Everything that is art

[hadespussercats]

Well, they aren't urinals.

If I had not been told I would not have associated rape with these sculptures.
If I was to make a list of what I appreciate about them, what they are supposed to represent would be low on that list.
I am overtaken by the level of skill incumbent on creating them.

Yes, the technical virtuosity is overwhelming. And I'm a sucker for know-how.

I'm usually not as into iconography or whatever, but Greek myths were an important part of my childhood-- the one re- Hades and Persephone, in particular-- so it was like seeing images of people I knew.

The little moments get me-- how you can see Hades' fingers digging in to Persephone's thigh.
And how dynamic they are-- shift your vantage just a bit, and you see what seems to be a completely different shape.
These are the sorts of things that make them stand out to me, when generally a room of Roman marble puts me right to sleep.

[Gallstones]

Well, they aren't urinals.

If I had not been told I would not have associated rape with these sculptures.
If I was to make a list of what I appreciate about them, what they are supposed to represent would be low on that list.
I am overtaken by the level of skill incumbent on creating them.

Yes, the technical virtuosity is overwhelming. And I'm a sucker for know-how.

I'm usually not as into iconography or whatever, but Greek myths were an important part of my childhood-- the one re- Hades and Persephone, in particular-- so it was like seeing images of people I knew.

I can approach understanding this, yes.

The little moments get me-- how you can see Hades' fingers digging in to Persephone's thigh.
And how dynamic they are-- shift your vantage just a bit, and you see what seems to be a completely different shape.
These are the sorts of things that make them stand out to me, when generally a room of Roman marble puts me right to sleep.

But, but...a person has to see them in the flesh to do this


I would be unable to tell the difference between Greek and Roman.

[hadespussercats]

Well, they aren't urinals.

If I had not been told I would not have associated rape with these sculptures.
If I was to make a list of what I appreciate about them, what they are supposed to represent would be low on that list.
I am overtaken by the level of skill incumbent on creating them.

Yes, the technical virtuosity is overwhelming. And I'm a sucker for know-how.

I'm usually not as into iconography or whatever, but Greek myths were an important part of my childhood-- the one re- Hades and Persephone, in particular-- so it was like seeing images of people I knew.

I can approach understanding this, yes.

The little moments get me-- how you can see Hades' fingers digging in to Persephone's thigh.
And how dynamic they are-- shift your vantage just a bit, and you see what seems to be a completely different shape.
These are the sorts of things that make them stand out to me, when generally a room of Roman marble puts me right to sleep.

But, but...a person has to see them in the flesh to do this


I would be unable to tell the difference between Greek and Roman.

Sorry!

My scanner iz broke, so I'm limited with what I can post, unless I go searching for certain images, which is frustrating when they're RIGHT THERE on my shelf.

I'll try to find things that work better in 2-d.

As for the differences between Greek and Roman, I could get into it, if you're interested, but in this case it was easy-- Italian name, and the sculptures were in Rome.

BTW- urinals can be interesting, too. But for me there's an extra level of interest added when I can see how much technical craftsmanship went into making a piece. And these sculptures are also blatantly emotional, which is another thing I've been known to respond to-- though it's not a necessary aspect of art I enjoy.

[Pappa]

My point made for me.
If painting is meant to be some form of communication, Picasso has failed.
If it takes 15 years to get it, I fail to see why people can be bothered.

The first time I heard Bob Marley sing "no woman no cry", I got it within seconds.
Same with the stranglers and "golden brown". And Beethoven's "duh duh duh, duuuuuuuh".

Isn't it possible that after fifteen years of staring at the same spot, you start seeing things?

I disagree. My tastes for food and drink and music and TV shows are not what they were when I was five, nor what they became when I was 15. I have progressed and developed since and that can happen with art and music too. A single point in time doesn't define a person or a whole lifetime.

Visual art = seeing things.

Most of my favourite works of art appeal to me precisely because their meaning is obscure or impossible to deduce.

[rachelbean]

I love a lot of American Abstract Expressionist art.

I love the sculptures of David Smith:



And his later Cube stuff.

The photography of Aaron Siskind has always been a favourite of mine:



From the painters, I particularly like Franz Kline, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still and Arshile Gorky.



Jackson Pollock's work really should be seen in person as the reproductions simply don't do them any justice at all justice. The work I seem to have found most emotional connection with when seen in a gallery was probably Kline's. It was almost haunting that I found them very powerful but couldn't pin any specific emotion on them, so I seemed to feel a continual flux of thoughts and feelings as my brain tried to tie down exactly how they were making me respond.

I also love European Modernism and Dada, but I'll save that for another post.

Pretty much everything Pappa said. Rothko is probably my favorite but I love a lot of the abstract expressionists/modernists (Pollock, Kline - and I very much agree about his live exhibit, Gorky, Kooning). I also love Picasso, Miro, Dali, Ernst, Kadinsky and a lot of surrealists, and dada... but mostly I just know what I like when I see it

Another of my favorites is Paul Klee:

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My personal definition of art is: An attempt by the producer of the piece to communicate emotionally with the person that experiences the piece.

I find this applies equally well to anything that seeks to be art; be it paintings, music, dance, literature, film, sculpture, etc.

Any photograph will show your audience (at least a part of) what you saw. It only becomes art when you show (or, at least, attempt to show) what it was that you felt.



Subtleties, such as technique, are all well and good - but it is the emotional content that raises art above artisanship. Anything that is manmade and which arouses an emotional response from me (of any kind) can be considered art in my book. If it arouses the same emotion that the artist felt (and intended to convey) when they produced it, then it is good, if not great, art.

You can paint a picture that is pixel-by-pixel identical to a photograph, taken of the same subject, and I would term it nothing more than an impressive copy - should that same painting incite me to anger, compassion or curiosity, then I would deem it artistic - and think the same of the photo it was taken from as well.

[Gallstones]

My personal definition of art is: An attempt by the producer of the piece to communicate emotionally with the person that experiences the piece.

I find this applies equally well to anything that seeks to be art; be it paintings, music, dance, literature, film, sculpture, etc.

Any photograph will show your audience (at least a part of) what you saw. It only becomes art when you show (or, at least, attempt to show) what it was that you felt.



Subtleties, such as technique, are all well and good - but it is the emotional content that raises art above artisanship. Anything that is manmade and which arouses an emotional response from me (of any kind) can be considered art in my book. If it arouses the same emotion that the artist felt (and intended to convey) when they produced it, then it is good, if not great, art.

You can paint a picture that is pixel-by-pixel identical to a photograph, taken of the same subject, and I would term it nothing more than an impressive copy - should that same painting incite me to anger, compassion or curiosity, then I would deem it artistic - and think the same of the photo it was taken from as well.

What he said.

[hadespussercats]

I'd just like to point out that the phrase "technical virtuosity" is by no means a synonym for so-called realistic style. Good craftsmanship takes many forms, and exploration of new media would be impossible were it not for artists being willing to explore and familiarize themselves with the properties of new materials.

And I'm leery of evaluating art on the basis of the "emotion that the artist felt (and intended to convey.)" I don't see how we can know what that was. Plus, it nullifies the possibility for the audience to participate in the artistic experience by bringing their own reactions to what they see-- reactions the artist might have been completely unaware were possibilities when the work was created.

I'm also not sure I agree about "emotional content" being what "raises art above artisanship." I suppose that depends on what qualifies as "emotional content." There are works of art that are pensive, or questioning, or simply confusing-- or that inspire thoughts that aren't overtly "emotional"-- ideas about structure, reflections on society, art that manipulates physical attributes of the act of seeing to mess with perception.

Haven't you ever seen art that is a perceptual mind-fuck? (This is the sort of art that is very difficult to duplicate on a forum thread-- I'll see if I can find examples...)
This art is fun and exciting to be around-- but doesn't particularly strive to elicit "emotion."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd just like to point out that the phrase "technical virtuosity" is by no means a synonym for so-called realistic style. Good craftsmanship takes many forms, and exploration of new media would be impossible were it not for artists being willing to explore and familiarize themselves with the properties of new materials.

And I'm leery of evaluating art on the basis of the "emotion that the artist felt (and intended to convey.)" I don't see how we can know what that was. Plus, it nullifies the possibility for the audience to participate in the artistic experience by bringing their own reactions to what they see-- reactions the artist might have been completely unaware were possibilities when the work was created.

I'm also not sure I agree about "emotional content" being what "raises art above artisanship." I suppose that depends on what qualifies as "emotional content." There are works of art that are pensive, or questioning, or simply confusing-- or that inspire thoughts that aren't overtly "emotional"-- ideas about structure, reflections on society, art that manipulates physical attributes of the act of seeing to mess with perception.

Haven't you ever seen art that is a perceptual mind-fuck? (This is the sort of art that is very difficult to duplicate on a forum thread-- I'll see if I can find examples...)
This art is fun and exciting to be around-- but doesn't particularly strive to elicit "emotion."

I would categorise most, if not all, of those counter-examples as emotional responses. Certainly being mind-fucked has an emotional element every bit as much as being fucked in any other way! As does being "fun and exciting to be around."

There are always two sets of emotional context present in a piece of art - that which the artist intended and that which the observer experiences - Art exists in between the artist and the observer - it is a shared experience between the two (despite those experiences often being divided temporally.)

The closer those two sets of emotions are, the more successful the art from the point of view of that artist and that observer. Art is necessarily subjective - in fact, in my view, it can only be art if defined as such subjectively!

The works of Matisse, Rothko, and UB40 don't move me at all. To others, they stir something emotionally that I can't grasp. I would never say that any of them are "not art" simply because I "don't get it". They are just "somebody else's art" - which is fine.

[hadespussercats]

I'd just like to point out that the phrase "technical virtuosity" is by no means a synonym for so-called realistic style. Good craftsmanship takes many forms, and exploration of new media would be impossible were it not for artists being willing to explore and familiarize themselves with the properties of new materials.

And I'm leery of evaluating art on the basis of the "emotion that the artist felt (and intended to convey.)" I don't see how we can know what that was. Plus, it nullifies the possibility for the audience to participate in the artistic experience by bringing their own reactions to what they see-- reactions the artist might have been completely unaware were possibilities when the work was created.

I'm also not sure I agree about "emotional content" being what "raises art above artisanship." I suppose that depends on what qualifies as "emotional content." There are works of art that are pensive, or questioning, or simply confusing-- or that inspire thoughts that aren't overtly "emotional"-- ideas about structure, reflections on society, art that manipulates physical attributes of the act of seeing to mess with perception.

Haven't you ever seen art that is a perceptual mind-fuck? (This is the sort of art that is very difficult to duplicate on a forum thread-- I'll see if I can find examples...)
This art is fun and exciting to be around-- but doesn't particularly strive to elicit "emotion."

I would categorise most, if not all, of those counter-examples as emotional responses. Certainly being mind-fucked has an emotional element every bit as much as being fucked in any other way! As does being "fun and exciting to be around."

There are always two sets of emotional context present in a piece of art - that which the artist intended and that which the observer experiences - Art exists in between the artist and the observer - it is a shared experience between the two (despite those experiences often being divided temporally.)

The closer those two sets of emotions are, the more successful the art from the point of view of that artist and that observer. Art is necessarily subjective - in fact, in my view, it can only be art if defined as such subjectively!

The works of Matisse, Rothko, and UB40 don't move me at all. To others, they stir something emotionally that I can't grasp. I would never say that any of them are "not art" simply because I "don't get it". They are just "somebody else's art" - which is fine.

Okay, so if you use a wide definition of emotion, that could maybe be described as stimulated mind activity (? sounds dry, but that's the best I can do ATM), then we're on the same page. Particularly your last line, about work that fails to move you but that you recognize as worthwhile-- I know where you're coming from with that.

And I agree that art is an experience that is shared between the artist and the audience, or, maybe more precisely, between the art object and the audience. I make that last modification because I don't see how you've accounted for your earlier assertion about the value or success of art being linked to how successfully the artist conveys his or her desired emotional response to the audience member.

If an art viewer has a deep response to a piece of art, why does it matter if that response is what the artist intended?

****

I have to admit, Matisse isn't one of my favorites. His use of color is something I find cheerful-- but that's generally where my connection with his work ends.

Rothko, on the other hand, is one of my all-time greats.
I wrote about him, here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p837995
(I'm linking instead of quoting because it's a long post, at the end of a thread I have mixed feelings for.)

Another thought:
The example rachelbean posted of Klee's work is a good example of a type of technical virtuosity that has little or nothing to do with traditional representation:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p912918
The texture, the skillful use of color, are evocative while remaining subtle. There so much that could be seen-- it's like jewelry, or heiroglyphics, or landscape, or... it's simply like itself. Lovely.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Okay, so if you use a wide definition of emotion, that could maybe be described as stimulated mind activity (? sounds dry, but that's the best I can do ATM), then we're on the same page. Particularly your last line, about work that fails to move you but that you recognize as worthwhile-- I know where you're coming from with that.

And I agree that art is an experience that is shared between the artist and the audience, or, maybe more precisely, between the art object and the audience. I make that last modification because I don't see how you've accounted for your earlier assertion about the value or success of art being linked to how successfully the artist conveys his or her desired emotional response to the audience member.

If an art viewer has a deep response to a piece of art, why does it matter if that response is what the artist intended?

I wasn't necessarily talking about an intentional effort to engender a particular emotional response - I doubt most artists are that cynical about their work - more that a great artist invests their emotions in the creative process and that their skill allows it to be passed to the observer through their work. Without that transfer of emotional content, an artist becomes merely an artisan.

In some cases the exact emotions felt by the artist are obvious - look at Picasso's Guernica, listen to Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit, watch Kubrick's Paths of Glory - the emotional responses that these draw forth are a direct mirror of what the artists were feeling when they created them. All three communicate perfectly on a direct emotional level.

In other cases, the emotional content of the work may be far more subtle, or even ambiguous. What was Pollock trying to convey in his work? What was he feeling when he created it? I honestly couldn't tell you but I do know that I get a huge sense of emotional intent when I see one of his giant paintings in a gallery that is nothing to do with technique and everything to do with feel. It's like listening to an impassioned conversation between two people in a language that you don't know - you don't understand what it's about but you can feel the intensity. Similarly with Van Gogh - his inner turmoil is reflected onto the pastoral scenes on his canvasses - never have sunflowers and cornfields seemed so threatening and bursting with barely restrained fire.

So no, it doesn't always matter if the emotional response of the audience exactly matches the intent of the artist - more that it matches the intensity of the artist. And that is why I still say that it is the artist, not the object, that matters. The object is a channel between the artists feelings and the audiences - and the more it moves you, the better the artist did his job - if that makes sense.

[charlou]

So no, it doesn't always matter if the emotional response of the audience exactly matches the intent of the artist - more that it matches the intensity of the artist. And that is why I still say that it is the artist, not the object, that matters. The object is a channel between the artists feelings and the audiences - and the more it moves you, the better the artist did his job - if that makes sense.

re the bit I've bolded: You can't discount the medium the artist uses to communicate with the audience. It's their voice, their language, so to speak ... without it, the audience doesn't even hear what the artist has to say.

Interesting discussion Hades and XC .. you've both made interesting and thought provoking points.

[charlou]

Here the communication is more direct ...

[hadespussercats]

Okay, so if you use a wide definition of emotion, that could maybe be described as stimulated mind activity (? sounds dry, but that's the best I can do ATM), then we're on the same page. Particularly your last line, about work that fails to move you but that you recognize as worthwhile-- I know where you're coming from with that.

And I agree that art is an experience that is shared between the artist and the audience, or, maybe more precisely, between the art object and the audience. I make that last modification because I don't see how you've accounted for your earlier assertion about the value or success of art being linked to how successfully the artist conveys his or her desired emotional response to the audience member.

If an art viewer has a deep response to a piece of art, why does it matter if that response is what the artist intended?

I wasn't necessarily talking about an intentional effort to engender a particular emotional response - I doubt most artists are that cynical about their work - more that a great artist invests their emotions in the creative process and that their skill allows it to be passed to the observer through their work. Without that transfer of emotional content, an artist becomes merely an artisan.

In some cases the exact emotions felt by the artist are obvious - look at Picasso's Guernica, listen to Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit, watch Kubrick's Paths of Glory - the emotional responses that these draw forth are a direct mirror of what the artists were feeling when they created them. All three communicate perfectly on a direct emotional level.

In other cases, the emotional content of the work may be far more subtle, or even ambiguous. What was Pollock trying to convey in his work? What was he feeling when he created it? I honestly couldn't tell you but I do know that I get a huge sense of emotional intent when I see one of his giant paintings in a gallery that is nothing to do with technique and everything to do with feel. It's like listening to an impassioned conversation between two people in a language that you don't know - you don't understand what it's about but you can feel the intensity. Similarly with Van Gogh - his inner turmoil is reflected onto the pastoral scenes on his canvasses - never have sunflowers and cornfields seemed so threatening and bursting with barely restrained fire.

So no, it doesn't always matter if the emotional response of the audience exactly matches the intent of the artist - more that it matches the intensity of the artist. And that is why I still say that it is the artist, not the object, that matters. The object is a channel between the artists feelings and the audiences - and the more it moves you, the better the artist did his job - if that makes sense.

Sometimes I think that a piece of art is almost like a prosthetic-- an artificial limb of the artist, a golem... something that is like an extension of an aspect of the artist's mind into a new body. In some respects, I don't think you can distinguish between an artist and the artist's work-- it's just that the language of interaction changes.

I don't know if I'm making any sense.

I had another few thoughts about the Klee that rachelbean posted. In a way, I was disappointed when I found out its title-- the words seemed to limit the possibilities of the image.

But re- technical aspects, does anyone know how he went about creating some of the textural effects? Some of them seem almost like metallic reactions, oxidation or verdigris or something. I'd love to know how he did it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think we are pretty much in agreement, Hades. You see the artwork as an emotional extension of the artist; I see it as an emotional conduit that the artist uses to communicate with the audience. Just different ways of saying the same thing really.