I must confess ... art sometimes confuses me

[Russell Smith]

Originally Posted by Bonehead

But anybody can understand jewelry. And, if you suspend judgment, you can understand abstract art in the same way. A very well-known realist painter, Robert Bateman, when asked about an abstract painting, "what does it represent?", replied that "it is a painting of paint". Juts because it does not represent anything tangible does not mean that it represents nothing. It represents a communication of beauty, color, form or whatever, just like jewelry.

Originally Posted by Bonehead

You are an American who speaks only English who steps into Serbia and insists that their language is just gibberish, and thus invalid, only because you don't understand it (and perhaps make no effort to understand).

Hi Mike. Interesting points, but first of all, go back and re-read my statement. I clearly said "not all abstract art is bad" - meaning that I do, in fact, appreciate and even like, some of it. I DO, in fact, understand other forms, and for a long time, made great effort to try and understand even those that I didn't like.

Secondly, I admittedly carry a chip on my shoulder in terms of my own work in relation to abstract art. For many years, in art school and after graduation, I was pushed to believe that my own work was somehow inferior and unacceptable because it was representational (I'm guessing you may have experienced the same attitudes??). For a long time I held an unhealthy and apologetic attitude about my own style. Unfortunately I find that same attitude still exists among the "artsy-fartsy" types (as opposed to those who appreciate art).

Originally Posted by Bonehead

Just because it does not represent anything tangible does not mean that it represents nothing. It represents a communication of beauty, color, form or whatever, just like jewelry.

Where do you see the difference between that and simple "decoration"? I can find beauty in a mass produced Christmas tree ornament.

nice work, BTW

[rexee]

Russell

I have to deal with those "artsy fartsy" types all the time. That's what drove me to jump out of airplanes,it was only with the coaxing of some good friends that I kept my parachute on.
If "they" don't like what your doing,that's a sure sign that everyone else on the planet does...

Rexee

[dpolglaze]

Great comments so far. And to venture forth a little bit more ...

A wealthy man commissioned Pablo Picasso to paint a portrait of his wife. Startled by the nonrepresentational image on the final canvas, the woman's husband complained, "It isn't how she really looks."

When asked by the painter how she really looked, the man produced a photograph from his wallet.

Returning the photography Picasso observed, "Small, isn't she?"

Dan

[Bonehead]

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

Hi Mike. Interesting points, but first of all, go back and re-read my statement. I clearly said "not all abstract art is bad" - meaning that I do, in fact, appreciate and even like, some of it. I DO, in fact, understand other forms, and for a long time, made great effort to try and understand even those that I didn't like.

Secondly, I admittedly carry a chip on my shoulder in terms of my own work in relation to abstract art. For many years, in art school and after graduation, I was pushed to believe that my own work was somehow inferior and unacceptable because it was representational (I'm guessing you may have experienced the same attitudes??). For a long time I held an unhealthy and apologetic attitude about my own style. Unfortunately I find that same attitude still exists among the "artsy-fartsy" types (as opposed to those who appreciate art).

Thanks Russell. No, I did not catch the not all abstract art is bad part. I was relating more to the "I look at a lot of modern stuff and think "you have got to be kidding me!" part, primarily because I thought that very same thing for many years!

Because I have no real formal art education, I was not subjected to the intellectual prejudices of art academics. There again, is a whole 'nother language that is foreign to me. I thank my lucky stars for that as, despite the no doubt useful instruction I missed out on, I also did not have to unlearn the junk prejudices of academia.

Being an autodidact does have its advantages.

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

Where do you see the difference between that and simple "decoration"? I can find beauty in a mass produced Christmas tree ornament.

nice work, BTW

Thanks!!

Well a Christmas tree ornament is quite an eyeful for such a simple item. Mass produced stuff is its very own cheapening, invalidating itself through sheer volume and over-exposure. This is why almost all successful artists are seen as "sell-outs" by some people. Such people make no connection between artistic triumph and popular success. And, most of those people are not successful themselves because they lack the talent to bridge that great divide.

But then there is the idiot factor to contend with. Many people would not know good art if it fell on their head. I guess that would explain the wild success of Thomas Kinkade, Madonna etc. etc.......

Where to draw the line? Christams tree ornament: good art. Thomas Kinkade: bad art. Me: somewhere in the middle.

Mike

[Chock]

Trouble with non representational art is that there is always the excuse of 'oh, you simply don't understand it' if anyone is critical. But just because someone doesn't like something does not mean they don't understand it, and frankly, it is sometimes very patronising when people say that. If you need a manual to understand a piece of work, or to have studied art history, then it is either needlessly elitist or at best incomplete or incongruous. It is an easy cop out in many cases, and it is indeed often a case of the Emperor's New Clothes, with people afraid to stand up and say, 'nope, that really is just crap'.

I don't like cabbage, but it isn't because it is a mystery to me, and nobody is going to make me like it by telling me that I simply don't understand it.

Al

[rexee]

For me..this rocks...but that's just me.
"Sabre"
Murry Favro b1940 Canada

[Ricardo Reis]

This reminded me off...

[Ricardo Reis]

Originally Posted by Chock

Trouble with non representational art is that there is always the excuse of 'oh, you simply don't understand it' if anyone is critical. But just because someone doesn't like something does not mean they don't understand it, and frankly, it is sometimes very patronising when people say that. If you need a manual to understand a piece of work, or to have studied art history, then it is either needlessly elitist or at best incomplete or incongruous. It is an easy cop out in many cases, and it is indeed often a case of the Emperor's New Clothes, with people afraid to stand up and say, 'nope, that really is just crap'.

I don't like cabbage, but it isn't because it is a mystery to me, and nobody is going to make me like it by telling me that I simply don't understand it.

Al

Whats wrong in needing to have a manual? Some stuff just has so much hidden meaning inside that unless you study it you won't get the full picture. Another thing is, sometimes the time context just vanishes. Some stuff of daily life that would allow you to "decode" the piece without effort disappear with time and the normal guy doesn't "get it" any more.

That said, what I don't like is when I don't "buy" the explanation people still trying me to eat their pie.

[Varese2002]

I just came back on this thread after my first reaction and I was amazed about the great response on Malevich and his work. He sure is special.



Morning in the village after snowstorm (less extreme than the aeroplane)

Cheers

Kees

[Chock]

Study a work yes, enjoy looking at it, sure, but if you have to know or subscribe to accepted theories or explanations of this and that in order to 'understand' a work, then it isn't the work you are studying at all, but instead a lot of invariably psuedo-intellectual ephemera. And then it becomes self serving rather than artistic.

Take for example Carl Andre's 1966 work, Equivalent VIII, which is at the Tate Modern Gallery in London. For the uninitiated, that's better known as 'a pile of 128 bricks arranged in a two tier rectangle'. It is called Equivalent VIII because there are eight works in the series by Andre, and all of them, despite having different shapes and forms, have the exact same height, mass and volume, but are different shapes, thus they are 'equivalent'.

But it is no more intellectual than holding up two coloured building bricks and asking an infant to point out if they match, and in fact it is less intelligent than that, since you'd have to be told that was why Andre's piece was called Equivalent Eight, because you could not work it out through mere observation. And if you can't do that, then it is simply a pile of 128 house bricks and a poncy phrase which serves no purpose other than to make the artist seem intellectual. There can be nothing intellectual about having to explain your work when it is not in the least apparent without your explanation, as then there is no need to, nor purpose in studying it, in the same way that there is little point in studiously watching a suspense thriller if someone has to explain the ending to you before you actually watch it.

We could claim that it is the concept that is the art about such a thing, but then we are jumping right back on board that psuedo-intellectual bullshit train.

Al