Talk:Voice of Fire

does anyone know the meaning of this painting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.37.126 (talk)

We learned about this in my psychology course. Apparently it's supposed to be a sort of optical illusion; if you focus on one of the lines, then shift your vision to the left and right, it's supposed to show you an array of different colors. I don't have a source for this, though; if I find one, I'll add this information to the article. -Nick Klose (T/C) 16:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be at least two meanings for this painting. The first is known to the art world and I'll let the experts reveal that to us, though you could get a bit of insight by reading the short book The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe. The second meaning was highlighted by the rage of the Canadian public, which the article touches upon. This might be summarized as follows: If almost nobody gets it, is it art? I doubt that the original artist intended the second meaning, yet since the big kerfuffle about Voice of Fire I have come to appreciate that most things I consider beautiful or important can be utterly meaningless to other people. So this painting wasn't utterly wasted on me, even though it is otherwise less interesting to me than a sheet of wax paper. Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to start asking about 'meaning' in reference to a Barnett Newman painting, you're opening up a can of worms. He was the most vocal of the 'New York School,' and the one whose work retained its relevance and currency the longest, probably because he was the most radical. That said, if you want to start chipping away at the 'meaning,' a dicy word, as I say, with Newman, since his entire oeuvre is exactly about (among other things) the basic *idea* of meaning and subject matter--hence the many controversies over his work throughout his career--then you'd do well to actually read the reams that Barnett Newman (and Clement Greenberg, among others) wrote about the work these artists made back then. It's as much a mistake to think of it as being anything more than a series of lines (which is, of course, what it is) as it is to dismiss it for only being that. It's both more and less. John Czupryniak, who reproduced it on plywood full scale in 1990, found that it's harder than you might think to do, particularly if you don't happen to have the specially imported 8-foot wide canvas Barnett Newman had, the decades of experience about how to stretch large canvases onto homemade wood stretchers, the huge amount of priming medium (a great load of gesso would do), the particular mix of Magna acrylic he used, the knowledge of Colour he'd developed throughout his career, his sense of 'scale', and a fifteen foot ceiling in your studio. It's also not well known that he parted with it initially (for Expo '67) for $450; materials costs, reserving equity for his estate. This is not an attempt to dupe you, and if you're actually willing to tease meaning from it, you're starting in the wrong place even asking the question that way. Reading his work is a good start. Books are available on Amazon, or at your local library, which have his writings in them. He's a fascinating character, and was well aware of just how irritated his paintings made people who took life (and art) too seriously to enjoy them. As for the 'optical illusion,' this particular red and this particular blue interact in your eye to create bizarre afterimage effects even at a small scale (you can see an example if you stare at the image on this link If you stand close to an eighteen foot tall example of this phenomenon and stare at it, the effect can be overwhelming, but that's only a sideshow with this painting; it's more than a one-trick-pony, that's for sure. As to the 'if almost nobody gets it, is it art?' question, yes, the original artist 'intended' that, but even that is a little narrow for that approach. I don't think there's a question about whether it's art. Art is variously the manifestation of a human being's expression, or it's what something becomes when the intent of an artist is focussed on it. It's definitely art. The questions people usually ask are: was it hard to do, is it worth the money, and what is it about. The first question is moot here. For one thing, yes, as I outlined above, it's not as easy as it looks; Barnett Newman was both an art teacher and a critic for many years, and even so, his practice as a painter was about **eliminating** acts of virtuosity as ornamental, showy and irrelevant to art made after the horrors of WWII. The second question is also moot. Newman didn't like to part with his work, and throughout the fifties he only sold 2 paintings for modest sums. He painted VoF for $450 and parted with it for that, reserving the equity. The art market value (which is speculative) has *nothing* to do with the painting or his intentions, and he didn't look at it that way. The third question is moot, because for one thing, it is what it is, and that's the point. There's not much to 'get' anyway. As for 'subject matter,' read Newman, he's not as dense as people think; they just never give him a chance. Sigma-6 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One quarter of this article is a PARTIAL reference in a webcomic. If no actual third party sources exist, I'm confused about notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.17.89 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely notable; the article asserts that the painting was the center of a major controversy. As for 3rd-party sources, there's an entire book about it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's notable. You bring up a good point, though; considering how an entire book's been written about it, this article has the potential to be a lot longer/better with a little work. -Nick Klose (T/C) 16:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd to see somebody questioning whether a Barnett Newman painting is notable. Anyone who remembers 1990 in the Canadian media, or has ever read anything about postwar Modern Painting would shrug at that. One major work has been written about this particular painting, and many, many works have included it; as for his entire oeuvre, just look up 'Barnett Newman' on Google Books. . . Sigma-6 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not an actual photo

Using a cheap photoshop recreation of the painting isn't exactly fair. From the image included you would be lead to believe the painting is a completely mat/flat set of colours -- it leaves out the entire surface quality altogether. That surface quality is pretty essential in a work like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.49.33 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just a low-res version, which is all we are permitted to do because of copyright. Surface quality, unfortunately, cannot be conveyed in a small thumbnail image. freshacconci talktalk 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see what you're saying. It's an actual photoshop recreation as opposed to a photo. Got it. I agree, we could do better, and fair-use provisions should be enough to allow an actual photograph. I'll see if I can find one we can use. It was still be low-res, 72 dpi and all that and really won't give much in the way of surface detail. I wonder of the National Gallery would permit close-up detail photography. Might be good for a second image as well. But we should leave the title as is. freshacconci talktalk 15:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a photo online. Uploaded it with a fair-use rationale. It's a little better now. Thanks for the heads-up. freshacconci talktalk 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the digital recreation appears to believe that the photoshopped version looks better. I agree with the IP above that a photo showing surface detail, even at low-res, is preferable. freshacconci talktalk 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, whichever looks better we should not even countenance recreating works of art on photoshop. Copyright issues are one thing, blatent forgery another. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Brydon Smith's essay on the creation of the painting in 'Art, Rage, Power, and the State' uses a close up detail image of the transition from one of the blue zips to the red one as an illustration. Something like that might be useful once the article reaches the point where the issues of its creation in the controversy are addressed. Sigma-6 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding

I'm starting to expand the article. I've added some background and will cover the controversy shortly. freshacconci talktalk 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposition

So why exactly did people object to the 1989 purchase by the museum? The article doesn't say. Is it because the painting is incredibly f**king simple, took maybe two hours to paint and cost $1.8 million? --RThompson82 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's worth ten now, so if they objected based on the cost (which they did), then they made 8 million dollars for their objection. As for it taking about two hours to paint, I'd like to see you build an eighteen by eight foot stretcher, stretch eight by eighteen feet of duck canvas drum tight over it, mix and apply artist's ground over that, and then paint six or seven coats over a hundred-and-forty-four square feet of canvas, with a four inch brush, in two hours. Really. I'd pay to see that. Other people probably would too. If you can imbue it with your personal experiences in New York in the forties, fifties, and sixties too, by writing reams about the nature of the creative impulse, that'd be worth even more. Maybe you could become famous and your work could sell at Christie's or Sotheby's auctions. Oh, but wait, you're just an internet troll. Sorry about that. Sigma-6 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure "it's worth ten now", but that doesn't mean "they made 8 million dollars", it means they've lost $1,799,990.

Assuming you meant "ten million" and not the more likely "ten", is there any evidence that someone offered the museum that amount for it, or is that just what they insure it for? Or is that number just a fantasy?

I guess the "personal experiences in New York in the forties, fifties, and sixties" are summed up in an oversized medal ribbon. The patron saint of 20th century art must surely be P. T. Barnum.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument about what the painting is "worth" is pointless, since the painting is only worth money to the taxpayers if they actually sell it and reimburse the Receiver General.96.51.16.28 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Upside down: fake news?

I've spent some time trying to authenticate the claim about the painting being upside down and I think it's just a story that sounds cute but isn't actually true. The cited source doesn't seem to exist; I've looked in various databases for the cited article and failed. One of them (but not the only one) is:

https://archives.winnipegfreepress.com/tags/painting?pc=33301&psi=47&pci=2&pt=10216&ndt=ex&pd=18&py=1992&pm=8/

I checked newspaperarchive.com as well as a factiva index of that edition of the newspaper. Additionally, there seems to be no trace of an author of that name writing for the Winnipeg Free Press.

OnPoutine (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done, that was a hoax item I inserted to see if anyone would notice. Michael Dorosh^Talk 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair use

From the WP policy at WP:FAIR

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting. 198.161.2.211 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Brief quotations is the key: you added a paragraph with zero context. freshacconci talk to me 22:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)