Most Overrated Artists...

[calebprime]

I'm sorry, but let me launch off on a tangent here. Pollock was not a minimalist. He was an abstract expressionist.

I happen to really like minimalism, and this annoys me. I'm not an art snob people, but for pete's sake, there's no way you can possibly stare at one of his works and think that it has 'removed all unnecessary elements.'

http://www.richard-allen-artist.com/galleries.php?g=2

That's minimalism, folks. Though I don't think it could ever be conveyed through a computer screen.

You can zoom in, and on a big screen, it looks good. But I don't know what I'm missing.

 

[billydkid]

My cousin's ex-husband was a big league graphic artist who aspired to be a "real" artist and had several shows in NYC. I lived with them for a while and had ample opportunity to see him work on his "fine" art. Several of his paintings consisted of large canvases covered in brown paint - like the way you paint a wall. On his really daring stuff would stick a strip of masking tape down the length of the canvas, often haphazardly so that the tape would fold over in places and not make a clean line - that was the art part - and then he would paint the whole thing brown and then he would pull the tape off.

I don't know what art is, but I have a pretty good idea what it is not. Now, I sort of understand the impetus toward "un-art" and the notion of redefining the paradigm of what is art to include what typically may not be considered art. I understand the commentary behind it, but, at the end of the day, if it isn't interesting to look at or to experience it's not really worth anything IMHO. I think the advent of photography had a very large effect on the meaning and purpose of art. A friend of mine is an artist who has had a couple of shows. His whole thing is photographically real painting. I am not really sure what to think of that. There is no doubt it is a feat of great skill and ability, but is it really just a stunt?

 

[billydkid]

Jackson Pollack is good....

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

I don't know anyone who thinks Madonna is an artist in the same sense that that Van Gogh was an artist. The term artist has a few meanings.

 

[calebprime]

I don't know anyone who thinks Madonna is an artist in the same sense that that Van Gogh was an artist. The term artist has a few meanings.

I agree with you, but, sadly, I do know some people who think Madonna is an artist like Van Gogh...

 

[Piscivore]

My cousin's ex-husband was a big league graphic artist who aspired to be a "real" artist and had several shows in NYC. I lived with them for a while and had ample opportunity to see him work on his "fine" art. Several of his paintings consisted of large canvases covered in brown paint - like the way you paint a wall. On his really daring stuff would stick a strip of masking tape down the length of the canvas, often haphazardly so that the tape would fold over in places and not make a clean line - that was the art part - and then he would paint the whole thing brown and then he would pull the tape off.

I don't know what art is, but I have a pretty good idea what it is not.

Heh. That's the other thing about art- just because someone calls it art, wants it to be art, or really really tries to make it great art, it does not even make it good art, necessarily.

Now, I sort of understand the impetus toward "un-art" and the notion of redefining the paradigm of what is art to include what typically may not be considered art. I understand the commentary behind it, but, at the end of the day, if it isn't interesting to look at or to experience it's not really worth anything IMHO.

And that's fair enough. I personally cannot stand Thomas Kinkaide. I find his work saccharine, maudlin, and trite. But evidently that's just the sort of emotional stimulation quite a lot of people want. And that's okay too.

I think the advent of photography had a very large effect on the meaning and purpose of art.

Without question. It's all but killed formal portraiture, for starters.

A friend of mine is an artist who has had a couple of shows. His whole thing is photographically real painting. I am not really sure what to think of that. There is no doubt it is a feat of great skill and ability, but is it really just a stunt?

Did it move you?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

All right, Sefarst, I've been owing you an answer for this and mulling it over a bit. It seems I'm either not expressing myself clearly, or a bit confused myself. I'll try again.

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.

I agree that the initiation of the impulse or message is always deliberate. Whether it's hanging the painting in a gallery, pasting stickers around town, digging a hole and documenting it photographically, or sneaking up on unsuspecting people to do a surprise performance piece, the impulse is deliberate.

The content of the message, however, may very well be no more specific than "Please keep this channel open for a bit" or "Look over here, I've noticed something strange!"

In other words, the only required message for the impulse to work is something like "please look at this object / action / process that I'm presenting as though it were a work of art."

Yes, that implies that art is whatever you label as such. But it is always the viewer's right to decline the invitation, or to find the offered experience lacking.

Remember, the term "art" doesn't imply "great".

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.

Art is the complex relationship between the artist, the piece (whatever form it may take), and the viewer.

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?

But yes, it is partly indicipherable. I think it should be. In the best cases the non-verbal arts deal with the things language can't convey. That puts it out of the realm of strict decipherability.

I agree with Piscivore that it matters little whether the image, though or emotion in the mind of the viewer matches that in the mind of the artist.

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?

Yes, it's not enough until someone photographs it, paints it, mounts a frame in the right angle by the seaside, or otherwise points to it. Emotional reactions do not define art, but some art can include them.

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.

Hey, we're actually agreeing! Yes, a form of human to human communication that requires a median (I like that!). The deliberateness is a given - if you've gone so far as to commit your art to a medium, you've shown deliberate intent. Even if that intent is just to explore what will happen without a specific message in mind.

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.

Yes, he meant to convey these specific patterns, these tracings of a process.

You can hardly say the paint can would be the same. Maybe it would be interesting in its own right, I don't know, but it wouldn't be the same. Enthropy and all that.

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.

It's possible to take advantage of the lowered parades and heightened sensibility that's a result of calling something "art". We're back to the "hey guys, take a look at this" impulse. You may not see anything extraordinary in the newly painted house, but if someone else sees enough there, they should by all means try to communicate that - by photography, painting, replicating or even taking the house down and reconstructing it in a museum. All in an effort to get the rest of us to really look at it.

So to recap:

I regard visual art as human-to-human communication, through medium or process, of the full range of possible mind states. Including what's outside the scope of language.

Examples include something as simple as pointing out what we otherwise take for granted, something very cognitive like a conceptual piece in the form of recipe for action. Or it may be trying to lend the viewer a foreign perceptual apparatus for a while. Which is my take on what Pollock tried to do.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

And because there's not enough art in the art thread:

First a fun take on the "pointing out what we otherwise take for granted" category (from the artist who ◊◊◊◊ in a can, no less):




And a few paintings from a favourite of mine, Gerhard Richter (who, according to some would be an artist some of the time ):



NSFW - artistic nudity

 

[ma1ic3]

Anyway, this thread is for art that people rant and rave about, but when you go see it, you're surprised anyone would even give a passing mention to that piece of crap.

My vote goes for Jackson Pollock and his painting Number 22, which apparently sold for $1.7 million at auction.

[qimg]http://www.uwgb.edu/malloyk/Num_22.jpg[/qimg]

Total crap...

I always assumed jokes about paint splatter being sold as art for millions was exaggerated, but wow... Car salesmen could learn a thing or two from these guys, if you can turn a tricycle into art by giving it a really bad paint job, you can sale it for more than a Rolls-Royce.

 

[kittynh]

People said they don't like minimalism...

but... most people like this minimalist art.

A lot of people don't like modern art because it's NIH (Not invented here).

the Japanese have minimalism down. Now picture how revolutionary it was when Japenese art showed up in the fussy world of Victorain art. Early objections to minimalism....it was influenced by ASIANS! Non Christian art!

 

[Hokulele]

All art was modern art in its own time.

 

[arthwollipot]

Huck Finn is much more than a story about a runaway boy and a runaway slave.

And Blue Poles is much more than a random spatter of paint.

I've heard some of the most profoundly stirring music that I know (say, any of the Bach keyboard works) described as "elevator music", "ponderous", "boring". Seems Bach has failed to communicate a single message to all listeners - must be dreck, right?

There is no "message" in The Art of the Clavier. I suspect my reaction to it is different from yours, if for no other reason than I've studied the stuff for years, and can play pieces in my head note for note. I've never seen a message, the emotional response can differ quite a bit from time to time, none of it particularly accessible or describable via language.

Do you mean "Art of the Fugue" or "The Well-Tempered Clavier"?

I tried to explain what the Well-Tempered Clavier was all about - a prelude and fugue in each of the major and minor keys - to a (then) 16-year old girl of my acquaintance, and her response was "why the **** would you want to listen to the same thing over and over again?"

 

[calebprime]

The content of the message, however, may very well be no more specific than "Please keep this channel open for a bit" or "Look over here, I've noticed something strange!"

In other words, the only required message for the impulse to work is something like "please look at this object / action / process that I'm presenting as though it were a work of art."

....

Remember, the term "art" doesn't imply "great".



Art is the complex relationship between the artist, the piece (whatever form it may take), and the viewer.


...

Quoted for agreement. Bolding mine. Didn't want these gems to get lost in the verbiage.

my own 2¢

Music is even more problematic for people than visual art, because it necessarily takes place in time (trying people's patience), and because of another factor: It can't be commodified/owned/traded like a work of art can--that is, you don't see Sotheby's auctioning off John Coltrane's Giant Steps solo.

a more important point:

While I'm all for wide-open definitions and standards, I don't believe anything goes. Anything goes for a little while. Then, even the most committed, educated viewer/listener will rebel, lose interest, lose faith.

I think this loss of trust happens all the time. Personally, Coltrane is worth my effort, but Albert Ayler isn't. Glenn Branca, Boris Bergman, probably not.

There is an implicit offer by the artist: "Attend to this. I believe it might be worth your time. There's something here."

As a composer, I try to honor this trust between listener and musician--I don't offer music/sound that I feel is a waste of time, or so fundamentally unpleasant that it is an ordeal. I don't abuse that trust.

Most artists are simply trying to find some new thing that they think is good and interesting.

The minimalists are offering what they feel are pure experiences and they are presenting what they like.

That's even true of Koons, Warhol, etc. though I can't say I have any feel for what it is they present. But then, I have a mind like a retired disgraced priest who finds much of the contemporary/commercial world incomprehensible--so I don't really get the point of what they do.

I know of zero avant-garde musicians who have achieved any fame who I consider frauds or worthy of scorn or indignation. I don't listen to Cage pieces very often, but I respect his ideas, writing, career, and some of his music.

Stockhausen is another favorite whipping-boy. I think he created some good stuff--Hymnen, Telemusik, Gruppen, others. What Stockhausen wasn't doing was faking it or trying to put one over on the audience.

That cartoon a few posts back about the turds/pretentious speak--it's based on a tired cliche', the art-speak isn't very good, and What is Art? has been a vexed question since Duchamp, if not before. And it's is not a possessive.

 

[Polaris]

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

That's only if it's painted by Howard Dean

 

[Shalamar]

Definitely an interesting thread.

As a companion, it would be interesting to see what art people have on display in their homes.. and why.

 

[Sefarst]

My apologies for not getting to this sooner. I had a final exam yesterday and had to work all day today.

I agree that the initiation of the impulse or message is always deliberate. Whether it's hanging the painting in a gallery, pasting stickers around town, digging a hole and documenting it photographically, or sneaking up on unsuspecting people to do a surprise performance piece, the impulse is deliberate.

The content of the message, however, may very well be no more specific than "Please keep this channel open for a bit" or "Look over here, I've noticed something strange!"

In other words, the only required message for the impulse to work is something like "please look at this object / action / process that I'm presenting as though it were a work of art."

Yes, that implies that art is whatever you label as such. But it is always the viewer's right to decline the invitation, or to find the offered experience lacking.

Then unfortunately I feel like we've again lapsed to calling anything art. I, personally, can't bring myself to labeling the act of calling attention to something art. Maybe it would be useful to do away with the generic term of "art" altogether. Instead, maybe people should just say, "hey look, I did something. Come tell me if you like it," rather than calling themselves artists. I feel like invoking the word "art" brings with it the idea of the discipline and creativity involved in "fine art". In essence, someone says, "art" and you come running, expecting the Sistine Chapel and instead you get a single red line on an otherwise blank canvas.

Remember, the term "art" doesn't imply "great".

Enthusiatically agreed.

But yes, it is partly indicipherable. I think it should be. In the best cases the non-verbal arts deal with the things language can't convey. That puts it out of the realm of strict decipherability.

My problem is not necessarily with partial indecipherability. My problem is with a piece being wholly indecipherable. There's no doubt that there will always be parts to things done through a creative process that I might not get. The problem is when basically nothing can be understood.

I agree with Piscivore that it matters little whether the image, though or emotion in the mind of the viewer matches that in the mind of the artist.

I've put off responding to many of the others in the thread directly because I feel like I'm going backwards. I did, however, respond to one of Piscivore's posts stating my objections. Like Piscivore, you state that it doesn't matter if the image or feeling the viewer gets matches the one intended by the artist. I disagree, making my focus that of communication. You seem to grant me that some communication is involved, but you let it go only so far as to say, "hey, come take a look at this."

My problem with this idea is that I don't think it's what even the artists intend. When Picasso went through his Blue Period, I believe he meant to convey much more than just "come have a look at this." If I were to grant that the "hey come have a look at this" message of the artist is the bare minimum to grant the label of "art," I can't help but think I would be trivializing the entire history of art. I know I've beaten this drum a dozen times at this point, but I absolutely want to avoid turning art into an 'anything and everything' tautology.

Telling someone to come take a look at something is insufficient to me to suggest art. There are a lot of unspoken implications involved when you ask someone to come look at something you've done. Asking for mere observation isn't even a full thought. I don't ask you to observe something for the mere sake of observing it. I'm hoping that what you observe strikes you the way it struck me. I want you to see it because I can't describe to you what I'm really thinking/feeling/seeing in any other way besides this 'thing' I've made. If I fail to make myself understood through this 'thing', then the thing isn't really art, IMO.

Yes, it's not enough until someone photographs it, paints it, mounts a frame in the right angle by the seaside, or otherwise points to it. Emotional reactions do not define art, but some art can include them.

Painting it, photographing it, or mounting it in a frame is not enough unless it conveys your message. In the case of a sunset, you photograph it with the hope that other people who see it will feel the same way you did when you saw it.

Hey, we're actually agreeing! Yes, a form of human to human communication that requires a median (I like that!). The deliberateness is a given - if you've gone so far as to commit your art to a medium, you've shown deliberate intent. Even if that intent is just to explore what will happen without a specific message in mind.

Before we go much further, let me specify. A human to human communication that requires a median and deliberateness is necessary but not sufficient to call something art. If it were sufficient, I would be contradicting myself because language and most anything else would be art.

Yes, he meant to convey these specific patterns, these tracings of a process.

You can hardly say the paint can would be the same. Maybe it would be interesting in its own right, I don't know, but it wouldn't be the same. Enthropy and all that.

But the tracings and patterns should be the median of the message, not the message itself. Maybe you disagree with me on that point, but otherwise I think it would be like saying that the point of algebra is algebra. In actuality, we don't learn algebra for the sake of algebra, we learn algebra because it is important for other things, the truly interesting things. Algebra wouldn't be interesting if they didn't relate to or help do anything in the real world.

It's possible to take advantage of the lowered parades and heightened sensibility that's a result of calling something "art". We're back to the "hey guys, take a look at this" impulse. You may not see anything extraordinary in the newly painted house, but if someone else sees enough there, they should by all means try to communicate that - by photography, painting, replicating or even taking the house down and reconstructing it in a museum. All in an effort to get the rest of us to really look at it.

If someone photographed the house and hung it in a museum, that wouldn't make the house art. If that photograph could convey the feelings and idea of the photographer to a person looking at it, then the photograph is art. The house does not become art just because someone is moved by looking at it. The art enters when someone tries to convey that moved feeling to another person in a decipherable way.

I regard visual art as human-to-human communication, through medium or process, of the full range of possible mind states. Including what's outside the scope of language.

Examples include something as simple as pointing out what we otherwise take for granted, something very cognitive like a conceptual piece in the form of recipe for action. Or it may be trying to lend the viewer a foreign perceptual apparatus for a while. Which is my take on what Pollock tried to do.

And I'll recap by saying that those characteristics are not sufficient for art. Merely pointing something out cannot be construed as true art, IMO.

 

[Sefarst]

All art was modern art in its own time.

"Modern" isn't really meant in that way. It's just the name of a movement/genre.

 

[kittynh]

ohh what we have on our walls would be a good thread.

I have a lot of tapestries we bought in Belgium. And the rest is pretty much mine. But not my more modern bits. It's "home art"... a painting of my favorite cat, one of the girls and one of me with Kitten. But I suck at realistic art... yeah it looks like them...but other than that....

 

[Aitch]

ohh what we have on our walls would be a good thread.

Mods! Time to get out the thread splitting axe!

I have a couple of my own paintings on the walls of my flat (images appeared in another thread). I also have a signed limited edition Chris Ofili print and an autographed Leo Baxendale print of one of his Baby Basil strips.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then unfortunately I feel like we've again lapsed to calling anything art. I, personally, can't bring myself to labeling the act of calling attention to something art. Maybe it would be useful to do away with the generic term of "art" altogether. Instead, maybe people should just say, "hey look, I did something. Come tell me if you like it," rather than calling themselves artists. I feel like invoking the word "art" brings with it the idea of the discipline and creativity involved in "fine art". In essence, someone says, "art" and you come running, expecting the Sistine Chapel and instead you get a single red line on an otherwise blank canvas.

Thank you. That's precisely my problem. The contemporary usage of the word "art" is so vague I can't see something which is not art under it.

My problem is not necessarily with partial indecipherability. My problem is with a piece being wholly indecipherable. There's no doubt that there will always be parts to things done through a creative process that I might not get. The problem is when basically nothing can be understood.

I dare anyone to decipher Klein Blue. "In 1947, Klein began making monochrome paintings, which he associated with freedom from ideas of representation or personal expression." . . .and this is art? There deliberately is no meaning or intention at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Deciphering" an artist implies that there is an end answer that apply to all viewers.

Not so.

Art is very much about what it tells the individual. I can appreciate a Bronzino where others merely see a run-of-the-mill portrait. Others get something out of a black canvas. I don't get a hell of a lot.