Forum menu
I am talking about anything that is art - a painting, a photograph, whatever. And I don't believe it is about understanding in the slightest bit. Why would it be?
Really? What about cave paintings, war pictures, sculptures all from pre history to now? Television and film, documentaries, photography, music, dance? Are none of these about understanding?
paintings/photos/sculpture should be immediate, it cannot intelligently interact to tell a story, it should not need to be explained
That's all well and good as long as the art is from a culture and time you are familiar with, in a medium you understand and a subject you know.
It could also mean that you are missing out on quite a lot too.
Really? What about cave paintings, war pictures, sculptures all from pre history to now? Television and film, documentaries, photography, music, dance? Are none of these about understanding?
You are blurring lines - most of the above is not art, it is communication. Anything that is created as art should need no understanding to like it - you may want to understand it because you like it, but I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
Which goes back to the OP - would the OP like Warhol's work if he understood why he created it?
Anything that is created as art should need no understanding to like it
Why not ? Is that your definition or the law ?
I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
I disagree. I studied Cezanne and grew to really like his work once I'd figured out what was going on.
My only bone of contention with modern art is the elitist aspect of requiring the viewer to be educated in order to understand what the artist is trying to portray, personally I'm happy to educate myself.
Why not ? Is that your definition or the law ?
No, it is my opinion - feel free to have your own, however wrong it may be 😉
My only bone of contention with modern art is the elitist aspect of requiring the viewer to be educated in order to understand what the artist is trying to portray,
Sorry, but that is just bollocks really isn't it? Modern art (which you would say Cezanne is not classed as, being an impressionist). Why does modern art require the viewer to be educated? Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?
[i]Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?[/i]
Thats a different debate altogether 😉
Sorry, but that is just bollocks really isn't it?
No, I didn't get it until it was explained to me.
Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?
No, I'm saying that it requires education. You're confusing a lack of intelligence with a lack of education. Not the same thing at all.
I'm not blurring lines at all. Art is communication. To say most of the examples I gave are not art go back to the question "is it art" which has been done to death. Why aren't some of them art?
I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
That's an interesting point. But, sometimes art can be quite difficult to understand if it is from a different culture or time. Zillij for an example is anonymous non figurative arabic art. To look at it without understanding anything about the culture, beliefs and ideas could be quite alien, even shocking or garish (sp). If you understand a little of what and why it was made it can start to make sense.
The same can be applied the other way. Show someone from a small town in Costa Rica a Lowry painting and it might not make much sense, probably just badly painted rather ugly people ( no offense to people from Salford 🙂 ). If they have a little understanding of what he was painting and why it might start to fall into place too.
Would the OP like Warhol's work if he understood why he created it?
Not necessarily like, but possibly gain an appreciation of what he did and how it has influenced our culture today. Surely that is a good thing?
No, I didn't get it until it was explained to me.
I can't argue with your own experience so fair enough.
No, I'm saying that it requires education. You're confusing a lack of intelligence with a lack of education. Not the same thing at all.
Fair enough, I took a leap of assumption there (education<>intelligence), but I still maintain that it is bollocks to say there is an aspect of modern art that [i]requires [/i]the viewer to be educated in order to understand it. And going back to your Cezanne example, what on earth needs explaining about his work to understand it?
[img]
[/img]It's a bowl of fruit, that's all.
Why aren't some of them art?
I did say 'most'. Some television is art (Proms, Dance, Opera, Eastenders). Cave paintings weren't created as art (as far as my understanding goes), they were created as a form of communication - similarly the Bayeux tapestry was communication.
But, sometimes art can be quite difficult to understand if it is from a different culture or time. Zillij for an example is anonymous non figurative arabic art. To look at it without understanding anything about the culture, beliefs and ideas could be quite alien, even shocking or garish (sp). If you understand a little of what and why it was made it can start to make sense.
I totally agree - some art can be difficult to understand and sometimes we want to understand it, but what I have been trying to say is that you can like it without understanding it but understanding it won't make you aesthetically like it more. At least that is how I feel about it.
Not necessarily like, but possibly gain an appreciation of what he did and how it has influenced our culture today. Surely that is a good thing?
Absolutely.
I have not said people should disregard things they don't like and it is good that some people can be driven to find out more about an artist or a piece of art because of the way it has made them feel. For example, I spent much of my college years studying Dali because I thought he was an unusual man with very unusual techniques for creating his art and for some time I thought I liked his art but I eventually realised that I didn't actually like his work, I just admired him.
It's a bowl of fruit, that's all.
Aahh, but is it ? Why the inconsistencies of shadow and light? why the distorted shapes of the fruit ? If you think that's down to poor technique, it isn't.
Much more than just a bowl of fruit.
Aahh, but is it ? Why the inconsistencies of shadow and light? why the distorted shapes of the fruit ? If you think that's down to poor technique, it isn't.Much more than just a bowl of fruit.
But the point being - does understanding the man's reasons for painting in a particular way (much of which is simply conjecture and interpretation anyway) make the art any more aesthetically pleasing?
Art isn't about understanding surely?
What is there to understand in Dali's work, Classed as a genius, but hated by some, they say that the wind drives them crazy in the area that he was from, so is it work of a mad man or a genius, which takes us back to personal opinion.
what on earth needs explaining about his work to understand it?It's a bowl of fruit, that's all
Its not a bowl of fruit at all. Thats what you understand it to be.
But the point being - does understanding the man's reasons for painting in a particular way (much of which is simply conjecture and interpretation anyway) make the art any more aesthetically pleasing?
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
Its not a bowl of fruit at all. Thats what you understand it to be.
No, it's a bowl of fruit - look there's a lemon.
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
Ahh now I see, I like it now. 🙄 you have clearly been educated.
I enjoy a lot of modern art and the more I find out about it the more I like it. Its often better if you have to engage your brain than just see a picture and say oh yes thats pretty/cool whatever.
Also seeing real art in a gallery is so much more powerful than any reproductions. This is partly because it is exhibited in a gallery ergo it is art whatever it is. Modern art is thought provoking, hence this thread!
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
But that's something YOU are giving IT, not the other way around. You're imprinting it with your own interpretation and trying to make it into something. To me it's a bowl of fruit. I don't like it. It's not overly well painted (still better than I could do!) and it doesn't make me think anything. OK maybe it makes me think of high school art lessons. I don't need or want to imprint it with my own thoughts, I want it to look nice.
I don't need or want to imprint it with my own thoughts, I want it to look nice.
No - you are wrong - you have to understand it even if it makes your eyes bleed. And once you do, you have reached a higher state of conciousness and can sip at your choco mocha latte whilst smuggly looking down at the uneducated serfs.
😉
But that's something YOU are giving IT
Is it or is that the intention of the work ? I think the whole point of art like this is to say that if you want to look at purely aesthetically pleasing pieces then there are lots of them to choose from. This piece is about something else and that's what motivated the artist.
No - you are wrong - you have to understand it even if it makes your eyes bleed. And once you do, you have reached a higher state of conciousness and can sip at your choco mocha latte whilst smuggly looking down at the uneducated serfs.
Ok so now you're agreeing with my point about this stuff being elitist whereas before you weren't ❓
Ok so now you're agreeing with my point about this stuff being elitist whereas before you weren't
But I was taking the piss.
m_f - exactly 🙂
Is it or is that the intention of the work ? I think the whole point of art like this is to say that if you want to look at purely aesthetically pleasing pieces then there are lots of them to choose from. This piece is about something else and that's what motivated the artist.
I don't want the artist to make me work to find out what they're getting at. If I wanted to work at something I'd read a book on quantum physics and be amazed by the equations and beauty of the theories. I want to look at something that is aesthetically pleasing, I don't want the artist to dictate how I have to think about things.
Ultimately I think the point is that some people like art for its face value and its techniques, others like to sit and chin-wag about its deeper meanings because the artist isn't capable of or chooses not to make art that is aesthetically pleasing AND tells a story. I'm one of the former.
You could liken it to love and lust I suppose, its easy to lust after someone based solely on aesthetics and then later fall in love with them for their deeper meaning, and its very easy to love someone with no aesthetic quality, for their personality etc, but you'll struggle to ever form lust in that situation I think. For art to work I have to lust after it primarily, but still have something in it for when that initial feeling fades a little with familiarity.
I don't want the artist to make me work to find out what they're getting at
Then don't. It's not compulsory. Other art is available.
Then don't. It's not compulsory. Other art is available.
There is and I found I liked it without having to try too hard. 😉
probably for the best 😉
Of course this is only my opinion, but as someone who works in the creative field, I strongly believe (and always have) that when I present a piece of work (a logo design, a website, a brochure etc) that I shouldn't expect the client to need to 'understand' what I have done, simply like it or not. If I need to justify something I don't think I have done my job properly.
That's because you're doing graphic design, basically communicating simple ideas in a simple, unambiguous way. It is a skilled craft to do that, but you are not doing the same thing that artists are trying to do (whatever that may be), which may involve complex or ambiguous ideas, or not even have any particular idea it is pushing.
Even old paintings are more complex than this. If you look at (for example) Las Meninas, by Velázquez, it is firstly obviously quite a technically competent painting of a bunch of people. But beyond that there are a vast number of underlying complexities - who are the people, what are their relationships, what does the painting say about the relationship that painters had with their patrons in 17th Century Spain. By knowing a little about the background of the painting it becomes a much more fascinating and interesting thing, and you can understand the hidden beauty that is in the complexity of the painting as a whole.
Whereas hopefully by looking at a logo that you have designed, you take a glance at it, and it conveys whatever you want it to convey. There isn't much complexity in it, at least not intended complexity. Although even if you look at design, there are a lot of interesting things underlying designs that people wouldn't really think about. For example, if you look at your website - that says a lot about you in ways that you perhaps aren't intending - clearly you are, like many companies at the moment, interested in being seen as forward and in with 'new media' trends, so you have a twitter feed and a blog, but again, like most companies, it has bugger all on it. Those "No twitter messages" things are surely an interesting comment on the fad led nature of modern design (not to mention the pictures at the top of all the 'I'm a creative design type' totems - a mac and some fancy design books, some wacky design toys, a unicycle etc.) I'm sure my website is just as revealing about me and how I am situated within the area that I work in.
Joe
but again, like most companies, it has bugger all on it.
Quite ironically, as you have clearly looked at our site, you have missed one of the key messages - 'A picture paints a thousand words' - it has 'bugger all' as you put it (at least we deliberately kept it short and simple) as my belief, as stated above, is that my work should stand up for itself and it shouldn't need understanding or explaining.
it has 'bugger all' as you put it (at least we deliberately kept it short and simple
I meant the twitter feed, not the site itself, sorry!
Joe
The Twitter feed has been updated three times today!
[i]England win the World Cup! Well at least that is what the math tells us anyway. http://bit.ly/b4OZOZ ^MD 49 mins ago
RT @ripeglobal: http://ow.ly/1MrAI the social media marketing opportunity continues to grow 3 hours ago
RT @limeybloke: Can anyone suggest a Webinar solution for online training? Looking for something we can pay-as-you-go? 5 hours ago[/i]