Do You Know Fuck All About Art?

[zenie]

I knew it

You knew what?

I'd like to know what assumptions or character assasinations of me go round in your head

 

[bluestreak]

i love art. i love conceptual art, classical art, modern art, photography. i think i 'get' it, or at least i can make a good guess. but i believe that as much art is about what you the viewer brings to the piece. if i look at a piece and decide it means x to me, but the artist claims it means y, i ignore them. there is plenty of art that i think is dull, or pointless, or wanky as fuck, but the good stuff more than makes up for it.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

i love art...there is plenty of art that i think is dull, or pointless, or wanky as fuck, but the good stuff more than makes up for it.

I love all art also. Even the stuff I don't get like Emin's Tent. I appreciate the concept and that a tent is a very intimate and personal space etc etc etc. I just don't appreciate it as art (if that makes sense).

Fair enough if people just go round saying pretty, not pretty, pretty, not pretty without going any further. However, when I do appreciate something I like to understand why. Alternatively, I like to understand why I don't like some art.

Emin's Tent just loses me. I don't understand it.

Then people can read 'Emin's bed is about her, her life history blah, blah, blah' and then say they get it. I still don't. Almost all art is self-statement to a certain extent.

But, I still like the stuff I don't get.

 

[weltweit]

I don't really understand art but I do know what I like and that does change over time.

wrt photography there are so many types of photography and a lot of them give me pleasure ..

for my own photography all I want to do is :

- make pictures I like to look at

the challenge for me is that as I learn more what is possible, what I like to look at changes also keeps life interesting ..

Does anyone think record photography can be art? I am thinking of industrial landscapes, road construction scenes, and the suchlike, in very large very detailed prints.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...

Does anyone think record photography can be art? I am thinking of industrial landscapes, road construction scenes, and the suchlike, in very large very detailed prints.

Definitely yes.

I see much of my own photography as documentary presented as art. Or, fine art photography presented as documentary. Not many other people do

 

[weltweit]

Definitely yes.

I see much of my own photography as documentary presented as art. Or, fine art photography presented as documentary. Not many other people do

I guess what other people see is also important.

I know of someone who specialises in record photography and he is trying to present his work as art in fine art gallery exhibitions and the suchlike, I have to say that he is making progress but I often wish he would have a second line of photography on which to earn money (perhaps advertising) as he does not look as if he will get rich (at all I mean) in his own lifetime

Perhaps that is a common problem in the arts.

 

[zenie]

Perhaps that is a common problem in the arts.

No, really??

record photography is IMO very important.

As seen in that blog the other day historical photos and documentation make a great impact 80 years down the line, although maybe not appreciated at the time.

In the case of record keeping though, I'm not sure it's what people want to see right now. As a historical reference of the way things were yes, but as art again your back to the conceptulisation thing. (Or not as in the case of record photography)


BTW STanley do you have me on ignore??

You knew what?

I'd like to know what assumptions or character assasinations of me go round in your head

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...


BTW STanley do you have me on ignore??

Don't use the ignore function. It's very wrong.

You knew what?

I knew that you knew it.

However, I suspect you may get much more out of some art if you knew a bit more. I'm trying to coax people into opening their minds a little further (myself included). Wise enough to know I'll never know eveything, but always eager to try and learn a little more.

I want people to exchange their own ideas and thoughts about particular pieces of art without reading up on them. People should not be afraid to say what they think just because others may think they're wrong. I know you're not afraid to say what you think and thought you may take the bait.

Cheeky of me. Sorry

I'm going to search the web for a bit of contemporary art that works for me on screen and invite people to say openly what they think in terms of how it works as art for them honestly and openly on a new thread.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I knew it. We're going down the conceptual path of benign bollocks already

It's so much easier.

Those cave paintings - I don't get them. I mean, why paint pictures where nobody will ever see them. What's that all about

You're missing the point, surely?
The paintings were seen in the era they were painted, that's been proved from research done at Altamira, Lascaux etc, where they've found food traces etc that date over a period of a minimum of several hundred years (also Lascaux's paintings had actually "slipped" deeper into the landscape due to geological subsidence, they used to be much nearer the surface when they were painted, apparently). The real question is why were they painted, were they an attempt at "sympathetic magic", with the painters attempting to become "at one" with the animals, either for hunting purposes r because they were "totems", or were they just interior decoration ( )?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

It's so much easier.

You're missing the point, surely?
...

It was a bit tongue in cheek

 

[jbob]

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.

I'm sure you're aware that Wordsworth was writing in the 18/19th century, so words were hardly a new thing. I'm suggesting that concepts of 'beauty', amongst other things, were 'new' things (although they had their basis in classicism, really). There was no 'natural admiration' of daffodils and the beauty of the natural world - they just existed next to the weeds. Wordsworth, amongst other poets, writers and artists, working in this period, created the aesthetic.

They were also by in large responsible for the romantic notion of the artist wandering about Europe in frilly shirts, desperately seeking inspiration for his art, and getting laid in brothels. They conceptualised the romantic noton of the 'artist' as somehow being 'struggling' - when of course, it was the peasants in the fields scrabbling around for turnips who were struggling.

This connects to what I was trying to say in my previous posts - art, 'our' admiration of it, 'our' judgement of it, is a construct. Largely constructed by intellectual elites - right back to the ancient greeks. It is anything other than 'intrinsic' or 'natural'.

Why I like aspects of contemporary art is that there is an attempt to move away from elitist 'high art' ideals to 'low art', to express what surrounds, confuses, frustrates and delights us about living in an age where the commodity form dominates all aspects of culture. Which, of course, interrogates what we believe to be 'natural' or 'intrinsic' ideals of beauty, for example.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

It's so much easier.

You're missing the point, surely?
The paintings were seen in the era they were painted, that's been proved from research done at Altamira, Lascaux etc, where they've found food traces etc that date over a period of a minimum of several hundred years (also Lascaux's paintings had actually "slipped" deeper into the landscape due to geological subsidence, they used to be much nearer the surface when they were painted, apparently). The real question is why were they painted, were they an attempt at "sympathetic magic", with the painters attempting to become "at one" with the animals, either for hunting purposes r because they were "totems", or were they just interior decoration ( )?

I have a theory that the cave paintings at Lascaux and Altimira etc were the work of young hoodlums. They were the first graffiti. The parents tried everything including wood ash mixed with fat and water to wash them off but they couldn't shift them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have a theory that the cave paintings at Lascaux and Altimira etc were the work of young hoodlums. They were the first graffiti. The parents tried everything including wood ash mixed with fat and water to wash them off but they couldn't shift them.

Some of the cave paintings do come across a bit "wildstyle", don't they?

perhaps the young hoodlums were chomping on mushies too?

 

[Meltingpot]

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

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

I love Magritte's work.

Yep, that is good, I like it

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Looking forward to it.

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

It was only 10.30PM but you'll have to wait a while longer. Long day yesterday and long day today, but I will come back to this.

 

[Hi-ASL]

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

And that's Piss Christ.

Oh, and Frank Gehry's architecture. Are they art? Are they buildings? Fuck knows.

Weisman Art Museum

Dancing House

Fish Dance, in Kobe, Japan

More..​

 

[jbob]

They work for me

 

[Stanley Edwards]

They're great. Sort of contemporary Guadi.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It was only 10.30PM but you'll have to wait a while longer. Long day yesterday and long day today, but I will come back to this.

Tease.

 

[Idaho]

I know a lot about art but I don't know what I like.

Somewhat belatedly

 

[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.

Coming back to this.

I like your criteria as much as I could like any criteria. It's just that I also like to look for something new, different, wrong but, right.

It's good to follow the stuff you've learned. It's better to look for more. Makes no sense I know. But, if we all learn to view within established parameters then nothing new will ever come to us.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Coming back to this.

I like your criteria as much as I could like any criteria. It's just that I also like to look for something new, different, wrong but, right.

It's good to follow the stuff you've learned. It's better to look for more. Makes no sense I know. But, if we all learn to view within established parameters then nothing new will ever come to us.

You are a tease.... I thought you'd post your own criteria.

I would agree that the art world as a whole has to constantly reject established parameters. I still think that having your own criteria can be of benefit to the individual artist.

Entire schools of art have risen and fallen by artists adding or deleting something from the standard criteria and then applying it to their own art. For example the cubists, redefined for themselves and then applied that definition to their own stuff and created a new aesthetic that changed art for decades.

The individual artist has so much to shift through that it can sometimes be overwhelming. This is where having own criteria can help. Operating within your own set of rules can keep you focused on what is important to your own aesthetic and not get hung up on that of others.

<edited to add>
You mentioned that you thought art had reached a stalemate. I would agree with that assessment, but we would probably differ on the cause. I suspect it had something to do with the rejection of any kind of personal aesthetic values. Many an artist has assumed that the more shocking and bizarre they can make a piece the better art it is. The prevailing formula seems to be "be shocking and then apply a layer of rationalization for why it is art on top, defend it vigourously, pick up check for $30,000." The trouble with that is that you reach a point where shocking doesn't shock any more. (Not to imply that something shocking can't be art.)

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

 

[jbob]

Coming back to this.

I like your criteria as much as I could like any criteria. It's just that I also like to look for something new, different, wrong but, right.

It's good to follow the stuff you've learned. It's better to look for more. Makes no sense I know. But, if we all learn to view within established parameters then nothing new will ever come to us.

TBF, I thought Yuwipi Woman had posted up something substantive, to which you haven't really added anything to, other than an ambiguous 'look for more' - like what? Like how? Is it possible to do 'something new' (wasn't that what the modernists were always on about?). Why do 'we' have to look for 'something new' - is your art 'something new'?

I really don't think YW was posting up what you seem to believe is a presecriptive model for viewing and enjoying art - she was just saying how she did it, and how she felt. I'd be interested to know how you believe it is possible to view/make/enjoy art beyond 'established parameters'. How do we re-wire our brains? How do we live outside of ideology? Because those are the parameters you have to move beyond if you such a think is possible.

You pose a lot of questions, Stanley, and are short on answers or possibilities, other than the indefinably vague.

(Btw, not meaning to be overtly robust, just had few y'know... )

 

[jbob]

You mentioned that you thought art had reached a stalemate. I would agree with that assessment, but we would probably differ on the cause. I suspect it had something to do with the rejection of any kind of personal aesthetic values. Many an artist has assumed that the more shocking and bizarre they can make a piece the better art it is. The prevailing formula seems to be "be shocking and then apply a layer of rationalization for why it is art on top, defend it vigourously, pick up check for $30,000." The trouble with that is that you reach a point where shocking doesn't shock any more. (Not to imply that something shocking can't be art.)

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

I agree up to a point, but then the impressionists were 'shocking' for their time. As with all periods in art history, music, lit, other visual arts, only about 5% will be remembered in 40-50 years time. And it won't seem remotely shocking then.

I agree with your point about aesthetics. When the commodity form dominates all aspects of social life, what can art be expected to do?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...
You pose a lot of questions, Stanley, and are short on answers or possibilities, other than the indefinably vague.

(Btw, not meaning to be overtly robust, just had few y'know... )

Like wise, I wasn't being critical of YW's viewing tips. It's a good list. And, I can't really answer the questions I pose myself.

I like art that asks questions. Especially fine art photography. I doesn't worry me if I can't answer the questions aksed - I enjoy the ride.

I also like the ambiguous nature of art. No one can say it's a good or, a bad work of art beyond their own opinion. Of course, there is common ground and widely agreed theories about aesthetics. But, the boldest artists break the rules. Sometimes it's years before they're accepted as good works. The world evolves and art plays an important role in the evolution process. Who can say how YP's list would read in 200 years time? Some great works may be around today, but they pass us by because the conventions of today don't understand them.

Again, quoting YW

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

How open do you keep your mind? Who are the 'mad' artists of today that we're ignoring?

To many questions, so few answers