• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most Overrated Artists...

The Shaggs album "Philosophy of the World" was recorded by prepubescent girls who couldn't play their instruments. It is now regarded (and I would have to agree) as an avant-garde masterpiece. I'm not sure exactly what this says about the nature of "art", but it's strange alright.
 
Well and you are all defining ART incorrectly.

It's ART... if someone puts paint to canvas or pencil to paper..

is it GOOD ? That's subjective!

Art was once defined as "something that makes you feel some emotion"... even if it is a BAD emotion (like anger).

Dada, which produced some horrific art to say nothing of plays and poetry... taken as a whole was a protest against the "culture" that lead to WWI. It was a stripping of the gloss and refinement that somehow allowed such carnage. They were saying "idiots! It all means nothing! Your refinement is just a sham!" Their point was to create art that meant nothing. They weren't out to make money that's for sure. (and they pretty much didn't). Art is full of artists that didn't make money, but art dealers and others that did.

Seriously, the book I suggested shows how "Chaos theory" was the point of much of Jackson P's work. I know... it's a weird tie in. Drinking heavily also had a lot to do with his work. Plus in each generation, the personality and life of the artist had a lot to do with the price of their work. Give it a few more generations and see what happens.

I'm not overly fond of a highly skilled painting where I go "oh, yeah you are really good". I like them. But I enjoy a painting where the painter has something different to say and has developed and grown over the years. A lot of not very skilled artists (such as many of the Impressionists) have lasted far longer than people that can reproduce something with photographic accuracy. There are a LOT of very skilled very good technical painters. Without a vision or thought of their own in their heads. People like their stuff. But they don't get passionate about their stuff. It doesn't end up in museums because a LOT of people can do that same painting. Artists need more than just skill and ability. They need to show us their vision of the world, and that vision has to be new and different.

There is a lot of good modern art. But time is going to tell us what that art is. There is a ton of bad art. For one thing, anyone can afford to paint these days. It's like digital photography. Without having to buy rolls of film and even develop it yourself... everyone is a good photographer! It's the people that can take a photograph that shows us a new vision of something that are artists. A photograph that would take a skilled printer and require the photographer to take the time to really plan his shots... those days are gone. Heck, if you can take 500-1000 shots and not even blink an eye (in one day) a few are bound to be good. It's down to skill vs. vision again. And a good photographer is still going to be the one with the eye... that sees the world is a different way.
 
Cavemonster said:
I personally like Scott McCloud's definition, which is quite popular right now.
Scott McCloud said:
"Art ... is any human activity that doesn't grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: survival and reproduction."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like what Scott says about art, but I think his defintion is incomplete. I would amend it thus: "Art ... is any human activity that doesn't grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: survival and reproduction, and seeks to communicate or evoke an emotional reaction."

That eliminates most casual recreational activities like sports, games, housepainting, and reality television. It also accounts for why art, religion and woo seem to have so much in common- they do. All three rely on emotion rather than reason.
 
Piscivore said:
I like what Scott says about art, but I think his defintion is incomplete. I would amend it thus: "Art ... is any human activity that doesn't grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: survival and reproduction, and seeks to communicate or evoke an emotional reaction."

That eliminates most casual recreational activities like sports, games, housepainting, and reality television. It also accounts for why art, religion and woo seem to have so much in common- they do. All three rely on emotion rather than reason.
Click to expand...

I think there is a value to the broadest definition, but it does need a modifier for practical use.

I'd agree with your version, with a broad view of emotion. Pollock's work, as well as Kline, Rothko etc doesn't communicate in the strict sense, and the reaction isn't exactly emotional, it's more visceral, like food, good or bad.
 
OH and I'm a big fan of a lot of the work of the Wyeth family.

A lot of people don't like them because they were "illustrators"...

and they do have that marketing thing down also.
But yeah, I like their work a lot (not all of it, but an awful lot).

THIS is rather bland and ick and I know thousands of artists that could do this or something like this. It sells really well...

drsyn.jpg


THIS, I adore. I had to draw a lot of skeletons in art class over the years. I got so I really enjoyed it. The artist used Xrays of his own skeleton for this work. Plus it's not something the average artist is going to do. "oh I'll do my portrait, but I think I'll do my skeleton and I'll be a PIRATE!"

That is real art!

drsyn001.jpg
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Let me argue by analogy a second. I asked this question earlier in chat.

If you intend to speak, but only a wordless, incomprehensible croak emanates from your throat, have you spoken?
Click to expand...

Once again, beware of using verbal analogies for visual art. In visual art, form alone is enough. You don't need to be able to derive a direct verbal message from the piece.

The answer to your question would be no (even though you'd have a hard time reducing a single croak to less than one bit of information), but you have sung.

Let me in turn reiterate my analogy: Is Hungarian poetry not poetry because you don't understand the words used?

If you submit a piece of trash picked off the street in an attempt to hoax the art community into accepting something as art, and it's lauded, is there something amiss?
Click to expand...

There might very well be something amiss. Much of the first wave of readymades and trash art, as well as the Manzoni's Merda d'artista were actually about this very question; what won't the galleries and museums accept?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
How many times must I type it?

I don't believe Pollock's canvases aren't art because I don't like them; I think they're not art because they depict nothing, require no skill, and have no discernible meaning.

Please stop making me repeat myself.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine, because I ask you, "evidence" on that point?

For my counter evidence, I point you to the movie Pollack, specifically the extra content on the DVD where the actor playing Pollack describes his efforts to learn to paint like Pollack. It took him a lot time and effort.
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Let me in turn reiterate my analogy: Is Hungarian poetry not poetry because you don't understand the words used?
Click to expand...

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think this is a good analogy. The Hungarian poetry can be understood by an independent listener as long as that person speaks Hungarian. In the case of painting, however, works like Pollock cannot be understood by any independent person. I don't think he's saying a painting isn't art because he can't independently understand it, rather he's suggesting that certain paintings are not art because no one can independently understand them.
 
Sefarst said:
I don't think he's saying a painting isn't art because he can't independently understand it, rather he's suggesting that certain paintings are not art because no one can independently understand them.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, and I think the underlying assumption (and error) inherent in that is that there is necessarily an objective meaning to something that is art. That's just not always the case. Art depends on emotions, esthetics, and experience- and these things are all highly subjective.
 
What's independent?

What piece of literature doesn't have a whole boat load of preconditions?
You can read any poem by TS Eliot and just get a bunch of words that sounds like someone trying to be weird, or you can learn a little bit about his classical influences and get something fantastic from it.

You also can't get much out of Joyce without knowing a bit about the History of the UK and in particular Christianity there. And you won't be able to appreciate why he's great without an idea about the formal experiments he makes. Is Joyce not art?
 
Cavemonster said:
What's independent?

What piece of literature doesn't have a whole boat load of preconditions?
You can read any poem by TS Eliot and just get a bunch of words that sounds like someone trying to be weird, or you can learn a little bit about his classical influences and get something fantastic from it.

You also can't get much out of Joyce without knowing a bit about the History of the UK and in particular Christianity there. And you won't be able to appreciate why he's great without an idea about the formal experiments he makes. Is Joyce not art?
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
Cavemonster said:
What's independent?

What piece of literature doesn't have a whole boat load of preconditions?
You can read any poem by TS Eliot and just get a bunch of words that sounds like someone trying to be weird, or you can learn a little bit about his classical influences and get something fantastic from it.

You also can't get much out of Joyce without knowing a bit about the History of the UK and in particular Christianity there. And you won't be able to appreciate why he's great without an idea about the formal experiments he makes. Is Joyce not art?
Click to expand...

Not to rehash too much, but we've all ready said that some background info is expected (you couldn't understand ANYTHING without proper background info). That said, I'll content that there are equivalents of a Pollock painting in nearly all of the artistic fields. There are plenty of poems that I would consider meaningless and undisciplined (in my experience, a lot of haikus I read tend to fall into this category). If a meaning is there to be discovered and some effort has been put into the work to try and convey this meaning in sensible terms, it's kosher with me.
 
So,
Then I'm not sure what your point is.
You said before that no-one could understand Pollocks work independently and that disqualified it as art. You state that all art requires background which implies that doing a bit of research does not destroy the "independence"

Myself and several others in this thread do appreciate Pollock's work. So, what is this independent understanding that you claim is impossible for these paintings?
 
Sefarst said:
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think this is a good analogy. The Hungarian poetry can be understood by an independent listener as long as that person speaks Hungarian.
Click to expand...

Can be understood to some degree, yes. Similarly with Pollock, (some) people have aestethic experiences with and emotional reaction to his paintings. Which makes calling them "not art" silly.

And note that I'm actually disregarding my own advice here and using a language analogy - I'll say it again, don't expect visual art to be directly translatable to something verbal.

In the case of painting, however, works like Pollock cannot be understood by any independent person. I don't think he's saying a painting isn't art because he can't independently understand it, rather he's suggesting that certain paintings are not art because no one can independently understand them.
Click to expand...

Understand, as in cognitively / rationally? Since when is that required for a painting to be art?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom