This is a very promising thread, but I must sign off and get back to work. I have an orgy to light.
What Makes a Great Work of Art?
- Thread starter cosmicfolklore
- Start date
.gif)
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Sounds like they were an asshole. I could care less about what song is the greatest of all time. In fact, my guess is that it is a Michael Jackson song, and I can't stand any of his shit.
I was asking about favorites and why. My favorites happens to have something to do with Art with a capital A, but I also love comicbook art a LOT. I can dig some tatoo art also.
I think Art History is mostly valid for exploring humanity through the art we've made throughout history. We can better explore what ancient Sumerians or Egyptians found important through their art. But, none of that really plays into my post here. Aesthetics is the exploration of how we define the world around us and why we like or hate what we like or hate, which is also a part of art.
Do you have a favorite work? It doesn't have to be historically relevant, nor famous even.
Your relative is the knuckle Dragger. Low Brow becomes High Brow when it is taken off the walls of an old down and out Blues establishment and placed on the walls of an art museum.
What an idiot.
I really dig the works of Johnson Tsang, but I wouldn't put it on my walls.
And, like favorite songs, they come and go. I might be totally bored with this work in a year or so, and have a whole set of different favs.
A couple of years ago while my wife and I were in Paris we visited the Pompidou Centre. The Pompidou Centre houses the largest modern art museum in Europe. As my wife and I strolled through the museum we came across this piece of art.
It's a hammer nailed to a board.
The artist is Günther Uecker and the piece is "Do It Yourself" 1969.
I thought, oh brother it's a hammer nailed to piece of wood...big deal, I could do that.
I later discovered that Günther Uecker is a German artist and member of the ZERO movement best known for his signature use of nails arranged into tactile, sculptural paintings. Some of his sculptures using nails are pretty cool.
So, one day I see a hammer nailed to a piece of wood. Now, I get it. It's art.
It's a hammer nailed to a board.
The artist is Günther Uecker and the piece is "Do It Yourself" 1969.
I thought, oh brother it's a hammer nailed to piece of wood...big deal, I could do that.
I later discovered that Günther Uecker is a German artist and member of the ZERO movement best known for his signature use of nails arranged into tactile, sculptural paintings. Some of his sculptures using nails are pretty cool.
So, one day I see a hammer nailed to a piece of wood. Now, I get it. It's art.
Do I have a favorite? These come to mind:
Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man, by our man, responsible for bringing inspiration to so many cigar boxes, Rembrant.
Psyche Revived by the Kiss of Love, by Antonio Canova,
Thomas Hart Benton's Mural in the Missouri Senate Lounge,
Freda Kahlo's many self-portraits,
and so many of the geoglyphs found around the Blythe area on the desert floor.
Interesting question, especially in this postmodern era. Back in the days of Realism, it was easy enough - does the painting / sculpture / etc. look realistic? If yes, then it's good. If not, then it's bad. That very simple criteria survived through the Romantic period and partly survived through Impressionism. I'm not saying that should be the only criteria, but it is a good starting point.
However, we are at a stage now where highly regarded "artists" simply throw a mess of paint on a canvas and it is widely praised by critics:
Pierre Brassau - Wikipedia
IMO our art has dramatically degraded over the past century or more, and this is a sign of a civilization in decline.
However, we are at a stage now where highly regarded "artists" simply throw a mess of paint on a canvas and it is widely praised by critics:
Pierre Brassau - Wikipedia
IMO our art has dramatically degraded over the past century or more, and this is a sign of a civilization in decline.
the idea of high art and low brow art is kind of ridiculous when you really start examining it. Lots of high brow art still works on the I like it because I like it and it just looks pretty or cool to me. And lots of low brow art will touch on deep and universal themes and often very well. One thing to remember is that in his time Shakespeare was popular populist equivalency to the Hollywood blockbuster. Basically pure entertainment and something the so called knuckle draggers loved. Well now he's the bard and one of the all time greats. The point that line between high and low art is as much about how the viewer looks at it and what the viewer gets out of it as what the artist puts into it. Or in other words high and low has as much to do with the person experiencing it feeling that it's worth while to dig deeper into it and "study" the works as it does to do with any technical skill of execution or pretense.
Long story short screw that idea of high and low brow in art. At least as a clear cut line.
Love the fact that you're probably being very literal.
It is only a hammer and a piece of wood, but I've often thought about grabbing a hammer, a box of nails and doing it myself. Here's the problem...what do I do with that piece of wood I drive 500 nails in to?It's firewood and a waste of a perfectly good hammer
No offense intended: Roger Ballen, Asylum of the Birds.
I've spent a lot of time looking at this image. For me it's pretty great. I could get into some of the reasons why I think that, but I don't think I would convince anyone who doesn't 'get it' unprompted.
I've spent a lot of time looking at this image. For me it's pretty great. I could get into some of the reasons why I think that, but I don't think I would convince anyone who doesn't 'get it' unprompted.
What is meant by "our art"?
Postmodernism is merely a way of saying that there are no current trends in stylization. We are past artists working together in like minded techniques, gathered under an "ism." And, I find this refreshing. The artist is left to define and defend themselves. Now, if you mean Deathmetal's rambling bullshit, that is just bullshit. If you mean what high-minded art critics are saying, those are just people talking to their piers in the collegiate system and have no bearings on what is really going on in the world of art.
What postmodernism means is that there can be an art show with artists working in renaissance styles right next to artists doing their own cartoony cow prints, next to people who paint by squirting paint out their ass. Whatever you want, it's probably going on. To focus on the worst of it is what a lot of critics will do to give people that doom and gloom aesthetic, but for everyone doing shock work, there are also hundreds doing beautiful stillifes and portraitures.
Dung hung on wall elicits a response, makes you think and, IMO, becomes art.
Illicit porn....it's OK to depict sex as long as the viewer doesn't actually see anything? Is Reubens art?
Let me take a short linguistic detour to say that if something is said and/or thought to be great, maybe it isn't. I'd propose that some works of art are big in a social context, with public understanding and honor, and are bereft when confronted by one person alone. If you can have the experience of discovering a work of art, whether it is a well-known classic or unknown and unlikely to be known, there's the greatness.
One of my best friends who passed recently (and was a fellow pipesmoker) Frank Flemmings, is know for his personifications of animals. His work is all over the Southeast.
I really like his work, even if I am partial because of friendship.
This one of his is a favorite, my daughters and I would stand around it making up stories for what each animal was there for.
I really like his work, even if I am partial because of friendship.
This one of his is a favorite, my daughters and I would stand around it making up stories for what each animal was there for.
I'd have to give this one some thought before I could adequately react to it. Interesting.
Yup, you said that right. However, I delight in referring to myself in terms that make my neighbors in and next to Indian Wells squirm. So, Low Brow for me, at least publicly, right? On the forum here, I am all about dime store pipes, Br'er Lee not withstanding. I believe one of my roles is to question loudly those who set themselves as authorities, and to question them in a manner that makes them stand publicly looking stupidly down with their pants around their ankles. I don't know, but I get such joy out of making my "betters" feel like idiots.
Am I wrong to feel this way?
The answer is no!
I think that most of the problem with "Art" and the community is caused by media.
The news made such a big deal out of the guy who taped a banana to the wall. It made it sound like this is all artists are doing nowadays. Bullshit.
Also is bullshit is that all art is a commodity. It is not a measure of success by how much something costs. That's media bullshit too.
When I go to meetings to help set up art shows, you never hear artist talking about the price as a goal. Most are people who work other jobs to stay alive and make art to be happy. I know that I will never make a work that is worth millions, but I have never had that as a goal. I could care less.
More of a measure of success to me is whether or not I have adequately reached someone, conveyed what I meant, "someone picks up what I'm puttin' down" Know what I mean? That is SUCCESS to me.
The banana guy... no one will know who that fucker is in a few years. Does anyone know his name now without googling it? I think not. What you hear in the news is put there to merely shock you. It has nothing to do with art.
The news made such a big deal out of the guy who taped a banana to the wall. It made it sound like this is all artists are doing nowadays. Bullshit.
Also is bullshit is that all art is a commodity. It is not a measure of success by how much something costs. That's media bullshit too.
When I go to meetings to help set up art shows, you never hear artist talking about the price as a goal. Most are people who work other jobs to stay alive and make art to be happy. I know that I will never make a work that is worth millions, but I have never had that as a goal. I could care less.
More of a measure of success to me is whether or not I have adequately reached someone, conveyed what I meant, "someone picks up what I'm puttin' down" Know what I mean? That is SUCCESS to me.
The banana guy... no one will know who that fucker is in a few years. Does anyone know his name now without googling it? I think not. What you hear in the news is put there to merely shock you. It has nothing to do with art.
"Our art" is what we collectively agree is "art." If it's in an "art gallery" and is widely supported by patrons, or analyzed as "art" by critics, or just widely considered to be "art" by the general public, then it becomes "our art." I suppose a big part of my point is that much of "our art" today is undeserving of being categorized as such.
Exactly my point, as to the bolded items.
I agree there is still lots of good art.
The problem with much of today's "art" and postmodernism generally, as you phrased in a more positive light, is that we have removed all criteria, and now anything at all can be "art." This is somewhat like the "noise" movement in music that occurred around the same time (beginning in early 1900's) as more modern movements in other arts. What sounds qualify as music? Why should someone get to say that one type of sound is music and another type of sound is not? Why does music have to be made on a 12 or 16 note scale? Why do there have to be any rules at all? What's the difference between Bach and banging on a pot?