Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[bubblesmcgrath]

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists. They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?

 

[Orang Utan]

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists. They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?

That's not what he is saying

 

[Pickman's model]

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists. They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?

van gogh sold one painting in his lifetime. ergo, by your argument, people did not like his paintings.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

No one's saying you can't appreciate a Van Gogh. Just that his paintings don't exist in a cultural vacuum.

Yeah I know....
Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
For example I don't like abstraction.
Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.

 

[Blagsta]

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists. They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.

We weren't talking about unknown artists were we?

Even then, unknown artists don't exist in a vacuum. They will exist in a community, their work will exist in a relationship with known artists/

This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?

Talking about straw man arguments...

 

[Blagsta]

Yeah I know....
Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
For example I don't like abstraction.
Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.

You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

 

[Orang Utan]

Yeah I know....
Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
For example I don't like abstraction.
Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.

No, nothing exists in a vacuum, you prannet.
I'm afraid your response to just about anything is culturally determined.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah I know....
Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
For example I don't like abstraction.
Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.

piet mondrian painted both these paintings. yet you'd certainly reject the second one because you don't know what's going on.

he started painting realistic art but fell under the sway of the theosophists - his later, more famous, paintings an attempt at pure theosophist art. but then you'd not bother with that because of your insistence that art can be enjoyed without trying to understand what the artist was trying to do.

you're more of the 'oh what a lovely picture' dilletante than the 'i was interested so i found out more about the artist and what s/he was trying to do' afficionado.

while it's obviously ok just to like a picture for itself, it's stupid to say 'it's a nice picture and that's all there is to it'. it makes you look like someone who doesn't give a fuck about art except on some utterly superficial level. and tbh none of the people i've met who come from a wide range of backgrounds and like a wide range of art - both in terms of age and in terms of 'school' or 'movement' - see art as 'oh that's lovely' but as cultural messages, often full of allusions.

 

[chilango]

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists. They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?

You're looking at this very superficially.

It's not (primarily) about Van Gogh's individual fame, nor about people's conscious choices about what they like, or appreciate.

Art has a certain position within our society. That position has evolved, as has what commonly perceived as Art. Styles of Art (and individual artists) have differing degrees of (I hesitate to use this word, but can't think of a better one off the cuff) cultural hegemony. Van Gogh (and others of his ilk) has a far greater degree of this, than most other artists as things stand. Hence the persistent bickering about the "value" of less culturally hegemonic styles such as Abstraction, particularly as abstraction is being promoted into a position of hegemony in a more exclusive section of our culture/society. Hence it's higher "cultural capital" than the more diffused forms and genres.

I'm sorry about the verbiage, but it's important to clarify that we're not talking about people "choosing to like Van Gogh cos he's famous" but something far more structural than that.

 

[Buckaroo]

People only like Van Gogh's pictures because they think he chopped his ear off and shot himself in the head. Well that's why I like his stuff. Edgy. If Tracey Emin shot herself in the head I'd like her stuff too.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.

 

[chilango]

Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.

He isn't though, is he?

 

[Orang Utan]

Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.

But he's not. You keep asserting this and people keep correcting you, but you blithely carry on as if it hasn't happened.

 

[Blagsta]

Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.

No, that's not what I said.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

piet mondrian painted both these paintings. yet you'd certainly reject the second one because you don't know what's going on.

he started painting realistic art but fell under the sway of the theosophists - his later, more famous, paintings an attempt at pure theosophist art. but then you'd not bother with that because of your insistence that art can be enjoyed without trying to understand what the artist was trying to do.

you're more of the 'oh what a lovely picture' dilletante than the 'i was interested so i found out more about the artist and what s/he was trying to do' afficionado.

while it's obviously ok just to like a picture for itself, it's stupid to say 'it's a nice picture and that's all there is to it'. it makes you look like someone who doesn't give a fuck about art except on some utterly superficial level. and tbh none of the people i've met who come from a wide range of backgrounds and like a wide range of art - both in terms of age and in terms of 'school' or 'movement' - see art as 'oh that's lovely' but as cultural messages, often full of allusions.

Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...

He isn't though, is he?

I think you should read this...

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

Because you know it's a Van Gogh.

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?

 

[Blagsta]

Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...



I think you should read this...

This is why I think you're either pretending to be thick or are actually thick.

 

[Pickman's model]

Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.

if you deliberately make yourself look stupid, well done - it's worked.

if you don't mean to make yourself look stupid, perhaps rereading your exchange with Blagsta would be a good idea before continuing to post.

 

[Blagsta]

Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...

.

A few minutes ago, you didn't like abstraction.

 

[chilango]

Exactly.

He's not saying you "can't appreciate it", he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter.

You can still base your opinions on aesthetic qualities or personal taste, but the cultural baggage is still there in the painting regardless.

 

[Blagsta]

Exactly.

He's not saying you "can't appreciate it", he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter.

You can still base your opinions on aesthetic qualities or personal taste, but the cultural baggage is still there in the painting regardless.

Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.

 

[Blagsta]

People got their opinions
Where do they come from?
Each day seems like a natural fact
And what we think changes how we act
People got opinions
Where do they come from?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Exactly.

He's not saying you "can't appreciate it", he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter..

Actually he did say that...

How can you know how you'd feel about Van Gogh from a position of ignorance? .

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.

 

[Blagsta]

Actually he did say that...

fuck off

 

[chilango]

Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.

Of course (and this thread is making me want to dig out my barely touched copy of "Distinction"), but I think that that is a step too far for this discussion until the more explicit stuff is acknowledged.

 

[Blagsta]

Too much thinking makes me ill
I think I'll have another gin
A few more drinks it'll be alright

eh bubbles?

 

[chilango]

Actually he did say that...

...those quotes don't even say that.

You have this the wrong way around.

He's talking about the "ignorance" being impossible not the "appreciation".

 

[Orang Utan]

bubblesmcgrath have you read John Berger's Ways Of Seeing? It's a load of silly pretentious nonsense about art. You'd love it.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.

Course they do.
And can appreciate art by famous artists and unknown artists alike.
The fame factor is not important to me.

...those quotes don't even say that.

You have this the wrong way around.

He's talking about the "ignorance" being impossible not the "appreciation".

I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....

Two sides of the same coin...possibly

 

[chilango]

I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....

...but there is no "regardless of knowledge". That's the point.

In fairness, "knowledge" probably isn't the most useful, or accurate, word for what we're talking about.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't really get why Lichtenstein is so raved about...

My art teacher at secondary school explained it as Lichtenstein having subverted a medium (comic-book representation) with which lots of people were familiar, and that the familiarity made the art more acceptable and understandable to them. basically, if an art-form is outside of your experience and/or alien to your culture, then it's supposedly harder to "get".
Not sure whether I entirely buy that as an explanation, but it has some utility.