fett on 28/3/2009 at 21:43
For me, the problem comes when I compare works like the Pieta or one of Boticelli's paintings to modern works which are comprised entirely of colored squares, pig vomit, or a single black dot on a canvas. It's very difficult to appreciate the latter in light of the former because I'm not only comparing the visual effect, but the skill, time, and commitment that was poured into one vs. the other. That doesn't mean one is intrinsically more 'worthy' than the other to be called art, or appraised at millions of dollars, I'm just saying that's one of the reasons I have trouble appreciating more modern, abstract works, be it right or wrong.
june gloom on 28/3/2009 at 21:51
I think we're all mature enough that we can accept that there is such a thing as bad art. Just because it's bad (or we cannot appreciate it for one reason or another) doesn't make it not art.
To me art- and I use a general term here, rather than referring explicitly to paintings or drawings or whathaveyou- is expression. Expression by an individual (a painting), expression by a group (music), and even expression by a company (video games.) Expression is only hampered by poor execution- and what actually is poor execution will forever be subjective. You have the people who think Jackson Pollock is a genius, you have people who think he's a hack, and you have Kolya.
Kolya on 28/3/2009 at 22:17
RBJ, how can you
objectively dismiss anything as "not art"? That seems impossible to boot.
Quote Posted by fett
Trust me, your selection for a participant is dead on.
But expect a week of pissy, threatening PMs. You're also going to be off someone's friends list PERMANENTLY bud.
lol whut?
Tocky on 29/3/2009 at 03:11
I think what RBJ meant was that even without the context of personal experience about Christ or piss one can admire the quality of light much like that of a late summer shading the white figure and see beauty. I could be wrong.
I disagree about the name Piss Christ being neccessarily subversive because one could interpret it as the beauty of Christ piercing the ugly of piss and not as it would be had it been named Piss on Christ and think it was left arbitrary for interpretation. Something could also be said for utility of piss as a medium to bring forth beauty equating as well to a corpse on a stick for that purpose and that isn't getting into historical context or any emotional impact either.
That said, I'm not going to put an aquarium of piss in my living room.
Illuminatus on 29/3/2009 at 08:32
All art operates on two levels: universal, primary aesthetic consideration (ratio, form, colour) and subjective, secondary emotional response (cultural context, personal experience). If a work resonates positively on either of these criteria the viewer is likely to praise it as “good art”. The main objection to much of “modern” art is that it uses the secondary reaction mainly as a crutch and relies too much on particular cultural context in order to elicit any appreciation whatsoever (in other words, it skips the universal aesthetic).
In the case of “Piss Christ”, the emotional reaction is clearly the targeted one, since the work presents itself as (let’s not kid ourselves) a subversion of the ultimate Western ideal form, Christ. Beyond the marginal aesthetic response, the viewer’s emotional reaction (which leads to the label of good vs. bad art) depends on whether he/she is the hypothetical Chinese peasant who doesn’t recognize the figure or a Westerner who is clearly aware of its cultural/religious connotations. Essentially, it *can* work as art when divorced from its cultural context (the peasant can have a merely aesthetic reaction to it), but, just like the Pieta, you need the cultural layer to fully appreciate it. Unlike the Pieta however, its aesthetic merit (its pure craftsmanship) is debatable.
Fingernail on 29/3/2009 at 09:25
The problem of detecting craftsmanship is more tricky with music, however. Who can deny that the composers of exceptionally complex total serialism were truly crafstmen, employing a terrifyingly controlled yet open-ended system to achieve their ends? Or that the performers of that music must be incredibly dedicated and talented to realise to the best of their ability all the minute details of the score?
Yet a lot of people might dismiss the end result as sounding "random", or at least unpleasant. Arguably, though, it's more complex and more difficult to achieve than writing a tonal piece would be. Certainly the performance often involves more intricate preparation, and that is what you hear.
So we have on the one hand amazing craftsmanship, yet your tonally conditioned ear doesn't always immediately like the results. But we're not talking about "my five year old could do that". He couldn't. He might be able to sit at a piano and bang keys in a manner that your untrained ear might equate as being similar in value to Stockhausen or Boulez, but it is not the same. You just don't know how to listen right (discuss).
Aja on 29/3/2009 at 09:38
What I'd like to know is why no painting has ever made me feel the way Stars of the Lid or John Coltrane do.
And I can think of quite a few artists (edit - I mean musicians here) who would never, by any means, be considered "great" artists, and yet their work has profoundly moved me in ways that visual art just doesn't seem to.
Could there be a psychological disposition that attunes one to particular forms of aesthetic? Could my dad singing to me as a child rather than drawing for me bear any impact? I'm honestly curious about this, because although I can certainly appreciate visual art, I almost feel as though I'm missing out its supposedly sublime aspects.
Scots Taffer on 29/3/2009 at 09:51
Same thing with me and film, Aja. I certainly don't even get as moved by music as most, even though I deeply love it a lot of the time.
Angel Dust on 29/3/2009 at 10:15
Quote Posted by Thirith
This, to be honest, makes it sound like your problem with Mondrian isn't so much the thinking behind his work, but that you disagree with it. Which is absolutely fair, but it's a different point from the one you made earlier. It's perfectly valid to criticise an artistic concept or theory, but I for one would find it dead boring if there was only art that I agreed with. Some of the art that has stayed with me most has rubbed me the wrong way.
Edit: For the record, a lot of the modern art that I've seen doesn't do much for me. Conceptually it's interesting to some extent, but especially postmodern art has a tendency towards being an ironic one-liner. At least I fail to see much resonance in it, and I share Tocky's annoyance with art/art criticism where the talking about it becomes immensely more important than the work itself. At the same time, I have always believed that blanket statements about any artistic movement are inadequate and uninteresting - every individual work of art deserves to be assessed individually. If it turns out to be facile, smug, oh-so-ironic crap, then it deserves to be criticised as such. But just because something doesn't immediately make you go, "Wow!" doesn't mean that there isn't merit to it - just as some wow!-inducing art can be great spectacle but essentially empty when you look at it in more detail.
Quote Posted by Thirith
For me this is very much a "yes, but" conversation. Yes, some (much?) modern art is about as deep as a puddle, and yes, some (many?) art critics are perpetuating this whole "emperor's new clothes" thing.
But at the same time many people look at modern art and say, "Huh... My dog coulda painted this. It's crap. Next!" Just like many people might have a sip of 16-year old Lagavulin and think, "Meh. Give me bourbon any day. This stuff is over-priced, over-rated crap." Or many people might play
Thief for five minutes and go, "Booooo-ring. If anyone needs me, I'll be playing
Unreal."
Not everything that is interesting and deep and worthwhile will wow an uninformed audience within the first ten seconds. Some, if not a lot of it, will require some sort of effort on the part of the audience. This effort can take different forms, but let's face it, many people don't *want* to put in an effort. They want instant gratification. And if they don't get it, they consider the object that didn't give them instant gratification a pile of shit. Which says very little about the object in question (which may or may not be a pile of shit).
I'm sure that most if not all of us here care deeply about something that was dismissed by lots of people because it didn't instantaneously blow their minds. Let's not be blind to the same effect in genres or media that we care little about.
Both of these are QFTMFT!:thumb:
And Aja: I don't think it's any great mystery that everybody is more particularly drawn to certain forms of artistic expression and I certainly don't think it's for any reason as simple as your what your parents where into, although that may be one of the many factors. My dad is a sport nut who doesn't listen to music or watch many films and my mother is a classically trained musician who loves comics. Me? I'm a nerd who loves film, gaming and music in that order. We like what we like and I just try to remember that while I don't get get, say, modern art, I realise that someone feels the same way about that as I do film.
Muzman on 29/3/2009 at 11:37
I've followed "art" on and off for a while and generally enjoy looking at pictures I like, but nothing I would have compared to my favourite music or book or something.
At least I wouldn't have thought so until I saw some of the masters in person. I could scarcely believe it myself but in a room full of Monets or Rembrandts I really didn't want to leave.
