Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro


Isn't in a certain sense any form of art manipulating? Not that I think art is generally brainwashing, but it appeals to our senses.....

Well, anything appeals to our senses. What you probably mean is that art appeals to your sense with your full will and agreement.

From this, follows the prominent artistic question of the 20th century: what is art, then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

we need to make a distinction between anything prior to the 19th century and the rest.

Seeing as in the course of human history the 19th and 20th Centuries are kinda much, much, much less than the rest, that's a BIG distinction .

We also need to make the distinction between technical prowess (inherent to painting, sculpture) with the rest.

Why? Does good art have good technical prowess?

Understanding the Sistine chapel requires erudition, that was highly unlikely held by the masses of the Italian Renaissance.

So?

[loinburger]

I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

[FS*]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


From this, follows the prominent artistic question of the 20th century: what is art, then?

Followed by the phrase, " I may not know much about art, but I know what I like."

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Verto


Not true.

Excluding plain religious art in the churches (and not the great masterpieces of Michelangelo, Raphael, etc.). However, I would argue that that was not really art.

There is also the special case of theater, I know. Then I could dispute much about it, and say how its appeal was different than today's hollywoodian movies.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

Well, it ends up tasting good, and the effort is most always rewarding.

[FS*]

The big distinction from my years in art college was commercial art vs. fine art.

The commercial artists were all sellouts and whores, while the fine artists were the ones with no technical prowess and subjective perspectives on art that were so obtuse as to completely lose most viewers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess we are 'illiterate' about art, because we have no ****ing idea what the Hell you are talking about when you say 'art' .

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
However, I would argue that that was not really art.

What would your definition of art be?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Seeing as in the course of human history the 19th and 20th Centuries are kinda much, much, much less than the rest, that's a BIG distinction .

Well, you just have to keep in mind that art distibution and consumption was wholly different in that time.
It is also a known fact that the avant garde was made possible by the industrial society, for many reasons, which have to do with the Enlightment, urbanization, and skyrocketing of inequalities.

Why? Does good art have good technical prowess?

I'll take an easy example: Lost in Translation or ROTK? There is a fine line between them; but history tends to favor the former over the latter (the eternal 'style' or substance question).

So?

It was seen by the masses, but the discourse it contained had more. That's why it's not like Seabiscuit or Paulo Coelho.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess we are 'illiterate' about art, because we have no ****ing idea what the Hell you are talking about when you say 'art' .

Interesting point. The thing is: art is so complex, that no one should know that he's talking about.

If you can claim to know what is art, then... you are probably ignorant.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Verto


What would your definition of art be?

In the case of the common paintings of religious scenes, I'd say it's merely art- because its function was to educate first, not to make revolutionary aesthetic statements.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll take an easy example: Lost in Translation or ROTK? There is a fine line between them; but history tends to favor the former over the latter (the eternal 'style' or substance question).

What makes one 'art' and the other not? Is LIT more avant garde? How so?

It was seen by the masses, but the discourse it contained had more.

What does it have to do with its artistic quality?

[Verto]

Why must art make revolutionary statements?

[FS*]

Which leads to my earlier point. I may not know much about art, but I know what I like.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The bronze cast you see in the foreground is a sculpture of a person's head. I had to write a paper on it and a painting in this exhibit. It was one of the more interesting assignments I've had.

Mono, can you join in here?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Why is it that everyone is so illiterate when it comes to Art?

Because I'm red-green colorblind

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What makes one 'art' and the other not? Is LIT more avant garde? How so?

I'd say both are, but at different levels.
I don't claim to know what is Art; I'm asking 'why are we so illiterate'?

An illiterate being of course, someone who doesn't take time to think about what it really is, but rather tends to take what we'll give him as such.

What does it have to do with its artistic quality?

Well, we usually tend to see quality as the link between the form and the substance. In this case, there was a great technical talent put at the service of a brilliantly pure religious depiction.

[FS*]

You can be a starving artist on the edge of avant-garde,and maybe, if you're lucky, your work will be studied and admired by aspiring students in some ivory tower. But only after you're dead.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Because I'm red-green colorblind

Then, go back to the black and white classics.

[Dis]

Art Suxs

'nuff said

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by FS*
You can be a starving artist on the edge of avant-garde,and maybe, if you're lucky, your work will be studied and admired by aspiring students in some ivory tower. But only after you're dead.

And you can be a rich fatass like Mankiewicz, who will be laughed at in art classes.

[FS*]

So is it art to pump out wildlife prints in a production line and make a fortune, or is it art only if one is undiscovered, abstract, and broke?

[Imran Siddiqui]

An illiterate being of course, someone who doesn't take time to think about what it really is, but rather tends to take what we'll give him as such.

Because, as you've said, you don't know what art is. What does the person who doesn't care that much about art have a chance to understand what it is? They just know what they like. They know what is pretty. Is that art? They don't even care.

Well, we usually tend to see quality as the link between the form and the substance. In this case, there was a great technical talent put at the service of a brilliantly pure religious depiction.

Why does the substance (why it is done) matter? I don't think the 'why' matters in quality.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because, as you've said, you don't know what art is.

Well, at least I'm making some effort- I suppose my answers are at least slightly better than of those who think Pirates of the Caribbean is the greatest movie ever.

What does the person who doesn't care that much about art have a chance to understand what it is? They just know what they like. They know what is pretty. Is that art? They don't even care.

Actually, you may think of it in the form of Plato's Republic. They can't even see it, but they are using the word in a false sense, then start whining at the so-called intellectuals who have been thinking for real.

Why does the substance (why it is done) matter? I don't think the 'why' matters in quality.

The substance is probably of importance because, then, a beautiful human is a form of art, a chair is, a Campbell soup can is, etc.

[monolith94]

"I'll take an easy example: Lost in Translation or ROTK? There is a fine line between them; but history tends to favor the former over the latter (the eternal 'style' or substance question)."

You seem to have a couple problems here.

A) Style IS substance.
B) Lord of the Rings has neither.

This was my essay on the painting and the sculpture both entitled Gabrielle. I hope that it proves my art literacy.

Also, you're a buffoon to divide up modern and old so crudely.

In the twin portraits of Gabrielle, the subject of a bronze casting and pastel painting by John Wilson, a vision of aestheticism and simple, symmetrical human beauty prevails over all other aims. Wilson’s two Gabrielles do not concern themselves with practical ideas - rather, through stylistic elements, the artist explores the idea of space and volume in the human form, and how this can relate to personality and representation of the subject.
Depth in the pastel of Gabrielle provides the easiest contrast. Whereas the flat rectangle background provides very little dimension and perspective, the face and body exaggerate the space and volume of the subject. The plain yellow wall against which the subject is set in the pastel has very little to define it from the brown floor. In fact, because the floor uses the same clearly vertical brushstrokes of the wall, the entire setting serves to be as plain a possible backdrop as it can be. Because of this consistent background, the slight shallows and heights of the shirt and face become more striking. Wilson does not want to explore the relationship of the subject to surroundings, then, but rather arranges the whole structure of this pastel to lead the eye towards the haunting and elegant shapes of Gabrielle.
The use of shape effectively controls the wander of one’s eye to not spend much time on the place that surrounds Gabrielle, but rather the physical depth which she creates. Gabrielle’s body, as a whole, forms a diagonal square, consisting of the outlines of her hair, arms and folded up leg. Because this is the only major shape, and it exists in a neutral background, the message clarifies: the importance of the painting can be found here. Inside the square, one finds the meat of the painting. The broad and rough brushstroke of the outside changes into something more intricate and exploratory. Lines become more fluid, and not one portion of Gabrielle’s body seems to be without curves. Especially in her legs and hair, Gabrielle comes to life with bends and expressive indistinct shape. With these brushstrokes come the dark shadows which indicate that the body of Gabrielle forms a distinct and measurable volume.
Color also serves to define Gabrielle as distinct from the mundane background. The yellow of the background interferes neither with the very strong brown of Gabrielle’s skin nor with the glorious and forceful pink of her shirt. Indeed, the purity of the yellow wall emphasizes its two dimensional aspect, whereas the carefully controlled and maintained hues of pink and brown reinforce the sense of volume in Gabrielle herself. The most striking use of white space also juxtaposes the most striking use of black space - Wilson allows a thin line of white to surround Gabrielle’s triangle of hair, which effectively creates a barrier between Gabrielle and the wall. It is also worth noting that despite having such strong, saturated colors, they do not fight against each other, and never appear in contention. The colors do not intermingle, either - they exist separately, but cooperate in a very balanced and calm composition. This calmness of color provides excellent opportunity to take in the difference between the shallowness and depth of the painting which seems so important.
The symmetry of Gabrielle, and the order of the painting as a whole, contributes to an appreciation of the natural beauty of the human subject. Lies are not necessary to turn the subject into a beautiful woman - rather the calculation of structure to ensure that what makes the subject special and interesting is fully explored in the painting. Wilson’s use of texture is the final way that Gabrielle, as a painting represents the height of the beauty of a woman’s very existence. Broad, rough strokes which leave some of the canvas still visible give the background a raw, unrefined and ironically regular atmosphere. The transition to more detailed, thin and subtle brushwork builds upon the already rich depth which has been created by shape and color.
If John Wilson’s use of these elements to express the beautiful symmetry and natural space of a woman sitting alone in pastels is subtle, then it should be clear from the immediate sense of volume and depth of his bronze casting that this beauty can be obvious, as well. Because of the nature of bronze casting, the element of color is removed entirely. The absence of all difference in color serves as more than a convenience - it removes distraction from the large and present head which the artist has explored.
While the shapes of the pastel painting may have been organized through squares, in this sculpture the shape is triangular - almost cone like in the way that Gabrielle’s massive hair surrounds and frames her face. This envelopes the face so that the depth and volume taken up by the subject can be clear, and its importance realized. Also, without the background, this single form - a head - exists in solitude and peace. The peaceful expression of the face and the horizontal lines formed by the eyebrows and lips both serve to give focus to the clarity of this object’s simple beauty of existence.
Clarity of volume dominates in the bronze casting of Gabrielle. Not only is the head larger in size than normal, but the proportions of anatomy are exaggerated, while still maintaining a realistic look (which is important - to complete the appearance of something both everyday and sublime). A significant amount of space between the eye and eyelid gives the head depth - the prominence of the nose and the generous nature of the other facial features complement the depth. Because depth becomes so obvious when seen in the face of Gabrielle here, the opportunity exists to return to the pastel. The connection begins, and one realizes that the two are related. Gabrielle as rendered in pastel is a study of the volume of a human without, whereas when rendered in bronze, it is a study of the volume of a human with.
An aspect of this glorification of human beauty exists in the contrast between the smooth and the rough textures of the bronze casting. The surface of the skin is flawless, smooth and metallic, while the hair is rougher and much more wrinkled. When seen from behind the hair cascades in waves, loose and with liberty, whereas the front follows a very symmetrical design. The difference compels the viewer to circle the sculpture, further impressing the depth and therefore beautiful existence of the subject.
John Wilson’s twin portraits of Gabrielle give the distinct impression of being guided by the desire to capture a simple beauty. By focusing on the force of volume and depth in the presence of Gabrielle, he more fully realizes the natural beauty. Because of this focus, all other aspects of the painting, such as color, line and texture, work together to form something both harmonious and compelling.

[monolith94]

"Well, at least I'm making some effort- I suppose my answers are at least slightly better than of those who think Pirates of the Caribbean is the greatest movie ever."

Pirates of the Caribbean is a brilliant movie that is far smarter than anyone has given it credit for. I find it to be an amazing, engaging exploration of themes raised in "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" and "The Iliad".

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by monolith94
You seem to have a couple problems here.

A) Style IS substance.
B) Lord of the Rings has neither.

Well, this is a very perilous debate. I agree though that I have sinned, and that style and substance are much more linked than I had it in the first place.

Also, you're a buffoon to divide up modern and old so crudely.

There is a philologic problem on this: most of the art we remember is official art, while roaming actors, folk music, etc, is mostly forgotten.

Starting with the 19th century, the role of the artist changes: not necessarily that there had never been any avant garde before, but there is the curiosity of the avant garde gaining importance in art history books, only to be replaced every 20 years or so by something cooler.

You still have to probe I was a buffoon.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by monolith94
"Well, at least I'm making some effort- I suppose my answers are at least slightly better than of those who think Pirates of the Caribbean is the greatest movie ever."

Pirates of the Caribbean is a brilliant movie that is far smarter than anyone has given it credit for. I find it to be an amazing, engaging exploration of themes raised in "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" and "The Iliad".

Fine. You still know what I meant though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose my answers are at least slightly better than of those who think Pirates of the Caribbean is the greatest movie ever.

I'll take over greater 'art' like "The English Patient" or some such.

They can't even see it, but they are using the word in a false sense, then start whining at the so-called intellectuals who have been thinking for real.

Why are the masses using the word in the false sense while the intellectuals use it in the real sense? Who decides what is the real and false sense?

The substance is probably of importance because, then, a beautiful human is a form of art, a chair is, a Campbell soup can is, etc.

Can not a chair be a work of art?