I don't get art. [Archive] - ConceptArt.org Forums

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 04:43 PM

I don't get why some (dead) artists are so highly respected. I'm talking about the one's like Piet Mondrian. Google some of his paintings.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/piet-mondrian-tableau-2.jpg

I don't understand what is so great about this. I have an art historyish class, and the first day gave me a weird impression of it. The class is going to analyze works of art... an example was a stoplight sculpture, this one to be exact:

http://www.goodexperience.com/broken/images/2007/04/06/traffic_lights.jpg

The class was asked to analyze it. "Loren, what do you think of it?" "I think it symbolized time!" "Good job Loren, you get an A+".

And that's the impression the class gave me. I'm trying to look at this with an open mind, but I just don't see the point of this.

Back to paintings/Piet

Now the Piet Modrian paintings, I don't see what is so great about them. It's just straight lines and squares, that's all. When I think of drawings and paintings, I prefer realistic ones, and by realistic I don't mean that is has to be true to life, a guy wielding an 800 pound sword if fine by me. By realistic, I mean that the lighting, the reflections, and the shadows are all believable, and that you can make out what the subject is.

But with this... straight lines and squares, I can't point my finger about what's so great. Is it the colors? Because there's very few.

RyerOrdStar

January 29th, 2009, 04:45 PM

Why can't three colours be beautiful?

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 04:57 PM

Why can't three colours be beautiful?

I'd say because they don't represent anything. I kind of have a small bias where I say a painting HAS to have some kind of subject, person, scene, concept, or I tend to just flat out reject it.

Maybe I just try to be a perfectionist so I see it that way?

This reminds me of a time I went to a modern art museum and I saw a painting of a plus sign, just a black "+" in the center of the canvas. I didn't like anything I saw in the museum. How does putting a plus sign in black paint make you a great famous artist? Anyone can do that.

Edit: I came out of the museum with the mindset that everything in there was bullshit.

I guess it also has to do with that I think art = skill, and those two paintings don't really look like it.

I still fail to see why these get so much attention (not the sculpture, the paintings)

Hyskoa

January 29th, 2009, 04:59 PM

Money + hype.

PieterV

January 29th, 2009, 05:01 PM

Farvus

January 29th, 2009, 05:05 PM

If I were you hippl5 I would read some book about it.

~Faust~

January 29th, 2009, 05:07 PM

I don't get why some (dead) artists are so highly respected. I'm talking about the one's like Piet Mondrian. Google some of his paintings.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/piet-mondrian-tableau-2.jpg

So you like this better?

http://www.donatoart.com/gallery/archeroftheroseb.jpg

I read Mr. Giancola is a fan of Mondrians. In any case the research that guy put into his compositions give me mad respect for that guy. As an Illustrator a lot of what you do is profite from the work people like Modrian and others have done.

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 05:09 PM

Most of those artist are populair not because they made pretty pictures but because they were key figures within an art movement or because their art was considered revolutionary (at the time).

Also keep in mind that alot of modern day art is not ment to be of pure aestetic quality, the concept (idea) is usually the most important element.
I think most art in galleries these days is more intelectual then emotional. You're supposed to look at it by pondering about it so to speak.

Modern art... like this one I googled?

http://www.ristoklint.com/picture-gallery-1C/pictures/modern-art.gif

What is so intellectual about this? It looks like a multi-colored dog turd.

There's so much talent here on CA. Why don't all the zombies, robots, environments, CHOWs deserve to be in a museum? I think anything in the finally finished section beats a modern art museum.

All it looks like is someone drew a strange shape, loaded it up with squares, and put different colors and calls it art. Lots of people here could do better.

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 05:11 PM

So you like this better?

I read Mr. Giancola is a fan of Mondrians. In any case the research that guy put into his compositions give me mad respect for that guy. As an Illustrator a lot of what you do is profite from the work people like Modrian and others have done.

Yes, I like that one. But I don't see the connection between that and Mondrian's work.

Farvus

January 29th, 2009, 05:20 PM

Yes, I like that one. But I don't see the connection between that and Mondrian's work.

What about composition?

You gotta realise that art extended to many other areas like architecture, graphical or industrial design. Beacause it's abstract you can apply Mondrian's principles, aesthetics, composition to anything.
For example the style inspired dutch architect Gerrit Thomas Rietveld to build this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Rietveld-SchroderhuisUtrechttheNetherlands.jpg/748px-Rietveld-SchroderhuisUtrechttheNetherlands.jpg

~Faust~

January 29th, 2009, 05:27 PM

Yes, I like that one. But I don't see the connection between that and Mondrian's work.

Well, I see it like that, Mondriaan had some serious thoughts about how composition could work based on a lot of drawings he did from nature like trees, houses and so on. There he formulated some guidelines on how to obtain a balanced distribution of those shapes in primary color and orthogonal lines, while being assymmetrical and decentral, something which is not an easy task. Of course he also thought up some spiritual stuff about harmony and balance in the universe blablabla but Newton also was a spiritual nutjob thinking that 2 Onjects that are not touching could be somehow stand in relation to each other, the blasphemy! You think Newton was an idiot, because he couldn't build a space-ship?

Anyways wether or not you like those ideas, the fact that this instrument was introduced to take up into your repertoire as an artist should really count something imho. Much like the invention of 2-point-perspective or the use of the outline in a painting.

I'm an art-history-aliteral so I'm not the one to make such a speech, but at least I think Mondriaan also had some decent observation-skills, so you should be aware that he was making this stuff up intentionally:

http://www.museumbredius.nl/images/mondriaan_oostzijdse.jpg

Insignia

January 29th, 2009, 05:33 PM

I'll choose representational over abstract in most cases, but a composition or colour combination can be decorative in it's own right.

OmenSpirits

January 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM

If art were only one thing, no change would occur.

I remember when I didn't get the whole 'dot in the middle of the canvase' thing, but on hindsight, it was my lack of study and more about what pleased me that influenced my opinion.

It's changed as my studies became more expansive. The original painting posted has its own interesting balance to it & would add an interesting element if it were added to the decor of an art deco space.

Each form of art has its place.

DavePalumbo

January 29th, 2009, 05:39 PM

Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a ton of severely over-hyped and insanely pompous art out there, a good portion of it from the last 100 years where idea, intent, and concept over technical ability became commercially viable (and therefore exploited to no end). Beyond that, there's no accounting for taste and just because I like a certain thing doesn't make it "valid" or "good" any more than my not liking something makes is "bad" or "false".

That said, I actually do like the two examples you posted. I think Mondrian can teach us all a great deal about composition, shape, etc. The pictures he made, to me, are aesthetically pleasing, despite (as well as because of) their simplicity and abstract nature and I think that's something worth taking note of. The stoplights, I just think they look cool. To ask "what do you think of it?" is a fair enough question, but there's also no right or wrong answer. It's interpretation, personal reactions will vary. The nature of the question is opinion.

But that's the thing about any artwork you could post here. Nobody will be right or wrong to say what they think of it. And nobody can convince you that you should like or dislike it. They can educate you as to why it's historically important, what the artist hoped to achieve, etc. but the bottom line is that if you enjoy looking at it or thinking about it, then you like it. If you don't, then move on to the next one.

That's how I look at it :shrug:

Kek

January 29th, 2009, 05:41 PM

I agree, and often find myself completely unenthused by modern day "art." I have a professor who hangs plain white t-shirts on a wall, nothing special at all about them, just attaches the clothes hanger with the shirts to a wall and it gets displayed in a gallery. Now, this isn't colored dog poop, but it seems to be just as mindless.

In general the modern "artists" I know have an equally low appreciation for the more story-driven, realistic, and conceptual art that we enjoy. Is it because they know they can't do it, and thus don't care? Or are they above it?

Maybe I'm just lacking something as an artist, and therefore am unable to comprehend the greatness of such art.

Redmond

January 29th, 2009, 05:45 PM

I like the tree. Don't let that discourage you from looking at modern art. Yeah, that LOreal pic sucks and so does Matisse and alot of crap pieces art teachers enjoy. Just soldier through it, tell your teacher what he wants to hear so you can be a good little make no waves rebel that fits in with all the other special unique artists and get a good grade. Learn to lie! It's one of the greatest skills to master.

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 05:47 PM

Redmond

January 29th, 2009, 05:48 PM

I think modern art is fun and I especially love interactive installations. It's just most teachers are boring as hell or they have to make thei class fit in or w/e. I'm sure if you have a good modern art museum in your city and you just ignore all the hype, you'll find something to enjoy.

kab

January 29th, 2009, 05:54 PM

There is no doubt alot of bad workmanship passed of as "modern art", but what is modern art? The term means nothing, most of the styles labeled "modern" were invented 100 years ago... Putting labels on art is idiotic, it will always fail, these things are subjective to each and every observer.

The artists you mention that are highly regarded are often so not because they are "skilled" in the traditional sense (even though I am sure most of them could paint or draw figuratively if they wanted to), but because they had artistic vision.

Everyone can learn to draw or paint what they see, it takes time, it takes effort, as we all know very well. Everyone cannot, however, create art that reaches out and influences people. That is reserved for a few great minds, who dare to speak up against the grain. Some of these artists' work may seem trivial today, we may take it for granted, because we've seen it before.

Mondrian did these paintings 100-60 years ago, when his work was seen as daring, controversial... exploring ideas that were 100% new at the time, inspiring artists to think outside of the box and stepping away from being simply people who could draw what they saw. These artists were often mocked in their own time and not understood or accepted for years, or decades...

Without these pioneers, art would still be a field of observation, not imagination.

Edit: also, saying another artist's work is "shit" does not make you look good...

pitabread

January 29th, 2009, 06:01 PM

What about composition?

You gotta realise that art extended to many other areas like architecture, graphical or industrial design. Beacause it's abstract you can apply Mondrian's principles aesthetics, composition to anything.

Agreed. I used to dismiss modern art as pretentious crap from a bunch of no-talents who couldn't draw. Then I became a graphics/web designer. Learning various design principles and how they apply to so much of what we create in all sorts of fields made me appreciate modern art. There are a lot of underlying design principles and those can make the difference even when applied to realism.

I also think realism is "easy" from a viewer perspective. You don't have to think about it to get it. But the more abstract the art, the more is required from the viewer. Sometimes it is not easy. But in the case of Mondrian, it's an exploration of composition and design. Not too hard, imho.

That said, I think there is a lot of bad modern art of there and art where the ultimate meaning is either so obtuse or perhaps lacking to begin with.

Serpian

January 29th, 2009, 06:02 PM

What Dave said.

Romans6

January 29th, 2009, 06:07 PM

Some could argue that Mondrians work in respect could be somewhat representational. Some say Mondrian was highly influenced by what he saw in everyday life, that being the grid like structure of a city. Squint really hard and these grid like structures start to loose there detail and become blurred, in result all we see is the form. Also look at Mondrians work titled, "Broadway Boogie Woogie". This work represents that feeling of movement and the beautiful rhythm that coincides with it, Mondrian loved the city life, loved jazz and music and of course the dancing that went along with it. Sometimes we need to understand the artist to understand how their work makes sense, when we investigate deeper into art we learn more about it, sometimes this turns our minds on and inspires us to do something amazing, or sometimes we still may dismiss it as non-influential art. When I first saw Mondrians work I was confused, when I started to understand his work I gained a stronger respect. Is his work visually appealing... some may debate, but is it conceptually appealing... yes I believe so.

hippl5

January 29th, 2009, 06:12 PM

pitabread

January 29th, 2009, 06:30 PM

Modern art... like this one I googled?

http://www.ristoklint.com/picture-gallery-1C/pictures/modern-art.gif

What is so intellectual about this? It looks like a multi-colored dog turd.

I disagree. I actually find it somewhat calming and soothing, although I don't agree 100% with the colour choices.

That said, it's an exploration of design, composition and colour. And those principles explored in such a piece can be applied to many other things.

Try this. Look at something that has been designed. It could be a web page, ad in a magazine, movie poster, anything. Then defocus/blur your eyes until you can no longer recognize the discrete elements, but rather just the overall forms. Pay attention to the location of different shapes, forms, colours, etc. Ultimately, depending on what you are viewing, you may start to see the underlying design aesthetic. See how things relate to each other. How certain colours play off each other or certain elements line up. Stuff like the piece above are no different. Just without the text, pictures and so on that pervades so much of what we see.

There's so much talent here on CA. Why don't all the zombies, robots, environments, CHOWs deserve to be in a museum? I think anything in the finally finished section beats a modern art museum.

On the one hand I agree that modern illustration doesn't get quite the respect it deserves. On the other hand, a lot of it, even the really good stuff, is just a rehashing of art styles and movements that have already come and gone.

For example, take neoclassical realism (i.e. stuff by Jacques-Louis David, etc) and compare it to pieces on this forums. You'll see a lot of similarities. But instead of historical figures or set pieces, you've got science fiction themes and fantasy warriors. It's basically the same stuff just with modern ideas.

Miskatonika

January 29th, 2009, 06:31 PM

The thing about Mondrian, is that doesn't he go a little overboard with these? Maybe one painting of this type isn't so bad, but doesn't he have around 20+ of nothing but Red, Yellow, Blue, and black lines? It starts to get repetitive.

As a meager artist just starting out, I'd say he was experimenting. He was trying out different compositions and manipulating movement within the frame. Just like some artists will work on a theme over and over again (there's another thread about this in this same forum). For example, my sketchbook is filled with the same face, over and over again, from different angles, with different shading and composition. Right now I'm trying to master the 3/4 profile using my husband as the model.

Hope that made sense :/

kab

January 29th, 2009, 06:31 PM

It's called being thorough, perhaps he felt that his ideas and principles could not be represented by one simple painting, he was unable to define them within a single frame and needed to explore further. Some images are only meant to be understood in context.

As Farvus said early on, perhaps read a book on an artist.

If you feel you don't understand something, you often have two choices, dismissing it or putting more effort into understanding it. If you feel you don't understand a type of art (such as Piet Mondrian's work, or non-representational art in general), try to look beyond, if possible pick up a biography, try to understand what was the artist's motivation and inspiration. More often than not, you will find this broadens your horizon, opening you up to new and different impulses and input. Never a bad thing.

There are times when you are right to dismiss art as junk, but I think you'll find those cases to be very rare, especially if you are studying art history. :)

pitabread

January 29th, 2009, 06:33 PM

The thing about Mondrian, is that doesn't he go a little overboard with these? Maybe one painting of this type isn't so bad, but doesn't he have around 20+ of nothing but Red, Yellow, Blue, and black lines? It starts to get repetitive.

s' funny. I started another thread recently complaining that all Luis Royo paints these days are grungy hot women with weird piercings/tattoos. :D

When you're exploring a concept or idea, typically you don't limit yourself to just one go.

Grief

January 29th, 2009, 07:01 PM

i'll take a different approach at this.

y'know how you listen to some songs that are just catchty and dumb, but you still like them because they fit your mood at the moment? deep down you know those songs wont be on your playlist in 20 years, and you'll just kind of move on to something else right?

...but you also have those songs that will always be there, that no matter what shit life throws at you you have those songs to fall back on because they have stood the test of time like a motherfucker. the boy or girl leaves you, or you get fired from your job, what CD do you throw in?

visual art is like this as well.

you can find some really neat looking stuff all over this site, in magazines, on posters etc, and it may be your wallpaper for a a few months or you might take a picture of it with your camera phone. you wont remember those images in 20 years.

you see a mondrian, you'll know it.
you may not like it, you may not agree with it or buy into it, but you will know it.

mondrian is the helvetica of design,
he is the bauhaus of composition,
he is the rothko of color.

...did your teacher lecture about the similarities between the two images you posted? there are parallels dealing with metropolitain structure.

kab

January 29th, 2009, 07:07 PM

Grief, you are my hero :p

arttorney

January 29th, 2009, 07:38 PM

To follow up on what Pitabread was saying about graphic design and what grief just said about metropolitan structure I'd just like to remind everyone of that opening sequence to North by Northwest designed by graphic designer Saul Bass. If you've never seen the opening credits for this movie then you are missing out on a very interesting showing of where abstract can meet representational in conveying ideas.
578310
There are uses for the knowledge this kind of experimentation can bring us. Like Dave said, though, if it doesn't work for you then you can always move on to the next picture.

Dusty

January 29th, 2009, 07:50 PM

"Abstract art: A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered" - Albert Camus

Always one of my favorite quotes, even though I don't necessarily agree with it 100%. I understand the design behind some of this kind of art, but it does not appeal to me in the least bit...and I think most people that claim to be into this kind of stuff as deep as they seem are mostly full of shit.

-D

dose

January 29th, 2009, 08:46 PM

The thing about Mondrian, is that doesn't he go a little overboard with these? Maybe one painting of this type isn't so bad, but doesn't he have around 20+ of nothing but Red, Yellow, Blue, and black lines? It starts to get repetitive.

What pitabread said. Also, keep in mind that Mondrian didn't have access to Illustrator and an inkjet printer. They're actually quite well crafted despite their simplicity. It's more challenging than you might think to make lines and edges in oil as clean as Mondrian did.

Here's the real reason you should like Mondrian: you can rearrange the letters in his full name, Piet Mondrian, to "I Paint Modern".

Romans6

January 29th, 2009, 09:18 PM

Grief: That post hit my mind well, I never really put art into the perspective of music as you stated, I've had tons of songs that when played truly mean something to me and bring back memories, emotions, experiences etc... As I think about it I think about going to museums and running to a work of art when I catch a glimpse of something astounding... van gogh, mondrian, degas, sargent, lautrec, monet, pollock, braque, picasso etc you all know those artists whose work you instantly recognize. It's like running for candy when your a little kid, we light up with enjoyment, we see something that we know has made a difference and that stands out on its own... and we love it and we cant take our eyes off it. That to me is great art, its when something miraculous happens within your mind, and you think something about this is going to change me or change how I think about not only my creation of art but also maybe something within my life.

Grief

January 29th, 2009, 09:19 PM

Here's the real reason you should like Mondrian: you can rearrange the letters in his full name, Piet Mondrian, to "I Paint Modern".

i made tin porn
aint dime porn
point in dream
i'm pin toe nard
dr in main poet
i mop tard nine
i man raped on it
nor pie damnit

[edit] pint nerd moai :P

Farvus

January 29th, 2009, 09:39 PM

Piet Mondrian -> Mn Paint or die :P

J Wilson

January 29th, 2009, 10:23 PM

If I were you hippl5 I would read some book about it.

That might help, but why should anyone have to read a book to appreciate art? People don't need to read a book to appreciate Norman Rockwell, Waterhouse, or Sargent.

Equality72521

January 29th, 2009, 10:40 PM

a lot of art has an idea, a notion, a revolution, an emotion, etc, to back it up, not just skill or talent

ideals of what art is has changed, here on CA.org, we are visual communicators, not necessarily revolution communicators.

make sense to anyone?

Farvus

January 29th, 2009, 10:41 PM

That might help, but why should anyone have to read a book to appreciate art? People don't need to read a book to appreciate Norman Rockwell, Waterhouse, or Sargent.

They sometimes need a book to understand it. Understand and appreciate are two different things. In case of modern art unless something is pure aesthetics it's sometimes good to understand the concept so you that you can fully appreciate it. Does that makes sense? :)

EDIT: Or I'll put it the other way. The goal of this art is not neccesarily to make someone appreciate it.

Meloncov

January 29th, 2009, 11:12 PM

It's more challenging than you might think to make lines and edges in oil as clean as Mondrian did.

Tape?

riceface

January 30th, 2009, 02:32 AM

i feel i have to weigh in on this, as i too hate high faluten artwork that looks like bird poop, like pollock, and whoever did those stupid tribute to the squares.

HunterKiller_

January 30th, 2009, 02:59 AM

i feel i have to weigh in on this, as i too hate high faluten artwork that looks like bird poop, like pollock, and whoever did those stupid tribute to the squares.

You sure hate a lot.
Said it once, and I'll say it again.
You really should stop talking and listen for awhile.

lumar

January 30th, 2009, 03:38 AM

a lot of modern art is very meh, like that traffic light sculpture...boring.

i personally like those mondrian compositions though, they are simple and elegant. its like... i can make this block blue and make this one red over here and the others are empty but it looks good that way! its speaks about composition and beauty in deliberate simplicity.

reminds me of when i heard metal guitarists complaining about nirvana being so easy to play. it was the composition of kurt cobains music, and how his voice sounded that made it so good...not the technical difficulty.

the traffic lights are just some random obscure statement and ugly and boring. is it about how confusing modern society can be? even if it is, who cares about such a cliche message? not i!

good art looks nice and/or is interesting to the person viewing it. it doesnt have to have a profound message.

edit: and reading about art is incredibly boring. i can barely stand reading the little blurbs by the side of paintings at gallerys. if i dont like something i usally dont bother trying to convince myself to.

Smarty

January 30th, 2009, 07:48 AM

I really didn't like Mondrian when presented with a piece like the one you posted at the beginning of this thread. That is untill i ofund a book in the Library about his whole lifes work. Too many a time we only remember the last images an artist produces, all too often these require an under standing of of their previous work to be apreciated fully. Mondrian is a perfect example of this. His very early paintings are beuatiful in colour and composition. He then got obsesses with the pattern of negative space. Looks at some of his paintings of trees, In this we see the first steps to him simplifiying the world around him to a point of lines and colour, With no context

entdroid

January 30th, 2009, 08:27 AM

That might help, but why should anyone have to read a book to appreciate art? People don't need to read a book to appreciate Norman Rockwell, Waterhouse, or Sargent.

Because different kind of expressions require different things from the viewer/reader/listener. To give a rough example: it doesn't take much effort to understand a Stephen King book, but you may need some more effort to get a Nietzsche one. That doesn't make one more or less valid than the other.

About the OT: There's tons of shitty non-representational art. There's also TONS of shitty representational art (which most posters here seem to forget about). That's just the way it is!

It's easier to feel emotionally connected to representational art because you can identify yourself, you can have a pretty straight interpretation out of it, and it's less ambiguous. Ambiguity usually makes us uncomfortable. We want to "get" it when we see it. We want to know what it means when we see it. We want answers.

And for the most part, what non-representational art gives us are questions.

bhanu

January 30th, 2009, 10:15 AM

some of it is shit, some of it aint.
Heywait.... I just phrased everything in life and nature.

Semphora

January 30th, 2009, 10:33 AM

ok here are my two cents.

i've been in a similar place as hippl5 recently, especially with his problems towards the instalation part of modern art, but i'm not anymore. and here is why:
the term "modern art" for me is realy a misnomer. because we use "art" to describe everything from the cave pantings of Lascaux to instalations like the one shown by hippl5.
i think, however, that modern art is in fact not art, but philosophie, which was called art, because it was the expression of philosophical ideas, not by words, but by pictures, or later instalations, videos etc, stared by painters. the tradition of people like michelangelo, rubens, vermeer etc. however lives, for me, in, what we today, call illustration.

of course there are "good" and "bad" artists/philosphers in both fields. (a "bad artist/philosopher" being one, who doesn't care as much about what he's doing, but how to earn mony with it), but that is beside the point.

hope that gives some some of you something to work with, and also that it's understandable (english is not my first language so if there's anything unclear, don't hesitate to ask, i'll do my best.)

Chris Bennett

January 30th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Astract art is like a song without words.
Naturalism without design, is just words. Journalism.
So I ask you, when does picture making become poetry?

arttorney

January 30th, 2009, 11:16 AM

When It's got rythm, I suppose.

Toss in a little alliteration and symbolism, and your simple expository passage has become lyrical.

I like the lights. I would own that if I had the space and money. I can't figure out why that piece sucks, when everybody thinks it's great to kill a pine tree and hang lights all over it in your living room. I bet it has something to do with symbolism.

dose

January 30th, 2009, 12:23 PM

i think, however, that modern art is in fact not art, but philosophie

I have actually thought the same thing. I believe a lot of "modern art" should instead be called something like "Perceptual Philosophy".

Cthogua

January 30th, 2009, 12:27 PM

One thing that strikes me about this thread is the number of people who are essentially saying they are immediately turned off by something that doesn't instantly make sense to them. This is intellectual laziness of the highest order. "Why doesn't it appeal to my infantile desire to smash my enemies and have sexy ladies fawn over me!" Seriously guys, sometimes things take a little work to understand, and if you're not willing to commit that mental work I'd say there's probably a lot of other things in life your missing out on because you're simply too lazy to take the time to understand them. You can hardly blame the artist for not understanding his intent when you refuse to read accompanying materials or familiarize yourself with the context of the work. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that this is an illustration centric site, and illustration is story telling, so it needs to make sense immediately on viewing, but illustration ain't the sole purpose of art.

Also, there's this obsession with skill of execution. Sure, a nicely made thing is enjoyable to look at, but that's not the only measure of it's value. It's not a dick measuring contest. Who the fuck cares if Mondrian used tape to get straight lines with clean edges? That's so far from the point of his work it doesn't even rate as criticism. "Yeah, that piece you did was pretty interesting, but you made it in Photoshop so I don't really consider it art" Rodin really should've made his sculptures from carbon-fiber laminate, clay and bronze are so boring right?

Admittedly Mondrian's work can be a bit dry. Like reading a book on epistemology. That doesn't void it of value, it just means it wasn't meant purely to tickle your giggle bits. I actually like that stoplight sculpture. Is the concept of stoplights representing control in an urbanized world and the proliferation of them representing the explosion of control in our lives from faceless authority cliche? Sure...I guess, but fuck cliches. What's cliche now will be kitsch in 10 years. Not doing something you sincerely enjoy, like, or think is interesting because it's "cliche" is the same thing as doing something because everyone else thinks it's cool. It's allowing other peoples judgment of an idea dictate your action.

Some less "dry" non representational guys to check out.
The sculpture is by Noam Gabo, and the paintings by Frantisek Kupka, and to silence the baseless accusation that an abstract painter does what they do because they can't draw I've included on of his realistic pieces...Kupka was actually a well renowned illustrator prior to embarking on his abstractionist paintings. It actually really bugs me that this guy isn't very well known. He was one of the original people to leap into non-representational painting, and I think he did it with more intensity than comes across from Kandinsky.

Elwell

January 30th, 2009, 12:33 PM

TASmith

January 30th, 2009, 01:38 PM

Just to add a bit to this. So far everyone either thinks Mondrian is boring or a great compositional artist. Remember this. Mondrian was a European artist who moved to America when the Nazi's came to power, and painted his work all through WWII. As far as I remember from Gombrich, the goal of Mondrian's work was to create on canvas what he couldn't in real life - a perfect, harmonious, and spiritual world.

Now do you appreciate it?

And the reasons he painted more than one?
1. It takes more than one work to fully explore an idea.
2. It makes it harder to destroy the work when there are 20 or more spread around the world.

Chris Bennett

January 30th, 2009, 02:24 PM

Most people look at art only to see what its a picture of and think that the experience stops there. There is either a mistrust of the subconscious, right brain response to purely formal effects or the onlooker has no 'feel' for them. People who habitually say they don't understand abstract art have no problem seeing if the drapes are not working with the sofa for example.

Take Michelangeo's David; the general experience is 'sexy young man made of rock and must have taken a long time to do'. A post modern frame of reference would see it as a concept; a stone man, and would see the idea also manifest in a concrete garden knome with no real difference other than unecessary skill involved with the David.

What each view fails to see is the marriage of abstract, formal relationships to a spiritual or 'dramatic' idea. The frozen music of forms, one segueing into another to instill a plastic, visceral experience of relationships between direction, weight, volume, rhythm, so that it forms a sort of imaginary momentum by design. An imaginary momentum by design built upon an idea, be it literary (Dean Cornwell), spiritual (Michelangelo) or formal (Mondrian).

Abstract art is the 'language' of art, it is its words and grammer and it is an understanding of it that makes all the great artists and also the not so great....able to speak.

HAJiME

January 30th, 2009, 02:37 PM

If you were criticising the lack of explanation for an artists work, I'd agree with you. I think that too many (contemporary, at least) artists make art unnecisarily "difficult" and thus inaccessible by not explaining themselves. One has to study art history and theory to make any sense of it all... The irony is that some of the more "difficult" art has been created as an attempt to make art accessible to the masses.

I can recommend reading the "A Very Short Introduction to..." books on "Art History" and "Art Theory" as a first step to understanding art and why it likes to be so difficult.

Ashtonw

January 30th, 2009, 02:37 PM

Grief

January 30th, 2009, 03:32 PM

This thread is an eye-opener, and if I reread it again I may even come to appreciate Barnett Newman.

[Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III]

ah yes Barnett Newman, his works are of such a scale they can physically hurt to look at, they are simply so vibrant and saturated it can be difficult on your eyes. interesting contrast i reckon' that the moma places his Vir Heroicus Sublimis (http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/jsaltz/Images/saltz11-23-9.jpg) opposite of Mark Rothko.

its engrossing to look at, as there are thin lines which draw your eyes inward, yet you almost want to reject it on a visceral level because its so damn dense with color, you want to turn away to give your eyes rest. and if you do turn away you find rothko perfectly opposite until you can gather your strenth to delve back into newman. i'm standing there having a mind meltdown from the tension of color theory forces at play on opposite ends of the room, and somewhere back in reality a snotty man not much older than myself says "if theyre going to use such a big room for these pieces of shit they might as well put more seating in here."

Black Spot

January 30th, 2009, 03:33 PM

I’m a big fan of Bridget Riley, even if some of her work has been overdone in other mediums.

Take Kiss, the title is all you need to explain the work. That there is a tiny separation just shows the softness of the kiss. Any larger or lesser separation would be harsh.

579097

Cthogua

January 30th, 2009, 03:39 PM

Piet Mondrian reminds me of when I was young and would mess around in MS Paint using the line and paint bucket tools. It's funny that I would play with making nice pictures out of lines and shapes and then grow up to hate Mondrian for making pictures out of lines and shapes.

This thread is an eye-opener, and if I reread it again I may even come to appreciate Barnett Newman.

http://people.cs.uu.nl/henkp/henkp/great-titles/ortland09-26-06-2.jpg

Big color field pieces like that loose ALOT in not seeing them in person. I think that's another reason there's so much hating on non-representational painting, particularly the color field stuff. Oftentimes there's issues of scale and texture, and subtleties of color that are impossible to convey in even a nice color photo, never mind a black and white postage stamp sized reproduction in an modern art survey book.

DavePalumbo

January 30th, 2009, 03:40 PM

too many (contemporary, at least) artists make art unnecisarily "difficult" and thus inaccessible by not explaining themselves

it's been more my experience that they spend too much time writing statements and thesis instead of making art, or at least that's the sort that tends to get a little under my skin...

Sulk-Sal

January 30th, 2009, 05:11 PM

Saying that someone who doesn't strive to understand modern art is missing out on life seems a bit...wrong. I actually like looking at different things in the world and trying to understand them. Quantum suicide? Beautiful. Social problems? Good times. World cultures? Much fun. The beauty and quarks of the universe, advancement though the ages, myths and legends...all good stuff. Absolutely no interest in trying to understand modern art though. Really, it doesn't even draw my eye. Although that might be because I associate an extremely elitist attitude of "you don't speak my language, your nothing but a dirty whelp" (and that's being kind) to anyone who isn't in the club.

Actually, I liked Mondrians work better when I saw it on a plastic cup then I did when I saw one of his paintings on a wall. *shrug*

Jasonwclark

January 30th, 2009, 05:44 PM

I think, however, that modern art is in fact not art, but philosophie.

Yeah bascially, philosophy and history. But then you can also say the same thing about art from any period. I guess the problem in this case is that philosophy is as much a matter of taste as anything else. :)

it's been more my experience that they spend too much time writing statements and theses instead of making art, or at least that's the sort that tends to get a little under my skin...

Yeah I feel you.

There's a lot of overintellectualizing that goes on with some of this stuff. Especially the desire to understand why one person likes a particular painting or drawing, when it doesn't really do anything at all for another person. I think the problem with a lot of Art history and theory, museum exhibitions and the like, is this rush to connect students with all the current/contemporary movements, before first grounding the work in a meaningful historical context. So instead of a nice linear story that makes sense, being presented with a clear chronology of ideas and examples, things just get thrown out at you, like; "Here's Van Gogh" or "Here's Shakespeare," and then the aesthetic judgment is immediately brought to bare, 'other people think this is good, or important, or controversial, so you should know about it.' If you're confused, or don't instantly understand what all the hype is about, or even if you just aren't feeling it, then you usually get dismissed outright as having poor taste or a poor intellect or something lame like that. Which in turn creates the impression that the explanation is all bullshit, and not really relevant to the work. It’s a problem with teaching in the visual arts and the humanities generally, but especially with poetry and painting.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I read a history or study a science everything seems immediately relevant, I guess because its factual, or because you can see how it connects to your life in a more direct way. But with a poem or a work of art things are harder to trace, harder to get excited about. Sometimes you really need to get it up for a work of art, and have someone do the whole song and dance explanation of it, before it starts to become enjoyable for you, or interesting, or at least not boring. Mondrian is like that for me. I used to have a really strong revulsion to his work having only seen maybe one or two on a slide. But then I heard someone really go off about him once with some enthusiasm and presenting everything in a more biographical light. Then it was like, 'ah alright, I guess he's cool.' It’s all relevant in some way or another, but not always so easy to get stoked on.

I also think it would be better if the theory stuff followed a stricter chronology, so you could see how it ties in with the history stuff, but usually they work you backwards from the present which just seems confusing to me. Not that we should always privilege origins, but it just makes some things easier to understand if you present them in order. Some things you're going to find more appealing than others just on their own merits, but how can your really 'understand' a painting by Mondriaan without examining the rest of the Hague School? Maybe that's more work than most of us want to put into it, but you can probably say the same thing about any painting. Even when they’re not abstract.

How can you really 'understand' something like this if you haven't read Ovid?
579180

Or how can you fully appreciate what’s going in this if you haven’t read Malory?
579193

Its not exactly the same thing, but even the figurative stuff has its backstory requirements.
When someone consciously binds the work to a particular idea or story, it’s hard to then address the one thing without addressing the other.

The class was asked to analyze it.

What sort of preliminary was there before you were asked for your analysis. Like what did your teacher have to say about Mondrian anyway? Or was it just the one-two slide treatment, before moving on to the next dude? I always find that kind of quick survey irritating.

pitabread

January 30th, 2009, 05:54 PM

This thread is an eye-opener, and if I reread it again I may even come to appreciate Barnett Newman.

Bah, Barnett Newman's a hack. :P

Cthogua

January 30th, 2009, 06:10 PM

Although that might be because I associate an extremely elitist attitude of "you don't speak my language, your nothing but a dirty whelp" (and that's being kind) to anyone who isn't in the club.

Well there you go. You've just admitted that it has nothing to do with the actual work. Preconceived notions can destroy even the most powerful experiences, and prevent you from learning by making you dismissive. I said what I did about missing out on things for exactly that reason. If you go around carrying ideas like that in your head, about anything, you're never going to enjoy or even understand them, because you're never going to get past what you assume to be your perfect understanding. In this case being your idea that modern art is "extremely elitist", some imaginary person is telling you to fuck off, and finally that there's some "club" of people that "get it". Guess what, there's no one in your head but you. The art certainly isn't saying that, it's just some lines and blocks of color. Perhaps you read it somewhere, or some asshole even said something like that to you, but ultimately you give that idea power by allowing it to effect your ideas, tastes, and behavior. I'm not saying you have to LOVE Mondrian...honestly I don't. As I said before, it's pretty "dry." I think his earlier work is more appealing to my tastes, but that's just my opinion. I'm not making some declaration that its crap or whatever, its obviously not. Having an open mind is all about shutting out all those voices in your head that think they know what they're talking about. It's always better to assume you know nothing.

hippl5

January 30th, 2009, 06:14 PM

What sort of preliminary was there before you were asked for your analysis. Like what did your teacher have to say about Mondrian anyway? Or was it just the one-two slide treatment, before moving on to the next dude? I always find that kind of quick survey irritating.

There was a minute or two background before the question.

All that was said about the stoplight sculpture for example:
- It's outside a train station
- It's in London

ShroudStar

January 30th, 2009, 06:16 PM

Good god, I dislike a lot of what's called modern art these days but Mondrian's one of my favorites. That might be attributed to my graphic design education but there's something beautiful in the simplicity of his lines and colored squares. I believe that if I can see effort in it or if it viscerally strikes me, it works. It's like this one awesome light installation that I saw in MOMA or some Baltimore museum where this red light mimicked a cliff and you honestly thought you'd be stepping over the edge. That's cool and I liked it.

But you know what chaps my ass? The blank white canvases selling for millions. That's seriously irritating.

Cthogua

January 30th, 2009, 06:17 PM

@JasonWClark: Thomas Dewing rocks. They have some beautiful examples of his work at the National Gallery and The Freer Collection/Gallery. I always felt like I was seeing something from a dream in his work.

DavePalumbo

January 30th, 2009, 07:10 PM

I always felt like I was seeing something from a dream in his work.

which is a perfect example of still enjoying and appreciating the work without backstory. Speaking personally, I've never read Ovid or Malory but I still enjoy both the images posted because they still suggest stories to me even if I don't know what the actual stories are. Does that mean I appreciate them less than somebody who has read the related books? Not necessarily. Sometimes our personal interpretations are more interesting to us than the artist's intent, and that can happen for all kinds of reasons.

For my own tastes, it's nice to learn more about the work that you like and I think sometimes the more you learn the deeper your enjoyment (though in some cases the opposite is true), but I'm not comfortable with it being a prerequisite to enjoying the work. I like visual art because it says things without words or in ways that words alone can't, so requiring a verbal or written explanation is failure to some degree for me.

Gulzaar

January 30th, 2009, 07:25 PM

lol wtf? You don't get art, look up the dictionary definition and wikipedia if you want a definition with reason and logic waaaaaaaah!

:rolleyes:

Dusty

January 30th, 2009, 08:05 PM

lol wtf? You don't get art, look up the dictionary definition and wikipedia if you want a definition with reason and logic waaaaaaaah!

:rolleyes:

So much for the nice discussion....
Honestly, what made you decide to click submit with that one? Contribute something besides just "lolwtfwaaaaaaaah" next time.

-D

Sulk-Sal

January 30th, 2009, 08:24 PM

Actually, my entire (ok, so not "entire" but a good bit) University said it to me, but that's another story for another day (It's a wonder I enjoy art at all after that nightmarish trip through the innards of Hades).

I won't classify myself as open minded because I'm not (although I might be wrong in the meaning of this term or I have seen a lot of really, really bad examples of it, Again, another story for another time) but in my trip though art I have come to enjoy works and artists who I would not otherwise like, and I *am* always looking to learn. I do find R. Mutt interesting, and I think the Impressionists had something quite nice going on. I had also said I enjoyed Mondrians work when it was on a cup rather then a wall, and I realize the skill that can go into a piece, be it concept or skill in painting...most of the time (never did understand sheep innards on canvas).

That said, I'm not gonna seek out modern art. It's not something I enjoyed before or after University, before I learned of the attitude or after, before I really knew anything about art, or now with the little I do (hey, is huge area of study). Just not my cup of tea. I just feel saying someone who doesn't want to take the time to understand it (modern art) is too lazy to understand other areas of life (politics, quantum mechanics, etc) is inaccurate.

***edit***

I gotta say, I really like the post by Jasonwclark. Too much in art history and modernism it was a slide, 10 seconds of info (give or take :p), and onto the next slide. For something so vast there really needs to be more information and time given to understanding the life and times of the artist.

Gulzaar

January 30th, 2009, 08:44 PM

So much for the nice discussion....
Honestly, what made you decide to click submit with that one? Contribute something besides just "lolwtfwaaaaaaaah" next time.

-D

I just think it's a bit redundant asking the question 'what is art' it's something that needs to be lived and experienced, you won't find the answer on a concept art forum. So that's what made me "click submit".

Secondly, I like how you basically deleted the meat of what I said and left in the wtf and waaaaah... :rolleyes:

Jasonwclark

January 30th, 2009, 09:00 PM

Speaking personally, I've never read Ovid or Malory but I still enjoy both the images posted because they still suggest stories to me even if I don't know what the actual stories are.

Yeah I see what you mean, but I also think you should check out Ovid and Malory, since I'm pretty sure you'd dig them. ;)
Alternatively you can watch 'Class of the Titans' or 'Excalibur' and catch some of the broad strokes. Not necessarily essential to the appreciation, but it can add to the depth of the experience.

For example, I'd like this painting even if it didn't have a title, but I like it even more because I've read Conrad.

579346

He's not going to make or break the painting, and the painting still works well even if you have no clue who Conrad is, but if you do have that little bit of foreknowledge it does add a little something to the allure. Its hard to get away from things like intention or association or milieu, just because they're always built into the process on some level. We can draw parallels with Music or Lyric Poetry too, where a certain line or phrase can sometimes evoke a related memory that gives the listening experience more impact. Maybe not enough to make you fall in love with something that you just really don't like, but it can potentially enhance your appreciation, especially if you're already positively disposed towards the work. Maybe requirement is the wrong word, but the impression will be different depending on what you're bringing with you to the table.

Mondrian out of context can be particularly rough though. I know I wouldn't want to start with someone like him, unless the students already had a little background and set-up to support the introduction.

Nakadai Shimada

January 30th, 2009, 09:00 PM

In my opinion, you have a very narrow minded idea of what 'fine art' is. And you have a very narrow field of what you like. I would suggest researching Mondrian. I'm not in general a fan of modern art, but I studied Mondrian for a term at university, and I came out of that with a whole new respect for his art and understanding of applied composition. His art is theoretically all art in its base form, he uses primary colours and extreme tonality (black and white) to create what is a mathmatically proportioned and visually striking composition. Composition being the key word as that is what his images revolved around.
In my honest opinion, you kind of miss the point of what 'art' is. In his time there were those who didn't appreciate Rembrant. You more appear to be a fan of 'pretty pictures'.

DavePalumbo

January 30th, 2009, 11:48 PM

Agreed Jason, in that knowledge (sometimes) enhances enjoyment. I think it crosses the line when it's a requirement for enjoyment.

You more appear to be a fan of 'pretty pictures'.

I used to hear people use that expression when I was in school and I always found it very condescending and arrogant. To dismiss someone in that way for not liking conceptual, postmodern, abstract, and other types of non-representational art in this way is absolutely no different from fans of realism dismissing modern art. Just like what you like, people, and stop acting like it makes you better than anyone else who doesn't like it.

jvgig

January 31st, 2009, 12:28 AM

Much of modern art takes traditional compositional and color theory rules and takes them to their absolute purest forms. It gets rid of all of the symbols and representational forms and focuses on the interaction between various lines, shapes, and fields, something that is often lost when looking at a Renaissance style painting.

There is no arguing that the technical painting abilities are very simple. Tape off a section and apply a solid color; although some claim to do it all freehand. However, being able to visualize the patterns and interactions between color and shape is extremely difficult without representational guides. There are entire textbooks written on the mathematical proportions behind some of the pieces.

Nalayah

January 31st, 2009, 01:23 AM

Many modern artists have experimented with the effects of line direction. Among the most important is Piet Mondrian. By showing how to eliminate the diagonal line, he showed the way to a whole new concept of art. He said, "Any object can be interpreted in terms of horizontals and verticals." To relieve the monotony of using only verticals and horizontals, he added small areas of primary colors, which he incorporated in his pictures.

http://www.guidancecom.com/alphabet/lined.htm

Hopefully that helps explain Mondrian a bit more. Like one person stated previously, sometimes you need to understand the logic behind the work to truly appreciate it, though it can also betray the artist as a kook ;).

I agree with the person who stated that too often people are just shown something and told "This is good. Appreciate it." It happened to me in my English 1 class when we read Romeo & Juliet. Instead of first discussing iambic pentameter and a good bit about Shakespeare's background, we just started reading it. Most students didn't take much out of it except for "A couple people killed each other over love." Now in my senior year, we heavily discussed Shakespeare's Feministic ideas, the meter he wrote in, and even the crude humor. That ignited an interest in Shakespeare for me, and I'm now reading more of his stuff and enjoying it much more.

And now that I've scrolled up a bit more, I see that other people have already said what I've said above. Ah well :).

Ilaekae

January 31st, 2009, 01:29 AM

"I don't get art."

I do. It comes Fedex and USPS generally in a timely fashion. Maybe you should switch carriers... :)

HAJiME

January 31st, 2009, 06:44 AM

lumar

January 31st, 2009, 09:38 AM

people expect too much from art. its such a loaded term..

i like mondrians compositions because they look good. someone mentioned liking them on a cup better than the painting... they make a great decorative pattern! nothing wrong with that.

about understanding art...whats to understand? ive never found the background of a painting as interesting as the painting itself, and usually not interesting at all even if the painting is awesome. cezanne can paint a picture of a few houses on a hill and it blows me away even though the subject is...a few houses on a hill.

Farvus

January 31st, 2009, 09:50 AM

The funny thing is nobody needs to understand a painting to appreciate it but from time to time I see questions like "What type of paper do you use?", "What type of pencil do you use?", "How did you learn drawing those figures?".
These things doesn't matter. You don't need such information to appreciate painting or drawing :P.

hippl5

January 31st, 2009, 11:05 AM

The point is that we do understand what is going on. The artist has depicted something we recognise, through illusion. We recognize the image of a man, the environment he's in and what he's doing. We can identify with the situation, to some degree. AND they have stereotypical talent and skill involved in their production. The only way to make a drawing look like something is through the skill of illusion.

When you take that out of "art" most people shut off, because they can no longer judge what is good or bad. (Based on skill of illusion-making.)

"I like what I like and I like what I see" is all very well, but few people are going to have much emotion for a plain blue canvas, for example.

That's another thought in my mind that caused me to start the thread. I wasn't able to say it in that way, you said it perfectly.

Jem'ennuie

January 31st, 2009, 11:18 AM

I think people using examples of illustrations which depict recognisable things, such as people, and then saying "well you like this without understanding what is going on" is a little silly. The point is that we do understand what is going on. The artist has depicted something we recognise, through illusion. We recognize the image of a man, the environment he's in and what he's doing. We can identify with the situation, to some degree. AND they have stereotypical talent and skill involved in their production. The only way to make a drawing look like something is through the skill of illusion.

When you take that out of "art" most people shut off, because they can no longer judge what is good or bad. (Based on skill of illusion-making.)

"I like what I like and I like what I see" is all very well, but few people are going to have much emotion for a plain blue canvas, for example. I don't know the artist's name, but it's in the Tate Modern. It is literally a giant plain blue canvas. If the artist explained it, maybe more people would respect it... and then like it. Because I'm fairly certain that art appreciation is mostly about respect. In that way, looking at art differs from reading a book or watching a film. It requires more of your own input and people, rightly, cannot be bothered with that.

That's the fault of the PEOPLE, not the artist. You saw the abstract piece of Piet Mondrian the OP showed?

This is what he used to paint:

http://www.artsconnected.org/mia/images//01/mia_1333g.jpg

Because 'the PUBLIC' liked his abstract art better, that's why he got famous for that.

I don't agree with current abstract artists because most are crap and are often just terrible traditional artists, but both Picasso and Piet Mondrian were EXCELLENT traditional artists too.

It was often the PUBLIC who chose to glorify the abstract pieces.

Complaining about abstract works like some in the thread are doing without looking at more than one piece and recognising they have done a ton of other work is retarded.

I will agree that contemporary abstract art is 9/10 times just a joke though, but that's been known for quite some time.

Chris Bennett

January 31st, 2009, 11:29 AM

How can you really 'understand' something like this if you haven't read Ovid?
579180

579828

I haven't read Ovid but I would 'understand' this by its metaphoric references allied to its abstract properties as a design idea, albeit pulled from my subjective take on it.
Here's what I make of it:

The three girls, in a cosmos of 'green' seemed to have coalesced out of it like stars from dust cloudes. They are weaving something across this universe, something that takes on the rhythm of a caterpillar, a trail or trace of their sentience dancing across the green leaf membrane of thier green world.

All that I have said above comes out of an instant, right brain, 'this looks right' feeling. It is a delight in its design that is identical to my delight in a Mondrian or a Diebenkorn. I then relate this abstract world to the things that are represented by it, in this case three girls with a daisy chain, and delight in how the two worlds are connected and throw light on each other. My little subjective appraisal above comes directly from this. It is how I 'understand it' if you will.

HAJiME

January 31st, 2009, 11:52 AM

That's the fault of the PEOPLE, not the artist.
I do not deny this one little bit. Well, I do and I don't.

If I make something with the intent to present it to other people, it is my responsibility to make other people like it.

I just find it ironic that even art that theoretically claims to be striving to bring the masses together and appeal to a wider audience makes itself difficult. And then the masses cannot engage with it. And then people give it this "I DON'T GET ART!"

I guess this is my illustrator mind set, but in that sense a lot of art "fails" because it doesn't communicate well with it's audience. Okay, so the idea is that most visitors to the Tate are of a high culture and are willing to engage with the plain blue canvas more than most - but this is why people don't "get" art. Because it's not accessible to them.

If people want to get art, they should try and engage with it mentally a little more and read up about art theory. I don't disagree there. I'm just pointing out that most people won't.

TASmith

January 31st, 2009, 01:11 PM

not every artist makes art for others. Emily Dickinson for example, wanted all her poems burned on her death. People chose not to follow her wishes.

HAJiME

January 31st, 2009, 02:53 PM

...Hense why I said if.

kev ferrara

January 31st, 2009, 02:57 PM

People walking into the Tate are often looking for subversion.

Orban

January 31st, 2009, 05:16 PM

That's the fault of the PEOPLE, not the artist. You saw the abstract piece of Piet Mondrian the OP showed?

This is what he used to paint:

http://www.artsconnected.org/mia/images//01/mia_1333g.jpg

Because 'the PUBLIC' liked his abstract art better, that's why he got famous for that.

Not at all. This is what he used to SELL because nearly no one like what he does beside some specialists when he was alive.
He die in 1942 if I remember correctly, long before the geometric abstraction was all the hype (1950/1955).

I don't agree with current abstract artists because most are crap and are often just terrible traditional artists, but both Picasso and Piet Mondrian were EXCELLENT traditional artists too.

It was often the PUBLIC who chose to glorify the abstract pieces.

Complaining about abstract works like some in the thread are doing without looking at more than one piece and recognising they have done a ton of other work is retarded.

I will agree that contemporary abstract art is 9/10 times just a joke though, but that's been known for quite some time.

It's interesting that the abstraction starting point for Mondrian was his painting of landscape (tree especially). Before that he has done some attempt in cubism/symbolism to illustrate his faith that turn to be no good for him (not going far enough in his desire of spiritual purity).
So, well, for him, those painting where not exactly abstract in the sense we think of it.

And, I don't think the public exactly choose what he like or not. I think most of the time those work get some light because of the galerist, collector, critics and museum – they are the one who get to sell it. But yes, the public collaborate by following. Then, everyone is happy, so I don't see it as a problem.

And there's lot of other interesting artist :) Naom Jung Paik was a nice exemple of it ! (Fluxus... nice)

In my case, I'm doing something between abstract and realism. I can draw a perfectly fine portrait if I want to (and work on it), but I'm more attracted by other things. I like some drawing I see on this forum, I find them great, but to be honest, I would never want to do them myself. To each is own ?

Jem'ennuie

January 31st, 2009, 05:34 PM

And there's lot of other interesting artist :) Naom Jung Paik was a nice exemple of it ! (Fluxus... nice)

In my case, I'm doing something between abstract and realism. I can draw a perfectly fine portrait if I want to (and work on it), but I'm more attracted by other things. I like some drawing I see on this forum, I find them great, but to be honest, I would never want to do them myself. To each is own ?

Yes, to each his own.

And I really like Nam June Paik, I didn't know he made so much pieces, thank you.

armando

January 31st, 2009, 09:21 PM

I didn't think either of those two realisticish Mondrian examples were that great, both are compositionally clumsy to my eyes.

kev ferrara

January 31st, 2009, 09:26 PM

Frank Lloyd Wright had already beat Mondrian to the punch on all that stuff with his abstracted-from-nature geometric stained glass dating back to 1902 at least. De Stijl was heavily influenced by Wright. Mondrian gets the nod in the 50s because it legitimizes pure abstraction as gallery "fine art" rather than decoration as Wright thought of it. It was a revisionist history business move and "non-judgmental" to boot. And I wouldn't be surprised if the row over the Guggenheim in New York upstaging the work inside it also had something to do with it.

This is all purely guesswork though.

kev

kab

February 1st, 2009, 08:41 PM

I think a reason why "alot of people" don't like abstract/non-representational art is because of this belief that today, "artists" are people who pour paint randomly onto canvas and then gives it a random name to make money of the ignorant.

Think about it, how many times haven't you seen artists portrayed as swindlers in film and television. An idea that most likely started as comedy, but has grown outside of parody and become what many people actually believe. Also, art collectors are portrayed as stupid and naive, blowing millions of dollars on meaningless blotches of color, thrown randomly down by someone with no talent for anything but fooling the public into believing he is a genious.

A large portion of the non-art-interested public think "modern art" means it is void of talent, content and purpose, other than profit and fame. Artists and those interested in art are seen as elitist jerks, hanging around galleries constantly sipping champagne or wine, spitting out random phrases of "intellectual" gibberish about things that are infact just a random mess.

People are quick to label visual art, just like people feel they need to apply labels to music. That way they can make it easier for themselves when asked what they enjoy.

"I only listen to rock.", "All pop-music is commercial crap.", "Metallica has sold out, they aren't metal!"

"I hate modern art!"

If you have those kinds of limitations, then it isn't about understanding or not understanding, it's about allowing yourself to give things a shot...

hippl5

February 1st, 2009, 08:49 PM

Think about it, how many times haven't you seen artists portrayed as swindlers in film and television. An idea that most likely started as comedy, but has grown outside of parody and become what many people actually believe. Also, art collectors are portrayed as stupid and naive, blowing millions of dollars on meaningless blotches of color, thrown randomly down by someone with no talent for anything but fooling the public into believing he is a genious.

I think there is some truth to that.

I remember a while back someone posted a thread in the lounge about a guy selling his shit as art. Literally. He took a shit, put it in jello or something, and sold it.

Another example I saw was a woman trying to sell chicks, and whichever ones didn't get bought she would toss into a wood chipper. She called it art.

kab

February 1st, 2009, 09:12 PM

I was referring to stereotypes put on non-representational artists...

There are, sadly, many cases like the one you are mentioning of people mixing up the terms "shock-value" with "artistic expression" and not only making money, but getting exposure out of it aswell. The media loves headlines like "Artist murder animals for profit", the fact that these assholes aren't artists, but assholes, doesn't sell papers.

Sadly there is alot of people who miss that point and think of actual shit in a bottle when they hear the words "modern art", and when they see art that they don't "get", put that into the "modern art" box with the bottled crap.

Oden

February 2nd, 2009, 12:19 AM

The thing about Mondrian, is that doesn't he go a little overboard with these? Maybe one painting of this type isn't so bad, but doesn't he have around 20+ of nothing but Red, Yellow, Blue, and black lines? It starts to get repetitive.

Perhaps you would like to have a look at my sketchbooks?

I have three; one is named "boobs"; the second is named "elves"; and the third is "badass motherfuckers with guns."

When I feel like getting out of my comfort zone, I occasionally mix 2 of the 3 genres into one revolutionary sketch, an orgy of creativity. ;)

shannanigan

February 2nd, 2009, 01:24 AM

When I feel like getting out of my comfort zone, I occasionally mix 2 of the 3 genres into one revolutionary sketch, an orgy of creativity. ;)

Let me guess.... a bad ass elf chick with big boobs and a gun? LOL!

Oden

February 2nd, 2009, 04:16 AM

Let me guess.... a bad ass elf chick with big boobs and a gun? LOL!

hahah, I think that would actually be mixing all three at once! I've only ever tried two...
...there are some places humanity is not meant to go. The universe would probably explode into some sort of self-perpetuating ball of fiery fantasy-art creativity. :P

KonnA

February 2nd, 2009, 05:09 AM

In my opinion... Art IS art. If someone says its art, its art to them. Whether you think it is or not, is pretty irrelivant. What is art to you, may not be art to me. Art can't really be defined, really?

Gerulaitis

February 2nd, 2009, 05:46 AM

Some of those well known dead artist's works sell for that much mainly because of historical importance. You wouldn't buy the first Tyranosaurus Rex skeleton ever found for $100 reasoning "c'mon dudes, it's just a bunch of bones! And they're like, sooo old they're useless for anything practical. There's thousands more yet to be digged up".

And kab has good points. There's way too many stereotypes. And most often modern art is only a negative label (involving anything stupid, uncomprehendable and overhyped) in the brains of people who don't get it and put absolutely no effort into getting it (have you read atleast a short paragraph on Mondrian before posting this thread?).

Alot of things past avant-gardes have done, we take for granted now. Take Malevich for example - his works seem plain primitive compositional excercises, identical to those that every contemporary student does; what's more, after reading his theories it in fact appears they actually are. Now why are they so valuable?

Imagine the situation - it's the year 1915 - around that time every kind of art imaginable is completely limitited to realistic or late classicism (pun intended), nobody even thinks it could be otherwise. Everywhere you go you see same old buildings, mostly same figures and scenes painted again and again and again... You browse through an assortment of idilic landscape paintings, searching for which to pick for decorating your home with, all of them the same bland landscape with barely different tree combinations. Then you catch a glimpse of some small notice about an art exhibition called "Last Futurist Exhibition", stranglely, you've never heard of such an odd name and you're intrigued, you manage to find the small gallery... enter the room... And you see... HOLY SH*T!! (http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exhibitions/blockheads/gallery/futurist.html)

Dimension

February 2nd, 2009, 07:43 AM

I saw on 20/20 a respected art critic reviewing an abstract piece of work by an unknown artist going on and on about how great it was and spewing a bunch of intellectual nonsence. They revealed it was painted by an 8 year old (or 9 or something) then he didn't know what to say.

IMHO abstract work has become nothing more than basic pleasurable stimuli with a bunch of intelectual nonsense attached. It has little cultural value and it doesn't seem to be an evolving growing movement anymore. It's now there so that the wealthy can hang something on their wall. Far from it's original intent. This isn't to say I've never looked at an abstract piece of art and liked it, but I've looked at magazine ads and thought wow, what nice design work too.

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 08:08 AM

Let me just say that each civilization has considered itself modern, so calling contemporary art, modern, is no more than a display of one's ignorance of history and feel for language and the connotations of certain words.
Unless it is clearly in lieu of another style of art or a study, but still, using the word modern never enters the equation.

It's even worse than people saying how obvious things are all the time, if it's so obvious, it doesn't need to be said; if it's so modern, why do you need to call it "modern" ? Because it's not... that's the central problem, mostly it's literally, rehashed, simplistic crap.
High-flown pseudo-intellectuality and over-complication serve only to confuse so as to stop people remembering how bored they are.

Of course, there are always gems in the rough, it's just, you have to have a slight taste for sand to begin with.

Perhaps new or fresh or avant-garde would better suit them, although they're all tired as well and most ("modern", "gallery") art today is even more tired and repetitive than the words used to describe it : <

Dimension

February 2nd, 2009, 08:12 AM

Farvus

February 2nd, 2009, 08:27 AM

I sometimes appreciate abstract modern art but to be honest think most of the evolution connected with visual stuff is right now happening in other areas such as movies, animation, computer graphics and so on. It's more pure. It just doesn't pretend to be something more than it is. Major step is the whole invention of encoding image into string of numbers and being able to shape it into anything you want.

Dimension

February 2nd, 2009, 08:32 AM

calling contemporary art, modern, is no more than a display of one's ignorance

Contemporary:

of the present time; modern

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 08:42 AM

The purpose of this piece is to Elucidate the apocryphal nature of the modern torpid soul.

I have created a perfect composition in which the white circle (the torpid soul embodied by the red square (modern society)) is the main focus. To counterballance it's draw of the human eye I have cleverly painted a pure black rectangle (apocryphy) purposefull angled toward the small blue rectange (Elucidation) which then draws the eye upward bringing the eye again to rest on the focal point. The soul... And the jouney of the torpid soul continues...

Am I a genious?

I know I'm a jerk...

This is a good example of how the subjects approached are (usually) always great, yet the pieces themselves sometimes too poor in draftsmanship to represent what they aim at. Like with picasso, torn women, great subject, amazingly revolutionary draftsmanship and science, no.
Yet he was a good draftsman in his youth, I simply think "success" spoiled him and as he became more prolific the quality of ideas and approach declined.
I think he went "sour" with time : <
But hey, if you were living the life, and everyone thought you were great anyway, why torture yourself if you have been?

"Only when the tide goes out do you realize who's been swimming naked anyway", from some economics article here on conceptart, thought it applied too though. The tide in art being fashion or "movements".

It's hard, nigh impossible, to view art in its original context, I suppose not knowing the people, the buzz and what they were for/ against usually detracts from. One can only hope for time travel machines ;p

Like Cothugua posted, you should not let intellectual laziness prohibit you from enjoying works, keep an open mind. Honest expression is hard, bashing is easy. Humility, honesty, feeling.

What do you actually get from hating, disliking or discarding work out of hand? You are denying yourself possible pleasure.

Not to contradict myself, I do think an awful lot of "modern" art today is tacky.

kab

February 2nd, 2009, 09:44 AM

Today, and I'm sure there has always been since the beginning of abstract art, there are people try to pass their work of as something more than it is. There are examples, like you say, Dimension, of "art-critics" who rant and rave about work that falls into the category of "random blotches"...

I think people who call themselves "art-critics" do very little actual critique, and a whole lot of talking with not a whole lot of substance. :) Some people look at something they don't immediatly understand and think that "I don't understand this, so it must be something really deep!", then they attempt to seem as deep as they imagine the artist must be, by doing some form of psychoanalysis of the work. This renders them a ranting mess of long words and bullshit.

Sometimes a good looking composition is just that, a good looking composition, as I think is the case with Mondrians work, it's a well thought-out exploration of relationships between colour and form. IMO Mondrian's work is good because it has solid theory behind it, it was visually fresh and daring at the time it was created and it has managed to inspire future artists to think about the principles he explored. Aswell as adopt his aesthetic and principles across many fields such as architecture. :)

I wish some people would stop piling artists into heaps and putting labels and preconcieved notions about what they are trying to do onto them.

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 10:13 AM

Contemporary:

of the present time; modern

yes very good, but, although you think you may have scored a point, you are actually agreeing with me, aren't you? If you think about it.

I'm referring to the moronic sense in which the word modern is used.

Perhaps I should take more time to explain what I mean but laziness is not beyond me, I do word things badly from time to time and begin typing whilst thinking or before thinking /gasp.

Chris Bennett

February 2nd, 2009, 10:32 AM

DavePalumbo

February 2nd, 2009, 11:43 AM

if it's so modern, why do you need to call it "modern" ?

Contemporary:

of the present time; modern

well, when speaking about art specifically, Modern actually refers to late 19th through mid to late 20th century. It's like Renaissance or Medieval, it just specifies a period of time which was known for a particular look or movement. So it actually isn't technically correct to call new art modern, but I think used in context people generally know what you mean.

Contemporary, on the other hand, only means current. We're all contemporary artists, it doesn't give any indication of style, medium, or anything like that. So a Contemporary art gallery could be anything from conceptual and abstract to hyper-real representational, just so long as it's by a current artist.

TASmith

February 2nd, 2009, 11:44 AM

"Let me just say that each civilization has considered itself modern, so calling contemporary art, modern, is no more than a display of one's ignorance of history and feel for language and the connotations of certain words."

Each society doesn't consider itself or its art modern. Many societies vascillate from conservative traditions to more liberal mindsets, and back again.

Modernism is a specific period in art history ranging from 1850-1950, although there are precursors, such as Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, etc. There's a philosophy to the movement that modern science and logic will make the world a better place (granted a gross simplification). Any art survey book will tell you this.

EDIT: Darn, Dave beat me too it!

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 02:35 PM

Damn, I eat my shoe, or hat... I was wrong.
Damn artsy terms ;D
Modern as in Modernism, not Modern: Contemporary.
Got it.

I vote we create more words to avoid this sort of situation.

Semantics and hair splitting aside, I think there was still a point.

Edit: as you guys made me realise, blatant misuse of the word modern as a term in visual arts, what's wrong with these galleries, can't they even title their work without contradicting themselves?

riceface

February 2nd, 2009, 03:57 PM

kab

February 2nd, 2009, 05:29 PM

Rice, thanks for proving my point, that lazy people put things they don't understand into false stereotypes to justify their lazyness (this art is not worth trying to understand, because it's all crap), both in regards to the artists themselves and the people who appreciate them.

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 05:59 PM

~Faust~

February 2nd, 2009, 05:59 PM

Hey Helioth, "Art Nouveau" also isn't really that "Nouveau" anymore, right? :P

Helioth

February 2nd, 2009, 06:02 PM

Hey Helioth, "Art Nouveau" also isn't really that "Nouveau" anymore, right? :P

hehehahahaha ^.^

you know me!

Oh shag, I said I was going to stop this ponderous musing...
SKETCHSKETCHDRAWDRAW!

Where are your updates by the way faust?

riceface

February 3rd, 2009, 04:34 PM

Riceface you're such a knee-jerk reactionary :<

And no, not all of us are "toffs" or "high society people" as you like to say.
There's a big difference between trying to understand something and then, being exasperated by it, giving up and denouncing it.
And just flat out denouncing it without trying, like you are, as kab explained and as Bertrand Russel infamously said "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand".

Not to flame you but; If you'd read the first page, you'd have seen that there have already been discussions about what your vaguely getting at.

Though, I somehow suspect you are beyond convincing with words, no, personal experience must change you and open your mind before you are open with it, to others, for reasoned debate.

hello helioth, i may be beyond convincing on this particular subject.

but if family guy, and simpsons makes fun of these people, there must be something to it. I can appreciate a simple logo, even portraits painted in funny colors. or abstract stuff..

based on difficulty level, and showing that the artist has some skill...

but when its a square?? come on man, if i can do it, he doesn't deserve the success. or pollack, ive watched his movie and i still only see him doing nothing but splattering paint. i can frakin do that!

ive been to musuems and seen some giant portrait paintings, and then u put that crap in front of me, what am i suppose to say? its a frakin blob, nothing more.

even if the artist has some kind of secret meaning behind it, i really dont care, hes not important enough for me to care and his art doesn't make me care. hes just a holty tolty "artist" who probably can't do some actual art, as in real life work.

all im saying is they dont deserve any success for their lazy work, yeah i said lazy, which probably took them 1 hour to paint. u guys are suckers for falling into their crap.

evildisco

February 3rd, 2009, 04:53 PM

Do it then, what's stopping you?

Make the big bucks and live large.

Flake

February 3rd, 2009, 05:11 PM

Helioth

February 4th, 2009, 12:10 AM

It would be very difficult for me to sculpt a lifesize representation of Wayne and Garth from "Waynes World" using only matchsticks and cottage cheese, it would require considerable skill and practice on my part and many, many, man hours of work.

It would also look like crap compared to a Hokusai brush painting, Klimt sketch, Waterhouse charcoal study or Boldini oil sketch that took them a couple of hours at most.

The quality of art is not defined by the time it takes to create it, nor is it defined by "level of difficulty".

Unless you're a bit simple.

Whistlers "Nocturnes" probably took less time to paint than a page of "Where's Wally?"..

^^^ This. Yeah.

Also, how many hours of thought per hour painted are we counting?

And Riceface: I wasn't defending that particular square, I just took objection to your attitude at large.
Especially when people have explained things well in the SAME thread!
As a matter of fact, I think a ton of installation art and overly simplistic "conceptual art" (not concept art, different field) sucks, too,
but at least I'm willing to find out why, beyond my bias, and TRY to come up with real reasons.

Also the simpsons make fun of family guy so you can't listen to either shows advice from now on!

P.S we're all suckas for something when it comes to art anyway.

ShroudStar

February 4th, 2009, 12:37 AM

ive been to musuems and seen some giant portrait paintings, and then u put that crap in front of me, what am i suppose to say? its a frakin blob, nothing more.

Oh shit...if this was directed at Chuck Close, you're frigging braindead. My brother did an assignment to imitate Close - let me tell you, he said it wasn't easy. Hard as hell, actually.

Don't go slagging off what you don't know or haven't tried.

TASmith

February 4th, 2009, 05:43 AM

Chuck Close rocks. You need to look up his charcoal drawings. Every single pore is drawn perfectly.

"It would be very difficult for me to sculpt a lifesize representation of Wayne and Garth from "Waynes World" using only matchsticks and cottage cheese... It would also look like crap compared to a Hokusai brush painting"

What if Hokusai did it? I bet someone could make a great sculpture from matchsticks easily comparable to Hokusai, if enough care and thought went into it.

NoHopeGoat

February 4th, 2009, 06:18 AM

I remember a while back someone posted a thread in the lounge about a guy selling his shit as art. Literally. He took a shit, put it in jello or something, and sold it.

The guy's called Piero Manzoni. He sold 90 cans of his own shit for the price of their weight in gold, literally turning shit into gold.

Looks to me like he tried to critizise the art market.

armando

February 6th, 2009, 09:46 PM

I'm not buying the common assumption in this thread that people who don't like modern art, specifically Mondrian, are lazy. Isn't the more likely answer that they just find the pictures uninteresting? As an artist, who wants to be a pro, I'm currently studying various artists and eras trying to make sense of it all. I can't think of any reason why a layperson should spend any amount of time researching one specific artist that they hate, seems like a self evident waste of time, they have better things to do with their lives. I think it's good that they can have strong feelings about art, rather than some weak relative mindset of "I don't know enough to have an opinion". I find Mondrian exceedingly boring, no way I'd study him if I wan't an artist. Is there any considerable pleasure in intellectualization? Everyone learns about Mondrian in highschool, yet how many people has Mondrian attracted to art? Very few would be my guess, he's probably gotten a lot of people uninterested in art, that makes him a bad artist in my eyes. Honestly I'm skeptical of how much value can be found in studying the guy. I recently read the short biography of Harvey Dunn "The Prairie is my Garden", and got a kick out of a quote of his, talking about a composition class he was taking, that went sort of "If art had to do with circles and lines, then I wanted nothing to do with it."

nickmarshallvfx

February 9th, 2009, 10:39 PM

Three things changed my appreciation of abstract art over the past few years:

1) A concept artist who i admire greatly was showing me how he did a concept painting for a major movie (I wont say which). The concept painting was beautiful - great lighting, perfect anatomy on the character, great colour pallete, great storytelling; really it was an effing amazing painting! He brought out a fairly abstract painting and said 'i basically ripped off this painting'. At first i didnt get it, but when i looked closer, it had all the elements that were in his painting. Same colour pallette, same sense of light, same composition, it was all there! I was pretty stunned, as i would have never bothered to pick that painting out of a magazine and put it in a scrapbook as he had.

2) An artist friend of mine (traditional) who is very successful for his representational art (still lifes and environments). He decided to do some abstract work in the forms of paintings and sculptures. I was skeptical at first, but when he explained it to me, it all made sense and i could see the story / meaning in them! I should add that i do think a lot of modern art really is just talentless commercialism, but dont jump the gun, take time to analyse in case you miss something beautiful.

3) This thread.

Nick

Flake

February 9th, 2009, 11:04 PM

You don't have to like it, but it wouldn't hurt to try and understand it. What was he trying to do? Why?

Think of it as an abstract theory experiment rather than a result.

See if there's anything that you can steal from that experiment and use in your own work.

Crane

February 10th, 2009, 06:07 AM

Imo, art is like good or bad, wrong or right, ugly or beautiful, it's just a matter of opinion.

but in all cases, hoorah for art! :rocker:

kingkostas

February 10th, 2009, 08:51 AM

The art critique guys get paid to recognize their art but thats not always the same.
For example artists like mondrian, picasso and others, where something like researchers that trying to break the art standart.Picasso wanted to depict how things are presented in their non outer form.He searched mathematic methods like the golden number Φ and started cubism with another one that i cant remember his name.

Mondrian was also a researcher of something.
A good example of the pure only communicative art is the "dunno the word in eglish :P" from Marcel Duchamp (the fountain or something)

And btw someone that critisizes art must never use the word "beautiful,i like" or other non objective answers.

Nice topic :D

Chris Bennett

February 10th, 2009, 09:12 AM

Picasso wanted to depict how things are presented in their non outer form.He searched mathematic methods like the golden number Φ and started cubism with another one that i cant remember his name.

The first sentence is not true. Picasso is on record saying that the unknowable was invisible and therefore unpaintable.
The first half of your second sentence is also untrue. Picasso had very little interest in theory and was entirely driven by 'instinct'. He said "The only truthful truth is the impulsive". Read about his early life written by his first girlfriend and also his later years in the excellent book 'My Life with Picasso' written by his last but one wife, Francois Gillot - there is an excellent description of him painting her portrait that became 'Woman Flower'.

Finally, 'the another one' you can't rembember who 'invented' cubism was Braque.

Sorry to pick you up on all these points Kingkostas, but it is in the interest of keeping the facts above the water.

TASmith

February 10th, 2009, 09:14 AM

"another one that i cant remember his name."

Georges Braque

DrFaiber

February 10th, 2009, 02:09 PM

Am I a genious?

Youve just copied what many others have done before you.
Many people say: "Thats easy, I could do that too"
But in fact they havent done it.
Art for me is all about innovation and ideas.
That, what you consider "nice" art today has been actually considered as rubbish at the time.

Chris Bennett

February 10th, 2009, 03:26 PM

That, what you consider "nice" art today has been actually considered as rubbish at the time.

Are you sure? The Pope thought Michelangelo was good enough to decorate his ceiling, Alma Tadema did not make his money on the stock exchange and Pablo Picasso even had the communist party wanting him as a member. Jackson Pollock had people queing for his work before he drove into a tree and Velasquez painted the King's mistresses.

DrFaiber

February 10th, 2009, 04:09 PM

Are you sure? The Pope thought Michelangelo was good enough to decorate his ceiling, Alma Tadema did not make his money on the stock exchange and Pablo Picasso even had the communist party wanting him as a member. Jackson Pollock had people queing for his work before he drove into a tree and Velasquez painted the King's mistresses.

Yeah youre right, I meant, that art (mostly more modern art ) is alwys kinda contentious.
I think the definition of art changes very fast.
"Art has to repot histories"
"Art has to show the artists skills"
"Art has to have a message"
Think the way you want to, but respect diffrent concepts.

Hyskoa

February 10th, 2009, 05:01 PM

Youve just copied what many others have done before you.
Which shows how easy it is.
Many people say: "Thats easy, I could do that too"
Proven by the first line.
But in fact they didn't want to, because they had self-respect.

Made a small correction to the last sentence. Just to be 100% correct.

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 05:12 PM

Art is full of stuck up people with a broom up their ass.

Sidharth Chaturvedi

February 10th, 2009, 06:34 PM

What are the thoughts on movements like Dada here? I can certainly appreciate a good deal of Modern Art, especially after reading the posts in this thread, but I dont find that a urinal or a shark in a tank have very much to say.

B u r l

February 10th, 2009, 07:25 PM

Art is full of stuck up people with a broom up their ass.

I think it's interesting that artists such as Michelangelo and the mannerists were acknowledged as geniuses back in their day, and even during early modernism, Duchamp, Tzara and the rest were in a similar light, yet today's artists such as Hirst and Koons are seen as well, what you said and worse, with the word "genius" only coming from an art critique.

Artists today have created their own sub-culture, similar but lesser than that of what the Medieval artists did, creating a void between them and everyone else. And so the art being created is created for that minority sub-culture and thus alienating the rest of the population. The artist, it appears, can easily fool themselves of their own worlds significance. But that, I think, is mostly the responsibility of art education. IMOlol

Max Challie

February 11th, 2009, 05:03 AM

I was once ignorant enough to think abstract art was rubbish too. And then, I enrolled in a Foundation course at Whitecliffe College of Arts & Design. It included abstract painting, which I disliked. And the more I did it, the more I enjoyed it. This piece (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=587740&d=1234144429) was probably my favourite of the bunch. How do you like it? yes/no?

I have realised that discarding the realistic things like anatomy allows me to focus on fundamentals which in themselves are more abstract, such as composition and colour theory. I actually think I have improved slightly in these things because I was made to do abstract art. Mark Rothko (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/) (in his later years), discarded all form, focusing on colour theory. Almost all art is really just shapes. Composition is how you compose these shapes. Well, I think.. I feel like I'm giving the impression I think I know everything.. darn it. no no no, not like that

But as Andrew Loomis said, in his book Eye of the Painter (http://acid.noobgrinder.com/Loomis/Andrew%20Loomis%20-%20Eye%20Of%20The%20Painter.rar) (download and read it), a man trying to paint abstraction without technical skills is like a man trying to build a house without carpenting skills. He actually believes that whether one prefers realist or abstract painting, one should learn technicals skills before branching off to abstraction, or not. Read the book, please.

max take your own advice., silly

Chris Bennett

February 11th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Slightly back on topic... What are the thoughts on movements like Dada here? I can certainly appreciate a good deal of Modern Art, especially after reading the posts in this thread, but I dont find that a urinal or a shark in a tank have very much to say.

Dada was the prototype for the post modern work you are talking about. This is not a 'plastic art' in that the the forms themselves are necessary to the transmission of the expression. It is an artform where literary ideas are made concrete: Shark in tank = new take on goldfish in bowl, art as voyuerism, art as mumification, violence contained by culture.......on and on it goes. Ideas expressed as image puzzles and therefore predictable, and generally banal. The shark in the tank is not experienced as a frozen music of forms but as an arresting curio that stimulates the thoughts above that naturally occured to me when I saw it. But I have these thoughts all the time anyway, all that happened when I looked at this was an experience of doodling off a load of ideas in my mind triggered by a curious object in a gallery - and that can happen anywhere.

Helioth

February 11th, 2009, 12:08 PM

Hah, that article's great.
Stumbled across it a few times now.
Thanks for re-posting though.

It seems true that, like with anything, and to almost anyone, unbridled encouragement and support are fatal.
Effort becomes superfluous and the artist is swept off of his feet, if he was ever on them, by the overwhelming attention he receives, no matter what it is he seems to do (within reason or un-reason, as the case may be).

Isn't this another reason as to why concept art and representational art in general are great?
They have to convey whatever it is they were meant to quickly.
One cannot help feeling or receiving impressions of works which you can actually understand, at a glance.

I suppose this is what I feel is so lethal about a lot of modern art, the people go to the galleries to have a wild time and, upon feeling nothing for the work, search their entire lives for its meaning. Only, who can't connect one or two dots here to sort of make sense out of something?

My puerile (because i really haven't dared concern myself with modern, or art theory at large) stance on all this is simply:
I do not want to have success,
I want to create things of value.
I do not want to create something new,
I want to create timeless things.

Enough with this sort of gibberish! Let's stop shooting ourselves in our collective foot. Draw Draw Draw :D
"Ascendance and presumed conjunction are dealt with transcendentally in this soaring example of the art of E.D. Higgins. We sense a merging with a newly developed yearning for transmogrification to a sublime capacity for intrapsychic reexamination. We are convinced not by analysis but by the rapture of the artist's vision as with an impetus toward the culmination of intrinsic motivation he enables the transformation of the plasticity of three-dimensionality to become channelized into the duality of a restive yet sanguine two-dimensionality. He seems to have curtailed by the employment of synergy the contradictory nature of our very beings as we are led to implications well beyond the transitory. Parallels to the Hegelian dialectical process are inescapable."
<-- isn't that ever a load of waffle.

RyerOrdStar

February 11th, 2009, 03:29 PM

Max Challie

February 11th, 2009, 04:50 PM

Many of you see modern art as something flat. Many fans of modern art see concept art as something flat.

And, it is. Usually. Less so with environments, as they will often receed into the distance, leaving one to wonder what could be out there. Example: 1 (http://www.conceptart.org/artimg/image.php?img=tinfoil/full/tinfoil-12.jpg), 2 (http://www.sparth.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=24), 3 (http://www.sparth.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=65).

Honestly, unless I'm in a particular mood, character design bores me. Mostly because it's sort of fed to you. There's nothing to capture me, to suck me into another world and have me wondering what could be around that corner, or what that structure in the distance is for. The only exception to this that I've found, is the protagonist in Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/SMTDemi-Fiend.jpg). He wears the same lack of expression all the time. Other demons mock him, while he stands there, staring at them. It seems like he doesn't care what they think, while knowing he can and will defeat them. Even in victory, he expresses nothing. It's this lack of expression, combined with his deep stare that makes him hard to figure out. And that fascinates me.

Anyway, I'm going to take Helioth's advice now.

Helioth

February 12th, 2009, 09:48 AM

Styles come in and out of fashion. You say you want to create things of value. You're making the assumption that Mondrian's work is not of value. That's pretty presumptuous.

I'd say some of the concept art that gets created and everyone here gushes about is pretty valueless. That is, it does its job (which is to conceptualize for some game/movie, whatever) but after that it has nothing more to give. There is no message in it, it's utilitarian.

And in a few years when the current popular aesthetic of concept art goes out of style, what are you left with?

Representational art is hardly timeless in meaning, it's only timeless in the fact that things will still look the way they look now in a few dozen years. And that's not even necessarily true, since everything is in a constant state of change.

Taking words out of my mouth much?
When did I ever cite mondrian ?
When did I say I thought concept art or representational art were timeless?

I think that should be a supreme goal of all art, not to remain a snapshot of time, confusing and obscure to people who see them out of their context.

A little like Chaucer defined enumerated characters that still apply today.

And when did I say I thought only representational and concept art were 'of value'... :(

C'mon!

--

Max Challie, I agree in part about the whole flatness thing, but I'm sure if one made up one's mind to dislike a type of art and didn't put effort into finding good examples of it, in fact, if one put effort into finding bad examples of it, one could!
To use an overused example, Marko's characters have always seemed to leave room for inquiry. I know he creates some or even a lot of them quite quickly but, he really seems to immerse himself with whatever he does.

I suppose we have to remember there are monumental artists and charlatans in any field.
It might just be that pursuing certain fields, like representational art,
requires certain things the other fields don't (like careful observation,
patience and discipline) and nurtures that, and of course vice versa
(creativity, systems thinking, mixing media).

The whole "academic" as an insult thing isn't utterly void of truth either, sometimes, works really are hollow, but you wouldn't insult someone's mathematics practice as being without character would you now?

It's all these double standards and the dogma of 'new new new otherwise it's not art' that get me down.

Surely there's room in whatever realm of art for motivated individuals to create great pieces, if they wish to, if they remain on their journey, honest playful and hardworking.
I guess it comes down to how much of it isn't just pandering and trend-whoreism ?

I think artist's should at least be aware of certain things, like draftsmanship, longevity, if they can't muster the strength to become, at the very least, decent at them.
Because, for all the long-winded awfully sophisticated sounding exaltation's some artist's works receive, on the whole they seem to have short life spans.

Where is the skill?

Well, I'm going back to bed, this flu is rotten and these posts don't really seem to be doing anything for anyone.

Gerulaitis

February 14th, 2009, 03:23 PM

Please read this short list of introductory material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_painting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_painting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer's_aesthetics
http://homepage.mac.com/cohenmd1/.Public/Philosophy/Ns%20Aesthetics.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Klein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Media_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Schwitters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandinsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Brancusi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classificatory_disputes_about_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_periods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-impressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcan_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(art)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Stijl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Expressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_informel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Dada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-painterly_abstraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_Abstraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-expressionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installation_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aesthetics
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/DicHist/alpha/alpha-all.html

This isn't a comprehensive list - it's mostly geared to western fineart, as that's the topic we're speaking of here, if I'm not mistaking. I left out some stuff of lesser and/or local importance. And i couldn't find a decent overview of the history of comparative aesthetics online, so if you can - read some book on the subject in your local library.

That should be enought to acquaint yourself with the basics. Think these over and afterwards go to some museums to experience the artworks in person.

Once you do all that, construct a decent well-informed statement of what concept exactly you fully understand (along with considerations of the point-of-view that the concept resulted from), what speciffically you don't agree with in it and what alternative lines of thought you propose. (I have yet to see such a statement in this kind of discussion; sad truth is that narrow minded uninformed essays like this (http://www.dhfa.net/Essay-1.html) is about the closest thing one can find) Atleast then we can discuss and think things over critically and productively.

I'm sorry be such an ass here, but I'm kind of growing sick of all these discussions eventually ending in a gang of lazy people brandishing generalizations and calling all contemporary/modern/postmodern/abstract/conceptual art shit, without taking any trouble to do atleast basic research on the topic, reasoning that since they don't "get it" (and dislike it as a result) - it's not worthy of their attention and time, then putting forth the stellar example of that one artwork they once saw somewhere that was actual shit (wow!), chiefly followed by conspiracy theories (falling short of aliens and FBI), accusations of incompetence of anyone atleast vaguely related to fineart, validating the point that only those NOT tainted by the knowledge of evil theories/ideas that contemporary/modern/postmodern/abstract/conceptual art is based on can come up with an unbiased opinion about it; and the said gang proceeds running head first into prejudice while exchanging cudos with likeminded practitioners of the supreme fine art of boob-and-spaceship-drawing&worship (not that it's bad, i like boobs) for comming up with deffinite solutions to all questions and problems of art... (forgive my slight exaggeration)

There.

Helioth

February 14th, 2009, 03:52 PM

...Message scrambled due to too much win...

Yes, indeed.
Why don't you start and guide a discussion then though?

The onus is on those who realize the things they do and those that can see when they look, to speak up (or draw or write), after all, isn't it?

armando

February 14th, 2009, 06:43 PM

So there's some talk of people needing to do more research on modern art, I would add that I think several people here need to do some more research on concept art:

"I'd say some of the concept art that gets created and everyone here gushes about is pretty valueless. That is, it does its job (which is to conceptualize for some game/movie, whatever) but after that it has nothing more to give. There is no message in it, it's utilitarian."

"Honestly, unless I'm in a particular mood, character design bores me. Mostly because it's sort of fed to you. There's nothing to capture me, to suck me into another world and have me wondering what could be around that corner, or what that structure in the distance is for."

Concept art is not meant to be stand alone artwork, it's only part of a larger process in making a game, movie, etc. Starwars is pretty meaningful to a lot of people, and the list goes on and on.

Representational art is hardly timeless in meaning, it's only timeless in the fact that things will still look the way they look now in a few dozen years. And that's not even necessarily true, since everything is in a constant state of change.

I doubt this statement can be backed up with evidence.

Helioth

February 15th, 2009, 07:05 AM

:rolleyes: What a self-righteous jackass.

Do you think I haven't read all that stuff twice over? And understood it?...

I guess it must have, sort of, come over as that he was trying to make an example of you and your article, to you.
But I think he generally meant people like rice-face and the latter half of the thread (p.4+5), at least I hope that's what he meant.
Thing is, he did actually credit you as being closest to the ball and on it, with your link, if anyone was, and you said yourself that it was "just a funny essay".

Let's not have this devolve into yet another flame war :<
Throw me (at least) some more links like the one by Tom Wolfe, if you feel like it, pretty please, and, actually even if you don't.
Let me say I value your input.

To the rest of you and for the continuation of the thread, remember Einstein!
"...Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."...Let's not be most people, k?

And Wikipedia isn't the bees-kness of spiffy art theory resources, in fact, sometimes it's a bit ambiguous and bland.

Onwards!

Chris Bennett

February 15th, 2009, 10:53 AM

I think Kev is right about this, although I would rephrase his paraphrasing of Insect's views as "Your opinions are wrong because of all this theory," to "Your opinions are wrong due to your ignorance of the theories".

I agree with Insect's objection when it concerns posts like "Modern artists and critics need a broom taking out of their ass" or "Abstract art sucks" without any further explanation about why these views are held. They are extremely tiresome but are a part of the garbage we have to step over on the internet suprhighway.

However, assuming that people who do not respond favourably to 'postmodernism' or 'modernism' have either not done their homework or do not have a right to an opinion if they haven't, is as bad as the supercilious attitude of the conspiracy nutters Insect alluded to telling us to 'educate' ourselves with all the unendorsed testimonials and theories sans evidence that form that subject's tedious literature.

Gerulaitis

February 15th, 2009, 12:18 PM

Kev, you kind of missed my point. And my post wasn't geared to you personally, i only wanted to point out a certain kind of reasoning that, imho, isn't good practice. Let me clarify.

Not "You're opinions are wrong because of all this theory," & "theory opinions trump enjoyment opinions,"; what i ment to say:

1. jumping to conclusions WITHOUT doing any research on a particular topic or making genuine effort of understanding it is not productive.

2. there's a problem with the following kind of reasoning: "I don't get this art", hence - "I don't enjoy it", hence - "it's not worth my time (i won't put any effort into researching it)", therefore - "it is crap". This one in particular always shows up one form or another in these kind of discussions. And i guess it's self-evident that it's an infinite loop.

3. modern/postmodern/contemporary/abstract/conceptual/etc. art isn't exactly simple (and it's not ment to be - it demands active participation of the viewer), one can't understand it without some kind of background info, without knowing what the artwork/artist/movement in particular was trying to achieve, and trying to enjoy it without knowing which way to approach it is a more or less hit or miss business. For example - Malevich - approaching his suprematistic paintings without reading the theory behind it, looking for subleties of brushstrokes or other paintely means is pointless - uppon reading his writings, it appears the paintings themselves are only blunt illustrations of the concepts put forth and should only be regarded as such, the artwork in this case is the theory behind it - the concepts of how else we can approach painting (in the context of what art was like back then).

4. resorting to conspiracy theories and accusations of incompetence and lack of talent to ALL and ANYONE atleast vaguely related to fine art as a means to explaining modern/postmodern/contemporary/abstract/conceptual/etc. art isn't going anywhere... it's far from well-informed, either.

5. modern/postmodern/contemporary/abstract/conceptual/etc. art has alot to do with openmindedness (arguably, it's one of the most important aspects of it), tackling it armed with prejudices isn't a fruitful approach to understanding it. It's also quite self-conscious - "the media is the message/massage" - form is often more important than content (in cases where content exists at all, that is) - that's why approaching all of it as intelectual symbolism isn't always productive either. Hell, sometimes it doesn't even have a form or anything tangible for that matter (case in point - Klein's immaterial painting - the guy literaly sold nothingness).

6. lots of modern/postmodern/contemporary/abstract/conceptual/etc. art isn't trying to appeal, (the followign in particular appears to be a hard to grasp concept -) often the question of beauty isn't even asked and is completely irrelevant. Approaching a suprematist painting looking for appealing design won't work for the most part.

7. the more one knows the more of this kind of art is approachable to them.

8. why the rush to explain it as nothing but an abomination? Why aren't people up to the challenge to understand it? I was and i didn't regret it - it's alot of fun.

9. there's no superior kind of art. "No rules - only tools." There's no myth of fineart's superiority over any other activities of art to debunk. It's lateral, not hierarchical.

And Wikipedia isn't the bees-kness of spiffy art theory resources, in fact, sometimes it's a bit ambiguous and bland. Yes, true, it's only good as introduction & a starting point for research - the refferences section in particular is good for further reading.

However, assuming that people who do not respond favourably to 'postmodernism' or 'modernism' have either not done their homework or do not have a right to an opinion if they haven't, is as bad as the supercilious attitude of the conspiracy nutters Insect alluded to telling us to 'educate' ourselves with all the unendorsed testimonials and theories sans evidence that form that subject's tedious literature. Yes, that true, well put. I used that list as a kind of caricature to get the point across, prolly a bit irresponsibly... Still, i hold to my opinion that in order to debunk something, first one needs to completely understand the opposing view, then construct a decent statement pointing out the EXACT flaws in the view in question. Since, under my observation, most of these discussions end up chasing ghosts under vague labels, with terms that are hardly accurate and throwing about bold statements without support. There's a difference between a genuine effort to understand (that's what the thread should be about, i think...) and random exchange of opinion.

Zaxser

February 15th, 2009, 05:28 PM

I've read a good bit of that, and more. I won't pretend my knowledge is as great as Kev's, but I flatly disagree with your assessment that you need to know everything before making a judgment about art.

If art is about communication, and you need to read an encyclopedia to "understand" a work of art, than you have completely failed. If art doesn't communicate anything, than I've got to agree with Kevs post.

Chris Bennett

February 15th, 2009, 06:35 PM

Funnily enough I was having one of those dinner party chats with a guest last night on the subject of culture and she was of the opinion that children brought up surrounded by 'culture'; trips to the theatre and opera, holidays in Venice and 'fine things' in the home would be better at appreciating art that those who did not have it.
I wasted no time in saying that my home had no books in it, Dad took me to see Hercules movies, a picture of race horses was above the fireplace and we went on holiday to a caravan in a field. All this after she had requested that I explain to her the metaphoric meaning of the big time Italian art movie 'Bicycle Thieves' which had occured to me instantly and naturally on viewing it a week ago and entirely due to a trust in ones sensiblity to read the fundamental meaning of these things with one's instinctive, elemental, pre-language logic.

Making art is instinctive and therefore communicable to others on this level. Surrounding oneself with it and assuming you thus learn how to appreciate it is a fallacy propagated by snobs who know that they dare not trust their own feelings and so put up a smoke screen of theory by rote in order to mask a lack of authentic response.

One important point: The fact that something readily communicates does not necessarily qualify it as art, as in the case of advertising. But art, to be worthy of the name must communicate instantly, readily to the subconscious. This is what it means to be touched by it.

Jasonwclark

February 15th, 2009, 07:17 PM

Here's another funny essay... from Thomas Wolfe. See if you are able to handle it emotionally. http://www.billemory.com/NOTES/wolfe.html

Tom Wolfe is always fun. :)

His style of anti-intellectualism is my favorite kind, since it operates from a position of knowledge rather than one of insecurity or unfamiliarity. Most people on this side of the Atlantic can't be bothered to even read Heidegger or Foucault, let alone struggle with the material long enough to form an intelligent opinion about it. I don't mind at all if someone wants to bag on Derrida after actually reading Of Grammatology and giving the dude a chance to make his point. It’s the ones who want to bag on him before even cracking the book that irritate me. Worse when students are encouraged to be dismissive of a thinker, or a group of thinkers, before being giving a proper introduction to the material. Especially now that he's dead and unable to defend his positions, we're at a point where the wholesale rejection of Continental thought is becoming pretty commonplace in a lot of classrooms.

It’s a rather different situation today than it was when Tom Wolfe first started leveling his major critiques back in the 80s and 90s. Shit, most college graduates today don’t even know Derrida’s name, and I’m sure you’d be hard pressed to find teachers who could explain him in a favorable light. I don't know how it’s been working out in the English departments lately, but their beef with brother Jack runs along a different trajectory than that of the Logicians, so its sometimes hard to see the overlap. I used to listen to him lecture at UCIrvine, (Derrida I mean, not Tom Wolfe) and I always found his disputation style to be engaging and focused on promoting clarity rather than confusion. Especially the stuff on ‘the Sovereign and the Beast’ that he was working on towards the end there, and the interesting things he had to say about the Middle Voice in Ancient Greek - I didn’t get the impression that he was muddying his waters at all. He was also doing a lot of original work in Animal Ethics, moving out of the Continental tradition, instead of following Mill like we tend to, which still has a lot potential I think. It’s a bummer that he’s no longer around, and a bigger bummer that people are so dismissive of him on account of his past popularity. For one thing, I don’t see how anyone could expect to ‘get’ what he’s trying to say half the time, if they don’t know Latin and Greek (to say nothing of French and German.) “Explain it in a nutshell” is clearly not what he’s trying to do. Just listening to the man talk in the classroom, I imagine it’d be pretty much hopeless trying to follow his train of his thought without at least some foundation in Classics. What’s cool about Wolfe though, is that he has that background, so his polemics tend to be more colorful than those of the Oxford Dons or Logicians who just hate the Continental Tradition on general principle, because they don’t know how to read it. Wolfe can clearly read it, even if he has profound disagreements, which is why I like him so much. He's probably my favorite Anglophone writer and aesthetic theorist still living. I see a lot parallels between Wolfe’s critique of 'contemporary' American Philosophy and his critique of 'contemporary' American Art: either that it’s too boring, or too inbred, or too European to pass muster here. Could be...

:)

If you guys liked the earlier article, you'll probably dig this one as well.
http://www.jeanstephengalleries.com/hart-wolfe.html

Also, for a good survey of Wolfe's ideas and general style, I like Hooking Up: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the Second Millenium. (http://www.amazon.com/Hooking-Up-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0312420234#) He covers most of the bases in that one.

Zaxser

February 15th, 2009, 08:31 PM

Tom Wolfe is always fun. :)
Blah blah Continental Tradition blah blah Latin and greek blah blah blah

Best of all, I can enjoy him without knowing any of that shit. Yay!

waranghira

February 15th, 2009, 08:54 PM

wow, this thread's grown huge.

it reminds me of my argument about Black Sabbath. They're pioneers of metal, but for me, their stuff isnt heavy enough to be considered metal in today's context.

kingkostas

February 15th, 2009, 09:14 PM

Chris thnx for the correction.
The strange is that we learned that in Uni in "Geomety in art" lesson.
But you have search it more so thnx for that :D

Jasonwclark

February 16th, 2009, 12:37 AM

Best of all, I can enjoy him without knowing any of that shit. Yay!

Good point :)

I guess if I wanted to draw a crude analogy, I would say that Derrida is a bum Philosopher, in the exact same way that Tom Wolfe is a bum Novelist. They both know too much about writing, and are too preoccupied with the research to get away from it. ;) The thing about that though, reading is only an immediate experience once you have an alphabet, and a language to work with, and a shared set of common experiences to evoke. Even someone as clever and humorous as Wolfe might not go over as well in French or Arabic as he does in English, so its sometimes hard to judge them by the same standard. I guess the thing to bear in mind is that, just as we'll make exceptions for a shitty writer who has a good idea, or for a writer whose thoughts have been translated into a foreign language, you'd think we'd make similar exceptions in the visual arts.

There's probably something like an alphabet and a language in the visual arts as well, even if it doesn't work the same way, and we can’t remember how we first learned to use it. In writing we admit all sorts of gradations, so that you can have Prose and Poetry, technical writing and love songs, history and myth, or any number of other dichotomies that seem perfectly discrete in their aims and prerequisites - so much so, that we even grant them special status as separate disciplines or genres within the larger body of work, and fully expect that not everyone is going to have the same attitude and aptitude for everything - But when it comes to the visual arts, there’s always this sudden expectation of uniformity and for the immediacy of appreciation. Like either you’re going to get it instantly, or you won’t, based on something instinctive; good taste on an intuitive level, rather than as something learned or inherited. I guess because all we have to do is look at something and we're bound to have some kind of reaction to it, regardless of what we bring with us. Seems weird to expect any kind of consensus opinion or explanation though, especially given how much variation we see in written tastes.

If someone said to me “I enjoy reading Non-Fiction more than Fiction,” that wouldn’t seem the least bit strange, and no one would try to turn it into a character judgment. But say something like “I enjoy Representational Art more than Non-Representational Art," or "Abstraction more than Realism” and it opens this huge can of wyrms, with ensuing arguments about who’s who, and who likes what, and what I think, that just seem to undermine the Formalist position beyond any hope of recovery. If we don’t need anything outside the work to appreciate it, then why so much disagreement on that exact issue? Put another way, if he says he likes it and she says it sucks, how are we supposed to resolve the situation? Hang it in the Garage?

:)

I like what Chris said earlier about being touched by art. That's the best kind of metaphor to describe what its like. Sometimes I'm touched by a work of art, and other people I know don't seem to feel anything at all from it. Or maybe they'll feel something radically different and contrary to what I feel.

For example, I like this one a lot...

594395

I think its sad and romantic, beautiful in a way that the Romantics would never have been allowed to express themselves.
I've had people call me 'strange' for having it up on the wall.

As far as I'm concerned Bruegel is just the absolute shit, but I can almost guarantee that I wouldn't be able to convince my grandma to put him anywhere in her living room.

594398

I also enjoy stuff like this

594426

and stuff like this

594434

So who can say right? :)

Maybe for some people, Mondrian just does it for them, in the same way that those other images do it for me. Maybe that's all there is to get - that someone else thought it was cool at some point.

594436

kev ferrara

February 16th, 2009, 01:28 AM

Jason, Derrida and Foucault are writing apologetics. Mere words are how smart monkeys steal money from dumb monkeys without doing anything to earn it. What matters is reality, not words. This is a core American philosophy.

Jacob Kobryn

February 16th, 2009, 03:20 AM

That Beksinski painting is maybe my favorite painting of all time. I love the composition, rendering, the darkness, the feeling, the love, the power...

FerrousJack

February 16th, 2009, 03:21 AM

I am the product of a university art education, and it is true that modern art (especially in the 60s, 70s and 80s) in the US is more about celebrity than visual communication, aesthetics, or design. I don't think we need to panic or feel particular outrage tho when we see artists today lionized or derided by professional critics or what people call "the art world". If the art has value, meaning or even just raw appeal it will survive beyond its initial marketing.

To suggest that an observer of artwork has to have some arcane knowledge or special understanding of context, otherwise his opinion of the art is invalid, is an untenable position. If the context of a piece of art is known and perpetuated somehow to others, then yes, those people might have a deeper understanding of the piece and be able to appreciate it more, but most art that exists today has little to no context.

If a work must use a quirky and captivating artist bio, or a clever and intentionally enigmatic titles as a crutch, it probably won't connect with most people. Ultimately, a work of art must stand on its own, because everything else is supplemental to it, and there is no guarantee the context of the art will be present at each viewing. Most of the art we have that predates the 20th century exists with little to no context beyond what is communicated in the work itself. Modern art is awful for communicating context, while representational artwork brings a host of details with it.

Fortunately or otherwise, the works of art that we learn about today in art history classes are the pieces that had value beyond their context. Art History students of today may learn about Andy Warhol, but his art has little or no intrinsic value. Without the context, Warhol would be absolutely unknown. Without the context of Warhol's life, Warhol's work is meaningless. Already we can see modern artists dropping like flies in terms of their lasting worth. Warhol, Duchamp and Licthenstein were darlings of the art world in their times, but now they are remembered more for being outrageous impostors rather than great artists.

Artists should pay special attention to the people who declare they "don't get it". Those are the people that the artist needs to communicate to. If the artist's intention is to communicate something and no signal is getting thru without a couple paragraphs of flowery explanation or an in-depth audio tour, then the art is a failure. The same is true of the written word. People can like different kinds of writing and different types of art, but ultimately, history decides which works fall into the categories of great art or great writing.

Jasonwclark

February 16th, 2009, 04:46 AM

Jason, Derrida and Foucault are writing apologetics. Words are how smart monkeys steal money from dumb monkeys without doing anything to earn it. What matters is reality, not words. This is a core American philosophy.

I don't think your giving them a chance man. ;)

There's no reason to set language in opposition to reality. Just because Plato thought it was a good idea...
Words are real, as much as anything else is real, and certainly language is real.

As for the apologetics, I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. Why is it that reading and writing about someone like Heidegger or Levinas, is always considered a defense of Heidegger or Levinas? That's like saying the Anglo-Americans are apologists for Dewey and Russell, or Neuroscience, or Wittgenstein even, since he's so big time right now. The fact is that in many philosophy departments in this country they'll just stop teaching anything that happened in Germany or France after Hegel. Maybe you'll get a quick survey course in 'Existentialism' with a chance to read a cherry picking of Continental thought from figures like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, but even those are hard to come by. Certainly, if it exists, its going to be an elective course and not a requirement, at least in the States.

Even the term 'Existentialist' itself, is an Anglo coinage, meant as a kind of derogatory catch-all for a bunch of thinkers they don't want to deal with. There's really nothing connecting Sartre, or Derrida, or Foucault to one another, beyond the fact that they're all French, and they all read Heidegger and Strauss. It’s not like they didn't study logic, or read Aristotle, or something like that, that they should all be cast out of the Academy.

The thing that sucks is that a lot of those philosophers, the ones who get written off as a matter of course over here, also have some interesting things to say about Art. It’s almost to the point now where 'Aesthetics' is like the de facto emphasis for philosophy students who are interested in Continental thought, but who find themselves in departments which are basically hostile to that tradition. You get to be an 'Art philosopher' instead. In some Anglo departments, all the art theory we could produce here right now would probably just be reduced to brain chemistry and physical laws, in an attempt to force it all into a 'real' science. Reducing it all to Poetry is basically the same thing in the other direction, which is what someone like Heidegger does in the end. I don't see why one has to be better than the other though, or that there's anything intrinsically American, or intrinsically European, about this stuff. It’s just what happened to go down over there vs. what happened to go down over here, and the fallout of all that - Butter Battle book style.

Or maybe not. I don't know.
I spend too much time thinking about this stuff as it is.
More praxis and less lazy monkey is probably a good idea, for sure. Any excuse to post a picture I guess.

:)

Mondrian dunks by Nike

594572

Maybe it works better on cheap shoes?

Chris Bennett

February 16th, 2009, 06:06 AM

Or Stained glass dunks by Nike.....

I think theory, apologetics, 'thinking about stuff' is not a bad thing in itself. These are the tools that we use to understand the methods by which we can build things. Better understanding means we become better at our craft. So thinking and reading up about stuff does you nothing but good and should be encouraged. But the meaning of what we build should not be confused with the understanding of the methods.

kev ferrara

February 16th, 2009, 10:17 AM

Orban

February 16th, 2009, 02:46 PM

Jason, you really need to start looking at Derrida and Foucault as cult leaders, which is to say, businessmen. What they offer is food for thought. But it's all soufflés. Which is to say, they dazzle you with word games, so they keep their jobs, so they get to keep their houses, and eat good food and be popular. And all they have to do is keep spinning silk out of their asses. I've given them all the chance they're gonna get. Wittgenstein would have eaten them for breakfast.

I look at results and work backwards to theory, period.

kev

I've read lots of books from Foucault, and they're not soufflé. They are insightfull on many subject (like the way we organize our society, especially the structuration of it).
Derrida may not touch you. I'm not touch by him. But there's a lot of interesting things in his view on writting – things not far from the view of great typographer like Emil Rudder, or Jan Tschihold, and lots of poet do use text in a these way.

They're not for everyone. I do agree with this. And most of the time, they're of no interest to inform art. But who can tell what will give you the urge to draw, think ? You may be moved by big boobs, story, vehicule. Other like to think in political, philological, or psycholgically way.
Neither are better.

There was allways bad art. There was allways bad writting. But is this a reason to reject something ?

Helioth

February 16th, 2009, 04:19 PM

I've read lots of books from Foucault, and they're not soufflé. They are insightfull on many subject (like the way we organize our society, especially the structuration of it).
Derrida may not touch you. I'm not touch by him. But there's a lot of interesting things in his view on writting – things not far from the view of great typographer like Emil Rudder, or Jan Tschihold, and lots of poet do use text in a these way.

They're not for everyone. I do agree with this. And most of the time, they're of no interest to inform art. But who can tell what will give you the urge to draw, think ? You may be moved by big boobs, story, vehicule. Other like to think in political, philological, or psycholgically way.
Neither are better.

There was allways bad art. There was allways bad writting. But is this a reason to reject something ?

Yes I think it's a reason to reject something, but not someone and definitely not their right to say it.

And Kev said that it was a soufflé in comparison to Wittgenstein.
I still don't really think this is an insult.
Many authors of today could be described as ants on the earth compared to Wittgenstein being the size and having the gravity of the sun.

--

Thanks for the wave of replies in this thread, all of you, been reading it all and find your angle's interesting, not that I created it or am moderating it or anything... It's just... It's so interesting I had to say it :p

Grief

February 16th, 2009, 05:01 PM

any critic that condemns the business is bad for business.

Helioth

February 16th, 2009, 05:37 PM

any critic that condemns the business is bad for business.

Why do you have to talk in absolutes ?

Lots of critics have condemned the business in certain ways, and been good for its business in others.

A critique is a sort of condemnation.

kev ferrara

February 16th, 2009, 06:18 PM

Everything can be condemned. Pick a point of view, call it a moral imperative, and then attack.

Everything can be defended. Pick a point of view, call it a moral imperative and then sell.

Either way, it gets people to purchase pieces of paper with squiggles on it, which otherwise, if left blank, would make good drawing paper.

armando

February 16th, 2009, 08:39 PM

Jasonwclark: Your analogy between literature and visual art doesn't quite work. I think visual art works on a substantially more inate and subconcious level, similar to facial expression, screaming and laughing. To say “I enjoy reading Non-Fiction more than Fiction,” isn't the same as “I enjoy Representational Art therefore it's real art. I don't enjoy abstract art therefore it's not art." It would be more similar to say "I consider non-fiction real literature, but fiction isn't.". Reading isn't an imediate experience, you get it piece by piece and that builds up it's effect which you then reflect on, in visual art first you get the effect then you can look through the pieces afterwards.
I wouldn't hang that Bekinski on my wall either. I can see what you see in it also, but I focus on the sadness of it, I wouldn't wan't to have to look at that all day everyday. The folks you mentioned in your post would give similar reasons, that to me is proof of the strength of the artwork.

That fat kid

February 17th, 2009, 12:12 AM

Progress can be defined as simply eliminating the opposition.

Grief

February 17th, 2009, 12:35 AM

condemnation is a call for censorship.

if you think art ought to have censorship... then i guess that's where we tip our hat and make our own way in disagreement.

kev ferrara

February 17th, 2009, 02:55 AM

condemnation is a call for censorship.

if you think art ought to have censorship... then i guess that's where we tip our hat and make our own way in disagreement.

I condemn that statement. Now let's see what happens.

The problem you seem to have is judgement. The worst thing in the world now is to have a negative opinion about somebody's artwork. Its somehow considered fascistic, which is absurd. An argument that questions the foundation of another's art is not automatically biased. Nobody disputes that art is communication. Yet nobody is allowed to judge what is being communicating, or to say, "hey, you aren't communicating anything."

Bugle Bong sasquatch table cloth nightmare soda.

Elephant sift shank excellent window felt spaceship

And nobody was talking about censorship.

Orban

February 17th, 2009, 06:05 AM

Yes I think it's a reason to reject something, but not someone and definitely not their right to say it.

And Kev said that it was a soufflé in comparison to Wittgenstein.
I still don't really think this is an insult.
Many authors of today could be described as ants on the earth compared to Wittgenstein being the size and having the gravity of the sun.

I've read Wittgenstein and, well... they do not speak of the same thing most of the time. They explore a different area, with different mean.

I suppose you know Wittgenstein reject his Tractatus at the end of his live too ? Maybe he wasn't so sure his work was the pinacle of philosophy too ; how can we define what's right and wrong with those idea ?

Still, there's a major part that was left out, what about the psychanalyst writting ? Are they a better way of speaking about work ?

(To be honest : I don't like the discourse on contemporary fine "art". I dislike the way of reducting everything to trade, be it money or not. Most of the explanation in contemporary art is empty. But sometimes, they touch upon something – as there's lot of bad illustration/concept art too)

Helioth

February 17th, 2009, 09:50 AM

I've read Wittgenstein and, well... they do not speak of the same thing most of the time. They explore a different area, with different mean.

I suppose you know Wittgenstein reject his Tractatus at the end of his live too ? Maybe he wasn't so sure his work was the pinnacle of philosophy too ; how can we define what's right and wrong with those idea ?

Still, there's a major part that was left out, what about the psychoanalyst writting ? Are they a better way of speaking about work ?

(To be honest : I don't like the discourse on contemporary fine "art". I dislike the way of reducing everything to trade, be it money or not. Most of the explanation in contemporary art is empty. But sometimes, they touch upon something – as there's lot of bad illustration/concept art too)

I'm aware of that, but Freud supposedly falsified his own evidence, still, because he's such a well known figure, his work's worth and position as a psychiatrist are, dare i say, sometimes somewhat overestimated and maybe, in some ways, a little underwhelming? And Jung, wasn't he proven to have had a psychosis? Yet it only added to his fame.

With Wittgenstein, we really have nothing accurate to measure the impact he had with, as he was always more behind the scenes (in his lifetime), and of course any philosophy is in a different boat to science, as far as that goes, anyway.

The point I'm getting at, if it seems inconspicuous, is the same that was mentioned about Derrida earlier, that they are in comparison to Wittgenstein, somewhat demagogic figures, they are word warriors, and their reputation is spun into the entangled web of their subject. Example being Derrida's: "Margins of Philosophy".

And yes, obviously, they approach different subjects... In different ways, that's the main point!

Just to reiterate; I wasn't the one who originally said Wittgenstein was a man in comparison to Derrida being a Soufflé, but I agree with it in part.

In any case, Russel thought highly of him, and I think highly of Russel (of whom I've read all works and texts which I've come across), but honestly, I haven't concerned myself with Wittgenstein even as much as I have with Derrida, which is still very little.

So let's get back to art, or take this to a philosophy forum, as it seems to be getting more and more unrelated.

---

The intrinsic value of a work-of-art, if there is ever any, is still based on human perception and thinking, no?
If we would take ripples in water as our example, and the closest ripple being the circle which concerns itself most with it, and the furthest ripple away that which doesn't even speak the same language and perhaps has no knowledge of "art" or the artist, would it not be fair to say that "value" declines more and more just like the ripples lose energy the further they are from the epicentre?

To the point of, only the material worth of the objects and materials used, being left (as intrinsic value)?
E.g Damien Hirst's diamond laden skull, 100,000,000 it sold for, 100,000 in physical worth I believe, If a thief were to steal it and did not know better, and the diamonds could all be taken out of the skull quickly, the thief would do so, would he not?
So the question seems to come down to whether one is willing to concern oneself with the works to see their value, or not.
And if one is willing to accept their value on a monetary basis or an emotional one or an intellectual one (not necessarily singular or inextricable).

I...
Well whatever,
Ramble ramble.

kev ferrara

February 17th, 2009, 10:38 AM

The issue Wittgenstein would have had with Derrida and Foucault is what he called "word games."

Funny how Derrida and Foucault have come up. They're so sneaky, those two. Getting you to be their PR agents.

Art speaks its philosophy visually to the imagination, which is smarter than the intellect. The verbalists can't compete on that level so they wave their hands in front of you so you can't see the art work. And then you say, "what is it, sir? Why have you waved your hands in front of me?" And they reply, "Ah! Now I have you."

The fact that the media and academia is controlled by the word is what has led art to its present state. The artworld needs its own non-verbal forum so it may speak directly to people without interruption or interpretation, (two words which mean the same thing in my book). Art speaks all by itself or it does not. Great art does not need salesmanship.

kev

Helioth

February 17th, 2009, 11:11 AM

The issue Wittgenstein would have had with Derrida and Foucault is what he called "word games."

Funny how Derrida and Foucault have come up. They're so sneaky, those two. Getting you to be their PR agents.

Art speaks its philosophy visually to the imagination, which is smarter than the intellect. The verbalists can't compete on that level so they wave their hands in front of you so you can't see the art work. And then you say, "what is it, sir? Why have you waved your hands in front of me?" And they reply, "Ah! Now I have you."

The fact that the media and academia is controlled by the word is what has led art to its present state. The artworld needs its own non-verbal forum so it may speak directly to people without interruption or interpretation, (two words which mean the same thing in my book). Art speaks all by itself or it does not. Great art does not need salesmanship.

kev

Because the sale of great art is not in terms of property but that which is transferred when looking at the piece.

Orban

February 17th, 2009, 01:49 PM

The issue Wittgenstein would have had with Derrida and Foucault is what he called "word games."

Funny how Derrida and Foucault have come up. They're so sneaky, those two. Getting you to be their PR agents.

Do you prefer we speak of Max Loreau, Kant, Lyotard ? But I agree, Derrida and Foucault have become household name. Like Deleuze, Merleau Ponti, Sartre and lot of other french (and german) philosopher.
To be honest, I was only speaking about them 'cause I see them use here, and since I've read them...

Art speaks its philosophy visually to the imagination, which is smarter than the intellect. The verbalists can't compete on that level so they wave their hands in front of you so you can't see the art work. And then you say, "what is it, sir? Why have you waved your hands in front of me?" And they reply, "Ah! Now I have you."

The fact that the media and academia is controlled by the word is what has led art to its present state. The artworld needs its own non-verbal forum so it may speak directly to people without interruption or interpretation, (two words which mean the same thing in my book). Art speaks all by itself or it does not. Great art does not need salesmanship.

Wittgenstein has wrote about the difficult of interpreting what people say. And this while we share the same code (letter, word).
Nearly each work of art (fine art AND concept art) are in magnitude more complex than written word. Every work can have his own internal code, or more than one, and each can be interpreted differently.

So – even if I indulge myself to sometimes think that it is true that visual art spoke directly to the soul (mind ?), it is not. I have friends who do not like what's post here in the finally finished section – they do not understand it mostly. They prefer some contemporary art, but not every bit of it. Some do really prefer work based on philosophy.

But I do agree–as already state–that lot of this kind of art is full of itself and not much else. Since they can't do a dick contest, they do a mental dick contest, working with Wittgenstein, Deleuze, Foucault or whoever they think are good (Baudrillard seem to be popular for Jeff Koons, eventhough Baudrillard say the postmodernist misread him, or more recently T. Bourriot in France. Hal Foster and M. Fried in the US maybe ?).
Interesting ? No. Most of these artist are not philosopher, and like in the case of Baudrillard, they interpret their reading so it's supportive of their work. And they're not working in the art field because they care, but because the want to be filthy rich (Damien Hirst, anyone ?)

But stating that Wittgenstein is better than Foucault or everyone else is, well, kind of surprising. You play the same game as those who make the philosopher your dislike divinity like. I don't think any of them got the truth–but maybe one spoke more to you than the other.
Otherwise we would still be reading Plato and nothing else. Like, well, a religion?

TASmith

February 17th, 2009, 02:50 PM

"If art is about communication, and you need to read an encyclopedia to "understand" a work of art, than you have completely failed. If art doesn't communicate anything, than I've got to agree with Kevs post."

Art is communication, but not all art is meant to be readily understood by everyone. Every work has a different goal - some works are cryptic or secretive, so only certain people will get it. If that's the case, then it's a success when most people don't. Some of Jasper Johns and Rauchenberg's early works were inuendos for their sex life together. They wanted to make art about it, but they didn't want everyone to know. You might like or dislike the work. You might call it a failure for other reasons - self obsession, self pity, etc. But when the artists wanted to make a puzzling piece, you can't call it a failure out of hand when it achieves just what they wanted. Again, Emily Dickenson wanted her poems burnt. Can you call them failures if others don't understand them?

"Words are how smart monkeys steal money from dumb monkeys without doing anything to earn it."

Kev didn't you want to write a book on composition? I'm still waiting for that.

Orban

February 17th, 2009, 05:23 PM

Here you are again with your advertisements for words.

Most artwork in the world, including the work on this site, is without sensible inner content. Decoration is at least soothing, so I cannot blame your friends for their preferences.

Where do I advertise ? I only say they can be of interest. If it's not your taste, well, good for you !

All work are the result of an idea. So yeah, there's allways a inner content in them. Otherwise you would do nothing.

Zaxser

February 17th, 2009, 07:26 PM

"If art is about communication, and you need to read an encyclopedia to "understand" a work of art, than you have completely failed. If art doesn't communicate anything, than I've got to agree with Kevs post."

Art is communication, but not all art is meant to be readily understood by everyone. Every work has a different goal - some works are cryptic or secretive, so only certain people will get it. If that's the case, then it's a success when most people don't. Some of Jasper Johns and Rauchenberg's early works were inuendos for their sex life together. They wanted to make art about it, but they didn't want everyone to know. You might like or dislike the work. You might call it a failure for other reasons - self obsession, self pity, etc. But when the artists wanted to make a puzzling piece, you can't call it a failure out of hand when it achieves just what they wanted. Again, Emily Dickenson wanted her poems burnt. Can you call them failures if others don't understand them?

I liked your post. I liked your points. I understand them. I agree with them.

But I can't help but get the feeling that you thought this makes point not true. It doesn't.

EDIT: Hey, why'd Kev delete his post?

Grief

February 17th, 2009, 08:32 PM

The fact that the media and academia is controlled by the word is what has led art to its present state. The artworld needs its own non-verbal forum so it may speak directly to people without interruption or interpretation, (two words which mean the same thing in my book). Art speaks all by itself or it does not. Great art does not need salesmanship.

kev

i agree with this. i do feel art ought to communicate directly to the audience. and no the art shouldnt always need a novel of academic prose to accompany it to be 'understood'.

i also feel that it is the obligation of the artist to raise questions in their own work and at least feign the ability to handle questions that are poised at them by critics. the modern artist needs to be able to be equally skilled on the canvas as with salesmanship with articulating their thoughts about what governs their actions.

but more often than not these verbal statements are filled with fluff and have been justly put under scrutiny by critics to test whether they have anything worthwhile to say.

the critics themselves hinder art as often as they help promote it. the fuction of the critic has been, in my eyes, largely about getting in the way of the art and the audience by creating a bias for the work (whether positive or negative). if you truly want the art to speak for itself then you wont rely on crafty middlemen to obscure the true nature of the work. critics are more for entertainment than they are for seriously challenging the object. i don't see the appeal of having someone else's opinions suffice for your own.

and now for a healthy dose of hypocrisy, i'm off to the critique center.

TASmith

February 17th, 2009, 08:33 PM

Kev does that sometimes. Your point is true in some cases, but not in all cases, which is what you were implying. In that case, your point isn't true. :P

Avarwen

February 17th, 2009, 09:16 PM

~Faust~

February 17th, 2009, 10:06 PM

Sadly there's not much left to do

Quoted for wrong.

Avarwen

February 17th, 2009, 10:34 PM

Quoted for wrong.

How so from what I've seen not much new or interesting is coming from the fine art world PANTING wise. If they want to move forward they need to look at the mediums. Like using different things to make an art work aside from paint and canvas. I know they do this already but I notice that no one seem to talk about it much you may here something here and there but it seems to be ignored for the most part.

Orban

February 18th, 2009, 02:51 AM

How so from what I've seen not much new or interesting is coming from the fine art world PANTING wise. If they want to move forward they need to look at the mediums. Like using different things to make an art work aside from paint and canvas. I know they do this already but I notice that no one seem to talk about it much you may here something here and there but it seems to be ignored for the most part.

They do look outside the traditionnal oil medium (or acrylic). Lot of painter are know for their work in sculpture, music (Eno for example), movie (Lynch), or blend of categories (I can't recall a name, but most installation artist seem to be in this case). Some goes to performance. Now there's too the computer–not with Painter nor Photoshop, but by programming it, building new peripheral and so on. You can find some artist at the MIT for example.

Oh, and for something different : do you really think art is a natural language ? Written word are hard (as Wittgenstein as said, a long time ago, and this while we share the code), but it seem visual word are harder (no common code). Not everyone understand a photography, nor an illustration (seeing how it is in perspective, how it's near the reality). Not everyone understand a Rothko for being more than splatter of colour. Not everyone sees a portrait in a Picasso of a woman. It's cultural.

B u r l

February 18th, 2009, 03:29 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LS6kWV6edI

I'm trying to learn what there is to philosophy and art, but this video is still like watching a world of crazy bastards... :blah:
In case I fail at embedding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LS6kWV6edI

TASmith

February 18th, 2009, 05:36 AM

"Now if you do a splatter panting people will call you a hack"

No matter what you do, once you decide to work creatively, some people will adore it, and other will call you a hack, and others will accuse of you wasting your talent - I'm quoting Stephen King here, if not word for word. This is all just chatter and it shouldn't influence you, unless it's a voice you respect. If I spent the next year working extensively in splatter painting, I guarantee you I could make something you'd like, that hadn't been done before.

It's not the approach, but the care involved that makes a work worthwhile. That's why Pollack's so good. Even if it is self-indulgent, ego boosting stuff. I mean, hell you could use that same argument for any work of art.

Chris Bennett

February 18th, 2009, 06:35 AM

Oh, and for something different : do you really think art is a natural language ? Written word are hard (as Wittgenstein as said, a long time ago, and this while we share the code), but it seem visual word are harder (no common code). Not everyone understand a photography, nor an illustration (seeing how it is in perspective, how it's near the reality). Not everyone understand a Rothko for being more than splatter of colour. Not everyone sees a portrait in a Picasso of a woman. It's cultural.

That is an extremely interesting point.
Art is elitist in-so-much that it requires a sensibility in order to feel it. This is not the same thing as understanding it, since, like its themes, it cannot be understood. Art is a meta-language that deals with what can best be described as our sense of spiritual context.

The more profound the themes the more primal the formal metaphors become. African sculpture is an excellent example. It can be read by anyone with a sensibility as metaphors for our 'sense' of the body. Now this 'sense' of the body for those who made it would be happening within an environment and cultural customs that are quite different from ours. When the sculpture is to do with the celebrating these customs it cannot be read without 'knowledge'; which is why Egyptian art is a little more opaque to us. But when it is to do with the fundamental themes directly, without the filter of their culture standing in the way, like death, birth, physical struggle, it can be 'read' easily and directly.

So in this sense, culture only matters in-so-much that it is something 'in front of' the primal themes. When art concerns itself exclusively with the culture in which it is made it ceases to speak the language of primal metaphor and deals with text metaphor. Perfect examples of this are Duchamp, Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst. Their art can only be read if you possess the vocabulary of the culture it is talking about. If it deals with primal themes it is through the chatter of the culture in which speaks, and never directly. Warhol's electric chair prints deal with death, but only through text, not through primal forms. If you do not know what an electric chair is it will mean nothing to you and if you do, it will simply remind you of the function of such a thing. Just the illustration of a word.

Culture is built by our verbal communication. The plastic arts are pre-verbal, or meta-verbal. I know little of Greek mythology but the Parthenon frieze and the Kuros in the British Museum actually have me trembling when I behold them.
Our particular culture, the global one we now live in in the 21st century, seems to have lost its trust in the unfiltered reading of plastic form. It only trusts words. And so we see the rise of post-modernism which is, when all is said an done, a literary idea made concrete, an illustration of the words. Thus it thrives in our particular culture, since we who have no faith in our natural feeling for primal formal metaphor will look to the post-modern gurus, the wordsmith priests for our enlightenment, declaring our faith to others by repeating their dogma.

Jasonwclark

February 18th, 2009, 06:42 AM

The issue Wittgenstein would have had with Derrida and Foucault is what he called "word games."

You don't know that dude. In any case, that's not an issue that Wittgenstein would have had - that's an issue that contempary analytic philosopher's have, who invoke Wittgenstein's name and ideas to discredit other thinkers out of school. For all we know Wittgenstein might have actually enjoyed Derrida's word games. Surely both thinkers are preoccupied with the limits of language and the scope of ethics. Both read Kant, Husserl, and Frege till their eyes were practically bleeding. I imagine they probably could have gotten along just fine. :)

Henry Staten might be worth a weekend, but I’m sure I’ll forget all about it by the time I actually go to the library. I can do the articles online, but whole books just give me a headache, even when I turn the monitor down. Maybe he does the breakfast thing though, so it could be fun. ;)
http://books.google.com/books?id=J7XmytjAkzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=henry+staten

I don't know how I feel about the characterization of those guys as spiders spinning silk out their asses though. Statements like that usually make me grin, but in this case you're talking about someone I’ve actually met, someone I’d presume to say I knew, and who I also respected a great deal. It’s also a sore spot, since he's not even dead 5 years yet, and already the analytic camp is cracking out the champagne and rushing to torch everything the man wrote. I never spoke with Foucault, so maybe he fits the bill, but Derrida didn’t strike me at all the way you described him. Then again, I always liked spiders when I was little, so who can say. I do remember though when I was an undergrad, hearing the same sort of Ad Hominems floated around all the time, especially against Foucault, and they never seemed to have any bearing on a specific idea or thought that he put forward. Other things too with the Continentals, like introducing Levinas as a 'Jewish' philosopher, or Heidegger as a 'Nazi' philosopher, stuff like that. If I came out and started dissing Herr Ludwig for praying too much, or for being the richest man in Austria and a cheap date, or for wanting to kiss boys, as part of an introduction to his works, you damn sure know that wouldn't fly at all in the classroom. It’s not relevant to what he says in his philosophy, and I'm sure it would have irritated him to no end that his biography is always coming out before his logic. I don't know though, when Nietzsche calls out Socrates for being ugly I always get a chuckle from it, so maybe the Ad Hominems have their place too. I just hate to see you slam the door shut on them so decisively. I mean what about Aporias, or the Gift of Death or Spurs? I thought those were all good books. Or what about someone like Irigaray, or Vattimo, or Agamben? Do you write them off too just for hanging around the same cafes or Universities? I guess it doesn't really matter one way or the other, but some of those cats have some interesting things to say if you run with them for a little while. Honestly though, sometimes I don't know why I even bother defending some positions. I think it’s because, so often, I find myself in such exact agreement with you guys, that I feel compelled to call myself out on it and to give the other side a chance.

For example, I really don't like Mondrian. Despite everything I said above, and everything I've heard or read, he still doesn't do it for me. I was kind of waiting to see if anyone in here could convince me otherwise with some painting or insight I haven’t come across yet, but so far I still feel the same way I did the first time I saw number II. I have much the same feeling towards the rest of the gang. I especially don't like Rauschenbach, or Warhol, or Lichtenstein, even if I do sometimes entertain the thought. I do like Duchamp, but that's more because I find him humorous than because of anything he painted or 'installed.' I don’t like Rothko or Pollock, but would prefer the later if I had to choose. Picasso is still cool with me and Van Gogh, but I never really felt Gauguin no matter how hard they pushed him on us in elementary school. I still don’t know how I feel about Chagall. If called out right now in a black and white interrogation, I’m sure I’d come down on the Illustration and Representational Art side of things, since that’s what I enjoy looking at the most, but its hard to just write off the other side. I do admit, I get a little excited to see some of these guys get dragged through the mud. I used to get in all these arguments with my stepmom about how ‘that kind of art’ was weak sauce, and abstract sculpture could 'go suck it.' It’s kind of nice these days to see more people leaning my direction rather than hers. Still though, you gotta hand it to the 20th century for opening the floodgates on all this stuff.

I think maybe what it comes down to is that we’re more inclined to universalize the things we don’t like, and to individualize the things we do. It happens in Art, the same as in philosophy, or music, or any other arena where “taste” has a role to play. The stuff we don’t dig fits nicely into whatever category we have ready for it, but the stuff we do enjoy we always want to partition off from everything else and so we can glory in it and highlight its uniqueness. Like for some people Led Zeppelin is always just Zeppelin, but for others at the time it was considered ‘Heavy Metal.’ What to do with that I have no idea, but I’m sure waranghira can appreciate the dilemma. In the same way, when I first encounter Mondrian, maybe I say to myself “Modern Art sucks”, or “I don’t get Art”, but really its just Mondrian that I have the issue with. We do this with people too, as much as we do it with their works, but it’s especially easy to do with arts and letters. At some point I suppose you have to just get comfortable with the idea that “Art”, as such, doesn’t even exist, only the individual artists and artworks that serve as examples of it. Where we end up putting those things categorically has more to do with prejudice and fancy than anything else. What that says about the impulse to categorize itself, I don’t really know. Maybe it’s just better not to go there.

Sorry for all the rambling, but I can't get to sleep... again. And now Kevin has me re-reading all this stuff, so you know its pretty much hopeless. :)

Also, if you're wondering what the hell Wittgenstein has to do with Art, or Mondrian, or anything, here is a nice article to help clarify:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-aesthetics/

______________

kev ferrara

February 18th, 2009, 06:01 PM

If these were not language games you were reading you would be running to your drawing board. Instead you are rechecking the words.

Rechecking the words, rechecking the words, rechecking the words...

A spiderweb of implications and no answers. That's modern philosophy. The questions are endless. What does it all mean? That's not their job to answer. Their job is to keep you reading by delivering more questions, more drama, declaring this one friend, and this one foe. Just like the news on TV.

You are looking for someone to convince you of the merit of Mondrian. With words. Will you then be looking for someone to unconvince you?

You need to be released from this. Your answers are in your work, in your heart, in your mind.

"How do I know what I think until I see what I write" - Faulkner.

RoboBobo

February 18th, 2009, 06:11 PM

Chris Bennett

February 18th, 2009, 06:24 PM

RyerOrdStar

February 18th, 2009, 08:14 PM

So am I now not allowed to like Mondrian's work because it is based on 'theories' and 'words'? I like his work because it touches me. And in my mind, it is undeniably art because it has all the criteria mentioned here. It is beautiful, to me, despite having no figures or boobs in it.

r.mccabe

February 18th, 2009, 11:46 PM

I've just read this thread over. Little tired now tbh. I want to thank the insights that are here; some of it is quite shocking. Although its getting quite ham fisted with posts that boil down to a tenth of their size.

If the ideas are so wordy people need to do in depth reading to understand it the work is not (visual) art; it is literary art, conceptual art, or philosophy. The mistake being made is comparing these other arts to visual art as they are separate things.

Jasonwclark

February 19th, 2009, 03:13 AM

Chris' post just made me want to drop some Egyptian art since there's not enough color on this page yet. ;)

597388

If these were not language games you were reading you would be running to your drawing board. Instead you are rechecking the words. Rechecking the words, rechecking the words, rechecking the words...

Reading really isn’t like that for me, but I take your point. I enjoy the words and the drawing board each in their own time.

I think your assessment of modern philosophy, and especially aesthetics is for the most part right on. Ancient philosophy is much the same I suppose. But every so often you hit on those little kernels of wisdom that make it worth the effort, at least for me. It’s a total love hate thing though; I’ll be the first to admit.

You are looking for someone to convince you of the merit of Mondrian. With words. Will you then be looking for someone to unconvince you?

I suppose, sure, why not? I’m a hopeless pragmatic that way. :)
I don’t think it’s as pointless an exercise; certainly nothing to be released from. If anything it just keeps me motivated and interested. I can’t say how much the one thing is related to the other, but I have a hard time separating it all out - the person or the idea from the work. If I really like something I’ve seen I always want to know more about the individual and the context behind it. Sometimes, if I really don’t like something I’ve seen, I also get hit with a similar itch. I’m not sure if any information of that sort is going to help me to draw, or to improve drawing, but it still seems relevant somehow. Maybe not so much for the process of making itself, but in helping you think about what you’ve made after the fact.

I've just read this thread over. Little tired now tbh. I want to thank the insights that are here; some of it is quite shocking. Although its getting quite ham fisted with posts that boil down to a tenth of their size.

Sorry if I contributed to the wall of text there. Sometimes I go off on tangents, especially in these discussions with Kevin. I feel like we’re on opposite sides of the spectrum philosophically and politically, but I dig his drawings so I’m always interested in what has to say about these things. Maybe that right there tells you how much stock I really place in theory. I think I do feel what Chris and Kev are saying though, about how the word dominates intellectual life and attitudes towards art, at the expense of other ways of approaching things. But it’s hard to get away from something so pervasive as language. It would be interesting to see what happened if everyone stopped titling their works tomorrow - or started opening galleries with a no-title, no-explanation policy at the door. Fun to watch.

I hate to go with another analogy to Lit, since I get the impression you guys aren’t buying them, but have you ever been in an English class where they ask you to interpret a poem or a short story, without giving you any context or background info? I mean that used to bug me to no end, just opening things up for critical analysis like that, without any set up or direction or charm, and then the teacher asks something like: “How do you feel about that?” or “What do you think it means?” Basically putting you on the spot for a judgment call. Sometimes it seems that way with the visual arts; like if we have no consistent grammar or terminology with which to discuss it, confusion and a lack of appreciation are more likely to occur, the same as in a bad highschool English class.

Maybe it’s not so much that the arts themselves are similar in their aims and methods, but that the critical gauntlets they have to run are so similar in theirs. That’s one reason it can be useful to know about things like theory and historical context, even the far out stuff. So that you can better defend yourself and your own work, when some blowhard critic comes along and tries to break your heart - tell you that you’re work sucks, that its devoid of meaning, or any of the other cruel things people might say to drag you down. If you know what you’re doing and why, that shouldn’t be an issue I guess, but I think we all know what its like to get cornered by snobs. Sometimes the words can prove really useful then.

:)

Anyway, how about some more Aegyptians on the way out?

597392

balian

February 19th, 2009, 03:41 AM

Art can be anything!

When I look at modern art, I see ideas and statements that make you think, but on the other hand, when a 6 year old children would draw that kind of stuff you would not use the word art, but crap maybe? :)

It´s just important who drew it, this kind of art is up to an intellectual community who covers each other against all kind of crtitics.

When somebody powerful and influential decides that your work is ART than it is art for everybody and people will pay millions for it! That´s how it goes!
Otherwise you can be DaVinci, but hardly would get acceptance.

Orban

February 19th, 2009, 03:42 AM

That is an extremely interesting point.
Art is elitist in-so-much that it requires a sensibility in order to feel it. This is not the same thing as understanding it, since, like its themes, it cannot be understood. Art is a meta-language that deals with what can best be described as our sense of spiritual context.

The more profound the themes the more primal the formal metaphors become. African sculpture is an excellent example. It can be read by anyone with a sensibility as metaphors for our 'sense' of the body. Now this 'sense' of the body for those who made it would be happening within an environment and cultural customs that are quite different from ours. When the sculpture is to do with the celebrating these customs it cannot be read without 'knowledge'; which is why Egyptian art is a little more opaque to us. But when it is to do with the fundamental themes directly, without the filter of their culture standing in the way, like death, birth, physical struggle, it can be 'read' easily and directly.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Putting art only as a sensation seem to be odd – sensation, as you've put, is universal. Appreciation of art is not.
African sculpture are hard for me to grasp – and I have a more or less functional body.
Oh, and most African sculpture have a meaning, like honouring a god, and elder, a victory...
BUT (a big one), you're right : we can appreciate art without understanding it. Appreciation is only in the eye of the beholder – I like Franz Marc, even if I can't understand his painting, and don't want to.

So in this sense, culture only matters in-so-much that it is something 'in front of' the primal themes. When art concerns itself exclusively with the culture in which it is made it ceases to speak the language of primal metaphor and deals with text metaphor. Perfect examples of this are Duchamp, Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst. Their art can only be read if you possess the vocabulary of the culture it is talking about. If it deals with primal themes it is through the chatter of the culture in which speaks, and never directly. Warhol's electric chair prints deal with death, but only through text, not through primal forms. If you do not know what an electric chair is it will mean nothing to you and if you do, it will simply remind you of the function of such a thing. Just the illustration of a word.

You've just describe more or less the majority of the painting in the world. They're illustration of something – be it portrait, madonne, painting on cave walls. And a lot of them can't be appreciated without context. Le Serment des Horaces de David is for me a mystery : why should a french man before the Revolution paint something like this ? What's the meaning of it ? (And I have studied it at lenght, but still, it seem a waste of time)
Only an extreme minority of realisation can be appreciated without any context. Maybe are they the Great one ?

Culture is built by our verbal communication. The plastic arts are pre-verbal, or meta-verbal. I know little of Greek mythology but the Parthenon frieze and the Kuros in the British Museum actually have me trembling when I behold them.
Our particular culture, the global one we now live in in the 21st century, seems to have lost its trust in the unfiltered reading of plastic form. It only trusts words. And so we see the rise of post-modernism which is, when all is said an done, a literary idea made concrete, an illustration of the words. Thus it thrives in our particular culture, since we who have no faith in our natural feeling for primal formal metaphor will look to the post-modern gurus, the wordsmith priests for our enlightenment, declaring our faith to others by repeating their dogma.

Culture is whatever define what we are, and how we appreciate things. Culture is what we left to our children, give to them, and tell them it's good (or bad).
Word are particularly efficient at this, because we live in the illusion that they transmit perfectly our thoughts. With art (and music), we see immidiately it's not the case, the person in front of us do not see/understand it as we are.

So yes, some choose the post modern idea. I don't understand why, but it's a possibility.

Chris Bennett

February 19th, 2009, 09:29 AM

You've just describe more or less the majority of the painting in the world. They're illustration of something – be it portrait, madonne, painting on cave walls. And a lot of them can't be appreciated without context. Le Serment des Horaces de David is for me a mystery : why should a french man before the Revolution paint something like this ? What's the meaning of it ? (And I have studied it at lenght, but still, it seem a waste of time)
Only an extreme minority of realisation can be appreciated without any context.

Yes, what you say is perfectly true. I was talking about the primal forms that operate behind the context of the work. To an extraterrestrial, even the primal forms would be meaningless since the fundamental context of these beings would belong to their own physicality, not ours. So the primal forms are to do with having a body and experiencing the world through it. Then there is the next level up, simple tools, clothing to keep warm, shelter. The next level after that is the specialist forms these take depending on the climate. Next comes the technological influence, and so on until last of all we have the current fashion enjoyed by a particular society, the look of its infrastructure and the social codes of behaviour etc.

All works of art at all times are made within this set of conditions and reflect it to varying degrees. My point is that it is only the primal forms that can speak to us through the ages. A portrait by Ingres, looks like somebody in fancy dress if, for some reason, you didn't guess when it was painted. The meaning of the cloths they wear is no longer resonant with our sensibility as it would have been to the sitter. The only thing we can authentically respond to, without being told anything, are the primal forms; the way the masses build the arm and the fingers as they weave amongst the rhythmic dance of the fabric, the pressure of the grey wall on a shining moon of a cheek.

kev ferrara

February 19th, 2009, 10:02 AM

I think your assessment of modern philosophy, and especially aesthetics is for the most part right on. Ancient philosophy is much the same I suppose.

No! It isn't. They were original thinkers experiencing the world directly. This gives their thoughts enormous primary force. People who live in a prism box of media spin, elision, and induction, and consume the endlessly unraveling toilet rolls of text written in degraded language by knaves, fools, cynics, and "people just trying to make a living" do not have the same intuitive sense of the force of life and truth and experience as the old guard.

Aristotle! Aristotle's Poetics is the foundation of just about everything we know about narrative art to the present day. (But I would read its modern equivalent, Robert McKee's Story, instead.)

kev

Gerulaitis

February 19th, 2009, 11:32 AM

When I look at modern art, I see ideas and statements that make you think, but on the other hand, when a 6 year old children would draw that kind of stuff you would not use the word art, but crap maybe? :)whoa whoa whoa... Hold your horses there. Who'd dare call children's' drawings crap?

Children's' drawings are pretty fascinating in a way, especialy up to 6y/o (http://www.learningdesign.com/Portfolio/DrawDev/kiddrawing.html#anchor2497635) - it's like the quintessential intellectual art expressed visually via basic means. Intellectual in the sense that it's not perceptual - proportion, space, even placement of features is sometimes irrelevant, only the features as logical units matter - a child can draw a cat as (s/he knows as) having a tail, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 ears, lots of claws and eyelashes, but it doesn't always have to be arranged the way we see it - the little kid can put the ears on the belly and not see a problem with that! :D
And it's deffinately primal. And fun. And brimful with creativity.
Really, that stuff is fascinating.

The very idea of children's' drawings isn't exactly foreign to modern-to-contemporary art, either. It resurfaces in discourse once in a while. Often on a pedestal.

r.mccabe

February 19th, 2009, 12:53 PM

This quote seems very relevant, from Nehamas and Woodruff's translation of Plato's Symposium:

[A]nd the lover now becomes attached to nothing less than "the great sea of beauty, and, gazing upon this, he gives birth to many beautiful ideas and theories, in unstinting love of wisdom (philosophia)" (XXI)

The lover starts with a love of a beautiful body and realizes he should love all beautiful bodies, then their souls, . . . ending with wisdom. Even higher on this scale after wisdom, the final stage, is love of beauty itself. The scale of progression in some people art seems to follow this scale as well (observation from memory).

Painting beauty for some endeavor into a philosophy seems to wholly fit with this. However, I would argue that beauty itself being the highest aim of eros' labours means that moving past the philosophy and into the visual aspect entirely would best represent artists passion or ero's. Also I would say that art is not worth discussing if it is not inspired by love / passion / eros. And finally that art is about eros. Our will to become immortal through "reproduction in (the presence of) beauty".

Sorry to include something from my classes. I've been excited that phil of love and sex relates to art so well.

kev ferrara

February 19th, 2009, 03:02 PM

You've got the cart before the horse. Read the selfish gene. The gene wants continuance, to live forever. Sex is just one manifestation of that desire. Very small organisms will just as soon split as procreate. Heck a chicken lays eggs without being so much as smooched. But what is causing the force behind the gene, behind the unicellular organism? Electrochemical reactions. But what do they want? They don't know, all they know is the forward force. The dance of life. There is something animating all things from within that is causing forward continuance. A life spirit, energy, warped geometry, bosons, holographic projection off the boundary wall of reality, God, the great spirit...

That is what is at the core of all expression, including sex.

kev

EDIT: The idea that genes care about art or spiritual concerns is suspect. The genes just say go, here I've developed a brain for you through an eon of trial and error, go... I realize Plato's ideas are early science, same with Lucretious, but there are so many things to learn, that taking time to learn incorrect ideas from ancient scientists seems silly. Better to learn what they said that has withstood the test of time. That's why Aristotle is so impressive. Not that Plato's other ideas aren't spectacular. Particular his notions of primary forms, although the forms often chosen to illustrate these idea are generally clueless.

squidmonk3j

February 19th, 2009, 03:31 PM

seems like the perfect moment to enter albert camus into this:)

"If the world were clear, art would not exist."

i believe that the artistic imperative can be defined as a either a rebellion against the absurdity of life or a liberating revelry in it.

art isn't creation, it's representation.

r.mccabe

February 19th, 2009, 04:47 PM

You've got the cart before the horse. Read the selfish gene. The gene wants continuance, to live forever. Sex is just one manifestation of that desire. Very small organisms will just as soon split as procreate. Heck a chicken lays eggs without being so much as smooched. But what is causing the force behind the gene, behind the unicellular organism? Electrochemical reactions. But what do they want? They don't know, all they know is the forward force. The dance of life. There is something animating all things from within that is causing forward continuance. A life spirit, energy, warped geometry, bosons, holographic projection off the boundary wall of reality, God, the great spirit...

That is what is at the core of all expression, including sex. Tell your teacher so he stops telling people nonsense.

kev

What I posted wasn't the teachers point of view, it was quotes from Plato's Symposium, also not nonsense as it is not truth so much as Plato's analysis if you wish to say Plato's work is nonsense its up to you. Plato didn't have the selfish gene to look at. All I was doing was relating it, I don't think its the whole story. Also sex is the lowest form of reproduction in the Symposium. The highest being wisdom. Immortality through the continuance of knowledge fits well with Dawkins as far as I know. Eros is the spirit between human and divine, the bridge, making humans aim at reproduction. Again not only the base reproduction of sex but the more elegant forms most importantly. Why you call Plato nonsense but make Aristotle to be so important is beyond me.

Jasonwclark

February 19th, 2009, 05:09 PM

Aristotle's Poetics is the foundation of just about everything we know about narrative art to the present day.

Yeah I agree, the Poetics is a great place to go with it. Some people find Aristotle a little dry, but when you read the guys who came before him, you start to really appreciate why all that rigor and struggle for clarity would have been so welcome at the time. I've also met my share of knaves and cynics and unoriginal thinkers, even among the ancients though, so if I seem jaded about it that's probably why. I can be a bit cynical myself from time to time, but I'm a dog lover, so I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone. :)

I wonder though, if it might be a worthwhile idea to kick off a group reading and discussion of something like Aristotle's Poetics, so everyone has a chance to see for how this stuff used to play out way back when, instead of starting with some modern theorist like Danto and moving backwards from the present like we usually do. Could be cool.

If you're feeling brave, here is a link to the text in translation: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/resources/poetics/poettran.htm

Also, if this sort of philosophical investigation interests you, but you're having problems starting in with it, Icon Books puts out a pretty cool series of brief texts in their 'Introducing' series that are actually quite good. I always recommend them for students who are just getting into this stuff for the first time. And the books are illustrated, which is always a plus. ;)

http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-759-2

Gerulaitis

February 20th, 2009, 12:40 PM

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"
Plato nodded.
"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

Sorry, I'm kind of biased - the very nature of Plato's philosophy makes me itch... And the saying that all western philosophy after him is just comments in the margins of his work makes me itch even more. I agree with Kev - it's impressive how Aristotle's ideas help up to the test of time in comparison.

Black Spot

February 20th, 2009, 01:49 PM

While in general I like Mondrian, I can’t say that every piece resonates with me. Also I once saw a crap Van Gogh next to a brilliant one and had to steel myself not to rip it off the wall to stamp on it. Even Monet had some pretty off days. Bet Leonardo had a few as well but they weren’t saved back then.

There are some days when looking at picture does nothing to me, but then later it sings. It’s a bit like some pop songs that you go, “Meh!” at when you first hear it and two weeks later are playing it to death.

I remember as a child reading most the ‘classic’ books in comic form. I wasn’t ready to read the real thing, but guess what? I’ve actually read most of them now. You can’t push appreciation onto people; they have to come to their own conclusions in their own sweet time.

r.mccabe

February 20th, 2009, 10:15 PM

I don't really care who one ups who. I thought it was an interesting relation, Kev went so far to assume he knew the nature of life and that Plato / my prof is nonsense (again wasn't the prof's pov). I'll leave arguing who is the better philosopher to when I've at least finished my bachelor of phil. Plato is good stuff to think about. Does he itch because he isn't coherent with people like Dawkins? Being right isn't the merit of a philosopher, continuing this is annoying me.

Back to your regularly scheduled useful posts like Blockspot here's.

Helioth

February 21st, 2009, 08:10 PM

I like this definition of poetry; What oft was felt but never so well expressed.
It fits some of the replies in here. Actually I'm not sure it does, that would be flattering everyone else really, but you know, the gist of some of the thoughts.

I have to say I feel like a real phoney posting in this thread, as if I have anything to say (realizing it now at last though!), in comparison with people like kev, chris and jason... So I'll just keep quiet.
What I did Just want to say though; great discussions guys, keep going!
ra-ra-ra
:)

Jon Sun

March 2nd, 2009, 12:17 AM

Time to revive this thread!

I'm actually reading Mondrian's "Plastic Art & Pure Plastic Art" for my abstract painting class right now. In his intro, he writes:

"Although Art is fundamentally everywhere and always the same, nevertheless two main human inclinations, diametrically opposed to each other, appear in its many and varied expressions. One aims at the direct creation of universal beauty, the other at the esthetic expression of oneself, in other words, of that which one thinks and experiences. The first aims at representing reality objectively, the second subjectively."

Harold Speed makes a similar distinction in his intro to "The Practice and Science of Drawing" It's some good stuff, I'm too lazy to quote it right now, but you can read it here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14264/14264-h/14264-h.htm

What I understand of what they're saying is that, essentially, there are two sides of art, abstract and representational. Representational art is that which seeks to represent reality in a naturalistic way. Abstract art is that which seeks to convey unseen reality visually.

Mondrian continues later on: "For the artist the search for a unified expression through the balance of two opposites has been, and always will be, a continual struggle."

I think this is a good thing to note. Most people, whether they admit it or not, generally like a mix of abstraction and representation. Art work that is purely representational, like photo-realistic renderings or atelier studies, can sometimes be boring. That doesn't mean it isn't an incredible display of technique and skill, but to some art-illiterate people, it can be quite boring. These can be boring, but they are completely understandable, you know exactly what it's supposed to represent and what it is (a naked guy with a stick, or a still life set up, etc.) On the complete other side of the spectrum, we have pure abstraction, with things like Mondrian, Jackson Pollock or all of the artists previously mentioned. These can be quite interesting. I don't think you can accuse any of the purely abstract pieces of art "boring". You may not like them or understand them, but they are in a way interesting or emotional. These are completely (or seemingly) unreasonable. You have no idea what they're supposed to be and you don't understand it (hence, the I don't get art.) I think it's safe to say that most of the general public wouldn't prefer either of the extremes, though I would say that the majority of people lean towards representational art. Most people, I would say, prefer a mix of something in between the two.

If you think about it, most of your favorite artists use abstraction in their work. The abstract qualities mixed with the representational aspects of art is what makes it so interesting. Take, Andrew Jones for example. In his pieces, there is a lot of abstraction. In fact, a lot of his pieces are MOSTLY abstract with hints of representational elements thrown in there subtly to make you believe that it's a figure, or a face, or a tree, or building, etc. Even if a work of art isn't as overtly abstract as Andrew Jone's work, compositions are abstract. Interesting compositions always start with abstract forms. If you simply drew what you saw in front of you without organizing it, even if you drew it photo-realistically and with incredible technique, it would likely be boring without an interesting composition. It's the way you organize a piece that makes it interesting, and this process is, God forbid, ABSTRACT. Composition is a purely abstract thing.

So, whether you admit it or not, most people do like abstract art, or at least a certain amount of it. It's when we get to the extremes of either end that people start complaining. I think you have to learn to appreciate abstract art and apply it into your own art to become a better artist. Because, if you only focus on form, naturalism, and technique, your work can become very static and boring.

kev ferrara

March 2nd, 2009, 09:52 AM

I think you've switched out terms. The direct creation of beauty is the decorative. The direct expression of self is expressionist.

Both Decorative and expressionist art can be "realistic" or "abstract" as they see fit. A vase, a splash of paint, an arrangement of flowers, a landscape, a nude can all be direct creations of beauty and/or be used to expressionist effect. Of course, Mondrian, like many modernists, seems to have mislaid the idea of meaningfulness (or simply assumed its existence) in the mix of decorative versus expressive.

Elisabet Y.A.

March 3rd, 2009, 02:54 PM

I appreaciate and understand "modern" art yet I also hate it.

But that's largely because the art schools in Iceland are so disgustingly limited to only help people who like to splash paint randomly rather than those who aim for different values. My drawings were discouraged and I was told to "ruin" my paintings. Soon I just started to do random splashes of painting and I became sick of modern art and everything to do with it.

But I can understand it, and I can appreaciate it. But that doesn't change that by far most modern art really SUCKS (in my personal opinion).

Modern art and it's teachings have brought me many paces behind on anatomy and perspective. I often feel that "modern" artists are the ones that are most prejudiced against the illustrations and concept art that conceptart.org holds dear.

Maybe I just hate the artists, not the art itself.

Cthogua

March 4th, 2009, 12:06 PM

I often feel that "modern" artists are the ones that are most prejudiced against the illustrations and concept art that conceptart.org holds dear.

And as evidenced here, The "illustrators" and "concept artists" are the ones most prejudiced against works that contemporary artists hold dear.

One says the others work is elitist and garbage. The other side says the aforementioned one's work is immature and commercial. My point is both sides seem to see themselves in opposition to the other, which is a stupid, close minded waste of energy. :-O There's tons of terrible non-representational art... :-O there's an equal measure of terrible representational art. I think the root of the issue seems to stem from the fact that we're (the two sides) using the same tool for different purposes, and both sides see their use as the more legitimate. Grow up, don't buy into the idea that it has to be one or the other. The more viewpoints you can integrate the bigger a picture of the world you'll begin to see. Splats of paint are so offensive huh? I guess that's why everyone loves the splatter effects in the new Streetfighter.

kev ferrara

March 4th, 2009, 12:28 PM

Cthogua

March 4th, 2009, 12:59 PM

:)

Right, I totally agree with you, however is all that an excuse to harbor the same ill will that initially created the divide? It just bothers me how much of a mirror image I'm seeing from the "narrative artist" community toward the non-rep artists, from what I saw in school from the non-rep. artists. It seems stupidly divisive, and engenders people who actually know very little about the other side to polarize their opinions, and shut out potentially good art when there's no need to. Should the narrative artists gain gallery importance, and world recognition again, it seems the non-rep artists would be driven out with the same stick they used against the realists, and then 50 years later art students will be talking on their head implanted instant chat devices about how bullshit it is that they have to paint realistic things, and that it's really just a few institutions championing their particular ideals that have dominated the art world.

hehehehe Pollack invented the blood splatter :P nice reduction Kev. I wasn't actually talking about blood splatter. I was talking about the kind of calligraphic ink brush effect that happens when you do a focus attack. Who specifically invented whatever is completely irrelevant. My point was that an abstract element, resembling the much maligned paint splatter, has been incorporated into the art direction of a very successful video game, and has generally received praise for it's inclusion.

kev ferrara

March 4th, 2009, 01:54 PM

Symbolic representations of "special effects" goes back to the rennaissance, or more accurately back to the dawn of pictographic writing. Think of drawing "beams" of light coming out of the sun. That's a linear symbol for something that can't otherwise be drawn. Da God and da Jesus has done all sort of mad gangsta focus attacks, in da middle ages, yo. (see images)

I think we're generally in agreement that there is a lot to learn from abstractionsist freedom and physicality and two wrongs don't make a right. However, I think the thing that may be missing in your "balanced" equation, is that the attempt to ghetto-ize us is still going on. Narrative artist should be mad and need to be mad to back down the modernist po-mo establishment.

This is just my opinion, however.

kev

Cthogua

March 4th, 2009, 02:43 PM

Fair enough, regarding symbolic representations of things that can't be otherwise drawn not being something that the modernist movement invented. I wasn't really claiming they invented it, in fact I made a point to state that the inventor was irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that an abstract element specifically resembling elements which have been explicitly used in this discussion to personify the assumed frivolity and pointlessness of abstract art being used in conjunction with realistic elements and that the result was, in my humble opinion, nice looking, and generally seems to have been well received. Basically stop hating on the paint splat/ink blot/smear/whatever, viewed from a purely aesthetic standpoint they can be quite beautiful shapes. Nice pics BTW, of course the streetfighter one doesn't have what I was talking about in it, but that's cool :P This (http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/street_fighter_iv_1.jpg) is more along the lines of what i was talking about. It's just abstract coolness added for aesthetic value...It doesn't really represent anything.

Yeah, we are pretty much agreeing. In fact I even agree that some anger at what has happened to art education specifically is warranted. Informed anger driving attempts to create a solution would be the ideal, and I think what drives sites like this, That other place that sells art instruction DVDs, CGTalk, etc. Claiming that all modernists were rip-off artists who were laughing all the way to the bank, and not people working just as hard at what they considered their art than anyone here is NOT a solution. That's just bullshit propaganda at best and hatred masquerading as righteousness at its worst. Were/Are there people like that? Sure. The best lie has an element of truth. But then again the realist side has Thomas Kincaid, and those fuckers who were filtering photographs, having an assistant smear a blob or two of paint here or there and calling themselves masters. All that kind of rhetoric does is incite uninformed anger and inspire willful ignorance. You also act like there's no place for realist artists now days...I'm sorry but the world of production art and design seems like a much more lively place these days than the close walls of an art gallery or the opinions of the rich old art collector.

kev ferrara

March 4th, 2009, 03:18 PM

Actually, those abstract bits do represent something, they just don't do it illusionistically. Within the context of realism, symbols can mean something, as the realism situates the abstraction into its context. Abstraction gets assigned meaning by the realistic context. Form is relative, meaning is relative, illusionism is relative.

Within the context of an abstract, there is no concreteness to compare abstract symbols to, thus they don't represent. Although the symbols do continue to signify.

Andy Walhore: "Today I wrapped a limosine in cellophane. I hope somebody finds meaning in this."

There are art departments all across the country, how many teach the basic skills of realism? 2 percent? Less? This is a form of fraud, in my opinion.

Part of the problem is, the generation that went to secondary schools in the 50s were systematically being cut off from good information that had been passed down from master artist to student artist since the 1500s. Now we're two generations out of that political effort and we still haven't recovered all the information.

kev

Kagemusha22

March 4th, 2009, 03:32 PM

I'm going to go with the cop-out answer of 'Art is what you make it'. Going with Grief's comment on page 1, I am personally a more opinionated Music-lover than I am an Artist, I find I get really arsey about music acts that I view as disposable Pop acts, whilst acting with grave reverrance for acts that are seen as 'important' who might not make music that isn't all that beautiful. (I'm a all round' music snob) Whilst with Art I take what suits my mood, I can appreciate non-representational art as trying to express an emotion too complexed to be communicated in a highly-rendered composition.

I like to take influence from the ideas being expressed in a Robert Rauschenberg, the dark ambience of a Rothko, the visual starkness of a Egon Schiele, the experimental/avante-garde sensibilities of conceptual art, and try and wrap it all together into my work as I find it enhances my work to keep an open mind to art and expression. That isn't to say all Art is great, Art is like everything else it has it's pluses and negatives.

Some artwork to you may look like a masterpiece, whilst to me it might be just overhyped crap and vice-versa.

Caprica12

May 15th, 2009, 12:33 AM

Grief

May 15th, 2009, 02:19 AM

RyerOrdStar

May 15th, 2009, 10:08 AM

Elwell

May 15th, 2009, 10:41 AM

just how much is required for me to know?
Knowing stuff is important. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Regardless of requirements, you should aspire to know as much as possible about as much as possible.

CCThrom

May 15th, 2009, 10:41 AM

Depends on whether you're taking art classes or art history classes... for my major, a certain amount of art history was required.

Knowing stuff is important. More knowledge is better than less knowledge.

^ Again!

the_jos

May 15th, 2009, 12:22 PM

Although I did not read the majority of this I also have to ask a question. Are you required to know what those paintings are? Like Elvis to music? I really can't see that working with art, at least for me because if I don't like it I block it out.

So can someone tell me if knowing those artists and what paintings or art work they did required of art classes? I know obviously some are, but just how much is required for me to know?

Since you mentioned music:
If you want to make music you don't need to know every kind of background.
I can play the piano (or could, it's been at least 15 years since I played) and don't know the entire background.
People can even have commercial succes in pop music without too much background.

However, when you want to take a formal education, conservatory for exampe, you are required to learn about the musical backgrounds.
Why? To get a better understanding of the music you are playing and music To compare my art to music skills I'm still learning scales. That's more important than learning backgrounds. But in time, when I master those scales, to become better I need to understand the music and the instrument. And to understand music you need to put it in perspective. To understand the instrument you need to know at least a little about the mechanics behind it.

So I try to balance things. Practice my drawing but also taking time to take a look at the different artist from various artists. Trying to put their work in the period of time they lived and their limitations. Understanding why they are considered THE artists of their time and others are not.
At this moment in time it does not really improve my skill. But I have little doubt it will help me in the future. There have already been a few minor things, specially in working with color (which I still hardly do).

How much is required? Depends on the education.
How much should you know? As much as helps you learning new stuff and pushes you to get better.

Ninjerk

May 15th, 2009, 01:52 PM

The root of the issue is that the modernists blocked realists out of the galleries for the last half of the 20th century and tried to deligitimize their art by mass propaganda efforts (pastiches of symbolist theory filtered through Marxist "critical theory" but with bright colors!) and took control of the sources of public information about art (media, schools). The overall result was a "ghettoization" of narrative artists (read: anybody who can draw figures in motion) into Fantasy and Western genre artists which we are only now emerging from. Many careers were ruined in this process.

You're not going to credit Pollock with inventing blood spatter, are you?

Is someone writing books about this? I wouldn't mind reading about it more in-depth.

Knowing stuff is important. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Regardless of requirements, you should aspire to know as much as possible about as much as possible.

Did you know that the Terminator's "endoskeleton is actuated by a powerful network of hydraulic servomechanisms?"

I sure am glad I know that.

tobbA

May 15th, 2009, 02:42 PM

"Did you know that the Terminator's 'endoskeleton is actuated by a powerful network of hydraulic servomechanisms?'"

Sounds like a good idea for a robot design...

Raceme

May 15th, 2009, 09:50 PM

For centuries, artists were confined to the sensibilities of the elite: the Catholic Church, the government, the aristocrats. Artists, in many ways, were illustrators. There is a gap, sometimes wide, sometimes it overlaps, between fine art and commercial art.

At the end of the 1800s, the beginning of 1900s, artists could finally make art that expressed their own concepts. In reality, IMO, it's nearly impossible to make a painting you can't find somewhere in nature, including Mondrian, including Pollock. Somewhere, you can crop something and - boom - there it is. You can look in a microscope and -boom - there it is. Try cells or sticks or a pool of water with oil floating on it. It's all realism.

We have added to dance, music, etc. and appreciate the entire area of art. I like to think of art as a big polygonal ball - each movement connects, ultimately, to all the others. I am passionate about realism and contemporary art. As pitabread said, the impact on our culture (contemporary art) is mind boggling. If you were to remove the influence of the art movement that displeases you so much, I don't think you would recognize things, or like them much. From doorknobs to flatscreens. Everything would look like your great grandma's
stuff. Design owes everything to the brave artists who began to think beyond what some rich guy who wanted a portrait wanted.

Art and illustration is not necessarily the same thing. There's (I'm sure you know) a realist movement a foot at the present. It's pretty great to see fine draftsmanship and painting. I've done my share of academic painting and drawing. But a lot of the drawing and painting stays at an academic level. That is, Beautiful nude, beautiful pose, beautiful technique. It's just that people took a break for a long time. The academic stuff can get boring and redundant. The models can begin to look like they just want to go home. Prud'hon's models didn't look like they wanted to go home. So, we're taking laps around an old track. It would be like contemporary musicians being put out for not playing classical music.

If nothing else, learn from the great Modern, New York School, Pop, Minimalists, to think. These changes happened because artists got sick of being told what to do. A lot of concept art is starting to look the same. Let them teach you how to think.

Chair by Charles Rene Macintosh

Painting by Pablo Picasso

2100

May 15th, 2009, 10:46 PM

Do you enjoy riddles?

Sometimes the only way to solve a riddle is to clear your head of all the preconceptions and assumptions that you usually live with.

Art is like a riddle.

new epoch

May 19th, 2009, 04:27 AM

I read what a few of you have said, and I have more respect for Mondrian, since his early works weren't so abstract.

I guess he wasn't exactly the best example in my first post, but I really don't like modern art. I get the impression that today, museums take shit smeared on a canvas for display, yet ignore stuff like on CA.

@ kek: the last thing you said,
"Maybe I'm just lacking something as an artist, and therefore am unable to comprehend the greatness of such art."

That's exactly what was on my mind when I made this thread, I just wasn't able to put it that way.

You forget how big a deal it is to get an exhibition in a major gallery. The minimum waiting time for a gallery with a decent mailing list is two years and you have to lobby to get on the list, then spend a fortune of your own money presenting and promoting your own work. It is a massive undertaking and NO ONE does it for a laugh. Artist's like Mondrian, literally put their lives on the line when they exhibited such work in the 1930s. He was forced into exile by the Nazis.

new epoch

May 19th, 2009, 04:51 AM

The problem with modern art is that it relies mostly on one trick ponies. Take Pollock for instance when he did splatter panting it was cool because it had never been done before. Now if you do a splatter panting people will call you a hack and tell you to find something new to try. Sadly there's not much left to do which is why the fine art world has hit a brick wall like a train. This is why I like illustration. I don't have to impress people with something that's never been done before.

Pollock arrived at his dip work through a long and well documented process over a ten year period. He didn't just toss paint around for a laugh, and he wasn't some untrained moron off the streets either.

There are more artists and scientists alive today, than have ever existed in the whole of history. The sum of all human knowledge is now doubling every five years. Yet in an infinite universe, our understanding will never outstrip our ignorance. It is never easy to take leap into the dark and make something new, because there is far more yet to be invented than we can possibly imagine. A hundred thousand years does not amount to a single note in the cosmic symphony. Human creative endeavor, by definition, will always be new compared to the universe.

new epoch

May 19th, 2009, 05:17 AM

There's no bad art. Art is what our brains compute. It's like the art of breakdancing. People are used to seeing the "pretty" moves like flares, windmills, headspins, and airflares. But forget that dancing is the true art of it. Mondrian was dancing.

Exactly... dancing is all about rhythm, balance and line. It is drawing with your body. The severe limitations Mondrian put on his work throw his passion into high relief. You cannot judge his worth through reproductions because they don't reproduce well... they look flat and mechanical. In real life they are anything but mechanical and lifeless, they are PAINTED, you can see the brush strokes and all the imperfections of the materials used. The honesty is so devastating it takes your breath away... especially when you consider when and where is was painting these works.

I grew up with a small painting my father Peter Graham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Graham did entitled 'Mondrian Twist'. It is a visual joke. My father used curves in the composition. He was also thinking of Broadway Boggy Woogy, which he admired. I'll have to upload the painting some time soon.

kev ferrara

May 19th, 2009, 10:52 AM

Phillip, welcome to the site! Your father's work on visual notation has become very interesting to me of late, so it is startling, to me at least, to see you pop up here. Welcome.

I hope you are the kind of fellow who finds artistic disagreement amicable and interesting rather than off putting and insulting. Because I disagree with everything you've said so far, :) from your definition of dancing as being about the abstract qualities you mention, (rather than the imagistic significance of their interleaving) or that dancing is drawing (rather, composing narrative images, which sometimes requires not drawing), and suggestion that Mondrian's work throws his passion into high relief (sorry, can't agree), or that Mondrian's work has some kind of "life" in person that makes the live viewing of it a special event (can't agree), or that Mondrian's courage and drive automatically elevates the work itself (only if your definition of art requires that art be associated with political courage, which is certainly not my definition, nor the historical definition). Furthermore, it is instructive to note that Pollock learned enamel dripping at the feet of Sequeiros in a workshop given by that master in the 30s, and Pollock's drip pictures look very much like Sequeiros' cartoons for paintings.

I do however agree that Pollock was no dummy off the street, and that limitation is exactly the thing that frees art, and that human innovation, (either aesthetic, technological, social, or what have you), has certainly not ended.

Best to you,
kev

new epoch

May 25th, 2009, 08:13 AM

Phillip, welcome to the site! Your father's work on visual notation has become very interesting to me of late, so it is startling, to me at least, to see you pop up here. Welcome.

Thank you so much. I've just put an end to a two year phase of performance wire sculpture at markets to clock up some serious studio time. I'm under a lot of pressure from my brother and other colleagues to fire up New Epoch Notation Painting over the web. There are interactive demonstrations by my colleague Baden Johnson going on in Melbourne at the moment. I plan to publish the NEA handbook online this year under a General Public License.

I hope you are the kind of fellow who finds artistic disagreement amicable and interesting rather than off putting and insulting. Because I disagree with everything you've said so far, :) from your definition of dancing as being about the abstract qualities you mention, (rather than the imagistic significance of their interleaving) or that dancing is drawing (rather, composing narrative images, which sometimes requires not drawing), and suggestion that Mondrian's work throws his passion into high relief (sorry, can't agree), or that Mondrian's work has some kind of "life" in person that makes the live viewing of it a special event (can't agree), or that Mondrian's courage and drive automatically elevates the work itself (only if your definition of art requires that art be associated with political courage, which is certainly not my definition, nor the historical definition). Furthermore, it is instructive to note that Pollock learned enamel dripping at the feet of Sequeiros in a workshop given by that master in the 30s, and Pollock's drip pictures look very much like Sequeiros' cartoons for paintings.

LOL no I love creative disagreement. But I love finding common ground even more. With art theory, I find most disagreements are caused by associations rather than core ideas. Many opposing ideas become one by a process of exploring the ideas further. I hold a spiritual belief that the art process is both universal (trans cultural) and also has a web like quality of interlinked ideas as old as humanity itself. If you open yourself to this web you can rebuild it by following its intrinsic structure. This is a process I called 'objective poetry'.

My dancing comments were meant as a (post) impressionistic and idealistic aside to this string. The role of line in dance is well documented. In ensemble dancing line is equivalent to relative alignment within the performance area. At a visual artist I have also notes the importance of full body posture during the act of painting in relation to fatigue. Painting on the vertical has much in common with Ty Chi. Drawing the body through space in a controlled manner is an identical act to drawing a line.

I regret that we cannot see eye to eye on Mondrian ;) at this time. I am always reminded of the trick some of Mondian's colleagues played on him at a dinner party. They substituted one of his own paintings with what they regarded as an exact replica for the purpose of seeing if would notice. As the dinner progressed, Mondrian became increasingly agitated and eventually stormed out of the room exclaiming that 'something was not right!' The only difference between the two paintings had been the individual brush strokes. Clearly, the severe formalism of the paintings through the expressive detail into heightened relief for Mondrian himself. Mondrian's work certainly raised passions in many people. Since a work can not transmit artistic intent; only stimulate a response in the audience; it is clear his work has a powerful emotional dimension. A published work of art exists within living human experience, but the work itself is ultimately just a thing. People bring energy and generate meaning to works of art. Without us, the greatest works are just lifeless stuff.

Art is associated with political courage, if you adopt a broad definition of politics to include all forms of interpersonal decision making. Every cultural act has a political dimension because they all involve the consumption of valuable resources, time not least. The bottom line is it takes personal courage to publish any work of art.

I do however agree that Pollock was no dummy off the street, and that limitation is exactly the thing that frees art, and that human innovation, (either aesthetic, technological, social, or what have you), has certainly not ended.

Best to you,
kev

My father told me the one thing I had over Da Vinci was I am breathing. The rest is up to me. I am sure Da Vinci would agree.

AeonPhoenix

May 25th, 2009, 10:02 AM

Modern Art is something I have trouble accepting at times. Perhaps it is because I am simply an ignoramus who fails to enjoy finding meaning in works that are relevant to contemporary society. Or perhaps I put Aesthetic above all else. I dunno. However, I will not deny that however I may feel about it, it's still art, and much like Representational Art, it will have works that I like, and works that I hate. So then is their a right way to do art? Probably not. What others think about art is irrelevant. What should matter, especially if you are an artist, is what you think about art. Use whatever methods you think work, use whatever style you like, combine them, alter them, ect. In short: Art isn't right or wrong, its what you think it is.

Costau D

May 26th, 2009, 03:02 PM

This thread has givin me a new found respect, and interest in modern/abstract art. Not only has it taught me to never completely dismiss a subject without giving it a chance, but I've learned so much from this thread that will help me apply new things in my own artwork to make it more interesting whether it be subconscious or outright. Thanks a lot guys I appreciate it.

Bill

May 26th, 2009, 09:37 PM

I could probably look this up somewhere else, but as Pollock is being mentioned... could that guy draw? My impression was that he wasn't much of a draftsman and if that's correct I wonder if he'd have found the drip technique if he actually had been able to draw well?

I've used Mondrian and Rothko in the past when talking about abstract art to non-art types. I don't claim to completely get the specifics, but at least with those guys I can talk about the interest to understand color or composition. This in turn has helped make the point that a viewer ought to know something about the intent of the art before they judge the result.

I've never looked for validation of Pollock's work. I think I saw something about his being a poor drawer and after that I was never to curious about where he was coming from. Actually Seurat was more interesting to me as he he reinvented painting and he actually could draw.

OmenSpirits

May 26th, 2009, 10:27 PM

Chris Bennett

May 27th, 2009, 06:08 AM

I've never looked for validation of Pollock's work. I think I saw something about his being a poor drawer and after that I was never to curious about where he was coming from. Actually Seurat was more interesting to me as he he reinvented painting and he actually could draw.

The word 'drawing' comes out of the Italian word for design, 'disegno'. Making shapes fit together on a 2D surface to give the illusion of describing a 3D object is only a part of this, not a definition of drawing as a whole.
I like to think of drawing as the ability to organise a surface. Whether that involves shape coersion to create illusion or whether it is to make significant pattern, both activities involve this function. The best artists do both things at the same time. Someone like Jeffrey Jones for example, and even more so Picasso or Michelangelo. However it also includes abstract artists like Ben Nicholson and Rothko, whose paintings actually employ both functions in a deliberately elemental way.

the_jos

May 27th, 2009, 08:31 AM

I've never looked for validation of Pollock's work. I think I saw something about his being a poor drawer and after that I was never to curious about where he was coming from. Actually Seurat was more interesting to me as he he reinvented painting and he actually could draw.

I recently read up on aesthetics and from what I've learned from that the best I can say is that I don't know enough about Pollock or his work to give any more critique than my own initial liking or disliking of his works.
And considering this I'm trying to get to the point where I'm not judgemental anymore on my own feelings and thoughts, but where I know enough about the artist, his work of art and the period he lived in to give a somewhat more founded comment than just 'I like it' or 'I don't like it'.
But I have a looooong way to go before I achieve that :)

Bill

May 27th, 2009, 08:52 AM

Making shapes fit together on a 2D surface to give the illusion of describing a 3D object is only a part of this, not a definition of drawing as a whole.

You're right about that, of course. Maybe "draftsmanship" would be a better word? Either way, I wonder if Pollock had the skill to make those shapes fit together in an elegantly representational way. My unresearched impression is that he didn't.

Chris Bennett

May 27th, 2009, 09:11 AM

You're right about that, of course. Maybe "draftsmanship" would be a better word? Either way, I wonder if Pollock had the skill to make those shapes fit together in an elegantly representational way. My unresearched impression is that he didn't.

Pollock's early work, I think, shows a strong feel for the sort of skill you are refering to Bill. As for the drip paintings, I reckon we have to see them as a sort of web of activity that is the concrete outcome of reacting to a big surface in terms of gestures of the human body and its immediate mood. It's no accident that they were adopted for a lot of jazz record covers during the 60's since they are really improvisations generating themselves from passing optical daydreams. These paintings should really be seen in the flesh rather than books to get what's happening on a visceral level.

armando

May 27th, 2009, 03:05 PM

I recently read up on aesthetics and from what I've learned from that the best I can say is that I don't know enough about Pollock or his work to give any more critique than my own initial liking or disliking of his works.
And considering this I'm trying to get to the point where I'm not judgemental anymore on my own feelings and thoughts, but where I know enough about the artist, his work of art and the period he lived in to give a somewhat more founded comment than just 'I like it' or 'I don't like it'.
But I have a looooong way to go before I achieve that :)

This sounds like a terrible idea. In art all you've got to go on is your feelings, if you can't feel something then all the explanation in the world doesn't matter.

April

June 4th, 2009, 05:23 AM

This sounds like a terrible idea. In art all you've got to go on is your feelings, if you can't feel something then all the explanation in the world doesn't matter.

But, surely perceptions can be changed by experience? Viewing something at a different time of life or in a different mood or context, or having learned to see it in a new light after learning more about it--can't this change one's feelings towards a piece of art?

I can remember being bored with abstract art when I was younger. I liked figurative stuff all the way and narrative. But then my high school teacher enthused about Rothko, about their colors, and when we then saw them in person, I truly did see the beauty in them. I loved them!

the_jos

June 4th, 2009, 07:41 AM

This sounds like a terrible idea. In art all you've got to go on is your feelings, if you can't feel something then all the explanation in the world doesn't matter.

I keep this to music, that's easier for me to explain.

For a long time I didn't like a lot of the 60's music.
Most of the music that influenced me was made in the 80's and early 90's.
It was only later, when someone told me about the backgrounds of some of the 60's artists and songs that I learned to appreciate the music.
The same with classical music. I never had much with it till someone told me how to listen to it.

I don't really like Janis Joplin's music. But that doesn't mean she wasn't a significant artist in the 60's. And after talking to other people who think she made great music I do understand why they feel that way. I just feel different.

But if you asked me if I could give critique on Joplin's music I would have to decline.
I don't know enough about music in general and the specifics of the 60's and more specific Janis Joplin to give a decent comment on it.

That's how I see it.
First you need to learn to use your senses the right way to 'feel' art. It could well be that you can't appreciate something because you are looking or listening the wrong way.
Next you need some understanding why others think different. Not so much to change opinion but to see if you missed something. Recently I saw a painting and was like: "don't like" till someone mentioned how balance and union was achieved. I still don't like the piece but the way balanced and union was achieved opened a new world for me.
Last, and that was what my posting was about, to give solid critique you need a good foundation. It's not good to say that you don't understand why there is so much fuss about painting X when you don't know that it was the first painting where technique Y was used (which was a significant achievement).

There is so much more to art than just "like" and "don't like".