Do You Know Fuck All About Art?

[Gromit]

Trouble with a lot of modern art in my view is it tries to give me what I'm trying to get away from. i.e discord, pointlessness, tedium and ugliness

http://www.myrrhine.net/newyear/magritte.html

How about this? Modern art that is both intelectual and beautiful?

I love Magritte's work.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Well my opinion differs to yours because I think truly great art inspires no matter your knowledge.

The fact that only people who know this and that and the other through a programme of study can appreciate your art doesn't make the artist gifted imo but limited in their skill. Truely great art can deliver effect without the recipient knowing why it does.

Nice.

Can you point us to something that doesn't work for you and explain why?

 

[jbob]

Well my opinion differs to yours because I think truly great art inspires no matter your knowledge.

The fact that only people who know this and that and the other through a programme of study can appreciate your art doesn't make the artist gifted imo but limited in their skill. Truely great art can deliver effect without the recipient knowing why it does.

I'm a little confused as you said in your previous post:

Originally Posted by Marius
I don't think anyone knows anything about art. Art history student and proffessors like to believe that they do but the only person who truly knows about art is the person viewing the art at that time. What they know is that they like it or they don't for whatever conscious or unconcious reasons.

Which suggests that people with a knowledge of art history don't know anything about art, and the only person who does is some unidentifiable viewer, meaning it's all subjective.

Your second post then suggests art is an objective medium that transcends all subjective interpretation. Which is contradictory and doesn't make sense.

 

[Gromit]

Nice.

Can you point us to something that doesn't work for you and explain why?

Pretty much anything by Dali.

I now know that whenever he painted a crutch it was to symbolise impotence. How the fuck and I suppose to know that? I would have said disability. Therefore its use of a crutch not only inspires no emotion in me but if it did it be the wrong emotion cause I haven't studied how to interpret Dali 101.

 

[friedaweed]

http://www.myrrhine.net/newyear/magritte.html

How about this? Modern art that is both intelectual and beautiful?

I love Magritte's work.

That makes me think of this old chestnut

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Off the top of my head, here is the criteria I judge art by:

* Visceral appeal. How does the object strike you when you first view it? I've rounded corners in galleries and practically been knocked over by my visceral reaction.

* Visual appeal. Color, composition, etc.

* Intellectual appeal. Does it communicate something? Is there a concept there?

* Workmanship. Does the piece hold together and does it stay on the wall long enough to look at it?

I don't often use the artist's intent when judging art. Sometimes the artist didn't set the bar very high for them to have accomplished what they intended.

I want art to function on at least two levels. More is better.

 

[Gromit]

I'm a little confused as you said in your previous post:

Which suggests that people with a knowledge of art history don't know anything about art, and the only person who does is some unidentifiable viewer, meaning it's all subjective.

Your second post then suggests art is an objective medium that transcends all subjective interpretation. Which is contradictory and doesn't make sense.

Does it become clearer if I state that the 'effect' the subjective viewer receives doesn't have to be that intended by the artist so long as it triggers a strong emotional effect in the majority of viewers. Preferably the same effect but not necessarily so.

The Mona Lisa inspires a strong effect of her eyes following you around the room. I don't think that was intended even if the enigmatic smile was intended to make you wonder what was she thinking at that moment?

 

[jbob]

Off the top of my head, here is the criteria I judge art by:

* Visceral appeal. How does the object strike you when you first view it? I've rounded corners in galleries and practically been knocked over by my visceral reaction.

* Visual appeal. Color, composition, etc.

* Intellectual appeal. Does it communicate something? Is there a concept there?

* Workmanship. Does the piece hold together and does it stay on the wall long enough to look at it?

I don't often use the artist's intent when judging art. Sometimes the artist didn't set the bar very high for them to have accomplished what they intended.

I want art to function on at least two levels. More is better.

Excellent! Very well put.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Where's Zenie?

I need a fundamental definition.


----

I'm movingtowardsphotographicart.

Anyone prepared to dis a photographic artist with examples?

 

[Gromit]

Off the top of my head, here is the criteria I judge art by:

* Visceral appeal. How does the object strike you when you first view it? I've rounded corners in galleries and practically been knocked over by my visceral reaction.

* Visual appeal. Color, composition, etc.

* Intellectual appeal. Does it communicate something? Is there a concept there?

* Workmanship. Does the piece hold together and does it stay on the wall long enough to look at it?

I don't often use the artist's intent when judging art. Sometimes the artist didn't set the bar very high for them to have accomplished what they intended.

I want art to function on at least two levels. More is better.

Wish I'd said that.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Off the top of my head, here is the criteria I judge art by:

* Visceral appeal. How does the object strike you when you first view it? I've rounded corners in galleries and practically been knocked over by my visceral reaction.

* Visual appeal. Color, composition, etc.

* Intellectual appeal. Does it communicate something? Is there a concept there?

* Workmanship. Does the piece hold together and does it stay on the wall long enough to look at it?

I don't often use the artist's intent when judging art. Sometimes the artist didn't set the bar very high for them to have accomplished what they intended.

I want art to function on at least two levels. More is better.

 

[jbob]

Does it become clearer if I state that the 'effect' the subjective viewer receives doesn't have to be that intended by the artist so long as it triggers a strong emotional effect in the majority of viewers. Preferably the same effect but not necessarily so.

The Mona Lisa inspires a strong effect of her eyes following you around the room. I don't think that was intended even if the enigmatic smile was intended to make you wonder what was she thinking at that moment?

Tbh, that's not much clearer, really, as now you're back to saying all art is subjective interpretation (but contradicts your idea about transcendent objective standards of art). Not only is that confusing, but it further contradicts your statement about trained art professionals - who do you think is responsible for defining these objective standards and putting them in galleries in the first place? Who is responsible for the ideas in your head about art in the first place? You weren't born with these thoughts/interpretations, they were put there.

To take this a little further, nobody thought daffodils or sunsets were beautiful until Wordsworth. Now it is ideological 'fact' that nature is beautiful; it wasn't in general perception before the romantics started wittering on about it. They're also partially responsible for the common perception of art being solely an emotional proposition.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Can you explain that a bit more.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...

To take this a little further, nobody thought daffodils or sunsets were beautiful until Wordsworth. Now it is ideological 'fact' that nature is beautiful; it wasn't in general perception before the romantics started wittering on about it. They're also partially responsible for the common perception of art being solely an emotional proposition.

I think we did. In Wordsworth's age words were a new phenomenon! (To most at least.)

Beauty is an intrinsinct(sp?) thing. A natural admiration. It's when art goes beyond this and still claims something when it loses me.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Can you explain that a bit more.

In a few words; art can't be formulated in that sense. If it could we'd very soon reach stalemate (which is where we are at now IMO).

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

In a few words; art can't be formulated in that sense. If it could we'd very soon reach stalemate (which is where we are at now IMO).

Can you offer an alternative that breaks the stalemate?

(I admit that you could probably judge horseflesh by the same criteria I laid out).

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Can you offer an alternative that breaks the stalemate?

Yes

Going to bed now. Sorry. Will come back in the morrow.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Yes

Going to bed now. Sorry. Will come back in the morrow.

Looking forward to it.

I'd forgotten it was probably past midnight where you are.

 

[zenie]

Sorry I've been out Stanley!!

Where's Zenie?

I need a fundamental definition.

Hmmm....

In answer to your OP I don't recall any art that's been 'lost' on me, there are certainly particular works which I think 'bleurgh' a bit boring.

A lot of Landscapes for example I just thnk yer thats a nice painting, good execution, fantastic *craftsmanship* and what??

What is it trying to tell me? What is it evoking to me and in me?

Yet countless people have them on their walls.


I'll argue about Emin's tent for example, it's part of 'her' it's part of what makes up her and who she is and she wants to express that, I cant remember why she chose to do a tent though...

Do you want to talk about art in photography too?

 

[Firky]

i know fuck all about art cos its in a constant state of flux

 

[Hi-ASL]

I don't like much about art but I like what I know.

And that's Piss Christ.

 

[zenie]

i know fuck all about art cos its in a constant state of flux

You could try and keep up to date with it though?

(That's if you're bothered like!)

 

[krtek a houby]

Art is subjective. Is Banksy art? Are Jake & Dino art?

Is u75 art?

Is a finite snowman melting in the sun art?

Most artist weren't recognised in their own time. Does this make them lesser artists?

Is a painting by an elephant any less valid than a human?

Is the photo you took on holiday art?

 

[Firky]

You could try and keep up to date with it though?

(That's if you're bothered like!)

By which time it has changed again the rate I do things at, the renaissance was a mere spliff in time

 

[boskysquelch]

scour_scour_fwaaaap_fwaaaap

I don't like much about art but I like what I know.

And that's Piss Christ.

i prefer Blood & Semen.


*puts cock and wire brush away.


ahhhhhhhhhhhhh that's better.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Is this art?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Hmmm....

In answer to your OP I don't recall any art that's been 'lost' on me...

I knew it

 

[Stanley Edwards]

On the what is or, is not art question, I think anything can be art if it's presented as art. Whether it's viewed as art is very much up to the viewer. As someone has already said it is subjective.

The photo above I see as a satirical joke. It's not a great photograph IMO. Just a bit of humour.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...

Do you want to talk about art in photography too?

Absolutely. This thread came about after I had posted a response on a photography forum. Many photographers refuse to accept great art photographs . I'm a huge fan of Thomas Struth. He is hugely successful as an artist. Yet, most photographers just don't get it.

I get loads out of Struth photographs. I found an explanation by himself yesterday and was quite pleased that his description pretty much described my viewing pleasure.

 

[Idaho]

It seems to me that the art scene is largely a combination of subculture and publicity. The same people could wander round B&Q injecting the same meanings into what they see and charging the same prices.