(April 6, 2019 at 1:24 am)Belaqua Wrote: Sad to say, the Mona Lisa is more or less invisible today. It's behind inches of bulletproof glass and a thousand tourists holding up their smart phones. In a sense, we can say that very few people have really seen it in recent decades -- face to face, without a ridiculous amount of interference. 

I've seen it. Its ok for a painting.

(April 7, 2019 at 8:52 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: I can't say I particularly relate to them.

That's something this thread has suggested to me -- the idea of relating to paintings. 

And here I'm not necessarily talking about relating to the characters in the paintings, although there may be a little of that. (For example, the characters in the TV sitcom The Big Bang Show are completely unrelatable to me. But this may be less to do with their presented personalities than with the fact that the show itself is cliched and stylized in a way that I don't enjoy. It's comfortable for people who are used to that whole style, but for me its extreme stylization and distance from how real people behave comes across as more artificial than Kabuki.) 

Anyway, what I mean is that when people on this thread have pointed to the pictures they like, it seems to be with more than just ranking qualities. There is some personal and felt connection. So your connection to the Mona Lisa (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) gives me the impression that you feel something for that painting -- you value it, you want others to see its value, and you might be irked if someone called it worthless. 

Likewise Succubus and I have a thing for van Eyck. Maybe I'm projecting on to Succubus, but for me, that is a personal thing and something far more than a judgment concerning its level of accomplishment. 

Susan Sontag said "we need an erotics of art." This seems insightful to me. What we feel for the art we love is far more than academic interest. We love it the way we love people (almost). We feel a kind of loyalty (?) or valuation -- in the same way that, ok, we know other people's kids are good, too, but our own kids will always be the best for us. 

And, maybe I'm imagining, but when people say they despise Jackson Pollock or somebody else, there seems to be some emotion in there. I mean, we can all agree, probably, that the Kardashians are over-rated and don't deserve their money, but the fact that Pollock is held up as worthy offends us more, I think. (Despite the fact that he made a hell of a lot less money than Kim.) 

Freud says that one reason we can love someone is because he embodies for us qualities that we would like to have in ourselves -- an image of our best selves. I have a (fuzzy, unformed) theory that this is how we see art, a lot of the time. It embodies for us qualities that call to us personally. The perfection, the wit, the depth, the accomplished feeling, that we would love to feel about ourselves, but almost never do. 

(I'm intentionally avoiding the terms subjective and objective here, because I want to say more than that. It's more than a subjective preference for chocolate ice cream -- unless you really wildly identify yourself with chocolate ice cream.) 

So this is one of art's values. This is one of the things which makes art important. The embodiment of principle. And it's one reason why it's better to like good art than bad or simple-minded art. Attaching yourself to comic book movies keeps you at a lower level than attaching yourself to a genuinely great object.

It also, just to make everybody hate me again, connects art with religion. God, or Jesus, is a fictional place-holder which we assume is everything we would like ourselves to be. I said "embodiment" about art, but "incarnation" would do just as well.

What I like about art is the ability to project something that doesn't exist.
So landscapes and portraits, while I can appreciate the detail and expertise of the painter, and the history, they're just not my cup of tea.
I like weird stuff, it doesn't have to make sense, but it has to move me.
It also doesn't have to be done by an expert.
I've seen drawings by kids that made me feel something and I appreciate it as art.
I also like the interior design aspect of pictures, that you can put a few different pictures up on the wall and they seem connected and right.
Maybe something to do with the geometry or colours or themes, but they can make you feel more comfortable in your own home.
And sometimes it has to do with where or when you purchased the picture, it having a history that is related to you personally.

Actually, that reminds me, I have a Jeff Koons book with all of his works in it, including a couple of pages of basically porn that he tried to pass off as art.
I need to get rid of that before my daughter starts to go through my library. :-)

(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: That's something this thread has suggested to me -- the idea of relating to paintings. 

And here I'm not necessarily talking about relating to the characters in the paintings, although there may be a little of that. (For example, the characters in the TV sitcom The Big Bang Show are completely unrelatable to me. But this may be less to do with their presented personalities than with the fact that the show itself is cliched and stylized in a way that I don't enjoy. It's comfortable for people who are used to that whole style, but for me its extreme stylization and distance from how real people behave comes across as more artificial than Kabuki.) 

I enjoy The Big Bang Theory because both a close friend and my wife are nerds, although less exaggerated.  But that's humor for you -- like Kabuki.

(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: Anyway, what I mean is that when people on this thread have pointed to the pictures they like, it seems to be with more than just ranking qualities. There is some personal and felt connection. So your connection to the Mona Lisa (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) gives me the impression that you feel something for that painting -- you value it, you want others to see its value, and you might be irked if someone called it worthless. 

When we read novels, we want relatable characters because otherwise we don't care what happens to them.  I am not bothered by people not liking the Mona Lisa because I can understand why.  It's just such a strange picture that unless you connect with the person portrayed, you may not get it.

(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: And, maybe I'm imagining, but when people say they despise Jackson Pollock or somebody else, there seems to be some emotion in there. I mean, we can all agree, probably, that the Kardashians are over-rated and don't deserve their money, but the fact that Pollock is held up as worthy offends us more, I think. (Despite the fact that he made a hell of a lot less money than Kim.) 

I think in the case of Pollock, people often judge by the wrong standards, by standards borrowed from other artworks.  Pollock's works are decorative and impressive, at least in person.  That's pretty much it. They don't have the other content represented in other artists' works.

(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: Freud says that one reason we can love someone is because he embodies for us qualities that we would like to have in ourselves -- an image of our best selves. I have a (fuzzy, unformed) theory that this is how we see art, a lot of the time. It embodies for us qualities that call to us personally. The perfection, the wit, the depth, the accomplished feeling, that we would love to feel about ourselves, but almost never do. 

Yes, the human potential portrayed in good art is important.  However, not everyone aspires to be an artist, and they can still appreciate art.  But, as you said, that's just one reason.

(April 8, 2019 at 1:19 am)Belaqua Wrote: So this is one of art's values. This is one of the things which makes art important. The embodiment of principle. And it's one reason why it's better to like good art than bad or simple-minded art. Attaching yourself to comic book movies keeps you at a lower level than attaching yourself to a genuinely great object.

I have no problem with people relating to art at whatever level it's accessible to them.  Chances are good that their tastes will widen over time.

I actually learned to enjoy superhero movies rather late in life.

Specifically, what do you think makes great art great?

I think the influence it has had on history and other artists. It may be objectively great in some form though.

What artists or specific works are your favorites, and why?

When speaking about “great” art Dante Alighieri always comes to my mind. Obviously, the Comedy would be my favorite work. Its magnitude and genius deserve far more credit than it already has.

What artistic movements are the most appealing to you?

I don’t know much about this

Do you think art is more than a variety of entertainment?

I think art always involves some sort of message. Entertainment just for entertainment definitely exists. Take for example dumb comedy movies with no end whatsoever.

What purposes should art serve?

Deliver a message and make people think and feel. I think that’s all art can do.

(April 8, 2019 at 8:55 am)Macoleco Wrote: I think art always involves some sort of message. Entertainment just for entertainment definitely exists. Take for example dumb comedy movies with no end whatsoever.

What purposes should art serve?

Deliver a message and make people think and feel. I think that’s all art can do.

So merely stimulating people's emotions to divert them is really entertainment, rather than art, from your perspective?

Does it matter what message art conveys, to be considered art?

(April 8, 2019 at 10:13 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(April 8, 2019 at 8:55 am)Macoleco Wrote: I think art always involves some sort of message. Entertainment just for entertainment definitely exists. Take for example dumb comedy movies with no end whatsoever.

What purposes should art serve?

Deliver a message and make people think and feel. I think that’s all art can do.

So merely stimulating people's emotions to divert them is really entertainment, rather than art, from your perspective?

Does it matter what message art conveys, to be considered art?

I think the message can be divided into two possibilities:

- Thoughtful idea carefully considered by the author
- An irrational emotion expressed by the author

Anything that in some way makes the spectator think and feel is successful imo. It doesnt need to be a positive message.

(April 8, 2019 at 8:55 am)Macoleco Wrote: When speaking about “great” art Dante Alighieri always comes to my mind. Obviously, the Comedy would be my favorite work. Its  magnitude and genius deserve far more credit than it already has.

Hear, hear.

There is no greater book.

I've always been into Classicist paintings. My favorite painters are William Adolphe Bouguereau, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, John William Godward, Albert Joseph Moore, and many others. I have many books on Classicist art in my private library, but my most prized possession is:

This thread seems to be stuck on the visual.