I'll make it real simple for you:
Miles Davis is both art and beauty.
The above painting is art, but not beauty.
(just take my word for it)
What Makes a Great Work of Art?
- Thread starter cosmicfolklore
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Miles Davis is both art and beauty.
The above painting is art, but not beauty.
(just take my word for it)
I think your point is one that is often made. I certainly heard it I would not call it art. I would call it decoration.
Snobbish? I don't recall asking you to agree with me. In fact, snobbish might be a word you use for yourself. It sounds like unless someone doesn't share your opinion, name calling is necessary.
But then, you are an ass, LOL.
"Art is something crafted where a phenomena has occurred in the creative process by the hand of the maker that elevates the thing created above the level of ordinary. And, each person has a set of aesthetics that acts as a measuring stick by which we all recognize the art based on our age, gender, race, socio economic background, region, and life experiences."
Who knew - art discussion, it isn't for the faint of heart, Haha. I do appreciate your perspective @cosmicfolklore. You are in the industry.
I said snobbish, because your definition was exclusive, whereas mine was inclusive. And, the context was without as much negative connotation as "asshole."
No, you didn't ask me to agree with you, but for a definition to be definitive, it has to work for everyone... which is probably why an art historian's definition seems so difficult. But, really it is more simple.
If I am not mistaken, you are a professor of language... you have your doctorate of philosophy? This should all seem familiar, ha ha.
I definitely see some phenomena going on in that one. Parody is a form of magic.
Last I saw, many years ago, the 'original' sold for $1.3 or $1.7 million ... still a phenomena ...
It's easy to confuse the "art market" with "Art," but these are two separate institutions. The cost of painting in "the market" has little to do with the actual artistic value of the art.
Hmmm. Perspective. In my corner of universe snobs get the shit kicked out of them
Your definition doesn't work for everyone as well.
Philosophers argue over definitions all the time. So do artists. My graduate degrees focused on communication as the nexus of understanding , hence my bias toward including communication as a part of the definition.
It's all good. This is a valuable thread with an interesting topic. I am glad you introduced it.
I missed this thread when I first joined this forum, but, I've now read through the pages and thought I might participate.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I would say the same holds true for obscenity and art. It's all subjective, much like the "best" pipe tobacco. I would contend that taking a dump in the desert could be art. Good art? Bad art? To your liking? Maybe not. But, someone else might love it and find meaning in it. Karen Finley made a name for herself smearing yams all over her bare butt in the '80s. I think she teaches at Tisch now.
Rather than get bogged down in semantics, I'll just share some things that come to mind at this time.
@sablebrush52 mentioned Mark Rothko and it made me think of a few things. Seeing a Rothko painting in person is nothing like seeing a reproduction of one in a book (this could be said of a great many works). Books can't capture what the real paintings offer in front of your eyes. It's just a shame that Rothko paintings are so often seen in museums in such dim light to preserve them because he didn't use colorfast pigments. Years ago, a friend of mine (one of my teacher at the School of Visual Arts) was bicycling in New Jersey and he took a spill. He ended up knocking on a door of a house to ask if he could use the telephone. A woman let him in. As my friend was on the phone, he noticed a couple of paintings in the home and thought they might be by Mark Rothko and was perplexed. He asked the woman about them when he completed his call. They were indeed original Mark Rothko paintings to my friend's amazement. She was Rothko's daughter and these were paintings by her dad.
@cosmicfolklore I also enjoy Kandinsky's writing (unfortunately, my Kandinsky books were stolen while I was playing darts in the '80s in a bar). I do enjoy some of his paintings because of the movement and rhythm, but, probably like the writing about art better. I quite like the rhythm of Jackson Pollock's paintings, but, I'm more fascinated by the footage of him creating the work. It's like watching a dance. While I don't love everything by Picasso, I appreciate his abstract work because his earlier work shows he was capable of realistic work and that the abstraction was a conscious choice, not because he couldn't draw. I love the later lithographs of Joan Miro. The bold shapes and primary colours are child-like and pure. I prefer them to the earlier spindly looking drawings. I love the bold strokes and movement present in Franz Kline's black and white paintings. I marvel at Piet Mondrian's composition and balance, although they're clinical and devoid of emotion. The angst and pathos in Egon Schiele's work is something that appeals to me, while the decorative grace of Gustav Klimt also pleases me; the texture of Lucian Freud's later work is visceral and the distortion he used is something I can relate to as a caricaturist. The weird figures and shapes by Wilfredo Lam work for similar reasons. Paul Klee's primitive symbols have a sense of innocence that I like—I still regret not buying a pricey hand knitted sweater that a Soho store had that depicted his Death and Fire painting. Norman Rockwell's technical prowess is impressive.
As a visual artist, I often analyze paintings and drawings; composition, balance, colour (or spotting of blacks—Gluyas Williams and Alex Toth come to mind with regard to that term) all get considered. Very rarely does a painting elicit an emotional response for me. It's usually a more intellectual process. Music is more immediate, likely to get my foot tapping involuntarily—it's more primal and instinctual, more likely to conjure feelings as a reaction.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I would say the same holds true for obscenity and art. It's all subjective, much like the "best" pipe tobacco. I would contend that taking a dump in the desert could be art. Good art? Bad art? To your liking? Maybe not. But, someone else might love it and find meaning in it. Karen Finley made a name for herself smearing yams all over her bare butt in the '80s. I think she teaches at Tisch now.
Rather than get bogged down in semantics, I'll just share some things that come to mind at this time.
@sablebrush52 mentioned Mark Rothko and it made me think of a few things. Seeing a Rothko painting in person is nothing like seeing a reproduction of one in a book (this could be said of a great many works). Books can't capture what the real paintings offer in front of your eyes. It's just a shame that Rothko paintings are so often seen in museums in such dim light to preserve them because he didn't use colorfast pigments. Years ago, a friend of mine (one of my teacher at the School of Visual Arts) was bicycling in New Jersey and he took a spill. He ended up knocking on a door of a house to ask if he could use the telephone. A woman let him in. As my friend was on the phone, he noticed a couple of paintings in the home and thought they might be by Mark Rothko and was perplexed. He asked the woman about them when he completed his call. They were indeed original Mark Rothko paintings to my friend's amazement. She was Rothko's daughter and these were paintings by her dad.
@cosmicfolklore I also enjoy Kandinsky's writing (unfortunately, my Kandinsky books were stolen while I was playing darts in the '80s in a bar). I do enjoy some of his paintings because of the movement and rhythm, but, probably like the writing about art better. I quite like the rhythm of Jackson Pollock's paintings, but, I'm more fascinated by the footage of him creating the work. It's like watching a dance. While I don't love everything by Picasso, I appreciate his abstract work because his earlier work shows he was capable of realistic work and that the abstraction was a conscious choice, not because he couldn't draw. I love the later lithographs of Joan Miro. The bold shapes and primary colours are child-like and pure. I prefer them to the earlier spindly looking drawings. I love the bold strokes and movement present in Franz Kline's black and white paintings. I marvel at Piet Mondrian's composition and balance, although they're clinical and devoid of emotion. The angst and pathos in Egon Schiele's work is something that appeals to me, while the decorative grace of Gustav Klimt also pleases me; the texture of Lucian Freud's later work is visceral and the distortion he used is something I can relate to as a caricaturist. The weird figures and shapes by Wilfredo Lam work for similar reasons. Paul Klee's primitive symbols have a sense of innocence that I like—I still regret not buying a pricey hand knitted sweater that a Soho store had that depicted his Death and Fire painting. Norman Rockwell's technical prowess is impressive.
As a visual artist, I often analyze paintings and drawings; composition, balance, colour (or spotting of blacks—Gluyas Williams and Alex Toth come to mind with regard to that term) all get considered. Very rarely does a painting elicit an emotional response for me. It's usually a more intellectual process. Music is more immediate, likely to get my foot tapping involuntarily—it's more primal and instinctual, more likely to conjure feelings as a reaction.
What is Art?
Did I find it in Florence and the Vatican?
Or Pompeii
Or in Monserrat or Granada?
Or in Barcalona?
Or Lima or Ecuador?
The world is full of art. It is everywhere. I bet you have some in your own home as well.
Did I find it in Florence and the Vatican?
Or Pompeii
Or in Monserrat or Granada?
Or in Barcalona?
Or Lima or Ecuador?
The world is full of art. It is everywhere. I bet you have some in your own home as well.
This is where the object, the "work of art" isn't the total story. This is here the context surrounding the object becomes as important as the object itself.
To open ideas of expression to new and different realms artists will make precedent challenging statements, such as the urinal, or canned shit as a comment on beatifying artists. Canned artist's shit in this case is the equivalent to a reliquary. Duchamp's humorous take is a protest against academic strangleholds.
Keep in mind that some of the world's most beloved art, that of the Impressionists, was much reviled by the committees who decided whose work could be shown and whose could not.
Pretty much anything could be defined as a work of art. But whether it is a "great" work of art
I'm going to disagree here. Sometimes revulsion IS the statement. And not everyone is going to be repelled by excrement in the desert. Some may be amused or delighted by it.
People experience art in different ways, but they experience it.
Actually, we agree. My point is that so long at the act was one of purposeful creation with the intent to communicate an idea, yes, it can be called Art.
More to my point, a homeless person taking a crap in your front yard and calling it artistic expression when the police show up will not be covered under artistic license.
It could in West Hollywood, .... but not in Palm Desert. We aren't Palm Springs just yet.
Let me rephrase my thoughts a bit. I am sure you have met people who think they can do what you do. However, no one will hire them, they always seem to never find an employer, etc. etc. You look at their work, and the only thing you can think is , "Holy Shit". Yes, we are back to the excrement.
Yes, technically, what they are doing is "art". Yet, there seems to be something missing. That missing component I believe is critical to the discussion of "art". Yes, they have crossed their T's and dotted their "i's", but something is missing. There is no "inspiration". There is no je ne sais quoi connection.
I believe this "quality" is what most people are considering when they scratch their heads and say, WTF.
More to the point, I am hesitant to blame the observer. The artist, in my mind, bears the responsibility for communicating whatever it is they wish to communicate. It no one gets it, it isn't the fault of the observers. EXCEPT in the ART WORLD. Why?
Everyone else has to communicate effectively to sell a product. Shouldn't this be true for artists. They are, in my mind, communicators.
But, as I pointed out to cosmic, this is my definition. I think personal responsibility for what one produces applies to artist as well as electricians. Don't wire my house and tell me when the lights don't light that I should "imagine the darkness as light."
Well, here you have touched upon a particular bete noire of mine. In the '70's a number of artists were producing works on which were written various polemics or screeds. My feeling then, and now, is that the image should have communicated the message, rather than lines of writing. If I wanted to read a book, I'd have bought the book. The message should be conveyed by the image, not a bunch of writing on the canvas. Then as now, I consider these weak crap. They may be art, but for me personally, they're weak crap art, produced by artists who lack the ability to communicate through images. Lazy.
Jackson Pollack was schizophrenic and as a result could reproduce drip paint in patterns similar to that created naturally in nature. His paintings were analyzed under an electron microscope to prove this. That's why his paintings go for millions and others for a few bucks.
Exactly the point of this Rumpole episode (The Genuine Article) which you might like :
Hmmm…. If “no one” gets it? Or just you… or a certain group?
For example, of I don’t understand death metal, does that mean that it’s not a valid musical expression?
BTW… if you had better “communicated” that you meant a homeless man crapping in front of my house, instead of just an artist doing it in a defined space, we may have circumvented some choice words split between us, ha ha.