The Great Art Debate

[thebish]

Proof of what a fantastic artist Rembrandt was.

Undoubtedly, but "proof"? Are you referring to Murrillo?

Yep - i meant Rembrandt's painting was so much better... More focussed, more poignant, more truthful, less garish, less
cluttered, less crammed with the story's trivia (fatted calf, for instance), more on its essential - the father, the son, the contrition, the forgiveness...

In which case, this by Pompeo Batoni does an even simpler job than Rembrandt. See, it's all a matter of personal preference
as I see it. Threee artists telling a story old before any of them were born. I can appreciate all three, I just don't classify
as better or best, just appreciate where they're coming from based on their respective talents and views of it.

hmmm... to me the difference is this - that the two Prodigals you have proposed are illustrations of a story - perfectly well crafted - not painted outside the lines or anything - but what takes Rembrandt well beyond them is that he captures the soul of the story - that's what makes great art - it moves me rather than simply says "there's an interesting attempt to paint the story".. does that make sense?

[William the White]

Believe me - i know the vileness of religious zealotry infects many faiths, not just Catholicism. It's one of the things that makes me feel happy to be an atheist.

atheists too have a pretty decent track record of zealous violence - so don't be tooooooo happy!

That is very true. And secular zealotry stained the murderous 20th century profoundly.

[TANGODANCER]

hmmm... to me the difference is this - that the two Prodigals you have proposed are illustrations of a story - perfectly well crafted - not painted outside the lines or anything - but what takes Rembrandt well beyond them is that he captures the soul of the story - that's what makes great art - it moves me rather than simply says "there's an interesting attempt to paint the story".. does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense. It's what art appreciation's about. As I'm constantly stressing, it's a personal thing. I like the impressionists like Manet, Monet and Degas who manage to convey the scenes without reproducing photograhic detail. It's why I like Turner and why Constable does nothing for me.
I also very much appreciate those who are able to reproduce the same photographic detail. Rembrandt's "The Anatomy Lesson" is a master work, but I wouldn't want it over my fireplace. This, I would, not just for the topic, not just for the skill, but also for the sheer fun of his thinking. This is one of my very favourite modern paintings by Jack Vetriano (It doesn't categorise all his work by any means, but he's a skilful artist for me).

[superjohnmcginlay]

They want to be careful that dancefloor looks a bit wet.

[Worthy4England]

They want to be careful that dancefloor looks a bit wet.

Maybe he's "Come Dancing"....

[William the White]

Tango - go with Rembrandt - that Vetriano is a cheap postcard by comparison...

And you call Emin a phoney!!!

There's more sense of art in her eyelash than he has anywhere...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Tango - go with Rembrandt - that Vetriano is a cheap postcard by comparison...

And you call Emin a phoney!!!

There's more sense of art in her eyelash than he has anywhere...

What does 'sense of art' mean, William?

I quite like Vettriano as an unlikely success story. He sells a glamorous and romantic world that people enjoy looking at and fantasizing about (and has sold a bloody lot of it too - I wouldn't mind swapping bank accounts). I don't think cultivating a distinctive look and an artist brand (yes, I know Vettriano isn't his actual surname) is the same thing as being a phoney - I actually think he gets to live out a lot of his own fantasies through his job, and in that sense it's pretty authentic.


Anyway, I've decided which is my favourite in the prodigal son series:

[thebish]

What does 'sense of art' mean, William?

that, indeed, is the heart of the matter...

I like the posting of examples approach - but (as WtW points out) the debate doesn't move forward unless we also try to explain what it is about a particular pice of art that makes us post it as an example of "great art". This isn't always easy - because often it is intangible - but I think there is a variety of possible types of response.


people might define art as "great" because.... (probably not an exhaustive list) because..

1. They have a real fascination/admiration for awesome technique and skill - much as you might admire anything well-made - this would be a (genuine) appreciation of human talent/effort.

for example... this picture of Jesus' face was drawn with one single continuous unbroken spiral line from the centre to the edge - applying different pressures for emphasis and shading - to me, a simply staggeringly skillful feat of artistry - which makes me go "wow! how clever is that - what awesome skill." and I can study it and look at it with fascination and wonder at the skill that made it - but... the actual art (other than the making of it) doesn't move me.



(for me - the pre-raphaelites fall into this category - my appreciation (genuine) of their work is about their phenomenal brush technique - and maybe also because they express a sense of melancholy - and I respond to that - being a bit of a miserable git!)

2. They have a decorative appeal - and I don't mean that in a simpy trite manner - (not simply IKEA art that matches a colour scheme) - but I mean a picture that is genuinely pleasing on the eye - a picture where you can drink in the serenity or the colour because it is simply beautiful. For me - the pre-raphaelites also fit into this category - as does the Canaletto I posted back on page 11 - I can look at that and feel a cool serenity-bath over my fevered brain - the colours - the composition - the strange/surreal glassy water - I can look at that and (just for a moment) the image of Ricketts heading past an advancing Jussi into an empty net - is gone! - washed away for a moment.... (from what I have seen - the sistine chapel is decorative - and it is admirable for the technique and effort - blood, sweat, tears and aching limbs - that went into making it - but I would not define it as "Great Art" - I would not dismiss it, either - just because i would not define it as "great" doesn't mean it does not have its place or that it is not valuable - clearly it is.)


3. They have an amusement/divertissement value - again - don't think I am being trite in this description - i don't just mean amusement as in "funny" - I mean "diverting" - something that makes me say "hmmm... that's interesting..." or "what a great idea!" or maybe also something that simply makes me smile - but in an enduring way - not like a joke you hear once and ceases to be funny. Here "execution" is not the key. The nativity and last supper pics I posted on page 11 fall into this category - as does Beryl Cook - as do the potraits I posted on page 11 - they are not "technical" masterpieces - but they have an enduring joy about them in my mind. The portraits are not "funny" - but they are interesting and I am diverted by them - they have an impact on me - make me stop and look - and would make me come back for another look - they would be like old friends I would visit when passing the National Portrait Gallery - others I would not visit again on purpose - because they don't arrest my imagination at all - i'd erase them from the facebook painting friends list!


all of these - 1,2,3 - are reasons for looking at art - revisiting it and hanging it in your home - and I have examples in my house that would fit into all of these categories.

However - none of those categories define "Great Art" for ME.

4. for me - great art "moves me" - yes, I know, a vague and slippery description! Great Art challenges me - or makes me question myself - or changes the way I see the world - or becomes a key reference point for the way I understand an idea or an emotion - or leads me to a place of deep contemplation or revelation. Rembrandts Prodigal (for example) moves me to a deeper understanding of the nature of forgiveness and acceptance and the pain and hurt that encompass that (Tango's examples - for me - lack the depths of emotion and merely illustrate the story.)


of course any art can "move" someone - and we bump up against the "I like what I like and you like what you like - it's all subjective" dead end. For example - a painting made by a deceased relative might "move me" - or a painting of a particular place might move me because of its association with an event or a time in my life - and so that might superficially appear to fit my category 4. Except that for me "Great Art" should have the power to touch or move a significant number of people - not just a select few - and in doing so - would limit it to quite a small category.

[William the White]

Bish says it for me, mummy...

[TANGODANCER]

Tango - go with Rembrandt - that Vetriano is a cheap postcard by comparison...
And you call Emin a phoney!!!
There's more sense of art in her eyelash than he has anywhere...

You see WTW, what you are doing here is expressing a very personal opinion (just as Bish is doing in his post). An opinion you cannot force on others. You admire Tracy Emin and can't understand why I don't see her as a great artist. I don't, end of. Again, what I'm expressing is just the same thing; a personal opinion which we're all entitled to. I'm not an art critic, just someone who knows whether what he sees appeal or doesn't. In that vain, I respect both your opinions of what you see as great art and, in quite a few cases, agree.

I already stated (more than once) that I find Rembrandt a great artist; not because anyone tells me to, but because I think so. Not a criteria that either looks for support from others, or makes me an art appreciater of renown.( If just agreeing with others is the criteria, then I never will be) Vetriano's painting (which I could probably make a quite passable copy of if I had to), apart from the topic, makes me see a bunch of people, maybe having a few too many, then deciding to go and dance on wet sand in the moonlight. I love the concept and others in the same vein Vetriano did. Some of his work is dark and emotional; I appreciate his skills in portraying that, but wouldn't want to be that depressed. But art in it's portrayal, yes.

I'll also, never be able to afford paintings by revered artist (as in the case of William Russell Flint), I just buy prints of what I like and frame them. That said, even if I could afford them I think I'd sooner leave them in art galleries and museums for others to enjoy as they will.

PS, for Bish: For what it's worth, the sketch of Jesus does absolutely nothing for me either in an art sense.

[TANGODANCER]

Tango - go with Rembrandt - that Vetriano is a cheap postcard by comparison...
And you call Emin a phoney!!!
There's more sense of art in her eyelash than he has anywhere...

You see WTW, what you are doing here is expressing a very personal opinion (just as Bish is doing in his post). An opinion you cannot force on others. You admire Tracy Emin and can't understand why I don't see her as a great artist. I don't, end of. Again, what I'm expressing is just the same thing; a personal opinion which we're all entitled to. I'm not an art critic, just someone who knows whether what he sees appeal or doesn't. In that vain, I respect both your opinions of what you see as great art and, in quite a few cases, agree.

I already stated (more than once) that I find Rembrandt a great artist; not because anyone tells me to, but because I think so. Not a criteria that either looks for support from others, or makes me an art appreciater of renown.( If just agreeing with others is the criteria, then I never will be) Vetriano's painting (which I could probably make a quite passable copy of if I had to), apart from the topic, makes me see a bunch of people, maybe having a few too many, then deciding to go and dance on wet sand in the moonlight. I love the concept and others in the same vein Vetriano did. Some of his work is dark and emotional; I appreciate his skills in portraying that, but wouldn't want to be that depressed. But art in it's portrayal, yes.

I'll also, never be able to afford paintings by revered artist (as in the case of William Russell Flint), I just buy prints of what I like and frame them. That said, even if I could afford them I think I'd sooner leave them in art galleries and museums for others to enjoy as they will.

[Worthy4England]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

[Puskas]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

So does the word not have any meaning, then?

[Worthy4England]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

So does the word not have any meaning, then?

Not one I've found yet, that has a precise definition, as an individual's view of it will always be different.

As Tango mentioned - I'm sure there's a definition of what Emin produces that is art - I wouldn't agree with it. I'm sure the OED has it's own view (1. the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively). So that sort of covers all sins.

Does it define it - no, not really.

[thebish]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

I don't really agree.

because nobody is forcing any view on anyone - what I would love Tango to do is to tell me WHY - to try to put it into words - this thread is supposed to be a debate!!

just because a couple of us say WHY we consider something great art (the purpose of this thread - and - a direct answer to Mummy's direct question) it does not follow that a view is being imposed. But I would like to hear other views - then it is a debate.

if we all say "I like this" and "you like that" and that's all fine - then it's a waste of time - what a dull world relativism makes!!

what I HEAR tango saying is that most of the pieces he has posted he admires the craftsmanship - the skill - my category 1. I haven't heard him say much beyond that other than "I like it because I do".

if that really is Tango's definition of great art - then all well and good - but then it wouldn't explain why he likes the craftsmanship of the pre-raphaelites and not the considerably skilled craftsmanship of the pencil-line Jesus. it's not easy to out into words always - but then Tango's a self-confessed wordsmith - so I'm sure he can have a stab...

there must be something else.

ok - Tango..

what is it about the two Prodigals that makes you say they are great art? can you try to put it into words - other then - "I like it"?

then we'd be having a debate...

[thebish]

Tango - go with Rembrandt - that Vetriano is a cheap postcard by comparison...
And you call Emin a phoney!!!
There's more sense of art in her eyelash than he has anywhere...

You see WTW, what you are doing here is expressing a very personal opinion (just as Bish is doing in his post).

what i am doing is my post is trying to explain WHY I like certain works of art in response to Mummy's question - and offering a number of different categories that apply in different measures to the pictures I have posted...

I could have said - "I like them because I do" - but then that would have been pointless.

[Puskas]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

So does the word not have any meaning, then?

Not one I've found yet, that has a precise definition, as an individual's view of it will always be different.

As Tango mentioned - I'm sure there's a definition of what Emin produces that is art - I wouldn't agree with it. I'm sure the OED has it's own view (1. the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively). So that sort of covers all sins.

Does it define it - no, not really.

Mmmm....soz, Worthy, but I think that's a bit of a cop-out.

To say that there's no meaning to it is to say we can't talk about it - it'd be like if we tried to have a conversation about cats, but whenever I used the word "cat" I actually meant "antelope". And that's clearly not the case here - there is some common ground.

So what is it? I think everyone can agree there has to be aesthetically pleasing element to it.

I also (siding with da bish and WTW) think there's an emotional component to it - and one that is, if not universal, at least speaks to many people (I can, for example, think of pop songs which, by association with old relationships or whatever, have an emotional impact for me. I wouldn't call them art because the emotional impact is purely down to personal association).

Take what we can all surely agree on as the finest piece of art ever - that photo of the woman tennis player scratching her arse. What is it about that photo that makes it great? It's beautiful, of course, but I think it speaks to us all about the triumph and tragedy of the human race.

That, of course, doesn't mean that you have to agree on what constitutes art. The same things are not going to move different people. However, there's a definition that would capture what all participants mean by the word - and allow us to say that the set of "things that are art" is non-empty, and that you're judging them by some recognisable criteria.

[Worthy4England]

I agree with you here TD. What is art? To me is beyond definition. Many have tried to force their perspective on others because of their own perceptions about what is and what isn't - it's a little similar to wine snobs and classical music afficionados.

To me, if it works for you then stick with it. No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

So does the word not have any meaning, then?

Not one I've found yet, that has a precise definition, as an individual's view of it will always be different.

As Tango mentioned - I'm sure there's a definition of what Emin produces that is art - I wouldn't agree with it. I'm sure the OED has it's own view (1. the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively). So that sort of covers all sins.

Does it define it - no, not really.

Mmmm....soz, Worthy, but I think that's a bit of a cop-out.

To say that there's no meaning to it is to say we can't talk about it - it'd be like if we tried to have a conversation about cats, but whenever I used the word "cat" I actually meant "antelope". And that's clearly not the case here - there is some common ground.

So what is it? I think everyone can agree there has to be aesthetically pleasing element to it.

I also (siding with da bish and WTW) think there's an emotional component to it - and one that is, if not universal, at least speaks to many people (I can, for example, think of pop songs which, by association with old relationships or whatever, have an emotional impact for me. I wouldn't call them art because the emotional impact is purely down to personal association).

Take what we can all surely agree on as the finest piece of art ever - that photo of the woman tennis player scratching her arse. What is it about that photo that makes it great? It's beautiful, of course, but I think it speaks to us all about the triumph and tragedy of the human race.

That, of course, doesn't mean that you have to agree on what constitutes art. The same things are not going to move different people. However, there's a definition that would capture what all participants mean by the word - and allow us to say that the set of "things that are art" is non-empty, and that you're judging them by some recognisable criteria.

We could indeed agree that there has to be an aesthetically pleasing element to it. We could go even further and say that it only has to have an aestehetically pleasing element to someone (not necessarily yourself). None of this would mean that your view of what is art meets my view of what is art. Tango's view of "I like it" would fall happily into that very definition, but doesn't meets the Bish's more stringent critera (although whether the Bish is arguing what constitutes a debate about art rather than what is art isn't clear (for not other reason than I don't think that was the question he was trying to answer)

You mention that there's a definition that would capture what all participants mean by the word - I'd be interested to hear it, because I don't believe all participants would agree.

[Worthy4England]

No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

I don't really agree.

The case for the defence rests.

[thebish]

No point trying to define and compartmentalise it because someone will always not agree.

I don't really agree.

The case for the defence rests.

my contention isn't that controversial - that is, that in a thread dedicated to a debate about "art", people having been invited to post what they consider to be great art - then a mere resorting to "I like it therefore I think it is great art and you like what you like so that must be great art too" is an utterly pointless waste of time!