|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 9, 2007 19:33:18 GMT -4
Joe, Joe, Joe I'm not going there.If you'll allow me to make up some numbers to make a point, let's say the Beatles' Abbey Road sold 20 million copies to a possible, say, 200 million music buyers exposed to the music. As popular as even the Beatles are, it seems that the vast majority doesn't care for them--90% in this case. I suspect this is true of most art. Even the most popular and most respected is disliked by the vast majority. I don't understand what you're saying. The Beatles have sold over a billion singles/albums/cds altogether. But even if the majority doesn't buy a Beatles Cd , that doesn't mean they don't love them. I know many people who don't own a Beatles record but have heard them thousands of times in their life, and really enjoy them. I enjoy lots of music that I don't have on CD. I like lots of movies that I don't have on DVD. I don't know anyone who owns a real PIcasso, or Van Gogh or Monet. Does that mean they don't enjoy the artists paintings? I have a pretty good book library at home (1000+), and most people I know either have very little, or a very modest (-50) collection. Does that mean that Vonnegut, Wolfe or Huxley aren't good writers? Not that many people collect model trains. Does that mean that old Lionel trains aren't relevant to the people that do? If you're saying that the vast majority of people are unaware of paintings by famous artists you're probably right. But that doesn't take anything away from their intellect, their works or their importance to the people who do enjoy them. To apply the word "dislike" to the attitudes of people who are either ignorant of, unaware of or have never been exposed to art is very presumptuous I believe. There is lots of composers, artists and writers that I've never heard, seen or read. That doesn't mean I dislike them! I'm sure you could recomend some to me that I would find fabulous.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 9, 2007 20:52:17 GMT -4
I don't understand what you're saying.
All I am saying is we shouldn't be surprised to find people who don't care for this or that artist. For perhaps any given artist, the majority will prefer someone or something else.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 9, 2007 21:11:06 GMT -4
I don't understand what you're saying.All I am saying is we shouldn't be surprised to find people who don't care for this or that artist. For perhaps any given artist, the majority will prefer someone or something else. I understand that. I know someone who basically just listens to Kenny Rogers. Now, I have absolutely nothing against Kenny, but he doesn't do anything for me. I also consider myself more informed about popular music than my friend, and while I wouldn't ever say that 'The Gambler' is a great song, I don't say its crap either. And this being REALLY subjective, IN MY OPINION I would rank Hank Williams Jr., Johnny Cash and Steve Earle way above Kenny as a talent. But that's the good thing about art and music: each person can enjoy the works that they like. You're never forced to listen to music you don't enjoy - except in Dentists offices and malls perhaps. I think originally though I was commenting on how some people downgrade art without really knowing anything about it. Mind you, i'm certainly no expert, but putting Picasso or Renoir higher up on the talent scale than Bateman or Trish Romance seems like a no brainer to me. There are even some 'great' classical artists that I don't really care for, lets say El Greco. But I respect his talent. There are some groups in rock'n roll too that I don't like listening to - Bob Seger, Journey, Foreigner, Meatloaf ... Some people love those guys. To each their own.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 9, 2007 22:01:34 GMT -4
Art critics are probably the most useless people on the planet.
We had a renowned art critic do a lecture at my school a few years ago. All the teachers were gaga for this guy because if he gave your work a good review, you were essentially on easy street. His lecture consisted of a history lesson of important modern art over the past 75 years or so and he presented some points on the future of high art. His entire lecture could have been given in about ten minutes, but he stretched to about two hours by resorting to "metalanguage" and psychobabble. The entire time I was writhing in my seat. I could actually feel brain cells being sucked out of my head and traveling straight into his ego.
During the Q&A, I had to sit there and watch as teachers I had formerly respected kissed his ass and begged for attention. They would raise their hand, stand up and introduce themselves, and then proceed to make a statement in attempt to prove how smart they were (using big words just like him) without ever asking a question. It was pathetic.
I know that schmoozing is a big part of becoming a successful artist, but they could at least maintain a little dignity. The brown hasn't washed off of their noses since.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 9, 2007 22:20:07 GMT -4
All I can say about art critics is that I don't understand what they're saying. I am a simple man.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 9, 2007 23:05:03 GMT -4
I participated in a debate over the definition of art that lasted about a week, during a road trip, without resolution.
The inability to agree on what art is ensures that almost everyone will define it differently than everyone else, and therefore disagree on what art is supposed to be. My grandfather painted only landscapes in oils and had several cubic meters of VHS recordings of Bob Ross' show. He disdained anything that was not representational in a certain way and executed according to a certain technique. Hence he saw both Warhol and Picasso as no-talent bums, along with Cezanne, Alexander Calder, Mark Rothko, and Ansel Adams.
This irresistible urge to convert a primarily emotional response into a value judgment and to impose notions of right and wrong upon it generates much coffeehouse debate. Critics are simply those who make a living from the pretense that there is some objective artistic truth out there to be discovered, and that fidelity to it means something.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 9, 2007 23:09:46 GMT -4
Critics are simply those who make a living from the pretense that there is some objective artistic truth out there to be discovered, and that fidelity to it means something.okay. An objective artistic truth? Wow, I've just never seen it that way... I'll need a week to think about that!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 9, 2007 23:26:52 GMT -4
My point is that there isn't an objective artistic truth. But art criticism is predicated on the presumption that there is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2007 11:58:02 GMT -4
Jay, did you happen to catch the play Art at the fall season of the Utah Shakespearean festival? There are only three characters (and actors) in the entire play. One of them buys a piece of art for 200,000 francs. It's basically a 5'x3' blank canvass, with three very faint white diagonal lines on it. The whole play is about how his friends react to his spending a fortune on something that is nearly indistinguishable from a blank canvass. One of them can't believe that his friend actually appreciates the piece - he believes that his friend bought it entirely because of the reputation of the artist and is merely trying to make a statement. The other doesn't appreciate it either but is willing to give his friend the benefit of the doubt. The strain almost breaks their friendship. It's really a very good and very funny play, and the festival did a great production of it.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 10, 2007 13:22:28 GMT -4
I think art is every thing creative that people do that is not purely functional. The difference between a piece of bone used as an utensil, and the same piece of bone decorated with animal figures but still used as an utensil. So even wallpaper designs can be art, as well as the decision to place the window of a space capsule here rather then there just because it looks better.
What makes art good however...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 10, 2007 13:39:09 GMT -4
Jay, did you happen to catch the play Art at the fall season of the Utah Shakespearean festival?
Not at the festival, but several times at Pioneer Memorial Theater a few seaons back -- one of the joys of living within walking distance1 of the theater, having several friends who work there regularly, and occasionally being consulted on matters of design and construction. The incredulous friend was played by a colleague of mine who often frequents my musical endeavors at St. Paul's Episcopal church just down the road.
I agree it's an important and amusing study of the nature and role of art in society. The valuation of art (and the criteria by which valuation is reckoned) is one of the most counterintuitive things I have ever encountered. Minimalist art is often the best example because it seems to require little material and imagination, so one constantly wonders where its value lies. As with all art, the value lies simply in what one is willing to pay in order to experience it.
The play is especially important to me because I came up with the method for how to handle the prop canvas for each performance. Without giving away an important plot element, the PMT prop was texture, painted, and then coated with a thin epoxy glaze that was impervious to further coloration (for very long). This was similar to a method we used in the set for Brave No World at Kennedy Center's black-box theater.
1 I would say "easy" walking distance but for the fact that the theater lies just on the other side of the Wasatch Fault from my house. While the theater lies a mere 4 blocks from my house in the horizontal dimension, the vertical component of the trip is more than 200 feet.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 10, 2007 19:21:45 GMT -4
My point is that there isn't an objective artistic truth. But art criticism is predicated on the presumption that there is. Which is exactly why they are so useless.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 10, 2007 21:03:13 GMT -4
My point is that there isn't an objective artistic truth. But art criticism is predicated on the presumption that there is. I got that. I don't understand a lot of art either. But what I do know is that an artist creates a work sometimes to explore an idea - its more than visual, even if the work is on canvas. Sometimes though the expression that comes from inspiration and desire belongs in the artists closet however , not in a gallery. When Duchamp (him again!) bought some stools, painted them white and signed them - readymades - he wasn't seriously meaning for them to be a work of art in the normal sense. It was a reaction to the art critics and curators at the time who had a very rigid sense of what was art, and worse, what was bad or good art. Duchamp wanted to open up the boundaries of expression, more or less saying "the critics have no right to tell me that my works are an abomination and isn't art at all". Sort of "I'll show them". It was an interesting idea, those readymades, He said of them, "...it was always the idea that came first, not the visual example ...a form of denying the possibility of defining art." He made his first in 1915. He had a good sense of humour: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.png/300px-Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.pngWhat kid today hasn't done such a thing to a picture? The last post also mentioned work as being valued not by its appearance but reputation or historical value. Those readymades today would be worth a fortune based on who created them and their historical value. Like getting a George Washington signature.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 10, 2007 21:35:08 GMT -4
The valuation of art continues to disobey rhyme and reason, as does the precise definition of art.
The "intent of the creator" distinction doesn't really work either. Is a theatrical prop or set piece art? Its practical value is its appearance. It is built to look like something, often using the techniques of representational art to achieve that resemblance.
Sometimes as an engineer I have to blur the intent distinction too. You don't make sharp inside corners in material because it promotes stress fractures. Therefore if you are commited for practical purposes to a smooth inside curve, then is it art to vary the radius or shape of that curve for aesthetic reasons? The circular voids in aerospace struts of the 1930s create an nostalgic emotional response. Is it art? Architects can argue at length about the futility of separating utility from aesthetic.
If you watch Syd Mead paint, you see him make occasional test strokes of his brush on a piece of scrap paper. He remarked once that someone told him he should sell those scraps. I too have test scraps. The difference between his and mine is that his come from a well-known artist. Is that a proper valuation? Shouldn't someone else's best-considered effort be placed ahead of someone else's brush-cleaning?
Andy Warhol's homoerotic drawings exist almost exclusively in private collections, traded only among the super-wealthy. What mode of valuation is that? Are they valuable because Warhold drew them? Are they valuable because they depict naked young men and appeal to some people's prurience? Are they valuable because they're intrinsically beautiful?
My friend Hayden Lambson tells the story of a famous outdoor artist once writing a check for one of his works for a price about three times what Lambson was asking for it, then instructing the young painter never to charge any less than that for one of his works. How does that valuation work? Is there a Wildlife Art Mafia?
Should a big painting always be priced more than a small painting?
What's the proper relationship between commercial value, aesthetic value, historical value, and sentimental value? Are there other avenues for valuation?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2007 21:50:41 GMT -4
Here's a question for you - can someone create art without meaning to? Is art entirely in the eye of the audience, or does there have to be intent from the artist to create something as well?
|
|