Why do so many people want to “enjoy” art? How about being appalled, saddened, confused, scared or guilty? As with so many other things, people so often prefer to blame their ignorances, shallowness or vacuousness on the artist. I don’t deny that there are some relatively poor expressions that have made it to exhibition, but if one says ‘I don’t get art’, it really is essentially a confession of a monumental absence of sympathy, or at the very least absence of expressive vocabulary. And yet people state it with such pride! They can’t express how something makes them feel, so will just get mad at the artist or at other people who can.

Fast forward ten years and I’m halfway through a painting course before I meet the stonebreaker once more. This time on a postcard (one of hundreds of art gallery/museum cards collected by the tutor for reference). We study it for a while and I learn about the weasel in the picture. And I am now filled with different emotions about it all. I made special trip to see that same painting once again in the flesh, and it was a life-changing experience. Like biting into an onion rather than simply looking at the skin

I used to work with a museum art collection that was largely a drawn from 2 or 3 large private collections that had been gifted about a century earlier. Some really good stuff, some fairly middling stuff. One of the challenges was that having been privately collected there was little or no documentation that accompanied any of if. Some paintings were or better known artists or subjects and over that century a body of factual and interpretive material had been built up. But there were a few paintings that never really came out of the store because we could literally say nothing about them – no name of the painter, no idea of who or what the subject is, when or where in the world they were made even. I did consider an exhibition called ‘We don’t know who they are but we know who the look like’ because we had a painting that looked like Harold Bishop and one of a woman who looked like Marty Feldman.

To get some of these painting on view I invited a local amateur writing club into the store – got them to choose one of the unidentified pictures and write a paragraph about it – That way we could put a dozen of these paintings out on the walls and they’d each have a label.

One writer chose a pretty run of the mill looking, small, 19th Century landscape scene. There was a little house in it and glimpse of some figures – fields and trees, distant hills and a bit of a story, dark cloud on the horizon. Pretty ordinary and pretty boring really – in that there are hundreds of paintings exactly like it in every small town museum,

The writer simply observed that amongst the figures around the house there were only women and children.

We did this project in 1999. So she relocated the painting from 19th Century britain to 20th Century Kosovo an in a paragraph wrote about the men having being taken and the cloud on the horizon being the next town of fire and the conflict now coming towards them.

It suddenly became absolutely riveting you’d look again at these little figures in the field that you’d thought were playing and think – maybe they’re searching – maybe they’re running.

Theres no one way to receive a piece of art – you’re not being tricked or ‘not getting it’ if you’re reaction isn’t the same as someone else’s or if you’re reading of the work doesn’t match the writing on the label. But what those labels should do (if they’re good and sometimes they’re not) is give you some little nudges and pointers to see and feel something that might have escaped your notice otherwise.

But the enjoyment of art is like an enjoyment of anything – you bring your own baggage to it. A piece of music will effect you differently to everyone one else if it was the first dance at your wedding or was played as you saw the coffin go through the curtain. I think wine tastes better if I’ve cycled passed the vineyard even though my doing that hasn’t changed the taste for anyone else who drinks it.

One of my first jobs was transporting art – so I met artists and collectors all around the country. Dream job as a recent graduate – meeting and greeting all your influcenes. But now that means I enjoy a particular piece of art more if the artist once made me a cup of tea 🙂

But now that means I enjoy a particular piece of art more if the artist once made me a cup of tea

I particularly enjoy browsing on Binners website whilst simultaneously firing a steak bake into my baw face.

I feel that I’m really connecting with the artist. I can almost taste the pastry-fuelled rage contained within his work.

It’s a profoundly moving experience.

Why do so many people want to “enjoy” art? How about being appalled, saddened, confused, scared or guilty?

Is it just me, or is it really quite obvious why people would prefer a positive emotion, rather than a load of negative ones ?

Is it just me, or is it really quite obvious why people would prefer a positive emotion, rather than a load of negative ones ?

People can enjoy having empathy with all sorts of emotions. Popular songs can be about heartbreak and anger, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but a lot of books, films and plays are about murder. With visual art theres a bit of a confusion though as sometimes people group art and adornment together – in that theres art that you might go to a museum or gallery to experience and art that you’d adorn your home with to make it prettier or cheerier. People might have books about murder in their bookshelf but they wouldn’t decorate their living room with pictures of crime scenes.

But one of the most enjoyable exhibitions I’ve been to see in recent years was an exhibition of photographs of crime scenes. Wouldn’t really want any of the pictures on my wall, but the book is on my shelf.

With visual art theres a bit of a confusion though as sometimes people group art and adornment together

This.

Art != interior decoration

Is it just me, or is it really quite obvious why people would prefer a positive emotion, rather than a load of negative ones ?

It’s a rhetorical question, Neal. That means it was intended to make a point or provoke consideration, rather than expect a direct or definitive answer. I notice you were a little quick off the mark and accidentally answered my rhetorical question with one of your own! Here’s some further reading to help you avoid making the same mistake again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Art is just like the rest of life, full of bullshit, bores, fools and their money but best of all some very talented people.

I grew up in the Art world, my old man taught at Art school, went to Art college myself, we had a family Art shop.

The principle of the Art school was a guy Gerald something or other I forget his name which is a shame he could paint near photographic quality still life, and that talent to me is by far the most amazing, yet often in their bullshit world not appreciated. There’s a girl at our sailing club she won some portrait Turner prize can paint the most amazing real to life portraits I’ve ever seen, she commands 4 grand a portrait, maybe one day her stuff well be worth shed loads, who knows, it depends who she gets to paint, I keep threatening to get her to paint me then kill her to make the painting really valuable in a promising artist killed by psycho kind of way. Which sums up the whole bullshit, nobody really gets to be valued for their talent unless the ‘right’ usually talentless rich bore appreciates their stuff.

Art is mostly bullshit, but it doesn’t stop you appreciating whatever you like, I buy stuff from time to time, usually when I’m pissed at some charity auction do or other or from artists like the two I just mentioned but I do it (other than being pissed) just when I really like whatever it is they’ve painted.

So no it’s not high brow but it is and should always be very personal.

PS Salvadore Dali was a genius and my favorite artist of all time.

I loves art, me. It’s people I don’t like. See that Mona Lisa photo above.

I have learnt to differentiate the appreciation of technique and the broader appreciation of a piece of art. Previously I dismissed art I did not like out of hand but now can see merit in its execution irrespective of if I enjoy it from either an aesthetic or deeper meaningful perspective.

Without question my least favourite type of art is work that is not ‘decorative’ (I’m happy with this being ok art in it’s own right) but also the artist is devoid of very little to give in terms intellectual commentary. Working in a secondary school I do see an awful lot of supposedly meaningful work that is just meaningless pish. In my experience artists who are interesting people with lots to say and an ability to converse eloquently make meaningful art. The hand wringers and the airheads produce predictably vacuous material suitable only for the bin.

Standing in front of Jackson Pollock’s Summertime and others in the flesh made me very emotional. Easy to dismiss when viewed in books or on a screen but when you see it for real the energy captured is powerful.

Working in a secondary school I do see an awful lot of supposedly meaningful work that is just meaningless pish.

Leave the kids alone – they’re trying their best! Just stick their pictures of the fridge and pretend you’re grateful.

In my experience artists who are interesting people with lots to say and an ability to converse eloquently make meaningful art.

That might be true up to a point – but a reason and drive to make art in the first place might be to express something that can’t easily be put into words. To quote Laurie Anderson ‘Talking about music is like dancing about architecture’ and theres no real reason for many artists to make an artwork about something that you can just say.

graemecsl

I grew up in the Art world, my old man taught at Art school, went to Art college myself, we had a family Art shop.

The principle of the Art school was a guy Gerald something or other I forget his name which is a shame he could paint near photographic quality still life, and that talent to me is by far the most amazing, yet often in their bullshit world not appreciated.

I’m at a loss as to how you can “grow up in the art world” and not understand why the technical excercise of painting or drawing to some degree of photographic realism isn’t held in the highest regard.

photographic realism isn’t held in the highest regard.

Its strange that people consider that an attribute for a painting – that its so similar to the subject that you’d hardly notice an artist had made the work – “look at this picture of a thing! It looks exactly like i wasn’t involved in making it at all!”.

Would you put music to the same test – consider an album of foley sound effects to be more accomplished than a symphony?

Working in a secondary school I do see an awful lot of supposedly meaningful work that is just meaningless pish.

Sounds like my old art teachers.
2 of them told me I was doing it all wrong.
If art is a means of someone expressing themselves, then there is no right or wrong.
tbf, mine was meaningless pish. I expressed myself by bringing paint, brush and paper together whilst longing for lunch break, and willing the clock to speed up, because the lesson wasn’t half dragging on. But that’s still a meaningful expression.

Used to have a girlfriend that liked Mark Rothko – really could not see how this was art.

I love Rothko, but then in music (my preferred art form) I like minimalism and the second Viennese School.

Caravaggio and his like, now that was quite spectacular, especially in the flesh.

Agree with this too, but then I also like classical, baroque, romantic and early music. Plus Frank Zappa of course.

My point being good art is good art and whether you like it or not is a matter of taste, not which period or style it belongs to. I can’t explain Rothko or Jackson Pollock other that to say something wishy-washy about “intensity” or something. I recall a visit to Tate St Ives. There was a room of paintings I didn’t understand at all but I just kept being drawn back there for another look.

Maybe there’s nothing to understand?
Maybe that’s just what the artist fancied painting or drawing that day?

But that’s still a meaningful expression.

I would agree that it might be expression, but was it meaningful in any way worthy of being seen by others? I suppose the point at which it matters is the point the artist it worthy of public consumption. You are asking a third party to devote their time to look at your work. That’s a pretty a pretty self absorbed act that should probably be reserved for those with something worth hearing (metaphorically).

As with most things, there is a degree of artistic literacy which is often required to appreciate a piece of art, which goes beyond “it’s just what you like”. It’s a thing that can be learned and taught and not everyone has it. But i think unless you have it, you are not really in a position to say “that’s rubbish” about something which other more literate types hold in higher esteem. No doubt some threshold concepts involved

Maybe that’s just what the artist fancied painting or drawing that day?

That might make it a pretty picture, not sure it would be art

I would agree that it might be expression, but was it meaningful in any way worthy of being seen by others?

Who are these ‘others’? Is an audience of one less valid than an audience of two? Does your statement come across to you as arrogant or pretentious?

Who are these ‘others’? Is an audience of one less valid than an audience of two?

I guess I mean placed in a public gallery.

Does your statement come across to you as arrogant or pretentious?

Maybe. But is not displaying your work publicly arrogant or pretentious too? It says “listen to me, I have something to say”. Which is fine if you have. I like the speakers corner test. Would you stand up and say what your art articulates visually and not come across as vacuous or irrelevant?

Would you stand up and say what your art articulates visually and not come across as vacuous or irrelevant?

That might be like asking a driver to describe a journey in terms of the mechanics of their vehicle, with the addition of reflecting critically, intellectually, emotionally and philosophically on every turn of the wheel. Addionally, what a piece might mean to the artist is not necessarily what it might mean to the person experiencing it. I find it to be a somewhat reductive position you’ve taken, dismissing, if they were ever regarded, too many considerations.

Maybe. But is not…

Hold up a minute. You sharp ran away from that! How is it arrogant or pretentious to elect one’s self as arbiter of whether or not somebody’s work is ‘worthy’ of being seen?

FWIW, the whole point of art in any form is to provoke a response. Art should be freely accessible and anyone with a mind to check it out should be allowed to form their own opinion.

I do quite enjoy having conversations with people who moan about the Turner Prize and mention a pile of bricks, saying that “anyone could do that”. The response is usually along the lines of “so why didn’t you?.

I suspect this may be a controversial view on here but there is definitely “bloke art”.

I am giggling to myself in amusement at all the artists you are name checking. I’m talking to you Mr Rothko with your huge blank emotionless canvases, and you Mr Caravaggio with your large breasted mother/whore women. And sorry Northwind, but my incisive feminist analysis of Whistlejacket is that people like it because it is BIG. You know, even bigger than an actual horse ! (they didn’t have Monster Trucks back then)

Get some Geogia O’Keefe in your faces, lads.

And people hate Vettriano because his paintings are creepy and sinister.

Oh yeah and Jackson Pollock. I don’t think I need to explain.

Maybe there’s nothing to understand?
Maybe that’s just what the artist fancied painting or drawing that day?

This also is true, especially with some painting disciplines, e.g. realist still-life.

(Points at oil painting of three oranges)

Still-life painting really is an exacting discipline and often showcases the talent and skill of the artist. What is often not appreciated is the work and study that goes into lighting and composing the subject. But, yes, I wake up some days and ‘see’ a piece of toast and jam that I fancy painting, just because ‘toast and jam’. I might paint a (hopefully skilful and inspured) impression of it, or an ultra-realist masterpiece of sublime detail and perfect tone. I more often much prefer the quick, lively impression

Here’s a one that someone made earlier:

https://marymaxam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/toast-jam.html?m=1

The response is usually along the lines of “so why didn’t you?.

To which my reply would be, “Because I didn’t go to art college, the establishment wouldn’t take me seriously”

And people hate Vettriano because his paintings are creepy and sinister.

Funny, I quite like Vettriano because his paintings ARE creepy and sinister.

And my reply would have been “Because I don’t have any intention of being a bricklayer”.
Similarly filling a house with concrete is not art. Nor is it “art”.
I could have done that… buy why the heck would I want to?

I do quite enjoy having conversations with people who moan about the Turner Prize and mention a pile of bricks, saying that “anyone could do that”. The response is usually along the lines of “so why didn’t you?.

Overcome with ennui due to the futility of bourgois existence, wasn’t I?

Like biting into an onion rather than simply looking at the skin

Satisfies your needs but makes you slightly less pleasant to stand next to?

Satisfies your needs but makes you slightly less pleasant to stand next to?

No, but I will admit my metaphor was every bit as poor as that translation 🙂

… why does the like of Vetriano get such a hard time from critics

I think it’s mainly an issue just because he gets so uppity about ‘the art establishment’ not affording him the respect he feels he deserves.

I really don’t see why he would care less what they think. Loads of people buy his stuff, so he’s absolutely wadded, and let’s be honest…….. ‘the art establishment’ spends its time telling us how absolutely wonderful (daaaaaahling) Damien Hurst and Tracy Bloody Emin are. So what the **** would they know?

I bet if Tracy Emin covered a bed with Greggs pasties you lap it up.

FWIW, the whole point of art in any form is to provoke a response. Art should be freely accessible and anyone with a mind to check it out should be allowed to form their own opinion.

Yes some of the best for me provokes the strongest reaction and sense of questioning. If it makes you look deeply inside yourself it’s probably a good thing. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then maybe it’s asking questions your not comfortable being asked.
A wonderful origin of art collection contrasted historical depictions of sexual scenes with high quality photo recreations. Incredibly confronting but made you ask why if one was art the other was not. Placing pieces out of context really helps to elevate the reaction

I’m talking to you Mr Rothko with your huge blank emotionless canvases

“If you are only moved by color relationships, you are missing the point. I am interested in expressing the big emotions – tragedy, ecstasy, doom.”
? Mark Rothko

“I would like to say to those who think of my pictures as serene, whether in friendship or mere observation, that I have imprisoned the most utter violence in every inch of their surface.”
? Mark Rothko

I bet if Tracy Emin covered a bed with Greggs pasties you lap it up.

See, there’s a good example. Emin’s bed actually embodied quite a thoughtful and moving sentiment, but unless you are a little adept in that world, it just looks like tosh

See, there’s a good example. Emin’s bed actually embodied quite a thoughtful and moving sentiment, but unless you are a little adept in that world, it just looks like tosh

Wasn’t it more about the amount of pumpin’ she’d done? or was that another piece?.

It sounds ridiculous (and my wife would agree) but the whole floor was the blackest black and so shiny it reflected every other wall and the ceiling, which skewed your whole perspective on it.

… and there’s your point

Wasn’t it more about the amount of pumpin’ she’d done? or was that another piece?.

that was the tent