Art Appreciation.

[Twoflower]

The only time I have really been able to appreciate and understand how much work goes into making a painting was when Rum took Squid and I on a tour of an art exhibit in Edinburgh.

[charlou]

The only time I have really been able to appreciate and understand how much work goes into making a painting was when Rum took Squid and I on a tour of an art exhibit in Edinburgh.

I was most struck by this years ago when I was helping a guy unload a heap of auction purchases that a friend had bought to stock her second-hand shop* ... one item was a tray that had been covered in tiny shells, glued on in a pattern depicting an australian theme ... I said I thought it was kitsch and he said he appreciated the time that had been put into it, the care in selecting the right coloured and sized shells to create the piece ... I felt a bit ashamed, humbled and grateful for his insight. He's not an academic either but I learned something valuable from his abrupt comment that day.

*She had one of those rambling establishments, chockers full of an eclectic array of interesting things ... sentimental, daggy, broken, restored, loved, discarded, nostalgic, trivial, important, dusty, polished ... you name it ... wonderful place ...

[Atheist-Lite]

That's the anal nature of the traditional artist where the smearing of the paint is the thin line between smearing faeces and food. The very fine line between these two developmental stages is trapped like in amber and the interest in painting is reflected in this, it usually begins at five or six. A good word about childhood painting whilst a strict attitude towards toilet training is enough to kick start the process. The vestigial recollection of the toilet training trauma two or three years earlier is still vivid and then there is a sudden release from this repression that produces a life time interest in detailed smearing, the production and search for positive affect from the critical art audience - the 'parents' from whom a good word is essential.

[Rum]

I disagree with everyone!

In order of posting:

I disagree with HPC because some art does require an understanding of the underlying techniques and the motives of the artist in order to appreciate fully. And some art that seems like garbage at first can grow on you the more you see it. And some art that immediately strikes you as wonderful in a visceral way can become tedious, bland, ordinary and very very average when one becomes well acquainted with it.

I disagree with Geoff because he is just agreeing with a woman in order to potentially get laid at some future date... Can't fault you there mate!

I disagree with Rum because he simply disagrees without explaining why.

I disagree with Crumple because, although alcohol is pretty fucking good, I find that it tends to obscure the worst of art rather than actually improve it! As an example, I cite the numerous occasions in my youth when I have enjoyed dancing to some pretty fucking shitty music simply because I was pissed out of my box and... well, I was just pissed out of my box!

I disagree with Geoff (again) because, as with other forms of art, ANY fucking alcohol tastes good when you have already had a skinful - i cite the lighter fluid scene in Withnail & I as authority - there is no higher!

Oops, sorry, I completely agree with Faithfree - I forgot about that post!

I disagree with Devogue because I know it will piss him off no end! And because he is equally as wrong as Hades, just coming at the wrongness from a diametrically opposite angle! Any degree of musical knowledge can add to ones appreciation of the technical skill that went into writing, performing and recording a piece of music - the more knowledge, the greater the appreciation. the thing is, knowing that some piece of music is the most intricately and skillfully woven turd on the planet, doesn't change the fact that (and I am talking completely subjectively here) you think it fucking stinks! Where Hades has dismissed technical knowledge in favour of the visceral, Dev has made an equal and opposite mistake.

I redisagree with Crumple because he is arguing against Dev's POV by championing its antithesis - when in fact, both have merit!

I agree with Rum in as far as I agree that he was lazy before - I said as much! What he goes on to say later is not too far off the mark either but I have to disagree with his mixing of tenses in this statement! "It does make a difference to how one looks at and appreciated art." Sorry, Rum, grammar nazi fail!

I disagree thirdly with Crumple because he really needs to get happy!

I disagree with Rum again because I think Crumple's trouble might just as equally be a lack of happifying intoxicants as much as anything. He needs more blowjobs if you ask me (by that I don't mean to imply that he should ask me for a blowjob - oh no!)

I disagree with Crumple again because, if his posts on the physical, economic and social collapse of the planet indicate a natural high, I will stick to wanking and booze!

I disagree with Charlou because... Actually, she has a fucking fit arse, don't you think?

I disagree with Stripes because that's what people do around here!

And finally, I disagree with everything I have written in this thread because I am a twat and have no professional expertise in any form off art except piss-artistry! but when it comes to that particular discipline, FUCK do I know what I like!

I appreciate that very few will bother to read to the end of this bollocks, much less actually bother to cross-reference my comments with the original posts, so, for those that do...

Well you are just plain wrong and I disagree with all of the above, except of course the bits that are right.

[Geoff]

Just posting in this thread so someone can disagree with me.

Agreed.

(see XC's original disagreement with me...)

I agre with charlou too..

[Feck]

Art ! elitist non-sense like jazz or dry fly fishing . green houses on car jacks, blocks of wood , lightbulbs on random timers , and photo copies of the Artists face glued to the bottom of ash-trays for sale ( I do mean YOU Tracy !) . It's value has become nothing more than it's price ,inflated by a clique .

Art courses no longer teach the techniques needed but teach the talk ,the sales Patter ! Almost all modern artists could sell Hondas from the dealerships !

Conceptal LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL TWATS and not nice clean ones, Blue Waffles the lot of them !

[Atheist-Lite]

Art ! elitist non-sense like jazz or dry fly fishing . green houses on car jacks, blocks of wood , lightbulbs on random timers , and photo copies of the Artists face glued to the bottom of ash-trays for sale ( I do mean YOU Tracy !) . It's value has become nothing more than it's price ,inflated by a clique .

Art courses no longer teach the techniques needed but teach the talk ,the sales Patter ! Almost all modern artists could sell Hondas from the dealerships !

Conceptal LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL TWATS and not nice clean ones, Blue Waffles the lot of them !

Damn that is it. Spot on. I don't need to add a thing. Other than there's a lot of really good art if you avoid the experts - outsider art is non-elitist but beware expensive immitations?

[hadespussercats]

Full disclosure:

I could find the "Sarcasm" emoticon.

[Hermit]

Full disclosure:

I could find the "Sarcasm" emoticon.

Dayang. All this time I thought you were actually on to something. The bit where you said that art is subjective.

[hadespussercats]

Full disclosure:

I could find the "Sarcasm" emoticon.

Dayang. All this time I thought you were actually on to something. The bit where you said that art is subjective.

Who said it isn't?

That's not all there is to it, though.

[Geoff]

Full disclosure:

I could find the "Sarcasm" emoticon.

Dayang. All this time I thought you were actually on to something. The bit where you said that art is subjective.

Who said it isn't?

That's not all there is to it, though.

I still disagree, though I'm open to having my opinion changed...

I'd compare it to other "artistic" endeavours such as music, films, dance, literature or cooking. It makes little or no difference to me how technically challenging the works are in any of those fields, the appreciation of the end product is all that matters.
Some of the above I do know a lot about, in terms of their creative techniques; others I don't, but it makes no difference to my apppreciation of the results.

If anything, in-depth objective analysis of an artistic product can detract from it's subjective appeal, for me. There are works I studied in school that I liked less after study than before, for example.

The LOTR films aren't improved by watching the "behind the scenes" DVD extras...a violin solo isn't improved by knowing its technical difficulty...Kristie's cakes aren't improved by knowing how much work goes into them...XC's lyrics are no worse for knowing they were thrown together in two minutes...


All IMO, of course.

[Rum]

Full disclosure:

I could find the "Sarcasm" emoticon.

Dayang. All this time I thought you were actually on to something. The bit where you said that art is subjective.

Who said it isn't?

That's not all there is to it, though.

I still disagree, though I'm open to having my opinion changed...

I'd compare it to other "artistic" endeavours such as music, films, dance, literature or cooking. It makes little or no difference to me how technically challenging the works are in any of those fields, the appreciation of the end product is all that matters.
Some of the above I do know a lot about, in terms of their creative techniques; others I don't, but it makes no difference to my apppreciation of the results.

If anything, in-depth objective analysis of an artistic product can detract from it's subjective appeal, for me. There are works I studied in school that I liked less after study than before, for example.

The LOTR films aren't improved by watching the "behind the scenes" DVD extras...a violin solo isn't improved by knowing its technical difficulty...Kristie's cakes aren't improved by knowing how much work goes into them...XC's lyrics are no worse for knowing they were thrown together in two minutes...


All IMO, of course.

You might argue the experience is 'richer' if you know behind the scenes info. An example from art would be (and there are thousands) Salvador Dali's landscapes are drawn almost exclusively from the area around where he grew up. You can (and I have) matched actually views in RL to actual elements in his pictures. Many of the devices he used (melty clocks for example) were specific in their symbolism and knowing what they are helps to 'read' the picture.

You don't need either of those things to enjoy and appreciate a Dali painting, but for me it makes it more enjoyable and as I say 'richer'.

[floppit]

I adore art. Of all the things I possess, only the art gives me the same pleasure as the day I bought it.

Some stuff i've learned to love, like batique after watching the skill the really good stuff takes. Other stuff for different reasons, just 'cos or because it captures something from somewhere and leaves me feeling like a time traveller looking at it, or the way light is used, or even just pure, unrelenting care that's gone into it. I like some. Modern stuff and old stuff, even tracy emins (sp?) sparrow on a stick - I love it.

I stood in front of a pic and told. Munch it was a painting, she said it was a photograph then I showed her the tiny brushstrokes and said some painted it with a brush - her face opened and I think that's what I feel.

I've never read a book on art but may do one day - who knows? I enjoy it though, will almost always take a chance to view a gallery and like best of all to find original art dusty and lost in junk, then love it. Back to health.

[floppit]

'scuse random full stops - phone posting!

[hadespussercats]

All right, I'm through being facetious for the moment, and I'd like to put up a case study of my experience with art criticism/appreciation:
Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock.

Here's some Wikipedia links, which I actually haven't read (yet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock

Both are often referred to as Abstract Expressionists, though Rothko apparently didn't think his work belonged in that category, so I'll just set titles aside for the moment. Both artists explored what a painting can be, when you abandon traditional subject matter in search for something different.

For years, I saw reproductions of Rothko's work in art history books, and wondered what all the fuss was about.

Okay, he's not painting people, or flowers, or et cetera et cetera. He's looking at the impact of color on our emotions. But, hey, I just painted a wall in my apartment bright red. Sure, it's pretty. But so what?

Of course, at the time I probably didn't appreciate how difficult it is to reproduce color accurately for publication. But that's secondary to what happened next.

I went to the Met, here in New York. I think I was in high school.
There's a room, upstairs, that is pretty much made of a couple Rothko paintings. They're huge.
I stepped in, and everything changed.

For one, there's just no translating the effect of a giant mass of color in a reproduction in a book.
And the colors weren't flat. They hinted at hidden depths. One color played against another, vibrating in my brain.
I stood and stared. I felt outside the flow of time.
And I felt full of awe. In the old sense, Rum, it was awesome.

I get it. I get it now.

I couldn't shake the mood that room put me in, for days.
You want to talk visceral? That room was a punch right in the gut.
And all of a sudden, I understood why it was important that Rothko decided to look at what a painting can do, when one abandons traditional representation.

Oddly enough, now that I've had that in-the-flesh experience, I feel it (albeit at a much lesser extent) when I see his work published.

But that visceral experience has left me full of other questions, that can be explored through other avenues.
Why did that color affect me the way it did?
Is there something really physiological going on, in my response to it?
Would any person who could see those colors experience some kind of affect akin to what I felt, or was my response shaped by the culture in which I was raised, etc., etc.
What was Rothko like, that he could see this, and find a way to show it in his work?
Did the Catholic Church understand that response to color, and use it to manipulate the emotions of churchgoers, when It started employing stained glass in churches and cathedrals (for me, the emotional impact was similar.)
and so on and so forth.

Now, let's look at Pollock.
I'm not of the camp that sees his paintings and thinks: he just threw paint at a canvas; or my seven-year-old daughter could do that.
Setting aside possibly (probably) apocryphal stories that Pollock's swirls of paint describe fractal forms,
I've tried it. And while it was fun, my paintings didn't look a thing like his. Maybe it has something to do with the mechanics of his wrists and arms.

Although I didn't know at the time that he had a swing harness and suspended himself over some of his work.
And even if I did, none of my workspaces ran to those sorts of amenities.
(Though I have to think-- paint, swing harness, giant canvasses-- that could be a fun night with the right company.)

Anyway, while I understand what Pollock was doing, on some level, at least,
questioning what a painting can be, exploring the different ways to use paint to express ideas or emotions,
and I recognize that if he hadn't asked those questions or done that work, there's a lot of other art that might never have come to be,
When I look at his paintings, they leave me cold.

Sure, they look fun to make (though, knowing the little I do about Pollock's life, I guess it wasn't as fun as it looks.)
They're energetic.
But, for me at least, they never break through to something deeper-- that moment of timeless revelation I felt when I was in the Rothko room.

So I wonder, Well, why is that?
And I try to figure it out. Which leads to other questions, that again aren't strictly about my emotional connection to the work,
even if that's what inspired them.

And i find it interesting.