The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

Good afternoon art lovers.

It's been a worthwhile excercise (for me) in letting a few opinions come in between what I felt was becoming too personal a difference of opinions between Bish and myself. We were getting a bit off track, so Bish, peace in the valley and I'll try to explain something:

I only mentioned Jack Vetriano ( who's work I do like) in the first place to dispel any concept that I classed anything modern as rubbish. It just isn't true. My denial of Tracy Emin as a great artist come basically from the fact that she does something, then explains what it is and her concept of it. Did Rembrandt do that in his Prodigal son, or, did his work (in the valid example of how Bish sees it) just allow you to figure it out for yourself and be touched by his genius. I can't explain it any better than that. Is art any different than just painting, sculpture, illustration or creating? To me it's a degrees thing by how much it makes you like, admire or even sometimes desire.

Have a look at my avatar. I saw a photo of Fred Astaire and two things stood out: Not a picture of a dancer (I've seen thousands,) They were two lines (curves), one from his head to his leading toe, and one from fingertip to fingertip. With those in mind, what I call movement curves, I went onto Paint and, in less than thirty minutes constructed the picture that's now my avatar. I don't regard that as art, just illustration, but it obviously got me to do something so, the original photograph must have chimed art to me somewhere. Does that make it art? Does my explanation make any sense? I'd like to think I saw something beyond my original and well-known love of dance. Degas (universally accepted as a great artist)painted dozens of ballet dancers, painted them well, but I'd expect to see them on the walls of dance schools, certainly rather than in my home.

Am I rambling too far off the track?

[Prufrock]

Remember this - Verbal posted a while ago...

This is art of tremendous skill, dramatic storytelling, emotionally powerful - look at the audience, see the tears... In a medium of its nature entirely transmutable, rendered visible to a large audience by technology, which also gives it a permanence...

It's brilliant, it's sand, it's art... it moves the viewer, makes you think, makes you care, makes you wonder...

Fab, Verbal - I emailed it to loads of mates...

Ukraine's got Talent, sand artist. unbelievable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518XP8prwZo

stunning - I think I had something else in mind when "sand art" was mentioned! (the ornate castles you see on the beach) I have never seen this before - and - yes - it isn't JUST the skill and the technique - it is very moving..

interesting questions...

the LIVE aspect adds something - if a "still" of one of the stages of the sand-art was displayed - or a sequence of stills - would it have the same power? I suspect not (this doesn't diminish it - it is just a question) - this could be categorised as "performance art"

the MUSIC - is that added by the Youtube boffin - or was that part of the original performance - because my guess is that forms a whole with the visual and is at least a part of what adds the emotion...

you hint that PERMANENCE is important... but - is it? can art be "great" that is temporary?

great stuff - keep it coming!

About 6.40 in it goes to instrumental mettalica!!

Tis ace though, so much talent. As for moving, it certainly moves the crowd, many of whom are in tears!

[William the White]

Remember this - Verbal posted a while ago...

This is art of tremendous skill, dramatic storytelling, emotionally powerful - look at the audience, see the tears... In a medium of its nature entirely transmutable, rendered visible to a large audience by technology, which also gives it a permanence...

It's brilliant, it's sand, it's art... it moves the viewer, makes you think, makes you care, makes you wonder...

Fab, Verbal - I emailed it to loads of mates...

Ukraine's got Talent, sand artist. unbelievable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518XP8prwZo

stunning - I think I had something else in mind when "sand art" was mentioned! (the ornate castles you see on the beach) I have never seen this before - and - yes - it isn't JUST the skill and the technique - it is very moving..

interesting questions...

the LIVE aspect adds something - if a "still" of one of the stages of the sand-art was displayed - or a sequence of stills - would it have the same power? I suspect not (this doesn't diminish it - it is just a question) - this could be categorised as "performance art"

the MUSIC - is that added by the Youtube boffin - or was that part of the original performance - because my guess is that forms a whole with the visual and is at least a part of what adds the emotion...

you hint that PERMANENCE is important... but - is it? can art be "great" that is temporary?

great stuff - keep it coming!

the entire piece is a composition, it is a whole - I'm sure the music was selected for the performance. The LIVE performance of the artist is crucial - to see this substance changed again and again to a story without words, an animation created fresh and differently each time the artist does it, and the camera, of course does not only gives it permanence - this is a by-product - it allows it to speak, via the screen to the entire audience. and this is no animation of western type, rather it jerks us from one state of consciousness to the next, amuses, alarms, disturbs, comforts, frightens and, in the end, reassures...

Not peformance art, possibly a genre of 'live art'... But may even become a genre of its own. The special thing, for me, is the boldness of the story it tells - of ukraine in the war... There is nothing trivial about the ambition of this artist - it takes a material we love as children on the beach and uses it to move us, make us think, make us feel, make us marvel.

Sometimes you can be lost in admiration of human creativity. But for that you have to move beyond illustration or decoration into the profound inner space of feeling. The rembrandt of mother and child, the tortured christ, among those you have posted do exactly that for me... And, another important factor in great art, that you have hinted at when talking about appeal to a significant number of people is that it deals in some way with a universality of human experience or instinct - I know little about the ukraine, have never been a mother, have never been tortured - but all three of these speak powerfully to me, here in bolton on a wednesday night... There's something almost miraculous in that...

[General Mannerheim]

im gonna attempt a serious post in here, i really admire slinkachu's "little people" project!

http://little-people.blogspot.com/ is this art? very clever stuff.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm told that the obelisk that she produces in the middle of the performance would be well-known to the Ukrainian audience as being their "Monument to an Unknown Soldier" in Kiev, and some of the music was popular in the Ukraine in the 1940s.

Just for some background info.

[thebish]

im gonna attempt a serious post in here, i really admire slinkachu's "little people" project!

http://little-people.blogspot.com/ is this art? very clever stuff.

great stuff!! I love them!

[Lord Kangana]

They are really good - where did you discover them General?

[William the White]

im gonna attempt a serious post in here, i really admire slinkachu's "little people" project!

http://little-people.blogspot.com/ is this art? very clever stuff.

I think it's great!

Just been sharing it with wife and daughter-studying-art... We've all been laughing in appreciation of the way it twists reality and enhances it and makes us look at it differently...

It's fun... Yeah... Definitely art... Great art? No, not yet... but if the artist pursues the idea, and gets bolder, and decides to go beyond the clever and the cute, who knows what might happen?

[William the White]

I'm told that the obelisk that she produces in the middle of the performance would be well-known to the Ukrainian audience as being their "Monument to an Unknown Soldier" in Kiev, and some of the music was popular in the Ukraine in the 1940s.

Just for some background info.

thank you for that... you've obviously been sharing it... excellent!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm told that the obelisk that she produces in the middle of the performance would be well-known to the Ukrainian audience as being their "Monument to an Unknown Soldier" in Kiev, and some of the music was popular in the Ukraine in the 1940s.

Just for some background info.

thank you for that... you've obviously been sharing it... excellent!

I have, I think it's terrific.

But my Ukranian friend has just got back in touch with me, and she now thinks she was wrong about the obelisk, based on an (English) explanation of the whole thing that she has found:

http://wesha.homeip.net/

[General Mannerheim]

They are really good - where did you discover them General?

i forget tbh, remember seeing something in magazine of some sort a while back - then more recently a mate from work met us at the pub after he'd been shopping in the NQ and had picked up the book, will find out where tomorrow but we all had a good thumb through, then came back and looked for the website posted above.

Pretty impressive, especially when you see the 'zoomed out' shots highlighting how small they actually are! there are loads more to gawp at in the book, and it was only about £8 or £9 quid. would compliment any coffee table!

[Worthy4England]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

What does it mean to be 'moved' anyway, and how is it different to merely 'liking' a painting?

If I 'like' a painting, and, on reflection, that's because I find it to be a stirring and exciting depiction of grandeur/power/conflict or a depiction of a different time or place that appeals to my sense of fantasy, would I then say I have been 'moved'?

When I saw that painting, The Prussian Homage, at the Wawel (the magnificent symbol of Polish national identity, a bit like our Westminster Abbey) in Krakow, the powerful expression of national pride, and its sheer scale, in that location, made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Had I seen the painting in a gallery in London, I doubt it would have been quite so powerful.

I mention this, just to note the effect that context can have on how moving an object of art is. There has been a lot of discussion of Rembrant's Prodigal Son. One thing that painting obviously depends on, if the viewer is to be moved, is knowledge of that particular bible story. Imagine only a very small group of people were familiar with the story (and, let's face it, the group is probably shrinking by the day) - would that diminish its greatness? Can a painting not be great if only a few people appreciate the context that might make it so?

It would have been clearer if i had said something like "great art has the power to "move" me beyond any accidental identification with the artist or the subject of the art."

Why isn't your Christianity, or even mere knowledge of the story, "an accidental identification with the subject of the art", for example?


Anyway, getting back to Worthy's point, I do find some accounts of emotional engagement to be bogus, albeit unintentionally.

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

Bish, are you honestly telling me that that painting teaches you, of all people, something new about forgiveness, that you haven't picked up from your job or other life experiences? I agree with William that there is an appealing truthfulness there, but I'm struggling to grasp this bit about it being a vehicle for deeper understanding, rather than just a good reflection of present understanding.

[thebish]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

I'm not often accused of snobbishness - so I quite like that!

I am a pretty "average" bloke who has no in depth knowledge of art at all - I am in no way an expert on art or more-than-averagely in the know - neither am I well travelled - most readers on this thread have probably seen more art around the world than I have...

On one level - yes - I agree - it falls to "do you like it or not" - BUT - in my own "I know what I like" attitude to art I can discern a difference in my types of "like". I "like" different categories of art in different ways - as I have tried to explain.

I "like" the tortured Christ in a very different way than I "like" Beryl Cook - and I "like" the mini street project art in a discernably different way to the way I "like" the sand art....

So - for me - whilst I could use the catch-all phrase "I like it" and that be an end of it - that wouldn't really describe the experience of the different categories of art that I have - so I am trying to draw some distinctions.

doing that is not easy - but i do think it is worth the effort - it is for me anyway - as it helps me understand my reactions to try to explain them...


like you - I am more often "moved" (if that's not too pretentious or bogus ) by music and film - but I thought this thread was focussing on visual art - which is not my strong-point - but is something I am interested in knowing more about.

[TANGODANCER]

Mummy has just used a word in his post that could have real bearing here. That word is "fantasy". I've been having a good think as to how to define my "Joe average" description from any of the deeper held views, and doesn't it really come down to a person's sense of romanticism, fantasy and personal feelings, rather than needing to explain "why" you like or appreciate something in a specific sense? . Most of the Pre-Raphealite artists use fantasy in their works, painting from Arthurian legends etc. How can we actually be moved by any sense of reality without just using individual imagination ?

If you took a hundred of the world's leading art experts, they may mostly agree which painters are regarded as great artists, but would they all agree on which works are "great art" if asked individually? If they didn't all agree, which seems very likely, then it comes back to personal preference and opinionism; something I stated right from the start. Can anybody who saw the TV programme on the Pre Raphaelites ever look at the painting of the Lady of The Lake without remembering the bath, candles and the model almost dying from Pnumonia from her immersion in the water? I can't. Then again, thousands won't have seen that programme, or even read about the Movement. Rossetti in particular created his own sense of romance with his models by throwing them all into bed whilst painting them. Picasso had a model lie naked with her closed and she opened them to find him stripped off and mastubating beside her. What was he expressing there?

It doesn't matter in my eyes what people feel when they look at a painting or sculpture, but it doesn't have any real common denominator how I, or anyone else will see it. Great art is a much in the mind as in any visual sense surely?

[William the White]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

How is it snobby to say you are moved by a work of art? Or engaged by it? Or puzzled by it? Or repelled by it. Or disgusted by it? And then to try and explain why that is the case?

Is it snobby to say a piece of classical music moved you to tears, and to try and say why? Or a play, or a movie?

And art is no different to any other cultural (in the broadest sense) phenomenon - the more you are interested in it, the more you learn about it, the more equipped you feel to talk about it. That goes for football as much as anything else. It doesn't mean only one opinion is possible or correct, or cannot be argued or disputed.

As this forum proves...

[Lord Kangana]

I think Worthy is referencing people like that Grade A Tw*atscile Art Critic Brian Sewell. He is all about exclusion, the idea that if you can't talk in the same language as him, you must be a prole. Which is utter nonsense, and shows how much he hides behind his emperors clothes.

I think thats what he means.

[Worthy4England]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

How is it snobby to say you are moved by a work of art? Or engaged by it? Or puzzled by it? Or repelled by it. Or disgusted by it? And then to try and explain why that is the case?

Is it snobby to say a piece of classical music moved you to tears, and to try and say why? Or a play, or a movie?

And art is no different to any other cultural (in the broadest sense) phenomenon - the more you are interested in it, the more you learn about it, the more equipped you feel to talk about it. That goes for football as much as anything else. It doesn't mean only one opinion is possible or correct, or cannot be argued or disputed.

As this forum proves...

Ahh WtW, I think you may have misconstrued. The minute I hear the word "engaged" in the context of an art work, "nose" in the context of some fermented fruit etc. I immediatly head towards pseuds corner.

I'm fine with all the rest of it.

[Worthy4England]

I think Worthy is referencing people like that Grade A Tw*atscile Art Critic Brian Sewell. He is all about exclusion, the idea that if you can't talk in the same language as him, you must be a prole. Which is utter nonsense, and shows how much he hides behind his emperors clothes.

I think thats what he means.

That's the most of it LK - much more eloquently put than my humble offering.

[Puskas]

I really struggle to be "moved" by "art" (but strangely only visual art). That doesn't mean I don't like it.

Maybe I'm not really a visual person - I can cry at various classical musical works, but all this bollocks about "does it "engage" you", to me is like talking about the "nose" of a wine or "issues" to IT consultants - it's snobby language used to disenfranchise the "average" person.

I look at visual art and say "I like it" or "I'm not keen on that"

However you choose to wrap it in verbose flowery language - it comes down to "do you like it or not?"

How is it snobby to say you are moved by a work of art? Or engaged by it? Or puzzled by it? Or repelled by it. Or disgusted by it? And then to try and explain why that is the case?

Is it snobby to say a piece of classical music moved you to tears, and to try and say why? Or a play, or a movie?

And art is no different to any other cultural (in the broadest sense) phenomenon - the more you are interested in it, the more you learn about it, the more equipped you feel to talk about it. That goes for football as much as anything else. It doesn't mean only one opinion is possible or correct, or cannot be argued or disputed.

As this forum proves...

Ahh WtW, I think you may have misconstrued. The minute I hear the word "engaged" in the context of an art work, "nose" in the context of some fermented fruit etc. I immediatly head towards pseuds corner.

I'm fine with all the rest of it.

So what's wrong with "issues"? Covers a multitude of sins - bugs, network problems, user error - and, if you're not looking to assign blame at a given time, but need to let people know there's a problem, how do you do it? Without using the word "issues"?