Let's Talk Art!

[McDuffies]

A really tasty meal? "Culinary Art". A well-built house? Depends. If it is a cookie-cutter home, not so much so. But older homes I've lived in, with hand-sculpted archways and moulding? Yeah, a home can be art. A well groomed garden? Definitely can be artistic - Landscaping is an art. Shoes? Maybe not, but if they were hand cobbled, I might reconsider. I once owned a pair of snake-skin boots that were hand made and tooled, and they were, without a doubt, wearable art.

Maybe you're right though - maybe I am equating craftsmanship with art. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing to do. High Craftsmanship is akin to art.

It seems to me that you're insisting on certain value judgement behind the term "art" but I just don't see it that way. To me "art" is not a term that implies quality. It implies intention. Whether it achieves what was intended is another discussion, one where we determine whether the piece of art is good or just plain sucks.
I always considered calling a high-skiller craftsman an artist - a sort of metaphore, not an actual statement.

Ahhh... ironically, you're coming up with an objective definition of art here. So, a red square on a canvas - which I find vaguely insulting, would be art then because it affects me emotionally and serves no other regular purpose? Ok, I can buy that - but would it still be art then, if the goal of the artist was to invoke some other emotion, and he failed?

Well first, it is a piece of art because he had a goal to invoke emotion. Second, if his art fails to invoke emotion in most of viewers, it's a failed piece of art, but it's still by definition a piece of art.
Third, in this case it's not actually art piece that insulted you. It's the artist, you are basically mad at artist for making the piece and putting it to exibition. Your emotion is not caused by emotional interpretation of the content of the painting, it's caused actually by a lack of interpretation, it's not what's on the canvas that insulted you, it's the fact that this canvas was displayed in the museum and considered an art piece that insulted you.
I mean, I could sit on a chair, break a leg and fall down and I'd be angry. But that's really not what I mean when I'm talking about art invoking emotions.
If the art's point was to piss you off, though, then I'd argue that the piece of art has reached it's target because it's message was your reaction, and if you reacted the way it was expected, then you've actually interpreted it.

I dunno, about the "red square on canvas", I think that your definition actually asks you to be more informed about art than mine, specially if we accept that intelectual effort counts.
Like, it seems like you wouldn't have much respect for Mondrian and his geometric paintings. But seeing his retrospective exibition would make a wholy different impression, if you had a chance to see that he started as a skilled portretist, and how his paintings started to get distorted and lean toward abstract, and then his most well known stage just looks like a logical final stage of his journey, a final product of evolution of his thinking. You simply have to know how much effort is put into it because it's not always evident from the painting.

And there are examples that defy your description... What about pottery? Most pottery has a daily use, but much is also art. Ditto glassware - We have a whole cabinet full of wutherford crystal vases we bought on sale - they're perfectly good vases. They also have artistic value, AND they're a good financial investment. There are whole wings of art museums dedicated to pottery.

Oh, yeah, last paragraph of previous post, I adressed that.

Ok, but still, you would be able to bring more effort to bear when examining an art piece. Take a painting for example. I could broadly define the specifics - it's an oil painting on a canvas of a landscape. I could probably marvel at the way the artist makes you believe there are trees when up close the trees are nothing more than splotches.

YOU however, could tell me the history of the artist, who his mentors were, what style leanings he has, and likely why the artwork means something to the artist, and from there, what it's supposed to invoke in me.

Big difference. If you make the definition of art include the effort required of the viewer, then two viewers with widely different backgrounds will have widely different definitions. If you want an objective definition, it needs to hold true regardless of the viewer.

Hm, to rephrase the wording, it's "how much effort art required from viewer" and not "how much effort viewer puts into the art". Second one is depending on the viewer, first one isn't (though it does depend on viewer to which extent he'll accept the challenge); it could be paraphrased as "how much oportunity for interpretation art lends".

I don't see how art being an object up for sale would be a problem. Artists need money for food and rent like everyone else. And when an artist gets famous, his works will fetch a higher price. This is not in any way new, nor any different from any other creative field, and it does no harm.

The problem becomes when art is no more than an object. When the one who's buying it is not interested in it's quality, just in the fact that it's value on market makes it a safe investment. It can demotivate artists from really trying, mothivate them to concentrate on marketing aspect, art critics can became shoulder-patters for whatever side their salary is coming from... The idea of "art with no meaning" certainly makes it easier because noone feels obligued to even interpret art anymore, to put a bit of arguements behind what they're saying.
Art has always been objectified and though so many great artists had problem with that, I personally don't. But I think objectification is reaching the peak which is not at all healthy.

I very much disagree that contemporary art is in a sad state - it encompasses works in practically all previous -isms, there's a truly amazing plethora of art to choose from. We just have to filter the good from the bad.

I guess I'm a bit dissapointed that there hasn't been any great ~ism lately. Unlike Dracomax, I don't think that art has pushed boundaries to the point where it can not go further. I'm comforted by other sorts of gallery art.

An art form is never defined by the majority of new works that are uninteresting or derivative, but by the minority that are good.

Isn't it also defined by what is considered outstanding at a certain moment. After all the most popular artists are probably going to stay in public consciousness because of popularity if nothing else.

As a side note, no matter what you think of Koons and Hirst (who btw are very dissimilar as artists), their works have entered the public imagination and managed to stay there. Hirst's shark is a prime example. That's not something that can be engineered; the work has to genuinely appeal to a wide audience. Very few artists manage that; and in that respect Hirst's fame is fully deserved.

I actually liked Shark when I first saw it. I somehow saw it as representation of mortality or fragility of life or something like that. It's later that I got the impression that he doesn't have much more to tell than that shark, and I think that if you're not as genial as Duchamp, you better have more than a few pieces of art in you. I guess you could say he earned credit with Shark, then overspent it.

[RPin]

McDuffies, did you ever read The Painted Word? The central thesis of the book is that we are going to museums to witness art theory instead of experience art itself.

[Rkolter]

It seems to me that you're insisting on certain value judgement behind the term "art" but I just don't see it that way. To me "art" is not a term that implies quality. It implies intention. Whether it achieves what was intended is another discussion, one where we determine whether the piece of art is good or just plain sucks.

Ok, I see where you're going with this now. A well crafted pair of boots is still meant to be a pair of boots. Crafted to be beautiful, but yet, still crafted to be primarily boots.

Well first, it is a piece of art because he had a goal to invoke emotion. Second, if his art fails to invoke emotion in most of viewers, it's a failed piece of art, but it's still by definition a piece of art.
Third, in this case it's not actually art piece that insulted you. It's the artist, you are basically mad at artist for making the piece and putting it to exibition. Your emotion is not caused by emotional interpretation of the content of the painting, it's caused actually by a lack of interpretation, it's not what's on the canvas that insulted you, it's the fact that this canvas was displayed in the museum and considered an art piece that insulted you.

Good call.

Like, it seems like you wouldn't have much respect for Mondrian and his geometric paintings. But seeing his retrospective exibition would make a wholy different impression, if you had a chance to see that he started as a skilled portretist, and how his paintings started to get distorted and lean toward abstract, and then his most well known stage just looks like a logical final stage of his journey, a final product of evolution of his thinking. You simply have to know how much effort is put into it because it's not always evident from the painting.

I would really have to look at his art. But from what you're describing, I'd be more inclined to say that after a period of creativity, he became disillusioned about art and stated to produce crap...? I see that all the time in the IT field - you get a guy in who comes on board and does awesome work, then gets bored and starts to let things slip. A few years in, the guy is all but useless and the only reason you can't fire him is that the client is used to him. I can only assume that the same thing happens to artists.

... this may explain why I don't want to trust my own interpretation of art.

[Phact0rri]

I think aesthetics is a poor grounds for calling something art or not. Its like if you read a book on philosphy and didn't understand it. Does this sudden disqualify something as philosphy because you didn't understand it? As Oscar Wilde said Art doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't need to function on any level. When it does function then it will cease being art and will become that which it is automated to become.

A car is a car. A house is a house. And when people look at these things and go "wow thats a pretty awesome car its a work of art" your calling it beautiful. You are not so much looking at it beyond its place, as something to drive. but a painting is filled with symbolism, we get things from the symbols, not that "hey its a canvas with paint on top of it" it has no use beyond what we in vision it to be.

[McDuffies]

McDuffies, did you ever read The Painted Word? The central thesis of the book is that we are going to museums to witness art theory instead of experience art itself.

I haven't. Like I said, I think that art theory becomes from man's desire to find out why certain piece of art affects him the way it does. Of course we could be just satisfied with enjoying art and letting it affects us, but humans always want to explain everything in as much scientific terms as possible.
I notice, though, that people tend to be threatened by paintings, feel obligated to know theory not because they're curious about it but because they're convinced that otherwise they won't be able to enjoy art, thinking that this kind of art is something that can only appeal to extremely cultured and educated people... Concerts of classical music have the same thing, it's what happens when art is put on pedestal, and then everyone wonders why people don't listen to classical music or go to galleries - well because from childhood people are being convinced that those are things that ordinary man won't understand.

I would really have to look at his art. But from what you're describing, I'd be more inclined to say that after a period of creativity, he became disillusioned about art and stated to produce crap...? I see that all the time in the IT field - you get a guy in who comes on board and does awesome work, then gets bored and starts to let things slip. A few years in, the guy is all but useless and the only reason you can't fire him is that the client is used to him. I can only assume that the same thing happens to artists.

Though, that wouldn't explain why this final stage of mondrian's art is actually the one that is considered significant.
I think you might be familiar with works of that final stage:

They're great for desktops.
Books like giving examples of tree paintings he executed over the years. He started with something like this:

Then, upon going to Paris and meeting cubists, he started making typically cubist deconstructions like this:

...

Ending in something like this:

Then he was dissatisfied because he felt that he was doing something that the cubists have already done better, and started searching further, taking hints from various movements around europe. Works like this, I think, are considered an introduction into his main period:

Main period, of course, being works like this:

Or, some time later, variations on this theme:

So there's clear, logical progression, and it was supported by mustiple essays that he wrote over time, I mean I think that you can see that he was coming from somewhere and going somewhere and had serious pre-thought about why he painted the way he did. Mondrian was, btw, despite not being an architect, a very influential figure in architecture .

[Rkolter]

The mistake was in thinking I wouldn't consider them art. I think they all show effort on the part of the artist. And even more subjectively than that, I really like them.

[McDuffies]

Great to hear it, I like them too. It's a kind of handy example though, because many people who see his final phase, consider it lazy art.

[Phact0rri]

how about Kazimir Malevich? The guy who did the metioned red square of canvas? Suppose he'd fall into the same catagory with his richly vibrant abstract stuff and cubism period?

[Rkolter]

I don't think Kazmir's red square is the one I'm thinking of. The one I'm thinking of was from a local artist, I believe. And, it was just a red square, filled in, offset from the center of the canvas.

[McDuffies]

how about Kazimir Malevich? The guy who did the metioned red square of canvas? Suppose he'd fall into the same catagory with his richly vibrant abstract stuff and cubism period?

I'm not that keen on Malevich. I suppose his art was too political for me, ie, too programatic to represent certain political ideas and there's not much in those paintings besides that... and I'm not sure that I can agree with those ideas anyway. In any case where Mondrian's paintings are so vibrant and dynamic, Malevich's just kinda lay in front of me and do nothing.

[Phact0rri]

I can see where you are coming from politically when we talk of him. I liked his use of colour in his later period stuff. course I really like muted colour scale.

[McDuffies]

Eeh, I was never much into constructivism, or futurism for that matter. They seem movements created to make art appropriate for certain political ideologies... dada or surrealism were partly political too, but that was more like personal political stances. I really like some Russian artists who weren't heavily political though, like Kandinski or Chagal.

[Phact0rri]

Kandisky was pretty great, I fell in love with him in highschool. Its been a while since I've thought of him though!

Futurism is a mixed bag for me. On one hand I love a lot of the paintings that were inspired by the movement. Intuitism still really breaks my brain and I find it such a warming concept. divisionism and some of the colour redefining landscapes though tended to be sort of boring.

[Paul Escobar]

I don't see how art being an object up for sale would be a problem. Artists need money for food and rent like everyone else. And when an artist gets famous, his works will fetch a higher price. This is not in any way new, nor any different from any other creative field, and it does no harm.

The problem becomes when art is no more than an object. When the one who's buying it is not interested in it's quality, just in the fact that it's value on market makes it a safe investment. It can demotivate artists from really trying, mothivate them to concentrate on marketing aspect, art critics can became shoulder-patters for whatever side their salary is coming from... The idea of "art with no meaning" certainly makes it easier because noone feels obligued to even interpret art anymore, to put a bit of arguements behind what they're saying.
Art has always been objectified and though so many great artists had problem with that, I personally don't. But I think objectification is reaching the peak which is not at all healthy.

I'd say that's only a problem for those who invest in art that turns out not to increase in value. The art world is far too varied, with too many artists and galleries of widely differing attitudes and methods, for any one tendency to dominate it all. If someone wants to pay I don't know how many millions for a puppy sculpture by Jeff Koons, well, good for them. Doesn't prevent other artists from making personal and heartfelt art, even though their work may never sell for anywhere near as much as Koons.

I guess I'm a bit dissapointed that there hasn't been any great ~ism lately. Unlike Dracomax, I don't think that art has pushed boundaries to the point where it can not go further. I'm comforted by other sorts of gallery art.

I agree that art can go further, and I'm certain it will. I mostly regard an ism as a nice way to categorize and find new art - to say for instance: "if you like van Gogh, then check out Cézanne, Gaugin, Redon and de Vlaminck, because like van Gogh, they too worked in post-impressionism". Weren't many isms retroactively applied by critics?

An art form is never defined by the majority of new works that are uninteresting or derivative, but by the minority that are good.

Isn't it also defined by what is considered outstanding at a certain moment. After all the most popular artists are probably going to stay in public consciousness because of popularity if nothing else.

Sure. And by what's already been canonized as great art. Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo and many other long dead artists are still important parts of the definition of what art is.

I actually liked Shark when I first saw it. I somehow saw it as representation of mortality or fragility of life or something like that. It's later that I got the impression that he doesn't have much more to tell than that shark, and I think that if you're not as genial as Duchamp, you better have more than a few pieces of art in you. I guess you could say he earned credit with Shark, then overspent it.

When Hirst is good, he's very good, asking essential questions about death and dying and how we deal with it. When he's bad, he's just copying both himself and dadaists from 90 years ago. Doesn't really bother me if an artist starts repeating himself - if he's made good works, then he's free to repeat himself for all I care; and if others still like to buy his repetitions, no skin off my nose. There's so many other artists, past and present, whose works I can look at instead.

[McDuffies]

Kandisky was pretty great, I fell in love with him in highschool. Its been a while since I've thought of him though!

I was fascinated by Kandinski early on but I was really compelled to read his book because I always had a sence that I was missing something about him... there's always many things going on, but the painting doesn't let your attention sit on any of them long enough.

Futurism is a mixed bag for me. On one hand I love a lot of the paintings that were inspired by the movement. Intuitism still really breaks my brain and I find it such a warming concept. divisionism and some of the colour redefining landscapes though tended to be sort of boring.

Yeah... it's politics that ruined futurism in the end, because half of the movement (including some of the iniciators, like Marini I think?) went with Mussolini's so those who didn't want to scattered... I guess some of them were ok, but I'm not particularly fascinated by any of them, there's so much pressure to be influential and compete with cubism.

When Hirst is good, he's very good, asking essential questions about death and dying and how we deal with it. When he's bad, he's just copying both himself and dadaists from 90 years ago. Doesn't really bother me if an artist starts repeating himself - if he's made good works, then he's free to repeat himself for all I care; and if others still like to buy his repetitions, no skin off my nose. There's so many other artists, past and present, whose works I can look at instead.

I guess I'm used to my great artists being bold and experimental until their death, you know, images of Matisse painting with brush on a stick on his wall from his bed and all that... this repeating and all suits much more to some aged rocker.


So anyways guys, what are your favourite artists?

[Rkolter]

So anyways guys, what are your favourite artists?

There's this guy in town who draws plain red squares on canvas...

[Dracomax]

I never meant to say that I do not think that art can go any further. What I was trying to say is that artists have spent the last century pushing the bounds of what art is until the question is fairly meaningless. there's nothing left in art to rebel against, really. The definitions of what art is are so broad that anyone trying to ask questions about what art is either have to go to an extreme trying to get a reaction, or they retread territory that has been explored better by other artists.

HOwever, I do think art has room to grow, and room for new concepts, techniques, and movements. I just think that the next major movement is going to tend to be in a far more structured direction.

As for my favorite artists, I enjoy the Fauves and impressionism in general. I also like Duchamp, but consider picassos work to be uninteresting. However, that may be due to the fact I've seen more of Duchamp's work in person than picasso. Art is always different in person than in slide or book form, more so when it comes to terms of scale.

[Ekolter]

I like Ansel Adams nature photography. Simple, elegant and it captures the essence of the moment. I'm a big fan of photography in general. To me is all about capturing a fleeting glimmer of life.

I like nude art too, especially sculptures. Facinated with the form, the lines...it's just wow that someone can convey that much detail from a piece of stone, clay, etc.

One of my current favorite pieces (besides the one Ryan is using as his avatar) is a jumble of different sized and shaped drawers held together by a belt/rope. It looks cool and to me it relates to my life - trying to balance and fit everything in, barely. I'll see if I can get the picture off of the camera.

[Killbert-Robby]

I like nude art too, especially sculptures. Facinated with the form, the lines...it's just wow that someone can convey that much detail from a piece of stone, clay, etc.

Honestly, when it comes to sculpture, I almost prefer non-nude pieces. Being able to turn rock into something that looks like it flows and moves
http://blog.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/gra ... lpture.jpg
thats just impressive

[McDuffies]

So anyways guys, what are your favourite artists?

There's this guy in town who draws plain red squares on canvas...

What colour is the background?

I never meant to say that I do not think that art can go any further. What I was trying to say is that artists have spent the last century pushing the bounds of what art is until the question is fairly meaningless. there's nothing left in art to rebel against, really. The definitions of what art is are so broad that anyone trying to ask questions about what art is either have to go to an extreme trying to get a reaction, or they retread territory that has been explored better by other artists.

But that's really what I was talking about, I don't wanna reiterate my previous posts but there's a lot to rebel against in art establishment today, and a lot to leave an enthusiastic young artist dissapointed. Which is why I like street art so much.