So I recently sat down and took a look at Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. I have never really tried any of these "artsy" movies before, so I figured I would give it a shot and take some time to think of my observations. It's a decent film if you've got a few hours to burn, and don't mind a bit of grim.
Unfortunately, whatever artistic import was intended to be fired into my neurons seems to have bounced off of the force field that is my cluelessness, and out the window. I'm still not quite sure what the film is about or even really what the function of the themes are supposed to be. I did get a takeaway, even if it was off from the director's vision by a mile. At the conclusion of the viewing, I perceived the film to be a cautionary tale about regret and the value of recklessness in moderation. From this perception, I was able to reevaluate my own perceptions of regret and the role of recklessness in life. So now I have two ways I can perceive this film: through the director's vision or my own interpretation.
In the interest of getting this idea of art through my thick skull and understanding what other people think of the medium, I thought I'd ask here how folks "harvest" the artistic value from artistic works. What is its function in your life? Where do you look for it in media? How do you locate this artistic value?
However a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it will always be a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it...
Despite how some people will huff, puff and come up with every argument under the sun to the contrary, call you uneducated or uninformed, thats just a fact of life which every cognatively functioning member of the spiecies will know to be true.
So I recently sat down and took a look at Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. I have never really tried any of these "artsy" movies before, so I figured I would give it a shot and take some time to think of my observations. It's a decent film if you've got a few hours to burn, and don't mind a bit of grim.
Unfortunately, whatever artistic import was intended to be fired into my neurons seems to have bounced off of the force field that is my cluelessness, and out the window. I'm still not quite sure what the film is about or even really what the function of the themes are supposed to be. I did get a takeaway, even if it was off from the director's vision by a mile. At the conclusion of the viewing, I perceived the film to be a cautionary tale about regret and the value of recklessness in moderation. From this perception, I was able to reevaluate my own perceptions of regret and the role of recklessness in life. So now I have two ways I can perceive this film: through the director's vision or my own interpretation.
In the interest of getting this idea of art through my thick skull and understanding what other people think of the medium, I thought I'd ask here how folks "harvest" the artistic value from artistic works. What is its function in your life? Where do you look for it in media? How do you locate this artistic value?
Well, first off, you'll rarely ever perceive anything through 'the director's vision.' People usually have to be told what that is to hold it separate from their own interpretation.
When interpretation and 'vision' (assuming you can find out what the director says the vision is, and its remotely connected to reality) are similar without any particular external influence, its often just commonality of experience between yourself and the director. Of course, lots of folks will take that as a measure of their their taste and refinement rather than, for example, that they took similar film classes, or grew up in similar circumstances in a particular period.
Artistic value... it depends what you mean.
If you mean beauty, that varies from culture and time period, and within them, as for an easy example 'scrawny vs muscular' or 'skinny vs full hips.'
The same can be true for film. Several current or recent filmmakers place a ridiculous value on not telling audiences what something means or even what's in the box (Tarantino!)
Personally, I don't have much patience for anything that isn't a well told story working within the limitations of the medium. Modern effects bore me, and padding the running length with crap can completely ruin things (Hobbit 'trilogy')
If a director wants me to find some obscure meaning in the time on the clocks in three different scenes, hiding in background, said director is wasting my time and their own.
But mostly when people go on about 'artistic value,' they're really talking about what the in-group (or perceivied in-group) in their clique has decided to be true. It rarely has much at all to do with the film itself.
However a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it will always be a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it...
Despite how some people will huff, puff and come up with every argument under the sun to the contrary, call you uneducated or uninformed, thats just a fact of life which every cognatively functioning member of the spiecies will know to be true.
If the internet has taught me anything, there are also far more people than I had realized was possible who are actually are just really into turds, figuratively and, um...otherwise.
I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.
I think a great modern example of art is Banksy; there is definitely technical skill involved in his work, but not to the same level as, say, a Renaissance masterpiece and there is occasionally haunting beauty, but mostly not awe-inspiring, however everything I’ve ever seen he’s done is very, very clever with an interesting message that makes you think. And you don’t need it explaining to you, it’s immediately obvious from the context of the piece (in fact most of the time, it’s all about context, because the location is key to the message).
That, to me is the problem with a lot of modern art; if you have to explain the meaning / message / emotion you were trying to convey then you’ve failed. It should be inherent in the work, because that is how art becomes timeless. We have no idea what was going through the heads of the Stone Age Frenchman who produced that wonderful cave art, but you can feel the awe and respect that they had for the animals they painted, the beauty they found in the natural world.
I've been thinking about it recently and I have come to a conclusion that I appreciate 2 things in art, whichever type of art it is:
- technical skill, so the "wow! how could they even do that!?"
- creativity, in other words "wow! how did they come up with that!?"
I've also found an explanation for the types of art I do not understand. I do not belittle them. The comparison I came up with is as folows:
Do you have some kind of an elderly aunt who loves, for example, Turkish soap operas and advert jingles but when asked about movies or songs YOU like ("did you like the new Tarantino movie, auntie?" "how do you find the new Metallica&Symphony orchestra album, auntie?") she says something along the lines of "Nah, this is too weird and hard to follow, give me my soap opera or an earworm jingle any time over this newish things. Do they even deserve being called music, when it's just noise, or a movie, when there's no happy end love story and nice people all around? Why even watch/listen to that?"
I extrapolate this to the types of art I don't like and don't understand. Ofc my ego would like me to think that it's because these pieces are crap (our brains hate it when we think we're not right or inadequate and they will lie to us all the time to avoid that-read about the cogintion biases if it's news to you). But I believe the truth is that I am just this 'unsophisticated auntie' (or an unsophisticated child who would love another dumb Transformers movie but will fall asleep watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) in this case, just in another place on the spectrum of the ability of understanding and appreciating art. Definitely not at the top.
Most of us can appreciate the mastery of a sculpture like David, or a beautiful oil painting. Some of us can appreciate abstract works (I personally love Impressionism because my eyesight is terrible, and it's how I'd naturally be seeing the world blurs and color blobs) but when you need to see a crucifix submerged in a jar of pee (piss christ) or pay millions to see the picture you've bought destroyed in front of you... I think you've lost the idea. The pursuit of novelty has overshadowed the idea of quality.
You have become Hedonismbot, and will pick up hookers in back alleys to vomit on you ever so gently while you violate a pheasant.
At its core, art is meant to provoke a response. Any response.
Some of course have quite obvious responses in mind. Consider religious architecture, particularly old British churches and Cathedrals. They definitely still wow, even in the age of the lumpen sky scraper.
A classical portrait is an idealised vision of a given person. Meant to convey something of their personality.
Modern Art, whilst far from My Bag, still provokes a reaction from me. Even if that reaction is entirely negative, ranging from “what a waste of everyone’s time” to “you smug, pointless little illegitimate”.
Example. I took a photo this weekend, which is a bit of a rarity. In its own way, it could be considered a still life or landscape type thing. I just snapped it in on my phone.
It was a photo of the fire pit at my girlfriend’s woods, with the trivet made from horseshoes awaiting the kettle.
I of course put it up on Facebook, and it’s attracted some likes. Those likes are a reaction. And to those who really do know me and my history, they know I’m quite outdoorsy, and love sitting around a campfire or bonfire. All stems from my parent’s involvement in Scouting, which meant I was camping literally since I was born.
Would it necessarily make it into the Tate? No. Did it take any real skill? I don’t think so (but I dare say someone who knows about photo composition might disagree. Dare say because I’ve not a clue about that). But as a little snapshot from the life of someone prone to depression, it stands as an example of genuine happiness.
Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.
Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.
------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.
Voss wrote: Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.
Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.
------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.
And you call my post a cliche? Spesh as I did not attempt to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable?
There’s a song for that....
But, by all means, live long happy life, and die mad about it.
One major problem with art that I've noticed is that its a very poorly educated subject at schools. By and large my experience is art departments more rely on students who show skill and interest of their own and will then fawn over those students, whilst at the same time not really educating students to bring them up to a basic level of artistic understanding - either in the technical/mechanical side (eg knowing how to sketch) or in the creative side (knowing how to communicate within a visual medium).
The result is that we've steadily grown this idea that art is some kind of magical "natural talent" whereby if you don't have it you not only can't learn it but might never even understand art. It is reinforced by those "left/right brain thinking" theories which I mostly see as schools using a reason to push students toward either the "arts" or the "sciences" at school.
Personally I like to think Warhammer shoots all that in the foot since many warhammer players are often "science" (geeky) students and yet a huge part of warhammer is the mechanics of painting and the theory of art in colour theory. Heck get into things like no-metal-metallics and you're already touching on some fairly advanced concepts in light angles, directional colour shifts and such. Heck I'd wager there's more artistic teaching in warhammer painting guides than in many school art classes.
Again swinging back toward the general subject of art, the whole concept from school is very poorly developed. Which leads to a modern view of art being almost anything. "Provokes a reaction" is a fantastic line because its non-exclusive. Anything will get a reaction even utter dross will "get a reaction" .
We can go further too, the whole concept of non-verbal communication and language is very poorly developed as a form of education we are aware of. Art, at its core, is a form of non-verbal communication. As a result its as infinitely diverse as speaking or writing. Where a simple "I love you" might be a throw away line or the most powerful three words you ever hear in your life up to that point.
Another thought is context and connection. Photography has been raised above and this really shows it well. An average snapshot of a loved relative can have meaning to you. A lost relative it might have even more; you might love the blurry, out of focus, slightly faded in one corner photo of your lost loved one. Artistically it might be utter dross, but to you you've got a powerful connection.
This can also create a lot of noise in the subject when you try and shift away from almost purely personal connections and into more public and generic connections and communication through art. This is where you get your landscapes and your David's.
History also comes into play, art can capture elements of the history of the world. A photo in a veyr direct way; but art too can hold meaning that raises its importance. I like to think that, buried below the hubris, there's an element of this with some of Picasso's work. His more "modern art" style work wasn't really "impressive" in terms of skill of putting it to canvas, but in terms of how it was attempting to broaden the horizons of what counted as art in a time when art had very inflexible and formal rules governed by authorities in the subject.
For myself, “Art” is any effort of creation whose purpose is to stimulate a sense / senses.
Related to 40k, my painting efforts are not what I’d call art. Everything surrounding them is an artistic process, but my painting is not about actively stimulating the senses of another, and more about not being embarrassed when playing a game of miniatures with another person. I can appreciate that other people make *art* from their minis, but that’s not my thing. I’m producing tools, or tokens, that allow me to more greatly enjoy my leisure time.
To expand a little further, I have an intense sense of appreciation for well designed tools, and processes. I’m an intensely pragmatic person, so when I can hold a tool that feels “perfect” for its purpose, I imagine that’s what some people feel towards art. Or I have a task to perform and there’s a “best” way that efficiently and *completely* accomplishes a task... it feels amazing. I can have a similar but less intense feeling of appreciation for Art, that’s just a quirk of being me.
I have little care for the directors vision when it comes to movies. I take away what I take away. I have a poor “perception” stat. If there’s something happening in the background that has an impact on the main story, I’m going to miss it. I like my art like I like my food. Obvious taste. I don’t want to go searching for a hint of vanilla amongst the fragrance of pine. I want that vanilla to hit my tongue like a tanker truck full of vanilla extract. Boom! There’s the vanilla.
Voss wrote: Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.
Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.
------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.
And you call my post a cliche? Spesh as I did not attempt to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable?
But, by all means, live long happy life, and die mad about it.
No, I called a trite 'definition of art' a cliche, because it is. Its also rather unfair to a lot of aspiring artists, as it suggests that anything that doesn't inspire comment is somehow 'not art.' No how much time, effort or even skill they put into it. Consider going onto deviant art and going through the thousands of pictures with no comments and telling the artists that the lack of responses means they aren't artists and what they create isn't art.
No idea what any of your next two sentences are supposed to mean.
The same for every human being - to see your metaphysical values ( your sense of life ) in a medium. Art is not didactic, it is not meant to teach anything. Art is neither subjective ( art's essential s not to elicit any emotion ) nor intrinsic ( the reason for the art by the artist is irrelevant ), but objective. Objective in the sense of a conceptual human being, meaning, clear and without any contradictions. The easier the theme of the art can be conveyed to you through the sum of it's parts, the better quality art it is.
This is not to be confused with the philosophical aspect of art, of which, I won't get into here.
Where do you look for it in media?
Inspiration of how great man can and should be. I subscribe to the romanticist school or art, as opposed to the naturalist school.
How do you locate this artistic value?
Through introspection.... and trial and error. Like every human, most of my premises were formed at a very young age, so as an adult, I choose to keep those premises that are conducive for a positive view of man in a benevolent universe while discarding any negative view of man in a malevolent universe I may have had.
It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?
Start looking at it more as a scale than a binary. A pair of spectacles somebody left on the floor as a prank can very well be art! It's saying something derogatory about the nature of the gallery it's in. But if someone tries to tell you even subjectively that it has anywhere near as much artistic value as Michaelangelo's David, then you know you can quite safely ignore the opinion of that person.
BrianDavion wrote: I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.
Super Ready wrote: It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?
And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.
BrianDavion wrote: I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.
Agreed - the primary skill of many modern artists seems to me not the ability to create or inherent skill in anything other than the ability to convince others of the worth, meaning etc of their work.
Seldom can it speak for itself - it has be to titled and explained.
In fact those who enjoy modern art also seem to consider actual artistc ability or skill something to be mocked or sneered at.
There both is and isn't a lot to art. Just because something comes off as pretentious it doens't mean it actually means anything. A lot of paintings or songs and whatever are a bunch of complex techniques to make the end result pretty or sad. Not a lot is required to enjoy that kind of thing, if a drum solo is amazing you don't need to "fully appreciate" it by knowing the five insane techniques the drummer pullled off flawlessly.
When it comes to some films, poetry, books etc that really try to say something you do run into the issue that just because you can read it doesn't mean that you're literate. Now, literacy is simply a skill that you can improve in leaps and bounds by using it a lot and talking to people who are already highly literate. But that takes time and you may or may not be getting anything out of the process. Literacy is unfortunately not always valued highly in education or is left without the necessary resources to develop due to constant budget cuts. If you then don't have enough energy-filled free time or access to highly literate social circles that respect you then you're going to have a rough time of it.
Super Ready wrote: It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?
Art doesn't have to be good to be fun, too, if something is bad in an interesting way you get to enjoy talking about it. But yeah, video games in particular appear largely still stuck on the "is this art" stage which is such a dull question. We've already had centuries of people sturggling and complaining over how you define art and I'd like to think we had come far enough to at least instead ask "is this good art", never mind "how does one best use this medium and what constrains, both inherent and external, does it operate under".
BrianDavion wrote: I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.
No arguments from me.
We rarely agree. But in this case im happy to agree with BD...
"Art" is the probably one of the most loaded and controversial terms around.
My views on it are kinda of like that one judge's views on obscenity: "I can't define it but I know it when i see it!" and Jack Nicholson's Joker in Batman: "I don't know if it's art but I like it!"
A lot of modern art is like high school in some ways. Some people just happen to rise to the top of some self important hierarchy, possibly by acting superior, some by acting like they don't care what others think which drives many to compete to get their approval, some just be being "popular", which is based on undefinable thing called 'charisma".
Someone makes something then tries to get an art 'mandarin" (Someone who has become someone in art circles who's opinion matters in them) to approve of his work. They have art shows where people can show they matter in art circles.
The mandarins pass their judgement while sycophants engage in competitive toadying.
Sure it can matter a lot as there can be big money for the winners of this game, but in the end art is an up in the air term.
Someone who loads a shotgun with paint pellets and fires it at a canvas can be hailed as a daring artist(Yes it happened) while people who paint miniatures for 40k to an incredible degree is sneered at for "watercoloring toys".
I once stated i viewed a 40k picture as a work of art.
I said that the picture was a tribute to human courage, with huge, hulking thrakka representing the dangers and fears inherent in life, and tiny, old Yarrick represented the courage of a human being willing to throw himself straight at them and fight them head on. I got a lot of scrap from people busting on me for having delusions of artistic taste, others thought i was onto something.
So, in general don't let art opinions bother you. Most people have their own opinions on it. Hell, I like an art film, "Zardoz". A lot of people hate it. If you want to try another art film i recommend it. This scene alone is worth renting it for
Art is often useful as a kind of rorschach test. If someone likes images of suffering, pain, misery, etc you might not want to associate with them too closely, for example. That's about the best objective, relevant use of art i know of, if someone likes art i find abhorrent I generally don;t get close to them if can avoid it.
As an exercise in imagination and fantasy, it's amazing. If you've ever sat on a couch with your pals, shmammered out of your skull, and asked "whoa dude, like...what if..."? Then Zardoz is the ultimate exploration of such lines of thought.
Whatever your opinion of Zardoz, if you actually watch it, you will remember it. The good, the bad, and...the weird.
To me, that definitely qualifies it as art in pretty much all meaningful senses. Doesn't mean it's something you have to like, there's a ton of absolutely valid reasons to hate Zardoz, but it's certainly one that definitely would fall into the "art film" category and would make a good watch for someone looking for somethig...different.
Mr. Burning wrote: And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.
That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.
Mr. Burning wrote: And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.
That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.
Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..
Mr. Burning wrote: And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.
That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.
Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..
Is a literal dog turd on its own art? No. Is art if someone takes a picture of it? Sure, someone has taken an object from nature and put it in some sort of perspective or reference frame for consideration. No different than if they did so with a tree, animal, rock, cloud, etc.
That doesn't give it any inherent value or meaning, or make it worth anything, but I think it's fair to call it art.
The long and short of Art is that it is 100% subjective, not objective (despite what critics of any sort might tell you).
Case in point: I'm a big fan of classic rock and metal. Most modern music does nothing for me. But there are lots of people who are exactly the opposite. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, I've blasted "The Last Jedi" as a terrible Star Wars movie, and I stand by that statement as it applies to the Star Wars franchise. But if you enjoyed it despite it straying very far off existing Star Wars continuity, that's your prerogative. If it hadn't been tied to the Star Wars franchise I would have considered it a mediocre to adequate sci-fi film myself.
In the end, art either speaks to you or it doesn't. So long as it speaks to someone, even if just to the creator, it's still art. If it doesn't speak to you, then don't patronized that artist.
Argive wrote: Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..
You appear to have missed my point... why are you asking us if it's art?
Ask whether the art is actually any good or not. (...spoiler alert - probably not...)
I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..
If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe.
Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.
A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great.
When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing.
Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?
Mr. Burning wrote: And that's pretty subjective isnt it? I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good. Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait. Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.
That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.
Is a literal dog turd that's lying the bushes at my local park, art? Like if someone takes a photo of it..
Is a literal dog turd on its own art? No. Is art if someone takes a picture of it? Sure, someone has taken an object from nature and put it in some sort of perspective or reference frame for consideration. No different than if they did so with a tree, animal, rock, cloud, etc.
That doesn't give it any inherent value or meaning, or make it worth anything, but I think it's fair to call it art.
You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art... Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.
You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art...
Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.
The fact that it's sparking such a discussion and makes such a good talking point, that it makes you sit there and ask "why would someone take a picture of this?" makes it seem pretty objectively capable as an art piece.
I mean, is clipart of a turd not art? Art doesn't have a particularly high bar to attainment, nor does it mean something is of value, it just has to attempt to express or communicate something. That doesn't make it "fine" art, that doesn't make it anything you have to take seriously, but by any definition, a picture of a turd would be art.
You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art...
Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.
The fact that it's sparking such a discussion and makes such a good talking point, that it makes you sit there and ask "why would someone take a picture of this?" makes it seem pretty objectively capable as an art piece.
I mean, is clipart of a turd not art? Art doesn't have a particularly high bar to attainment, nor does it mean something is of value, it just has to attempt to express or communicate something. That doesn't make it "fine" art, that doesn't make it anything you have to take seriously, but by any definition, a picture of a turd would be art.
When you asked about artistic value, i took t to mean the 'value' of art.
I said that it's true art can make some people rich, or at least well off if they can produce art the masses are willing to pay for so yes for those people art has a measurable value.
I also said I can find art a valuable way to evaluating some people's personalities.
Thru history art has served some value, be it practical, or social/political. (Yes, I said the P word. That doesn't make this a [political post.)
Ancient cave paintings seem to have often served a pragmatic value, they were by most modern theory often used to teach hunting to the young. We see pictures of animals, with crude human figures often carrying spears. These were likely used to show the tribe how to position themselves around what would hopefully be the tribe's dinner.
So the cave art had a pragmatic,. survival value. This may have been the origin of art and it served a practical value.
Art has been a valuable tool for those in power, much art in olden times was religious, (I'm mentioning religion without getting religious) meant to show the power and perfection of 'good' and the ugliness of 'evil', the pain of those in hell, etc. So it was valuable to those in power.
Political entities have used art, in the form or propaganda, to demonize the opposition and inspire the loyal, again serving a tangible, worldly goal.
So if you're asking about the value of art i maintain it has in many cases a measurable value, at least to some. If you wish to discuss art as being of value in and of itself, that's a bit different.
People tend to think they evaluate art better than their children, who value another dumb Star Wars or Transformers movie over, say, Crime and Punishment. Children are just unsophisticated.
They also think they evaluate art better than (in their minds pseudo-) experts who find value in modern, often very out-of-the-box art with no obvious message. These experts are just conformists in a way their community requires.
When you add this up it turns out these people are the best at evaluating art in general, despite having no experience or education in the field! My opinion is the best compared with everyone! What a fortunate coincidence!
Even the turd example can be converted into art in the right context. Left on the ground, no it isn't especially artistic- but what if one were to give the turd a little hat and a face?
Spoiler:
Suddenly it becomes a critique of existing religious beliefs, and a commentary on the Midwinter festival season.
I don't think you can rule something as art or not simply from the choice of subject.
Vulcan wrote: The long and short of Art is that it is 100% subjective, not objective (despite what critics of any sort might tell you).
I believe there is objectivity within art, its just a broad spectrum. If there was no objectivity then it would be totally random with no general concept of great works or amazing creations beyond attached price tags. It would be impossible to learn or to teach and there'd be no foundations upon which to construct creations.
Think of it a bit like food and cooking. If you only ever eat really low grade, fatty, overcooked sausages you might like them. But your pallet of experiences is so limited that you've not tasted other options; you have a fondness for something, but its based more upon ignorance of what else is out there. Instead if you go out and properly sample (which means more than one experience and one bite) other kinds of sausage your pallet would expand and, whilst you might still have a nostalgic fondness for the old sausage, you would more than likely develop new tastes and desires. Heck chances are you might well come to realise how bad the original sausages you were eating really were and you'd abandon them as your favoured food.
Art is much like that, if you are only exposed to the dog turds then you might like them, but its more through a lack of experiencing and exposing yourself to other works. Again its about broadening your experiences and interactions.
Argive wrote: I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..
If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe.
Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.
And who decides whether it's art or not? You? ...on what authority?
A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great.
When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing.
Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?
All that this tells me is that people are easily led, which isn't exactly news. Just means I know not to pay too much attention to the opinions of those that were misled... along with the opinions of those claiming that turd art is good art.
For me art has to be something that transforms something ordinary into something else, and when you see it, you think the second thing, not the first. So for example, a canvas with paint on it.. If you look at a Leonardo or a Rubens, you see the image or the scene they are portraying. The art is in the illusion. This is why I don't see stuff like Jackson Pollocks paint splatters as art, because when you look at them you just see a mess of paint splatters. This means there has to be technique applied.. whether it's oil painting, carving a statue from marble, or even something like a portrait tattoo. The illusion and how well it's rendered is the key, none of this 'but what feelings does it induce?' for me
One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.
In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it. Most people simply have no idea about this timelines, and therefore do not realize that what is being done is a reaction to anything. Again, the rules are being broken but most of us do not know the rules to start with.
That is why me scribbling with a crayon on a canvas is not "good" since my knowledge of art, the mechanics of art, and understanding of what "came before" do not exist. I did not break any rules as I did not know any rules were being broken in the first place. Boring and without skill.
It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.
Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.
For Example, when a child plays with plastic army men and randomly knocks them over and declares this one lived and this one dies is the layman's approach to wargames. The guy who plays Warhammer 40K at a Tournament has higher skill, while the guy who has successfully returned to playing structured wargame with Green Army Men is the modern artist.
Easy E wrote: One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.
In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it. Most people simply have no idea about this timelines, and therefore do not realize that what is being done is a reaction to anything. Again, the rules are being broken but most of us do not know the rules to start with.
That is why me scribbling with a crayon on a canvas is not "good" since my knowledge of art, the mechanics of art, and understanding of what "came before" do not exist. I did not break any rules as I did not know any rules were being broken in the first place. Boring and without skill.
It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.
Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.
For Example, when a child plays with plastic army men and randomly knocks them over and declares this one lived and this one dies is the layman's approach to wargames. The guy who plays Warhammer 40K at a Tournament has higher skill, while the guy who has successfully returned to playing structured wargame with Green Army Men is the modern artist.
See, that just sounds like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual nonsense designed to persuade me that a glass full of water is totally art, I'm just too ignorant to realise it. Contrast that with classical art and I think you'll find it works as art just fine without a bunch of caveats about authorial intent and how well-versed the author was in the nebulous rules of their medium.
Art is not deep for the sake of being deep. Art is deep. I think there is an it factor no one can really put their finger on it but they know it when they see it.
Argive wrote: I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..
"Can beautiful art depict an ugly thing" is something that was settled like a hundred and sixty years ago when Flowers of Evil was published. At the vey least. A photograph of someone's dook isn't necessarily any interesting but the question of wether something is or isn't art is even less so.
Argive wrote: I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd.. If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe. Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.
And who decides whether it's art or not? You? ...on what authority?
A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great. When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing. Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?
All that this tells me is that people are easily led, which isn't exactly news. Just means I know not to pay too much attention to the opinions of those that were misled... along with the opinions of those claiming that turd art is good art.
Well I decide whats art.. who else is going to decide for me?
You can decide whats art for you unless you prefer somebody else to do it for you..
Therefore one can conclude a decision is always made if something is art or not at some stage when observing reality. And if no decision is ever made than that would mean everything is art.. And is everything art ? Again I think not.
Taking a photo of something does it automatically count as art? Is google images art?
I think people forget that there are actual rules and guidelines for good art.
It involves concepts like:
- Color Theory
- Composition
- Use of White Space
- Color choice
- Perspective
There are a lot more "rules", but I am not an artist so do not have an exhaustive list. Writing, poetry, cinema, theatre, and music have similar rules and structures.
That is before you even get into the application of technique.
Therefore, Art is not "whatever I want it to be". It is actually a structured discipline with defined guidelines and techniques that can be evaluated objectively. I.e. was this technique performed correctly, was the guidelines applied competently, or were the guidelines purposefully broken for effect.
I am sorry that so many of our Art teachers failed so many of us in teaching us the basics of "art". Therefore, most of us (me included) do not even know enough of the basic structures and ideas to even evaluate anything objectively. Instead, all we have is "I like it, or I do not like it" which is completely subjective. That has nothing to do with what makes a "good piece of Art" objectively.
Therefore, Art is not "whatever I want it to be". It is actually a structured discipline with defined guidelines and techniques that can be evaluated objectively. I.e. was this technique performed correctly, was the guidelines applied competently, or were the guidelines purposefully broken for effect.
I am sorry that so many of our Art teachers failed so many of us in teaching us the basics of "art". Therefore, most of us (me included) do not even know enough of the basic structures and ideas to even evaluate anything objectively. Instead, all we have is "I like it, or I do not like it" which is completely subjective. That has nothing to do with what makes a "good piece of Art" objectively.
Indeed. Plus sadly even when people do start to learn a bit of it on their own, they often learn only one or two "rules". So they quickly get dismissive of the concept of structure in art because all they can see is a tiny number of theories and they consider that if all art must "follow the rules/theories" then learning them is limiting to creativity and so many great masters "Broke" those rules. When in actuality its simply the fact that they are becoming a bit more aware of structural elements in art, but at the same time have a very limited theory/rules scope to apply that awareness too.
Easy E wrote: One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.
Rubbish. To take an example from the world of music, many self-taught musicians break the rules all the time without realising it. You don't need to know what they are to break them and whether you're following or breaking the rules the end result (the work of art, if you like) stands on its own merits.
In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it.
And here's the pseudo-intellectual nonsense I was talking about. "Art has a linear history"? As opposed to what? A fractal history? All history is linear...that's how time works. Even the idea that history is cyclical isn't literally true. All you've done (not necessarily "you", but whoever is coming up with these justifications in the first place) is try to come up with something that sounds impressive and complicated while saying either nothing at all or making the most banal and obvious of statements. Most likely that's an attempt to justify something as meaningful, in opposition to the obvious evidence to the contrary.
It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.
Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.
But why does this only apply to Modern "Art", while classical art is absolutely fine standing on its own merits without needing any outside justification from anyone that it really is art? I can look at an oil painting or a sculpture in marble and admire both the skill of the artist and the message they're conveying. There may be some historical subtleties that are lost to me now, or there may be some technical aspects to the creation of the artwork that I don't fully appreciate, but those do not detract from my enjoyment of the work of art in that moment. Perhaps they enhance my enjoyment if I later discover them but that's not relevant to my initial reaction.
It can happen that a self-trained artist does good, but it is the exception and not the rule. 100's more fail than succeed with no formal training. However, even without formal training what are they "self-teaching" themselves? The rules of the medium, only they are learning it from trial and error.
Second, time and history are not linear except in Western culture. However, art always builds on what came before. You could argue that the Renaissance was a "return" to classical styles and an abandonment from medieval styles that came before. It is still building on what came from the Classical timeframe. However, my thought process is Western focused so may not hold true in Eastern or other artistic traditions.
Why your view of art stagnated at "Classical" art that peaked before the modern era, I can not say. However, that is your "subjective" determination. Again, you are back to "I do or I do not like this" as your criteria. There is no other criteria in your assessment that I am reading. Am I misreading it?
Art is a lot of things, and yes, a turd can be art, as any political poster can prove.
That being said, photo camera freed up art from a lot of constraints. What use is a hyper-realistic painting when a man with a camera will produce a better portrait in a second? Your skills are no longer needed to document reality, you can develop them to alter it in new ways. And to my knowledge most "modern" artists still have all the technical know-how of how to produce basic realistic art, because if you break the rules, it helps to know what rules you break.
Cronch wrote: Art is a lot of things, and yes, a turd can be art, as any political poster can prove.
That being said, photo camera freed up art from a lot of constraints. What use is a hyper-realistic painting when a man with a camera will produce a better portrait in a second? Your skills are no longer needed to document reality, you can develop them to alter it in new ways. And to my knowledge most "modern" artists still have all the technical know-how of how to produce basic realistic art, because if you break the rules, it helps to know what rules you break.
The Great Masters and other artists did not paint, draw or otherwise create hyper realistic art - they created a version of the person, landscape, whatever....
Thats a tired old excuse often trotted out for the decline in palapable artist skill or talent in "modern artists" - having met some and watched programmes with them snowing their lack of traditional skills.
Photography and digital manipulation of it is an art form in itself as well as digital art itself.
Its also in the in interest of Critics for artists to produce works that only they can interpret for people - it gives them a job - its a parasitical existance but often a lucerative one.
Many modern artists do become highly skilled with the cirtics in justifying their works - something that more tranitional artists do not have to do as their work speaks (or fails) for itself. Another reason the art critics sneer at it - you don't need their condersending BS to explain it you and hence make their money.
Its also in the in interest of Critics for artists to produce works that only they can interpret for people - it gives them a job - its a parasitical existance but often a lucerative one.
There is nothing stopping you from giving modern art your own interpretation.
Anyway, the Great Masters definitely did create art as accurately as they could, their paycheck depended on it appealing to (usually not particularly subtle) patrons.
Ancient cave paintings seem to have often served a pragmatic value, they were by most modern theory often used to teach hunting to the young. We see pictures of animals, with crude human figures often carrying spears. These were likely used to show the tribe how to position themselves around what would hopefully be the tribe's dinner.
So the cave art had a pragmatic,. survival value. This may have been the origin of art and it served a practical value.
Art has been a valuable tool for those in power, much art in olden times was religious, (I'm mentioning religion without getting religious) meant to show the power and perfection of 'good' and the ugliness of 'evil', the pain of those in hell, etc. So it was valuable to those in power.
Political entities have used art, in the form or propaganda, to demonize the opposition and inspire the loyal, again serving a tangible, worldly goal.
So if you're asking about the value of art i maintain it has in many cases a measurable value, at least to some. If you wish to discuss art as being of value in and of itself, that's a bit different.
In my own undergrad degree, I was required to have art credit, and got stuck with a course that focused on what you discuss here. The course I took was called something like, "communication as art" or "art in communication" or some such nonsense. What I thought I would get was a nice big textbook talking about theories of communication and a load of history stuff (which was my major and my forte). . . Instead, we read maybe 3 articles, and fethed around with Photoshop and other image processing programs. . . So, there I was, a firm windows guy, learning Windows Photoshop (cuz I'll be fethed if I could figure out how to work those stupid arse Macs. . . and yeah, I realize how old that makes me sound. . . On top of everything else I was doing, I simply couldn't handle learning a new OS)
In the past, the picture, or an "artistic representation" was a chief means of communicating an idea to the masses nonverbally. . . . Kids would nod off in church, not understand the padre's latin mass one bit, but they sure as feth understood the reliefs on the pillars and the stained glass windows. People at the time may never have personally seen Caesar, but his statues around Rome let everyone know he was in charge and he was the right guy for the job.
Now, in that class I definitely learned that some times what the artist is trying to communicate isn't received. Or isn't received to mean what they were intending to do. I mean, we have seeming mountains of "studies" showing the "universality" of psychological response to various colors (ie, its "scientific" that a restaurant with a red and yellow sign psychologically elicit a hunger response, which, is unrelated to this thread, but I think that its a bit chicken-egg argument there). . . I mean, a few famous (or infamous) pieces of art have been mentioned in this thread already: these pieces, whether some folks say they are art or not, are a piece of communication by the artist.
Banksy's art has a communicative element to it that's the same communication that a Norman Rockwell painting does. . . Each is saying something, whether we appropriately receive what that work is saying.
Vulcan wrote: In the end, art is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.
That's an exceptionally capitalist way to define the "worth" of something. Something's worth can be measured in its effects, not just money.
Take the works of HP Lovecraft, for example. Much if not all of his work has now passed into public domain, meaning you literally can't "own" it - so its market value is no more than the book or e-copy that contains it. But its worth can be found in the influence in much literary horror that's come since.
Vulcan wrote: In the end, art is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.
That's an exceptionally capitalist way to define the "worth" of something. Something's worth can be measured in its effects, not just money.
Take the works of HP Lovecraft, for example. Much if not all of his work has now passed into public domain, meaning you literally can't "own" it - so its market value is no more than the book or e-copy that contains it. But its worth can be found in the influence in much literary horror that's come since.
Lovecraft wote his stories for money - does that diminsh them - I don't think so or that it was the only reason he created them.
There is also the opposite where those who are merely craftspeople are sneered at by Critcs and their ilk although their creations made themselves have great artistic merrit and require special skills.....
Lovecraft didn't exactly exert a great deal of effort in his attempts to get published nor did he write things necessarily aimed at mass appeal. Those stories he wrote that were clearly for money or were serialized he himself criticized. I think it's fairly clear that his goal with writing was to achieve mastery in the horror genre and in doing so he frequently pushed past preexisting boundaries.
On the other hand King puts ghostwriting mills to shame with his body of work which includes many, many, many mediocre novels that only achieved success because his name was stamped on the cover. I honestly think a lot of his novels should have been short stories. He is talented, but he also has a talent for milking a modicum of an idea dry. For example, Cujo is 120,000 words, twice the length of Carrie. It's nearly as long as The Twin Towers (150,000). How does a bloody story about a rabid dog turn into that?
Despite his verbosity and purple prose Lovecraft kept his ideas relegated to the proper format.
I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.
Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.
The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did
it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.
Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.
Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.
Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.
it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.
#Yanggang
Despite my flippant joke about UBI, this is an incredibly important point. However, when artists were clothed, housed, and fed by patrons, the art they created was expected to meet the needs and wants of the patron.
the_scotsman wrote: I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.
Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.
The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did
it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.
Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.
Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.
Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.
Ohh I know about Roman Sculpture - its always amusing to see the pristine white marble - but most sculpture was wanted to look vivid and alive - nut again creating a sculpture is not like abstract art - the latter may (apparently) require imagination (or the ability to BS) but it often does not require a craft or skill. Lobbing paint onto a canvas, an unmade bed or other obvious stunts that are worshipped and encouraged by critics.
Actual skills in any area other than communicating the intent or meaning behind the work (it often can't speak for itself when its empty and completed in seconds ready for the next pay check) is now looked down upon by the art world - anything that might require effort or skill is considered inferior and who propogate the abstract as the only true art form in galleries, ehibitions and of course at schools and colleges.
I am not sure how many abstract artists are children of the rich - some will be but not all I don't think.
TV, Film and other forms of entertainment can also be art - again its often a select few who sneer at such work - the more people like it - the more it must be disdained in favour of what they consider "true art".
Hell painting miniatures or creating art for fantasy sci-fi worlds can a art - but again few in the art world would consider it so.
Actual skills in any area other than communicating the intent or meaning behind the work (it often can't speak for itself when its empty and completed in seconds ready for the next pay check) is now looked down upon by the art world - anything that might require effort or skill is considered inferior and who propogate the abstract as the only true art form in galleries, ehibitions and of course at schools and colleges.
This is patently false. Unless you are talking about mass produced art like Thomas Kincaide or something?
TV, Film and other forms of entertainment can also be art - again its often a select few who sneer at such work - the more people like it - the more it must be disdained in favour of what they consider "true art".
Hell painting miniatures or creating art for fantasy sci-fi worlds can a art - but again few in the art world would consider it so.
Yes, you are right! 100% film, TV, and other formats can be art. I didn't realize there was an argument about that?
And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did
This is extremely funny. Thanks for sharing.
Fundamentally, art is simply a form of expression. And like any form of expression whether it's an oil painting, a 140-character tweet, or a signed toilet by some wealthy French intellectual, it becomes open to interpretation as soon as it's released into the wild.
When you release a piece of art, usually there will be some people out there who will 'get it'. Many will be apathetic towards it. A few people might even be offended by it. You probably had some idea about what you intended to communicate with your artwork, and what makes it worth creating, and worth sharing. But there is no guarantee that your communication will be successful, just like there is no guarantee that when you tell a joke to a stranger, the stranger is going to laugh.
Much of the popular distaste for modern art stems from the fact that a lot of the more indulgent forms of abstract expression were never intended function as the attractive, beautifully-crafted objects most people expect when they think of art. To use Duchamp as an example again:
...he had rejected the work of many of his fellow artists (such as Henri Matisse) as "retinal" art, intended only to please the eye. Instead, Duchamp wanted to use art to serve the mind.
If your definition of good art is something that displays meticulous craftsmanship and conventionally appealing aesthetics, Duchamp's work is going to seem pretty silly. Not only that, but if all you see is hyper rich people paying millions of dollars for pieces like his signed urinal, while also giving off the impression that you don't have enough taste or culture to understand its value, you're going to feel pretty annoyed. It's like being in front of an in-crowd telling a bunch of in-jokes to each other. There is a distinct air of smug superiority which makes outsiders feel left out.
So we arrive at a few important philosophical questions. Should art be for everyone? Is good art only art that is understood by all? Should the value of an artistic work be judged soley by its popularity? Its gross revenue? The amount museums are willing to pay for it? There are no definitive answers here.
Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.
Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.
So anything understated or simple isn't art?
That's an... interesting... limitation.
No, understatement and simplicity can absolutely be themes in and of themselves. Understatement and simplicity are often some of the hardest themes to execute well and when done right they can be sublime.
artific3r wrote: No, understatement and simplicity can absolutely be themes in and of themselves. Understatement and simplicity are often some of the hardest themes to execute well and when done right they can be sublime.
And if the themes _aren't_ understatement or simplicity, but they're just done in an understated or simple way (ie, not 'powerful' or 'novel?')
Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.
So anything understated or simple isn't art? That's an... interesting... limitation.
Understated and simple are not antonyms of powerful and novel. It is completely possible for something to be both understated yet powerful, or novel yet simple.
Case in point from the world of science: the idea that the acceleration of a dropped object is independent of its mass was novel, powerful and simple.
One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, no matter how garish, tacky or unskilled it is, and the latter is not.
Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'
One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one). The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.
Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'
The words were that if something is both powerful and novel while reinforcing the theme of the piece then it would be a strong piece of art in the personal view of artific3r using the metric of theme, not that they are requirements to be art at all.
One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.
From the statement that 'powerful and novel' is art. and that is the _ONLY_ metric.
One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one). The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.
From the statement that 'powerful and novel' is art. and that is the _ONLY_ metric.
That is not what was said. This is what artific3r said:
Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.
The metric used is theme, not being powerful and novel. Something which fulfils the theme and is both powerful and novel (new) is strong art. And all of that is, in the very first two words of the quote, admitted to be their own personal metric, not a universal one. They do not claim that it is the only metric which exists, just that it is the only metric they personally use.
And again, powerful and novel are not antonyms for understated and simple.
One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, no matter how garish, tacky or unskilled it is, and the latter is not.
Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'
That's a great example. The kind of garish, tacky Halloween decorations you see at the grocery store are usually pretty cliche. That kind of stuff is not novel even though it has a strong theme. It is certainly still art, but I wouldn't call it very strong art.
Whereas your second example sounds more like strong art. Little touches of autumn and subtly obscured figures are not something you usually think of when you think about Halloween decorations. That element of novelty is what gives it more of an artistic quality. It makes a statement by being understated, by NOT being the typical garish stuff you're used to seeing. That's novelty. That adds to the "conversation" of Halloween decorations. It doesn't just repeat what's already been said. That understatement is exactly what makes your second example seem stronger artistically. It has more expressive power precisely because it's not just repeating tired cliches like the tacky, garish stuff you're used to seeing.
Incidentally, this is a lot of what the modern art movements explored in the 20th century. People were tired of the hyper-realistic rendering and beautifully painted landscapes of the past few centuries. Artists had 'solved' that style of art, so producing more of it wasn't really adding to the conversation. Abstract expressionism, and everything that followed was the direct response to that style. That's a conversation. That's progress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: One point to make re: old and ancient art, literature etc etc
"gak post" is only a modern word, not a modern phenomenon.
I'm inclined to the literal interpretation myself- I'm not so certain that 13th and 14th century scribes were engaging in the broad social commentary that these critics are envisioning. But I know monasteries relied on gardens, and that those scribes pulled garden duty only to find their afternoon would be spent plucking snails. So drawing pictures of those snails getting what was coming to them is hilarious!
Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.
trexmeyer wrote: Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.
Definitely agree with this with a bit of a reword: "Art is for everyone, but that doesn't mean every piece of art has to satisfy everyone."
People's reaction to art is an incredibly personal one. Sometimes a piece of art moves you and you really cannot explain why, that doesn't make the emotional response you had to it any less genuine or powerful.
As a lighthearted example I point to this scene from Parks and Recreation:
trexmeyer wrote: Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.
I disagree with you saying that art should not be for everyone. . . I would say art is for everyone, but everyone has a different, personal reaction meaning. . . well, "different strokes for different folks"
the_scotsman wrote:I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.
Spoiler:
Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.
The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did
it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.
Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.
Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.
Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.
Goddamn I wish I could exalt this comment more than once.
You don't have to LIKE the art, but it *is* art - and maybe our artistic understanding would all be better if "high" art wasn't mystified and kept in the hands of an elite few, and our artistic understanding was further included in education beyond "old = good".
Case point: Rap. A large segment of the population dismisses rap in its entirety due to the use of vulgarities and subject matter in many, but not all, songs. Would you argue that rap is for everyone?
I have trouble understaing OP's question. What is a "value"?
As for art, I've always thought art is anything that elevates above the mundane, ie. highly subjective by its very nature.
I'm not the least bit surprised manchilds who are into transformers and "paint-by-numbers" 3D colouring books have no regard for "modern art". Modern art affectionados dont get what you are into either. (this paragraph was intentionally "edgy" and confrontational, as a counterargument for the 100k $ turd haters).
Which is why I don't think art can ever be something which is not subjective.. if it doesn't make you feel awesome inside, it's not "art" to you.
I think most artists want you to feel something when you are exposed to their creations. Any inherent "value" beyond that goes into specifics of the piece and it's creator.
My father is an artist. He taught me everything there is to know about being one. Its a state of consciousness above all else (and can be very dangerous if fed back too strongly into itself). In this state of consciousness, you transcribe things you experience into a form of sorts. Its communication but one which has no formal and globally understood language.
Another interesting analogue to art could be 40K's depiction of "warp". Psykers are the artists, and some people are psychic nulls, others more or less sensitive to it etc. You can manifest its power's, but it can also use you and devour you into it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Of course, you realise I am now legally required to bring Professor Elemental into the thread
I had a feeling SOMEONE would. This does reflect another side of art that I usually enjoy... mixing and melding of styles in order to create new ones. Standing on the shoulders of giants, if you will.
It's how we got rock n' roll, you know!
Will Smith is by and large considered to be an exceedingly mediocre rapper that was never embraced by the progenitors of rap due to him creating what amounted to pop music. He was tolerated more than most in the mainstream because he was more family-friendly than other artists. In this case, family-friendly is coded language for inoffensive to white America.
I'm curious as to why you guys are defaulting to those rappers specifically designed to be inoffensive to whites.
Edit: I'm going to assume it's because you're not American.
Will Smith is by and large considered to be an exceedingly mediocre rapper that was never embraced by the progenitors of rap due to him creating what amounted to pop music. He was tolerated more than most in the mainstream because he was more family-friendly than other artists. In this case, family-friendly is coded language for inoffensive to white America.
I'm curious as to why you guys are defaulting to those rappers specifically designed to be inoffensive to whites.
Edit: I'm going to assume it's because you're not American.
So your argument is that rap is not for everyone if we dismiss the subgenres of rap which are enjoyed by demographics which generally do not enjoy other subgenres which you personally feel more embody the soul of what rap is?
Why should we dismiss those artists who choose to use the medium of rap to instead make pop-infused music? Also, who do you mean by the progenitors of rap?
I didn't say that the artists you link have no artistic value. I questioned why you referenced white artists initially. Specifically Super Ready who said: "Rap doesn't have to be that way" and linked some white British rapper. The implication being that rap doesn't have to be black.
All I said initially concerning rap was that people dismiss it do the use of vulgarities and subject matter. You could have referenced numerous black American rappers that don't create music like that.
Instead Super Ready linked a white British rapper. I said that was subtlety racist. Is this clear now?
For what it's worth - it might well indeed be because I'm not American - because my only example of a different style black rapper I can think of would be Skee-Lo's "I Wish". And you're lucky I remember even him, because he was a one-hit wonder over here.
Maybe it could be said there's a racial factor to rap not being as big over here - maybe - but that's hardly something I can personally be blamed for.
Anyway, let's not get the thread locked on this point, the real reason I posted Mr B is because he's the most amusing rapper I can think of.
It’s been very interesting hearing everyone’s input on this subject, and seeing some of the discussions that have come out of it. Thanks for replying folks!
tauist wrote: I think most artists want you to feel something when you are exposed to their creations. Any inherent "value" beyond that goes into specifics of the piece and it's creator.
My father is an artist. He taught me everything there is to know about being one. Its a state of consciousness above all else (and can be very dangerous if fed back too strongly into itself). In this state of consciousness, you transcribe things you experience into a form of sorts. Its communication but one which has no formal and globally understood language.
Another interesting analogue to art could be 40K's depiction of "warp". Psykers are the artists, and some people are psychic nulls, others more or less sensitive to it etc. You can manifest its power's, but it can also use you and devour you into it.
I’m curious what you mean by a “state of consciousness”. Is this similar to the feeling of “flow” one gets while working, almost like you’re being hypnotized by what you are observing? Is it perhaps instead a feeling of trying to sleuth out what the artist attempted to transcribe? How does this state of consciousness impact your life?
Furthermore, how would you differentiate this feeling from simply reacting to it emotionally? (Ex. Feeling optimistic and confident after listening to a song you like)
ITT- Rap gatekeeping in a thread about perceptions of artistic value.
I am actually glad the concept of "Art" has moved away from simple paintings and sculpture. I am glad it has evolved into music and potentially cinema, theatre, and TV as well.
Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.
