I must confess ... art sometimes confuses me

ONEALM · 5 November 2009, 12:22 PM

Gents -

Interesting thread, thought I would wade in a bit.

First, my profession is in technology so I appreciate and understand the scientific approach to problem solving. But as most of you know, I also paint, consider myself an artist and tend towards realistic impressionism (if there has been such a construct in the art world).

I also have a deep background in asian art, particularly Japanese-centric and have a great appreciation for what is generally called Zen-inspired art and relates here to the reductionist work that started this thread.

All that being said, I'm not sure my opinion hold any more weight than anyone else's, but.....

Like Russ, I appreciate some abstract art. The ability to reduce concepts - mental or physical - to the lowest common components ans still transmit the meaning to the lay viewer is a talent. Zen art to me is the ultimate expression of this.

I've seen quite a view of Malevich's paintings and almost (that's almost for anyone looking to start a quarrel) universally dislike them. It's not that I do not appreciate the intent, but as I've said on other threads, I should not have to be an art connisseur nor an artist to derive meaning from a work.

For this reason, I tend towards works I can understand without someone explaining the importance or meaning to me.

Now I do understand that part of this is my own simplicity of mind - that is, I'm a simpleton in some respects. I don't look at fractal art in quite the same way a mathemetician does simply because I'm unschooled at fractal geometry. I think someone who is gets more - or at least a different - reward from looking at that kind of art.

So I can and do appreciate Zen art - I love the simplicity and while I may not be able to tell you what is being represented or the deeper (if there is a deeper) meaning of the work, I will certainly appreciated the brush work, the use of line, the almost univeral lack of color and all those points that make this type of art what it is. It is at it's core essentially abstract.

Similarly, I will like some western abstract art, but not much.

I am with Russ on the point of skill in rendering. Anyone who says Gerome or Bourgereau or Kramskoi were not all-time great artists because they made a living painting near photo-realistic portraits is not paying attention. The skill required to render they way they did is a rare talent. Couple that with the ability to abstract the shapes in such a work and you produce work that is remembered for all time.

Not sure where I'm going except to say the bottom line for me, simple as it may sounds, is that if I need someone to explain why a piece of art is great, it loses it's appeal for me.

-Mike

rexee · 5 November 2009, 01:58 PM

Question: How many Zen Buddhist's does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Look inside yourself!

rexee · 5 November 2009, 03:42 PM

"Art gives me an earache " V Van Gogh

ONEALM · 5 November 2009, 03:53 PM

Rexee -

Actually, the one Monk it took to change a lightbulb was running a hotdog stand in New York trying to save up enough money to buy another bulb. He he sold a dirty-water dog to a customer and the patron handed him a $20.00 bill. After a suitably uncomfortable interval asked about his change.

"Change", said the Hot dog selling Monk, "Change must come from within"....(insert drum crash here...)

Now let's get back to the discussion

rexee · 5 November 2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEALM

Rexee -

Actually, the one Monk it took to change a lightbulb was running a hotdog stand in New York trying to save up enough money to buy another bulb. He he sold a dirty-water dog to a customer and the patron handed him a $20.00 bill. After a suitably uncomfortable interval asked about his change.

"Change", said the Hot dog selling Monk, "Change must come from within"....(insert drum crash here...)

Now let's get back to the discussion

To which, the customer punched the monk in the face

After composing himself [broken nose] the monk said "would the MASTER like mustard,ketchup,onions or sauerkraut?"

Terrencejones · 5 November 2009, 06:59 PM

I very quickly discovered at art school that your own thoughts are only considered valid by others if they fit into the accepted way of thinking. It has it's own political correctness. I was quite seriously chastised for stating Picasso was a doodler and did all his thumb nail sketches whilst chatting on the phone.
A pile of bricks is a pile of bricks. A load of coloured squares is a load of coloured squares, urine in a bottle is urine in a bottle. I'm not going to see it any differently because some one says I should. If you need to write an explanation as to what your 'piece' is conveying then it isn't a work of art its merely a diagram or a prop.
Shock your gran-ma, cause some controversy, I'm insane and thus a genius, I understand this work because I'm cultured etc. etc. It's all the usual art world PC crap.

BTW 'Morning in the village after snowstorm' makes a lovely Christmas card.
My kids do stuff like that every year and very nice cards they are too, for children

Terry

Terrencejones · 5 November 2009, 07:07 PM

oops wrong thread!

Ricardo Reis · 6 November 2009, 12:20 AM

terry, two comments:

- First I agree with you on your view "against the establishment", so to say. By the same reasoning that validates the justifications of some pieces, each owns opinion seems valid. If judging is a human action and this is surely a "thought" area, to each man his own.

- Second, I don't agree with you that pieces should be immediate and you don't have to have pre-knowledge about them. And funnily you don't even have to go into abstract art for that. I'm remembering a 6 panel painting from the XV century, depicting several important Portuguese figures of the Discoveries which, unless you have some info about, it you're missing 80% of the fun.

Art has evolved. It has dwell further into areas of thought and concept. It is natural that in their search for their answers artist get more and more embroiled in ideas. And if you are in a jungle of ideas it sure helps to know your way around. It sure gave me new ideas reading about some pieces and "getting them", others I've just thought "what a bunch of bull". But what I don't understand is why you have to throw out the bathtub with the baby inside.

Or art is just what meets the eye?

What is obvious for each one depends on the amount of pre-knowledge they have.

Biber · 6 November 2009, 05:38 AM

I think I'm with Orville Wright on this one.

B

Terrencejones · 6 November 2009, 06:31 AM

For me art starts with the eye. If it holds no aesthetic appeal I delve no further. I put a frame around of what is and what isn't art in much the same way a painting is framed. I believe we are naturally conditioned that way and no amount of unmade beds or throwing feces at statues will ever change that.
Take the frame away and you are lost. Creative ability, skill, talent and effort are important to me and after spendng some 40 years or so pursuing those things I reserve the right to say £$*! off to those so called works of art that make a mockery of that.

Terry