I usually end up understanding art that I didn't understand before when someone pipes up with, "I don't get it" when they look at it. It makes me think twice about what's going on.
What Makes a Great Work of Art?
- Thread starter cosmicfolklore
- Start date
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
That’s exactly how dissertations work also, ha ha.
I sometimes love when a work reflects life back at me.
Try looking at things in a less absolutist way, black or white, all or nothing at all.
To many people this is what makes their art great and what moves it above and beyond the merely decorative. Is social commentary the thing that defines a great work of art? Of course not, but it is A thing that can define a great work of art. Great art and social commentary are not, and have never been, demonstrably exclusive of each other.
And a lot of people love grafitti art. The medium is the message here, representing the life experiences of a significant percentage of the population who are not willing to be cancelled.
Well, if you're stuck in "all or nothing at all" land, this is the issue you face. Some graffiti is just defacement and vandalism, gangstas marking territory or making an attempt to say "I exist" to a world that doesn't see them. And SOME are artists using this form of expression to make art that contains social expression that is hugely meaningful to many people.
The beauty of absolutism is that it makes the world small enough.
But even dogs playing poker and clowns on black velvet wouldn't make the cut.
Last edited:
I like tiki. One place I loved to eat at was a place in Glendale called Damons, which was pure south seas and tiki. The food was so so, the salads tasted like they have been canned in 1952. But, the drinks were rocket fuel.
My first paid commission, when I was 12, was a painting of the Joker done on black velvet.
I’ve always wanted to try my hand at painting on black velvet. There are a lot of interesting things…
Of course a lot of bad aslo…
In a word, yes. All of the people who argued that the various trends you mentioned were moving society gradually into decline were correct. It’s just a matter of incremental change, so it’s easy to say “oh don’t be a curmudgeon, it’s no big deal.” Perhaps these things were a symptom rather than a cause, but the correlation is there.
I’m sure critics of flappers in the Jazz age thought “if the kids keep this up, soon women will be running around half naked, and all the young people will be having children out of wedlock!” The counterpoint might be “oh it’s just short hair and a bit of dancing, the kids are just having fun! It’s not going to harm anything.” Yet, which prediction turned out to be most accurate?
Pliny the Elder was right. At some point, Rome stopped being Rome, although nobody who was there at the time would have been able to acknowledge it. All they could do is observe the gradual decline.
Regarding pajamas in public, if you look at photos from the Great Depression, the men in the bread lines were wearing jackets and ties. Granted, their clothing was worn and patched, but they made some effort at maintaining a sense of dignity. On the issue of dignity, and my penchant for corncob pipes
ROFLMAO, the distinction is that unlike crappy banana art, nobody holds cobs out as the premier essence of pipe smoking. Corncobs are like pajamas - cheap and undignified yet very comfortable, and best suited to the privacy of your (really, my) own home
Ultimately, at some point, all civilizations lose steam and then decline. Maybe the things I’m complaining of are more the symptom than cause, and perhaps are simply unavoidable, but I dislike them all the same because I dislike what they represent. Oswald Spengler wrote far more eloquently about it than I ever could, and there was another once-prominent historian, Toynbee as I recall, who further developed those ideas. However, this Spenglerian cyclical theory of civilizations that ebb and flow in a consistent and predictable manner has over the past decades given way to a “directional” view of history which is ultimately rooted in the Marxist theory of historical materialism, which is the frame of reference when someone talks about being “on the right side of history.” Again I digress into the margins of the political, but suffice it to say that the postmodern stuff is no random development, and it has everything to do with how the thought leaders of our society shape our collective perspective of ourselves and the world and our place in it.
Although it has become its own academic niche, the "outsider art" movement has unearthed a lot of stimulating and thought provoking work that would have been passed off as folk craft in earlier decades. Grandma Moses in the nineteen-fifties was an early example, but the genre has expanded enormously and covers a wide swathe of art, and has affected the way "trained" artists perceive and create their work too. Cave art from archeological times is a reminder how innate art is to human beings, and it's full of content and energy.
I agree with most everything here, especially that art and social commentary are by no means mutually exclusive. My point about political slogan graffiti was just to take the distinction between art and social commentary to its most extreme. You mentioned in your earlier comment that the “new” perspective on art is that the message is more important than the medium. I was attempting to demonstrate the flaws within that perspective.
You jab at my conservative taste with the poker-playing dogs thing, yet while I’m over here appreciating Impressionism, you’re defending graffiti
Sure, graffiti can be art, like a corncob can be a pipe, but Banksy can’t be Monet. I think we should not conflate timely social commentary with skill in execution of the medium. I hope we can all agree that those are two distinct things, even if some of us hold one in higher regard than the other.
The first “impressionist” painting that opened the door for Monet, Renoir, and even Van Gogh, was Manet’s work. It was a soici-political commentary. “Luncheon on the Grass” it was highly controversial and it is worth reading more about this work. At the time Art and the art market was highly controlled by Salons, a group of stuffy old men who considered themself, the authority. Keep in mind that up till this era, The Church and Royalty controlled the arts. An artist was patronized and fed for their work. They never had to sell things to make a living. Well, the Protestant movement, democracy, and the invention of the camera, freed artists up and set their starving asses out on the streets to struggle to get invites to a Salon showing. So, this particular year, there were so many artists, that the Salom just let the artists have a huge show. So, Manet got in.I agree with most everything here, especially that art and social commentary are by no means mutually exclusive. My point about political slogan graffiti was just to take the distinction between art and social commentary to its most extreme. You mentioned in your earlier comment that the “new” perspective on art is that the message is more important than the medium. I was attempting to demonstrate the flaws within that perspective.
You jab at my conservative taste with the poker-playing dogs thing, yet while I’m over here appreciating Impressionism, you’re defending graffiti
Sure, graffiti can be art, like a corncob can be a pipe, but Banksy can’t be Monet. I think we should not conflate timely social commentary with skill in execution of the medium. I hope we can all agree that those are two distinct things, even if some of us hold one in higher regard than the other.
This work went unnoticed till the show. When men recognized who was in this work, whispers about the politicians and this well known local prostitute was whispered all over Paris. The men of the Salon put down the painting, saying, it’s not even good…. It is merely an “impression” of a painting. (to paraphrase).
Thus, art and artists were free of the Salon, free of realism (the camera took most of the portraiture biz), and industrialization made it so that artists could for the first time ever, buy tubes of paint, carry lightweight prestretched canvases, onto a train, paint in a neighboring country for a day, capturing abstract light in the landscape and ride the train back home.
When you see a Monet, think about how politics, industry, technology, and even society all made that possible by advancing.
All progress in art is possible because of the progress in society. Even the stupid banana.
The first Impressionist Work..
That was a seriously great place. Another off the wall place was Bahooka, I am sure that you recall that place as well.
Palm Springs now sports four tiki bars: Some with cool velvet paintings worthy of the genre. They are, The Reef Bar, Tonga Hut, Bootlegger Tiki (the best for drinks) and Toucans - but really tiki in name only. I hope you get out here and can enjoy them some time. The first three of some cool art work from the time period I am positive you would appreciate. I am always up for a drink if you make it out this way.
Well, as @cosmicfolklore will concur, the men and women of the antebellum period of the South were very well dressed. Very moral and ethical about one's word and reputation - and a handshake meant something. Just long as you didn't look out back. Our founding fathers paid a lot of attention to their clothes and guaranteed the rights of property owners, so long as the ownership of the property didn't predate their arrival.In a word, yes. All of the people who argued that the various trends you mentioned were moving society gradually into decline were correct. It’s just a matter of incremental change, so it’s easy to say “oh don’t be a curmudgeon, it’s no big deal.” Perhaps these things were a symptom rather than a cause, but the correlation is there.
I’m sure critics of flappers in the Jazz age thought “if the kids keep this up, soon women will be running around half naked, and all the young people will be having children out of wedlock!” The counterpoint might be “oh it’s just short hair and a bit of dancing, the kids are just having fun! It’s not going to harm anything.” Yet, which prediction turned out to be most accurate?
Pliny the Elder was right. At some point, Rome stopped being Rome, although nobody who was there at the time would have been able to acknowledge it. All they could do is observe the gradual decline.
Regarding pajamas in public, if you look at photos from the Great Depression, the men in the bread lines were wearing jackets and ties. Granted, their clothing was worn and patched, but they made some effort at maintaining a sense of dignity. On the issue of dignity, and my penchant for corncob pipes
Ultimately, at some point, all civilizations lose steam and then decline. Maybe the things I’m complaining of are more the symptom than cause, and perhaps are simply unavoidable, but I dislike them all the same because I dislike what they represent. Oswald Spengler wrote far more eloquently about it than I ever could, and there was another once-prominent historian, Toynbee as I recall, who further developed those ideas. However, this Spenglerian cyclical theory of civilizations that ebb and flow in a consistent and predictable manner has over the past decades given way to a “directional” view of history which is ultimately rooted in the Marxist theory of historical materialism, which is the frame of reference when someone talks about being “on the right side of history.” Again I digress into the margins of the political, but suffice it to say that the postmodern stuff is no random development, and it has everything to do with how the thought leaders of our society shape our collective perspective of ourselves and the world and our place in it.
What I am getting at is that judging a society on its outward appearances, even for me, and I am fairly shallow, is .... are am I missing the point.
When you come to Birmingham, from anywhere in the city, you can see this towering statue of Vulcan. It symbolizes our city’s iron working past. And, it sets on Red Mountain. To visit it, you have to go into one of the wealthiest parts of the area. But, from anywhere in that wealthier area , when you look up at Vulcan, you can only see his bare ass.
It’s the local joke.
It’s the local joke.
Always loved flowers, took kids on Sundays to art galleries, retired and would glean the art houses on computer, a Gallery in Ft Worth sent me a picture, quick sale heirs getting rid of possessions, bought it for 2000$, worth over 12,000$, not for sale, it’s on my wall in bedroom, first thing I see when I get up in the morning, AD GREER, Artist, Boxer, Sign painter, will Rogers has a painting, Lindbergh, and President Johnson. And T-Brad from Meaux La.
Is that a roll of toilet paper he is reaching for?
I was just there at the one in Emeryville. Thank goodness it is still going strong with lots of young people eating there. San Francisco has some great tiki joints. Smugglers Cove, Pagean Ideal, Forbidden Island and of course the Tonga Room at the Fairmont.