Your Thoughts On Art

[Belacqua]

This thread seems to be stuck on the visual.

A little while ago you expressed to me strong views about what kind of books are worth reading. 

If you'd like to make a case here for what is good and bad in literature that might be an interesting direction for the thread.

[brewer]

This thread seems to be stuck on the visual.

A little while ago you expressed to me strong views about what kind of books are worth reading. 

If you'd like to make a case here for what is good and bad in literature that might be an interesting direction for the thread.

Not talking about literature at all.

Things stimulating the other senses as art. Literature is still visual. Think outside your box.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't entertainment just be art in search of the right audience?  It's remarkable how different the things that speak to us or challenge us can be.

I remember when I was a teenager, telling my little sister that some song she loved wasn't "art".  This actually made her cry.  Not only did that particular song evoke a response and to her mind qualify as art, the idea that her big bro rejected that validation produced another.  This is..if you ask me, one of the most shameful events in my life - yet another deep and visceral and challenging reaction provoked. My mother took me to task for it..pretty sure she thought the song was shit, too..but there she was, yelling at her favorite son, lol.

Good game pop music...good game.

[Belacqua]

Not talking about literature at all.

What would you like to talk about?

Literature is still visual.

And aural. And conceptual.

[vulcanlogician]

I would be interested to read forum members' opinions on the fine arts. 

Specifically, what do you think makes great art great? 

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

What artistic movements are the most appealing to you?

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

What purposes should art serve?

I tend to like the literary arts most of all, but as far as non-literary arts I like dada, surrealist, and cubist movements. "View of Collioure" and Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" are among my most prized. To me, art is way more than "a variety of entertainment." Art can penetrate the veil and deliver to us truths inaccessible via ordinary reflection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whereas I like drums. 

[Alan V]

I would be interested to read forum members' opinions on the fine arts. 

I originally thought of this as a discussion of the visual arts, but if people wish to extend it to literature or other artforms as well, I would certainly be interested in what they have to say.  

I also wanted to read what others wrote before I added my own thoughts about the original questions.

Specifically, what do you think makes great art great? 

There are several criteria people typically apply in the visual arts.  Is the work stylistically innovative?  Does it offer a new way to look at the world or at art itself?  Does it connect with universal human thoughts or emotions?  Is the work technically accomplished?

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

At present, my favorite artists are Claude Monet, Paul Klee, and Andrew Wyeth since I enjoy a large number of each artist's works.  However, my favorite paintings are like time machines in transporting the viewer to different times and places: Leonardo's Mona Lisa, Bruegel's Hunters in the Snow, Avercamp's A Winter Scene with Skaters Near a Castle, Vermeer's The Little Street, Hopper's Early Sunday Morning, Wyeth's Winter 1946, and so on.

What artistic movements are the most appealing to you?

I now find realism most appealing, but I also enjoy specific works across a wide range of styles.  It's just that unusual styles are rather hit and miss when it comes to producing great art.  For instance, Cezanne's style produced some really beautiful landscapes, but his paintings of people made them look like they were made of stone.

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

If it's good art, it's also entertaining or decorative, and that is the most consistent characteristic of art across styles and subject matter.  However, I also agree that different kinds of art can be important to people at different stages of their lives.  It helps us see the world through different eyes and can therefore help us change as individuals.  That is often why people so strongly identify with specific paintings or styles -- they remember when those were revelations, even if they no longer are.  Habituation is a problem for all human perceptions, including the perception of art.  So what once seemed deeply moving and meaningful can be exhausted later, until only the memory remains.

What purposes should art serve?

The visual arts are a series of techniques employed to draw attention to the artwork, so the first purpose of art is to capture attention.  The techniques used are the exercise of exceptional talent, striking colors and contrasts, drama and emotion, mystery, shock, and so on.  Some art doesn't stray too far from just capturing attention, and actually employs ambiguity so the artwork isn't easily exhausted by its viewers.  Other art has a clear message, but for messages I prefer books, which are typically much more articulate.

[Belacqua]

It's just that unusual styles are rather hit and miss when it comes to producing great art.  For instance, Cezanne's style produced some really beautiful landscapes, but his paintings of people made them look like they were made of stone.

To me, Cézanne's figures don't look as if they're made of stone -- I think they are intentionally made to look as if they were made of paint. Because they ARE made of paint, and there's no reason to say otherwise.

Should a successful work of art NOT look as if it is made of paint? Because a painting is, after all, not a person, but a thing made of paint. 

Or does "realism" demand that a painting NOT look as if it is made of paint, as in a sort of trompe l'oeil? 

For centuries (i.e. before Magritte) artists made their paintings look as if they are made of paint in order to show that the thing depicted is not the thing, but something made of paint. Brushy late Titians, impossibly pure Bellinis, thinly-applied Tiepolos.

[Alan V]

It's just that unusual styles are rather hit and miss when it comes to producing great art.  For instance, Cezanne's style produced some really beautiful landscapes, but his paintings of people made them look like they were made of stone.

To me, Cézanne's figures don't look as if they're made of stone -- I think they are intentionally made to look as if they were made of paint. Because they ARE made of paint, and there's no reason to say otherwise.

Should a successful work of art NOT look as if it is made of paint? Because a painting is, after all, not a person, but a thing made of paint. 

Or does "realism" demand that a painting NOT look as if it is made of paint, as in a sort of trompe l'oeil? 

For centuries (i.e. before Magritte) artists made their paintings look as if they are made of paint in order to show that the thing depicted is not the thing, but something made of paint. Brushy late Titians, impossibly pure Bellinis, thinly-applied Tiepolos.

Good points, and I have heard them or thought of them all before.  You can certainly look at Cezanne's works and enjoy them that way.

But I was talking about my individual perspectives and tastes.  I really do think that portraits should be about the persons being portrayed, and not about the artists.  Cezanne was not only a stylist but also a figurative painter.

If I was giving a lecture on Cezanne, I would say the kinds of things you just pointed out. The success of an artwork should be judged in accordance with the artist's intentions. But that doesn't mean we have to support those intentions. In fact, this is a major problem in the art world. The artist may intend anything at all he wants, or I suspect rationalize his intentions after the fact by the results of his efforts. When an artist can sign a urinal and call it art, and some people actually believe him, there is a problem. I am no longer that someone.

So yes, there is a reason to "say otherwise."  Pluses and minuses.

[Belacqua]

The success of an artwork should be judged in accordance with the artist's intentions.  

Well, maybe. That's a never-ending argument. In general, I suspect it's best to take what's there. The intentions may or may not help us in understanding the thing, but the thing is what it is. 

And an artist may lie about his intentions, or maybe he didn't record them, or maybe he succeeded at something wonderful which he didn't intend at all. 

But that doesn't mean we have to support those intentions.  

This is what's odd to me. It's not like we're going to be influencing Cézanne at this point. He's dead. Does our approval or disapproval have some sway on other painters around the world? 

Often people seem to think that they are protecting the world from terrible religion by posting on sites like this one, and that seems misguided to me. The influence we have here is about as near zero as we can get. And this goes even more for artists at work in their studios. If I sit here and stew about long-dead painters, am I going to improve something? 

In fact, this is a major problem in the art world. The artist may intend anything at all he wants, or I suspect rationalize his intentions after the fact by the results of his efforts. When an artist can sign a urinal and call it art, and some people actually believe him, there is a problem. I am no longer that someone.

It may be that in a capitalist world in which efficiency and science are the standards, art is an oasis of irrationality. I see no reason why an artist's intentions should meet anyone else's approval. Especially mine or yours, given that we are powerless to help or hurt their progress. As you noted earlier, there is a lot of bad art, but to say therefore that we should take a stand as if it's determining foreign policy is strange to me.

The urinal was a bit of Gallic wit that people took way too far. Like Magritte's non-pipe, it's a joke that the insiders enjoyed, and then got blown way out of proportion by shallow-thinking students. I put Duchamp in my list of very smart people who accidentally did harm to the world -- it's not his fault that art students and curators took it all too far. The problem is using these things as mascots or turning points, instead of looking more widely at the whole scene. 

But the main thing that puzzles me is why we should worry about it, as if we have some control over things. 

There is also a serious issue concerning what you're calling "realism." We have to be careful with that. It might imply that there is a real way that the real world looks, and an artist can be nearer or farther away from that. But I don't think it's that simple. Surely after Kant we acknowledge that awareness of perception is interpretation. And one of the things about painting (and other representative arts) is that it shows us differences in how people perceive. 

Currently we live in a mechanical age, and we have been trained to think that photographs see "realistically." But they don't; they see mechanically. A camera has one eye and its glimpse is limited to a fraction of a second. A human has two eyes, moves around, and perceives in time. To eliminate those fundamental things and call it "real" seems odd to me. 

When you're rolling around with your lover you don't perceive her still, posed, two-dimensional, and reduced in size. You see lots of different angles within a few seconds, and your mind automatically edits things so that her elbow appears less dominant in your vision than the more interesting bits. So in fact a Picasso may be more "realistic" in this way than a photo. A Picasso is humanly seen, not mechanically seen. It's about the same as the difference between a phenomenological description of the world and a scientific one. 

And Cézanne's figures can be seen the same way. You want him to perceive differently, in a way that is more traditionally portrait-like. But that would rule out this different thing which he has offered us, which I think has an equal or greater value. Greater, perhaps, because it shows these people in a way not seen by traditionalists, in a monumental or sculptural way. The light is certainly depicted in a believable and beautiful way. The form is simplified to something like Cycladic or Romanesque sculpture -- also beautiful in their non-portrait manners. 

I don't know, maybe Mrs. Cézanne had her photo taken or had a less original portrait painter do her picture so she could give it to the grandkids. Her husband was doing something different. And I still don't see why we should pass moral judgment on that.