Most Overrated Artists...

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

That is not evidence that Pollock's "work" requires skill. It's difficult to replicate an accident. I could shatter a dozen different plates and no two would seem the same.

 

[Sefarst]

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"

To go back to my Huck Finn example, most anyone with some knowledge of American history can approach the book and walk away with a general understanding of its meaning. That said, I don't need to go and study Mark Twain himself or read what he says about his own work to get that understanding. I don't have to have him tell me what his work means (within reason, I recognize that there might be a few small, finer points I could have missed in my reading).

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?

Just to not blur terms here, would you say that you understand his work and could you have come to that understanding without Pollock telling you what he meant to convey?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Jackson Pollack is good....

And if we can include other types of artists then Madonna. I don't understand the infatuation with Madonna.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

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.

In fairness, the operative phrase is "to learn to paint like Pollack."

I can see that it would take a while, but IMO that doesn't make it good.

 

[Polaris]

I think you're confusing the meaning with its representation. It's a portrait of a woman with a landscape in the background. Anyone can see that.

A woman with a look on her face like Leo bought her a Rabbit and an endless supply of batteries.

 

[Sefarst]

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.

But having an emotional reaction to something doesn't seem to make that particular thing special. A sunset is not art but many people will have a very strong emotional reaction to it.

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.

Because we're playing with this language analogy, I'll try to better summarize what I mean. I believe art should convey a message, as in presenting itself as a type of language. I agree that the message doesn't have to be verbal (but I have some qualifications to go along with that that I can go into if we need to), but the important characteristics, to me, are intent of conveyance by the artist (the deliberate message), median through which that message is conveyed (the painting/sculpture), and the receiver of that message (you). The test is whether or not that message reaches you in a recognizable form of what the artist intended. Art should act linguistically, in a sense.

In the same way that I could say the word "love" and conjer a particular image or feeling in your mind similar to the image or feeling I mean to conjer in your mind, so too should a painting conjer in a person an image/feeling/meaning that the artist wants to convey. It's not enough to me that I simply see something and have a reaction to it, the measure of art is whether or not my reaction is similar to the reaction the artist intended me to have.

So, if Pollock wants me to view his paintings as just paintings, he's telling me that he doesn't really have a meaning behind what he's doing. Maybe the experience of making the paintings was meaningful to him, who knows? Maybe because he made the paintings he can look at them and know exactly what his meaning was and, in that way, they are "art" to him, but only to him. The test, in my opinion, would be if someone else could look at the painting and tease the same or similar meaning out of it that Pollock himself would get.

 

[technoextreme]

To go back to my Huck Finn example, most anyone with some knowledge of American history can approach the book and walk away with a general understanding of its meaning. That said, I don't need to go and study Mark Twain himself or read what he says about his own work to get that understanding. I don't have to have him tell me what his work means (within reason, I recognize that there might be a few small, finer points I could have missed in my reading).

It's nice to see arguments that I shot that argument down three pages ago with Henry V. There is no guarantee that it would be interpreted the same exact way by two different people because it's so muddled in every single area except plot.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's nice to see arguments that I shot that argument down three pages ago with Henry V. There is no guarantee that it would be interpreted the same exact way by two different people.

At this point, I have to conclude that you're being deceptive on purpose. Anyone can read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and understand that it is about a runaway boy and a runaway slave.

Please stop crowing about a victory you didn't win.

 

[Sefarst]

I shot that argument down three pages ago with Henry V. There is no guarantee that it would be interpreted the same exact way by two different people.

Again, it doesn't have to be interpreted the exact same way by two people. Every person is unique, but people have many similarities and cultural groupings. Part of art, literature, music, language, and so on is using those common characteristics and cultural symbols to portray a message. Because of individual uniqueness, no one is going to get exactly the same thing, but we can successfully be led in the same general directions on the basis of our shared experiences.

ETA: it's nice to see you edited your post with the deliberate intention of adding pointless smarminess to it.

 

[technoextreme]

Because of individual uniqueness, no one is going to get exactly the same thing, but we can successfully be led in the same general directions on the basis of our shared experiences.

Essentially, you have just given the reason why art must have a specific theme is stupid because everyone is different.

At this point, I have to conclude that you're being deceptive on purpose. Anyone can read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and understand that it is about a runaway boy and a runaway slave.

Please stop crowing about a victory you didn't win.

No. I won the victory. The problem is that Im dealing with the weirdest interpretation of basic literary theory that has ever graced this earth. The literary equivalent of what you saying doesn't exist in Pollock's work consists of:
Setting
Plot
Characterization
Conflict
Tone

 

[Sefarst]

The literary equivalent of what you saying doesn't exist in Pollock's work consists of:
Setting
Plot
Characterization
Conflict
Tone

Are you familiar with the concept of an analogy? That's sort of what we've been doing here...

The fact that Pollock's work doesn't contain any of the artistic equivalents of those literary aspects is what we've been arguing.

 

[technoextreme]

Are you familiar with the concept of an analogy? That's sort of what we've been doing here...

No. You've been using the wrong terminology to try and develop an analogy. You've been interspersing the word theme and artistic elements which is the equivalent to moving the goalposts. Make up your dam mind so I can argue with you. Half the time you seem to be talking about theme and then half the time you seem to be talking something else. If you are talking about reaction then yes Henry V is a perfect example because you can interpret it in two different ways without anyone telling you. You seem to be in denial that your definition actually does not work if you apply it to other works of art that actually has visible form.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

First off, Sefarst, thanks for replying so thoroughly. I was in the middle of picking something of yours out of a post directed at someone else and then saw your reply to me (that part you'll find at the bottom of this post).

I think we disagree fundamentally, and I'll try to explain how I see it.

But having an emotional reaction to something doesn't seem to make that particular thing special. A sunset is not art but many people will have a very strong emotional reaction to it.

You are absolutely right, an emotional reaction is not enough. What the sunset isn't is an act of communication human mind to human mind. It wasn't created as a 'message'. Fudgy word there, I don't know if I can find a better one - 'impulse', maybe?

Because we're playing with this language analogy, I'll try to better summarize what I mean. I believe art should convey a message, as in presenting itself as a type of language. I agree that the message doesn't have to be verbal (but I have some qualifications to go along with that that I can go into if we need to), but the important characteristics, to me, are intent of conveyance by the artist (the deliberate message), median through which that message is conveyed (the painting/sculpture), and the receiver of that message (you). The test is whether or not that message reaches you in a recognizable form of what the artist intended. Art should act linguistically, in a sense.

Very often, I find that these messages or impulses in non-verbal art forms are valuable precisely because they don't behave as deliberate messages. You can't reduce them to anything other than their form. That said, context and cultural preconceptions are obviously important. And you can most definitely discuss them, like we're doing now.

And on Pollock, not that I'm the greatest fan, saying his pieces aren't deliberate is a stretch. As any abstract painter will tell you, not only what dimensions and colours you choose, but when to stop and which pieces to scrap and which to hang are of the greatest importance. It's essentially like a life photographer who chooses which particular framing and angle to use even though he didn't create the subject matter. Pollock's accidents are heavily edited.

Not to mention, Pollock developed this method of painting, and was a force in moving the perception of what was possible in the medium. And here we are, some sixty years later, talking about it.

Like it or not, it's been an enormously strong visual impulse, so I maintain that trying to define it as "not art" is silly. Like I've said several times, we can of course discuss its merits.

In the same way that I could say the word "love" and conjer a particular image or feeling in your mind similar to the image or feeling I mean to conjer in your mind, so too should a painting conjer in a person an image/feeling/meaning that the artist wants to convey. It's not enough to me that I simply see something and have a reaction to it, the measure of art is whether or not my reaction is similar to the reaction the artist intended me to have.

Similar is the key word here - our concepts and their corresponding images and feelings are likely slightly different. That's using words - visual art, at its best, is communication of things there aren't even words for.

I don't need to have a controlled reaction to a painting (in the sense that the artist is certain I'm getting the message) - it's enough that it shows me something I couldn't have thought of myself.

By the way, something you'll often hear from painters, songwriters, filmmakers etc. is that when hey return to a piece some time after they created it, they can see nuances and possible interpretations that they didn't remember putting in there. That indicates to me that deliberate intention isn't the key to all this.

So, if Pollock wants me to view his paintings as just paintings, he's telling me that he doesn't really have a meaning behind what he's doing. Maybe the experience of making the paintings was meaningful to him, who knows? Maybe because he made the paintings he can look at them and know exactly what his meaning was and, in that way, they are "art" to him, but only to him. The test, in my opinion, would be if someone else could look at the painting and tease the same or similar meaning out of it that Pollock himself would get.

See the answer I was composing, below:

Just to not blur terms here, would you say that you understand his work and could you have come to that understanding without Pollock telling you what he meant to convey

He would most likely not understand the question and tell you to just look at the painting. What he meant to convey is exactly what's on the canvas - there's no punchline to the story.

In other words: Hello public, here's a novel perception for you.

 

[Sefarst]

Very often, I find that these messages or impulses in non-verbal art forms are valuable precisely because they don't behave as deliberate messages. You can't reduce them to anything other than their form.

I'm going to just say that I don't understand at this point. In my mind, you can't have a message without it being deliberate.

And on Pollock, not that I'm the greatest fan, saying his pieces aren't deliberate is a stretch. As any abstract painter will tell you, not only what dimensions and colours you choose, but when to stop and which pieces to scrap and which to hang are of the greatest importance. It's essentially like a life photographer who chooses which particular framing and angle to use even though he didn't create the subject matter. Pollock's accidents are heavily edited.

Fair enough, but it seems if Pollock was taking deliberate actions then he had a specific message/impulse in mind.

Like it or not, it's been an enormously strong visual impulse, so I maintain that trying to define it as "not art" is silly. Like I've said several times, we can of course discuss its merits.

Can we get some standard of what art is actually suppose to be then? I feel more and more like we're in the realm of tautology.

Similar

is the key word here - our concepts and their corresponding images and feelings are likely slightly different. That's using words - visual art, at its best, is communication of things there aren't even words for.

Then visual art is acting as a word in this context. It's conveying meaning. My problem comes when the visual art is indecipherable. If you agree with me that it's acting like a word, can we agree that a word is useless if no one knows its meaning? If you and I both hear a sound and it conjures in us completely different feelings or ideas, in what sense can we even call it communication?

I don't need to have a controlled reaction to a painting (in the sense that the artist is certain I'm getting the message) - it's enough that it shows me something I couldn't have thought of myself.

But without the artist's deliberate intent, doesn't our earlier established idea of communication break down? This ties back to the earlier sunset example. A sunset can conjure emotions and ideas in you that you might not otherwise have thought of. And didn't you say, regarding the sunset, that an emotional reaction is not enough?

By the way, something you'll often hear from painters, songwriters, filmmakers etc. is that when hey return to a piece some time after they created it, they can see nuances and possible interpretations that they didn't remember putting in there. That indicates to me that deliberate intention isn't the key to all this.

I'm kind of confused as to whether or not we've agreed on the definition of art, or at least a general idea of what it's suppose to be. To me, it's a form of human to human communication that requires a median and deliberateness. I think, if we let go of those two things, we're back to calling a sunset art.

He would most likely not understand the question and tell you to just look at the painting. What he meant to convey is exactly what's on the canvas - there's no punchline to the story.

In other words: Hello public, here's a novel perception for you.

It's certainly novel. If he meant to convey exactly what is on the canvas and only what is on the canvas, then I suppose he conveyed it. It's paint. Colored paste on canvas. But maybe walking up to me and showing me a can of paint would have been faster and easier.

If Pollock meant to convey paint or "exactly what's on the canvas" and nothing more, I can't help but think he's no different than a house painter. If I hire a man to come paint my house and he does it, then I walk up to him and ask him what he meant to convey by doing it, he likely wouldn't understand the question either. His response might be something along the lines of, "uh, well, I painted your house red." If that's the meaning of Pollock then I guess I "get it," but I wouldn't then consider him an artist.

 

[Piscivore]

If I may...

I'm going to just say that I don't understand at this point. In my mind, you can't have a message without it being deliberate.

Fair enough, but it seems if Pollock was taking deliberate actions then he had a specific message/impulse in mind.

This is where you're going wrong. It's not about conveying a specific message. It's about making you feel something.

Then visual art is acting as a word in this context. It's conveying meaning. My problem comes when the visual art is indecipherable. If you agree with me that it's acting like a word, can we agree that a word is useless if no one knows its meaning? If you and I both hear a sound and it conjures in us completely different feelings or ideas, in what sense can we even call it communication?

It's not communication, in the sense of a telephone call or a Chick tract or a road sign. A better word would be communion. Empathy.

This ties back to the earlier sunset example. A sunset can conjure emotions and ideas in you that you might not otherwise have thought of. And didn't you say, regarding the sunset, that an emotional reaction is not enough?

Ideally, the artist makes you feel, as best you can, the way he feels or wants you to feel. It's not always going to work- in fact, with all the potential obstacles- lack of skill in the artist, lack of context in the viewer, cultural and personal differences- that it happes at all is pretty special.

I'm kind of confused as to whether or not we've agreed on the definition of art, or at least a general idea of what it's suppose to be. To me, it's a form of human to human communication that requires a median and deliberateness.

That describes writing a letter to your aunt Mary, putting up a billboard, or calling to complain about a parking ticket- not art.

 

[roger]

That is not evidence that Pollock's "work" requires skill. It's difficult to replicate an accident. I could shatter a dozen different plates and no two would seem the same.

I have an idea - go to the work cited and study it before you shoot it down. He wasn't trying to replicate a specific Pollack canvas, merely to make new works that look like Pollack's work.

 

[roger]

In fairness, the operative phrase is "to learn to paint like Pollack."

I can see that it would take a while, but IMO that doesn't make it good.

Good is in the eye of the beholder. The poster I was responding to said it takes no skill. He was wrong on that point.

 

[gumboot]

That's real Arrrrrrrrrrrrrt!

No it's not... it's yarrrt.

 

[kittynh]

wait is this about literature or art.

And... hey just because you can replicate something doesn't mean you will get paid the millions an original work commands.

You don't like it fine, but someone else does. Madonna makes more than Twain ever did also (hey let's mix is all up)

Art's value often has nothing to do with price. If your measure for everything is price and money.. whew what an American stereotype.

 

[kittynh]

I like them too- I have a print of "Christina's World" hanging in my foyer.

Ohhh I think I love you! "Christina's World" wonderful...it's popular, but it's GOOD.