Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People don't want to work at understanding "art". Much contemporary art is abstract or depicts ugly subjects. People want to feel good and see relatable subjects or pretty colors. And I think people don't want to feel stupid and that their interpretation is "wrong". You can say it is subjective, and it is, but critics will have a much different view than the "untrained".
Nature has surrounded us with an abundance of beauty and truth. I have no interest in the attempts by humans to capture and re-issue their flawed interpretations of it, to serve their own purposes and call it "art". Straight, unprocessed photography and video is usually the most legitimate means of reproducing its images and sounds. But even that is a poor substitute for experiencing the real thing.
What is called "art", is a means to separate us from Nature and to be a substitute for it. It tries to remake it for viewing in unnatural circumstances. Every time I see further destruction of Nature by humans, it's like a dagger in my heart. And yet many who contribute to this destruction, claim to be "art lovers". Many brutal dictators have stolen and collected large numbers of paintings and sculptures.
As a photographer, I attempt to present only what would be seen by someone who was standing in the same place and time. I try to avoid adding any touches that would be regarded by others as "art". I recognize the dilemma of how my philosophy does not accommodate the time before the invention of photography. But this is about things as they are today.
I acknowledge the importance of painted portraits and landscapes done prior to 1840, for their historical value, but not as works of art. There are many thousands of commercial illustrators today, whose skill far surpasses that of any of the so-called classical masters. Those who do realistic and scientific illustration, engage in a useful enterprise, but it is not art. For example, the naturalist John James Audubon was a highly-skilled scientific illustrator. Sometimes, the best illustrations can show details better than photographs, by omitting things that obscure the parts that need to be seen.
Early-day paintings on rocks and cave walls, mostly stick figures or badly distorted shapes, could hardly be called art. It was a means of telling stories or recording history, before literacy or photography existed. And then there are those who tell modern stories with drawings, that they may not be able to express in words. That's fine for whoever appreciates it, but I don't see any that tell me anything new or enlightening. But of course, I enjoy the caricatures of political cartoons, not to be confused with "art", for its own sake. And most cartoons nowadays, are political in some way.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 04-14-2017 at 02:13 PM..
If this were made by a happily married 30 yr old woman with 2 kids, would the interpretation be different?
And how else is one supposed to feel when looking at this chair? Happy? Peaceful? Or disgusted, confused, saddened or violated?
This is the whole point. It never could have been made by a happily married woman with 2 kids. An artist's life and feelings alway show through.
One is not supposed to feel any way in particular. The viewer will respond according to his own life experiences. No viewer's impression is any less valid than another. As I said, children viewed it in context of their life experience, and mature women, most of whom were Kusamas age, viewed it differently.
First of all, thank you for this wonderful discussion about art. It's like moisture in the desert, for me.
I would like to go back and speak to the OPs original post. I think the art and museum community are to blame for the pretentiousness of the art world, which the everyday folks feel left out of. For me, Picasso is the only one one the artists mentioned who resonates. That is mostly because I have seen early works by him, so I know the journey that came before the works that some do not appreciate. Many of Picasso's early paintings are easily relatable to most people. Then, he starting taking things away, to get to the most spare representation of his thoughts. If you want to understand the later Picasso, then follow his path from the beginning.
When I was a docent, we toured school children. There was one rule. Don't touch the art. Beyond that, we docents told stories about the artists and asked questions to engage the students. We listened to them and it was delightful to hear their impressions. I learned from them. There were no wrong answers. There ARE no wrong answers. I hope that those children were not intimidated by museums ever again.
So now, I'm retired and live in Savannah. In this week's paper there is an event featuring "plein air " painting. Why? It's a bunch of artists painting outside. Give me a break.
Last edited by gentlearts; 04-14-2017 at 03:46 PM..
Well, I just can't get past the basic, psychological understanding that if something "bothers" you - art or otherwise - it's because something is already "bothered" inside of you and the art or whatever is a mirror showing you your own DISTURBANCES. It's so simple but most of us miss it due to deep DENIAL and ego DEFENSES that were taught to us early in life. Oh well.............
But it wouldn't sell if people didn't find it thought provoking or inspirational. The artists background is important because it gives perspective of the artist.
Again, just because it doesn't speak to you (or me or any particular individual), doesn't make it *not* art.
I am not debating whether it is art. I have NEVER debated whether something is or is not art, so I am not sure why you keep posing that question to me as if I am discussing it. AGAIN: the thread is about modern art being unsettling to some people.
Pointing out the the story of the artist life as suffering and tragic leads people to believe that somehow they are more worthy of being called an artist and the art is more worthy of being called art.
Art should stand on its own merit, period. The life of the artist should never interfere with the interpretation of the art. And the example of the mentally ill, institutionalized artist with the penis chair is a perfect example of that, IMO. If a happily married woman, with kids, living in the suburbs created that chair I fully believe that SHE would be laughed at and ridiculed. Again, my opinion.
This is the whole point. It never could have been made by a happily married woman with 2 kids. An artist's life and feelings alway show through.
One is not supposed to feel any way in particular. The viewer will respond according to his own life experiences. No viewer's impression is any less valid than another. As I said, children viewed it in context of their life experience, and mature women, most of whom were Kusamas age, viewed it differently.
Simply not true. That is YOUR perception.
If she was a happily married woman with 2 kids who had been gang raped in college, then absolutely, WHAT a story, how wonderful for her to evolve from her tragic past.
But without the tragic past? Meh. A non story. She hasn't suffered enough to be respected as an "artist." And this perspective shows that the ARTIST is more important than the art.
I am not debating whether it is art. I have NEVER debated whether something is or is not art, so I am not sure why you keep posing that question to me as if I am discussing it. AGAIN: the thread is about modern art being unsettling to some people.
Pointing out the the story of the artist life as suffering and tragic leads people to believe that somehow they are more worthy of being called an artist and the art is more worthy of being called art.
Art should stand on its own merit, period. The life of the artist should never interfere with the interpretation of the art. And the example of the mentally ill, institutionalized artist with the penis chair is a perfect example of that, IMO. If a happily married woman, with kids, living in the suburbs created that chair I fully believe that SHE would be laughed at and ridiculed. Again, my opinion.
Not talking about that example, but an artist's feelings and life DO contribute to their work. We talked about Guernica earlier, but it's also true in litterature, music, dance! Think Hemingway, Virginia Woolf, Jack London, Noureiev, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, etc.
I'm getting off topic so I'll stop.
However if you're saying that art dealers sell pieces of art while advertising their personal life, we agree. The art world has gone as capitalistic as any other domain. And there are a lot of frauds.
It still doesn't mean it's not art. And sometimes knowing the artists' life helps you understand even more where the creation comes from.
Not talking about that example, but an artist's feelings and life DO contribute to their work. We talked about Guernica earlier, but it's also true in litterature, music, dance! Think Hemingway, Virginia Woolf, Jack London, Noureiev, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, etc.
I'm getting off topic so I'll stop.
However if you're saying that art dealers sell pieces of art while advertising their personal life, we agree. The art world has gone as capitalistic as any other domain. And there are a lot of frauds.
It still doesn't mean it's not art. And sometimes knowing the artists' life helps you understand even more where the creation comes from.
If you know nothing about the artist or writer does it make it the piece better/worse?
The knowledge of their life should have no effect on the viewer's assessment of a piece. The piece should stand on its own merit. And artists/writers shouldn't be given a pass because of their life experiences. That veil of understanding only shows the artist/writer perspective. And if what they are trying to portray does not come through without understanding their perspective, then they have done a very poor job as an artist/writer. The piece should stand on its own.
If you know nothing about the artist or writer does it make it the piece better/worse?
The knowledge of their life should have no effect on the viewer's assessment of a piece. The piece should stand on its own merit. And artists/writers shouldn't be given a pass because of their life experiences. That veil of understanding only shows the artist/writer perspective. And if what they are trying to portray does not come through without understanding their perspective, then they have done a very poor job as an artist/writer. The piece should stand on its own.
How exactly can a piece of art stand on its own if
1) you shouldn't know anything about the artist
2) you shouldn't have to think about it if it gives you bad feelings
3) art only comes as they see? (sorry, don't know the expression, but the same with porn)
Or it's people (like my father, mind you, who ACTUALLY took me to every museum in Europe before I was 12, but still would ask himself what would look good in his living-room. Still not sure he was joking, I like to think he was, still not sure )
NO, that is not how it works.
Art is, as someone said above, something that gives you an elevated fly/flight(?) on your emotions, art is not what is defined as, it is what keeps your soul (I'm definitely NOT religious) unique and in touch with something greater than yourself. Something that overwhelms you somehow and gives you this incredible insight in human mind.
But how can you not be even MORE emotional about Monet's Nympheas or (none mentionned this great american painter) Chide Hassam's impressionists paintings when you know the history of it ?
Do you know that "impression soleil levant", which is (well then, there were dozens after that one, like the nympheas) the first expressionist scandal, such that the whole exhibition was shut down? because he dared to not present the world as in a photography, but with light touches of colors that people had a hard time to comprehend? Look at it from 10 meters.... it looks slightly okay then... Come close... what a cheater! just blops of paint! (Even more fun is earlier impressionist Pissaro, the Pointillist movment, only very small points of color)
Same could be said for Magritte (this is not a pipe - very funny in french), or Chagall, etc.
I'm not implying that you don't know that, of course, I just got carried away and somehow I don't want to erase it.
But yes, definitely YES, having a knowledge of art in its history (and even back to cavemen, well again, when you see them in real - now there are just replicas, but still very powerful) DOES help you understand and feel. That we are all part of a greater thing. That people of the 21st centuries are really not that different from people in the 18th or 13th or even 5000 BC. And understand and feel even more! See my examples above. But yes, it shouldn't be the first thing.
I just thought of something that would be an equivalent for me, but it's not the forum for it and I don't mean to hurt anyone, okay?
The kind of art I mentionned, or even maybe the above-mentionned art, makes me have wonder and wander in human beings souls as much as religion can for some people.
And as I mentionned earlier Pierre Soulages (if you haven't, please look, I'd like your input), there are hundreds of forms that art can take.
And yes, contemporary art is often controversial and very often rightfully so (buyer's marker, etc), but surely, have you ever been in a city like Rome or Prague or Beying or Paris where Art is all around you and not within a museum?
It is truly beautiful.
I have one last question for you, as an American : what do you think of the fearless girl vs chargng bull controversy? Is it art? Is it politics? Was it art even to begin with?
First of all, thank you for this wonderful discussion about art. It's like moisture in the desert, for me.
I would like to go back and speak to the OPs original post. I think the art and museum community are to blame for the pretentiousness of the art world, which the everyday folks feel left out of. For me, Picasso is the only one one the artists mentioned who resonates. That is mostly because I have seen early works by him, so I know the journey that came before the works that some do not appreciate. Many of Picasso's early paintings are easily relatable to most people. Then, he starting taking things away, to get to the most spare representation of his thoughts. If you want to understand the later Picasso, then follow his path from the beginning.
When I was a docent, we toured school children. There was one rule. Don't touch the art. Beyond that, we docents told stories about the artists and asked questions to engage the students. We listened to them and it was delightful to hear their impressions. I learned from them. There were no wrong answers. There ARE no wrong answers. I hope that those children were not intimidated by museums ever again.
So now, I'm retired and live in Savannah. In this week's paper there is an event featuring "plein air " painting. Why? It's a bunch of artists painting outside. Give me a break.
I can't send you another rep!
Thanks to YOU!
That was one of the most "stimulating" (not sure?) of a post I have ever seen!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
