The Great Art Debate

[thebish]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

[TANGODANCER]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other then impressionism. People paint in that style today.

[Beefheart]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other then impressionism. People paint in that style today.

I think he was just suggesting that he thinks that piece falls more into the 'post-impressionism' school of art?

I'm not informed enough to distinguish between the two.

[thebish]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other then impressionism. People paint in that style today.

I mean "post-impressionism" as something other than "impressionism". you said it is "impressionist" - I think it's "post-impressionist". if people painted in the style of that picture today - they'd be painting in a "post-impressionist" style.

we differ! relax! I think the world can take it!

[TANGODANCER]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other than impressionism. People paint in that style today.

I think he was just suggesting that he thinks that piece falls more into the 'post-impressionism' school of art?

I'm not informed enough to distinguish between the two.

We've had the discussion before Beefheart, Cezanna and co simply extended the range of what was called impressionism by introducing other elements and moving into other areas of the art. In relation, the pic I posted falls more into the former because it's in watercolour. Van Gogh and others tended to use oil as their medium for their various experiments.

[thebish]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other than impressionism. People paint in that style today.

I think he was just suggesting that he thinks that piece falls more into the 'post-impressionism' school of art?

I'm not informed enough to distinguish between the two.

We've had the discussion before Beefheart, Cezanna and co simply extended the range of what was called impressionism by introducing other elements and moving into other areas of the art.

no - not really... post-impressionism is a reaction against impressionism - not an "extension" of it. Among other things post-impressionism quite deliberately aimed at more form and structure (like the painting you have pasted). An art historian (which I am not) would point to many other distinctive features between the separate schools of painting.

post impressionists have MUCH more clearly defined forms - deliberately

"post-impressionism" was a very conscious breaking away from "impressionism" - and not the same thing at all.

[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

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?

The statement you quote strikes me as an example of what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls a 'deepity' - some pronouncement that purports to be profound but is, when examined closely either (a) true but not enlightening or (b) nonsensical. I think in this case it's (a) for the simple reason that what is said is not just obvious but true of all art (and not just visual art).
I think we have to make some further distinctions - to begin with, because I'm arguing there is such a thing as great abstract art, it doesn't follow that I think all of it is great (or even good). The second is that, even with more traditionally figurative art, I don't accept that we all see the same thing - and in fact, most of us probably don't see what the artist intended anyway.
Of course, it may be easier to make a confident assessment of a work of art from the pre-photographic era (i.e. before modern art began), but that's not the same as understanding it. And with figurative art, I actually think understanding it is more important than with abstract art (where the key is to react to it, or to let it affect you - IMNSHO).
I think part of the problem is that most of us are scared that we're being conned by abstract art (and I include myself in this). I suspect there really is no small amount of emperor's new clothes hanging around the modern art galleries of the world. I don't know enough to point a figure at any of them but I feel I do know enough to say those fingers should not be pointing at Rothko and Pollock. What their work means I'm not sure I could say, but I do know many, many people report quite similar emotional experiences when they spend an appropriate amount of time really looking at their work.

Hmmm...not really sure I've answered your original question. (Typical ex-academic, huh?!)

[EverSoYouri]

[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.

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


As I said in a response to Tango, I personally think the point of much abstract art is how it makes you feel. Maybe Bruce's irritation is as close as you can get to Pollock's own emotion (just speculating)?

It's so interesting (for me) that one of the iconic clips of sixties music is Jimi Hendrix setting fire to his guitar at Monterey. I just wonder if this isn't Hendrix "saying" to his guitar 'you fecking thing. I've devoted my life to you, they all think I'm the best there is, but I still can't get you to help me get what's inside me out into the world.'

Maybe that's what Pollock was "saying" to/with the paint - if you see what I mean. Just a thought.

[TANGODANCER]

^ I think that's post-impressionist...

Not sure if that's a point of contention for any reason? Impressionism is something you seem determined make mean something other than impressionism. People paint in that style today.

I think he was just suggesting that he thinks that piece falls more into the 'post-impressionism' school of art?

I'm not informed enough to distinguish between the two.

We've had the discussion before Beefheart, Cezanna and co simply extended the range of what was called impressionism by introducing other elements and moving into other areas of the art.

no - not really... post-impressionism is a reaction against impressionism - not an "extension" of it. Among other things post-impressionism quite deliberately aimed at more form and structure (like the painting you have pasted). An art historian (which I am not) would point to many other distinctive features between the separate schools of painting.

post impressionists have MUCH more clearly defined forms - deliberately

"post-impressionism" was a very conscious breaking away from "impressionism" - and not the same thing at all.

If you had simply read my original post you would note I said it was by Cezane and impressionist. You disagreed (nothing new there). Despite his involvement in "post impressionism", which after all means nothing more than "after impressionism, " the term was only coined in 1910. Cezane, although involved in progression of the new forms, had been dead four years by then. Much of his early work was in the field of impressionism. The picture I posted was quite clearly that. Look at the other examples of his work from that period Whatever he did later he was a total, self-confessed worshipper of Camille Pissarro who was a magnificent impressionist painter. I claimed nothing more.

http://www.pearlmancollection.org/galle ... 1d52d9d4a2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cezane's "Post Impressionism" work, which I still maintain is extending it and not abandoning it totally, is nothing even vaguely like that.

[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?

The statement you quote strikes me as an example of what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls a 'deepity' - some pronouncement that purports to be profound but is, when examined closely either (a) true but not enlightening or (b) nonsensical. I think in this case it's (a) for the simple reason that what is said is not just obvious but true of all art (and not just visual art).
I think we have to make some further distinctions - to begin with, because I'm arguing there is such a thing as great abstract art, it doesn't follow that I think all of it is great (or even good). The second is that, even with more traditionally figurative art, I don't accept that we all see the same thing - and in fact, most of us probably don't see what the artist intended anyway.
Of course, it may be easier to make a confident assessment of a work of art from the pre-photographic era (i.e. before modern art began), but that's not the same as understanding it. And with figurative art, I actually think understanding it is more important than with abstract art (where the key is to react to it, or to let it affect you - IMNSHO).
I think part of the problem is that most of us are scared that we're being conned by abstract art (and I include myself in this). I suspect there really is no small amount of emperor's new clothes hanging around the modern art galleries of the world. I don't know enough to point a figure at any of them but I feel I do know enough to say those fingers should not be pointing at Rothko and Pollock. What their work means I'm not sure I could say, but I do know many, many people report quite similar emotional experiences when they spend an appropriate amount of time really looking at their work.

Hmmm...not really sure I've answered your original question. (Typical ex-academic, huh?!)

Indeed - my hour or so spent in the semi-darkness of the Rothko room in Tate Modern (which received a significant amount of incredulity and mockery on this thread) - helped me continue an exploration of abstraction that really only started in a serious way at the Richter exhibition of 2011-12 (also Tate Modern). It continued with the Malevich exhibition, where my response to his abstract work was stronger than to his figurative work (particularly the later pieces as Stalin's cultural thugs moved in on him, and he produces work that shows him clearly, despite it all, trying to remain true to himself. And failing, the poor bastard!). Searching for 'meaning' here may be futile.

But true art is not primarily about 'meaning'. It is about the emotional response it engenders. Picassso's Guernica. The Adagio of Bruch's Violin concerto no 1. The final scenes of 'Battle of Algiers'. The great moments of Shakespeare, especially Lear and Othello. The devastating futility of Mother Courage at the end of Brecht's play, all three of her children dead, as she tugs, alone at her waggon, trying still to make a living from the war that has killed them. Barghouti's magnificent poem 'Midnight'. The final pages of '100 years of Solitude'.

In other words... the music, painting, writing and drama that gets inside you and clutches at you. You are uninterested in 'meaning' then. You have a more important journey to embrace.

[thebish]

Despite his involvement in "post impressionism", which after all means nothing more than "after impressionism",

except, it doesn't. Post-impressionism was not at all simply what came after Impressionism - it is the phrase used to describe a new school of art set deliberately in opposition to impressionism - a reaction against impressionism.

(and - yes - the term "post impressionism" was coined in 1910 - but it refers to work much earlier than that date - and certainly includes Cezanne... Roger Fry - who coined the description asserted at the time that the post-impressionist school was wide and diverse - and that the only common denominator between the Post-Impressionist painters was their rejection of Impressionism.)

post-impressionism and impressionism are/were not the same thing, and post-impressionism is NOT simply an "extension" of impressionism, and post-impressionism is not simply "what came after impressionism".

[TANGODANCER]

^^

Aye, okay. Good night.

[William the White]

Cezanne did some lovely stuff though, didn't he? I think so anyway. Some of those still lifes are achingly gorgeous. And sometimes so daring. Those that are haunted by skulls - still deaths you might say.

I think most critics would have him down as an early post-Impressionist, emphasis on line for instance.

Whatever the school, his work is so worth discovering and debating.

Do you like it thebish? Or not? Why?

[thebish]

^ the pic that Tango posted? I could like it in a decorative sense - but that's about as far as it would go... it doesn't make me "ache" anywhere!!

[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

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?

The statement you quote strikes me as an example of what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls a 'deepity' - some pronouncement that purports to be profound but is, when examined closely either (a) true but not enlightening or (b) nonsensical. I think in this case it's (a) for the simple reason that what is said is not just obvious but true of all art (and not just visual art).
I think we have to make some further distinctions - to begin with, because I'm arguing there is such a thing as great abstract art, it doesn't follow that I think all of it is great (or even good). The second is that, even with more traditionally figurative art, I don't accept that we all see the same thing - and in fact, most of us probably don't see what the artist intended anyway.
Of course, it may be easier to make a confident assessment of a work of art from the pre-photographic era (i.e. before modern art began), but that's not the same as understanding it. And with figurative art, I actually think understanding it is more important than with abstract art (where the key is to react to it, or to let it affect you - IMNSHO).
I think part of the problem is that most of us are scared that we're being conned by abstract art (and I include myself in this). I suspect there really is no small amount of emperor's new clothes hanging around the modern art galleries of the world. I don't know enough to point a figure at any of them but I feel I do know enough to say those fingers should not be pointing at Rothko and Pollock. What their work means I'm not sure I could say, but I do know many, many people report quite similar emotional experiences when they spend an appropriate amount of time really looking at their work.

Hmmm...not really sure I've answered your original question. (Typical ex-academic, huh?!)

Indeed - my hour or so spent in the semi-darkness of the Rothko room in Tate Modern (which received a significant amount of incredulity and mockery on this thread) - helped me continue an exploration of abstraction that really only started in a serious way at the Richter exhibition of 2011-12 (also Tate Modern). It continued with the Malevich exhibition, where my response to his abstract work was stronger than to his figurative work (particularly the later pieces as Stalin's cultural thugs moved in on him, and he produces work that shows him clearly, despite it all, trying to remain true to himself. And failing, the poor bastard!). Searching for 'meaning' here may be futile.

But true art is not primarily about 'meaning'. It is about the emotional response it engenders. Picassso's Guernica. The Adagio of Bruch's Violin concerto no 1. The final scenes of 'Battle of Algiers'. The great moments of Shakespeare, especially Lear and Othello. The devastating futility of Mother Courage at the end of Brecht's play, all three of her children dead, as she tugs, alone at her waggon, trying still to make a living from the war that has killed them. Barghouti's magnificent poem 'Midnight'. The final pages of '100 years of Solitude'.

In other words... the music, painting, writing and drama that gets inside you and clutches at you. You are uninterested in 'meaning' then. You have a more important journey to embrace.

Agree with all of this. Interestingly, in the book I mention above (James Elkins' Pictures and Tears) Elkins laments how his training as an art historian gets in the way of experiencing rather than analysing a work of art. This does strike me as both sad and strange, by the way - I don't think either you or I, Will are prevented from being moved by drama just because we have a decent understanding of its mechanics and history.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Despite his involvement in "post impressionism", which after all means nothing more than "after impressionism",

except, it doesn't. Post-impressionism was not at all simply what came after Impressionism - it is the phrase used to describe a new school of art set deliberately in opposition to impressionism - a reaction against impressionism.

(and - yes - the term "post impressionism" was coined in 1910 - but it refers to work much earlier than that date - and certainly includes Cezanne... Roger Fry - who coined the description asserted at the time that the post-impressionist school was wide and diverse - and that the only common denominator between the Post-Impressionist painters was their rejection of Impressionism.)

post-impressionism and impressionism are/were not the same thing, and post-impressionism is NOT simply an "extension" of impressionism, and post-impressionism is not simply "what came after impressionism".

What interesting discussions go on when I'm not on the site for a few days...

I don't think it's accurate to call 'Post-Impressionism' a 'school' of painting. I do tend to think of it as a primarily chronological term that starts in 1886 after the Impressionists ended their 12 years of exhibiting together and finishes... well, let's say with the death of Cezanne in 1906.

We do know that Fry himself said of his coining of the term "For purposes of convenience, it was necessary to give these artists a name, and I chose, as being the vaguest and most non-committal, the name of Post-Impressionism. This merely stated their position in time relatively to the Impressionist movement."

As to whether 'Post-Impressionism', if we can think of it as being something coherent, was an 'extension' or a 'rejection' of Impressionism... it was surely both? An extension in terms of its focus on everyday subject matter and in capturing the 'essence' of objects and views without an attempt at photographic verisimilitude, and a rejection in terms of the rediscovery of the importance of 'structure' in painting and the potential of a non-natural colour palette.

[William the White]

^ the pic that Tango posted? I could like it in a decorative sense - but that's about as far as it would go... it doesn't make me "ache" anywhere!!

I meant Cezanne's art as a whole, the bish.

You don't like it particularly?

[TANGODANCER]

no - not really... post-impressionism is a reaction against impressionism - not an "extension" of it. Among other things post-impressionism quite deliberately aimed at more form and structure (like the painting you have pasted). An art historian (which I am not) would point to many other distinctive features between the separate schools of painting.
post impressionists have MUCH more clearly defined forms - deliberately
"post-impressionism" was a very conscious breaking away from "impressionism" - and not the same thing at all.

Just my last comment, a quote: What did Fry himself say about the term he coined?

"Fry later explained: "For purposes of convenience, it was necessary to give these artists a name, and I chose, as being the vaguest and most non-committal, the name of Post-Impressionism. This merely stated their position in time relatively to the Impressionist movement.""

I think he means "after it".....but hey ho.

[TANGODANCER]

^^

I've just read Mummy's post saying the same thing. I didn't get mine from there. Sorry Mummy, not intentional.

[thebish]

^ the pic that Tango posted? I could like it in a decorative sense - but that's about as far as it would go... it doesn't make me "ache" anywhere!!

I meant Cezanne's art as a whole, the bish.

You don't like it particularly?

I love his portraits and and card-players at tables - that stuff - but his landscapes and skulls and still-life fruit compositions leave me distinctly un-aching!

still-life fruit-bowls in general leave me a bit cold - I have always seen them more as an art-exercise to practice painting light, shadow and texture, rather than as serious art! (I realise I might be out of step with others on this - but I have never found myself pausing or lingering in front of a painting of a still-life fruit bowl.)