Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's nice... I was about to say that while the bold coloring was naive, the degree of detail showed excellent technique...

That's where "modern art" wandered off and got lost. So many people who couldn't draw a believable stick figure have become famous for their "art". Constable's "The Hay Wain" is sneered at as "representational", or some other dismissive term, by people who couldn't do anything anywhere close to that. The lack of talent has itself become a virtue in the art world. I can understand that it's scarce, but making up shit to replace it is just fuckin' annoying to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't have much care for purely representational art. It's true that it requires technical skill to reproduce, but art is about vision as well as technique.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't have much care for purely representational art. It's true that it requires technical skill to reproduce, but art is about vision as well as technique.

Have you seen The Hay Wain? It's not a Polaroid. This "representational" gambit really confuses me. It's like saying the Venus de Milo is just a rock.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, it's just not my cup of tea. I'm not knocking it. I just don't find it inspiring. Focusing on technique so often gets in the way of creative endeavors, and saps them of vitality -- and that goes for Chagall too, whose work I don't care for either. Or, in music, bands like Dream Theater or Sonic Youth, both focusing on the techniques of music-making (albeit from opposite ends of the competency spectrum).

It's not to say I don't admire the technically adept, or respect their talent, but with any art, my only consideration is how it affects me. I want a message, a vision, or a different way of seeing things.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Mona Lisa was representational.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know. What of it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know. What of it?

Focusing on technique so often gets in the way of creative endeavors, and saps them of vitality

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know. What of it?

Focusing on technique so often gets in the way of creative endeavors, and saps them of vitality

"So often" means exactly what it implies in this context: "Not always, but often enough to merit caution on the part of the artist."

[hadespussercats]

I know. What of it?

Focusing on technique so often gets in the way of creative endeavors, and saps them of vitality

"So often" means exactly what it implies in this context: "Not always, but often enough to merit caution on the part of the artist."

I think the Mona Lisa demonstrates Thump's point, actually-- it's bland. She's plain. The landscape's nice.

I'd rather look at his notebooks anytime. Actually, his notebooks are some of my favorite art (and science and design and...) ever.

Of course, the notebooks are bursting with technique, too. Applied towards different ends. The intent (or what you the audience sense as the intent) is important, is exciting.

Why was he painting Mona Lisa? I think the only reason we care about it is it's one of the few paintings he did that he (theoretically) actually finished himself. I think he usually lost interest in a painting before he could finish it. And I think ML might be an example of one he pushed through to finish even though he was already bored.

Actually, I like the unfinished ones, because they leave a window open into his thought process. And if you take that idea and run with it, you might understand why I love Rothko.

(Incidentally, Thump-- I also am not such a huge Chagall fan. And Dreamtheater? wankety wank prog rock blah blah. IMHO. )

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I have this discussion in the context of music at a guitar forum I attend often enough ... weighing technique against impact. I'm a pragmatist at heart, which means that when it comes to art, I admire the technique insofar as it conveys the artist's vision. That doesn't mean that superb technique makes for moving art.

Forgive me for sounding like I'm about to climb up my own ass, but I appreciate a balance between the intellectual and the emotional, and I think this discussion touches directly upon that tension ... the whole Apollonian/Dionysian apposition. As a result, I'm just as distrustful of a message conveyed by an obvious focus on technical perfection as I am of a message conveyed by artistic incompetence.

[hadespussercats]

Yeah, I have this discussion in the context of music at a guitar forum I attend often enough ... weighing technique against impact. I'm a pragmatist at heart, which means that when it comes to art, I admire the technique insofar as it conveys the artist's vision. That doesn't mean that superb technique makes for moving art.

Forgive me for sounding like I'm about to climb up my own ass, but I appreciate a balance between the intellectual and the emotional, and I think this discussion touches directly upon that tension ... the whole Apollonian/Dionysian apposition. As a result, I'm just as distrustful of a message conveyed by an obvious focus on technical perfection as I am of a message conveyed by artistic incompetence.

There's nothing to forgive. I understand what you mean. I'm not sure if I have a taste for any particular balance on the scale between A and D.

I probably do. I'm a sucker for masterful work, but what makes something masterful... there are a lot of different ways something can appeal to me. But I have to admit a special fondness for work that really commits to whatever it is. I realize that sounds vague-- I'm not sure how else to put it. Precision that takes precision to a level of insanity that it breaks through into emotion. Work that really ought to be godawful but is so exuberant and over-the-top in its godawfulness it becomes good again.

I like work that some would say is all about manipulating my emotions. But I also like work that's smart, or clever, or makes me laugh. I like the wonderfully weird.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I hear you. I like your thinking about "commitment". I'll definitely chew on that.

[mistermack]

What pisses me off, with any art form, is being told that "you don't get it" if you don't rate a work, or an art form.
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is up to the job of "getting it", and if I don't get it, there's nothing to get, and people who do "get it" are just suggestible.

Thumpus changed the rules a bit by claiming that I don't get it, because I'm not standing in front of it.
Bit of a low blow, because it's hard to refute without rushing round, seeing every bit of modern art.
But I don't buy it. I've seen enough art in the flesh to know what I'm missing.

And anyway with something like a Warhol print of Monroe, you ain't missing much to see it close up.

Modern art has the same snob value as classical music. There has been some really dreary shit passed off as masterful, just because it's classical in format.

I remember once seeing an interview with some classical composer, with some title of the Queen's official something. He was moaning that Andrew Lloyd Webber was getting so much praise, when his work was ignored by the media.
I found it interesting, so I managed to get hold of something by him, and it was the most boring crap I'd ever heard. But he expected it to be raved over, just because it's classical.

I would put Pink Floyd, or Dire Staits music way above much classical music by so-called classical maestros. There's a reason lots of people find classical music dreary.
It's because it IS dreary.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh really? Have you heard ALL classical music? If not, don't judge.

[hadespussercats]

What pisses me off, with any art form, is being told that "you don't get it" if you don't rate a work, or an art form.
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is up to the job of "getting it", and if I don't get it, there's nothing to get, and people who do "get it" are just suggestible.

Thumpus changed the rules a bit by claiming that I don't get it, because I'm not standing in front of it.
Bit of a low blow, because it's hard to refute without rushing round, seeing every bit of modern art.
But I don't buy it. I've seen enough art in the flesh to know what I'm missing.

And anyway with something like a Warhol print of Monroe, you ain't missing much to see it close up.

Modern art has the same snob value as classical music. There has been some really dreary shit passed off as masterful, just because it's classical in format.

I remember once seeing an interview with some classical composer, with some title of the Queen's official something. He was moaning that Andrew Lloyd Webber was getting so much praise, when his work was ignored by the media.
I found it interesting, so I managed to get hold of something by him, and it was the most boring crap I'd ever heard. But he expected it to be raved over, just because it's classical.

I would put Pink Floyd, or Dire Staits music way above much classical music by so-called classical maestros. There's a reason lots of people find classical music dreary.
It's because it IS dreary.

I love me some Mark Knopfler. But would you say that people who don't like Dire Straits don't get it?

What's wrong with different people having different taste? Why do you feel so judged for not liking classical music? Who cares if you like it or not?