driver on 27/3/2009 at 15:41
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
good pop art.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Judith on 27/3/2009 at 15:47
Quote:
I would argue that one shouldn't have to read even a line to be moved or otherwise affected by a work of art. An explanation can complement it, but it shouldn't be necessary. It may seem vain to try to reproduce mundane objects, but the painstakingly difficult process that led to that kind of perfection is obvious to anyone. Limiting discussion to pretty colours just because one didn't read some book is incredibly reductive, and denotes a certain arrogance.
Sorry, I missed that, because of this pointless fight. Of course, you're right, in a way. The aesthetic reception is obviously a complicated process and you cannot take into account the knowledge of the audience only. But authors do assume that his audience has some knowledge about reality or a given subject. This kind of a "common knowledge" has been changing through all our history, I think Eco describes it as "the library and the encyclopedia of the average man", in certain point of history - a collection of obvious facts and statements that we have no idea of, living in modern times. That's just one of the reasons it's much better if we get as much information as we can, before discussing art.
Of course, some (a lot of) works carry some universal values, and to some extent everyone will be able to say something. That's why I used this "talking about colors" mental shortcut. Anyway, the abstract art is not a good thing for that. Even if it's described as "the everlasting experiment, with the outcome unknown". I doubt that the authors would like to hear: "burn this shit" as a result, as there's something more to it :)
Stitch on 27/3/2009 at 15:50
Quote Posted by Kolya
You're mistaking a shorthand for shallowness.
You're mistaking a blunt dismissal for shorthand.
Rug Burn Junky on 27/3/2009 at 15:55
To be honest, Judith is the only one here that really seems to know what she's talking about (color me impressed). I'll second just about everything she's said. To deny the importance of something without familiarizing yourself with the context that makes it important - and to then steadfastly refuse to consider that one lacks this context - is simply championing ignorance.
I do enjoy watching the usual suspects continue to rail against someone who displays an informed intellectual understanding of a subject matter, using their ignorance as a shield against actual expertise (not including you in this raph, though I do think you're out of your depth here - Art is about more than skill, and even the "skill" encompasses more than just the technical abilities. One important aspect is the intent and ability to participate in a cultural conversation through a medium, to make an interesting and meaningful statement of some sort. That is a skill just as putting brush to papercanvas is).
rachel on 27/3/2009 at 16:18
Admittedly bringing Mondrian in the conversation was a poorly thought-out move, as I was looking more for a blunt comparison than any real criticism, and it kind of kicked the anthill a bit in the process. :)
While I'm at it, I did read on the subject (abstract art I mean), though not much, and long ago so I'm indeed out of my league here. As I said, I just don't get it, I've always preferred classic stuff more (Delacroix, Turner, Blair-Leighton for ex.). Maybe some day I will.
Kolya on 27/3/2009 at 16:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
You're mistaking a blunt dismissal for shorthand.
Might have, if "pfft boring" had been the only thing I said. But even my first post contained more than that and I wrote a (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1835620#post1835620) longer explanation on top of it.
Rogue Keeper on 27/3/2009 at 16:36
Quote Posted by raph
As I said, I just don't get it, I've always preferred classic stuff more (Delacroix, Turner, Blair-Leighton for ex.). Maybe some day I will.
No you won't. Once you fell for classic, you are stuck in it for life and there is nothing better. :thumb:
june gloom on 27/3/2009 at 19:04
Quote Posted by Saturnine
Isn't that an Acid Bath album cover? :thumb:
wait...where am I?
The fact that somebody guessed Acid Bath first brings me a little bit of joy. But anyway it's a John Wayne Gacy painting, yes- they sent him a demo of their stuff and he sent them a painting 'cuz he liked their sound.
And while their second album's cover art- a painting by Dr. Jack Kevorkian- already existed, he did violins on "New Death Sensation".
Man I miss Acid Bath.
Thirith on 27/3/2009 at 19:39
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Your comment about art history and context actually
shows this. If you need background information about the artist to know what a painting means, then why did you need the painting at all? Messages that require explication are, as with jokes, what we call
poorly conveyed.Art, like anything, doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is part of an ongoing conversation. Ideally you can get something out of just looking at individual statements within that conversation, but you'll get much more out of it if you know where the conversation has been and how it has got to where we are now.
This isn't painting but poetry, but Shakespeare's "My Mistress' Eyes Are Nothing Like The Sun" is nice without knowing some of the cultural context, but you're missing out on a lot if you don't know at least something about the tradition it's a response to. Dismissing it because you need to be at least somewhat aware of the context strikes me as reverse snobbism - "If I need to bring anything to the table to enjoy this, then it's crap!" It's really not that different to saying, "Obviously anyone ignorant won't get art!"
