Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (15945)	12/30/1998 7:40:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Your perception is valid, IMHO. There is more. It is important to remember where these people were, and what their surroundings were. Typically, a kid was chosen to pursue a certain branch of art, after he or she (mostly he) had exhibited some ability. He was sent to a home where some actual artist lived, and put to work. If the Master was a gilder, the kid spent the day pounding a two foot high sandwich made of alternating layers of flat pieces of gold and leather. Oh, yeah. If the Master was a painter, the kid cleaned brushes and mixed paint. I mean he ground up pigments with a mortar and pestle, which IMHO, would be a step up from the pounding cowhide thing. There was a "school" of sorts, religious study, reading, writing, but mostly he worked his little butt off. No TV. No radio. No electricity. No beer. No wine. No parties. No telephone. No vacation. No nothing except work. And church. If he was good, and learned what to do, he moved up. Eventually he might be allowed to paint a cloud or a building or something on the Master's work. The Master was the Main Man, that's where the money came from, the Master's work. The Art Factory. We're talking 12-14 hours a day from like age 9. Anyone with a knack for something can get pretty good after 5 or 18 years of that. Then the big test came, were you psychotic, were you a monk, or were you The Next Master. And if you were the next Master, it was not always a Good Thing, since the dude you were working for was your competition. The "motivation" (if you want to call it that) was usually religious. The understanding was that the work was for the greater glory of the Supreme Being. As a matter of fact, (this is Western Art after about 1400, now) it was a Real Big Deal when an artist did something that had "no redeeming social value". Historians don't agree on who that was or when he did it, but it was about 500 years ago. There are guys that "paint like that" alive today. I know one personally. As a matter of fact, he is one of the best painters I have ever seen, ever. His name is Gregory Gillespie. He has spent his life learning to paint. No TV, no radio. And he is way way way good. Forum Gallery, NYC, remember I said nothing about the subject matter. But most people on the planet today are not that interested in the discipline required. And the truth is, it's not only how you say it, it's more important what it is you are saying.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (15945)	12/30/1998 11:06:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 71178

Steve, when I said that an artist is part of a tradition, what I meant was what TLC said, but he said it far better than I could have. Reading TLC's post made me think of my training, such as it is. I don't suppose it would be easy for a layperson to write an appellate brief. Lather would probably concur that it would be difficult for a layperson to figure out how to fractionate a sample of an organic compound. So, to some extent it is the years of training and the framework, and the tools, and the frame of reference. TLC, who I believe must be a painter, could verify my observation that they don't teach much worth knowing in most art departments in college these days. I remember when I was in college a couple of art professors lived nearby, one of them used to construct frameworks using driftwood and garbage bags. Not exactly Caravaggio. But, Caravaggio is a dead white European male.