What Makes a Great Work of Art?

[cosmicfolklore]

I don't think that the value of how much you enjoy something and the cost necessarily corelate. I just will never have one of my favorite paintings from history in my house. Just not in my price range. But, I do know some who invest in art, but they don't necessarily buy them to put in their livingrooms. It's a commodities and insurance game they play.
My house is mostly full of paintings by me and my family and friends. Stuff that wouldn't even get listed on an inventory for insurance.

I think that the problem we all have in this thread is separating the art we like and might want to have on our walls, art relevant for art history, and a notion of what is happening in the "art world."
This confusion has led to people being asked about what they value as art to, "I don't like art because of the banana guy." Which is a lot like asking what you favorite music is, and someone saying, "I don't like music because Frank Zappa sucks." And, he does, it's awful stuff to have to listen to. But, there are lots of other genres, other musicians.

Heck, I am more impressed with some of the paintings I see at small town art festivals than in most museums... sometimes. Give me a cheap ass small town cow painting for $400...


...over a British cow painting by Willian Albert Clark for $185,000.00 any day.


Price does not correlate with how good it is at all.

 

[briarbuck]

 

[cosmicfolklore]

That has definitely become a Pop icon.

 

[tobefrank]

I once had a heated discussion with my friends about what art was better, realistic painted art such as Rembrandt or the more abstract conceptual art that’s come after. It ended with me yelling “f@#k Rembrandt!”

I’m much more interested in thought provoking, interesting and/or funny art than paintings that are very skilfully made but in a way no different than painted photographs.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

interesting and/or funny art than paintings that are very skilfully made

Art can should be funny at times. I am not sure why there isn't more humor in art. This guy takes cheap painting found in thrift stores and adds robots and stuff to them. I think it's great stuff.


But, I can dig a Rembrandt also from time to time. I just wouldn't want it in my house.

 

[telescopes]

I once had a heated discussion with my friends about what art was better, realistic painted art such as Rembrandt or the more abstract conceptual art that’s come after. It ended with me yelling “f@#k Rembrandt!”

I’m much more interested in thought provoking, interesting and/or funny art than paintings that are very skilfully made but in a way no different than painted photographs.

I don't find Rembrant to be much of a realist. If anything, his paintings can be construed as being very abstract. I think we would all loose our minds if one day we woke up and saw the world exactly as he painted it.

 

[tobefrank]

Art can should be funny at times. I am not sure why there isn't more humor in art. This guy takes cheap painting found in thrift stores and adds robots and stuff to them. I think it's great stuff.
View attachment 97540

But, I can dig a Rembrandt also from time to time. I just wouldn't want it in my house.

i love that. Very cool.

You should look up Pricasso. That guy is both skilful and funny…

 

[Mr.Mike]

If it pisses somebody off, or preferably a group of people, then it's good art.

 

[makhorkasmoker]

Tolstoy argued that art was a deep, innately human form of communication. And I believe this is true of great art. He also believed that this natural and important form of communication was endangered by decadence, degradation, and "sophistication" of the high society he lived in, and I believe that could be said of our society, too.

Many artists seem to believe that art expresses something that cannot be expressed by ordinary everyday language. I believe this is true. If a work of art has a central "point" that can be explained, much less "proven" with data or "studies," (or expressed by a slogan) then it probably isn't art, though it may be, and often is, accepted as art.

There is usually something mysterious about a great work of art. You sense that the work is full of meaning--you can feel it--but cannot fully understand this meaning. If you could, then the artist wouldn't have had a reason for going to the great work and often the great sacrifice of creating it.

G.K. Chesterton said that art is limitation. And I agree with this. I believe that form--the limits imposed by a form--are a big part of what makes great art great. Or to put it another way: I believe the idea that art is all about freedom is a myth. A great work of art will often create the illusion of tremendous freedom--as if it were a spontaneous outpouring of feeling--but this illusion is usually the result of a lot of hard work, study, practice, restraint, discipline, craft.

Which leads to a contradiction with first idea. If art is a basic human form communication, why doesn't it come more naturally?

This is a question I struggle with....

 

[telescopes]

Tolstoy argued that art was a deep, innately human form of communication. And I believe this is true of great art. He also believed that this natural and important form of communication was endangered by decadence, degradation, and "sophistication" of the high society he lived in, and I believe that could be said of our society, too.

Many artists seem to believe that art expresses something that cannot be expressed by ordinary everyday language. I believe this is true. If a work of art has a central "point" that can be explained, much less "proven" with data or "studies," (or expressed by a slogan) then it probably isn't art, though it may be, and often is, accepted as art.

There is usually something mysterious about a great work of art. You sense that the work is full of meaning--you can feel it--but cannot fully understand this meaning. If you could, then the artist wouldn't have had a reason for going to the great work and often the great sacrifice of creating it.

G.K. Chesterton said that art is limitation. And I agree with this. I believe that form--the limits imposed by a form--are a big part of what makes great art great. Or to put it another way: I believe the idea that art is all about freedom is a myth. A great work of art will often create the illusion of tremendous freedom--as if it were a spontaneous outpouring of feeling--but this illusion is usually the result of a lot of hard work, study, practice, restraint, discipline, craft.

Which leads to a contradiction with first idea. If art is a basic human form communication, why doesn't it come more naturally?

This is a question I struggle with....

The ability to speak is innate and natural. But like everything else, this ability is expressed on a Bell Curve. Average does not mean quality, it only reflects what about 60% can do. Art is no different.

What might surprise you is to understand that reading is not a natural ability. It is something that can be learned, but it requires years of instruction to do it well and lots of practice. Art is a more natural act, but it is one we give very little training or practice to our students in school.

 

[sablebrush52]

Art can should be funny at times. I am not sure why there isn't more humor in art. This guy takes cheap painting found in thrift stores and adds robots and stuff to them. I think it's great stuff.
View attachment 97540

But, I can dig a Rembrandt also from time to time. I just wouldn't want it in my house.

I loves me some robots!
Art can be fun, it can be about appropriation, transformation, an inspired juxtaposition of opposites that grab ones attention, etc.
I prefer the genial blue cow that’s upfront and personal to the carefully rendered cow that’s neutral.
Anyone here been to Meow Wolf?

 

[sablebrush52]

My own work looks highly realistic, but I use that as a platform for adding subversive elements that are more quietly surreal.
Maybe that’s partly why I enjoyed working in visual effects.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Anyone here been to Meow Wolf?

No, I had to google it. We may have to visit there. Sounds wild. Is it like the Van Gogh experience thing touring the US?

My own work looks highly realistic,

Your work is amazing. I think all art majors had to work through realism in school, but then were able to explore their own imagery afterwards. I was drawing pen and ink :::cough cough::: Civil War images in elementary school. Sorry, not PC these days, but I was a kid. My father then kept me supplied in art supplies from then on. He had my early civil war stuff on his walls, and I was always embarrassed by them. When he passed, the first thing I did was throw them away. I won't go into full details of what was in the pictures.
But, then I went through what my mom calls my "huge boobie" stage in high school. Picasso had his rose and blue period, and I had my Big Boobie stage. I asked any girl that would talk to me to come over and model for me, and I painted them with way oversized boobs. Dad always gave me hi fives... when mom couldn't see him, ha ha.

College was all about whatever they asked us to paint or draw in the intro classes, lots of cow skulls, flowers, models with real sized boobs... But, I concentrated in printmaking and sculpture so that I could better explore the processes over the subject matter. Both of those areas contributed to what I now do in jewelry. They never offered art jewelry to us. In fact, it wasn't until I put together a travelling show of other art majors turned jewelry designers (The MySpace era) that hit the college circuit that I started seeing jewelry design being offered at the college level. I don't take credit for that though, because what jewelry designers are doing in those programs is horrible, just horrible.

 

[Dave4211]

When I was a kid, one of my schoolbooks had a picture of that Monet painting with the water lilies or whatever.

I don't remember much about it, but I remember how it made me feel.

I wanted to be in that painting. I wanted to live there. That was home.

So, for the rest of the day, I stared at that painting in my book. Somehow, nobody bothered me.

I don't remember what I felt or thought, exactly, but it was transcendental.

Good writing uses levels of interpretation. They're built in. That's gospel in my world, and my books and songs reflect it.

Art is the same.

Levels of interpretation.

With visual art, the levels are often...visual. Words don't describe every level.

I compare everything to the moment I was a little kid and I saw Monet.

That's my constant.

It crosses periods and genres and media just fine.

Art just has to be as good as the moment I saw Monet.

 

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Like I said, art is personal.

 

[telescopes]

Great art can disrupt. Great art can also encourage one to find their center and focus on the beautiful.

Great art that disrupts should not be on one's bedroom walls, unless of course, one is a disruptor.

Great art can be provocative.
Great art can be sensible.
Great art can be disruptive.
Great art can be unifying.

Great art can be many things and more than one thing.

Great art can be painted on canvas, velvet, paper, or on wood.
Great art doesn't have to be painted.

What is great art?

Only you can decide that question.

Sometimes many will agree with you.
Sometimes no one will agree with you.

Does that make it any more or less great?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

When I was a kid, one of my schoolbooks had a picture of that Monet painting with the water lilies or whatever.

I don't remember much about it, but I remember how it made me feel.

I wanted to be in that painting. I wanted to live there. That was home.

So, for the rest of the day, I stared at that painting in my book. Somehow, nobody bothered me.

I don't remember what I felt or thought, exactly, but it was transcendental.

Good writing uses levels of interpretation. They're built in. That's gospel in my world, and my books and songs reflect it.

Art is the same.

Levels of interpretation.

With visual art, the levels are often...visual. Words don't describe every level.

I compare everything to the moment I was a little kid and I saw Monet.

That's my constant.

It crosses periods and genres and media just fine.

Art just has to be as good as the moment I saw Monet.

Thanks for sharing that. I've only ever seen but a few small Monets in person. I'd love to see one of the larger waterlilly pictures.

 

[JOHN72]

About 10 years more or less, me and my brother made this masterpiece. Can't buy from amazon.............

 

[telescopes]

Thanks for sharing that. I've only ever seen but a few small Monets in person. I'd love to see one of the larger waterlilly pictures.

I have seen them in exhibitions from Kansas City to Saint Louis to the Train Station in Paris.

Yes, they are amazing.

I think seeing the changing seasonal light series of Notre Dame and the Haystacks was something I will remember always.

As he got older, he certainly got more imaginative as his eye sight failed him.

Renoir, I enjoyed his paintings even more.

Have you been to the continent? By that, I don't mean the donut shop, (sorry, just a little southern humor)?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Like I said, art is personal.

Ok, I’ll bite. You keep saying this along with the post about this being the worst thread ever. Why do you keep coming back to it if it is so terrible? Please elaborate.