I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it’s hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It’s basically scribbling.
Again, compare to Salvador Dali. They’re both distorted, but Dali’s stuff took some skill, at least.
I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it’s hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It’s basically scribbling.
Again, compare to Salvador Dali. They’re both distorted, but Dali’s stuff took some skill, at least.
I have enjoyed this thread, Inspector! Thank you for a most stimulating conversation.
I have enjoyed this thread, Inspector! Thank you for a most stimulating conversation.
You’re welcome. The Carrol brought a smile to my face.
Have a skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!! day! 
I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it’s hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It’s basically scribbling.
This is the problem with modern art - not the fact that it’s “bad”, but the fact it’s deemed to be worthy of attention. I think that the problem is largely caused by the idea of ‘art galleries’ - if something is placed in an art gallery, a context is automatically created around it which leads people to evaluate it in a certain way (ie as ‘art’).
However, I believe that mass media, and the internet in particular, will erode this (and indeed has done so already to some extent). Art no longer has the mystique it once did, since anyone can view any painting whenever they please simply by performing a search on google - there is no need to hype up a trip to the art gallery, which creates expectations and thus prejudices judgement. I think that will lead to more people judging pieces on their own merits, rather than judging them ‘as art’ - it’s a lot easier to say that an unmade bed or a picture of some random squiggle is worthless when you see a picture of it in the newspaper, than when you see it hanging on the wall of a white room in one of the world’s most prestigous art galleries.
It works both ways though; I think that most traditional paintings are hideously overrated, mainly because 1) they were produced at a time when very little art was made and hence every piece was something ‘special’, whereas today thousands of people make thousands of artwork every year - there is more competition, and hence more good pieces being produced. 2) traditional pieces come “pre-evaluated” to some extent’ - when someone views a Verneer or Raphael they know that they are looking at “a masterpiece!” which will influence their judgement.
While some are mystified that others get excited about a few blobs of colour on a canvas, I personally don’t understand why people get so worked up about a picture of some sunflowers, or a naked women. I mean sure, they might be pretty pictures, but who cares? I mean the Mona Lisa might be a very skillful painting of some woman, but at the end of the day it is just a painting of some woman. I find the idea that a picture of flowers could seriously be ranked alongside a piece of art like Atlas Shrugged or a Rachmaninoff concerto to be absolutely absurd. But then, I’m not really a fan of paintings in general. I like Kandinsky though 
If an artist wants to be groundbreaking, he had better learn to do his job with GROUNDBREAKING SKILL. Any idiot can do something that “hasn’t been done before.”
Why exactly? An artist only needs the skill required to produce the pieces they wish to produce. Your comment reminds me of the people who claim that rock music is necessarily inferior to classical because it “takes less talent” (a view I think I can recall you rejecting in another thread, although I could be mistaken). Skill isnt everything - Steve Vai is a very skillful guitarist, but I find his music terrible; I’d much rather listen to a ‘less talented’ musician. So a painter can produce amazingly lifelike images - who cares? We have cameras these days that can do the same (and personally I find photography much more appealing than ‘lifelike’ painting, romantic or otherwise). The worth of a piece of art comes mainly from the idea behind it - the talent only matters to the extent it can express that idea (and some ideas may require more talent than others).
Andy Warhol once had a dollar bill placed in an art gallery. Not a painting, just a normal dollar bill. Did it take skill to produce that? Perhaps not, but this piece SAYS so much more philosophically than most ‘lifelike’ paintings. Just think of the message it carries about fiat currency - a piece of paper blessed by the government is worth $1, an identical piece of paper produced by a couterfeiter is worth nothing, but the same piece of paper hung on an art gallery wall by Andy Warhol is worth hundreds of thousands. If that isnt art with a meaning, then I don’t know what is.
Don’t sweat it, Hal. I was simply saying that being “different for different’s sake” is not enough IMO to qualify a person as a good artist. Anyone can be “different;” I want something GOOD.
(I suppose you thought I meant just technical skill, which is not enough for me, either… see my example of the well-painted picture of a maggot vomiting on the David)
Oh, and Kandinsky? Yeeech. :lol:
Don’t sweat it, Hal. I was simply saying that being “different for different’s sake” is not enough IMO to qualify a person as a good artist. Anyone can be “different;” I want something GOOD.
Ah, fair enough. While I do agree with this, I’m normally prepared to give people more leeway if they are attempting something new - if you’re one of the first people to break new grounds then its likely your work wont be as good as those that come after you (the original ‘rock’ musicians were probably inferior to those who followed them - their value lies more in the fact they created rock music than that they created GOOD rock music). When it comes to new ideas I think that potential is, in a way, more important than the final product. Even if your work isnt that good, something you’ve done might open up a path for others to explore and to incorporate into their own work in a better way.
To use an analogy with computer games, in a market so populated with generic sequels and countless variants on the ‘first person shooter’/‘racing cars’ themes, its nice to find a game which is genuinely original. Sometimes this originality makes it good (the first Grand Theft Auto for instance), but more often it doesnt. But even in the latter cases, at least people are trying - original ideas are worth more to me than the latest version of Tomb Raider 73, simply because the desire to be creative is the primary reason why most fields advance in the first place. Experimenting is a fairly hit and miss affair - sometimes you’ll get a good end product, and sometimes you won’t. But the risk of failing shouldnt prevent you from trying.
However, the art world has taken this principle way too far, and you do get way too much ‘different for the sake of being different’. If we take something like Picasso’s cubism or abstract art as isolated from their historical contexts, I would wholeheartedly approve of them - I think its good that people are prepared to push the boundaries of art to see if they can discover new things. But the problem is when this experimentation becomes the norm - cubism and abstract impressionism werent simply experiments at the ‘frontiers’ of art; they were held as being art itself, and ‘realistic’ paintings suffered from condecension and being labelled as boring simply because they werent sufficiently abstract. THIS is the real problem - not the fact that people are trying new things. If we had a lot of good art being recognised today, I wouldnt mind people doing things like the unmade bed as a sideshow. But the fact that good pieces ARENT being recognised in the art world, and that we ONLY have unmade beds, is the reason for my disgust.
It’s ironic in a sense, because the main reason for my complaint is that the art world isnt actually varied enough - its all ‘experimentation’, and no real attempts at producing quality products.
(I suppose you thought I meant just technical skill, which is not enough for me, either… see my example of the well-painted picture of a maggot vomiting on the David)
Yeah I did; I missed that, sorry.
What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.
What about distorting the way we view reality makes it a valid means of expression? Expression presupposes someone doing the expression, but also who the expression is to. Art therefore is a form of conversation, either to yourself or to others, it is a way to percieve concepts that aren’t normally available to sense perception. Therefore there are certain rules one must follow in order for the “perception” of the concepts to be successful,i.e. it must conform to reality, because perception–being automatic–automatically conforms with reality.
Just like if I want to make myself clear here in this forum I must speak English (using english words, with the proper use of English grammar) If I simply started to disregard these rules would that make it a valid form of expression? The above posting of “The Jabberwocky” is not a refutation of this because it is only understandable through the words that do conform to the rules of conversational English, the made up words only serve to throw confusion into the mix, any meaning which is gleaned out of that poem is IN SPITE OF those meaningless words. Take this for example: Can you get any sense of meaning out of the following?
Held a experienced by had he motionless, stood: “before” He; feeling never?
Or does this group of words mean something much more when put in the “proper” sequence and with the “proper” punctuation:
He stood motionless, held by a feeling he had never experienced before.(Taken from Atlas by the way, )
The reason that “abstract” art is not as good “epistimologically”(sp?) as representational art is because of what it says about man’s faculty of grasping reality. Abstract art says that man can not know reality directly, that he is ignorant because he uses reason, blind because he has eyes, and that the true character of a portrait is innaccessable to him through his normal mode of perception, that reality must be distorted for him in order for him to be able to view it, that his eyes must be cut out in order for him to see.
But there are many parts to a painting and not just “how it is painted.” Subject matter has to be considered as well. This is why a representational painting isn’t automatically good just because epistimologically(sp?) it is consistent with man’s perceptual faculty. A work of art must be judged as a whole. Thomas Kinkade therefore is not automatically a great artist. He’s a great painter maybe, but being an artists is not only the application of paint to a canvas, just as art isn’t only paint on a canvas.
Which is, of course, terror at his metaphyiscal world-view. He is saying that life IS suffering. Malevolent universe premise at work.
The War (Spanish Civil War, or Second World war) was indeed a time of terror, suffering and most definitely all aspects of a malevolent universe at work. The artist recorded that.
A well done, well detailed image of a bridge being built is beautiful, like the bridge, thus the painting would be consistent and inspiring, like this http://www.cordair.com/larsen/anchorage.php
A painting done just as well, just as detailed, of a civil bombing taking place would be perverse. However when the style is consistent with the theme, in this case, utter destruction, shock and awe, I can begin to see why Picasso’s Guernica is consistent, coherent, and iconic.
Ironically though, it is the naive postcard “art”, not the Guernica that has the effect on my stomach most similar to witnessing an air strike.
It seems to me to be some what pointless to speak of art objectively. obviously you can say that my paintings are not as good as Dali and you would be quite rite in saying that. But to argue with a person or people about why one artist or work of art should speak to them over another is senseless. If an artist creates something that inspires you it is probably because there is a common theme that you share with him or her. the artist projects this through the art and that is why it speaks to you. but if some one else doesn’t share this theme its impossible to convince them that this work is better than one that does speak to them. art is objective only to a degree and is entirely subjective after that.
-Nick
It seems to me to be some what pointless to speak of art objectively. obviously you can say that my paintings are not as good as Dali and you would be quite rite in saying that. But to argue with a person or people about why one artist or work of art should speak to them over another is senseless. If an artist creates something that inspires you it is probably because there is a common theme that you share with him or her. the artist projects this through the art and that is why it speaks to you. but if some one else doesn’t share this theme its impossible to convince them that this work is better than one that does speak to them. art is objective only to a degree and is entirely subjective after that.
-Nick
Hello Nick. I don’t know whether your paintings are better, as good as, or worse than Dali’s. The only Objective indication I have is that you are younger and Dali’s art during his 20s were a bunch of exercises and studies most with depressing catala folk depictions.
What I mean to say is, show me your paintings! -smileyface that creates empathy and trust-
Which is, of course, terror at his metaphyiscal world-view. He is saying that life IS suffering. Malevolent universe premise at work.
Rand said, “t is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend – though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing.” (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, 186)
Yet here you are claiming to know Picasso’s sense of life/metaphysical view of existence based on a single image that he created? And you’re so certain about it! Terror at his metaphysical world-view is “of course,” you so confidently assert, what Picasso was expressing!
Heh. Of course! Of course!
J
I was paging through Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A a bit again last night and thought that some of you might be interested in this (from page 185):
So many combinations of premises are possible that you can’t make a rule applicable to everyone who claims to like all kinds of art. You can say the same about people who claim they only like “romantic” art or – be careful here – “Objectivist” art (if there were such a thing, which there isn’t). You cannot always be sure what a person’s premises are; most people are inconsistent.
(Before you deluge me with questions about there being no such thing as Objectivist art, let me add: My novels are Objectivist, because I translated my sense of life into conscious terms. I can’t say that about anyone else’s novels. Further, no such formulas necessarily apply to other fields of art. For example, my husband’s paintings are exactly in his field what my novels are in mine, but I’d never call it “Objectivist painting.” No such term is appropriate.) (185)
J