May 22, 2007
-
What makes Art, Art?
When discussing this topic, I have to guard against getting too involved in technical details - both in regard to the place of Art in any Culture, and in the technical considerations of "What makes a good painting".
There is one generality about Art that is to me self-evident:
Art mirrors the culture of the artist. The best art is always a really good distillation of the artist's culture and is recognized as such by viewers later in time. That's why artists unappreciated during their own life (van Gogh sold only one of his paintings) are now among the most recognized symbols of their time.
Van Gogh painted or only five or ten years and died only 117 years ago, a fairly young man; but his few paintings generate in most of us an instant recognition of the "feeling" of his world. He influenced the Symbolists, Fauvists, Expressionists, the Abstract painters, the Surrealists and the Abstract Expressionists. He was easily one of the most important painters of all time.
People, even most serious art critics, have trouble recognizing the essence of their culture and tend to prefer the art they are familiar with - generally that which is "tried and true". Artists know this and in our time tend to "do their own thing" which depending on their cultural attunment, may or may not "Live".
I could go on about Modern Art and whether or not sloppy silk-screens of Marilyn Monroe or giant murals of strips of bacon or different colored super-imposed squares were mirrors of our culture of the last half of the Twentieth Century, but we are still too close to that era to tell, so I'll point out what lived and died a hundred years ago.
During the mid and late nineteenth century, the most popular paintings were "Academic" adhering to rigid rules of composition, technique and content. This type of painting required little original talent and was easy to crank out. To me those paintings show little or no vibrancy or "soul". They don't say very much.
Most of the dusty paintings and sculptures you find in antique shops are this sort of thing. Come to think of it, there is still a strong demand for this type of decorative "flower" art - see any commercial art gallery.
While Victorian homes were filling up with reproductions of David and other Neoclassical and Baroque painters; van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Gauguin, (to name just the French impressionists) were all "starving in drafty garrets".
Picasso, the artist who dominated the twentieth century, painted long enough to be recognized (He was painting in 1901 and when he died in 1973 was still painting and world famous). In my opinion his Art ranged from very very good to really really awful, but in all of his art there is no doubt that he is saying something.
Having said all this, I'll name my three very favorite artists: J.M.W. Turner, Winslow Homer, and John Singer Sargent. Who are yours?
Comments (20)
Thanks for the tip! I'll reply to your comment on my site, thanks!
I understand what you mean when you sat that art mirrors the culture of the artist, but would you also agree that two or more individuals from the same cultural background can view the same work in a completely different way? What is it that would make one person see a painting as a work of art and another person see it as just so much junk?
Art is like pornography. I know it when I see mhy copy of "Jugs, Jugs, Jugs" arrive in the mail.
Reluctant, maybe one is more perceptive than the other? You do have a point though, critics and "experts" usually become more expert and more in agreement as the art work gets older and older. Hardly anyone sneers at Michaelangelo and Mozart any more even though their art and historical period might not be to everyone's taste.
Sheri, that's all right, we know you just read Jugs for the articles on women's health
Seriously though, many people say, as with porn: "I know art when I see it". I think they unconsciously recognize the cultural mirror. They have been acculturated to respond to certain forms labeled beautiful.
I might choose this topic ..not sure. I did want to simply make an observation of your mind though. ...and please ...don't get upset with me. I've noticed, not only with you, but folk like you tend to associate "rigid rules" with "little original". Prior to something you wish to bash you say "rigid rules". Rigid rules are good for art once the artist has identified the objective. I think one has to learn the steps to the dance before originality comes and grows into genius. This is consitant in everything from sales, to sports, to art. People always talk about returning to the roots when they've lost their touch. Rigid rules are important to musicians.
There is more to beauty - and to art - than what we see through conditioning. Small children can admire Michealangelo's work, because they realize that it takes real talent to do something like that. That's part of what makes art, art - that not everyone can produce it. Of course art goes beyond that. I can make a drawing that resembles the intended object, but there's nothing really artistic about it. Art, like poetry, must do more than merely describe.
There is an order to beauty. It's why we find beauty in mathematics and music. The thing that people ultimately look for in art is beauty - and beauty is somethiing that we can seldom articulate. We just "know it when we see it".
Actually, I read that one Braille copy of "Playboy" for the articles, but that was by accident. "Raised bumps" my ass.
I don't know much about art, but the posters I have hanging up are mostly Van Gogh, Monet and Zen stuff.
To go on somewhat of a tanget, I have had the same problem but in a wider sense: why do some people consider some things junk but that same thing is considered a treasure to others? I find this popping up in conversations over movies and books. Some people may love a certain movie but other people hate it and each side will attribute their like or dislike to the movie itself. When people watch something they usually have a set of expectations that they expect the show or movie to fulfill. For example, some people like everything to be action oriented and will be bored if there's a lag in the action, so for those people they will not like slower paced movies. Other people may be watching something for the feelings generated within them, they sort of vicariously live through the character's ups and downs and when the emotions feel real to them then they like the series. I think most people don't realize that they have these hidden assumptions within them about what they are looking for when they watch something. People tend to judge things subjectively based on their own special set of criteria but think they are judging it objectively. In fact, I observe that most arguments arise due to the fact that people tend to say something is objectively bad or good when in actuality it's a subjective analysis and their underlying assumptions were not brought up in the discussion.
But to bring it back to art, I think in some ways art is similar in that each person has a interanalized set of assumptions, a check list if you will, of what is considered good art and what is not.
I always liked artists that could transport me to strange worlds. I like Salvador Dali because of his surrealism. It always looked like his paintings were based on a mushroom trip.
I think order is a part of art but it obviously not the most important part. I suppose quality is another foundational aspect of art? Does a particular soul come through quality of art? When you look at a Rembrandt, and then a Rembrandt knockoff, you can so tell the difference. I first saw Rembrandt at the National Gallery, and the darkness and shadows vs light in those paintings were so vivid - amazing to see up close and in person. No photograph could do it justice. But if I were to see a Rembrandt knockoff, I think I'd know the difference - unless the quality is really good. But perhaps there was another unknown artist out there at the same time who could paint even better than Rembrandt. So why is Rembrandt celebrated and that unknown artist was not? Could it be because perhaps Rembrandts paintings were saved, while that unknown person's somehow were lost? Isn't part of being celebrated as a great artist just great luck?
Hmm, two things came to mind. One was that the last time I went to a museum it suddenly occurred to me that what we are viewing isn't the same as the actual original. Paintings do deteriorate over time. So if something was considered magnificent when it was first painted and doesn't seem like much right now, that might just be because what we are viewing right now doesn't look like the way the artist originally intended it to look.
And the other thing that came to mind is that just because a piece of artwork is popular doesn't mean it's good art. For an artist to become popular a lot of it has to do with having the right connections. I was thinking the exact same thing when I was watching figure skating. I remember the lady announcer saying something along the lines of how a particular skater is the best from his country. But how can she actually make that claim? They only know of him because he's in the olympics, but I'm sure there are a lot of skaters who are even better who did not decide to compete in the olympics.
Oh boy! I get the chance to lecture! Brace yourselves
Creed= When I said 19th century academic art was obsessed with rigid rules - I meant just that. Actually because the craft of painting is fairly difficult to learn, all painters start with having the "basics" drilled into them. I suppose those "basics" which are selected are what make Art of different eras easy to identify. Academic Art usually has the connotation of rigid adherence to the rules set down in the academy and painters are judged according to those rules.
Sheri= You are quite right about the importance of certain structure being considered "beautiful" even across cultural lines - the Greeks discovered the "Golden Mean" and expanded on it. We have since identified the same sort of affinity in colors and musical chords.
LostT= de gustibus non est disputandum
Squeak= Did you ever look at Maxfield Parrish's stuff? He wasn't a surrealist but his painting (which is super-realistic + ) is better than Dali's.
Dali was a remarkable draftsman who, like Thomas Kincade, tended to repeat himself. He was a showman first and a painter second. One of the most popular paintings in the Smithsonian's National Gallery is his crucifixion. Elegant but sort of mindless IMHO.
LostT= You are certainly right. Squeak's comment about her first viewing of a Rembrandt is an example. Most Rembrandts need cleaning badly and when they are cleaned (very carefully) back to their original state sometimes have to be re-named. His "Night Watch" for example had to be renamed "Day Watch" as it was not a nighttime scene, rather one showing the figures in bright daylight. The Portland (ME) gallery has a good collection of Winslow Homer Watercolors which are in an inside, dimly lighted gallery; but are also covered with heavy canvas which you have to lift to get a look at them - all because Homer used poor quality paper. And of course all those Greek statues were originally brightly painted - they probably looked like store manikins.
The rule about worth and popularity is to my mind true only in that most people are sort of conservative in their art appreciation and tend to give worth to the opinion of "experts" or what they've been taught is worthy. Sort of like wine snobs.
I see I've more or less attacked all of your comments. I suppose that's what happens when you climb up on a hobbyhorse and I do apologize. Art is one of thse areas where opinion seems to rule and I'll try hard to justify my opinions if anyone wants to question them. Actually, I like most Art - even Thomas Kincade (well ... maybe I won't go quite that far but I bet you could could weave a neat doormat out of one of his paintings - no wait, I think he already has, you can get them at KMart)
Back on track - Does anyone want to mention or comment on their favorite painter? Musician? Architect?
The art of the late twentieth century is still pretty much too young to judge, but there are some indications:
Probably our perception of visual arts will be enlarged to include film and electronic media as more "Arty" than is currently the case.
Serious musicians will probably include John, Paul, George and Ringo. I'm not sure about the Stones.
I think Andy Warhol will have had his 15 minutes.
I think Frank Lloyd Wright will become more appreciated (this is a safe prediction - it's already happening)
Beauty will always remain in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder's vision will probably change in ways we can't predict.
Art, like music, is a matter of preference and is very subjective. Ask any teenager what constitutes good music and then ask a senior citizen, and I can almost guarantee that the answers will be very different.
Do you think that it is really possible to quantify art?
Art isn't really very hard to quantify - at least no one seems to think so. Of course everyone as his own criteria - Cost, Popularity, judgment of "experts", Personal taste, etc. I will go back to my original contention - Art that is respected and admired a century or more after it was created is probably better than art that died with its era.
I think that is true of all art forms. That's why Shakepeare is still being performed. It's why American Gothic is still valued. My husband and I were just ommenting on the popularity of Greensleeves even though it was written centuries agao. It's why people tour Frank Lloyd Wright houses.
Do you think that we can successfully predict what will survive from our current art forms?
Predictions about the future worth of paintings is, of course, very difficult, but the criteria is, to my mind, fairly obvious:
Art which will "live" has to relate to its cultural milieu according to the future viewer. This of course depends on what said viewer knows and feels about the artist's era.
Art which will "Live" has to either please or send a message (both would be nice).
A case in point is the painting and crafts of Mary Ann Robertson (You probably have heard of "Grandma Moses? That's her) She was born in 1860 and lived until 1961 - long enough to pass through a couple of eras and was unique among "important" painters in that she was pretty much self-taught, deliberately copied pictures she found pleasing while giving her own colorful twist to them, and selected subjects which fit modern American perception of bygone rural New England.
Grandma Moses tended to ignore draftsmanship and composition niceties and paint her own thing the way she liked. Her art is widely reproduced and still very popular (at least with adults). I predict she will continue to survive..
I'll give you another artist from recent times that will still be around in the future: Edward Hopper.
I'll give you one who won't: Andy Warhol - though he will probably be imposed on art historians and humanities students for a few decades.
You don't think Cambell's soup cans are great art????
A comment on my favorite painter? As I have said elswehere, I an not really a connoisseur of art. I like the way that Monet uses color. My favorite American artist is probably Norman Rockwell. I have an edition of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that was illustrated by him. I really think that he captured American small town life beautifully.
I actually do not display pictures by well known artists in my home, though. I prefer to buy local art from places that I visit because it has memories for me. I doubt that any of it will become famous.
I think the great American illustrator was N.C. Wyeth, father of Andrew (Christina's World) and grandfather of Jaime (Who's a better painter than his famous father IMHO) but Rockwell, Parrish and Pyle are also superb.
N.C. is the one that did all those neat illustrations of "Treasure Island" "Kidnapped" etc for the Harper children's books which are still in print.
Yes, I have the Treasure Island. Nice illustrations.
Part of the reason that I like Norman Rockwell is that we always subscribed to Saturday Evening Post, so I saw his covers regularly. I think that many times we appreciate art because it brings back a memory.
How To File A Patent Application