Community Room

[Jessica]

Welcome to the Community Room, a catch-all thread for any side conversations that might distract from the ongoing discussion of The Judgment of Paris. Get to know each other here, share common interests, and have fun!

Reply to this message to start the conversation.

[Jessica]

Hi everyone,

In my Welcome from the Moderator message, I posted a few links to sites that let us view some of the amazing paintings described in The Judgment of Paris.

If you find any other useful links to images, feel free to post them here!

Jessica
Book Club Editor

[Choisya]

Although I am not posting, I am enjoying the book and the discussion very much. I paticularly like the way the board is structured into different chapters etc.

I have attended a number of lectures at the National Gallery, London on Impressionism and have long had an interest in this period of painting but the book has given me many new insights so I would like to say a special thankyou to Ross King.

---

Jessica wrote:

Welcome to the Community Room, a catch-all thread for any side conversations that might distract from the ongoing discussion of The Judgment of Paris.
Get to know each other here, share common interests, and have fun!

Reply to this message to start the conversation.

---

[Mariposa]

Choisya--

I wish you would post. I know you from other book discussions and your comments are always very worthwhile. I am sure the same would be true here.


Lizabeth

[marlohill]

In reading about Meissonier and all the trouble and research that he put into painting his masterpieces, I thought I would bring this question to the group, do you think that it requires that much effort to make it and be successful? Even like Mr. Ross King, he must of put a tremendous amount of research in his book, it just seems overwhelming...

[Mariposa]

This morning I went to the Museum of Modern Art and was fortunate enough to attend a gallery talk on the work of photographer/artist Jeff Wall.

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/infocus/section2/img1.shtm

As you read the commentary below the photograph "The Storyteller" you will see why I selected this work to share. Do you think Wall is referencing Manet's work? The guide today said that Wells replied when asked that question that if he were, he would put the reference into the title as he has with other works. The guide then said that if the viewer sees the reference, even if the artist does not intend it, it is still a valid observation.

This is a discussion I have had in other book club/groups. Whose interpretation is "correct"? The author/artist or the reader/viewer? I believe both have validity, but in my opinion, the reader/viewer's interpretation is valid only if the observations can be supported by the work itself (literary or artistic).

Lizabeth

[marlohill]

That was a very interesting photograph by Wells. I wondered why Manet made the naked lady pose that way in his painting, but it is seen from Well's photograph that is how some people relax at the park. The man in blue jeans is actually sitting that way and very naturally, so Manet did a good job in his painting. The proof is in the pudding!

[marlohill]

Sorry, Lizabeth, I should of said Wall not Wells.
Michelle

[ross_king]

---

dianearbus wrote:
Do you think Wall is referencing Manet's work? The guide today said that Wells replied when asked that question that if he were, he would put the reference into the title as he has with other works. The guide then said that if the viewer sees the reference, even if the artist does not intend it, it is still a valid observation.

Lizabeth

---

My guess is that Wall is "quoting" Manet, though maybe he didn’t even realize it at the time, or maybe he was even borrowing the pose from Picasso or one of the many other people who also used it (for example, it’s also on the cover of a Bow Wow Wow album from the early 1980s). The vignette from Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe is so familiar that most viewers will spot it right away. But (as I discussed in another thread) Manet was borrwing this pose from Raphael, and Raphael was borrowing from Michelangelo, and Michelangelo was borrowing from Jacopo della Quercia ... etc. etc. So Wall is in a noble tradition. I suspect that he really did know what he was doing because his photos, though they look spontaneous, are always carefully arranged. I like his work a lot, and no reproduction ever does his photos justice, because of their size and illumination. I saw "Fieldwork" recently at the High Museum in Atlanta, and it was mesmerizing - even without any Manet allusions.

The Bow Wow Wow cover (which is a clever "modern" twist on Manet's scene) can be seen at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowwowwow.jpg

[ross_king]

---

dianearbus wrote:
This is a discussion I have had in other book club/groups. Whose interpretation is "correct"? The author/artist or the reader/viewer? I believe both have validity, but in my opinion, the reader/viewer's interpretation is valid only if the observations can be supported by the work itself (literary or artistic).

Lizabeth

---

There’s a funny quotation on this subject from a writer (unfortunately I can’t remember who). When asked what he meant by a particular poem or story, he replied that he was only the author and therefore couldn’t be expected to know. Most writers and artists do need to be interpreted by their readers unless their work is crystal clear - and it’s perfectly legitimate for readers and viewers to come up with their own interpretations (as long as, like Lizabeth says, they can defend their argument). Otherwise art would just be propaganda. Both Manet and Jeff Wall create often very puzzling and ambiguous scenes. I doubt that either of them has a completely fixed idea of what they’re trying to represent. Both suggest possible stories or situations to their viewers. Wall may claim that he’s not referencing Manet ... but it’s perfectly valid for a viewer to see an echo of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe in The Storyteller. I wouldn’t always trust what a writer/artist says about his/her work. Artists often like to cover their tracks.

[ross_king]

---

ross_king wrote:
The Bow Wow Wow cover (which is a clever "modern" twist on Manet's scene) can be seen at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowwowwow.jpg

---

Oops - that link won't work. Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Wow_Wow

[Jessica]

---

marlohill wrote: In reading about Meissonier and all the trouble and research that he put into painting his masterpieces, I thought I would bring this question to the group, do you think that it requires that much effort to make it and be successful? Even like Mr. Ross King, he must of put a tremendous amount of research in his book, it just seems overwhelming...

---

This is an interesting question.

Years ago, I was at the Guggenheim in NYC, and saw a painting that was simply a huge canvas painted black. That was it. I said to my friend, "Well even I can do that..." and my friend said, "Anyone can. But you didn't. This guy did."

So we got into this conversation about what art is and isn't, and how something like a huge black canvas got to be featured at someplace as high-profile as the Gug.

It takes a lot to get this kind of exposure, so how did this artist get it? We assumed that it was a combination of a) the artist was tapped into an influential circle in the art world and then b) this influential circle somehow "felt" or "got" what the huge black canvas conveyed.

Other art forms -- writing a great book, being a great band, etc. have the same concerns. The talent is there. Translating the talent into a product has happened. Now, the battle becomes how to get people to pay attention (if attention is what the artist wants). Creating and drawing attention to your talent -- I think it's extremely hard work, because there are so many factors beyond your control.

I know many talented people who will never become rich or famous, but talent is only one part of the equation. These days, it seems like you have to also be savvy enough to sell yourself and your work to the public. The masses need convincing that you're worth their time or money. But the public is also very fickle, and success (if we're talking wealth and/or fame) can be a "here today, gone tomorrow" gamble.

Not only that, the public can game the system and make an unknown (or even undeserving) person a celebrity overnight. Look at the American Idol phenomenon, and what's happening this season with Sanjaya. He's decidedly less talented than the rest of the group, but because of some behind-the-scenes marketing by sites like VoteForTheWorst.com (who are admittedly trying to derail the juggernaut reality tv franchise) and people like Howard Stern and his millions of fans, Sanjaya is still on the show. Also interesting -- in '98 Stern hijacked the polls for People magazine's list of most beautiful people, getting his listeners to vote for Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, to the point that Hank placed above George Clooney in the results... So, what's the more powerful determinant here -- Hank's talent or how he was marketed?

I don't feel like any of the artists in Judgment of Paris were the "art for art's sake" type. That is, they were in it to make a living and find an audience. And while it's fascinating to better understand their talents, it's also fascinating to read about how their efforts to get the word out about their work either failed or worked.

What does everyone else think?

Jessica
Book Club Editor

[marlohill]

Jessica, that was really interesting and unbelievable what Howard Stern was able to do with that People poll!
My Mom feels Sanjaya is interesting in the way he dresses and carries himself. He uses some of the older, popular songs and where he may not have the musical talent of Prince, he has the look of Prince. (And Prince has really straightened his act up fortunately since he became one of Jehovah's Witnesses and probably won't be as popular anymore.) Sanjaya does have beautiful eyes, if you look at them closely! It was interesting that Tony Bennett felt that he has real potential as a performer. My Mom has been watching Tuesday nights, mainly because of Sanjaya.
So, let me go get some green paint and canvas and paint a green painting. I'll call it, "It is not easy being Green."
Michelle

[Jessica]

---

marlohill wrote: So, let me go get some green paint and canvas and paint a green painting. I'll call it, "It is not easy being Green." Michelle

---

...and if your uncle happened to be Andy Warhol, I wonder if you could paint a series of green canvases and get a gallery show! lol...

[ross_king]

---

Jessica wrote:

---

Years ago, I was at the Guggenheim in NYC, and saw a painting that was simply a huge canvas painted black. That was it. I said to my friend, "Well even I can do that..." and my friend said, "Anyone can. But you didn't. This guy did."

So we got into this conversation about what art is and isn't, and how something like a huge black canvas got to be featured at someplace as high-profile as the Gug.

Jessica
Book Club Editor

---

There was an uproar in Canada about 20 years ago when the National Gallery of Canada bought a painting called "Voice of Fire" by the American Abstract Expressionist Barnett Newman. The painting is simply a canvas with three vertical stripes, a red one flanked by two blue ones. It cost the gallery almost $2 million, which consumed much of the acquisitions budget for that year. An irate farmer, protesting that his taxes had been used to buy the work, then made an identical copy of it, which he called "Voice of the Taxpayer" and stuck up beside the highway. Someone else made a "Donut of Fire," and others got into the act by making ties, etc., striped like the painting.

These were good jokes, but "Voice of the Taxpayer" obviously raises the question of what’s the difference between the Newman’s painting and the farmer’s copy. Can a painting be valued or appreciated merely on the difficulty or ease of duplicating it? And (as Jessica points out) how much does marketing and networking play in the making of artistic reputations?

"Voice of Fire" can be seen here:

http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_e.jsp?mkey=35828

[Choisya]

I think Jessica hit one of these nails on the head when she reported a conversation with her friend about such a painting: "Well even I can do that..." and my friend said, "Anyone can. But you didn't. This guy did."


Works of art are works of the imagination and if you didn't imagine the image in the first place, can you claim to have created an art work? I remember seeing the first exhibition of Bridget Riley's black and white striped abstract works at the Tate Gallery in the 60s, which attracted a great deal of negative attention. However, I liked them a lot and have never forgotten that exhibition, which in its turn inspired a lot of other artists and designers like Mary Quant and Zandra Rhodes.

http://webexhibits.org/colorart/riley.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/rileyb1.shtml

http://www.sixtiescity.velnet.com/Fash2/Fashion2.htm

Art is very much in the eye of the beholder and we all appreciate different images. We are reading about the Salon de Refuse and the problems encountered by the Impressionists in general and yet I suspect that most of us like their images, which the 'farmers' of their day rubbished too. Would we have been with the avant guarde or one of the Salon's committe members who said 'Non!'?

---

ross_king wrote:

---

Jessica wrote:

---

Years ago, I was at the Guggenheim in NYC, and saw a painting that was simply a huge canvas painted black. That was it. I said to my friend, "Well even I can do that..." and my friend said, "Anyone can. But you didn't. This guy did."

So we got into this conversation about what art is and isn't, and how something like a huge black canvas got to be featured at someplace as high-profile as the Gug.

Jessica
Book Club Editor

---

There was an uproar in Canada about 20 years ago when the National Gallery of Canada bought a painting called "Voice of Fire" by the American Abstract Expressionist Barnett Newman. The painting is simply a canvas with three vertical stripes, a red one flanked by two blue ones. It cost the gallery almost $2 million, which consumed much of the acquisitions budget for that year. An irate farmer, protesting that his taxes had been used to buy the work, then made an identical copy of it, which he called "Voice of the Taxpayer" and stuck up beside the highway. Someone else made a "Donut of Fire," and others got into the act by making ties, etc., striped like the painting.

These were good jokes, but "Voice of the Taxpayer" obviously raises the question of what’s the difference between the Newman’s painting and the farmer’s copy. Can a painting be valued or appreciated merely on the difficulty or ease of duplicating it? And (as Jessica points out) how much does marketing and networking play in the making of artistic reputations?

"Voice of Fire" can be seen here:

http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_e.jsp?mkey=35828

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 04-18-200708:25 AM

[marlohill]

If the painting had been called as it was described by Ross, "Three Vertical Stripes, A Red One Flanked By Two Blue Ones", I don't think that it would have been as intriguing to the National Gallery of Canada. But it is the title, "Voice of Fire" that makes the painting, don't you think? So, it is not even the artwork, but the title that the gallery bought for a whopping two million. In this case pictures don't speak louder than words!
I have really been enjoying everybody's comments.
Michelle

[Mariposa]

I hope this is the right place to have the following conversation because my threads are unraveling.

On copying and plagiarism:
The other night I turned on Book TV and Jonathan Lethem (spelling?) was on a panel discussing plagiarism. To defend some forms of copying in literature, he referred to the "time-honored" practice of artists copying the work of other artists. Supposedly they were doing that to hone their craft, but often that was not the case and they appropriated images etc from another painting into their own. When is that "quoting" as you call it, Ross, and when is it plagiarism? Is it "quoting" when the artist references the previous work in the title and plagiarizing when he/she does not? Then Manet plagiarized and on down the line and up the line too.

This topic also came up in a discussion of James Joyce's The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. There is a sermon in the book that has clearly been lifted almost word for word from another sermon published much earlier. There is no footnote on Joyce's part citing the original writer. So the discussion centered on whether or not Joyce was plagiarizing? I don't think there was any consensus as to guilt or innocence.

I have no pat answers to this one either, but I think the question is important. If I write something or paint or sculpt, and someone else comes along and copies it and makes a profit from my idea...well, that does seem wrong, doesn't it?

But somehow it is not all that simple..Why?

Lizabeth

[Mariposa]

The story within the story:

On page 370 you note that Meissonier married Elisa Vezanson two years before his death. So he married her in 1889.

The name sounded familiar. So I traced it in the index. Aha! On page 168: "By 1866 Elisa seems to have been the elder Meissonier's lover, in spirit, at least, if not yet in the flesh." She was 26 at the time. So she was born in 1840.

Meissonier died in 1891 at the age of 75.He was born in 1816. Hmmmm.

He was 24 years her senior.

She waited 23 years to marry him.

That is another story for another day, I guess. Or are my calculations and assumptions totally off base here????


Lizabeth

[ross_king]

---

Jessica wrote:

---

I don't feel like any of the artists in Judgment of Paris were the "art for art's sake" type. That is, they were in it to make a living and find an audience. And while it's fascinating to better understand their talents, it's also fascinating to read about how their efforts to get the word out about their work either failed or worked.

Jessica
Book Club Editor

---

Artists always have to do self-promotion. Manet and Courbet were both very adept at it. I like how Courbet wanted to found his own personal "Courbet Louvre" beside the Seine, where people could come to admire his work. True "art for art’s sake" types are probably quite thin on the ground, because ultimately all artists and writers want to communicate with other people (not to mention make a bit of money, if possible). What’s the point of writing a great novel if you’re the only one who reads it? The difficult thing for an artist is to forge the channels of communication. Presumably the painter of the black canvas in the Guggenheim show (mentioned by Jessica in another thread) was very good at it!