Art Appreciation.

[hadespussercats]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

[Geoff]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

[Rum]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

I'm afraid this isn't the case. But it is one option if you choose to take it.

[Atheist-Lite]

Art appreciation is like wine tasting. Imrpoves with alchohol.

[Geoff]

Art appreciation is like wine tasting. Imrpoves with alchohol.

True, and I feel much the same about both (despite Dev's efforts on the wine front, I either like a wine or I don't, with or without delicate noses of orchids and peppermint, and afterbirths of willow bark, or whatever).

[Faithfree]

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

True! I like one art work because I know it was technically difficult to produce, another because I understand what the artist was trying to convey, and yet another because I don't know what fuck is going on. Others I like for the history they embody, or a particular style I find attractive. I wander briskly through an art gallery, like the isles of a supermarket, only glancing briefly at the works, then I see a piece from the other side of the room that I'm drawn to like a moth and I stand and stare at it for ages.

[devogue]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

I disagree with you completely.

I am rather well versed in two artistic disciplines (if you count wine as "art"). When I listened to classical music as a child it didn't really mean that much to me, but when I started to study the history of music, and how harmony, structure and orchestration developed, my appreciation and understanding of the music deepened. I don't know anyone who didn't study classical music who has the same understanding of it as I do, although I do know plenty of wonderful, keen amateurs who I admire greatly for being open minded enough to explore this world themselves without the sort of professional help I received. My wife falls in to the category of people who says "I hate it" and "what is this crap?" when she hears any classical music, but her dismissal isn't valid because she hasn't taken the time to learn about and understand the genre. Quite frankly, her dismissal is borne out of pure laziness and ignorance (I must stress I am only talking about music here!).

Contrary to your assertion that "those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior", "those people" have become so immersed and comfortable in their chosen art form that it is second nature to them. Once in that zone it is then possible to discuss the relative merits of different works and disagreement (even subjective disagreement) is valid if it can be backed up, but how is it possible to dismiss, say, Mozart out of hand if a person hasn't studied the works of Gluck, Haydn, CPE Bach and his other contemporaries? People who have not taken the time or made an effort do not feel as comfortable about classical music, so they dismiss it as tedious, overwrought shite - it is they who are being ridiculous: it's amazing how many people still think classical music,art, drama or literature is square, tedious and the preserve of snobs and nerds. Classic inverse snobbery.

The thing is, I'm also a lazy, ignorant boor when it comes to art and the works of Shakespeare and the like. Christ, I've only one life, but I don't take the time to try and understand the majesty of Picasso, Renoir and other great masters becasue I would rather watch TV, get pissed and play tennis on the Wii.

What a piece of shit is a man...

[Atheist-Lite]

Having a understanding of technique interferes with appreciation in my experience. Just like the person who cooks the meal spends so long with the smell of cooking they are the least appreciative at meal time.

[Rum]

I disagree with you completely.

I am rather well versed in two artistic disciplines (if you count wine as "art"). When I listened to classical music as a child it didn't really mean that much to me, but when I started to study the history of music, and how harmony, structure and orchestration developed, my appreciation and understanding of the music deepened. I don't know anyone who didn't study classical music who has the same understanding of it as I do, although I do know plenty of wonderful, keen amateurs who I admire greatly for being open minded enough to explore this world themselves without the sort of professional help I received. My wife falls in to the category of people who says "I hate it" and "what is this crap?" when she hears any classical music, but her dismissal isn't valid because she hasn't taken the time to learn about and understand the genre. Quite frankly, her dismissal is borne out of pure laziness and ignorance (I must stress I am only talking about music here!).

Contrary to your assertion that "those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior", "those people" have become so immersed and comfortable in their chosen art form that it is second nature to them. Once in that zone it is then possible to discuss the relative merits of different works and disagreement (even subjective disagreement) is valid if it can be backed up, but how is it possible to dismiss, say, Mozart out of hand if a person hasn't studied the works of Gluck, Haydn, CPE Bach and his other contemporaries? People who have not taken the time or made an effort do not feel as comfortable about classical music, so they dismiss it as tedious, overwrought shite - it is they who are being ridiculous: it's amazing how many people still think classical music,art, drama or literature is square, tedious and the preserve of snobs and nerds. Classic inverse snobbery.

The thing is, I'm also a lazy, ignorant boor when it comes to art and the works of Shakespeare and the like. Christ, I've only one life, but I don't take the time to try and understand the majesty of Picasso, Renoir and other great masters becasue I would rather watch TV, get pissed and play tennis on the Wii.

What a piece of shit is a man...

I was too lazy to be as comprehensive as Dev, but I agree with this. I do know something about art as I went to art school. There I learnt about some of the thinking that the artists were involved in, the discussions and theories they had within the various 'schools', techniques, some of the craftsmanship involved, some of the commonly understood and 'coded' symbolism in pre-modern art, what the Impressionist were trying to do and so on. This is pretty technical stuff at times and academic, but easily accessible if you are interested.

It does make a difference to how one looks at and appreciated art. You don't have to do it and it makes no difference if you just want it to just be 'visceral' in your response and appreciation but it certainly does not need to just be visceral.

[Atheist-Lite]

Art and wine are both intoxicants and do much to explain this nations decline. I like paintings and things but they are ultimately just titlation for the senses and talking points for the unimagintive.

[Rum]

Art and wine are both intoxicants and do much to explain this nations decline. I like paintings and things but they are ultimately just titlation for the senses and talking points for the unimagintive.

Art is an intoxicant and explains this nation's decline??

May I suggest you review the intoxicants you are currently consuming!?

[Atheist-Lite]

Art and wine are both intoxicants and do much to explain this nations decline. I like paintings and things but they are ultimately just titlation for the senses and talking points for the unimagintive.

Art is an intoxicant and explains this nation's decline??

May I suggest you review the intoxicants you are currently consuming!?

I hardly do that these days - life is a natural high and doesn't cost me anything.

[charlou]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

This seems to be a response to my comments on this same topic which started in another thread, here.

Hades, if you think any of this is what I said or meant, again, your impression is wrong. You seem to have taken my comments personally and your response has become personal, both in that thread, and this OP. I can only suggest you reread what I posted there without turning it into personal criticism, in your mind.


The mention of "ism" is interesting ... seems to relate to comments I made on an entirely different topic in the Atheism and Religion subforum ... here ... ?

[stripes4]

Art is meant to be appreciated purely on the visceral level.

People who are drawn to the visceral experience of art, but who nevertheless still enjoy art that challenges the intellect,
people who for some unknown reason find art history and criticism not only fun and interesting, but generally enriching to the artistic experience,
people who, in their eagerness to discuss arcane ideas about art with others who seem interested,
allow their speech to become peppered with words that end in "-ism"--

well, those people are full of themselves, and are just looking for ways to make other people feel inferior.

So, when you approach a work of art, please confine your responses to the following:
I like it.
I don't like it.
I hate it.
What is this crap?
or
Who do these people think they are? Really!
or variations thereof.

Because Art Is Subjective.
And that's all there is to say about it.

I like 'northern' art appreciation - 'I say what I like and I like what I bloody well say. End of '

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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...