Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[DotCommunist]

I prefer realistic art myself. I did once sit a tutorial session where a visiting art woman explained how abstract works but its never grabbed me. Each unto their own though. I saw Chris Foss's designs (unused) for some flying skimmers for flash gordon today. Now thats art

 

[Orang Utan]

More shit art apparently worth millions. ..

I like the look of it. Dunno who it's by though cos instead of saying who painted it or what it's called, you have focussed on how much was paid for it. Except you haven't even said how much, just a few million.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I like the look of it. Dunno who it's by though cos instead of saying who painted it or what it's called, you have focussed on how much was paid for it. Except you haven't even said how much, just a few million.

Will mentioning the name of the artist make it a better painting? Will the title help the observer to "appreciate" it more?

It's a green blob called. ...

Wait for it....

Green White

And it is by Ellsworth Kelly...

 

[chilango]

Will mentioning the name of the artist make it a better painting? Will the title help the observer to "appreciate" it more?

It's a green blob called. ...

Wait for it....

Green White

And it is by Ellsworth Kelly...

I quite like it, though a sense of scale, surface, material etc. would add to it.

 

[Orang Utan]

I liked it and i wanted to know more

 

[kittyP]

It's all subjective innit!


I am sure it's probably already been said (can't be arsed with whole thread)

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I quite like it, though a sense of scale, surface, material etc. would add to it.

66 x 69 in
Green misshapen blob

oil on white canvas

 

[chilango]

66 x 69 in
Green misshapen blob

oil on white canvas

Thanks.

I like it.

It doesn't excite me, but I do like it.

 

[Blagsta]

Andy Warhol

Personally I'm not all that keen on Warhol, but you can't call it shit. He was commenting on the nature of art in a world of easy reproduction of images.

 

[Blagsta]

I was thinking about it from the artist's perspective. Abstract art is self centered...I mean centered on the artist's self ... it communicates from the internal to the external. It often needs explaining. The culture of personality seems to be more important now and since the last century.
It could be to do with the fact that the world can view art works now via various media and so artists can become world famous in their own lifetime.

Most art work has needed explaining in some sense. Without a knowledge of history, politics or the Bible, most classic art is just a picture, shorn of its meaning.

 

[Blagsta]

no, because photographers are chancers.

I know I am.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I dunno. The art world does have a line in pretentious crap to justify that connection way beyond that usually found in music and literature. It's that that people tend to take the piss out of, quite reasonably IMO.

Just to answer this, Bono saving the world, 4′33″, Prog rock?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Most art work has needed explaining in some sense. Without a knowledge of history, politics or the Bible, most classic art is just a picture, shorn of its meaning.

Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.

On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.

On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.

So you need to put some effort in, why is that a bad thing?

 

[StoneRoad]

Not because I'm an atheist, but I really can't stand that tapestry by Sutherland of the seated Christ in Coventry's new cathedral.
The proportions seem all wrong.

 

[chilango]

Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.

On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.

Nah.

Much (most?) abstract art can be appreciated in purely aesthetic terms without any need for explanation or context.

Just as representational art can be appreciated in the same way.

The "narrative" in some representational art is often not familiar to the viewer and is in these cases either meaningless or misleading without knowledge of, or research into social/historical context.

I don't see any real difference in "accessibility" between abstract and representational art. Both can be viewed and appreciated without explanation, but contextual knowledge can add to the experience for some viewers.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

So you need to put some effort in, why is that a bad thing?

I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.

Most abstract art needs explanation in the form of an oftentimes longwinded notation by the artist (which most write, and some record) then that explanation becomes an inherent part of appreciating the art. So the art is not the primary focus anymore. The artist's explanation becomes as significant as the artwork. Thereby elevating the artist's self / ego and making the artwork a psychological piece rather than a "conversation" with the observer. The abstract artist can end up tellng the observer the meaning of the painting and then the conversation ends.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Nah.

Much (most?) abstract art can be appreciated in purely aesthetic terms without any need for explanation or context.

Without explanation this piece is just what it is..a blob on white canvas.

The artist's and gallery's explanation is absolutely critical to any attempt at understanding of it....and subsequently appreciating it..

"Green White, painted in 1961, is a monumentally scaled canvas that superbly encapsulates Kelly's signature language of abstraction. As Kelly insisted, "In my own work, I have never been interested in painterliness (or what I find is) a personal handwriting, putting marks on canvas. My work is a different way of seeing and making something and which has a different use" (E. Kelly, Notes of 1969, reprinted in K. Stiles and P. Selz, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, Berkeley, 1996, p. 93). The flat, unmodulated surfaces that Kelly favored were a dramatic riposte to the dominant American style of Abstract Expressionism, but Kelly managed to derive a visual force comparable to the most loaded bravura brushwork in his audaciously reduced forms. He frequently worked with two-color compositions, as in the present work, playing with perceptual ambiguity between positive and negative space, and heightening the expressive interaction of his forms.

The curving forms of the two-color composition of Green-White represent an important development in Kelly's oeuvre in which he moved away from rectilinear, hard-edged shapes in favor for a more organic, softer composition. Since his first forays into abstraction while living in Paris in 1949, Kelly worked with shapes derived from life, such as found objects or shadows, using these forms not as biomorphic metaphors, but as pure visual experiences in themselves. As Kelly proclaimed, "Making art has first of all to do with honesty. My first lesson was to see objectively, to erase all 'meaning' of the thing seen. Then only could the real meaning of it be understood and felt" (Ibid.). "

 

[fishfinger]

Without explanation this piece is just what it is..a blob on white canvas.

The artist's and gallery's explanation is absolutely critical to any attempt at understanding of it....and subsequently appreciating it..

"Green White, painted in 1961, is a monumentally scaled canvas that superbly encapsulates Kelly's signature language of abstraction. As Kelly insisted, "In my own work, I have never been interested in painterliness (or what I find is) a personal handwriting, putting marks on canvas. My work is a different way of seeing and making something and which has a different use" (E. Kelly, Notes of 1969, reprinted in K. Stiles and P. Selz, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, Berkeley, 1996, p. 93). The flat, unmodulated surfaces that Kelly favored were a dramatic riposte to the dominant American style of Abstract Expressionism, but Kelly managed to derive a visual force comparable to the most loaded bravura brushwork in his audaciously reduced forms. He frequently worked with two-color compositions, as in the present work, playing with perceptual ambiguity between positive and negative space, and heightening the expressive interaction of his forms.

The curving forms of the two-color composition of Green-White represent an important development in Kelly's oeuvre in which he moved away from rectilinear, hard-edged shapes in favor for a more organic, softer composition. Since his first forays into abstraction while living in Paris in 1949, Kelly worked with shapes derived from life, such as found objects or shadows, using these forms not as biomorphic metaphors, but as pure visual experiences in themselves. As Kelly proclaimed, "Making art has first of all to do with honesty. My first lesson was to see objectively, to erase all 'meaning' of the thing seen. Then only could the real meaning of it be understood and felt" (Ibid.). "

What you quoted is simply the sales blurb from Christies.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/ellsworth-kelly-green-white-5147465-details.aspx

The piece needs no explanation, in order to be appreciated. It is an exercise in form, composition, and colour. Other people up-thread have already expressed a liking for this painting, without any need for explanation.

 

[chilango]

Are you sure you're not conflating abstract art and conceptual art bubblesmcgrath?

Most of what you say can be applied to conceptual art but ime abstract art can (and should) usually be appreciated primarily on aesthetic grounds.

Additional info is no more or less relevant/useful than for more representational art.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.

Most abstract art needs explanation in the form of an oftentimes longwinded notation by the artist (which most write, and some record) then that explanation becomes an inherent part of appreciating the art. So the art is not the primary focus anymore. The artist's explanation becomes as significant as the artwork. Thereby elevating the artist's self / ego and making the artwork a psychological piece rather than a "conversation" with the observer. The abstract artist can end up tellng the observer the meaning of the painting and then the conversation ends.

To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to.
Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.

 

[Chilli.s]

I love art, pretty much all art. Turner, Caravaggio, Rothco, Herbz. They all deliver in their own way. Its like gigs, I'll go see anything, and take from it whatever speaks to me. Its all entertainment.

One thing that I find helpful is to regard artworks with my own system of valuation. Damien Hurst's dots, nice an all but Ikea did a similar thing and their price was what I'd pay so thats all the value dots have.

Art's fun to make, get a bunch of stuff, paint, wood, metal, clay, camera. Get a bunch of tools, brushes, chisels, welder,plasmacutter,computer, hammer and nails. Have a blast and express yourself. You soon realise turning stuff into something that speaks to people is a process that has many pitfalls. Applying value to raw paint and canvas is hard skilled graft.

Conceptual art can be equally entertaining. Its a lot more about the personality of the artist and how they can fuck, suck, flirt and schmooze their way into a career. Conceptual artists can of course still draw, some very well, and some are great craftsmen too. That shit can be taught in school. Concepts in art are like town planning, anyone can do it but not all end results are great.

Oh yeah, a picture in a book or on a screen of a Rothco painting ain't anything like the real thing. Not even close.

 

[ViolentPanda]

bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.

It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.

Quite - Modern artists tend to go where a living can be made, despite the numerous biographies (as of the YBTs) emphasising how rebellious they were and are.
Your point about civic good is well-made. We now exist in an art culture where public art is, if not sneered at, widely disregarded or labeled as a waste of resources, rather than being viewed as anything "elevating".

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.

Not true. People like Cosimo de Medici were frighteningly-aware that part of their power resided in having their public like as well as fear them (they remembered the lessons of the Roman empire), and adorning Florence with public art and civic adornment was a way of promoting the City-State, as well as promoting their own interests.

 

[cesare]

Quite - Modern artists tend to go where a living can be made, despite the numerous biographies (as of the YBTs) emphasising how rebellious they were and are.
Your point about civic good is well-made. We now exist in an art culture where public art is, if not sneered at, widely disregarded or labeled as a waste of resources, rather than being viewed as anything "elevating".

I'm glad that sculpture still gets a look in, even if mostly understated. I noticed Hepworth's "Winged Figure" on JL Oxford Street for the first time a few months back

 

[cesare]

Many of the public still want public art and adornment ... I guess we can align that with the increase of street art.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm glad that sculpture still gets a look in, even if mostly understated. I noticed Hepworth's "Winged Figure" on JL Oxford Street for the first time a few months back

Back in the early '80s, when I had time on my hands, I went through a phase of visiting public sculpture in London, everything from Gill's friezes at Broadcasting House to Ayrton's "Icarus" at The Barbican to Hepworth's "Single Form" at Battersea Park to Charles Sergeant Jagger's various soldiers. I spent about a year visiting and photographing various stuff, and I still only scratched the surface.
If I ever had the money and the mobility to get around greater London, I'd do it again, and look after the negatives this time!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Many of the public still want public art and adornment ... I guess we can align that with the increase of street art.

Mind you, the increase in steel art is not just due to functionality, as there's now only ONE casting facility in the entire UK that can handle art castings that are over a couple of square feet.

 

[cesare]

Back in the early '80s, when I had time on my hands, I went through a phase of visiting public sculpture in London, everything from Gill's friezes at Broadcasting House to Ayrton's "Icarus" at The Barbican to Hepworth's "Single Form" at Battersea Park to Charles Sergeant Jagger's various soldiers. I spent about a year visiting and photographing various stuff, and I still only scratched the surface.
If I ever had the money and the mobility to get around greater London, I'd do it again, and look after the negatives this time!

I would *love* to do something like that. Oh no, the negatives gone I bet that was a blow.

 

[cesare]

Mind you, the increase in steel art is not just due to functionality, as there's now only ONE casting facility in the entire UK that can handle art castings that are over a couple of square feet.

I was thinking street as in Banksy type art but I didn't know about the lack of casting facilities ... is that linked to decline of steel works in general?

Edit: oh, you're meaning bronze?