Awesome Heroic Sculpture by Living Artist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I strictly allow absolutely nothing to dictate what, when or how I create fine art. For example, I would feel that I was selling out if I were forced to dedicate a couple of months to churning out dozens of quick landscapes in order to have enough paintings to fill space for an upcoming gallery show, which is something that I've seen you do, Michael. I'd feel totally compromised and, well, filthy, if I had to paint fine art according to a gallery's schedule or quantity requirements.

Jonathan,

As a point of curiosity, I agree with your affirmation of being master of your own artistic fate, but I am unclear as to why you would consider it filthy to do the equivalent of working on commission, making thematic contributions and similar. Many great artists did. Michaelangelo and so forth...

Isn't independence and integrity shown in the power to accept or not an assignment (and complete it), and not wholesale in actually doing the thing? I honestly don't see the filthiness.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I strictly allow absolutely nothing to dictate what, when or how I create fine art. For example, I would feel that I was selling out if I were forced to dedicate a couple of months to churning out dozens of quick landscapes in order to have enough paintings to fill space for an upcoming gallery show, which is something that I've seen you do, Michael. I'd feel totally compromised and, well, filthy, if I had to paint fine art according to a gallery's schedule or quantity requirements.

Jonathan,

As a point of curiosity, I agree with your affirmation of being master of your own artistic fate, but I am unclear as to why you would consider it filthy to do the equivalent of working on commission, making thematic contributions and similar. Many great artists did. Michaelangelo and so forth...

Isn't independence and integrity shown in the power to accept or not an assignment (and complete it), and not wholesale in actually doing the thing? I honestly don't see the filthiness.

Michael

It's not an issue of working on commission or the equivalent. It's the idea of thinking, "I'd prefer to be painting major works, but I have to make some money before I can do that," and then pumping out small, quick, marketable works which are created for the purpose of filling gallery space and making a buck instead of strictly for expressing oneself.

And you don't have to agree with me. It's how I see it. I'm talking about my personal preferences in how I approach, or don't approach, the creation of art.

J

Edited November 8, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

Jonathan: My concept of artistic integrity involves keeping my commercial and fine art distinctly separate. I strictly allow absolutely nothing to dictate what, when or how I create fine art. For example, I would feel that I was selling out if I were forced to dedicate a couple of months to churning out dozens of quick landscapes in order to have enough paintings to fill space for an upcoming gallery show, which is something that I've seen you do, Michael. I'd feel totally compromised and, well, filthy, if I had to paint fine art according to a gallery's schedule or quantity requirements. But, obviously you have a different view, and if it works for you, more power to you.

I paint across the board: plien air landscapes, still lifes, large and small paintings, all kinds of drawings, ect. All of them have different natures.

For example, there are different schools thought on plein air painting. You can go here to see a massive forum on Plein air alone: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/forumdispl...&forumid=87 (I don't know if you have to create an account to view the postings.)

The classic French Impressionist approach is to paint under an hour at a sitting. In this case the sun is the dictator. ;) As the sun moves the light on the landscape changes, sometimes radically. The Impressionists found out that sittings had to be very short, otherwise you kill the light effects.

Sometimes they, and myself, went back to the same location at the same hour of the day, and continued that way. I have always enjoyed working from life, for the irreplaceable nuances of light and color, right there before my eyes. Visual perception at its purest. When I capture something of the mood and color I am content and very happy with the work.

Knowing that plein air paintings by the nature of my approach, are quick works, it is simply natural that in a day I would make four or so. Plien air is also a virtuoso's art--the artist has to work incredibly quickly and deftly to make it work. In Plein air painting, a spontaneous gesture quality of the brushwork, and a sense of effortlessness are great qualities.

Desert Wave (This was painted in under an hour on location.)

Jonathan is incorrect when he talks about a gallery dictating a schedule or quantity requirements to me. I never had that experience. But, no, all the exhibitions I have had have been with work I love, when I was ready. So nothing whorish or compromising in that direction.

So those are a few of the facts that stand in direct contradiction to Jonathan's faulty reasoning about selling out. But it is interesting, never had anyone accuse me of that.

BTW, though this post is a retort to Jonathan, I brought into the discussion the nature of Plein air painting--which should help clarify that they are meant to be quickly painted. Either Jonathan is misleading us by design or ignorance--I don't know which.

Michael

Edited November 8, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

Jonathan is incorrect when he talks about a gallery dictating a schedule or quantity requirements to me. I never had that experience. But, no, all the exhibitions I have had have been with work I love, when I was ready. So nothing whorish or compromising in that direction.

If I can find the time, I'll go back through my archives to find the relevant messages about your preferring to work on "major works" but having to focus on smaller ones to take advantage of sales opportunities.

BTW, though this post is a retort to Jonathan, I brought into the discussion the nature of Plein air painting--which should help clarify that they are meant to be quickly painted. Either Jonathan is misleading us by design or ignorance--I don't know which.

There's nothing misleading or ignorant about what I said. Yes, plein air paintings are meant to be painted quickly. That would be the point: building up a new body of saleable work in a short period of time would mean choosing a painting style that can produce a lot of work in a short period of time.

J

[Newberry]

Jonathan is incorrect when he talks about a gallery dictating a schedule or quantity requirements to me. I never had that experience. But, no, all the exhibitions I have had have been with work I love, when I was ready. So nothing whorish or compromising in that direction.

If I can find the time, I'll go back through my archives to find the relevant messages about your preferring to work on "major works" but having to focus on smaller ones to take advantage of sales opportunities.

BTW, though this post is a retort to Jonathan, I brought into the discussion the nature of Plein air painting--which should help clarify that they are meant to be quickly painted. Either Jonathan is misleading us by design or ignorance--I don't know which.

There's nothing misleading or ignorant about what I said. Yes, plein air paintings are meant to be painted quickly. That would be the point: building up a new body of saleable work in a short period of time would mean choosing a painting style that can produce a lot of work in a short period of time.

J

Gosh...I only see you doing a disservice to yourself. Trying make out that painting, or drawing, smaller works, that I do from my heart, is somehow "filthy" because I sell them while working on major works is...[shaking my head]...is incomprehensible to me. It is not helpful to think that way. It's not good for your career as an artist, for your heart.

Some years ago, Barbara Branden and some friends, met me directly after I had come back from painting all day in the Santa Monica Mountains, I don't recall the exact words but they commented on the freshness and energy I brought back with me. And that is typical, I never recall a day painting outside that didn't give me an exhilaratingly feeling at the end of the day. It is a incredible feeling of being totally in the present at the same moment of creating something.

This image of a male torso, is also one of the smaller works. It is probably a 3-hour study. There is a story about its significance to the collector.

She told me that the day she bought the drawing is the day that she changed her view of men--she understood that they could be beautiful and good, and that is what the drawing communicated to her.

Because I took time away from a major work to draw this drawing, sold it to a wonderful person, who loves the drawing (as I do as well), that makes me out to be sellout? I think you know that loving what I make and having these experiences is what being an artist is all about.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Gosh...I only see you doing a disservice to yourself. Trying make out that painting, or drawing, smaller works, that I do from my heart, is somehow "filthy" because I sell them while working on major works is...[shaking my head]...is incomprehensible to me. It is not helpful to think that way. It's not good for your career as an artist, for your heart.

I didn't say that you were a sellout or filthy. I said that I would feel that way. I'd feel like a sellout if I was in a position where I was focused so much on making money by creating smaller, quicker works that I couldn't paint what I was truly itching to paint.

Because I took time away from a major work to draw this drawing, sold it to a wonderful person, who loves the drawing (as I do as well), that makes me out to be sellout? I think you know that loving what I make and having these experiences is what being an artist is all about.

You've changed the context. I wasn't talking about taking a few hours away from a major work to do a single drawing, but of taking weeks or months away in order to have a fresh new batch of minor works to sell. That's what you had complained about in the past -- not that you had taken a few hours away from major works, but that you couldn't take much time away from minor works to work on major works. Your point seemed to be that you missed working on major works.

J

[mvir9]

First of all, I adore this work! It is such a rarity to come across a work that epitomizes the strength and beauty of the human body. It is, if nothing else, a work of reverence for the human form (yes, this includes the penis . . . as it is a beautiful part of the male form). I hold a great deal of appreciation for works that can manage this difficult feat.

Earlier, several people mentioned the importance of the hand gesture in the work. I wish the subject wouldn't have been dropped, for the hand gesture is clearly important to the meaning of the work.

As a martial artist, I am very familiar with the position of the sculpture's hands. Historically, the meaning of the hands -- put simplistically -- is harmony. The fist is "hard (or, the body)" while the palm is "soft (or, the mind)." The implication is that there is a complete integration of man's body and mind. This makes sense to me when applied to the bronze statue, as it applies to Zarathustra.

It is also interesting to me that the hands are held toward the statue. Together (the hand and fist) are used as a sign of respect toward others -- but only when pointing down and away from the person making the gesture. The positioning of the hands in this circumstance implies respect for himself . . . Zarathustra, that is. Again, this makes sense to me in light of Nietzsche's work.

[mvir9]

Not to keep referencing SOLOP, but I've got a serious question related to this:

I have to say that whole exercise was very enlightening. (As was the trip over to OL, Jonathan seems rather... 'attached' to you...

It's interesting to me that that is sometimes the response that people, including Newberry, have when I argue with Newberry -- that I'm "attached to," "obsessed with," or "fixated on" him. I don't remember anyone ever having the same response when I've disagreed, just as vigorously, if not more so, with people like Pigero, Cresswell, Rowlands or Gores, or when I've been critical of the views of ARC's Fred Ross, or of artists associated with the Lack Atelier, or of Kamhi and Torres or Roger Bissell.

What is it about my disagreeing with Newberry that makes people feel that I'm "attached" to him, but they don't think the same about my disagreeing with anyone else?

J

Jonathan,

After reading through this entire post in one sitting, I can see why people may assume that you are "attached" to Michael. The tone of your rebuttals and retorts are quite severe . . . to the point of sarcastic name-calling. It comes across that Michael (Newberry, that is) has pushed some kind of a button with you that burns deeply. I do not know you, so maybe this is your usual form of "debate," but I give you more credit than that and assume that your anger is an isolated situation here. Your replies were bad enough that I began to cringe every time I encountered your name about half-way through the post -- wondering what attempt at belittling Mr. Newberry was up next. Honestly, I wouldn't let my 11 year old speak this way -- even to someone she hates.

Disagreement can be a wonderful thing -- when it is treated with civility.

As a side note -- You chided Mr. Newberry for "naming names" and citing "his resume," but his credentials (by you or someone else, I can't recall) had been questioned and criticized. He was simply responding. Do we now criticize people for answering questions?

[Newberry]

J:

I would feel that I was selling out if I were forced to dedicate a couple of months to churning out dozens of quick landscapes in order to have enough paintings to fill space for an upcoming gallery show, which is something that I've seen you do, Michael. I'd feel totally compromised and, well, filthy, if I had to paint fine art according to a gallery's schedule or quantity requirements. But, obviously you have a different view, and if it works for you, more power to you.

The essence of these thoughts are that I churn out, automatically or routinely make, paintings by dictation from galleries, therefore, in your view, I compromise my artistic integrity.

I pointed out that my art has never been dictated by a gallery or any person. That is one point you don’t have anything to stand on.

Churning out work is a derogatory concept. I gave two examples of the passion, care I have for making smaller works. Additionally, they open up doors for experimentation, and consequently, for artistic growth. Another point of yours falls away to nothing. Here is another plein air painting, that show a completely change of mood from the desert scene above. It was also painted under an hour and believe they were painted with days of each other.

You say it is unethical to create smaller works, which will underwrite the months and years I put into the major works, which, btw, I think is brilliant solution–it enables true independence. You say that this is a compromise that would make you feel filthy. I can’t speak for your feelings, but, again, you have no point to stand on.

90% of my income is from selling my work to collectors. I have no job, no security, and no regular income. I put my trust in my talent and the discernment of the collector. Though art is a spiritual necessity, it is not a practical one. People don’t have to buy paintings. An artist’s reputation has significant importance to the health of their career.

You claim I don’t address the substance of your criticisms. Now, I have taken the time to carefully respond to your unsubstantial points.

By intent, maliciousness, or unawareness you are attempting to smear my reputation. I politely request that you desist in such remarks.

Michael

Edited November 8, 2007 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

After reading through this entire post in one sitting, I can see why people may assume that you are "attached" to Michael. The tone of your rebuttals and retorts are quite severe . . . to the point of sarcastic name-calling.

Okay, you don't like the tone of my posts. Do you have any comments on the substance of any of my current or past disagreements with Michael? For example, when people say that a statue is technically masterful but they don't like it, do you think that it's fair to conclude that their judgments are cynical, angst-ridden products of the dark ages of American art? Or might that be a bit severe?

I do not know you, so maybe this is your usual form of "debate," but I give you more credit than that and assume that your anger is an isolated situation here.

Anger? Really? When I'm writing my posts I'm usually closer to laughter than anger.

Your replies were bad enough that I began to cringe every time I encountered your name about half-way through the post -- wondering what attempt at belittling Mr. Newberry was up next. Honestly, I wouldn't let my 11 year old speak this way -- even to someone she hates.

If someone said that the Zarathustra sculpture above was technically masterful but he didn't like it, would you encourage your child to go around saying that the person's artistic judgment was a cynical, angst-ridden product of the American dark age of art? Or would you expect your child to be a little more respectful of the fact that other people can have different tastes and opinions?

Disagreement can be a wonderful thing -- when it is treated with civility.

Do you think that Michael's judgments of others based on their tastes in art are examples of "civility"?

I don't know if you've been interested much in art and aesthetics discussions in the past, but there's a very long, complex history between Michael and me that you currently don't appear to understand. And, for some reason, you're not seeing his poor behavior. Perhaps your having been a student of Stephen Hicks and a fan of Michael's work has something to do with how you're perceiving the participants in this discussion?

J

[Jonathan]

The essence of these thoughts are that I churn out, automatically or routinely make, paintings by dictation from galleries, therefore, in your view, I compromise my artistic integrity.

No, I didn't say that. I said that we each have different views of artistic integrity and of selling out. I didn't say that I was applying my judgments to you.

I pointed out that my art has never been dictated by a gallery or any person. That is one point you don’t have anything to stand on.

Okay. I withdraw that claim and apologize.

However, as far as the main thrust of what I've been talking about on this subject, there's not a big difference between, on the one hand, dedicating the bulk of one's time to painting multiple new smaller works because a gallery demands it, and, on the other hand, dedicating the bulk of one's time to painting multiple new smaller works because doing so will "underwrite" the time that one will be able to spend on larger works. There's no essential difference to me, or to my point, which is that churning out paintings (creating an abundance of quick, similarly-crafted pieces) in order to "underwrite" what I'd prefer to be doing, is not an approach that I want to take toward the creation of fine art.

You say it is unethical to create smaller works, which will underwrite the months and years I put into the major works, which, btw, I think is brilliant solution–it enables true independence.

No, I didn't say that it was unethical. If you think it's a brilliant solution, more power to you.

You say that this is a compromise that would make you feel filthy. I can’t speak for your feelings, but, again, you have no point to stand on.

My point is that I don't want to be working on something that I consider fine art to pay the bills, at the expense of working on something that I consider to be more important fine art.

You claim I don’t address the substance of your criticisms. Now, I have taken the time to carefully respond to your unsubstantial points.

Well, my points were not insubstantial, but, now that you're in the mood to address substance, would you care to revisit some past issues where you seemed incapable of doing so?

By intent, maliciousness, or unawareness you are attempting to smear my reputation. I politely request that you desist in such remarks.

You are aware, aren't you, that you're addressing a person whose character you've often attempted to besmirch based merely on his tastes in art?

J

Edited November 9, 2007 by Jonathan

[mvir9]

After reading through this entire post in one sitting, I can see why people may assume that you are "attached" to Michael. The tone of your rebuttals and retorts are quite severe . . . to the point of sarcastic name-calling.

Okay, you don't like the tone of my posts. Do you have any comments on the substance of any of my current or past disagreements with Michael? For example, when people say that a statue is technically masterful but they don't like it, do you think that it's fair to conclude that their judgments are cynical, angst-ridden products of the dark ages of American art? Or might that be a bit severe?

I do not know you, so maybe this is your usual form of "debate," but I give you more credit than that and assume that your anger is an isolated situation here.

Anger? Really? When I'm writing my posts I'm usually closer to laughter than anger.

Your replies were bad enough that I began to cringe every time I encountered your name about half-way through the post -- wondering what attempt at belittling Mr. Newberry was up next. Honestly, I wouldn't let my 11 year old speak this way -- even to someone she hates.

If someone said that the Zarathustra sculpture above was technically masterful but he didn't like it, would you encourage your child to go around saying that the person's artistic judgment was a cynical, angst-ridden product of the American dark age of art? Or would you expect your child to be a little more respectful of the fact that other people can have different tastes and opinions?

Disagreement can be a wonderful thing -- when it is treated with civility.

Do you think that Michael's judgments of others based on their tastes in art are examples of "civility"?

I don't know if you've been interested much in art and aesthetics discussions in the past, but there's a very long, complex history between Michael and me that you currently don't appear to understand. And, for some reason, you're not seeing his poor behavior. Perhaps your having been a student of Stephen Hicks and a fan of Michael's work has something to do with how you're perceiving the participants in this discussion?

J

Oh my . . . where to begin?

First of all, I was merely answering the question you posed about why people would wonder at your "attachment" to Michael. I was honest in my assessment. Evidently, you don't like my answer. When your -- yes, tone -- persists in, as far as I can tell, virtually every post responding to Michael, it does send off signals (of the psychological sort). Even when you do happen to agree with him, you look for reasons to pick him apart (vaguely reminding me of paparazzi . . .will I catch him picking his nose today?).

Regarding the substance of your responses, you come across as an intelligent guy with a bone to pick (which is no different than what I am stating about your tone). You obviously feel strongly about art, you have strong likes, and you have strong dislikes . . . and most of your philosophical backing for your theories are in absolute disgreement with Mr. Newberry. I say, "fine, disagree . . . but do it with civility."

You are closer to laughter when you are criticizing a person's core beliefs than you are to anger? See, that is something that I find bothersome. It is a huge responsibility to question, let alone criticize, a person's core beliefs; it is certainly not a laughing matter. For instance, I am not laughing now, because although I disagree with you, I take you seriously as a human being.

Regarding my daughter: I would encourage her to disagree with anyone she feels is wrong. Disagreement is something I truly have no problem with. I do care, however, how she speaks to the person she disagrees with, particularly when the disagreeing party is not respectful, and invites comments. I would want her to take the mature road of civil debate. If this didn't work, and the person besmirched her character, I would encourage her to walk away -- the person isn't worth her time.

I have to wonder if you think that you are pointing out a "gotcha" when referencing the fact that I am a former student of Stephen Hicks and that I adore Michael's work? If so, it is infantile. However, I will respond happily -- and proudly. First of all, I have mentioned on a previous post here that I am familiar with Michael N. and that I adore his work. I fell in love with Denouement years ago, causing me to find out more about the artist. Since then, I have purchased a print of Icarus Landing, which adorns the wall directly above my desk. It is one of the most inspiring, uplifting pieces of work I have ever seen.

Secondly, Regarding Stephen H.: he is, quite honestly, one of the most intelligent men that I have ever met. I was honored to work with him on the DVD Nietzsche and the Nazis, which was published in late 2006. You should watch the DVD -- it is quite good.

So, do I think that either man is infallible? No. They do seek perfection, however. A rare characteristic, indeed. I am not blinding myself to either man's flaws, for intellectual and moral blindness are pet peeves of mine. My perceptions are clear. Yours?

Do I feel a need to protect either man? (I honestly must chuckle here . . . just the thought of this is hilarious) -- Unequivocally not. These men are very well equipped, intellectually and emotionally, to handle their own battles. There was no amount of "protection" in my post to you. Instead, I was anwering a question that you had asked. One of my favorite phrases, often used for my children, is a phrase I now state to you: If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

I am sorry that you didn't like my assessment of your posts. No, I am not familiar with your history with Michael, and I don't see how that applies. I don't need to taste every type of sushi to know that I detest it. Every one of your responses in this thread, taken together, is a sampling of your responses to Michael. And, a sample is adequate for the assessment that you were looking for.

One thing that I will grant you -- you don't know me very well either. I am fairly new here, and am a bit too busy in my off-line life to participate here regularly. Mayhap over time you will come to realize that I am honest as well as thoughtful.

[Chris Grieb]

The quick look at the work of Michael Newberry is I found the work enjoyable and well done. I liked the desert painting and the male figure study.

[Jonathan]

When your -- yes, tone -- persists in, as far as I can tell, virtually every post responding to Michael, it does send off signals (of the psychological sort). Even when you do happen to agree with him, you look for reasons to pick him apart (vaguely reminding me of paparazzi . . .will I catch him picking his nose today?).

If you look at the substance of my disagreements with Michael, you'll notice that I'm dealing with ideas of much more significance that catching someone picking his nose. For example, when Michael publicly categorizes his own images of agony and despair as "shimmering passion," while saying that creating images of pain is not his way, and that other artists who do so are "wallowing," I don't think that I'm nitpicking or revealing that I'm psychologically dark if I mention that those views appear to be hypocritical.

I don't think that I'm being petty when asking Michael to explain how applying his own theories of aesthetic judgment to specific examples of his own work does not result in the same type of negative judgment that he makes of others' works of art which contain similar subject matter.

When Michael writes and publicly posts a negative review of a work of art which consists of five segments, but he has only seen one of those segments, I see it as a legitimate point to question whether or not he thinks he has been fair (rather than that he has, say, attempted to smear, by intent, maliciousness, or unawareness, the artist whose work he has reviewed, the museum which displayed it or the culture that he is criticizing).

Do you disagree that those are important, substantive issues, and on a level much higher than pointing out that someone is picking his nose?

Regarding the substance of your responses, you come across as an intelligent guy with a bone to pick (which is no different than what I am stating about your tone). You obviously feel strongly about art, you have strong likes, and you have strong dislikes . . . and most of your philosophical backing for your theories are in absolute disagreement with Mr. Newberry. I say, "fine, disagree . . . but do it with civility."

Again, I'd like you to apply the same standard to Michael. You didn't answer my question about whether or not Michael's judging others' artistic tastes to be cynical and angst-ridden is an example of "civility." Why are you hesitant to answer? I'd think that if you were concerned about civility, it would be a principle that you would apply consistently, and it would be important for you to publicly scold Michael for making such rash statements about others.

You are closer to laughter when you are criticizing a person's core beliefs than you are to anger? See, that is something that I find bothersome. It is a huge responsibility to question, let alone criticize, a person's core beliefs; it is certainly not a laughing matter. For instance, I am not laughing now, because although I disagree with you, I take you seriously as a human being.

It's not an issue of laughing at Michael's "core beliefs," but at other things, like his evasive maneuvers, his pompousness, and his attempts to use his resume as a substitute for argument. And I don't always laugh. Sometimes I feel pity.

Regarding my daughter: I would encourage her to disagree with anyone she feels is wrong. Disagreement is something I truly have no problem with. I do care, however, how she speaks to the person she disagrees with, particularly when the disagreeing party is not respectful, and invites comments. I would want her to take the mature road of civil debate. If this didn't work, and the person besmirched her character, I would encourage her to walk away -- the person isn't worth her time.

The point wasn't really to ask about your daughter, but to try to get a direct response from you as to whether or not you think that it is fair to judge people as cynical and angst-ridden products of an artistic dark age because they say that they don't like a statue which they unhesitatingly agree is technically masterful. Would you mind giving me a simple "yes" or "no"? Was it fair and civil for Michael to judge others like that?

Instead, I was answering a question that you had asked. One of my favorite phrases, often used for my children, is a phrase I now state to you: If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

Well, you didn't really answer the question. To do so would require addressing the issue of why I'm not accused of being "attached" to others whose views I address with the same enthusiasm that I bring to discussions with Michael. It's pretty rare that people other than Michael come out guns a-blazin' when they publicly present their views, and then resort to whining that they are being stalked or picked on when faced with strong disagreement (though I have to admit that SOLOP's pompous Pigero sometimes employs tactics like that, but not just toward me; Pigero is an equal opportunity poor little victim).

My current theory -- and I stress that this is just a personal theory -- is that Michael is used to addressing his views to people who aren't all that interested in art and who, therefore, aren't going to apply much critical thought to what he says. I suspect that he and his fans are used to people instantly nodding in agreement to almost anything that he says, praising him for his obvious talents as a painter, and then moving on to things that they're actually seriously interested in. So, an informed, passionate critic who actually takes the time to grasp the implications of what Michael is saying is, by comparison, shocking, and is seen as a big bad meanie weenie.

I am sorry that you didn't like my assessment of your posts. No, I am not familiar with your history with Michael, and I don't see how that applies.

Well, being familiar with the history is relevant to understanding how it applies. That was the point of my mentioning it. As for your assessment of my posts, I'd say that I'm mostly indifferent. I understand your concerns, but with your lack of knowledge of the history of the issues that have been discussed, and the moral and aesthetic judgments often involved, I can't help but see your opinion as uninformed. That's not meant as an insult, just a statement of fact -- you have no idea about the ideas that have been discussed over the past five or six years.

Every one of your responses in this thread, taken together, is a sampling of your responses to Michael. And, a sample is adequate for the assessment that you were looking for.

Sometimes our discussions devolve into personality issues, but I generally try to avoid it. I don't always succeed, but if you look at a lot of my exchanges with Michael from over the years, I'm usually trying to get the discussions back to ideas. In my opinion, Michael often seems to see any strong criticism of his views as a personal attack, while seeing his own harsh or hasty judgments of others and their tastes in art as being perfectly polite.

One thing that I will grant you -- you don't know me very well either. I am fairly new here, and am a bit too busy in my off-line life to participate here regularly. Mayhap over time you will come to realize that I am honest as well as thoughtful.

From what I've read of your posts so far here on OL, I like you and think that you're bright and positive. I hope you continue to post here, and that you both benefit from and add to the great discussions.

J

Edited November 9, 2007 by Jonathan

[mvir9]

Jonathan,

I'm sorry that the nose-picking analogy came off worse than I had intended. My analogy was intended as an emphasis upon the posts where you bait Michael. For example, stating that he was, essentially, a gallery whore. This (as you did admit later -- and I was very happy to see this) was a false insinuation. You essentially reversed yourself in the next paragraph, though . . . by stating that what he does is really no different. I find this type of debate disingenuous.

I agree that it is not petty to inquire further about Michael's aesthetic opinions . . . or to question what his essential values are regarding his work. I may sound like a damned tape-recording at this point (for which I apologize), but it really is a matter of how these questions and criticisms are posed.

You have repeatedly asked for my opinion regarding Michael's response. I have avoided doing so, because my sole intent behind the first post was to answer the question you asked regarding yourself and your posts. Other than the fact that Michael was the recipient of those posts, your question had nothing to do with Michael. However, I will clearly state (for the record) that I have no problem with Michael's posts. Although Michael can be brutally honest, sarcastic, and even irritable at times, I have found that these rare situations arise when he is attacked (read as such . . . not "criticized," but "attacked"). For example, Michael had some fun with you during this thread, did he not? Now, let's look at the very first post. Michael posted a piece of art that he appreciates. One would think that this topic would be fairly innocuous. Not so! You responded not so nicely, then the ball kept rolling downhill from there. For the rest of Michael's posts -- I find them to be intelligent, mature, and well worth reading. I'm sure that it does help that I happen to largely agree with Michael's views, but I also enjoy reading Nietzsche, Dante, and Dostoevsky (all of whom I deplore philosophically).

To clarify: I didn't state that you were laughing at Michael. Rather, as you stated, I simply said that you were laughing while criticizing him. Therefore, you found enjoyment in this activity. And, I will reiterate: his credentials were questioned, which is why he gave a quick (definitely not thorough) background of himself.

I leave the "pity" comment for Michael to respond to if he wishes. . .although I have a sneaky suspicion that that is exactly why you put it there (bait, perhaps?).

Regarding your current theory of Michael: first, thank you for presenting it as simply your own opinion. Secondly, you have dismissed (putting it politely) the intellectual integrity of anyone who happens to enjoy Michael's work. As a fan of his work, I am utterly disappointed that you would generalize me into such a category. Contrary to what you may think, Michael's fans (at least the one's I know personally) are extraordinarily independent-minded -- and intelligent. Yes, I do place myself in this category, for I pride myself on questioning everything before I accept anything. Again, if Michael chooses, I will leave it for him to respond to your idea that he surrounds himself with intellectually blind zombies.

Big bad meanie weenie? I confess, I laughed

You stated that I am uninformed about your history with Michael . . . and, yes, I understood that it wasn't meant as an insult. As I mentioned in my previous post, I definitely do not know the history between the two of you, and, at this point, I would rather not. I don't watch soap operas for a reason . . . ! Besides, I couldn't imagine the time-investment that an investigation into this history would entail. I do find it sad that you two men, who obviously both hold a great love for art, can't find a way to agree to disagree.

I'm glad that you find my posts essentially positive -- and I look forward to reading positive posts from you. As I mentioned before, you come across as an intelligent man, and one of my favorite things in this world is to interact with intelligent people (which is why I am on this site).

[Newberry]

Gosh!

[mvir9]

Gosh!

LOL -- I am a bit wordy, aren't I?! (There are worse things for a writer to be, I suppose).

[Jonathan]

However, I will clearly state (for the record) that I have no problem with Michael's posts.

Would you mind being more precise in what you're saying? Would you mind repeating, "for the record," the following:

"I, Virginia Murr, believe that it is fair, civil, and perfectly reasonable to claim that those who think that Schipperheyn's Zarathustra sculpture is technically masterful, but don't like it, are cynical, angst-ridden victims of an American dark age of art."

I just want to be very clear on what you think is civil and acceptable when it comes to judging people based on their responses to art.

Now, let's look at the very first post. Michael posted a piece of art that he appreciates. One would think that this topic would be fairly innocuous. Not so! You responded not so nicely, then the ball kept rolling downhill from there.

In my first post, I asked Michael why he believed that people rarely connect art to what they live for, since my experience has been the exact opposite. That's not a vicious attack, but a simple question.

In the second part of that post, I mentioned to Michael that it was good to see him posting an example of a contemporary work of art that he thought was awesome and which was created by someone other than himself, and that I was looking forward to seeing which painters he admired when he identified the artists who he thought were "worthy but unrecognized," which is something that he had mentioned that he was going to do. My comment was not an attack, but an expression of recognition and relief that he's finally posting samples of what he thinks are good art instead of focusing most of his online efforts on griping about the works that he thinks are bad.

And that is just one example of where your having a little knowledge of our history would be relevant. There have been times when Michael has expressed frustration that no one understands where he is coming from, and that he has felt that he has been in a "no-man's" land when people have reacted strongly to his criticisms of their favorite artists. I've suggested to him many times in the past that frequently posting some positive criticisms to go along with his negative ones -- posting examples of contemporary art that he thinks is great, other than his own, that of a couple of sculptors, an ex-student of his and her husband -- might help to demonstrate that he's actually passionate about great art, as he claims to be, and not just looking to tear down others while promoting his own work. I've suggested to him several times during the past five years that there are countless realist artists worthy of recognition. It's honestly good to see him finally posting images of contemporary art works that he thinks are good.

And if you didn't notice, almost everyone who commented here, including me, agreed with him that the Zarathustra sculpture is good, and that Schipperheyn is very talented.

As a fan of his work, I am utterly disappointed that you would generalize me into such a category.

Well, hey, I'm not totally clear yet on your rules about what constitutes an insult, incivility or an utterly disappointing comment. I mean, from my perspective, your comfort with the idea of someone labeling others cynical and angst-ridden based on their tastes regarding a single work of art is an "utter disappointment." My suspecting that you might be less than deeply interested in aesthetic ideas seems quite mild in comparison.

Contrary to what you may think, Michael's fans (at least the one's I know personally) are extraordinarily independent-minded -- and intelligent.

In general, I agree, but not when it comes to ideas about art and aesthetics. I'll cite Michael's one-fifth review again as an example of where I'm coming from. When Michael posted it, the Objectivist-types who praised it as a great and important article had seen even less of the work of art than Michael had -- in fact, I'd be surprised if any of those who congratulated him had even heard of the art work or its creator before Michael posted his article. They had no clue what they were talking about or whether or not Michael did either. They uncritically accepted what he said about it and cheered him on. That's not what I would call an independent approach to ideas about art.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I think that any of those people are bad or generally careless about ideas. I might even categorize some of Michael's fans as among the brightest people that I've met in my life. But when it comes to ideas about art, most of them are just not that interested. I think that many of them basically see art and aesthetics as either a mostly frivolous topic or as something akin to the propaganda department for the spreading of Objectivism.

I do find it sad that you two men, who obviously both hold a great love for art, can't find a way to agree to disagree.

I'll "agree to disagree" with Michael on the condition that you, starting right now, will "agree to disagree" with all of the people whose ideas you currently disagree with. Sound fair?

I'm glad that you find my posts essentially positive -- and I look forward to reading positive posts from you. As I mentioned before, you come across as an intelligent man, and one of my favorite things in this world is to interact with intelligent people (which is why I am on this site).

Thank you.

J

Edited November 10, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

I will gladly answer anything you would like, but only if it is well reasoned.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

I will gladly answer anything you would like, but only if it is well reasoned.

Michael

Now who could answer this? A liar? I mean, if it's well reasoned it's answerable? If it's not it's not? Or: I'm a snotty SOB! Fuck you! Look, Michael, you can do and have done great stuff with your brush, but with words you suck! Talk about pure elitest CRAP! Please, go back to SOLOP! As for you folk who don't reason so well, well welcome, for here is not HELL! The whole idea is to help you do better and if us betterers are wrong you can better us the betterers and be betterers youselves! (I know I'm not always right. Just 99.99% of the time: that's right, 99.99% of the time! )

--Brant

Edited November 10, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

I will gladly answer anything you would like, but only if it is well reasoned.

Michael

Now who could answer this? A liar? I mean, if it's well reasoned it's answerable? If it's not it's not? Or: I'm a snotty SOB! Fuck you! Look, Michael, you can do and have done great stuff with your brush, but with words you suck! Talk about pure elitest CRAP! Please, go back to SOLOP! As for you folk who don't reason so well, well welcome, for here is not HELL! The whole idea is to help you do better and if us betterers are wrong you can better us the betterers and be betterers youselves! (I know I'm not always right. Just 99.99% of the time: that's right, 99.99% of the time! )

--Brant

Huh?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Newberry

[Chris Grieb]

Brant, Michael, Jonathan; Can't we all just get along?

[mvir9]

Chris --

Every time I see you post "can we all just get along" -- I smile

Thank you for that!

[mvir9]

However, I will clearly state (for the record) that I have no problem with Michael's posts.

Would you mind being more precise in what you're saying? Would you mind repeating, "for the record," the following:

"I, Virginia Murr, believe that it is fair, civil, and perfectly reasonable to claim that those who think that Schipperheyn's Zarathustra sculpture is technically masterful, but don't like it, are cynical, angst-ridden victims of an American dark age of art."

I just want to be very clear on what you think is civil and acceptable when it comes to judging people based on their responses to art.

Now, let's look at the very first post. Michael posted a piece of art that he appreciates. One would think that this topic would be fairly innocuous. Not so! You responded not so nicely, then the ball kept rolling downhill from there.

In my first post, I asked Michael why he believed that people rarely connect art to what they live for, since my experience has been the exact opposite. That's not a vicious attack, but a simple question.

In the second part of that post, I mentioned to Michael that it was good to see him posting an example of a contemporary work of art that he thought was awesome and which was created by someone other than himself, and that I was looking forward to seeing which painters he admired when he identified the artists who he thought were "worthy but unrecognized," which is something that he had mentioned that he was going to do. My comment was not an attack, but an expression of recognition and relief that he's finally posting samples of what he thinks are good art instead of focusing most of his online efforts on griping about the works that he thinks are bad.

And that is just one example of where your having a little knowledge of our history would be relevant. There have been times when Michael has expressed frustration that no one understands where he is coming from, and that he has felt that he has been in a "no-man's" land when people have reacted strongly to his criticisms of their favorite artists. I've suggested to him many times in the past that frequently posting some positive criticisms to go along with his negative ones -- posting examples of contemporary art that he thinks is great, other than his own, that of a couple of sculptors, an ex-student of his and her husband -- might help to demonstrate that he's actually passionate about great art, as he claims to be, and not just looking to tear down others while promoting his own work. I've suggested to him several times during the past five years that there are countless realist artists worthy of recognition. It's honestly good to see him finally posting images of contemporary art works that he thinks are good.

And if you didn't notice, almost everyone who commented here, including me, agreed with him that the Zarathustra sculpture is good, and that Schipperheyn is very talented.

As a fan of his work, I am utterly disappointed that you would generalize me into such a category.

Well, hey, I'm not totally clear yet on your rules about what constitutes an insult, incivility or an utterly disappointing comment. I mean, from my perspective, your comfort with the idea of someone labeling others cynical and angst-ridden based on their tastes regarding a single work of art is an "utter disappointment." My suspecting that you might be less than deeply interested in aesthetic ideas seems quite mild in comparison.

Contrary to what you may think, Michael's fans (at least the one's I know personally) are extraordinarily independent-minded -- and intelligent.

In general, I agree, but not when it comes to ideas about art and aesthetics. I'll cite Michael's one-fifth review again as an example of where I'm coming from. When Michael posted it, the Objectivist-types who praised it as a great and important article had seen even less of the work of art than Michael had -- in fact, I'd be surprised if any of those who congratulated him had even heard of the art work or its creator before Michael posted his article. They had no clue what they were talking about or whether or not Michael did either. They uncritically accepted what he said about it and cheered him on. That's not what I would call an independent approach to ideas about art.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I think that any of those people are bad or generally careless about ideas. I might even categorize some of Michael's fans as among the brightest people that I've met in my life. But when it comes to ideas about art, most of them are just not that interested. I think that many of them basically see art and aesthetics as either a mostly frivolous topic or as something akin to the propaganda department for the spreading of Objectivism.

I do find it sad that you two men, who obviously both hold a great love for art, can't find a way to agree to disagree.

I'll "agree to disagree" with Michael on the condition that you, starting right now, will "agree to disagree" with all of the people whose ideas you currently disagree with. Sound fair?

I'm glad that you find my posts essentially positive -- and I look forward to reading positive posts from you. As I mentioned before, you come across as an intelligent man, and one of my favorite things in this world is to interact with intelligent people (which is why I am on this site).

Thank you.

J

Maybe I am an anomaly . . . maybe it is strange to believe that calling someone a "jackass," sarcastically referring to him as "Supreme Master," telling him that he lacks a "sense of security" are not words that are conducive to a productive debate. Anomaly or not, I stand by my belief.

I stand by what I said regarding Michael and his posts. It is what it is, therefore, clarification isn't necessary. I certainly won't accept another person's dictum regarding my views.

You are correct to point out that not all of your posts were negative. Do me a favor, though -- look back through them. Your most interesting and productive posts were in response to anyone other than Michael. For instance, one of your most enlightening posts (for me, anyway) was #111 in response to Ms. Ellen Stuttle:

QUOTE(Ellen Stuttle @ Oct 22 2007, 02:55 PM)

I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation.

I can see how you'd see that. Where you see the victory of an emotional breakthrough, I see spiritual or emotional preparation for a victory that is yet to be achieved. I wonder, is there much of a difference, visually, between how a person might look while experiencing a "HA!! That!, there it is!" moment versus how he might look while psyching himself up by appealing to his "god" to convince himself that he will be victorious, or good, or true, etc.?

J

You disagreed in a most civil way (even respectful), then you proceeded to give a wonderful explanation as to why you disagreed. This is the kind of debate I admire. (By the way, I disagree with your point, but it certainly gave me something to think about!)

I also discovered something very interesting when I looked back through the thread: you and Michael actually had a wonderful exchange of ideas regarding the arc of the sculpture -- but through third parties!

Your clarification on your feelings about Michael's fans is a relief to see. I happen to know that Michael does have fans that are experts in aesthetics, though I am not one of them. So, for that reason, I will agree that not all of his fans have aesthetic backgrounds. Maybe you and I differ here in our approach to art. Let me explain my approach to art (in my artistically un-informed, yet philosophically informed mind):

One does not have to be an expert to appreciate art. I am intelligent enough to grasp whether or not a work is optimistic or pessimistic, whether or not it is driven by love of humanity or hate for humanity, whether or not it embodies my view of reality or not. I am also intelligent enough to ascertain whether an artist has talent (in general . . . not specifically), or if he must rely on imitation or installation to present his ideas. I am also intelligent enough (and honest enough) to admit that there is a great complexity to art that I do not quite grasp. Michael discusses triangulation and light often -- these are ideas that I only grasp to a certain extent. However, his infectious optimism in his work, and art in general, has encouraged me to learn more about art (history, technique, etc.). I don't apologize for my lack of knowledge, nor do I apologize for my appreciation of artists like Michael. Whether I agree with him all of the time or not (and, no, we don't agree all of the time), I love the fact that there is at least one artist in the world who is exploring the philosophical necessity that art is.

If you disagree with me on my approach to art -- I will agree to disagree with you (in all fairness). Your approach to art may be the exact opposite of mine, and I don't have problem with that. However, if you were to respond by saying "you are such an unintelligent, insecure louse," I wouldn't agree to disagree. On the contrary, I would disagree forcefully (yet, with as much civility as I could muster). Because, those words wouldn't be conducive to a productive debate.

Virginia

[Newberry]

Rend, low resolution image of the unfinished work.

Innumerable times J has called me a hypocrite concerning a sketch of mine, Rend, and its relationship to one part of my manifesto, To Bring Forth Shimmering Passion, Not to Wallow in Despair. (I will concentrate on this one point.)

It is a strange feeling to be challenged to justify it, as the manifesto states my motivations in art. But there are people out there that, in good faith, would like to understand what this is about. So I will address them.

The Passion segment in the

begins around 4:50, starts with a few drawings from series on the theme of mourning, and moves through to my principal works expressing themes of contentment and joy. Rend is a 9 or 10 hour drawing. That represents about 1/5,000th of time I have put into art. That is a significant point, which I will bring up shortly.

One of the observable technical aspects to my work is the light. I often use the light as a metaphor for the radiance of the human spirit. Many people have commented that it seems as if the light were coming from the person. The concept of bringing out the light in my is always present while I am working. As I use light both technically and metaphorically, I used the word, shimmer, to give a suggestion of this.

In Rend, I think one can pretty easily grasp the light on the solar plexus of the man.

Passion, for me, is about a sincere depth of feeling–but, an honest feeling, that deals with the meaningful. If you think of a terrorist, I would use fanatic instead of passionate to describe their emotional intensity. In figurative art, the body somehow has to convey passion by its gesture and/or the look of the face.

This brings us to the concept of mourning and whether it is meaningful in human life. For me, it is an important because it simultaneously honors the significant dead, and it stresses the awareness of being alive. For me, mourning is a pro-active process that is absolutely necessary to heal and grow when the situation arises.

Wallowing in despair congers up, for me, people who enjoy being pathetic, who want sympathy for their self-inflicted scars, or who mourn getting caught at trying to get away with something.

Saville, Self-Portrait

Now, I hope it is easy to see why I included the drawing of Rend, as one example of shimmering passion and how I don’t see it as wallowing.

Going back to the time involved in making a work. For the principal painting, Artemis, I put in about 2,000 hours of work. For Rend, 10 hours. Think about that difference. It is easy not to know how much time an artist spends on a work, but it is significant. All art works are an investment of time, energy, and spirit. I carefully weigh the ideas, themes, and emotional content of the my projects. From the 15 or so drawings in the morning series, I choose, not Rend, but God Releasing the Stars into the Universe as the theme I could work years on.

Now, if J is an expert in art, whether or not he agrees with me, I expect that he would be aware of all of the above points. And, that he would bring them up to show that he was a reasonable person. I didn’t and don’t find his challenge reasonable.

Michael