Beauty to Ugliness
> Date: Saturday, 25 July 1998 0:41
>
> There is an undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists
have long disagreed over how to characterize that opposition.  Is
everything ugly necessarily not beautiful and vice versa?  Or are there
beautiful ugly things and some things that are ugly despite their beauty?
Is our society and art museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not
to upset the public?
>
>
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

----------
> From: Lisa Holmes <artspeak@...>
> To: worldart@...
> Cc: Taro Kimura <hx2t-kmr@...>; guillaume paris
<spirited@...>; Christine Dumbsky <christine@...>
> Subject: [world arts association] Relationship of Beauty to Ugliness
> Date: Saturday, 25 July 1998 0:41
>
> There is an undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists
have long disagreed over how to characterize that opposition.  Is
everything ugly necessarily not beautiful and vice versa?  Or are there
beautiful ugly things and some things that are ugly despite their beauty?
Is our society and art museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not
to upset the public?
>
>
>
> ----
> Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
> To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
> To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
> --
> Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

There is an undeniable opposition between beauty and ugliness, theorists have
long disagreed over how to characterize that opposition.  Is everything ugly
necessarily not beautiful and vice versa?  Or are there beautiful ugly things
and some things that are ugly despite their beauty? Is our society and art
museums guilty of collecting 'beautiful' work as not to upset the public?



----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

More Responses to a hypothetical situation I posted on
 	 some of the art newsgroups, and the responses were as
 	 follows....do you have any thoughts?
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ETHICS IN ART
>
> You are a friend of a very famous artist who secretly admits to you that the
one of their most famous works was in fact
> created by a visitor to their studio.  That by mistake it was sent out to the
gallery and later sold to a museum.
> As his friend do you keep the secret, or do you expose the work as a fraud? 
Revealing what you know may result in endless lawsuits and deep embarrassment on
all sides.  Is the authenticity of a work important in our society anymore?
>
>
> Koko
> World Arts Association
> http://www.artspeak.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps I betray my early scientific training, where the value of an idea is not
dependent on the person who puts it forward. I have never been happy that the
aesthetic value of an art object, or the justification of placing it in a
museum, should depend on the name of the artist. Certainly it should not be
exhibited under a name known to be false, but should the object not speak for
itself?

Of course I accept that in a history museum, for example, everyday objects may
be worth exhibiting only because of their historical associations, and the
accuracy of representational art may depend on the circumstances of its
creation, but is "fine art" not exhibited primarily
because it is in itself interesting, stimulating, provoking of thoughts and
emotions, etc.?

So my answer to this question, so long as the museum's legal title to hold the
object is still valid, would be "Change the label, keep the object".

Leonard Will
--
Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants
Tel: +44 181 372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 7BQ, UK
Fax: +44 181 372 0094
L.Will@...
URL: http://www.willpower.demon.co.uk/
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an
unpardonable mannerism of style.

Oscar Wilde -  The Picture of Dorian Gray

Bruce C. Craig              Internet:  OMPEM004@...
Center for Museum Studies   Smithsonian Institution
A&I 2235-MRC427             Washington, DC  20560
(202) 357-3148              FAX:(202) 357-3346
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Absolutely admit "YES" to the work being of my
friends.  if my career be made of one significant work, i should say if my life
is "made" important
by one piece of art, than i should question the quality of the life i am living.
ethics are the backbone of the quality of a society, when we sacrifice that we
are in terrible shape.  nothing of importance was ever gained by me through
compromising my own personal intergrity.
cheers, wendy melbye

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Any more thoughts?

-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=5
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

I posted this hypothetical situation on some of the art newsgroups, and the
responses were as follows....do you have any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------
ETHICS IN ART

You are a friend of a very famous artist who secretly admits to you that the one
of their most famous works was in fact
created by a visitor to their studio.  That by mistake it was sent out to the
gallery and later sold to a museum.
As his friend do you keep the secret, or do you expose the work as a fraud? 
Revealing what you know may result in endless lawsuits and deep embarrassment on
all sides.  Is the authenticity of a work important in our society anymore?


Koko
World Arts Association
http://www.artspeak.com
------------------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting question.  It almost presupposes that great art is
somehow greater than life.  This isn't a question about ethics in art.  It is a
question about ethics in life.  It is about whether or not you can morally allow
yourself to be a party to fraud, lies, and deception.

These questions are elements of how we conduct our most personal selves in a
larger society.  Art is merely window dressing in this case. It seems, in the
face of ethics, equally important for me to ask if you would stand by and watch
your friend receive too much change and not tell the cashier.
Whoaa....fell off my high horse there....

D. Neil Bremer
mailto:dneil@...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If the famous artist were stupid enough to put a friend in the position of
choosing between the ethics of friendship or of preventing fraud, then the
artist deserves the embarrassment.

If I were the friend, I would insist that the artist come forward and offer an
authentic  replacement to the museum, hopefully minimizing the embarrassment all
around.

To simply keep one's mouth shut would be unethical.  But the irony is that if
the fraud were to be discovered and lead to scandal, the work in question would
likely become famous and valuable -- and some collectors would undoubtedly come
forward to pay handsomely for the authentic forgery, but not a dime for an
imitation.

Stephen Nowlin
Director, Williamson Gallery
Vice President
Producer, Art Center Online
Art Center College of Design
http://www.artcenter.edu
mailto:nowlin@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
All I can say is heaven help our society if we do not take
truth and authenticity as serious.   I am surprised that the question is even
asked.

John Bing
Trustee, Laguna Art Museum
jabing@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One of the biggest problems with ART is that we take it too seriously.
Authenticity is a somewhat subjective commodity. Remember the Old Masters and
their numerous assistants? Remember R. Mutt's urinal? The artist and friend
should have planned more carefully, come up with a good alias and shared in the
glory.

Mark Nielsen
Exhibit Designer/Preparator
University of Michigan Museum of Art
mailto:mnielsen@...      313/647-2068
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ethics has nothing to do with embarrassment or even personal inconvenience. The
right thing to do would be to expose the work as a fraud. Just because the rest
of the world doesn't know about the deception doesn't make it right.
Cheers,
Iian Neill
University of Queensland
mailto:s367558@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The work is not a fraud if it is an honest effort by the visitor to the gallery.
If it was purched by the museum believing it is a work by the 'famous artist'
then its authenticity is important. If it is the only example of your friend's
work to be purchased by a museum and he won't rectify the situation than it's
proof he is a
bad artist and sad man.
Judith McGrath
mailto:judith@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
1st - it depends on the kind of art this famous artist does.

2nd - it depends on whether the museum that purchased the piece acknowledges the
history of painter's studios (aka 1 famous artist's sweatshop), ready-mades, and
collaborative works of art.

3rd - it depends on the actual piece of art.  If it is eloquent, beautiful, and
speaks to the soul of those who view it, then who cares which person made it. 
It exists and has value in its own right.  If its value is based in the world of
art critisizm as a "radical departure" of  this famous artist, then the whole
predicament is just humorous.

4th - are ethics rules? or are ethics a fluid system by which to judge how to
take action in a way that honors the needs of all the stakeholders?

Wendy Coones
mailto:wcoones@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

The question is...
>
>  Are Discussion Lists a good thing?


I Believe so Stephen.  It's a way for us to network and get information out to
everyone.  If you have a show, or an event you would like to announce, it will
keep the rest of us updated.

You could launch a conversation string about a certain topic you find
interesting.  The more interactive we can make the net, and the more
communication we can offer between The World Art Members, the stronger our
network will be.

> I am looking forward to receiving mails from my World Art friends

Networking is everything... glad to see you signed up!
>
> Fayre wynds and kynd seas
>
Lisa


-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/worldart/?start=3
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

The question is...

	 Are Discussion Lists a good thing?


Discuss



I am looking forward to receiving mails from my World Art friends

Fayre wynds and kynd seas

Strolls



----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

All the chat room events are posted on one page now.  Please see:

http://www.artspeak.com/waa/iwaa.html

For the latest news of hosted chats.

thanks!


----
Read this list on the Web at http://www.makelist.com/list/worldart/
To unsubscribe, email to worldart-unsubscribe@...
To subscribe, email to worldart-subscribe@...
--
Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://www.makelist.com !

The World Arts Association is a non-profit organziation serving artists and the
general public.  Any topic pertaining to fine art may be posted.