Silly buggers :)

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Mission/mission1.asp

To put a straitjacket on human expression so it will newer again upset our safe and ordered lives.

>>By the standards of the ARC, ONLY realism is art.

I don't agree that the definition as stated says this.

>>A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating >>some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world.

Note, it doesn't say an accurate or realistic recreation, but a selective one. For example, if I select some abstract property of reality to represent, it won't appear realistic. Draw me a picture of the laws of conservation of energy. It isn't likely to look like any particular real thing or scene. But that is a representation of a selected part of reality, and hence might be art.

Also, it's not about communicating a representation of reality, but of the experience of being human. Try drawing the experience of love in a way the would accurately communicate your feelings to another person. That's one of the kinds of challenge that non-representational art attempts to answer.

I actually quite like this definition as it resonates with my own feelings about what art is.

regards

what pretentious bullshit.  the ARC is apparently some artist cult, with Ross as the self-appointed venerated-leader-who-knows-all.

from their mission statement:

"To repudiate the idea that development in art requires destruction of boundaries and standards, pointless emphasis on 'newness,' or pursuit of the bizarre and ugly as ends in themselves, and to expose as artistic fraud those works conceived only to elicit outrage"

anything that is created for the sole purpose of evoking an emotional response, aestheic or otherwise, is art.   maybe no one likes it, hell maybe it's "BAD" art, but it's still art.   anyhow the whole qualification process of what is good art and what is bad art, is purely subjective.

Personally, I say art pieces that sell for the most money are the "best" works of art.  very easy to quantify that way.

so by my standard, Congo the Chimpanzee is a "good" artist.  I don't have any problem admitting that either.  3 of his works sold for approximately $20,000.    yeah, there's definitely some celebrity factor driving the price up, but still, I'd hang one of his prints on my wall.  

see here -->  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4109664.stm

>> the only ___________ that should be allowed is _________ Europeans doing useful things.

and doesnt that basically sum up the Westerner's view of the universe in general?

we have constantly marginalized every other culture, and have tried to force our peculiar brand on the rest of the world.

Wel... yes. It's becuase Europeans had an unfair abundance of power for a very long time. What do you expect?

And that's an excuse?

The ability to do something in no way gives one the right to do it.

> A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world.

Bullshit.

"A work of art is a creation for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human" would have been more than sufficient, and more accurate. It doesn't have to "re" create anything, nor represent anything, nor have anything to do with reality other than the reality of the human condition.

Just my own pretentious two cent....

>  It's becuase Europeans had an unfair abundance of power for a very long time

do you ever logically think things through, or do you just fire off posts and hope something sticks?

billmercer,

Interesting question.

It never occured to me until now (because I never took art too seriously, sorry):  Who is anyone to tell anyone else what Art is?

> "the ARC is apparently some artist cult, with Ross as the self-appointed venerated-leader-who-knows-all."
Not just a cult, but a movement, one with a surprising level of influence. Their message is extremely popular with right-wing conservatives, as well as with realist artists.
When reading Ross and Yoder's various diatribes, you'd almost get the impression that they are concerned about artistic sensibility. But here's a quote that really lays it on the line. (I added the emphasis)

"...for four generations, Modernist ideologues have controlled all the major museums in the free world and most of the minor ones. They control nearly every college and university art department, and their puppets and clones rule journalistic art criticism with total control. THEY RECEIVE ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDING, and their propaganda missives are called text books in secondary schools and college..."

Yep, it's about the money. Basically, these guys think their personal favorite style is undervalued, and are trying to force a change. They want higher prices for their paintings, so they can make more money from them, and they want taxpayer funding for their agenda. That's what I think this is really about.

I wonder what camp the upside-down [you name it] in urine "art style" aligns with in that regard?  

No taxpayer funding anymore? Aaw, too bad.  Fine with me.

But of course that's not art.  Oops. Forgot. Who am I to say.  I guess all I can say is that I don't want my taxpayer dollars going toward that; and write letters.  

Now, that's an art (oops again, my opinion).  And, one I can master.

regards

billmercer > Yep, it's about the money. Basically, these guys think their personal favorite style is undervalued, and are trying to force a change. They want higher prices for their paintings, so they can make more money from them, and they want taxpayer funding for their agenda. That's what I think this is really about.

Agree, and that it is worse than that, by attempting to make it 'easy', such as taking a photogragh by clicking a button, rather than studying principles of design, mathematics, chemistry, physics, logic, and taking of some innovative steps of creativity to format a point the beauty is irrelevant, power penultimate.

> Frankly, the idea that every single cloud of insipid Bouguereau cupids fluttering around, no matter how masterfully executed, is intrinsically more valuable than the entire body of work by someone like Picasso or Kandinsky

I dunno the that, only thinking on Picasso and how worthless that junk was. Although I could appreciate someone's watches flowing (melting?) and (later) a Mona Lisa, my initial impression of picasso was that we should ensure someone remembers to keep his cell door locked. Seemed like he'd seek fame for taking a picture of some damsel, color it wierdly, cut it up into pieces and reassemble awkwardly. Any semblance of sanity eluded me. Then one day I saw something called a baboon of his made out out iron, probably in Chicago. He called it a woman, what a wierdo! I had to admit that his baboon was at least a little better looking than someone's big piece of iron I-Beam, where once painted a single color (red) called it art. Then it happened. Having looked away, distracted by some crowd over there, I looked back at the <ugh> Picasso and I saw her. Once having seen her, I could no longer flame such an artist. How'd he do that?!

My IMO is I have my preferences, make my choices, today, and that my format for sembling up choices tomorrow may differ. Art is about reality, but no way can that be defined by the banal. Whatever an ARC is, (and I think I don't want to know), they sound like they haven't a clue about reality.

If they want a crack at reality, let 'em try on a real SunBow question! <haha>

I happen to like depictions of Mobius and of water flowing up and down continually at the same time.

So I suppose this is not art?:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/sistine%20god.jpg
http://biblescripture.net/Creation.jpeg
http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/Sistine%20God%202.jpg
http://www.themage.net/images/Artwork/God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/images/adameve.jpg

(I may have missed the point concerning reality of cupids)

> "I wonder what camp the upside-down [you name it] in urine "art style" aligns with in that regard?"
Jeez, that was ten years ago, let it go, man!

> " I guess all I can say is that I don't want my taxpayer dollars going toward that..."
Tough. My tax dollars have to go to fund the stupid War on Drug Addicts, so why should you get off easy?  ;)

Actually, it's not tax dollars, it's tax pennies. Without turning this into a debate over publicly funded art, the amount of tax money that has actually spent on the handful of horrible examples that the extremist right-wing pundits like to froth about is microscopically trivial in comparison to what the vast majority of NEA funding goes to, which is mostly educational programs, library collections, dance, drama, programs for underprivileged kids, arts in medicine programs, and I could go on for LITERALLY THOUSANDS of positive examples. One guy one time dipped a crucifix in a specimen jar, and nobody can remember anything else years later.
 

SunBow, my objection is not to cupids per se, but to Bougoueroueououeu cupids. They are insipid, nauseating, and vile. The-artist-whose-name-I-cannot-spell had incredible skillz, but he spent so much time making lame-ass cupids it ain't funny.

 

                    Salvador Dali                          

http://www.cheniere.org/images/persistence%20of%20time1.jpg
http://www.fineartsite.com/images_mysql/675t.jpg
http://www.quotations-community.com/en/01/Author/Salvador%20Dali/quotations.html
There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad.
http://daliland.com/time/a.jpg
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2004/10/20/stories/2004102000300200.htm
BORN INTO a middle-class family in 1904, Salvador Felipe Jacinto Dali i Domenech was one of the most flamboyant patron saints of Surrealism.
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/12-dali-inside.jpg
http://www.oil-paintings-gallery.com/oil-painting-art-gallery-repro-artist-oilpainting-paintings/oilpainting/salvador_dali4.jpg
http://artistgarden.co.uk/ARTISTS/images/dali.jpg
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/phihhj/Gem2002k/stuweb2001/grouptwo/supei_files/image026.jpg

um, which side is up? In 'reality'?
http://www.arkitera.com/v1/sanat/2004/01/mercekalti/images/swans.jpg
http://www.20six.co.uk/pub/LoesjeUK/Dali_swans.jpg

As a rambunctious kid I thought I liked cupid. Somethere later in art I got more disillusioned. Confused. Religion? Anywho, I googled up that lady who's been called a baboon (if it is a sculpture, does that make it more real?):

http://members.shaw.ca/secondcello/picasso%20chicago_th.jpg
http://www.galerieart.cz/picasso_tete_de_baboon.jpg
http://www.organizaciondop.com/galeria/gale10/Picasso_Pablo_01-A.jpg
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/picasso/picasso.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~seanduff/chicago/picasso.JPG
http://www.intheloop-chicago.com/images/pic-the_picasso.jpg

Cupid on the rocks...
http://www.isabel.com/gallery/reproduction/b/bouguereau/om742.jpg

A blonde cupid threatening some topless chick...
http://home.freechal.com/seoulguide2/home/Bouguereau/04_Jeune_fille_se_defendant_contre_lamour.jpg

Macho cupid demonstrating antigravity
http://www.dezinna.com/cupid_psyche.jpg

Cupid porno...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/4/48/Bouguereau_first_kiss.jpg

Cupid popping a zit...
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/kl/images/kitsch_boug.cupid.lg.jpg

Tag-team cupids...
http://www.dreamwater.com/women/theresles/bouguereau-innocence2.jpg

Cupid as Calvin Klein model...
http://www.art-inspirations.com/images/bouguereau-wet_cupid.jpg

Cupids swarming Aphrodite before she can even get dressed.
http://www.myastrologybook.com/Aphrodite-Venus-Bouguereau+20br300x428.jpg

This poor woman needs a damn flyswatter...
http://www.lyons.co.uk/A4H/classic/Bouguereau-Cupids.jpg

Another serious infestation of cupids. Somebody call Orkin.
http://www.anlamak.com/dusunmek/antik-yunan/Adolphe-Willam-Bouguereau---Le-Printemps-(ilkbaharin-Donusu).jpg

Stupid EE formatting screwed up the last link. Here's a working one.
http://tinyurl.com/e35u8

I have two problems with Yoder and Ross (especially Ross.)
First is their absolute obsession with Bougeaurauo, to the point that other MORE talented artists painting in the same style are given short shrift. Every interview with Ross always turns into a Bougeureau whine-and-jeeze party, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the injustice that Bougeureau's art is undervalued. (Frankly, he painted so MANY pictures it's surprising they aren't traded as commodities. )
I don't deny that Bougeureau is talented. And he's capable of much more interesting art than the cupidothon I posted previously, like this grim image.
http://www.biblepainting.com/bouguereau/bouguereau21.jpg
But the incredible volume of paintings he produced of scantily clad children with wings is frankly weird.

Second, their self-stated mission is to destroy non-representational art has dire consequences for everyone's freedom of artistic expression if they are successful in getting their extremely narrow definition of What Art Is accepted by governments and corporations. They believe technical skill in producing representational images is the sole determinant of artistic merit.

I will say one positive thing about the ARC. They have created an online archive of high-quality scans of
some really terrific paintings. If only there were fewer cupids.

Now that you've confirmed the name spelling, I tried a constrained search (deferring the direct links). At first blush I think I agree on two counts, one that he seems to have had some talent and used it, and second, that the cupids run quite a gamut. I thought it would be otherwise, too many plain ones all over creation (unseen by us). I think I'd not want to protest too much, for all too often a seasonal promotion gimmick, censorship, etc., can leave us lucky to find enough left in other season for placement of fig leaves. The definition of cupid here eludes me, it seems all myth set aside except for depicting something about youth or young.

Some of the cupids are actually THE Cupid, Roman deity who was knockin' da boots with Psyche. Others are the cherubic little bastards armed with sawed-off love bow and arrows of lust, whose sole purpose appears to be to pester topless maidens.

<dang> I forgot to get me a google term, catholic style. Romans <ugh> remind me of popes destroying art that may be "enticing" good bishops to think of doing eviltry (penile erosion, or envy?)

> If only there were fewer cupids

yeah.  less cupids, please.  

but we do need more clown pictures.   and Velvet Elvises.

How about the glow-in-the dark bull fighters?

http://members.aol.com/elvers/dogs/dogsplay.html

A unicorn tapestry would look nice on that wall over there.

I confess to not being too artsy knowledgeable, or even about the particular discrepancy. But I had a question on something that raised an eyebrow here, an eyebrow there, and (ran out of eyebrows to raise).

For purposes of this thread, how would the angel (the one on the left) be classified? And if you so desire, how would any of you classify?

I got my google hit now:

http://www.spauda.lt/bible/saints/teresa/bernini.htm

http://www.jardinpuzzles.com/gallery/galmelindamisc_files/tapestryheart.jpg [unicorn]

Ah, yes, Bernini's famous Orgasm of St Theresa. It was pretty controversial in its time I believe.
The angel is supposed to be a seraphim, and he's supposed to be repeatedly thrusting a burning lance of fire into her heart.

But Bernini seems to have been thinking about classical mythology, as the lance looks more like an arrow, and the seraph looks more like a Cupid. And that arrow isn't pointed at her heart, either.





 

Before we call it heaven sent
our time, with art, must, be, well. spent.

( with such gramatically incorrect puntuation the abowe is obviously not art :-))

Actually I have wondered about those cupid painters. there is someyhing not quite right about liking little boys that much.

regards JakobA

Famous what? My google failures were trying for "passion".

Thanks for confirmation, I can only see an "arrow", so I couldn't figure out I needed "lance". I got the hit when switching to ecstasy. I also think it more cupid than angel. Maybe he just cheated, had a cupid laying around when commissioned to do a pair, got half the work done quick.

But as cupids/angels go, what about this one for: "standards of the ARC", any idea on pass/fail? I'd guess they'd burn my tapestry, hardly anyone cares about unicorns anymore.

> there is someyhing not quite right about liking little boys

Sometimes you have to be in their shoes, so with little knowledge I try to not prejudge. For example, it was not so long ago that there were no women allowed in stage plays. With older people working to support families, it could be that the cheapest and most available models were boys. Yet I did still fell uncomfortable when a search brought on a whle batch at a time.

Question. For those knowing better.

Concerning the Last Supper, there's been talk about the one character usually labelled John. It apparently looked so young and feminine that people tried to write mary into the scene.A restoration was done, and even more feminine qualities came out, no longer a doubt, it was no cupid. Since John supposedly lived much longer than the rest, he is presumed to be originally the youngest. The suggestion made is that to emphasize John's youth, he made him appear girlish to contrast him with others (elders). I dunno that, artists can do wierd things, ok there. But there's an extension to the logic, of having all artists in that period try to portray young men by painting them to be shapely women. Thus claim is that it is typical. Now I don't want to believe the that, but I haven't a background to side one way or the other. How about you? Girlish boys?

This (sample, not too good, maybe before restored, he|she first left of our middle, or as his right hand)
http://www.mostmerciful.com/last%20supper-in%20color.jpg

Not this (unless you want it)
http://www.egodeath.com/images/MMAdminJudas.jpg

Forgot to ask, not to presume, would ARC give it a thumbs up or down? :
http://www.knua.ac.kr/images/H.Renai/b%20daVinci2.JPG
http://gim.gupshup.org/gal/H/da-vinci-last-supper-copy19605_5815974.JPG
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/artists/leonardo_da_vinci/last_supper.jpg
http://www.hhes.net.nz/H0088817.jpg
http://www.apol.net/dightonrock/fivehu2.jpg
http://www.limericky.com/Last%20Supper%20-%20da%20vinci.JPG

I'm pretty sure the ARC would consider this the best of all possible sculpture. Bernini's brilliant, but he has something of a reputation for being schmaltzy, and the ARC folks seem to like glurge artists.

> Famous what? My google failures were trying for "passion".

That was me being a joker. It's the Ecstasy of course, but most folks who see it admit it looks like a screaming toe-curler. Even in his time this was a controversial work, but Bernini was such a superstar that he could get away with it.

To quote St. Theresa,
"It pleased the Lord that I should sometimes see the following vision. I would see beside me, on my left hand, an angel in bodily form -- a type of vision which I am not in the habit of seeing, except very rarely. Though I often see representations of angels, my visions of them are of the type which I first mentioned. It pleased the Lord that I should see this angel in the following way. He was not tall, but short, and very beautiful, his face so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest types of angel who seem to be all afire. They must be those who are called cherubim:* they do not tell me their names but I am well aware that there is a great difference between certain angels and others, and between these and others still, of a kind that I could not possibly explain. In his hands I saw a long golden spear and at the end of the iron tip I seemed to see a point of fire. With this he seemed to pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it and he left me completely afire with a great love for God. The pain was so sharp that it made me utter several moans; and so excessive was the sweetness caused me by this intense pain that one can never wish to lose it, nor will one's soul be content with anything less than God. It is not bodily pain, but spiritual, though the body has a share in it -- indeed, a great share. So sweet are the colloquies of love which pass between the soul and God that if anyone thinks I am lying I beseech God, in His goodness, to give him the same experience."

Yeow! Quite an experience! The fact that she said Cherubim might have something to do with Bernini's Cupid-like interpretation of the angel, but experts agree she was talking about a Seraph, not a Cherub.

OK, here's an example of why the ARC is full of crapola.

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004/Minneapolis/shameful1.asp

In this article, they describe as "shameful" the sale by a museum of a Bougeureau painting so it can get money to buy a different painting. Fred Ross froths on about the evils of 20th century relativisim and so on,  and I assumed it would be some impressionist work or a box full of used condoms or something ridiculous like that. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they actually sold it so they could buy a painting by Albert Moore, another highly respected 19th century artist, and one that the ARC themselves USED to consider a "master".

The museum had two Bougeureaus, they sold one to buy a painting by an artist they didn't have at all. But instead of viewing this as an attempt to extend the breadth of the museum's collection, Ross blathers on about cultural elitism and a bunch of similar nonsense.
 
The ARC's hypocrisy is revealed on their own web site. In their entry on Moore, they include glowing praise like this:  "Many mediocre artists of the day were full Academicians, yet Moore, one of the greatest and most original Victorian artists was not even elected an Associate."
and this:
"Moore was a real outsider, but his aesthetic decorative images are staggeringly well-painted and beautiful."

However as soon as Ross' pet painter Bougeureau is threatened, their tune changes PDQ, describing Moore as "...at best a rather emotionless member of that movement who took their ideology to an extreme by purposely removing any feelings in order to emphasize pretty women in carefully worked out elements of design and color. Globally speaking, a 2nd or 3rd rank master."

So let's get this straight. They're selling a painting by a famous 19th century realist painter to buy a painting by another famous 19th century realist painter. And this is supposed to be because of the evils of 20th century modernism? Ross is completely off his rocker. Here are his comments on the sale of the painting:

"This was a terrible symbolic event that overwhelming popular will could not prevent. The preservation of our way of life is what is really at stake. For if this great masterpiece can be thrown to the winds by the willful spite, of a handful of cultural “elites,” what next might we find piled on the ash heap of history? ...Chaucer? ...Dickens? ...Beethoven? ...Chopin? ...Homer? ...Locke?"

The dude is on CRACK. Note the incredible exaggeration and distortion..."preservation of our way of life..." Give me a break. It's a commercial painting by an artist famous for doing very good commercial paintings.

"...what next might we find piled on the ash heap of history?" Excuse me? Ash heap?The damn painting was SOLD for well over half a million dollars, and I strongly suspect that the new owner doesn't plan on incinerating it.

It's clear that the real agenda here is Ross' desire to promote his own personal favorite artist over others. Even when a museum tries to buy a painting by an artist ARC considers an acknowledged master, that's not good enough. Clearly the only acceptable course of action for any museum is to snap up every Bougeureau they can find, and never ever sell it, because no other artists matter, Bougeureau is the only one that is worth collecting.

Ross is a crass and devious charlatan, a posturing buffoon with an audience, stirring up public outrage over a nonexistent problem.

ARC certainly recognizes that Leonardo and Michaelangelo were also somewhat talented artists. Not as talented as Bouguereau, mind you, who is the ultimate expression of perfection in art, and will never be surpassed...

Last Supper-wise, ARC themselves have this image.
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=1973

>> billmercer

Now do not go overboard, remember how easily the internet can give an impression all out of proportion to reality.

Like that site fx. Does it actually represent a 'movement' ?
or is it just the homepage of that one man Ross ?
or maybe even a joke homepage of 'a real screaming art kook' ? ( as I once did a homepage for the alien Atevi http://jakagg.tripod.com/tnfatevihome.html )

regards JakobA

gambling, I try link: http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=1973 and get <argh> (poor quality image and):

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
The Last Supper - Before Restoration
Fresco, 1498

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0006'

Overflow: 'CINT'

/asp/database/image.asp, line 166

>Does it actually represent a 'movement' ?
>or is it just the homepage of that one man Ross ?
Yes, and yes.
It's Ross' personal pet project, and most of the input seems to be from him, his wife, and Yoder. But if you can believe their own PR, they get an incredible volume of traffic, and they do seem to be able to stir up stuff with their campaigns.

Interestingly, I just found a comment that indicates that Fred Ross personally owns a huge collection of 19th century paintings, paintings which, if his vision of art is successful, will become incredibly much more valuable. In other words, this is the art world equivalent of a pump-n-dump stock scam.

> Question Title: A non-Religious question...

IMO it began and remained appropriate to the TA, and at this stage it has religion on both sides of this ARC or 'real' whatever. Art of some form is often at least half of any religion.

The only danger here is the form it could take of a rant, which is ok in and of itself, but can end up in form of monolog, where those who might be in agreement feel they have nothing to add, their opinion already being offered by another. Hence I try to encourage us using at least a ditto once in awhile.

> Ross is a crass and devious charlatan, a posturing buffoon with an audience,
> stirring up public outrage over a nonexistent problem.

For the ditto side of coin, If what you've reported is correct, then I agree with the first line, such as crass. I dunno about the 2nd, concerning a real public. But I do know that several 'important' members of public do that, and I do not like it when they do, even if my own preference would be to not have to see whatever artwork they do not like.

Main example, I think I remember, is the US's VietNam Memorial. A 'commission' originally came up with something like a wall of stone, that eventlually got names scrawled on it. Sucha a scar, the outrage led to a second 'memorial', some soldiers made to appear like they could have been at Iwo Jima or something more important to reality than a wall. I did not care for either, but their use of hindsight was appalling. Then came the day I got to see with own eyes. One, I liked the wall better, more than tenfold. I look at other visitors, and see that they liked the wall over the statue, more than a hundredfold. To this observer, that speaks a mouthful.

                        William Bouguereau (1825-1905)

Seems like google claims that translations by Ross are inconsistent in spelling artists names. Also, a first hit demonstrates potential financial incentives in addition to the about, such as buying his authenticated book for a mere $500, with only half required in advance from those who want to remain among the elite. How much of that goes to the family of the artist remains to be seen.

http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/graphics/main_picture5.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp /quote/

Special Announcement

The Bouguereau catalogue raisonnée is due to be published in roughly 18 months. It will include information on all of the artist's 826 known paintings, as well as most of the 600 page biography written by Damien Bartoli, with the introduction by ARC Chairman, Fred Ross, who is also the President of the Bouguereau Committee. Every painting by William Bouguereau that comes up for auction mentions both the names of Bartoli and Ross, as world experts on the artist, in their catalogue entries.

If you would like to reserve one of these long awaited and hoped for catalogs, send an email to JoAnn at jtedesco@alliedoldenglish.com

Or you may send in your $50 reservation fee (or $250 fifty percent advance fee for the limited edition hand signed copy) to Art Renewal Center, 100 Markley Street, Port Reading, NJ 07064.

Note accent:
President of the Bouguereau Committee
Every painting by William Bouguereau that comes up for auction mentions .. Ross

> "Seems like google claims that translations by Ross are inconsistent in spelling artists names."
Can you provide a specific link for this?

Make your own.
While I used to use a dictionary to get down some <sp> spelling ideas, I've been more often using google. Google shows hits on original spelling (or no hits) and will offer alternative spellings. Better than M-W, which I used for awhile, but it seems to be getting stuck with hidden windows and privacy invasions, etc.

In short, my first spelling of the artist was a few hits, that quoted Ross. I chose google's respelling, and got the greater hits. I do not claim that it was Ross who had spelling problem, but chose to insinuate it for purpose of perception I have so far of his purported 'expertise'. it is possible that reporters and webpage designers did the typos. But I thought at least on came from the site that seems more like a homepage pro-him. And I think Artrenewal was also one. I probably got original typo from one of your sources. The point is not your missing a typo, but that google can find such spellings in actual text.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Fred+Ross%22+ARC+Bougeureau

for example hits

www.artrenewal.org/museum
www.artrenewal.org/asp/database
www.artrenewal.net/articles
www.artrenewal.com

How many URLs this guy's got?!

From their link plus your other comment, I would also insinuate that he vehemently opposes auctions that do not advertise his expertise. That may be provable via: "their catalogue entries".

Does government fund printing costs of book he'll sell for profit?

/quote/
There's a theme here ... In the 19th c., there were highly paid and sought after engravers -- Gustav Doré, for example -- who were adored by the public and paid well for their efforts...
 Bougeureau did this.
...

Concerning TA for Art, in cleaning up some old notifs, I just ran across this one, which ended with people commenting on it being relevant to them:

Solution Title: What is art? asked by ejbman on 10/10/2003  
This solution was worth  500 Points and received a grade of A  
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_20763483.html#13234253

billmercer, what a very cynical view of the world you have.

"A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world."

Every meaningful picture of a human being with a thousand word descriptive expression on their face is a work of art, even according to the quoted standard above. Can anything better communicate "what it means to be human or how we preceive the world" better than humans expressing themselves in ways that "recreate reality" in the sense that we communicate feelings unique to our own life's experience and lessons learned and unique states of mind.

Every human is a work of art. And when a human uninhibitedly expresses themselves, that is a work of art, in whatever form it may come. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it is not communicating something important and fascinating about what it means to be human.

hello danross.  obviously you didnt bother to RTFA.  

else you would understand the "very cynical view" is not billmercers.

>billmercer, what a very cynical view of the world you have.
I must say, it's a bit disconcerting that danross44 can't tell what my opinion is on this matter.

> And when a human uninhibitedly expresses themselves,
> that is a work of art, in whatever form it may come.

http://www.threebrain.com/poopies.html

League of People Who Can't Be Bothered to Research Anything

now has a new chapter:

League of People Who Can't Be Bothered to Read Anything

I didn't read it. At least tin the beginning. I feared it would not speak my language. Although not what I feared, it was not my native tongue.

Thanks :-)

ditto

thanks