Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[bubblesmcgrath]

You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.

And when you say "you" who do you mean?
Are you generalising?

 

[Blagsta]

Why not?

Because you know it's a Van Gogh.

 

[Blagsta]

And when you say "you" who do you mean?
Are you generalising?

Try reading the entire exchange again.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.

You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.

Because you know it's a Van Gogh.

Total bullshit.

 

[moon]

I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Try reading the entire exchange again.

You're implying that a person cant enjoy or appreciate art if they don't have auxiliary information and knowledge before viewing it?

 

[Blagsta]

You're implying that a person cant enjoy or appreciate art if they don't have auxiliary information and knowledge before viewing it?

No.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...

Me too..only I was 5 and knew nothing about the artist. My aunt had a print on her wall and I loved it from the moment I saw it.

 

[Blagsta]

I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...

Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

 

[Blagsta]

Me too..only I was 5 and knew nothing about the artist. My aunt had a print on her wall and I loved it from the moment I saw it.

Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

Her aunt might have had the original on the wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh.

 

[moon]

Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

Probably not. But that's not the point.

 

[Blagsta]

Probably not. But that's not the point.

Of course it's the point.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Because you know it's a Van Gogh.

Unless you don't know it's a Van Gogh... then you probably don't know it's a Van Gogh.

 

[moon]

If the same picture was posted randomly on Tumblr, would I still love it?
Probably..

 

[Cid]

I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...

Yes, which says something about exposure to Van Gogh in the west. We're introduced at an early age - we copy sunflowers (badly) in art lessons, he's on Dr Who, he forms an integral part of education about art. He is introduced to us early and accepted as part of the artistic environment.

When he was working this was not the case. When he was working there was little or no 'instinctive' love for his painting, it took time and people who understood what he was doing for his works to become popular. A version of you born in the 18th century and seeing that alongside several 18th century pictures of rooms might well wonder what the hell it was doing there. You cannot see it devoid of context.

 

[Blagsta]

Unless you don't know it's a Van Gogh... then you probably don't know it's a Van Gogh.

The point being made is that famous images like Van Gogh paintings will always come with cultural associations. Even if the viewer is not aware of them, these cultural associations will affect how and why and where the image is seen. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?

You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.

So what about a person who has learning difficulties. ...do you think they can't appreciate a Van Gogh because they might not know who he is? Or that his paintings are famous?
Do I need to know about the chordal progressions of a symphonic work by Beethoven to approach it? Or appreciate it? Or enjoy it?

No...People can enjoy art like Van Gogh's without knowing anything about him.

 

[Blagsta]

If the same picture was posted randomly on Tumblr, would I still love it?
Probably..

No way to tell though is there.

 

[Blagsta]

So what about a person who has learning difficulties. ...do you think they can't appreciate a Van Gogh because they might not know who he is? Or that his paintings are famous?
Do I need to know about the chordal progressions of a symphonic work by Beethoven to approach it? Or appreciate it? Or enjoy it?

No...People can enjoy art like Van Gogh's without knowing anything about him.

Oh ffs

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Yes, which says something about exposure to Van Gogh in the west. We're introduced at an early age - we copy sunflowers (badly) in art lessons, he's on Dr Who, he forms an integral part of education about art. He is introduced to us early and accepted as part of the artistic environment.

When he was working this was not the case. When he was working there was little or no 'instinctive' love for his painting, it took time and people who understood what he was doing for his works to become popular. A version of you born in the 18th century and seeing that alongside several 18th century pictures of rooms might well wonder what the hell it was doing there. You cannot see it devoid of context.

He didn't start painting til he was in his 20's. And only shared his art with a very small group of people. ..

No way to tell though is there.

Bullshit

 

[Pickman's model]

Total bullshit.

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.

I like Van Gogh because his paintings have passion.

ok. but how do you know what you're looking at is a van gogh painting and not something articul8 shat or chucked after a heavy night on the piss? the minute you see 'van gogh' you're going to be in awe of it, regardless of whether it's a theo or a vincent.

 

[Blagsta]

Bullshit

Go on...

 

[Pickman's model]

Go on...

oh she will

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

ok. but how do you know what you're looking at is a van gogh painting and not something articul8 shat or chucked after a heavy night on the piss? the minute you see 'van gogh' you're going to be in awe of it, regardless of whether it's a theo or a vincent.

Chicken ...egg ...

Someone liked his paintings didnt they? He's famous as a result of people liking his paintings. ..

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

oh she will

Fuck off

 

[Pickman's model]

Chicken ...egg ...

Someone liked his paintings didnt they? He's famous as a result of people liking his paintings. ..

you say you don't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. you have to know his fucking NAME to know you're looking at one of his and as soon as you see his name - be it a theo van gogh or a vincent - you're going to be in awe of it because you've been told to be in fucking awe of it. it's not like you come to the viewing without preconceptions. you're not enjoying it because you make the decision after seeing it, you're not coming to it knowing nothing of the artist, you're seeing it in the context of lots and lots of people saying 'this is a great painting'. you're not engaging your own critical faculties (i don't think you have any, but doubtless more of that later) you're viewing it with a load of critical baggage round your neck.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fuck off

it's that sort of vacuity which makes me think you lack critical faculties.

 

[Pickman's model]

but answer came there none.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The point being made is that famous images like Van Gogh paintings will always come with cultural associations. Even if the viewer is not aware of them, these cultural associations will affect how and why and where the image is seen. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

Nah.
People liked his art and that's how his art became famous ..
Appreciation came before fame...
And why assume that people cant appreciate his art for art's sake ?
What a cynical view of art to take to say that Van Gogh is appreciated because he's famous. Maybe just maybe people still get a thrill out of his paintings.

you say you don't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. you have to know his fucking NAME to know you're looking at one of his and as soon as you see his name - be it a theo van gogh or a vincent - you're going to be in awe of it because you've been told to be in fucking awe of it. it's not like you come to the viewing without preconceptions. you're not enjoying it because you make the decision after seeing it, you're not coming to it knowing nothing of the artist, you're seeing it in the context of lots and lots of people saying 'this is a great painting'. you're not engaging your own critical faculties (i don't think you have any, but doubtless more of that later) you're viewing it with a load of critical baggage round your neck.

I saw it first when I was five.
I liked it and knew nothing about it or the artist. It was a print

You're implying that a person needs to have information and knowledge to appreciate the art of Van Gogh ..and by extension any art by anyone.
That is bullshit.
Plenty people who will never read or hear a word about art or learn about an artist will enjoy and appreciate art.
What a narrow minded arsehole you are prickman.