Talk:Monochrome painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article is poorly written and reads like a term paper, tying together artists under a theoretical construct that is simplistic, unnecessary and unfounded. I have studied this "period" of art history (though the period covers about 100 years or so) and it is my opinion that the subject "Meditative art" is not supported by either a strong theoretical or aesthetic similarity between these artists, or by any significant scholarship I am aware of. The important artists covered by this article, and the important groupings to which they belong, are all covered by pages on Wikipedia. There's no need for this one.

Palladian 07:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

until recently i was mostly responsible for this page, and i agree with most of this criticism. in order to justify the overlap of artists mentioned in this article with their own articles on wikipedia, i hope to provide more specific examples of relevant works which are by necessity overlooked in more general surveys of these artists.

the title "meditative art" is unfortunate, but i dont know how to change it. it is a remnant from the original tree outline of articles which needed to be written. the heading was "meditative art [monochrome painting]"; most surveys of modern art would have these two labels reversed in importance; many would not even use 'meditative art.'

that there is no 'significant scholarship' on this topic was most of the impetus for starting this article. i wrote it out of a sense that it was needed; i that found very little writing focussed on monochrome painting either in books or on the web, yet at the same time, i found it briefly mentioned very frequently in history books and art magazines. accepting that my writing style was awkward and that my knowledge of the topic was not in-depth enough to be anywhere near authoritative, i merely hoped to encourage more discussion and to provide a framework for a better resource of knowledge specifically dealing with this topic. In this regard i am very grateful for recent contributions to the article by others.

Decembertexture 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs depth[edit]

I've given this article considerable attention in the last two months. It needs expansion and depth in each section and an image or two, but really it is a subject worthwhile working on. I'd like to see a Still painting, or a Resnick painting or a Pousette-Dart contrasted with a textured Ryman. Modernist 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs more pictures. 70.109.124.172 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed[edit]

it'slikely that you're more qualified than i to make these changes, and you are certainly free to do so, so please do. respecting copyright, especially with regard to images, is the only real concern. Decembertexture 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

op art?[edit]

maybe something about op art or about a relevant op artist; it might be a good addition. anyone? Decembertexture 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvement[edit]

This article has vastly improved, Modernist 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

References which support that anti-art be mentioned in the article[edit]

  • Varvara Stepanova: Lecture on Constructivism, 22 December 1921.In: Peter Noever: Aleksandr M. Rodchenko - Varvara F. Stepanova. The Future Is Our Only Goal. Munich: Prestel, 1991, pp. 174-178. "From here, Constructivism proceeds to the negation of all art in its entirety, and calls into question the necessity of a specific activity of art as creator of a universal aesthetic."
  • "I reduced painting to its logical conclusion and exhibited three canvases: red, blue, and yellow. I affirmed: this is the end of painting." - Alexander Rodchenko.
  • Rodchenko, A. and V. Stepanova (1975) [1920] 'The Programme of the Productivist Group', in Benton and Benton (eds), pp. 91-2. "1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art. . . . 6. The collective art of today is constructive life."
  • Pam Meecham and Julie Sheldon. "Modern art: a critical introduction". Routledge, 2005, p 148 : "Rodchenko was disillusioned with easel painting which he in fact 'gave up' in 1921 to concentrate upon the relatively mechanised processes of photography, photomontage and graphic design. For him 'art has no place in modern life', but photography, particularly experimental photography as opposed to 'connoisseurial photographs', was the ultimate anti-bourgeois, anti-art practice."
  • J. M. Bernstein. "Against voluptuous bodies: late modernism and the meaning of painting". Stanford University Press, 2006, p. 247 :"The anti-art moment of modernist works, the moment that Duchamp and Rodchenko attempt to make complete, enacts art's desire to be world and not art; but only as art, as semblance, can art evince that desire, perform it."
  • Larry Shiner. “The Invention of Art: A Cultural History”. University of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 256.“If the provocations of Tzara seem merely naughty and those of Breton overly esoteric, the anti-art declarations of the Russian constructivists were potentially of greater social importance, given constructivism's roots in marxist theory and its opportunity to help build a new society.” (...) ""The spell of painting was broken and ""construction"" had taken its place for artists such as Aleksandr Rodchenko, Vavara Stepanova, and Lyubov Popova, who combined it with socialist commitment to become leaders of the First Working Group of Constructivists. One of their early manifestos declared: 1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."

Armando Navarro (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia guidelines on the use of See also : "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."Armando Navarro (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • James Stevens Curl. "A dictionary of architecture". Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 162 : "Constructivism. Anti-aesthetic, anti-art, supposedly pro-technology (in that it favoured the apparently logical use of man-made industrial materials and processes such as welding), Left-wing movement originating in the USSR from c.1920, later promoted in the West, notably at the Bauhaus."
  • Guy Julier. "The Thames and Hudson Encyclopaedia of 20th Century Design and Designers". Thames and Hudson, 1993. "Given its anti-art standpoint, Russian Constructivism avoided the traditional use of art materials (e.g., oil and canvas) or pre-revolutionary iconography. Thus, art objects might be constructed out of ready-made materials (e.g., woods, metals, photographs or paper). The artists' work is often viewed as a system of reduction or abstraction, yet in all areas of cultural activity, from graphic design to film and theater, their aim was to construct a reality by bringing different elements together."

Armando Navarro (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Gerard Conio. “Le Constructivisme Russe”. L'age D'homme, 1987, p. 68. Gerard Conio states that Rodtchenko shared the "anti-art" conception of the Inkhouk in Moscow. In French : A la revue Vechtch/L'objet, publiée en trois langues (russe, allemand, francais) à Berlin par Lissitzky et Ehrenbourg, Alexis Gan répondra par son livre Le Constructivisme, dans lequel il exposait le point de vue productiviste et récusait l’idéologie du vechtchisme (théorie de l'art comme production d’objets, de modèles). Rodtchenko partageait cette conception “anti-art” qui régnait a l’Inkhouk de Moscou et renoncera à toute activité artistique pour entrer or dans la production », pour se mettre au service de la vie.Armando Navarro (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jane Turner. “The dictionary of art”. Grove's Dictionaries, 1996, p. 892 : About the term "Monochrome" : “Artists concerned with criticizing rather than with affirming the value of painting in art have, paradoxically, also employed the monochrome. In such cases the monochrome functions polemically as metonym, substituting one type of painting for all painting or art in general. Examples of this strategy include the white and black monochromes of the early 1950s by Robert Rauschenberg and the achromes of Piero Manzoni; both artists aimed to reinvigorate the nihilism associated with earlier anti-art movements such as Dada. In the work of Olivier Mosset (b 1944), Niele Toroni (b 1937) and Terry Atkinson (b 1939) the monochrome signifies a radical political negativity; for Claude Rutault (b 1941) it represented an ironical expression of the historical impasse of painting itself.” Armando Navarro (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of a link to another article does not imply some kind of equivalence. It only implies that further reading may be of interest. Therefore I don't think there is that much harm done by linking some articles in the "See also" section to "Anti-art." But to make it more clear, maybe a note could be put after the link, stating that there is no implied equivalence or even a necessarily strong connection. Or perhaps that such linkage is disputed. The point I am trying to make is that the way out of our dilemma lies in nuanced language, carefully placed. Anyone agree? Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice of Fire[edit]

The image of the painting Voice of Fire in this article isn't a picture of the original painting, but rather a Photoshop recreation. I'm not sure how it made its way into this article, but simply recreating a painting seems like blatant forgery to me. I've replaced the image with a low-resolution picture of the original artwork. —Nick (T/C) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nothing[edit]

Should this article be added to the indicated category?

Malevich, Black Square, 1915[edit]

Malevich realized his first Black Square in 1915, not 1913. see here: MoMA and here: Hermitage Museum. Coldcreation (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Need for a reactive critique of the movement[edit]

Surely there was some significant reaction in the critical community along the lines of, "This isn't merely bad art, but not in fact art at all." Don't get me wrong; I understand the argument of why this is a legitimate genre of painting, much as some guy sitting on a stage smoking a cigarette or spinning a top is recognized as performance art. Still, one thinks there must be a sizable negative critical reaction, if only amongst the establishment art critic community, that deconstructs this sort of deconstructionism, no? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:5B1:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)