child prodigy painter

[mistermack]

Your end refutes your beginning-- unless, of course, you think the impressionists, Picasso, Dali, Rothko, etc., etc. are in fact absolute twaddle. And if so, well, I don't know how much more we have to talk about.

Of course I meant them. They started the rot. I can't blame them though. Where else could they go when the camera was suddenly proving that a machine can do a better job than a man?
If you wanted to be an artist, what were you supposed to do, compete with the camera, or pretend that there were wonderful intangible things that a camera couldn't do?
Isn't it strange that nobody bothered with stuff like cubism till the camera came along? They would have been mocked mercilessly.
.

[hadespussercats]

Your end refutes your beginning-- unless, of course, you think the impressionists, Picasso, Dali, Rothko, etc., etc. are in fact absolute twaddle. And if so, well, I don't know how much more we have to talk about.

Of course I meant them. They started the rot. I can't blame them though. Where else could they go when the camera was suddenly proving that a machine can do a better job than a man?
If you wanted to be an artist, what were you supposed to do, compete with the camera, or pretend that there were wonderful intangible things that a camera couldn't do?
Isn't it strange that nobody bothered with stuff like cubism till the camera came along? They would have been mocked mercilessly.
.

There are wonderful intangible things a camera can't do. And as for cubism, well, you should take a look at African ritual masks if you think no one was doing cubist work before the camera showed up. Also, the cubists were mocked mercilessly, and continue to be, by people who think art should only be representational.

I also think it's strange that you think photography is exempt from the world of spin and bullshit. Any eight-year-old can point a camera and click, right?

[mistermack]

There are wonderful intangible things a camera can't do.

No, there are intangible things that a camera can't do. That's the difference between you and me, really.
I don't want to be TAUGHT that something is wonderful. I want IT to tell me. If I hear a brilliant piece of music, I know it's good. I don't need any training, even if it's not my cup of tea, I know good work. ( don't get me started on classical music, there's almost as much BS written about some very dreary stuff ).

By all means, people who are into cubism or whatever get something out of it, read it up, etc.etc. And like stamp collectors, they pay enormous sums for it.
But unlike stamp collectors, they seem to have conned the general public into agreeing that there is something intrinsically "wonderful" about a mass of squiggles on a piece of canvas. People are incredibly respectful, when they should be taking the piss. And the only reason is not wanting to look ignorant.

As far as the general public go, it's not the art that impresses them, it's the fame of the artist, and the money it would sell for. Put a perfect copy of bed and chairs on a wall, hardly anyone would take any notice. Tell them it's a genuine Van Gough, worth millions, and they start ooohing and aaaaahing and talking about brushstrokes! They don't have the slightest clue, but they are mightily impressed.

As far as African masks go, I doubt if they were thought of as art in the same way. The ceremony or war ritual was the art. The mask was a prop. and of course it has to look scary, if it's a war mask, or meant to be a god.
It wasn't art for art's sake.

Also, the cubists were mocked mercilessly, and continue to be, by people who think art should only be representational.

I don't think that. I don't mock it because it should be this or that. I just mock the people who think it's wonderful, when they haven't got a fucking clue why. It's the sheer gullibility of the public that I would mock. Who can be critical of artists, if you like that stuff, go for it. We do all sorts of weird things. But if the artists con themselves, and try to con me, that there is something wonderful about this stuff, I will mock it.

I also think it's strange that you think photography is exempt from the world of spin and bullshit. Any eight-year-old can point a camera and click, right?

I don't think that. It's even crazier, the things they say about photos. You would have to be very careful about praising a photo, if you are a critic. You would need to KNOW exactly who took the picture, and what with, and what he wanted, before you committed yourself. Otherwise it could turn out to be by a chimp.
And this thread proves the same about painting.
.

[Trolldor]

Christ, it proves nothing about anything.

Secondly, you are taught what is and is not good music. It's called childhood.

[mistermack]

Christ, it proves nothing about anything.
Secondly, you are taught what is and is not good music. It's called childhoo

The very first time I saw the stones on tv, IN my childhood, playing "it's all over now", I knew that was special. Same with John Lee Hooker playing dimples. I didn't need anybody to tell me. I saw T rex at University when they were practically unknown. Even though it wasn't my stuff, you knew it had something, and so did the rest of the audience. You could have shown them a shark in formaldehyde, they would have just said "so what". They would have needed some pretty heavy bullshit to call it art.
.

[Trolldor]

lol.

So what about the millions who don't like the stones?

[hadespussercats]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

[Gallstones]

OK, I'll sell you a print of it then. Since it won't be an original or unique, it will come at quite a bargain.

LOL
I'm not surprised you don't want my shit. You're already full of it.
.

Artist's Shit

[Warren Dew]

Secondly, you are taught what is and is not good music. It's called childhood.

Well tempered music, perhaps. Just intonation is based on physics and the physical mechanisms of the cochlea and doesn't need to be learned.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

The first time I saw a genuine Rothko, I thought - It's a big maroon rectangle, meh. That is all that I have ever thought when seeing a Rothko. However, the first time I saw a Picasso up close, I got him immediately (despite being very dismissive of him beforehand, based solely on seeing prints), the same with Chagall, Kandinsky, Miró, even Pollock - Rothko though, moves me not at all. But I won't slag you off for liking him - art is nothing if not subjective - art is an attempt for an artist to share his or her feelings through whatever medium they choose - something of what Rothko said appealed to you - it just passed me by and continues to do so. Nobody is right or wrong, simply moved or unmoved by a particular piece - that is their right - in fact, more than that, it is something that they cannot control. And if a piece of art can move anybody at all, it has value as art - even if it is just a cow cut in half.

[mistermack]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

You are conditioned to like that stuff. Nobody could possibly even call it art without the years of conditioning.
What do you think would happen, if you took this :

back 350 years by time machine, and showed it to the ART EXPERTS of the time?
If you answer honestly, you would have to admit that they would laugh their heads off.
Real lovers of art who hadn't had the drip drip conditioning that you have had.
.

[mistermack]

OK, I'll sell you a print of it then. Since it won't be an original or unique, it will come at quite a bargain.

LOL
I'm not surprised you don't want my shit. You're already full of it.
.

Artist's Shit

I've heard of it, but I never thought I'd be lucky enough to see it.
It's a wonder Heinz havn't bought the rights to the design, for some of the shit they sell.
.

[hadespussercats]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

The first time I saw a genuine Rothko, I thought - It's a big maroon rectangle, meh. That is all that I have ever thought when seeing a Rothko. However, the first time I saw a Picasso up close, I got him immediately (despite being very dismissive of him beforehand, based solely on seeing prints), the same with Chagall, Kandinsky, Miró, even Pollock - Rothko though, moves me not at all. But I won't slag you off for liking him - art is nothing if not subjective - art is an attempt for an artist to share his or her feelings through whatever medium they choose - something of what Rothko said appealed to you - it just passed me by and continues to do so. Nobody is right or wrong, simply moved or unmoved by a particular piece - that is their right - in fact, more than that, it is something that they cannot control. And if a piece of art can move anybody at all, it has value as art - even if it is just a cow cut in half.

There is something about seeing works in person. When I saw prints of Rothko's work in books, I didn't understand why anyone cared about him. In person-- a whole 'nother story. I agree with you on your other picks, too-- though less so on Chagall. And I definitely agree with your last point.

[hadespussercats]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

You are conditioned to like that stuff. Nobody could possibly even call it art without the years of conditioning.
What do you think would happen, if you took this :

back 350 years by time machine, and showed it to the ART EXPERTS of the time?
If you answer honestly, you would have to admit that they would laugh their heads off.
Real lovers of art who hadn't had the drip drip conditioning that you have had.
.

Why do you assume that my love for art is from some strange conditioning that is supposedly suffusing our culture, when you clearly show by your own example that this conditioning is far from universal?

And why do you need to be an expert on art to comment on it or to love it? I ask because of your example of bringing a painting back in time and showing it to the art experts of that time. Furthermore, wouldn't you say that those art experts of 350 years ago had been conditioned to respond to a certain sort of art? Hence their laughter? You like this example, of bringing art back in time, as though real art only happened a long time ago, and as though the cultural works of a period shouldn't actually respond to the culture that produced them. Who cares if the art experts of 350 years ago would laugh at the art of today? There are plenty of works of art from that era that are just as laughable-- saccharine, poorly executed dreck.

There's gold, and there's dross, no matter what era of history you occupy.

[Ronja]

Why is it important who created a piece of art? Beyond the obvious aspects of personal viewpoint and technical skill, i mean. I didn't need to be taught to appreciate painting. The first time I saw a Rothko in person, I was moved-- and let me tell you, there is nothing in a Rothko painting that a camera could do better. You seem to enjoy luxuriating in your ignorance, and you apparently have no innate love for what people can create with their minds, hearts, and hands. I'd be embarrassed to echo the Strom Thurmonds of the world-- the people who say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." But, as you say, if you're into that, go for it.

The first time I saw a genuine Rothko, I thought - It's a big maroon rectangle, meh. That is all that I have ever thought when seeing a Rothko. However, the first time I saw a Picasso up close, I got him immediately (despite being very dismissive of him beforehand, based solely on seeing prints), the same with Chagall, Kandinsky, Miró, even Pollock - Rothko though, moves me not at all. But I won't slag you off for liking him - art is nothing if not subjective - art is an attempt for an artist to share his or her feelings through whatever medium they choose - something of what Rothko said appealed to you - it just passed me by and continues to do so. Nobody is right or wrong, simply moved or unmoved by a particular piece - that is their right - in fact, more than that, it is something that they cannot control. And if a piece of art can move anybody at all, it has value as art - even if it is just a cow cut in half.

This reminded me of the summer when I was 17, and by a series of lucky coincidences walked into the Toulouse-Lautrec museum in Albi, southern France. I was totally blown away by one of the first rooms - it seemed to be full of light emanating from the impressionist paintings. For some reason my otherwise very well-rounded visual arts teacher (the same through secondary school and gymnasium) had never taken us to see an impressionist collection. During the month that I visited in Albi, I must have been in the museum and in its garden about ten times. Impressionism was for me love at first sight.

The Picasso collection that visited in Helsinki recently was in some ways more impressive, more forceful, and I am glad I saw it. Also the Salvador Dali museum in St Petersburg, Florida, was intriguing and definitely worth seeing. But neither Picasso, nor Dali (or other surrealists) has the same immediate emotional impact on me as impressionists have. Then again, Miro almost drives me wild - the only painter whose works I actually covet. Go figure... But I am happy all these different styles exist. They make life ever so much richer.