I must confess ... art sometimes confuses me

dpolglaze · 5 November 2009, 07:37 AM

There is a current listing on eBay for a reproduction of a Kasimir Malevich painting entitled "Aeroplane Flying" from 1915. This inspired me to see what else qualifies as suprematist art. Let's just say I think I could paint a black square on a white background too. I could also have painted White on White.

I just didn't think it up.

Finally, is the color scheme right for this type of plane?

Anyway, here's the piece. The original is at MOMA in New York. Don't know if it's on display.

Does anyone else see Aeroplane Flying?

Dan

Varese2002 · 5 November 2009, 08:03 AM

Hi Dan. I am not an art expert, but I must say that I liked the painting of Malevich. I searched something out and found this --

Quote:

Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935), who founded what he called Suprematism, believed in an extreme of reduction: ``The object in itself is meaningless... the ideas of the conscious mind are worthless''. What he wanted was a non-objective representation, ``the supremacy of pure feeling.'' This can sound convincing until one asks what it actually means.

True it is an extreme reduction, as most art is extreme. I refrain myself from seeing any view of a known aeroplane, it is a probably just the feeling of speed ..... I think in the flesh, it will look better.

It is funny that when you search it on the internet, all of a sudden hundreds of pictures of this painting of Malevich come out.

Have a good day

Kees

Russell Smith · 5 November 2009, 08:06 AM

Dan - I love art. Particularly good painting. Call me narrow-minded, however, because I look at a lot of modern stuff and think "you have got to be kidding me!"

Don't get me wrong, not all abstract art is bad, but IMO there is neither craft nor skill involved in something like this. I could go on a long diatribe about how, over the past century, those that control the lion's share of the art market and art institutions have brainwashed the world into thinking abstraction & simplicity = good, realism & skill=bad.

i'll try to stay off of my soapbox, though.

JohnReid · 5 November 2009, 08:14 AM

Well said Russ! but at least the artist gets to laugh all the way to the bank too.(sometimes)

rexee · 5 November 2009, 08:16 AM

Hi Dan

Interestingly, Malevich was fascinated with aerial photography and aviation

I guess these are pretty abstract. I painted "Barrel Roll" after stunting in a "Pitts"[I was a passenger]and I painted a series of landscapes over a year that I spent skydiving.[10 jumps].These paintings are 5feet x7feet and don't hang in the MOMA

rexee

BTW .I work in the museum world so I'm trained to not have an opinion.

Ricardo Reis · 5 November 2009, 08:30 AM

I completely disagree. There's a lot invested in this. And the move from "picturing art", ie, using art to portrait the world, to concept art (where the level of symbolism is taken further and the key to understanding is not always just in front of your eyes) was a very interesting one. It has enriched our culture and experience of the world. If you want to go further than just the "I like it" or "I don't like it", meaning, just simple visual pleasantness, sometimes a great deal of pre-knowledge is essential. To just say "there's no effort" in this is dismiss the long work that Malevich did, working his ideas to achieve certain goals, especially about simbolism, relations of shape and colour, etc...

Interestingly there have been some research relating to colour and shape in neurobiology, especially relating the role of certain brain areas in our appreciation on visual objects. The fact that your brain can have certain areas "shut off", because of a stroke, for instance, will be an impediment to be able to appreciate certain kinds of artistic approaches. One easier way to see it is thinking on severe colour blind people and the range of art works dependent on colour that is simple out of their reach.

But I must also remind of the famous Urinol used by Duchamp. He, more than anyone else, has show that art is mostly framing. Look at this from this perspective, raise this questions, see this this way and, from this, everyone is an artist. Bottom line is, only what EACH ONE validates is art. For him. So Russel I understand your point, "what's this BS they are trying to feed me". It's important to keep a critic position and don't "buy" anything the "experten" try to sell us. But one should also not dismiss that certain works, which seem deceptively simple at first sight, are more than meet the eye.

dpolglaze, I would advise trying to know more about the artistic path taken by Malevich, the zeitgeist (time context) to better understand and appreciate his work. Maybe you will like it or not, maybe you say BS in the end or not but your appreciation will surely be different (I think).

best regards,

Ricardo Reis · 5 November 2009, 08:31 AM

ps: and sometimes, something that now is simple, was a crux to achieve when it first appeared. Insight goes a long way...

Chock · 5 November 2009, 08:45 AM

Having studied at art college years ago, I had to examine all of this kind of stuff, and I have very mixed opinions about it. Some modern abstract stuff like that can be really great. One painting I really love for example, was done by my mother (who normally paints fine art stuff fired onto china plates and the odd watercolour landscape, so this is unusual for her). It is oil on canvas, and I have it hung on my wall downstairs in my house because I demanded she give me the painting. Here it is:

It is based on a top down photograph of the markings that some construction guys had sprayed on the pavement prior to digging the road up, the black line is the shadow of the kerb and the yellow line is a no parking road marking! Couldn't even begin to explain why I like it, but I do think it is a goddam masterpiece and I don't even know why I think that, it is perhaps that she could even find art at her feet, on the street.

Back with more well known stuff, I can appreciate that Mondrian, Kandinsky and a few others were pushing things and moving the art world forwards by deconstructing long held views, but it's often hard to really love stuff like that even if you can appreciate what the intent is. If the painting at the start of this thread is supposed to indicate the impression of form at speed, then I contest that JMW Turner's beautiful 1844 painting, Rain Steam and Speed, frankly craps all over it in conveying that feeling:

File:Rain Steam and Speed the Great Western Railway.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

dpolglaze · 5 November 2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

I guess these are pretty abstract. I painted "Barrel Roll" after stunting in a "Pitts"[I was a passenger]and I painted a series of landscapes over a year that I spent skydiving.[10 jumps].These paintings are 5feet x7feet and don't hang in the MOMA

Well, rexee, I don't think I could paint the landscapes. While they are "abstracty" they still show something I can identify. I have never appreciated abstract art, so tangible things I can see and understand are more pleasing to me.

JohnReid - Malevich didn't quite get along with the new government thinking in the '20s, since abstract art couldn't be used for propaganda purposes, and he apparently died in poverty. He did go back to figurative painting later in life (died 1935).

1912 and 1933 self portraits:

Dan

Terrencejones · 5 November 2009, 09:08 AM

It tends to be those with little or no artistic/creative ability that peddle this sort of shite as art and insist those of us that see it for it really is are narrow minded. I was told at art school never to say I don't like a piece of work but instead say it doesn't work for me. Well it doesn't work for me because it's crap

It's an insult to those who can paint and have creative ability and an insult to the intelligence of any normal person. It is what it is, a load of meaningless squares with a meaningless description of why it was done, bollocks in other word's. The Emperors new clothes.
IMO of course

Terry