Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

bubblesmcgrath said:
Could you explain what you mean by "approach"?
Are you saying that one cannot appreciate or like or enjoy it?
And what knowledge exactly does one need to know about it before "approaching" it?
Click to expand...

You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
Think of it like this - A parent sees a picture their 5-yr old brings home and immediately enthuses about it, because the context is "my childs' painting". They see a picture by another 5-yr old and think "that's crap" because the context from which they view the picture - the place where their understanding of the picture comes from - is different.
 
images
 
ViolentPanda said:
You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
Think of it like this - A parent sees a picture their 5-yr old brings home and immediately enthuses about it, because the context is "my childs' painting". They see a picture by another 5-yr old and think "that's crap" because the context from which they view the picture - the place where their understanding of the picture comes from - is different.
Click to expand...
well put
 
chilango said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Let's agree to differ.
I am being Devils advocate and my point is or was that art can be appreciated purely for aesthetics without necessarily having to know much about the style or anything about the artist.
You are talking about global art culture and it's influence on society and the individual. I'm arguing because I really dislike being told that the only reason I like Van Gogh is because he's famous.
I like his art because I enjoy it. I don't like picasso despite his fame..... sharp intake if breath as I wait for people to launch an attack....shoot me.
The thing is I know what you're saying but I really think it's too general to assume that every person is influenced in the same way and to the same degree culturally.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Let's agree to differ.
I am being Devils advocate and my point is or was that art can be appreciated purely for aesthetics without necessarily having to know much about the style or anything about the artist.
You are talking about global art culture and it's influence on society and the individual. I'm arguing because I really dislike being told that the only reason I like Van Gogh is because he's famous.
I like his art because I enjoy it. I don't like picasso despite his fame..... sharp intake if breath as I wait for people to launch an attack....shoot me.
The thing is I know what you're saying but I really think it's too general to assume that every person is influenced in the same way and to the same degree culturally.
Click to expand...
which picasso don't you like? early? cubist? late? pottery, painting, drawing?
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Course they do.
And can appreciate art by famous artists and unknown artists alike.
The fame factor is not important to me.
Click to expand...

This is not an argument about fame. You come from a specific cultural background. That background makes certain things prominent. If you had been brought up in Spain you might have seen a Picasso print on your aunt's wall at the age of 5. If you were brought up in Isfahan you would have been surrounded by incredible examples of Islamic abstract art. In China it might be classic landscapes painted with single ink brushstrokes rather than layered paint. Van Gogh would not be a part of your cultural radar in the latter examples. You look at Van Gogh in art galleries filled with the kind of art he responded to, in books or on walls. The context and the contrast is there.


I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....
Click to expand...

This does not exist.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
No.
His art became famous because it was liked by those who saw it.
Blank slate.
People liked it.
And people still do for the same reasons.
Despite your cynical view of humanity
Click to expand...

Sorry, but appreciation of Van Gogh was originally bugger-all to do with it being liked by those who saw it, and everything to do with people appreciating his artistic contemporaries (who, besides his brother, were about the only people that owned any of his art), which in turn led them to Van Goghs' work after they'd garnered knowledge of the style from Van Gogh's contemporaries.
Artistic "schools" tend to exist to allow us to step from artistic trend to artistic trend, as though there were some sort of natural progression, but what in fact happens is that the understanding of the work of one school may lead us to understand a related one. Or not.
 
I was going to chip in with Berger but I see its been done. The thought of a bunch of people sticking things on skulls in Damien Hurst's workshop leaves me cold as does the likes of Basher Satchi buying up the half the St Martins end of year show and warehousing it till he has a plan to market it. It does appear to me - as an outsider - to be a world where pretentious bollocks reigns supreme. I was in a meeting with some people from the Glasgow School of Art last week with a guy explaining that 'in prison, its like in prison, like in prison in your mind' who then showed us a chair he had put upside down in a sink in a prison which was a demonstration of his frustration 'because you don't usually see a chair in a sink'. On the other hand there was a woman who had been an artist in residence in Glencoe and had spent a year doing walks there with all the different types of people who live and work and visit. She had made these maps for some of the people which depicted the different aspects of the place from the perspective of the different people.

My worst art moment was when I eventually got to see Guernica (sp?) and was standing awestruck in front of it and the person I was with just said 'Crap'.
 
ViolentPanda said:
You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
.
Click to expand...


Do I?
Don't get me wrong. .. I'm asking a question here.
Do I really need to know the context of a painting to appreciate it?
Can I not like it for it's beauty?
Does everything need to be explained and contextualised?
Was I wrong to like the painting below when I was 5? Did I not appreciate it because I was young? I drew it over and over and memorised every part of it. How stupid of me to love a painting without learning all about it and it's style and artist beforehand.
Or should I have analysed it and examined it's cultural context?
I understand perfectly what Blagsta is saying but really does it matter that I liked and enjoyed it despite it's cultural context?


fishfinger said:
That's good because no-one is saying that.
Click to expand...

Yup they are...

Pickman's model said:
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 :rolleyes: 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.
Click to expand...
 
ViolentPanda said:
Sorry, but appreciation of Van Gogh was originally bugger-all to do with it being liked by those who saw it, and everything to do with people appreciating his artistic contemporaries (who, besides his brother, were about the only people that owned any of his art), which in turn led them to Van Goghs' work after they'd garnered knowledge of the style from Van Gogh's contemporaries.
Artistic "schools" tend to exist to allow us to step from artistic trend to artistic trend, as though there were some sort of natural progression, but what in fact happens is that the understanding of the work of one school may lead us to understand a related one. Or not.
Click to expand...

If you read my earlier post you'd see that I did write that he was only seen by very few...and yes I know what his friends did. If they had not liked his art it's doubtful he'd ever have been recognised
 
ViolentPanda said:
Oh, it does, but only in a "naive" sense, insofar as you might appreciate a piece of art, but not be able to enunciate why you do beyond "I like the colours and shapes and subject".
Click to expand...

Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chemn
Geometric Art/ Mandala
Replies
22
Views
336
Sweet FA
Sweet FA
A
  • Poll
Is photorealistic art really "art"?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
5K
Dr. Furface
Dr. Furface
A
"The Hanging Committee:": thread for amusing tales about arts events.
Replies
6
Views
486
moochedit
moochedit
A
Art Fraud stories.
Replies
0
Views
239
Aladdin
A
Mumbles274
The 2023 Art Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
247
Views
10K
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom