The Great Art Debate

[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.

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"?

When I were a lad, we just called them "problems".

If memory serves, the usage of "issues" to describe "problems" arose about the same time in the UK as US IT Consultancy businesses started to come to the fore and again, if my hazy memory serves from training in years gone by, the reason they don't like "problems" is because the word has negative connotations.

So you're problem is now an issue.

[BWFC_Insane]

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"?

Yeah I was going to say similar.

I don't see "issues" as a particularly poncy word. Its useful to describe a situation to someone when you don't need/want to go into detail.

[thebish]

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'?

I don't know - would you?

I can only say what I mean by it or why I used it - you might use an ENTIRELY different approach and language to explain your appreciation of different works of art - that was merely the one I used it - and I used it for the following reason...

I have found the phrase "I like it" to be inadequate to properly describe my response to art - so I have tried to distinguish the different kinds of response that I have to different works of art.

sometimes "like" will mean an appreciate of the talent/skill behind it - the appreciation of human ingenuity/hard work/sheer painting/sculpting skill

sometimes "like" will mean that it is pretty - decorative - pleasing on the eye

sometimes "like" will mean that it intrigues me - puzzles me - makes me pause to be engaged with some kind of an "agenda" or issue

sometimes "like" means something deeper that I am describing as "moves me" (though I did originally admit that to be a vague phrase and added a list of explanatory phrases after it!) - I could not give a global definition of what "moving me" means - I guess sometimes it is physical (tears - or like the hair on the back of your neck..) but often it is more subtle - it would mean different things for different works of art. so - for example - the Brazilian tortured Christ moves me... in that case on several levels - it moves me with raw emotion/shock/horror... but more - it has become for me a reference point in my mind for the meaning of torture... and religiously and spiritually - a new awareness and understanding of the death of Christ (many crucifixion paintings are very serene affairs - this one isn't)

now - that explanation may seem equally vague - or as you put it "bogus" - but it doesn't feel bogus to me - it is how i respond to that sculpture - and my best effort at describing it - and it is a very different response to the kind of response I have (still something I "like") to the mini-street art. To my mind it is a significantly different kind of liking response - and so worth exploring so as better to understand myself.

of course most often art is not one of my categories or another - but a mixture of some or all of them.

(of the Prodigal Son)

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

of course it is hard for me to answer that because I have never viewed the painting without the lens of my Christian Faith. However (to use one of WtWs phrases) I think the parable - and hence the painting - deal with "Universal Themes" and the theme of the painting has resonance for the same reason that the parable does (it is no accident that this is one of the few parables that is very widely known - and perhaps why it has entered the English language so commonly.) As much as I can know this - never having looked at the painting without knowing about the parable - It is not the representation of the parable that moves me - otherwise Tango's two examples would have to - it is something else frustratingly intangible about what Rembrandt does with it that captures something of those Universal Themes and projects them from the canvass in such a powerful way.

my comments about "an accidental identification with the subject of the art" referred to paintings that my daughter has done that also hang on my wall - or photos of the places I would associate with my dad before he died - things that move me - but in a different way - not to do with the quality or greatness of the art!

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.

actually - yes - I think I am. I think great art can have a life-changing quality - which is what makes the category - as I define it - quite small! I don't think that is confined to "teaching me something new" - as if I hadn't thought of the ideas before - but certainly deepens my understanding of it.

(not sure why you would write "you, of all people" - as if I would somehow have a better or more instinctive handle on these themes than you would? unless you're saying that forgiveness/homecoming/regret/reconciliation/envy are the unique or special domain of religion or faith? surely not??)

[thebish]

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.

has anyone on this thread actually used the word "engaged" in the context of an art work?

[William the White]

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.

The accent alone is enough to make you long for a machine gun...

[Worthy4England]

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.

has anyone on this thread actually used the word "engaged" in the context of an art work?

I think probably more than you might imagine.

[thebish]

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.

has anyone on this thread actually used the word "engaged" in the context of an art work?

I think probably more than you might imagine.

I don't think I have - and I don't remember it - but I'll take your word for it...

[Worthy4England]

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.

has anyone on this thread actually used the word "engaged" in the context of an art work?

I think probably more than you might imagine.

I don't think I have - and I don't remember it - but I'll take your word for it...

In that case - stop protesting I called you a snob.

[Lord Kangana]

I hate the use of the word "issues", just like the word "pants" for underwear and the phrase "back in the day", meaning a while ago. Leave my language alone.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

actually - yes - I think I am. I think great art can have a life-changing quality - which is what makes the category - as I define it - quite small! I don't think that is confined to "teaching me something new" - as if I hadn't thought of the ideas before - but certainly deepens my understanding of it.

(not sure why you would write "you, of all people" - as if I would somehow have a better or more instinctive handle on these themes than you would? unless you're saying that forgiveness/homecoming/regret/reconciliation/envy are the unique or special domain of religion or faith? surely not??)

Apologies for using the word 'bogus'. On reflection it sounds a bit hostile when that really wasn't my intention.

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

[thebish]

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.

has anyone on this thread actually used the word "engaged" in the context of an art work?

I think probably more than you might imagine.

I don't think I have - and I don't remember it - but I'll take your word for it...

In that case - stop protesting I called you a snob.

but I was quite flattered!

[Prufrock]

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.

The accent alone is enough to make you long for a machine gun...

I'm by no means a violent guy, but I'd gladly smash him in the face. Was on some south vs north programme a while back talking shiiiiiit. Then slagging Lowry, not coz he didn't like him, but coz it was for the proles. C*nt

[thebish]

I'm by no means a violent guy, but I'd gladly smash him in the face. Was on some south vs north programme a while back talking shiiiiiit. Then slagging Lowry, not coz he didn't like him, but coz it was for the proles. C*nt

who's been watching too much of Clay Davies in "The Wire"?? I think it is spelled...

sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!

[thebish]

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

and that's ok! but enough of me.. what about you?

does the phrase "I like it" adequately cover all the world of art that you encounter and have a positive reaction to - or are there distinctions in the way you respond to different works of art. If so - can you put those distinctions into words?

[Hoboh]

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

and that's ok! but enough of me.. what about you?

does the phrase "I like it" adequately cover all the world of art that you encounter and have a positive reaction to - or are there distinctions in the way you respond to different works of art. If so - can you put those distinctions into words?

wow! Awesome! Man! Jesus wept! Cool, well shoted, Sh*t hot, 'kin sh*t hot! or 'Kin Helllllll

Looking at what you see as good or fine art turns you into a voyer whilst you masterbate your grey cells, thats good art!

[TANGODANCER]

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

and that's ok! but enough of me.. what about you?

does the phrase "I like it" adequately cover all the world of art that you encounter and have a positive reaction to - or are there distinctions in the way you respond to different works of art. If so - can you put those distinctions into words?

wow! Awesome! Man! Jesus wept! Cool, well shoted, Sh*t hot, 'kin sh*t hot! or 'Kin Helllllll

Looking at what you see as good or fine art turns you into a voyer whilst you masterbate your grey cells, thats good art!

Not sure watching skateboarders qualifies as visual art Hobo, but it might..

[William the White]

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

and that's ok! but enough of me.. what about you?

does the phrase "I like it" adequately cover all the world of art that you encounter and have a positive reaction to - or are there distinctions in the way you respond to different works of art. If so - can you put those distinctions into words?

wow! Awesome! Man! Jesus wept! Cool, well shoted, Sh*t hot, 'kin sh*t hot! or 'Kin Helllllll

Looking at what you see as good or fine art turns you into a voyer whilst you masterbate your grey cells, thats good art!

You see, hoboh, you can't fool us anymore. Because on page 16 of this thread you had a lapse into intelligence, and now your cover is seriously blown, and forever.

No matter what you do now, or what you say, or however convincing your attempt to prove otherwise, we all know you don't really have the IQ of a half-pissed ameoba.

I admit this is a good attempt, the deliberate spelling musteaks an all, but you are fecked, we know you and your mates at cambridge are just havin a laff, like... nice one.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I admit this is a good attempt, the deliberate spelling musteaks an all, but you are fecked, we know you and your mates at cambridge are just havin a laff, like... nice one.

Now you mention it, there was a group of hobos who always used to hang out together outside the Sainsbury's opposite Sidney Sussex.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I remain surprised on this 'deeper understanding' point. And yes, of course religion does not have a monopoly on these themes, but I should have thought that somebody in your job would have spent more time discussing and reflecting on them than most, and that you will have had more people coming to talk to you about them in their own lives than most.

and that's ok! but enough of me.. what about you?

does the phrase "I like it" adequately cover all the world of art that you encounter and have a positive reaction to - or are there distinctions in the way you respond to different works of art. If so - can you put those distinctions into words?

Absolutely not, and, unlike Worthy, I have not argued that it does. My contention was that, in your welcome and eloquent attempts to explain your reactions, you had become slightly carried away and said something that wasn't actually true; but I suppose I have to take you at your word if you say I'm wrong. If you can put into words what deeper understanding of anything that Prodigal gives you, I shall be very impressed!

I have tried in places to pad out what I think beyond "I like". In many cases, my explanation is that that something appeals to me because it taps into my acute megalomania or my need to be transported out of the mundane and into the realm of exciting fantasy every now and then. Sometimes, on the other hand, it is the very reality of something that strikes a chord. In the same way that we like jokes that are "funny because it's true", sometimes art can be moving because it's true. There's a painting in the Walker, and, I apologise, I forget its title and who painted it, so I've got no chance of finding it, but it is a scene in which a man is tending his late wife's grave, with his baby daughter under his arm, and he has stopped to kiss her on her head, with her completely oblivious to the enormous loss they have both suffered. It's effective because it lets one into a very private moment of grief and love and stirs a lot of emotions that we have all felt at some point.

Anyway, we're back amongst a lot of words again, so I'll pick up something else you have put forward:

and I loved Wallinger's Ecce Homo (if sculpture is allowed)

Yes, I would say sculpture is very much allowed. In fact, as I have said previously, if I had serious money, before paintings I'd be buying neoclassical sculpture. The room, pictured below, houses the collection in Liverpool, and is my favourite room there:



The big names in neoclassical sculpture are Canova and Thorvaldsen. This piece, the Three Graces by Canova I saw in Edinburgh in the summer. A few years ago, an American gallery was refused an export licence, if a British institution could raise the £7.6million that was the asking price, and eventually the V&A Museum and the National Galleries of Scotland manage to club together and cobble together the funding from somewhere, and now it rotates between them.



My favourite neoclassical scultptor is John Gibson, who was born in North Wales, eventually moved to live and work in Rome, and was a pupil of Canova, and was patronised by rich Liverpool merchants. I haven't got any pictures that do justice to his work, but his a feature on one of his statues: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/onli ... _soul.aspx

In the spirit of offering some explanation, the craftsmanship involved in starting with a huge block of white marble and a chisel and producing a delicate figure at the end of the process is quite unbelievable to me. Bish's modern 'Ecce Homo' (incidently, I can't read 'Ecce Home' without being reminded of the musical intro to the Mr Bean episodes...) would have been produced in quite a different way, with a cast. What the best neoclassical sculptors could achieve was an amazing realism that made marble look like soft flesh that would yield to the touch, along with a stylized look that is almost poetic. My admiration for Gibson is summed up very neatly in his Wiki entry: "It was said of him that he made the heathen mythology his religion; and indeed in serenity of nature, feeling for the beautiful, and a certain philosophy of mind, he may be accepted as a type of what a pure-minded Greek pagan, in the zenith of Greek art, may have been."

I do love the real thing too - the Elgin marbles at the British museum are well worth seeing (best not talk about how they were acquired!), and the Pergamon Altar in Berlin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berli ... tar_01.jpg ) is probably the most impressive room I have ever been in in any museum:

I'm generally not that enthused by Christian art, but I did like Michelangelo's 'Madonna and Child' in the Church of Our Lady in Bruges (an interesting city where the sudden silting up of its river, when it was a very prosperous port in the 14th C, had the curious effect of fossilizing a lot of its medieval architecture, which remains today).



What I like about it is that it is unusual. Most Renaissance virgin and child depictions have Mary gazing down at Jesus in her arms with a big vacant smile, but in this one she is looking the other way, with a book in her hand, almost day dreaming, while Jesus looks like a precocious little bugger, climbing down looking like he's about to march off and do his own thing!

So yes, this is what I did on my year abroad - chase European history around by day, and European women around by night. I miss it a lot.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Saw these in the paper the other day. Motor part sculptures. Pretty impressive.