Art Lovers discussion
Art History
>
What Is a Painting? What Is Art?
date
newest »
newest »
Jim wrote: "An interesting book about art and its relation to alchemy:What Painting Is"
Thanks, added it to my to-read shelf!
What Alexa Meade is talking about is a certain technique and the installation of this. The buskers in the street with paint on them moving like statues, could be called ‘sculptures’. Meade really is selling photography and theatre rather than painting. Her ‘paintings’ are mixed media and they’re sculptural. She’s also selling illusion. That’s a technique, a trick, rather than expression, a side-show thing. For me, art has to say something more than tricks and techniques to be meaningful. I need more than gimmicks. But crowds love gimmicks, especially littlies. Could work well in a theatrical production no doubt. Really good props painting. Doesn’t say much though, beyond being an interesting illusion.
This sort of fits in with this topic:http://www.ted.com/talks/luke_syson_h...
Luke Syson: How I learned to stop worrying and love "useless" art
Luke Syson was a curator of Renaissance art, of transcendent paintings of saints and solemn Italian ladies -- serious art. And then he changed jobs, and inherited the Met's collection of ceramics -- pretty, frilly, "useless" candlesticks and vases. He didn't like it. He didn't get it. Until one day …
I just saw this post, Ed. I'm at work but look forward to hearing more about this. Thanks!
Well Ed, I did watch it and I can understand his fascination with the...pieces. I, too, originally thought them hideous, especially that second piece that really looks like a clown. But I was interested in the history of the piece just as he was.And those vases! Ugh, I also thought of them as junk. But when he explained their place in the 18th century among the aristocrats and brought my imagination into where the vases really represented, I was more fascinated than anything. I could see the candles flickering on the gold, I could imagine a group or family or aristocrats sitting around a dining table or in the sitting room talking in the glow of the candles. As Leonardo da Vinci stated, art also brings in imagination. These really did!
I personally wouldn't want to own either of the pieces, but do find his explanation interesting. Thank you for sharing, Ed!
Heather wrote: "Well Ed, I did watch it and I can understand his fascination with the...pieces. I, too, originally thought them hideous, especially that second piece that really looks like a clown. But I was inter..."I thought his description of his initial reaction was hilarious.
Excellent, Dvora, I enjoyed reading that article. She is more than a little bit pessimistic, but in most of her arguments, I concur.I think it's sickening the percentage of female artists' works being displayed versus the percentage of the female nudes in the paintings themselves. For the first African-American female artist to get her own show at the Guggenheim just last year? How frustrating to say the least!
And I agree completely with her stand on using at least some of the money spent on the art itself, or 'investments' in art, for education, particularly children's education that does "encouraging motor skills, visual learning, decision-making, and inventiveness".
Her "7 Reasons" were very well written and the explanations made a lot of sense. Thank you for posting that.
"Many years back I went to an opening of an exhibition where the Is-it-art question came up. The exhibition consisted of a bunch of well weathered old doors taken from a wreck site, standing against the walls of the art gallery. Each door had a few politically correct impasto schmiers added here and there and of course the artist’s signature. In those days standing a bunch of stuff around the gallery was still relatively new; “but is it art,” I heard someone ask.There is a species of aesthetes who like nothing more than to bring up the is-it-art question. This quickly leads to the, what is art question, in other words the unanswerable quagmire. Strangely, no one seems to mention anything about whether the work in question had any sort of artistic value. Quality is a universal in art. Comparison is the basis of many explanations.
It is in this vein that Marcel Duchamp in 1916 long before this doors show, exhibited his acclaimed urinal signed R. Mutt. Is it art? However, there are those who claim that everything is art. “How it looks to you isn't really important. What counts is a deep spiritual understanding. There is always more than meets the eye." I always agree and say, “Perfectly logical as long as you also admit that some of what you call "ART" should also be considered a load of crap.”"
...from MODERN ART A PORTRAIT OF MEDIOCRITY (Kindle Locations 1020-1025). Poly Ethylene. Kindle Edition.
Special, You can download it for FREE on Kindle for the week.
Has anyone read Arthur Danto's art theories? His ideas on what art is are quite interesting.
Hi Rachel! I haven't heard of that book. Do you have a review or some insight you wouldn't mind sharing with us? I'm curious as to his ideas that you find interesting.
Poly wrote: ""Many years back I went to an opening of an exhibition where the Is-it-art question came up. The exhibition consisted of a bunch of well weathered old doors taken from a wreck site, standing agains..."Exactly. If not crap, at the very most not particularly significant work of art, and yet the curators will "dump" the work on the general public vis a vis exhibition spaces we frequent in pursuit of meaningful art experiences.
I recall the particularly vacuous sculpture I saw at the Ridgefield (Ct.) Contemporary Art Center in 1995 of a stack of shipping boxes. Well, it got my attention and stuck in my memory, but please folks, give us a break. We're not stupid.
Heather wrote: "Hi Rachel! I haven't heard of that book. Do you have a review or some insight you wouldn't mind sharing with us? I'm curious as to his ideas that you find interesting."I'm reading his book "What Art Is" right now and Danto is trying to define art, even though many aestheticians say that art is indefinable since there is no overarching feature. He mentions that Plato had said art was about "imitation", and that it was the accepted definition until it no longer captured the essence of art during the 20th century(beauty, another thing considered "essential" in art, also "vanished" and was replaced with something else). And if some art is imitation and some isn't, it can't be included in the definition. He believes that something is part of the definition only if it belongs to every work of art that exists. I'm curious to see what he believes art is, seeing the interesting ideas he has already put forth (which I barely grazed, because I'm not that great at summarizing- there is just so much info and insight in the book so far! Also many great examples, from Duchamp to Beuys to Warhol and how they altered the definition of art). There's a lot of history, details that I had never known, which keeps the book interesting.
Something he said though I'm not sure if I quite agree with now: “anything cannot be art”. I respectfully disagree because I think if something is done- the process of “anything” being implemented onto something, even something like an artist moving a pile of trash or readymades that had not been altered in any way to a public space to be exhibited- it can be 'art'. Maybe not “good” art, whatever “good art” is. I do not have enough of a comprehensive overview of all art to say that for sure, but it’s just something I think. That also brings to question, does the place where ‘art’ is put- galleries, museums and other spaces- define what is “art” as well? Lug a rock into a gallery and it is suddenly “art”. But it isn’t art- nothing was done to the rock... yet it is ‘art’, because the environment of a gallery or art space dictates it to be. People can debate it, and all agree that the rock “is not art”. But it is being exhibited in a place where everything is automatically or supposed to be art...
I don't know if that made any sense at all. Anyways that's just my rambling thoughts, and this book has made me think a lot. I'm excited to read more of Danto's ideas. Even though I'm not close to being done yet, I recommend this book to anyone that likes talking about art and what it is!
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so, I believe is art. It may interest me to know what someone else thinks is art, maybe someone else who knows more about it, creates it, or just has a different perspective. But in the end, what is art, for me, is what I consider to be art. I guess it sounds simple-minded, but sometimes simple is best.
Rachel wrote: "Heather wrote: "Hi Rachel! I haven't heard of that book. Do you have a review or some insight you wouldn't mind sharing with us? I'm curious as to his ideas that you find interesting."I'm reading..."
Rachel, thank you very much for your overview of what you have read so far! That sounds definitely like a book I would be interested in. I like how you described how "art" can be considered "art" depending on where it is displayed. I never thought of that, but I think it is true. There is a lot of stuff that is considered "art" that I think is garbage. Just my opinion, no matter where it is placed. If there is a whole museum dedicated to what I consider is garbage, I would have no desire to even go there.
Just what you said alone made me think. You said it makes you think a lot, and I would really enjoy that. Thank you again!
Dvora wrote: "As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so, I believe is art. It may interest me to know what someone else thinks is art, maybe someone else who knows more about it, creates it, or just has a diff..."Dvora, I agree with you. I'm interested in knowing other's points of view of what they think is art. Especially those who appreciate the more modern and the more contemporary styles. I finally began reading our book that was chosen for this year. I will post in the other thread. Thank you for your thoughts, Dvora.
I recommand the article The Artworld by Arthur Danto from 1964. He describes how what art is, is always subject to change, due to changing dominant theories about art.
I know that it is alrwady mentioned, but the article I mention gives kind of a overview of his book.
Rachel wrote: "Has anyone read Arthur Danto's art theories? His ideas on what art is are quite interesting."Here are my thoughts...
Danto’s theory is profound in its ability to explain the art of the post-modern era.
It seems to me the tipping point from representational art into abstract and conceptual happened with the advent of photography, and the development of media technology when we decided it was no longer necessary for artists to depict historic and/or social records for posterity.
The other development in western society affecting the turning point from collective reasoning into self-realization was psychology, which questioned our entire historic social existence and belief systems with metaphysics and existentialism. The resulting reaction possibly being avant garde reactionism and nihilism. Today, art seems more like a psychosis than any relevant or healthy contribution in society.
*[ In ancient Greece a painting of grapes was such a successful illusion that "even birds" were deceived, as they pecked at the grapes and tore the painting. The idea of art as mimesis in the sense of imitation in the sense of, more or less, a mirror image—this idea was discredited as a sufficient condition for art with the invention of photography and the painting of Kandinsky. } - Arthur Danto, "The Artworld" (1964)
Find out more about Danto:
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jdrake3...
The statement that arts today seems more like a psychosis than any relevant or healthy contribution in society rings true to me. Years ago my (former) sister-in-law was studying art in San Francisco. She told me what was important was that she be able to express herself. Technique was not, apparently, much on the agenda. I thought to myself then and I still think that what interests me much more as the observer is either technique or the ability to make an image that either lifts my spirit or has some meaning. I don't especially want a lot of self-expression in art or in writing. That is to say, when I read something and the author jumps out at me instead of the story (in fiction) or information (in non-fiction) then I am not interested and not pleased."Today, art seems more like a psychosis than any relevant or healthy contribution in society.
Luc wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Has anyone read Arthur Danto's art theories? His ideas on what art is are quite interesting."
Here are my thoughts...
Danto’s theory is profound in its ability to explain the art o..."
Luc wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Has anyone read Arthur Danto's art theories? His ideas on what art is are quite interesting."Here are my thoughts...
The other development in western society affecting the turning point from collective reasoning into self-realization was psychology, which questioned our entire historic social existence and belief systems with metaphysics and existentialism. The resulting reaction possibly being avant garde reactionism and nihilism. Today, art seems more like a psychosis than any relevant or healthy contribution in society
Very interesting point, Luc, about the role of psychology in the turning point in art. Psychological theories and examinations have changed so much over the years, as has art. Today, we know, psychology is more of a person discovering oneself, by oneself, and not necessarily being analyzed by a doctor or therapist per se. Symbolically and realistically, art is no more about what others see, but what the artist sees and feels in his or herself.
Maybe this is a simplified synopsis of what you just said, but it truly makes sense.
Here's really interesting interview."Painter Sargy Mann did not live to deliver the TED talk he spent his final months preparing. This is what he wanted to say…"
Parting words from an artist of rare vision
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...
I think I posted this video on him somewhere or other but I'll post it here. He learned to "see" in a different way when he began losing his sight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9vHw...
Wonderful article and the video within it. Thanks, Ed.Ed wrote: "Here's really interesting interview.
"Painter Sargy Mann did not live to deliver the TED talk he spent his final months preparing. This is what he wanted to say…"
Parting words from an artist of ra..."
And this video is wonderful too. Thanks again, Ed.Ed wrote: "I think I posted this video on him somewhere or other but I'll post it here.
He learned to "see" in a different way when he began losing his sight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9vHw..."
Literally. To me, a lot of the images are quite beautiful.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alexa_meade....
Clearly, these are paintings. Or are they?