Post: #1

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...map=%5B%5D

Accord to painter Georg Baselitz women can't paint well. They lack individuality. Personally I have seen some great technical artists that are women yet they usually aren't doing anything new. The white knighting on the article is hilarious and there is some hamstering in the article too.

Post: #2

Fuck I hate visual art people. The level of pretentious douche-baggery exceeds that of even hipster music culture.

General conversation goes something like
Person 1: *statement about painting, saying it's good or bad*
Person 2: *someone else opposing them, stating that they're wrong*
Person 1: *reiterating that they are correct and that it's a certain fact*
Person 2: *contradictory statement, saying that everyone has their own opinion in art, therefore Person 1's opinion is worthless and that they are correct*

Quote:He continued: “It is a fairly outrageous and provocative thing for Baselitz to say and we inevitably react against a comment like that. But he has got to an age where he doesn’t care. Others would probably agree but wouldn’t like to stick their head above the parapet.”

I like that part, how he states that many others likely share the same opinion, but don't want to risk their reputation.

Post: #3

I don't, I majored in it. However I am conservative and most are liberal so that always was a problem. Had to keep my opinions to my self a lot.

Post: #4

Quote:Sarah Thornton, who wrote Seven Days in the Art World, said: “I disagree with him; the market gets it wrong all the time. To see the market as a mark of quality is going down a delusional path. I’m shocked Baselitz does. His work doesn’t go for so much.”

Her opinion is more correct than the market.

Quote:Pollock said women were held back by several factors but principally the “myth of the painter. The image in the West of a lonely, tortured white man. I could run rings around you with great women artists but there isn’t space in the cultural imagination.”

"I could easily disprove your argument, but I won't because you don't have the ability to understand it." That's a new one.

Post: #5

If women actually had the same ability in the arts - music, visual arts, literature - as men, then it would have showed up in some cultures centuries ago. Since women were restricted to the home and to "gentle" pursuits, why didn't painting and poetry become known as feminine endeavors? Even in an "oppressive patriarchy" they would have had the space to create works equal to that of Shakespeare and Beethoven, if they had been so inclined. The fact that this never happened indicates strongly to me, that women are incapable of it.

Post: #6

Schopenhauer pointed this out over 150 years ago. He said that women ultimately fail as great painters because they are unable to escape their inwardly focused, subjective view of the world (female solipsism), which means they can never develop the sort of objective, universal vision a painter needs to produce a work of genius.

Schopenhauer Wrote:And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere. This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours — and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view. It is quite in keeping with this that ordinary women have no real susceptibility for art at all.

Post: #7

This is where I don't understand why women are knocking other average male painters with their average talent. If they are on equal terms to men, why don't they prove it?

The fact is that none of them have shit on the seventy year old German guy who made the argument. The article says that he is known as the greatest living painter. If he says "No woman painter has become great" then they have to best his work before they can be on equal terms in arguing or make any point that has weight. Just repeating the same crap over and over again and referring to female artists nobody has ever heard of is not effective argumentation. It's explaining to the reader that you're willing to ignore male artists while touting the works of your pets, of whom you select by gender.

(02-17-2013 12:25 PM)RawGod Wrote:  If women actually had the same ability in the arts - music, visual arts, literature - as men, then it would have showed up in some cultures centuries ago. Since women were restricted to the home and to "gentle" pursuits, why didn't painting and poetry become known as feminine endeavors? Even in an "oppressive patriarchy" they would have had the space to create works equal to that of Shakespeare and Beethoven, if they had been so inclined. The fact that this never happened indicates strongly to me, that women are incapable of it.

Yeah, even in an "oppressive patriarchy", if women actually had better skills in the visual arts a man would have noticed and capitalized on it. Since men haven't, they don't.

Post: #8

In any field - the best man is the best. The best man will always be better than the best woman. Although apparently women are better than men at cross-channel swimming due to the differences in the distribution of body-fat. So I'll give them that one.

Anyway - there is no such thing as a female genius since for every female 'genius' there will be many many men who are better than her. In any field. Here is a female philosopher setting out the reasons why - http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin

Also - I think Jackson Pollock is shit. And the reason he is famous is because he was a cold-war stooge for the CIA. His reputation was created as part of the propaganda war with the Soviets. You can read about it here - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...78808.html

Post: #9

Also - you should check out 'The Manipulated Male' by Esther Vilar. It is an amazing book that Roosh wrote about recently. It is a short book (about 70 pages) - so you may as well just read it on your computer. There are lots of pdf files of it freely available on GOOGLE.

One of the subjects touched on in the book is the fact that women (as an earlier poster pointed out) have never utilised their free time to pursue greater interests (like art and science). And that they have no real desire to do so.

Instead - the men in society kept getting tricked into thinking that women were too 'oppressed' to do anything noteworthy and interesting with their lives.

Cardguy

PS It is rare that I read a book by a woman that is brilliant (the same is true for you - look at your bookshelf). But the one above is and it always delights me when I come across one since my observations are just that. Observations. And not burblings of misogynistic prejudice. Nothing would delight me more than if women could improve on the 3% of Nobel prizes they have won (I have removed the Nobel prize for Peace and Literature here since too many subjective criteria influence the awarding of that prize).

Post: #10

You know

if women were more capable than men at everything
you'd think they'd be more capable at not getting oppressed

Makes you wonder if that's their one weakness or something.

Post: #11

The big thing is the lack of new ideas. Granted that most guys even talented guys don't have new ideas. One thing I noticed in school that if you went into too new of ideas people would generally shun them. I see this also now if you do digital art. But the major innovations in art are usually from nerdy guys who usually don't get much credit for their work.

Post: #12

Women are very good at TECHNICAL arts. It's why so many women go into the design arts -- graphic design, jewelry design, clothing design.

They can also be terrific singers, instrument players (some of the current women violinists are pretty remarkable), and of courses, actresses. They can quite good at EXECUTING art.

Creating art? Not so much.

The only exception of note is literature, but there the great women writers have serious limits. Jane Austen and George Eliot (Marian Evans) are truly great novelists. Austen's novels, as purely constructed works of art, are astonishing. And George Eliot had a deep understanding of both male and female psychology. And Emily Dickinson is arguably the greatest female poet.

But Austen's world in the novels is really the circumscribed world of a woman's imagination, artfully rendered and amusingly ironic, but still quite limited. It's significant she never married. Dickinson, too, lived in a world of huge emotional constraints, and that she was likely a lesbian tells a lot.

And though George Eliot eventually married, she did so late, and if you looked at her pictures...well, manjaw doesn't begin to capture it. She was really Marian Horseface.

But even these exceptions prove the rule. It's great literature, but it isn't GROUNDBREAKING literature. It isn't Milton, Donne, Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, or James Joyce. These are men who imagined worlds outside themselves, and could create the broadest visions of what the word on the page could do.

Post: #13

The commentators on that article, I think most of these people should be reduced to slavery. damn I'm angry today. One woman is offended because she is an artist and an author, some author who no-one gives a fuck about.

Post: #14

I'm sorry, but regardless of whether this guy is right or not it's tough for me to take seriously someone who talks shit about other artists when he himself paints this crapola:









I've seen finer art in the patterns of my splooge.

Post: #15

A lot of "fine" art, really looks like it was painted by kids. Some of it is really cool, though.
Pollard is a great example of this. Some of his work literally just looks like randomly applied paint from different heights, while some of his other works look great

I don't know a whole lot of artists all that well though, and I think it's mostly abstract art that is a bit hit or miss like that.

The first and third paintings are pretty cool, though

Post: #16

(02-18-2013 09:52 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Women are very good at TECHNICAL arts. It's why so many women go into the design arts -- graphic design, jewelry design, clothing design.

They can also be terrific singers, instrument players (some of the current women violinists are pretty remarkable), and of courses, actresses. They can quite good at EXECUTING art.

I tend to agree but I think there may even be a neurological factor involved.
Men tend to have a higher Spatial Intelligence than women. Paintings by women tend to look "flat" but that may just be my bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_vis...on_ability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_int...sychology)

Post: #17

(02-18-2013 12:32 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  I'm sorry, but regardless of whether this guy is right or not it's tough for me to take seriously someone who talks shit about other artists when he himself paints this crapola:






I've seen finer art in the patterns of my splooge.

I've never had a blowjob from that position.

Post: #18

Another poor usage of advocacy; he's just playing right into the frame of "Men hate women".

I am seeing yet another round of feminist blogs using this guy as a piñata.

No benefit whatsoever to this guy running his mouth.

Post: #19

(02-18-2013 04:35 PM)tmason Wrote:  Another poor usage of advocacy; he's just playing right into the frame of "Men hate women".

I am seeing yet another round of feminist blogs using this guy as a piñata.

No benefit whatsoever to this guy running his mouth.

Well, he makes some good points, esp. about the disproportionately large number of women in art academies producing a disproportionately low amount of quality art. The disconnect between education and productivity produced by the large number of women pursuing "soft" degrees is an important current issue.

His language isn't particularly inflammatory. Much better to speak truth than snivel and back track in the delusional hopes of penetrating and persuading the limited female brain. You manipulate them to get sex. Otherwise, no need to censor yourself to please them. You really think people should be thinking of feminist bloggers when expressing their opinions? And you harm feminists by marginalizing and shaming them not by engaging with them.

Post: #20

(02-18-2013 06:27 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  Well, he makes some good points, esp. about the disproportionately large number of women in art academies producing a disproportionately low amount of quality art. The disconnect between education and productivity produced by the large number of women pursuing "soft" degrees is an important current issue.

His language isn't particularly inflammatory. Much better to speak truth than snivel and back track in the delusional hopes of penetrating and persuading the limited female brain. You manipulate them to get sex. Otherwise, no need to censor yourself to please them. You really think people should be thinking of feminist bloggers when expressing their opinions? And you harm feminists by marginalizing and shaming them not by engaging with them.

Far better to prove the point rather than explain it; host an art show with brand new artwork (with the names of artists removed) and ask renowned artists/critics/etc. to pick the artwork that is the best.

Host it every year. Make sure the critics/judges are women.

Rinse and repeat.

Post: #21

Thornton is right, the art market is heavily manipulated and controlled by a few major players who use it as a tool for investment. It isn't speculative, as the market is small enough that major purchases/the patronization of a single collector is itself enough to change the market. So in terms of the historical consensus of greatness, the commercial art market has a poor predictive record. “As always, the market is right.” is an incredibly stupid thing to say - you only need one example to prove him wrong, and there are many. I'll throw out the richest living artist, Damien Hirst, as an easy one.

Women have a slightly higher median IQ than men, but a smaller standard deviation. That in itself would explain why you'll find more women proficient in fields like this, but fewer lauded as historical geniuses.

The female surrealists were great - Remedios Varo, Dorothea Tanning, Leonora Carrington, Kahlo.

Post: #22

I also think there is more excellent male sculptors. This same part of the brain used here, the visual spacial part is why most men are better drivers as well on a more off tangent note.

Post: #23

As an Artist, it pains me to see women tarnish the canvas with their simplistic, cliche, paintings.

I'm currently working on my masterpiece.

It's going to be better than that melted clock painting.

Post: #24

Is there anything that women generally do as well as men?

Post: #25

Complain