[Closed] Art is it too highbrow for me ?

hels - Member

And sorry Northwind, but my incisive feminist analysis of Whistlejacket is that people like it because it is BIG

I did say that too. It wouldn't have half the impression if it was a foot square, which is part of why you can't tell anything about it on a screen. But if you scaled up The Kongouro From New Holland to be the size of a house, it wouldn't suddenly be another Whistlejacket.

(I made an effort to go and see that one, it was shit)

There's a thing Terry Pratchett wrote about, I can't remember exactly what novel but it was a horse image, like White Horse Hill- and he says it doesn't look like a horse but it's full of [i]horseness[/i]. You could pretty that up but that's basically what I take from that painting- it's got more horse than you can fit in one horse (and the plain background means there's nothing unhorsey about it, as there usually would be if you see a horsey). Not [i]just[/i] from size, make it life size and it'd still be like that. Make it dog size, probably not. A photo of the same horse, in the same pose, the same size, with the same background wouldn't do it either. Like the exact opposite of a caricature

Anyway- getting a bit off the point, which was that some things, you can't gauge unless you see it in the paint.

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

I disagree entirely. Well, it is STW 😉

Will try and explain.

Having arrived at painting after over a decade of (mostly successful) 'fine-art' photography, I became ultimately frustrated that what I literally saw could not (even with some quite hefty PP-work) accurately represent the dynamic range, textures, hues and tonal values that I have begun to learn through via painting (plein-air and studio) painting.

All one needs do to replicate a photograph is colour-match, scale-up and blend. Detail with a fine brush. As a technique it is mechanical. As an art-form it is better described as colour photocopying. As such, any painting completed by using a photograph as sole reference will replicate identical limitations as the photograph. IMO it is not even the beginning of the 'highest' form of human art-technique. A skilled painter will see and record so very much more than a camera, even where I to limit the comparison to simple tonal value. Photography is the highest form of photographic techique. It can in skilled and inspired hands be a wonderful technique and a true art. I cannot compare it to painting, and that is not to pit one against the other - just that they are different disciplines, each having different limitations and strengths to the other. Copying a photograph is still the art of photography. Photography takes mastery partly because of the physical limitations imposed by the medium, whereas a mastery of painting has more human limitations, the medium being almost if not infinitely versatile, and as accurate/expressive as your skill and eyesight allow.

If I do use a photo for reference, I now also take a sketchbook and make quick sketched and notations of values and colours that I see, because I know without these notes as soon as the shutter clicks and I leave the scene, it is gone forever, replaced by a colour-shifted, lens distorted version that loses masses of detail in reflected shadows as easily as you can say 'HDR won't fix it either'

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.

He comes across like that, and if you accept that his work is art then as probably one of the most popular artists of his generation he's got a right to feel that he's under appreciated by his peers. Seeing him as part of the "What Do Artists Do All Day?" series made me like him a lot more, he was a curmudgeonly old git for sure but he took what he did very seriously and invested a lot into it, basically he cared for it and I think that's worth a lot. I still don't like his paintings but I've got a fair amount of respect for the man making them.

Judging by the comments I see on this forum, there are people who are extremely passionate about the use of colour and line in the art of bikes. I don't really get it (just looks like minor design differences in a lot of similar velocipedes) so perhaps it's all too highbrow for me.

I (begrudgingly) went to Picasso's museum in Barcalona and found that his early stuff, which was the true to life painting I really love(because its so clever) was fantastic.

Compare that with the modern stuff he subsequently produced and became one of the most collected artists ever....which just left me cold!

Compare that with the modern stuff he subsequently produced and became one of the most collected artists ever....which just left me cold!

Did you observe the progression of his style? What was most interesting or notable about it?

"" They stand as the perfect metaphor for modern society really ""

Good art then !?!

Did you observe the progression of his style? What was most interesting or notable about it?

Erm..... 😳

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.

Most modern (ie YBA era) artists really, really couldn't achieve photorealistic results. Some could for sure but not most not even half. They are talented in other ways, ideas, design, self promotion etc.

Also imo most contemporary art is not really highbrow at all, it often pretends to be but in general it is part winks and nods to other artists, part fashion and part a visual experience.

jimjam - Member
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 without literally drawing those things, how would they do it?

Yes of course sir, which kind of shark would you like me to pickle?

(I became a commercial 'graphic artist' so something like that would not be beyond my remit I could wax for hours on any manner of crazy shit we've done over the years) And that pickled shark would be costed by the hour and easier for me personally than had you asked me to paint a portrait of your goodself resplendent with Beard, Hebtroco trousers and socks in sandals, I couldn't do it, hence my admiration for those who can. Back in the day there were air brush artists commercial illustrators I kept a couple from posters we had to do, sadly long faded, but that was another skill I greatly admired, as i do the old masters the likes of Constable etc even though his subject matter doesn't exactly grab me by the balls.
My original training was as a photographer which might also explain my philistine admiration of realism, but as I said earlier it's an opinion personal to me as admiration of a particular style of Art is personal and OK my possibly too flippant derision of modern bullshit which wasn't intended to offend, but Damien Hirst, That Tracey Emmen, frankly they offend my sensibilities particularly in the face of the dozens of talented artists and commercial illustrators that receive only a relative pittance for their efforts because chance or not being in that Lunnon, didn't smile on their efforts.

Rockape63 - Member
I (begrudgingly) went to Picasso's museum in Barcalona and found that his early stuff, which was the true to life painting I really love(because its so clever) was fantastic.

Compare that with the modern stuff he subsequently produced and became one of the most collected artists ever....which just left me cold!

I did the same and came away loving his later work. I don't know why, I just couldn't stop looking at it. Which is weird as I've always thought that type of art was kinda poor.

ctk

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.

Most modern (ie YBA era) artists really, really couldn't achieve photorealistic results.

I disagree. It's impossible to prove or disprove either way but consider that most people who are trying to make a living as artists have probably studied art through GCSE, A level, then foundation studies, and most likely a degree in fine art painting, sculpture or similar. Some canny self promoters might have risen to prominence and it's possible some of them are technically inept but conceptually brilliant, but they would be a minority imo.

It's also worth considering that a lack of obvious technical flare isn't an indicator that an individual hasn't been able to achieve it in the past or couldn't in the future. Often as people seek to develop more individual or expressive styles they lose the desire to slavishly render things with perfect technical accuracy.

For some people technical mastery is the goal. For others it's a dead end. Some people only realise that after they achieved it. Some people foresee it and abandon it earlier.

Er, just a thought, that pickled Shark, when can I expect the deposit cheque, we'll probably have to order one in? 😉

Yes impossible to prove right now but I studied art, know lots of artists and am 100% sure that most contemporary artists do not have the tekkers to paint in a photorealistic style.

[img] [/img]

Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.

My Palette...is it Art ?

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7321/14168297882_9f02f0dd74_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7321/14168297882_9f02f0dd74_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/nA1ekY ]My Palette[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/58162507@N07/ ]SGMTB[/url], on Flickr

tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.

You've already told us yourself her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed 🙂

she commands 4 grand a portrait

Famous conceptual artist Ryan Gander has exhibited palettes recently. I did it circa 2000 in art school! Mine were nicer than yours though or his! 😉

Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club [b]then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.[/b]

You're looking at the bed as if it's a final statement of Tracy Emin's technical ability - it's not. It's just a medium she chose to express an idea. When I look at Tracey Emin's sketches I can see a massive Egon Schiele influence, and by extension Klimt and Oskar Kokoschka. But sometimes painting or drawing aren't the right medium to convey something.

Re the marbles. What is the artist trying to convey? What's she trying to tell us about herself? What emotion is she trying to elicit? Is there some hidden subtext beyond marbles or is it just someone showing off how well they draw marbles?

I saw this in Bristol on Tuesday.

Then done a quick search on the name. Who needs galleries and agents 😉

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4206/35338004211_e123f463d9_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4206/35338004211_e123f463d9_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/VQGvuF ]P1450190[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/58162507@N07/ ]SGMTB[/url], on Flickr

http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-3304835423/kin_dose87/photos

Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.

That's an incredibly skillful piece of painting, but what else would you say about it? It is nearly 20 years since Tracey Emin didn't tidy up her bedroom, and here we are, still discussing it and using it as a reference point in an argument about what is or isn't art. That's why My Bed was worth £2.5million to someone.

The painting of the marbles is technically superb, but it is a very careful reproduction of the way a camera would capture the scene, right down to the out of focus near field objects. Sometimes a painter can do something interesting by not trying to reproduce exactly what we normally see. Someone was talking about Freud earlier, and I always think his portraits have a strong sense of the subject's character and the physicality of human flesh that a photograph doesn't always capture in the same way.
[img] [/img]

Duncan Bannatyne's let himself go a bit.

Duncan Bannatyne's let himself go a bit.

I sat behind him at a little opera thing in a palazzo in Venice. He was with his new much younger GF. I thought he looked familiar but only realised it was him when a colleague mentioned DB had been in Venice the same time as I was and did I see him? He's much smaller than I thought.

And linking to art - on the same trip we went to one of the galleries. Wandering around one painting stood out from everything else in the place. Checked the artist - oh, that Caravagio bloke.

Similar in the Uffizi - the stuff by Michaelangelo and Bottecelli was stunning. Even a non-arty person like me could see why they are considered amazing.

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,

My best mate used to go on about Rothko, and would happily sit in the Rothko Room just staring at them, while I just didn't 'get' anything from them; he maintained that there was more to them, layers that he could see.
FFWD to a big retrospective Rothko exhibition, and there were photos of sections of his paintings taken under UV light, and suddenly it was possible to see a multitude of layers of different textures and colours that just didn't show under natural light, and transformed them.
My mate is very sensitive to bright light and wears dark glasses a lot of the time, so it seems that he can see a range of colours and layers that Rohko painted, that are pretty much lost to me.
I do like Rothko's earlier brighter works, there are subtle shades and colours that I find appealing.
I'm also rather fond of Bridget Riley, although more her later coloured works than the early b&w 'Op-Art' work that made her famous.
I absolutely love Anthony Gormley's works, including his 'White Room', which was a quite amazing experience.
All I understand of Gormley's sculptures is that they involve the transforming of the human body, into a huge variety of different ways of seeing it, to the point of it becoming almost unrecognisable, but the human is still in there, if you look hard enough.

I think i disturbed the hornets nest with this one although my first century thread
Scottish National Portrait Gallery is worth a visit or two but the building itself is probably my type of art

Is it just me or did OP seem only to be lacking an English-speaking gallery guide/curator? Surely that would clear the issue? If after such a tour/viewing one still felt perplexed and/or bored then move on and try another gallery/artist another day??

It's also unnecessary to 'understand' all art. I recently attended the John Moores Prize exhibition in Liverpool and couldn't fathom many prize pieces, yet enjoyed letting them quietly soak in and leave their impressions. Beguiling and strong images which I may follow up with, or may not. Either aay wins.

I absolutely love Anthony Gormley's works

I mentioned earlier that I enjoy an artists work more if they've made me a cup of tea - well Gormley bought me a pint once and I've enjoyed his work far more since.

Maybe the people who are so disparaging about certain kinds of work just aren't getting the right bribes.

Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.

Well maybe it's a set of works that need an audio guide, what was the motivation? What is it conveying to me? What emotion is a collection of marbles going to spark in me?

I see it's technically good but for me it's just a painting of some marbles, it doesn't engage with me at all.

Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.

A long time ago, my parents had a print of a painting by Paul Klee on the wall of the lounge (or sitting room as we called it in those innocent times). My granny, visiting, saw the picture and said "Who's that by?". Anxious to appear highbrow, I replied "Paul Klee". "Is that a boy in your class?" inquired Granny.

IRL, Rothkos's work is simply astonishing. Reproductions simply get nowhere near what they are like. It's hard not to come away with the impression that one has been in the "presence of something"

I'm slightly saddened by folk who say things like "I don't like modern art" or "I don't understand art" It's the same lazy pedestrianism that declares "I don't know how my computer works" or "Ohhh, I can't do maths". It's a sort of proudly announced self limiting ignorance* That given the wealth of information all around us, is just bizarre.

There's nothing wrong with finding out [i]why [/i] experts argue over Tracey Emin's Bed or why Surrealism was so important in the 20s and 30s...It doesn;t leave less room in your brain for "what's for tea"

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashington_Group ]They even had a play written about them [/url]. There was a time when learning was a political statement.

*in the true sense of the word, not pejoratively.

I'm slightly saddened by folk who say things like "I don't like modern art" or "I don't understand art" It's the same lazy pedestrianism that declares "I don't know how my computer works" or "Ohhh, I can't do maths". It's a sort of proudly announced self limiting ignorance*

I don't agree.
The problem with art is that, unlike science, there is no right answer. Which gives art experts the opportunity to talk all sorts of BS to justify their jobs.
There is nothing wrong in saying 'I don't like that'. You don't need to justify your position or feel inferior because of it.

The problem with art is that, unlike science, there is no right answer. Which gives art experts the opportunity to talk all sorts of BS to justify their jobs.

Only a non-scientist could imagine that scientists don't spout BS to justify their jobs !! 🙂

What is it conveying to me? What emotion is a collection of marbles going to spark in me?

They are questions you should be asking yourself, not somebody else. It's like eating an apple and asking the grocer to tell you what it looks and tastes like. Making art requires being aware of one's own experience (of living); appreciating it clearly requires at least a degree of the same, not to mention a touch of imagination.

...it doesn't engage with me at all.

It's a painting, [u]you're[/u] supposed to engage with [u]it[/u]. See above.

richmars

The problem with art is that, unlike science, there is no right answer. Which gives art experts the opportunity to talk all sorts of BS to justify their jobs.

That's not a problem with art, it's a problem you have with art critics.

There is nothing wrong in saying 'I don't like that'. You don't need to justify your position or feel inferior because of it.

Of course there's nothing saying "I don't like that", just don't expect to get a job as an art critic if that's all you have to say. And saying "I don't like that" is quite different from saying "modern art is all rubbish" which is a blanket statement you often hear from people who nickc is referencing - people wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor.

Three_Fish - Member

What is it conveying to me? What emotion is a collection of marbles going to spark in me?

They are questions you should be asking yourself, not somebody else.

The question is rhetorical - the work conveys nothing more than the surface because it's just an exercise in technique.

the work conveys nothing more tha what's on the surface because it's just an exercise in technique.

Speak for yourself.

*Generally*

There is nothing wrong in saying 'I don't like that'. You don't need to justify your position or feel inferior because of it.

I'm not suggesting that one is inferior because you don't like a particular painter.

But...If I then ask you "why don't you like it?" and you answer with something like "It's just daubs on a canvas, or "it's not a picture of anything"

That's a different answer to

"I understand that the artists was trying to make an image that is a reflection of the ghost of his father in a dream, that was revealed to him as the figure of Christ...but I don't think he managed to convey that fear or the fragility of life, It doesn't say anything to me"

For example

Yes, the last one may appear "poncy" or "arty" but it's the same argument that people use when they don't want to learn, and that's sad.
You are saying "don't judge me for that fact that I can't be arsed to learn about something".

jimjam - Member
Google Charlotte Harris - marbles, the young lass from our sailing club then tell me her efforts are worth less than an unmade bed.
You're looking at the bed as if it's a final statement of Tracy Emin's technical ability - it's not. It's just a medium she chose to express an idea. When I look at Tracey Emin's sketches I can see a massive Egon Schiele influence, and by extension Klimt and Oskar Kokoschka. But sometimes painting or drawing aren't the right medium to convey something.

That idea what was it again 'I've been shagged a lot and don't make the bed afterwards"?

jimjam - Member
Re the marbles. What is the artist trying to convey? What's she trying to tell us about herself? What emotion is she trying to elicit? Is there some hidden subtext beyond marbles or is it just someone showing off how well they draw marbles?

She's lost her marbles?

With all due respect, this is exactly the highbrow bullshit I mean, why does she have to have had to be trying to convey something other than a nice decorative painting to hang on a wall? I'll ask her next time I see her, I missed this post or I would have asked her last night, turns out she's given up painting only brush she's held was used to paint the kitchen in the last two years, a tragedy if it becomes permanent. Her architect partner can afford to support them both in a very modest house in what was once the wrong end of Town, contrast that with Tracey Emins fortunes.

As I said, Art is fickle bullshit, just like life.

She could have save a lot of time and just taken a photo of the marbles. Whatever the painting conveys the photo would have done exactly the same as she has added nothing to it at all.

As I said, Art is fickle bullshit, just like life.

You need to get those feelings down on some canvas.

jimjam - Member
When I look at Tracey Emin's sketches I can see a massive Egon Schiele influence, and by extension Klimt and Oskar Kokoschka.

Yes but so what? Does the fact that Emin has a Schiele book make her a good artist? Its a lazy way of trying to say an artist is good.

What makes her a good artist?

For me its her brand, her shtick- she's got it completely nailed, so easily identifiable. She's cornered the market in emo quilts and scruffy mis spelled drawings.

nickc - Member

That's a different answer to

"I understand that the artists was trying to make an image that is a reflection of the ghost of his father in a dream, that was revealed to him as the figure of Christ...but I don't think he managed to convey that fear or the fragility of life, It doesn't say anything to me"

Why is that better than "whatever it's suppose to be, I don't get it"? Why is it better to be able to say what it is that it's not conveying? "It's not a picture of anything" really gives the same answer.

graemecsl

jimjam - Member
Re the marbles. What is the artist trying to convey? What's she trying to tell us about herself? What emotion is she trying to elicit? Is there some hidden subtext beyond marbles or is it just someone showing off how well they draw marbles?

She's lost her marbles?

With all due respect, this is exactly the highbrow bullshit I mean, why does she have to have had to be trying to convey something other than a nice decorative painting to hang on a wall?

So the idea that art can have subtext or can be a form of self expression is "highbrow bullshit"? If all painting and drawing was just to replicate reality it becomes nothing more than a technical pissing match (which is completely irrelevant thanks to cameras).

She absolutely does not have to convey anything more than a "nice painting hanging on a wall". She can paint whatever she wants, however she wants. But you cannot then bemoan the fact that she isn't as famous or as wealthy as wealthy, famous modern artists when she's doing something that was redundant 200 years ago.

Lifelike painting and drawing is a technical skill that has been refined to the point where it's nearly a science. The renaissance masters did the heaving lifting for us and people who followed them refined it. Anyone reading this thread can learn to paint or draw realistically, you just need to put in the hours. Like any skill the more you practice, the better you get. That marbles lady is very very skilled but she has devoted herself to mastering a skill which is not considered as deserving of merit as other forms of artistic expression in 2017.

ctk

Yes but so what? Does the fact that Emin has a Schiele book make her a good artist? Its a lazy way of trying to say an artist is good.

What makes her a good artist?

You misunderstand. People like to shit on Tracey Emin (or other modern artists) because they see the finished product and don't accept it as a valid medium for expression because they also own a bed, or a toilet...or whatever. They automatically conclude that the artist hasn't done "the work", that they can't paint or draw, that they are somehow lesser or technically inept They don't see the years of artistic and personal development where a person explores one medium then grows out of it and finds another medium to supersede it or better convey what they are trying to convey.

The point about Schiele was (in my opinion) I can see that she can paint or draw like Schiele, who is a master. Or she could paint like Klimt, another famous master. But she is infinitely more famous today because she abandoned tradional mediums than she would be if she simply dedicated herself to mastering the art of painting, see marbles girl for reference.

why does she have to have had to be trying to convey something other than a nice decorative painting to hang on a wall?

She can do whatever she likes with her art, but you asked why her work was not valued as highly as some other artists. People will pay more money for work that does something original than they will for straightforward decorative art. Sometimes that original thing is a controversial idea that people are still arguing about 20 years later.
That doesn't diminish the quality of your friend's art.