|
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2014 17:30:48 GMT -5
Wow, there sure are some strong anti-contemporary-art views out there! I guess I don't understand the anger, the implications of fraud, because this or that person, in an artistic endeavor, elects to do things his or her way and yet has to encounter some viewers who go beyond expressing ambivalence or even dislike of the work but seek to impugn the creator and his or her character. There may be quite a bit of that out there. In fact, I know there is. But there's also "other". There's frustration. It's like taking a class in a foreign language and finding that you're the only one in the class that simply can't understand what everyone else is saying. Yes, that frustration might often lead to conclusions of a fraud being perpetrated. And that's not helped one bit by the amount of fraud there actually is in the art world (always a few real-life examples to bolster the skepticism). But the other side of that coin is equally frustrating -- that those who are honest enough to say they don't get it are constantly impugned as "narrow", "naive", "ignorant" (<----USUALLY with the further implied "willfully so"). The assumption is rampant that those who don't find meaning in modern art are, for want of a better way of framing it, bad people. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. It's ignorant bad people who, given power to do so would ban free expression....vs.....charlatans wearing emperor's new clothes. But the truth is that there's sufficient ambiguity to invite skepticism from really, really intelligent people, and there's really, really great creativity that not everyone "gets". My friend who taught at Notre Dame introduced a book in his archaeology class (it was given to him by the anthropology professor the year before). The thesis of the book was that art might actually have preceded the spoken word -- and certainly the written word. And that art was a means of communicating. And it was accurate -- not ambiguous -- communication. As language developed, easier means of communicating most concepts developed with it. But that development didn't elbow art completely from the table. Art still communicates. And it does so accurately -- though because of this historical development -- we are left with the irony that we don't have the language with which to communicate ABOUT art. If we did, it would have supplanted the art in the first place. Interesting speculation at the least.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 5, 2014 17:42:39 GMT -5
I certainly acknowledge that there are those on both sides who are unduly judgmental.
I guess my point is that for me, at least, I care way less about finding meaning in visual art and a whole lot more about letting it affect me as it will, and then pondering those reactions as long as I can, as open-mindedly.
Don't bring too much of your pragmatic side to the gallery, is my approach. Take a hike through the gallery as you might a walk in the woods.
And then later, if you want to look intellectually into the botany of the area or the background of the creators of the artworks, fine.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 5, 2014 18:53:19 GMT -5
I can go both ways, bill. I can do the raw " how it hits me" thing. I find that my appreciation can be elevated by getting the meaning. My Renaissance art history teachers lectures increased my love greatly for certain works.
A few years back we visited the great Nelson in KCMO. I rounded a corner and an El Greco of a repentant Mary Magdalene, caught in that moment of eyes brimming with tears but not yet running. Much to my surprise my knees went weak and my eyes filled with tears. Confluence of meaning and visceral reaction
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2014 19:51:10 GMT -5
I don't try to analyse why I love a beautiful musical solo, and I try to just enjoy a beautiful piece of art in the same way. If we have to be persuaded to appreciate something, maybe it isn't working well enough in explaining itself, or at least giving clues to its interpretation. That said, it can be fun to come to a 'difficult' piece of art and take the time to see if it does speak to you on any level. It may not. I try to keep an open mind. As I said, the discussion can go in so many different directions. One of those paths: It's interesting that one might not have to analyze art to appreciate it.... ...but to produce it, you actually do have to analyze it at some point. So, if your goal is to merely appreciate art, it can remain a total mystery and enjoyed at the same time. In fact, I might even opine that on some level art will be better appreciated before analysis....and that some-often-times, it is the analysis necessary to be a producer of art that demystifies the art in a way that prohibits one from being capable of enjoying the piece the same way ever again. It's like those "Find The _____" pictures in the Highlights magazine. You search and search and search the picture for the hidden pictures within......and the second you find one, you can never again NOT see it. So a piece of music hits you like magic. You can't figure out what is so darn magical about it. Maybe you don't even care. Maybe you just dance along. But you start to realize the bass line is carrying you along. And so you sit down with your guitar and you pick out that line. You play it over and over. Then you find that you can even add the chords and melody under it. Suddenly, it's no longer magic. Never again in the same way it was before you were capable of dissecting it well enough to produce it. And it can never again be new.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 5, 2014 20:09:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 20:12:20 GMT -5
I have been to the Louvre, Prado, Rijks Museum, Van Gogh Museum, Guggenheim, NY Museum of Modern Art, Cincinnati Museum, LA and San Francisco Museum of Contemporary Art, Deutsch Museum, British Museum, Uffizi and countless others in Florence, and galleries all over LA, MewYork, and Sna Francisco.My ex wife was an abstract expressionist painter. we saw lots of Klines,,Rothkos, Motherwells,De Koonings, Rauschenbergs, Pollacks, and others . We liked German art from the 20s- and 30s. My European trips were based on the classics for the most part.
I like art. My biggest disappoint was a Jeff Koons thingamajigger in Munich. Looked like it had been stolen from the Tivoli.
Arf Arf, or is that art art?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 5, 2014 22:23:02 GMT -5
A little Peter Cook and Dudley Moore
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Sept 5, 2014 23:37:20 GMT -5
There has to be something. There has to be a touch, a tone, a blend, a complexity, a beauty, a line. Something to grab the sensibilities. And a blank canvas with lines on it is just not going to do that. Jackson Pollack throwing paint at a canvas is not going to do it.
When it gets to the point where you have to understand the details of the technical work in order to "appreciate" it, then perhaps there are a few people in the world who will like that, find something in it, but for the majority of us, not.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 6, 2014 0:53:29 GMT -5
Art still communicates. And it does so accurately -- though because of this historical development -- we are left with the irony that we don't have the language with which to communicate ABOUT art. If we did, it would have supplanted the art in the first place. (My bold.) Sure we do. I do it every month in a book-review column, and I did it for a couple decades in the classroom. Despite my eloquence and manifest correctness and accuracy about everything, nobody has ever said they preferred my classes or columns to the poems, plays, and fiction I elucidated. My job was not to replace the work but to light it up, to put it in context, to provide tools that would, in a perfect world, make my job obsolete. Actually, that's never going to happen, because talking about art is something humans do (hell, we talk about everything), and no work of art manifests itself in exactly the same ways to any two nervous systems (though there are clearly a lot of converging responses), so we compare notes and argue about stuff, and even when we've seen exactly the same fireworks display and had our personal oohs and aaahs, we still like to turn to each other and say, "Wow." Every month I get to say "Wow" and explain the wowness of that month's books.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2014 5:32:19 GMT -5
Art still communicates. And it does so accurately -- though because of this historical development -- we are left with the irony that we don't have the language with which to communicate ABOUT art. If we did, it would have supplanted the art in the first place. (My bold.) Sure we do. I do it every month in a book-review column, and I did it for a couple decades in the classroom. Despite my eloquence and manifest correctness and accuracy about everything, nobody has ever said they preferred my classes or columns to the poems, plays, and fiction I elucidated. My job was not to replace the work but to light it up, to put it in context, to provide tools that would, in a perfect world, make my job obsolete. Actually, that's never going to happen, because talking about art is something humans do (hell, we talk about everything), and no work of art manifests itself in exactly the same ways to any two nervous systems (though there are clearly a lot of converging responses), so we compare notes and argue about stuff, and even when we've seen exactly the same fireworks display and had our personal oohs and aaahs, we still like to turn to each other and say, "Wow." Every month I get to say "Wow" and explain the wowness of that month's books. Heh. Yeah, I said that wrong, didn't I? What I was getting at was: Art still communicates. And it does so accurately -- though because of this historical development -- we are left with the irony that we still don't have the language with which to communicate the things that art still communicates more effectively. If we did, it would have supplanted the art in the first place. And there would be a whole lot more agreement about what a piece of art is saying.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 6, 2014 6:32:15 GMT -5
Actually, that's never going to happen, because talking about art is something humans do (hell, we talk about everything), We sure do look at this thread six pages.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2014 8:50:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 6, 2014 12:32:08 GMT -5
Keep posting this just cries out for a page seven entry.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 6, 2014 12:49:37 GMT -5
Keep posting this just cries out for a page seven entry. Well, yeah. What's-his-name collected art, didn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 6, 2014 12:55:48 GMT -5
Keep posting this just cries out for a page seven entry. Well, yeah. What's-his-name collected art, didn't he? And he was an artist (depending on what you call art) I always called art Linkletter
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 6, 2014 13:18:39 GMT -5
Yep, that was pretty cool, alright... But it doesn't look a bit like Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Sept 6, 2014 15:51:27 GMT -5
Guess who. I know I'm early.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 6, 2014 16:09:28 GMT -5
Anticipating page 7, I really wanted to find something that would embrace the multiple aspects of this thread...
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 6, 2014 16:09:52 GMT -5
...which ranges from the visual arts through music and back again...
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 6, 2014 16:15:21 GMT -5
...and so, I present:
Performed by Lowell George, written by a true artist (Jimmy Webb) with album cover ART by Neon Park, another artist.
And just in case I've counted wrong and this is the last post on page 6, I have not even mentioned Voldemort.
|
|