[Closed] Art is it too highbrow for me ?

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, a[b]nd that talent to me is by far the most amazing, yet often in their bullshit world not appreciated.[/b]

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.

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

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

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:

[img] [/img]
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.

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, [b]which skewed your whole perspective on it.[/b]

... 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

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

Emotionless is the very last word I'd use to describe Rothko. I love his work but have a weird relationship with it. I used to love going to the Rothko room when it was in the Tate Britain, when its quiet, midweek, early, and sit staring at them. It not only got me very emotional, what really got me is I didn't really understand why. Still don't.

Now they're in the Tate Modern its not the same as there's invariably a party of 50 Japanese tourists stood in front of you. Which isn't the best thing to aid quiet contemplation

Tracy Emins work is basically a series of Facebook status updates, before anyone had invented social media

jimjam - Member

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.

Er.. because you're not me?

And that bit at the end about Art being personal?

Photo realism to me is the highest form of human Art Technique, pickling sheep, trashing beds, slapping paint about, is the lowest, yet their value to some is inversely proportionate to the skill required to produce them, it's an opinion, mine, not a fact. 🙂

I think that the whole Brit-art, Cool Brittania bollox of Hurst and Emin will be held up in years to come to absolutely epitomise the utterly vacuous nature of modern consumer capitalist society. These 'pieces' are essentially commodities to be invested in and traded, baubles and trinkets for the rich, meant to convey some sort of edgy taste, or some such shit, rather than items judged on any worthwhile artistic merit.

They stand as the perfect metaphor for modern society really

graemecsl

jimjam - Member

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.

Er.. because you're not me?

Correct, I am not you. But despite not growing up "in the art world" as you did it's obvious to me and probably twenty people reading this thread why photorealism isn't held in high regard.

And that bit at the end about Art being personal?

...is irrelevant because you're using your emotional reaction to someone else's work to justify trashing all of modern art or "their bullshit world" as you put it.

Photo realism to me is the highest form of human Art Technique,

Putting aside how completely redundant it has been since the invention of the camera the reason why photo realistic paintings and drawings are not held in high esteem is because on the whole they are technical excercises and generally speaking any subtext or emotion that they are supposed to be conveying will be entirely literal and obvious. It is to art what bodybuilding is to fitness .

pickling sheep, trashing beds, slapping paint about, is the lowest, yet their value to some is inversely proportionate to the skill required to produce them, it's an opinion, mine, not a fact.

A couple of points. First, most modern artists are technically brilliant artists who could probably achieve photorealistic results if they wished to develop those skills. Second, if I asked you to pickle a shark and suspend it in a glass case could you do that for me?

It's easy to dismiss modern art because it's not what you like, but if the sneering critic is asked to convey a mood, or an action or a theme [b]without literally drawing those things[/b], how would they do it?

Second, if I asked you to pickle a shark and suspend it in a glass case could you do that for me?

I'm not sure Damien Hurst could either. Didn't he pay people to do it for him? It cost an awful lot of money, I seem to remember.

I doubt he caught the shark himself either.

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

Not just that. I heard him interviewed on the radio once and he came across as a thoroughly nasty, unpleasant individual with a massive chip on his shoulders.

Putting aside how completely redundant it has been since the invention of the camera the reason why photo realistic paintings and drawings are not held in high esteem is because on the whole they are technical excercises and generally speaking any subtext or emotion that they are supposed to be conveying will be entirely literal and obvious. It is to art what bodybuilding is to fitness .

I like artists like Canaletto not so much for the art per se, but mainly because they are the nearest thing we will have to a time machine showing what the world was like in the days before cameras.

somewhatslightlydazed

I'm not sure Damien Hurst could either. Didn't he pay people to do it for him?

IIRC they were mainly fine art graduates and artists in their own right, essentially serving apprenticeships .

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

Art is, by and large, just for looking at, so why do you need to be adept to appreciate it. Shirley good art can be appreciated by the uninitiated.

If it needs explaining then explain away (something others further up the thread seemed to hint devalued the work). I'm a [s]bit[/s] lot of an art philistine, I've wandered through a couple of municipal art galleries, largely unmoved. In one of my favourite books the main character takes a friend to the louvre and explains some of the art he's passionate about, that sounds like a good wheeze, wouldn't mind that. But most of my mates are philistines aswell 🙂

he came across as a thoroughly nasty, unpleasant individual with a massive chip on his shoulders.

You've not met many artists then? 😆

i commented earlier about him having the massive hump about not being afforded the respect that he feels he deserves. Yeah.... cos that's the best way to win respect, is by constantly banging on and on, moaning about not getting enough respect. Comes across a bit....

[img] [/img]