What Makes a Great Work of Art?

[sablebrush52]

There was a thread about whether Dali or Picasso were the better? And it got shut down? A moderator here a Jeff Koons fanatic?
What makes for a great work of art? It varies. If you're a high end collector, gallery, or corporation, a great work of art is one that can be used to provide a hefty tax shelter, or a woodie, maybe both.
Other than that, I'd have to say that a great work of art is one that communicates with the beholder. The nature of that communication varies with the individual's sensibilities, be it spiritual, emotional, intellectual, sensual, sexual, or whatever floats one's boat, expanding that individual's life experience through the encounter, sometimes to a profound extent.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Great art resonates in at least two levels: The macro universe, the one we perceive, and the quantum universe, the foundation of our reality. It connects with people universally because the tone of its resonance connects at multiple levels of understanding, conscious and subconscious.

But... what makes a work of art great to you? Surely you don't just rely on this abstract thing called art history to tell you what is good or not.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

There was a thread about whether Dali or Picasso were the better? And it got shut down? A moderator here a Jeff Koons fanatic?
What makes for a great work of art? It varies. If you're a high end collector, gallery, or corporation, a great work of art is one that can be used to provide a hefty tax shelter, or a woodie, maybe both.
Other than that, I'd have to say that a great work of art is one that communicates with the beholder. The nature of that communication varies with the individual's sensibilities, be it spiritual, emotional, intellectual, sensual, sexual, or whatever floats one's boat, expanding that individual's life experience through the encounter, sometimes to a profound extent.

What art do you like? I'm most interested in that, especially from an artist like you.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

There was a thread about whether Dali or Picasso were the better? And it got shut down? A moderator here a Jeff Koons fanatic?

I think someone asked a dumb question on here, and the conversation broke down into aesthetics and art, which was off topic. Ha ha, like going to a street brawl and a hockey game breaks out.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Give me some H Bosch! I guess I can say I appreciate many of the great masters, but can't own them.

The stuff I can afford all remind me of something personal. Sailing, a. place, a mood, a beautiful woman. My latest was an American primitive of an old fishing pier.

 

[bassbug]

Does it illicit a response?....any response.

The greater the response, the greater the art.

 

[jpmcwjr]

I have to disagree. A pile of dung represented as art will elicit a big response, and illicit hard core porn will also elicit a repsonse by raising a judgmental hue and cry.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

it's interesting... maybe to just me. But, realism can convey so much, but makes it impossible to convey so much also. For example, which of these two conveys a deeper sense of passion? Left or Right

 

[Morrison Jeremiah]

If I want to call something great art, it has to involve me at a spiritual level.
It could indeed be a religious work by an old Italian master.
On the other hand, and in a certain mood it could be a Jackson Pollock.
Realism, or more accurately said, attempted realism, is only a means to an end.
The work has to speak to the soul.

 

[ashdigger]

2 am closing time and plenty of bourbon.

The morning is a whole different story

 

[sablebrush52]

What art do you like? I'm most interested in that, especially from an artist like you.

Okay, so the problem is that what I like doesn't work in reproduction. You have to stand in front of the work to possibly get the effect. My top three favorite artists? Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Marc Rothko.

Of Rembrandt's work, my favorites are the self portraits, from the early work showing a young confident artist, making faces in the mirror and sketching them (much like modern animators do), to an old man, wearied by life, but not broken by it. He was a master of lighting to tell the story. He didn't do hands well and had to work at them.

Van Gogh because of his journey, from the somber hues and values of The Potato Eaters to the brilliant colors and rhythmic currents of brush strokes of his later work. Did his epilepsy allow him to see this way?

Rothko, because he stripped away all external reference, just working with the sub atomic particles of color. His paintings can't be reproduced. They have to be encountered in person, where the effects of light bouncing through the veiled layers create a vibration of color that can feel like radiating energy. Some of his color field paintings feel alive, intense, breathing and pulsating.

People look at Rothko's work in reproduction and delude themselves that their kid could have painted them, much in the way that some people delude themselves that anyone could do what Jackson Pollack did with his drip paintings. But stand in front of a Pollack and let the chatter in your mind go quiet, and the uncanny three dimensional space that Pollack creates with those overlapping lines of drips will emerge.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Okay, so the problem is that what I like doesn't work in reproduction. You have to stand in front of the work to possibly get the effect. My top three favorite artists? Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Marc Rothko.

Of Rembrandt's work, my favorites are the self portraits, from the early work showing a young confident artist, making faces in the mirror and sketching them (much like modern animators do), to an old man, wearied by life, but not broken by it. He was a master of lighting to tell the story. He didn't do hands well and had to work at them.

Van Gogh because of his journey, from the somber hues and values of The Potato Eaters to the brilliant colors and rhythmic currents of brush strokes of his later work. Did his epilepsy allow him to see this way?

Rothko, because he stripped away all external reference, just working with the sub atomic particles of color. His paintings can't be reproduced. They have to be encountered in person, where the effects of light bouncing through the veiled layers create a vibration of color that can feel like radiating energy. Some of his color field paintings feel alive, intense, breathing and pulsating.

People look at Rothko's work in reproduction and delude themselves that their kid could have painted them, much in the way that some people delude themselves that anyone could do what Jackson Pollack did with his drip paintings. But stand in front of a Pollack and let the chatter in your mind go quiet, and the uncanny three dimensional space that Pollack creates with those overlapping lines of drips will emerge.

I visited Rothko's Chapel in Texas back in the 80's, and it took a while for me to understand what it was about. There is no way to covey what he was doing in pictures, for sure.

I like Rembrandt and Van Gogh, but for me... Picasso... It's just full of toxic masculinity and so many ideas going on.

By the time I started working on my dissertation, I had visited so many museums, so many books, prints, etc, that it is hard to pick a favorite now. Not, that I am burned out on them, but you just develop so many different type of "best", so many different ways to define "quality" that you become like trying to catch some water to drink using a sieve.

 

[JOHN72]

The truth, I am somewhat confused.............It will be that I do not understand modern art

 

[cosmicfolklore]

The truth, I am somewhat confused.............It will be that I do not understand modern art

Ha ha, I'm not sure I understand Yoko. Wasn't her work all about breaking up the Beatles?

 

[telescopes]

But... what makes a work of art great to you? Surely you don't just rely on this abstract thing called art history to tell you what is good or not.

Art History is valid for completing your knowledge about certain time periods, artists, etc, but is useless when determining whether the art resonates with you. It is helpful in determining the quality of craftsmanship in some sense, but useless otherwise.

How can I tell you if something is "great" art. I can't nor should anyone else. Why, because while we can define whether or not a certain piece of art is well-crafted, developed with skill and precision, true to its genre, what we can not define is how it resonates with other people. It will resonate differently with most everyone because most everyone brings to life a set of experiences and journeys that makes each of them unique. How the artist is able to successfully communicate with them is in the telling of the story, not the story itself.

Let's take David, the statue. Most people who see this statue are moved emotionally by it. Why? How? They just are. The artist of the past is still is able to communicate with the people of his future - timelessness proved by time. I would suggest that this is one trademark of great art.

The second criteria I would suggest is can the art communicate with people across a wide variety of cultures? The Treasures of King Tut. I've seen them. They are amazing - and yet, I neither lived 5000 years ago, have not studied Egyptian art, and I am not an Egyptian, despite how I walk when getting up in the morning.

The critical aspect of "great" art is that it is a mode of communication whereby the artist takes that certain "something" that lies within themself and is able to transfuse that cognitive and emotional energy (the quantum) into a medium that can then engage and interact with others, both reactively and interactively.

Is that too much? Well, you did ask the question.

 

[JOHN72]

Ha ha, I'm not sure I understand Yoko. Wasn't her work all about breaking up the Beatles?

There is no money to pay for this work of art........brother..................?

 

[sablebrush52]

I visited Rothko's Chapel in Texas back in the 80's, and it took a while for me to understand what it was about. There is no way to covey what he was doing in pictures, for sure.

I like Rembrandt and Van Gogh, but for me... Picasso... It's just full of toxic masculinity and so many ideas going on.

By the time I started working on my dissertation, I had visited so many museums, so many books, prints, etc, that it is hard to pick a favorite now. Not, that I am burned out on them, but you just develop so many different type of "best", so many different ways to define "quality" that you become like trying to catch some water to drink using a sieve.

Keep in mind I didn't say "best" artists, but favorite artists. We're all going to find different things that we relate to, or favor, or consider "best" whatever that means, and that will likely change. And I have many favorite artists, I just named my top three.
Some artists can crush you. I remember walking into the Sistine Chapel and looking up at that ceiling and feeling like I would never amount to being more than a bug.

 

[anotherbob]

In my opinion art is expression. That's what is different from art and craft. Expression of what? Whatever the artist feels like expressing. It can be personal, it can be universal, it can be blunt, it can be very abstract and mysterious. Expressive and evocative. It doesn't necessarily tell you what it expresses but it can make you feel it. Of course that's somewhat vague. But one of the strengths of art is that it's vague (well the definition, the concept) because that leaves it more open. A chair for instance or a pipe has a functional element and if that doesn't work it's not a good tool, but you can't really say a painting is explicitly a bad piece of art. You can hate it but often the "best" art isn't the most broadly popular but that which makes people have the strongest reactions.
Another way to put it. Art is a way to interact and create an instant and sublime conversation between creator and consumer. For example one trick I use with creative writing is to look at it as this spell where you use glyphs to put thoughts and images into another persons psyche. If I write a story about a fox with socks trying to open a pickle jar. A pickle jar filled with cosmic snakes (as in they look like Cosmic Folklore for some reasons, including the pipes) that only become visible when exposed to the air. Even though that's a totally stupid and ridiculous scenario for a moment it plays in your head like it's real.

 

[telescopes]

It's just full of toxic masculinity

Who knew you were so "woke"?

 

[ashdigger]

I was told a few years ago by a relative that had a PhD in Pottery and Art that I was wasn’t intelligent enough to understand the nuances of art.

Instead of arguing with him I showed him a photo of a complex fire scene.

He knew as much about the fire scene as I knew about art.

We all do what we do, enjoy what we enjoy.

I enjoy Ansel Adams, Tattoo Art and Bourbon. Yes, my knuckles drag on the ground when I walk.