What Makes a Great Work of Art?

[telescopes]

I am hesitant to make a statement on what is or isn't art.

I am hesitant to even make a statement on what I prefer and don't - my tastes are always evolving.

I would say that I do not prefer art that dehumanizes or objectifies by dehumanizing people.

Which brings me to the following question?

Is there a connection between acting out with violence and a connection to art that produces endorphins when one engages with it, i.e. video games ( a type of artwork, hardcore nihilistic pornography, etc)?

I have watched my students become desensitized to violence and misogynistic tendencies over the last three decades. I find that it has impacted their thought processes in troubling ways. They have morals and ethics to be sure, but they seem confused as to how these really work when it is applied to them and their own personal thoughts.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I have watched my students become desensitized to violence and misogynistic tendencies over the last three decades. I find that it has impacted their thought processes in troubling ways. They have morals and ethics to be sure, but they seem confused as to how these really work when it is applied to them and their own personal thoughts.

I have been involved with the arts since I was just a kid. My father put me to work at an early age in his jewelry store, and I always had art supplies to work with at home. But, I find that art doesn't illicit an emotional reaction to static visual art like it does music or movies. I can identify the emotions that the artist is expressing, but it doesn't affect me the same as the mentioned mediums.

That said, pornography, because of how it's used, can desensitize people to sexual visual stimuli making people look for and use stronger and stronger acts depicted for their stimuli. I've read somewhere that this explains the strong increase in cases of ED in males at younger ages. But, I am not about to put that in my google search files to look for research. You can. And, pictures of carnage can after a while do the same.
Anything that we flood our selves with can do this. Take latakia... ha ha.

 

[sablebrush52]

I am hesitant to make a statement on what is or isn't art.

I am hesitant to even make a statement on what I prefer and don't - my tastes are always evolving.

I would say that I do not prefer art that dehumanizes or objectifies by dehumanizing people.

Which brings me to the following question?

Is there a connection between acting out with violence and a connection to art that produces endorphins when one engages with it, i.e. video games ( a type of artwork, hardcore nihilistic pornography, etc)?

I have watched my students become desensitized to violence and misogynistic tendencies over the last three decades. I find that it has impacted their thought processes in troubling ways. They have morals and ethics to be sure, but they seem confused as to how these really work when it is applied to them and their own personal thoughts.

This is a topic for a whole different thread, and it's an important topic, as it gets into a long heated debate over video games, gangsta music, graphic violence in commercial media, like TV and films, etc. It pits people who believe in freedom without responsibility or constraint, against people who believe that freedom can only exist with responsibility and restraint. There's a large body of evidence that supports the idea that people do become desensitized over time. You can see it in the way media keeps pushing the boundaries and raising the bar.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

This is a topic for a whole different thread, and it's an important topic, as it gets into a long heated debate over video games, gangsta music, graphic violence in commercial media, like TV and films, etc. It pits people who believe in freedom without responsibility or constraint, against people who believe that freedom can only exist with responsibility and restraint. There's a large body of evidence that supports the idea that people do become desensitized over time. You can see it in the way media keeps pushing the boundaries and raising the bar.

Agreed, the post gave me about 60 more things I wanted to say that would derail this one. Thanks!!!

 

[cosmicfolklore]

That said, I just love the way Botticelli paints the female form. I highly recommend the series "Medici." There are a few episodes where it plays on this idea that all of Botticelli's women are of the same woman, most likely were. But, IMO his women all have "hungry" eyes. Love that!

 

[telescopes]

Art - it is hardwired into our DNA - evidenced by the cave paintings in France to the countless examples of its presence for the last 30,000 years. It is destroyed by conquers who fear the messages it conveys. For humans, art is key to how we communicate with each other as well as ourselves.

To argue that art does not manipulate or impact how people respond to it, or how it can shape their future ideas and actions is nonsense. The evidence is easily suggested by the fact that businesses readily pay millions for 30 seconds of Super Bowl adds. They do so because they work.

The question brought up by @sablebrush52 of freedom with responsibility and freedom without responsibility is an age old question. Stan Lee probably said it best, "With great power there must also come great responsibility". Or if I may paraphrase, freedom is a type of power and with it comes also a type of responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is chaos, anarchy, and mankind's worst nightmare. It is the stuff of our horror movies and stories. It is to worship at the throne that also oversees decadence.

There is a place for decadent art. I am not opposed to it nor would I ban it. But decadent art that serves as a warning, a guide post so to say, is different than decadent art that is a welcome mat for other more destructive propositions.

In some ways, this might be the genesis of the debate, "What is good art?" The dividing line between the two types of decadence is razor thin.

Am I missing something?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

And, at what point in abstraction or just poor use of technique does the image become better or worse? The age old questions.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

 

[sablebrush52]

Art - it is hardwired into our DNA - evidenced by the cave paintings in France to the countless examples of its presence for the last 30,000 years. It is destroyed by conquers who fear the messages it conveys. For humans, art is key to how we communicate with each other as well as ourselves.

To argue that art does not manipulate or impact how people respond to it, or how it can shape their future ideas and actions is nonsense. The evidence is easily suggested by the fact that businesses readily pay millions for 30 seconds of Super Bowl adds. They do so because they work.

The question brought up by @sablebrush52 of freedom with responsibility and freedom without responsibility is an age old question. Stan Lee probably said it best, "With great power there must also come great responsibility". Or if I may paraphrase, freedom is a type of power and with it comes also a type of responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is chaos, anarchy, and mankind's worst nightmare. It is the stuff of our horror movies and stories. It is to worship at the throne that also oversees decadence.

There is a place for decadent art. I am not opposed to it nor would I ban it. But decadent art that serves as a warning, a guide post so to say, is different than decadent art that is a welcome mat for other more destructive propositions.

In some ways, this might be the genesis of the debate, "What is good art?" The dividing line between the two types of decadence is razor thin.

Am I missing something?

No, you're not, though the area covered by this question is much broader and more complex, and can't be discussed without breaking some wisely placed forum boundaries. But here's a thought. Why is freedom without responsibility in a multitude, freedom, and not a form of petty tyranny, where the unconstrained is the tyrant? And where in the arts do we see this form of tyranny played out? And does this form of tyranny result in great art?

 

[sablebrush52]

View attachment 97400

This brings back memories of cheap motel rooms...

 

[cosmicfolklore]

This brings back memories of cheap motel rooms...

I think the market term is “decorative art.” Ha ha. But yeh. It’s funny how the use of color can pigeonhole an artist. Add in some ugly colors and it might not sell as well, but at least it provokes more thought…. maybe, maybe not.
But, it is better than when my grad school professors would call female artists’ work, “kitchen art.”

Talk about misogamy. One painting professor at UA was like 90, studied with deKoons, hired the prettiest 18 year old girls to model nude in his studio while he painted. Us grad students would always try to explain to the girls that he wasn’t painting them, because he is an abstract expressionist, but it just went “woosh” right over their heads. Dirty old man.

 

[telescopes]

No, you're not, though the area covered by this question is much broader and more complex, and can't be discussed without breaking some wisely placed forum boundaries. But here's a thought. Why is freedom without responsibility in a multitude, freedom, and not a form of petty tyranny, where the unconstrained is the tyrant? And where in the arts do we see this form of tyranny played out? And does this form of tyranny result in great art?

Powerful question.

In the arts, we definitely see this in the propaganda posters of Germany and Russia. But... we see it in the arts of other countries when political powers subvert the arts in order to control the message they wish sent to the masses, a message meant to purposefully deceive and manipulate against the good of the people. I won't mention examples as to salvage this thread from IBTL.


This opposed to some of the pornographic violence images that can not be uploaded to this forum, even for discussion purposes.

Some might argue, that re contextualized, there are elements of artistic merit in the two images I submitted. I am interested in your thoughts, Jesse. Repurposed for a modern discussion, do the above images have artistic merit?

But can we ever repurpose in the same manner, the violent pornographic images that depict realistic violence perpetrated on other humans for the amusement of paid subscribers? Can such art ever hold artistic merit that is signaled in any manner as having artistic virtual?

 

[briarbuck]

Powerful question.

In the arts, we definitely see this in the propaganda posters of Germany and Russia. But... we see it in the arts of other countries when political powers subvert the arts in order to control the message they wish sent to the masses, a message meant to purposefully deceive and manipulate against the good of the people. I won't mention examples as to salvage this thread from IBTL.

View attachment 97403View attachment 97404
This opposed to some of the pornographic violence images that can not be uploaded to this forum, even for discussion purposes.

Some might argue, that re contextualized, there are elements of artistic merit in the two images I submitted. I am interested in your thoughts, Jesse. Repurposed for a modern discussion, do the above images have artistic merit?

But can we ever repurpose in the same manner, the violent pornographic images that depict realistic violence perpetrated on other humans for the amusement of paid subscribers? Can such art ever hold artistic merit that is signaled in any manner as having artistic virtual?

I don't have to agree with the message in order to call something art. We had a big hullaballoo up here in Cincinnati with Robert Mapplethorpe photos. I don't like some of his images, but to say it's not art because it makes me uncomfortable or disagree is silly.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

"art is not what you see but what you make others see" ~ Edgar Degas.

All of art is propaganda in one way or another. Even if the message being perpetuated is merely about beauty.

Is it art, or is it something else... it can be both, or even more.

Can a poster be art, Sure... but not all posters are art.
Can a cartoon be art, sure.... But not all cartoons are art.
Not even all paintings are art, or sculptures... etc...

Can something be art to you, but not me, sure... pages back I supplied an aesthetic definition of art, which allows for people from different backgrounds to disagree and still both be right. Likewise it is like telling someone else that their god is not a real god, or that their idea of love is wrong.

 

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Probably the worse thread on the forum to date.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I don't have to agree with the message in order to call something art. We had a big hullaballoo up here in Cincinnati with Robert Mapplethorpe photos. I don't like some of his images, but to say it's not art because it makes me uncomfortable or disagree is silly.

There are lots of artists that I don't like.

I love reading Kandinsky's The Spiritual in Art. It makes total sense, but then when I look at his art, I just lose interest. I'm not a fan.



I've never been a fan of Paul Klee either.


I am a huge fan of almost everything Picasso, but his first Cubist works... not a fan.



But yeh, I still consider it art.

I am a huge fan of country music, but I am not a fan of Patsy Cline. Just something I can't explain. But, I consider it music. Just not music I want to listen to.

Unlike Yes and ABBA... that's not music, ha ha. JK

 

[telescopes]

View attachment 97400

I’ve also been partial to prints like this…

 

[sablebrush52]

Powerful question.

In the arts, we definitely see this in the propaganda posters of Germany and Russia. But... we see it in the arts of other countries when political powers subvert the arts in order to control the message they wish sent to the masses, a message meant to purposefully deceive and manipulate against the good of the people. I won't mention examples as to salvage this thread from IBTL.

View attachment 97403View attachment 97404
This opposed to some of the pornographic violence images that can not be uploaded to this forum, even for discussion purposes.

Some might argue, that re contextualized, there are elements of artistic merit in the two images I submitted. I am interested in your thoughts, Jesse. Repurposed for a modern discussion, do the above images have artistic merit?

But can we ever repurpose in the same manner, the violent pornographic images that depict realistic violence perpetrated on other humans for the amusement of paid subscribers? Can such art ever hold artistic merit that is signaled in any manner as having artistic virtual?

Do I think these images have artistic merit? Of course I do. That's not the same thing as saying that they're great works of art. There are all kinds of artwork, fine art, commercial art, propaganda art, etc, just like there are all kinds of books, fiction, non fiction, various genres, fantasy, historical novels, and so on.
There's a good deal of skill involved in the results of these two.
These pieces of propaganda art are a form of commercial art, created to satisfy the demands of the client and molded by a committee telling the artists what to do. Sort of reminds me of the commercials I worked on. The ad agency would send out a committee of idiots to run up a tab, waste the budget, do drugs, whore around, and then head home when the calendar ran out. We used our skills to produce a piece to manipulate the public into buying their product. These two pieces are using iconography to manipulate the public into buying THEIR product.
Media is full of such works of propaganda, attempting to manipulate the publc into buying what they're selling. So is the "art world". And, the public is susceptible to being manipulated. If it weren't, clients wouldn't be spending billions of dollars to create works of propaganda. I wouldn't call these great works of art, but certainly competent works of craft. They're not exactly on the same level as Henri Toulouse-Lautrec's posters for the Moulin Rouge.

 

[derhammer]

I think art should not imitate reality but rather what it should be.

 

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Art is very personal isn't it. I watch Antique Roadshow on Mondays. Often someone brings in a painting that's been stored in a closet or out in the garage. When they discover the painting is worth thousands of dollars, they say they need to bring it inside and take better care of it.