next »

[claragold]

His paintings look like the work of art grad students.

Cezanne??! rolls eyes...

Hmmm...No, they don't. They are not my thing, and I don't care for Plagens, but it is legitimate--and intelligent-- work.

Are you saying that art grad students only produce illegitimate and retarded art work?

[gastr1]

Are you saying that art grad students only produce illegitimate and retarded art work?

You can see from the quote that that is not what I said at all.

You're the one who said his work looks like a grad student's. Was that supposed to mean that his work is true genius? Or....what? What could the eye-rolling have been for? Let's see: doesn't work with art grad students, therefore probably has not seen a lot of grad-level work; wants to put this back on me, that I was insulting grad students, not hu.
Interesting. Seen pyshnov lately? You two should hang out.

[claragold]

Are you saying that art grad students only produce illegitimate and retarded art work?

You can see from the quote that that is not what I said at all.

That is what is being disputed. So why did you say his work is not like grad students' paintings because it is legitimate and intelligent?

You're the one who said his work looks like a grad student's. Was that supposed to mean that his work is true genius? Or....what? What could the eye-rolling have been for?

Is it that hard to understand? His work is not the least on par with Cezanne's.

Let's see: doesn't work with art grad students, therefore probably has not seen a lot of grad-level work; wants to put this back on me, that I was insulting grad students, not hu.
Interesting. Seen pyshnov lately? You two should hang out.

You can post my CV here if you know exactly what I do and not do, other than that, you're just showing that you know as much about me as you know about art.

You also sound like you think your evaluation of any art work is the only right one. Please.

[gastr1]

Those on the other thread were right--you're impossible. You either enjoy making circular arguments in order to watch others get frustrated, or just don't know you're doing it.

Best,
gastr1

[claragold]

Those on the other thread were right--you're impossible. You either enjoy making circular arguments in order to watch others get frustrated, or just don't know you're doing it.

When someone argues like you do, in the form of "it is so because I said so," they are bound to get frustrated when asked to provide any basis for their arguments at all. I'm just used to quality in reasoning, which is something you appear to have a little difficulty with.

Give me your tired, your weak , give me your so very HUMBLE and BRIGHT masses of academia - give me a certain group of people in the CHE fora...

[gastr1]

Claragold, I invite you to go back through my previous posts about art, particularly with pyshnov, to determine if I am uninformed on the subject or arguing speciously.

YOU said that Plagens' work looked like grad students'. Do you not realize that YOU have demeaned the work of both in such a statement?

And then you claim that I was suggesting that all graduate work was illegitimate--when my statement only said that Plagens' work alone was legitimate, in the affirmative, and made no such accusations--affirmative or accusatory!!-- toward ALL graduate students. Just because two subjects are used in consecutive sentences does not mean that the adjectives used (or not used) apply to both.

The only thing I said or implied is that Plagens' work is better than that of "grad students."
"Grad students" in the typical. Not in the "all." His work reveals an intellectual maturity that few grad students achieve, in my experience. This does not mean that all grad work is illegitmate, unintellectual, or as you put it, retarded.

Grow up.

 

[claragold]

Claragold, I invite you to go back through my previous posts about art, particularly with pyshnov, to determine if I am uninformed on the subject or arguing speciously.

YOU said that Plagens' work looked like grad students'. Do you not realize that YOU have demeaned the work of both in such a statement?

You are correct that I evaluated Plagens' work as on a grad student level.  You disputed this evaluation by saying that his work was "legitimate and intelligent." Thus, according your post,  the two cannot be equal - "grad student work" and " legitimate and intelligent." 

The only thing I said or implied is that Plagens' work is better than that of "grad students."
"Grad students" in the typical. Not in the "all." His work reveals an intellectual maturity that few grad students achieve, in my experience. This does not mean that all grad work is illegitmate, unintellectual, or as you put it, retarded.

First "legitimate and intelligent" is not equal to "intellectual maturity." Second of all, there are many criteria that go into evaluating art, it is not all restricted to "legitimacy and intelligence," and, furthermore, the concepts of "legitimacy" and "intelligence" are problematic.  Even so, it's exactly your allegedly grand "intellectual maturity" in Plagen's work that was being disputed. From the link that I saw posted (which is the only thing I have seen so far, thankfully), it's second to third rate abstract work. And not even close to Cezanne, although Cezanne isn't on the top of my list either.

In sum, you think his work is so magnificent, I don't.

Grow up.

Learn how to argue with more than "it's so because I said so" and "grow up."

[gastr1]

I'll tell you what, claragold: You are right. In using language inexactly, I suggested that grads cannot make Plagens-level work.

I also submit that you know full well that isn't what I meant, especially on a forum, where re-writes and logical analysis are less than the first goal. You also know that there are more ways than two to evaluate art, and my point is that Plagens' work is more sophisticated than that of the typical grad student (your assertion), and that his work is, in fact, intelligent and legitimate, even though I don't like it, and am not interested in his subject; and that I have note presented the only criteria to evaluate art. Entire careers have been spent determining what art is; I'll give you my (admittedly simplistic and academic) criteria:

--the work participates in a discussion about the nature of art, culture, and visuality, as opposed to work whose intent is strictly to make self-referential, non-contextual "expressions" (which, despite Tolstoy and Greenberg, never really existed in the most important art). The most interesting work poses the most interesting observations, connections, and/or questions.

Cezanne's work did this, and Plagens' does too, although following much more closely to historical precedent.

Having worked with many graduate students, I have found that most graduate work lacks the intellectual insight or originality to achieve this (which is part of the reason for attending graduate school)-- the questions Plagens is asking are not yet known to exist.

I don't know what a "third-rate" abstractionist is.  We'd have to discuss the rating.