The Great Art Debate

[EverSoYouri]

Bear in mind that there are folk in that world that think a canvas painted black is some sort of deep meaning genius.

If it's by Mark Rothko, then, yep, it is.

Can I be of assistance... or is there a waiting list?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Can I be of assistance... or is there a waiting list?

[EverSoYouri]

My serious contribution (yes, I do serious occasionally but try not to make a habit of it) is that the appreciation of abstract art is hampered by the era of wall posters and even more so, the internet.

Works like those by Rothko and Jackson Pollock are created to be experienced one-to-one - that is, you need to be in the physical presence of these almost three-dimensional pieces. It's a kind of meditative encounter (and, more to the point, that's how they are meant to be).

You don't "get" Pollock or Rothko (or for that matter Picasso's Guernica) by looking at an image in a book or online. Just like you don't really understand what a great play King Lear is by reading the text. You have to be in the room with it (imagine the most gorgeous woman/man you've ever known - how much poorer would your appreciation of her/him be if you'd only ever seen two-dimensional photo of her/him?)
This is a book well worth reading on the matter of really appreciating art (of any era).

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/P ... edir_esc=y

[EverSoYouri]

Can I be of assistance... or is there a waiting list?

***sends for a proctologist with a massive...hangover.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Can I be of assistance... or is there a waiting list?

***sends for a proctologist with a massive...hangover.

Pah.

[Bruce Rioja]

Works like those by Rothko and Jackson Pollock are created to be experienced one-to-one - that is, you need to be in the physical presence of these almost three-dimensional pieces.

I've been in the physical presence of Jackson Pollock's work and it's fecking shit. Over!

You'll be on about the horizontality of two course of fire bricks next!

[TANGODANCER]

My serious contribution (yes, I do serious occasionally but try not to make a habit of it) is that the appreciation of abstract art is hampered by the era of wall posters and even more so, the internet.

Works like those by Rothko and Jackson Pollock are created to be experienced one-to-one - that is, you need to be in the physical presence of these almost three-dimensional pieces. It's a kind of meditative encounter (and, more to the point, that's how they are meant to be).

You don't "get" Pollock or Rothko (or for that matter Picasso's Guernica) by looking at an image in a book or online. Just like you don't really understand what a great play King Lear is by reading the text. You have to be in the room with it (imagine the most gorgeous woman/man you've ever known - how much poorer would your appreciation of her/him be if you'd only ever seen two-dimensional photo of her/him?)
This is a book well worth reading on the matter of really appreciating art (of any era).

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/P ... edir_esc=y

Okay, a genuine question: This explanation from an article on abstract art baffled rather than explained (if indeed this type of art can be explained at all):

"The other great thing about abstract art is that it can mean something to you that no one else sees."

If this is the case, what was the artist actually saying in his/her work in the first place? Most abstract stuff is untitled, ( Guernica certainly isn't) and if the above is correct, they must have failed in most cases unless everyone sees the same thing, which they definitely don't. In other words the artist can throw together whatever they like and let folk see it as they will, safe in the knowledge that some will see visions of greatness therein but certainly won't see what he did (if indeed he saw anything at all?). Further reading made the statement that in the case of artists like Pollock, it was all about the artist's relationship with paint. This also tends to lead to understanding more about the artist than his work?

[William the White]

My serious contribution (yes, I do serious occasionally but try not to make a habit of it) is that the appreciation of abstract art is hampered by the era of wall posters and even more so, the internet.

Works like those by Rothko and Jackson Pollock are created to be experienced one-to-one - that is, you need to be in the physical presence of these almost three-dimensional pieces. It's a kind of meditative encounter (and, more to the point, that's how they are meant to be).

You don't "get" Pollock or Rothko (or for that matter Picasso's Guernica) by looking at an image in a book or online. Just like you don't really understand what a great play King Lear is by reading the text. You have to be in the room with it (imagine the most gorgeous woman/man you've ever known - how much poorer would your appreciation of her/him be if you'd only ever seen two-dimensional photo of her/him?)
This is a book well worth reading on the matter of really appreciating art (of any era).

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/P ... edir_esc=y

Okay, a genuine question: This explanation from an article on abstract art baffled rather than explained (if indeed this type of art can be explained at all):

"The other great thing about abstract art is that it can mean something to you that no one else sees."

If this is the case, what was the artist actually saying in his/her work in the first place? Most abstract stuff is untitled, ( Guernica certainly isn't) and if the above is correct, they must have failed in most cases unless everyone sees the same thing, which they definitely don't. In other words the artist can throw together whatever they like and let folk see it as they will, safe in the knowledge that some will see visions of greatness therein but certainly won't see what he did (if indeed he saw anything at all?). Further reading made the statement that in the case of artists like Pollock, it was all about the artist's relationship with paint. This also tends to lead to understanding more about the artist than his work?

Don't you think this is a common feature of most art? The right to interpret, and in that sense, to create meaning belongs to the participant (viewer, listener, reader, audience) as much as the artist.

[TANGODANCER]

Don't you think this is a common feature of most art? The right to interpret, and in that sense, to create meaning belongs to the participant (viewer, listener, reader, audience) as much as the artist.

To be honest Will, though art is a fascinating subject, I've never been a fan of abstract, thus knowing little about it. It's just a personal view, but I have to say that what I've seen and read doesn't really sell it to me at all.

[William the White]

Don't you think this is a common feature of most art? The right to interpret, and in that sense, to create meaning belongs to the participant (viewer, listener, reader, audience) as much as the artist.

To be honest Will, though art is a fascinating subject, I've never been a fan of abstract, thus knowing little about it. It's just a personal view, but I have to say that what I've seen and read doesn't really sell it to me at all.

Well I know that of course - but in response to your post I think all art - abstract or not - is subject to interpretation. The artist does not, cannot and should not have control of the experience of the 'audience' or 'recipient'. That goes for visual art, poetry, fiction, drama, music.

[TANGODANCER]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

[William the White]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

Great art is never 'one thing'.

But what page 1 - and almost every other page - indicates is irrefutable: Art is a contended subject.

[thebish]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

which has always been the case - the interest (for me) in a thread is not a petty categorisation "this is shit" or "this is great" - but the attempt people make to try to describe what art does for them and why they consider it "great".

i (frankly) don't really care whether other people think art is great or shit... that's boring.

it DOES interest me when people try to describe what it is that experiencing art does to them - that's what makes discussion interesting (for me).

there IS such a thing as "great art" - in as much as it moves people somehow - and the interesting thing (for me) is to hear those people try to describe how it moves them.

[Bruce Rioja]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

which has always been the case - the interest (for me) in a thread is not a petty categorisation "this is shit" or "this is great" - but the attempt people make to try to describe what art does for them and why they consider it "great".

i (frankly) don't really care whether other people think art is great or shit... that's boring.

it DOES interest me when people try to describe what it is that experiencing art does to them - that's what makes discussion interesting (for me).

I really couldn't think of a single other description for Jackson Pollock's 'work' though!

[William the White]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

which has always been the case - the interest (for me) in a thread is not a petty categorisation "this is shit" or "this is great" - but the attempt people make to try to describe what art does for them and why they consider it "great".

i (frankly) don't really care whether other people think art is great or shit... that's boring.

it DOES interest me when people try to describe what it is that experiencing art does to them - that's what makes discussion interesting (for me).

I really couldn't think of a single other description for Jackson Pollock's 'work' though!

Yes you could. You could say that you still thought it shit. But, if you had patience enough, you could certainly have met thebish's criteria for saying 'why'.

[Bruce Rioja]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

which has always been the case - the interest (for me) in a thread is not a petty categorisation "this is shit" or "this is great" - but the attempt people make to try to describe what art does for them and why they consider it "great".

i (frankly) don't really care whether other people think art is great or shit... that's boring.

it DOES interest me when people try to describe what it is that experiencing art does to them - that's what makes discussion interesting (for me).

I really couldn't think of a single other description for Jackson Pollock's 'work' though!

Yes you could. You could say that you still thought it shit. But, if you had patience enough, you could certainly have met thebish's criteria for saying 'why'.

It doesn't warrant it. I have better things to do with both my time and my oft limited patience that to try and find meaning in something that's nothing other than randomly dribbled paint.

[William the White]

[quote="Bruce Rioja"

It doesn't warrant it. I have better things to do with both my time and my oft limited patience that to try and find meaning in something that's nothing other than randomly dribbled paint.[/quote]

Fair enough. But you just did it. To you it looks like randomly dribbled paint. Not sure Pollack would disagree...

[Worthy4England]

Which thus tends to lead towards the conclusion that there is no such one thing as great art, except in the minds of those experiencing it? And thus returns us to Page One of this topic.

which has always been the case - the interest (for me) in a thread is not a petty categorisation "this is shit" or "this is great" - but the attempt people make to try to describe what art does for them and why they consider it "great".

i (frankly) don't really care whether other people think art is great or shit... that's boring.

it DOES interest me when people try to describe what it is that experiencing art does to them - that's what makes discussion interesting (for me).

I really couldn't think of a single other description for Jackson Pollock's 'work' though!

The parallels with religion are remarkable.

Determination to see something that doesn't exist.
Making it up as you go along.
All in the minds eye and all that.

etc. etc.

[TANGODANCER]

The parallels with religion are remarkable.

Determination to see something that doesn't exist.
Making it up as you go along.
All in the minds eye and all that. etc. etc.

Both topics guaranteed to cause warfare...

[TANGODANCER]

Another one of those impressionist works in watercolour that appeals mightily to me. This is by Cezane. To see the amount of brushwork and colour-mixing in it, click the link then use the magnifier, especially on the wine bottle.

http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/wp-cont ... ection.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;