A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  Recent ActivityRecent Activity  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 What is Art?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 13, 14, 15
AuthorMessage
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis


Posts : 739
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 20 Feb 2017, 17:38

Now I haven't read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I mention something already alluded to earlier but I remember when I worked at the museum one book had mention of "Flint Jack's work". I looked "Flint Jack" up on the internet and found he was a nineteenth century forger of historic or prehistoric artefacts http://yorkshirereporter.co.uk/flint-jack-archaological-forger/ I've wondered if Jonathan Gash used him as partial inspiration for his "Lovejoy" series of novels.

On a slightly different topic, the cat with the child in the Judith Leyster picture is extraordinarily well behaved. My cat would be struggling to get away!
Back to top Go down
Minette Minor
Consulatus
avatar

Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-01-04

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 27 Mar 2017, 22:58


  • If I could chose anything to burgle it would it have to be Uccello's, "Hunt In the Forest", the colours and dreamlike quality  and the bust of Lorenzo de Medici, where he looks as though he's thinking of a funny thought or joke, his face so softened and real. Both at the Ashmolean in Oxford and totally amazing. I saw them first when when so so young and no one told me what I should like and I saw them in October when I was 60 and loved them even more. 
      
Back to top Go down
Minette Minor
Consulatus
avatar

Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-01-04

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 27 Mar 2017, 23:11

Why do so many people become pretenitous about Art which is meant to be for fun and enjoyment not an investment? 
Is it subjective or objective?
But does it matter today when the worst scribblings of Guaghan can go for millions?
I am at a complete loss.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Tue 28 Mar 2017, 07:41

MM wrote:
Is it subjective or objective?

Subjective, as the length of this thread addressing the subject proves.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Tue 28 Mar 2017, 14:39

nordmann wrote:
MM wrote:
Is it subjective or objective?

Subjective, as the length of this thread addressing the subject proves.

Surely it's both? We judge artistic technique objectively; our emotional response, however, is subjective.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Wed 29 Mar 2017, 07:55

Temp wrote:
Surely it's both? We judge artistic technique objectively; our emotional response, however, is subjective.

We like to think that we can judge objectively, whether it is the technique employed or indeed any other strictly non-aesthetic aspects to art which we may at times consider. However while this may be true of the professional restorer, or paint manufacturer examining the pigments applied, or the stone mason appreciating a sculptor's clever use of a stone's grain and texture in creating a piece for presentation, the truth is that that which is presented as art, per se, invites an aesthetic consideration on our part which is almost impossible to avoid, even by those listed above who ultimately also have to appreciate that what they are examining has been provided for such examination due to its supposed artistic merit.

The thread title posited "What is Art?" and the basic truth of the matter is that "art" is primarily that which is presented to us as "art", and that this act of presentation carries with it an almost unavoidable inclination to "judge" the work's merits or demerits with that in mind. Hence the unavoidability also of being subjective, even when valiantly trying to remain as objective as possible in the consideration of certain aspects to the work unrelated to its appeal to the aesthetic.

The unavoidability is probably best illustrated when an object not purposely intended to be considered "art" in its manufacture is then held up for consideration in that light. In other words an object which was never intended to be judged in any way except objectively is now presented, without changing one single thing in its design or manufacture, to be judged aesthetically. In response to this invitation, and before one can arrive at a verdict at all, one has more or less to promote one's subjectivity above one's objectivity in order to tackle the exercise at all, let alone arrive at a conclusion.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Thu 30 Mar 2017, 09:15

Minette Minor wrote:
Why do so many people become pretenitous about Art which is meant to be for fun and enjoyment not an investment? 
Is it subjective or objective?
But does it matter today when the worst scribblings of Guaghan can go for millions?
I am at a complete loss.



But is art meant for "fun and enjoyment", Minette? Is the artist simply saying, "Let me entertain you?" Surely it's more! Is it being "pretentious" to suggest that?

I still puzzle over Francis Bacon (the painter, not the other one, although I puzzle over him, too): I loathe Bacon's paintings, but they have a horrible fascination for me - I think because he was unflinching in his terrible vision of what it means to be "human". His dark vision is only one version of that reality, of course. Bacon admitted he never learnt "to draw". Does that confirm his status as another mere "scribbler"?

Scribbling is an odd word to use of Gauguin. I've always been uncomfortable with his work, too. But perhaps discomfort is what art is all about. Superb craftsmanship, on the other hand, inspires joy, does it not? Can acute discomfort be felt simultaneously with joy? Don't know - it's too early for such discussion.

This Telegraph piece has a very odd title: "Is it wrong to admire Paul Gauguin's art?" Gauguin the man could be judged to be a thoroughly bad egg, all right, but does that disqualify him as an "artist"? Can bad (or baddish) eggs produce good art? In fact, are they usually the best at it?

PS At least Francis Bacon's work hasn't ended up as a suitable material for fridge magnets (as far as I know).



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8011066/Is-it-wrong-to-admire-Paul-Gauguins-art.html
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Thu 30 Mar 2017, 10:45

Buying Gaugin's stuff these days is hardly going to encourage him in his bad habits any more. I reckon Mr Smart can actually rest easy and stop worrying so much. Anyway - Alistair is British so really has more important things to be worrying about at the minute. For one thing, he should probably revise his rather pompous use of "we aesthetes" when starting a sentence, or in connection with anything else for that matter.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Thu 30 Mar 2017, 17:07

nordmann wrote:
Buying Gaugin's stuff these days is hardly going to encourage him in his bad habits any more. I reckon Mr Smart can actually rest easy and stop worrying so much. Anyway - Alistair is British so really has more important things to be worrying about at the minute. For one thing, he should probably revise his rather pompous use of "we aesthetes" when starting a sentence, or in connection with anything else for that matter.


I think he was using "we aesthetes" in a self-deprecating way - perhaps?

As for pomposity, well, we all have our pompous moments now and again. I know I do, especially when I'm trying to be profound about art.

Or profound about anything for that matter.


hamlet
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Sat 01 Apr 2017, 08:31

Pompous has been word of the week: Minette used it of Ann Wroe's writing style and now Alistair Smart's prose (or a bit of it) has been so critically described. Perhaps these days "pompous" is synonymous with "sounding a bit too educated". But that's no doubt a really pompous remark.

The art world - and the world of art appreciation - is indeed full of  intense and wordy types who often don't have much of a sense of humour - especially about themselves.

The Guardian, ever helpful, has offered this about "International Art Language".

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/27/users-guide-international-art-english

One of the comments after the article:

Guardian Pick

Just for a laugh I put a printout from www.artybollocks.com on the wall for an open studio event. I left the reference to its source at the bottom of the page but some visitors, presumably used to the pretentious nonsense that some artists use, thought it was real. If you haven't visited this site then please amuse yourself by doing so.


https://artybollocks.com/
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Sat 01 Apr 2017, 10:02

I have just generated this, helped by artybollocks. Can be used for a bit of pottery, a poem or a mural - anything really.

Artist Statement

My work explores the relationship between postmodern discourse and recycling culture.

With influences as diverse as Rousseau and L Ron Hubbard, new insights are distilled from both explicit and implicit narratives.

Ever since I was a postgraduate I have been fascinated by the unrelenting divergence of the moment. What starts out as yearning soon becomes debased into a hegemony of lust, leaving only a sense of waste, with only a forlorn hope of any new beginning.

As intermittent replicas become frozen through emergent and diverse practice, the viewer is left with an epitaph for the possibilities of our world.



Last edited by Temperance on Sun 02 Apr 2017, 10:27; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Sat 01 Apr 2017, 10:10

Temp wrote:
Perhaps these days "pompous" is synonymous with "sounding a bit too educated".

You could be on to something here. Explain what you mean by "too" educated. At what point, do you reckon, is it safe to stop learning so one can avoid this accusation? Or alternatively, at what point should one stop making noises and thereby conceal this excess of knowledge?

And in what way did Alistair Smart reveal he was over-educated? I missed that in the article.

Or maybe "pompous" doesn't mean that at all ....

... we aesthetes obviously know best.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5296
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Sat 01 Apr 2017, 11:33

Oh, nordmann, I don't know the answers to any of your - or anyone else's - questions; and I have never pretended that I do.

At what age is it too late to start pretending?

I just thought artybollocks was (quite) funny - my error.

EDIT: I have now added the word "quite"  to my post. Nothing quite like damning with faint praise.   Smile


Last edited by Temperance on Sat 01 Apr 2017, 13:35; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Put the dash in the wrong place as usual.)
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Sat 01 Apr 2017, 11:44

The bollocks generator is quite funny, I thought too.

The Grapevine Arts Studio in Dublin many years ago, I recall, got into trouble with the artsy set when they mounted an exhibition of the works of several contemporary artists of the time. The exhibition was actually quite impressive, or at least so much was agreed by both the aesthetes and the more commercially minded aficionados who attended. What bugged both of these however was the expensive "programme" on sale which, on the cover, stated that it contained within it vital information if one was to properly "understand" each work on display.

Each item catalogued in the programme was tagged with the line "Grapevine's View: go look at it".
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1888
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Fri 14 Apr 2017, 11:23

What is Art? Stunned by the film Andrei Rublev, perhaps I have found an answer. Being abroad when this was shown at Cannes,  I recorded it in ignorance of its quality out of curiosity. This 3 hour revelation of the power of  film making as an art form about an the 15th C life and times of a talented Russian church painter brought me to tears, real an emotional. It must surely rank among the best films ever made. An art film about the brutal environment that shapes a fine artist, it is stunning. Each episode is a revelation by reflecting an aspect that both gut-tightens knowledge about the agony of Russian history and what touched the artist. The final episode of the casting of a great bell in scale, tension and extraordinary detail is a masterpiece. 
 The black and white  torment of emotion  ends with  a detailed scanning of  Andrei's  vibrant and extraordinary  work and fades with a beautiful glimpse of horses in a stream enlivened by a cloudburst. Made in 1966 has this art-film been yet bettered? I think not.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1769
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Fri 14 Apr 2017, 22:39

Priscilla wrote:
What is Art? Stunned by the film Andrei Rublev, perhaps I have found an answer. Being abroad when this was shown at Cannes,  I recorded it in ignorance of its quality out of curiosity. This 3 hour revelation of the power of  film making as an art form about an the 15th C life and times of a talented Russian church painter brought me to tears, real an emotional. It must surely rank among the best films ever made. An art film about the brutal environment that shapes a fine artist, it is stunning. Each episode is a revelation by reflecting an aspect that both gut-tightens knowledge about the agony of Russian history and what touched the artist. The final episode of the casting of a great bell in scale, tension and extraordinary detail is a masterpiece. 
 The black and white  torment of emotion  ends with  a detailed scanning of  Andrei's  vibrant and extraordinary  work and fades with a beautiful glimpse of horses in a stream enlivened by a cloudburst. Made in 1966 has this art-film been yet bettered? I think not.

Priscilla,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film)



Kind regards from your friend Paul.
Back to top Go down
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1888
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Fri 14 Apr 2017, 23:12

Aye, Paul that gives a taste, thankyou, - but this one is an edited version. In the first episode of the full length one,  his (whoever he is) is also seen filling a skin balloon that soon falls but he does for a few fleeting moments look down and sees far. What each incident refers to is not explained nor always clear but left to the viewer . We are, of course, also being introduced to peasant attitudes to anything new or inventive, religious bonds and a notion that we also  need to see a breadth of landscape to understand he particular.. Much of the film is presented in the broad scenic style of the Breugals - replicated indeed. The full length  edition is stunning stuff.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 24 Apr 2017, 14:12

Andrei Rublev - the man, not the film - is a very good example of how art appreciation uses standards and rules that often well exceed appreciation as applied to other disciplines.

Rublev in fact can almost be regarded as a blank canvas in his own right. We know precious little about his life or his career. We know absolutely nothing about any icon he ever produced except just the one - the Trinity portrayal now hanging in a Moscow gallery. Yet he is credited with having singlehandedly created the apogee of iconic art to which all subsequent artists in the field could afterwards only aspire. He is credited also therefore with having directly influenced many artists in his wake, some of them who at least have left numerous works behind them which we too can appreciate, and which we often have to admit far transcend Rublev's one example with which to compare them in execution, composition, style and "nobility", as Ruskin would have said.

Without wishing to detract from the esteem in which Rublev is held (as of 1988 he is now a Russian Orthodox saint, no less) it is clear that somewhere along the line the adulation and extreme appreciation afforded the individual went far beyond the evidence of his talent, or even of his character - one confined to a single painting and the other confined to generated hearsay. In fact it is no wonder he presented such a golden opportunity for Tarkovsky to create what is, I agree, a splendid film. The director, after all, had the full gamut of fantasy afforded by myth to work with, and was not inconveniently restricted to the actions, deeds and thoughts of a mere mortal, a restriction within which many of the devices he used in the film would have been rightly dismissed as exaggerations and pretentious conjecture.

The clue as to how this mythical being overtook the mortal man in what we mean when we say "Andrei Rublev" is to be found on the Wikipedia page devoted to him. There, you will find this image of his Trinity ...



... and it is indeed stunning. But what you will also find are sixteen or so "other works", even though the article itself correctly states that only one can be authenticated. These icons, some of whose creators are known by name, are yet collectively assigned the imprimatur of Rublev, and with this they receive by proxy a portion of the exaggeratedly glowing esteem reserved for that artist alone. This is not to say they are inferior works, or not worthy of comparison with the Rublev oeuvre - restricted to one icon as it is. But it does indicate how, with art in particular, the lustre of a genius's work can, by association, be made to apply to others.

Rublev is an extreme example, though we get the same also with Giotto, Caravaggio, Picasso, Warhol, and a few other artists whose reputations rest with having inspired impersonation (in which the so-called impersonator has often exceeded these "original" works, even in terms of originality). Conversely the "impersonators", by virtue of being automatically linked so closely with that lustre, benefit often within their own lifetimes enormously, both in terms of prestige and livelihood.

Knowing that this process exists, and more importantly how it works, should really call into question the level of appreciation and praise heaped upon both the "genius" artist and his or her declared protegees. In most fields this would be true (literature, for example, has a way of dealing with impersonation that is anything but supportive of the impersonator if the charge is made to stick) and will never judge "genius" purely on the basis of how much impersonation it provokes.

Yet in art this seems to occur with undiminished frequency throughout history. A sign of a unique characteristic of the visual medium? Or a sign of a business unto itself?
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2550
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 01 May 2017, 20:48

Should I be embarrassed to confess that I did not realise that there is an official Election Artist and has been since 2001? This time round it's Cornelia Parker, best known, to me anyway, for her Exploded shed. As a conceptual artist, what should she offer us, I wonder? Boris's head in a tank of formaldehyde might appeal.

The previous incumbent,  Adam Dant (I'm afraid I didn't know him at all) produced this, The Government Stable - rather Augean than Strong and Stable I would surmise.





Could Ms Parker perhaps transform Hogarth's Chairing of the Member into a performance piece with Teresa up atop, flailing around with her knickers on display as the rest of the cabinet scurry away squealing?
I would not begrudge my taxes being spent on that.



Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Tue 02 May 2017, 11:47

Hogarth's characters always came to a sticky end - we can only live in hope.

Who pays the "official election artist" by the way?
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2550
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Tue 02 May 2017, 11:59

It would appear that this is financed by the Speaker's Art Fund. The financial details are here


The Speaker's Art Fund is a charitable trust. It came into existence in 1929 and became registered as a charitable trust in November 2004.

The Trustees are: The Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Director General of HR and Change. The Fund sits alongside the Works of Art Committee and the Heritage and Works of Art Trust as a means by which the House acquires works of art.
Back to top Go down
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2550
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 11:06

Were the Pictish synbol stones once painted? If they were, I would like to think that the choice of colours was as tasteful as in these recreations.



Painted Pictish stones


It would seem to me to be perfectly plausible and I am reminded of the replica of Harald Bluetooth's Jelling stone which is painted in a similar palette.

Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 13:18

If the Picts (of all people) didn't paint their stone carvings then they were almost unique in Europe. Right up to "classical" Greek and Roman statuary, tomb engravings etc, we know that all underwent a few coats of the stuff and often in very garish combinations of colours. Even the Newgrange entrance stone - Kerbstone K1 to those of us who once meticulously copied every carved inscription from the site onto life-size images for an exhibition in Dublin many solstices ago - which is believed to be over 5,000 years old, was probably for its first three millennia brightly painted (based on some chemical analysis of its ruts from about twenty years ago) and, we assume, this was religiously (quite literally) re-applied a few thousand times during this period.

It was actually analysis of this process and the materials used based on residue that helped copper-fasten the previously suggested theory that Newgrange had fallen out of use when the "Celts" arrived and remained so for well over a thousand years, until into the early Iron Age in fact, when it again started getting some regular TLC from locals via a few dollops of early Gaelic Dulux.

Once this theory had been established as very likely pre-historic history it opened the door to further informed conjecture regarding just who was living in the area over the 3,000 years in question, and moreover how they interacted with their environment, to a point that we have now a rather cogent and clear idea of the whole sequence, something we didn't really have before we had a look at their paintwork. A lot to be said for paint!

And this is also why we now know that if anyone dares suggest the below is the epitome of "Celtic art" you are quite within your anthropological rights to shoot the eejits!


Acknowledgement: Photograph by spudmurphy - Flickr.com, CC BY-SA 2.0 uploaded to Wikimedia
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Meles meles
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2843
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 13:52

Putting a coat of paint onto carvings and statuary to make them look a bit more lifelike does seem to be regular thing to do ... weren't the bas reliefs on ancient Egyptian temple walls coloured in, and wasn't the Parthenon frieze originally over-painted too? The statues adorning Roman temples were certainly coloured to make them look lifelike, and even more recently the statuary on medieval cathedrals was also usually painted, often in garishly bright colours ... at least until the Puritans objected (though they were upset by the carved statues and graven images themselves, rather then the colouration).
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 14:24

Indeed - even these lads were known to have worn a lick or two of Weathercoat in their day:

Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2550
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 15:52

Indeed it is ancient as the plastered and ochered skulls from Catalhoyuk and Jericho attest however when it comes to classical sculpture, discussing their original appearance vis-a-vis their present whiteness and how their appreciation has affected, and been affected by, ideas of ethnicity and race, can precipitate a stream of abuse as Prof. Sarah Bond recently discovered when she published this article in an arts journal.

This is one of the more restrained responses but you can imagine how it was treated by Fox News and other even more extreme outlets and the death threats that duly followed
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5684
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 21:42

Why do pink people call themselves white anyway? Pasty pink, maybe, but never white. Never got that one.

Marble is indeed very white, but was painted.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1769
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: What is Art?   Mon 26 Jun 2017, 22:08

Meles meles wrote:
Putting a coat of paint onto carvings and statuary to make them look a bit more lifelike does seem to be regular thing to do ... weren't the bas reliefs on ancient Egyptian temple walls coloured in, and wasn't the Parthenon frieze originally over-painted too? The statues adorning Roman temples were certainly coloured to make them look lifelike, and even more recently the statuary on medieval cathedrals was also usually painted, often in garishly bright colours ... at least until the Puritans objected (though they were upset by the carved statues and graven images themselves, rather then the colouration).


And the Terra cotta warriors, Meles meles...


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/terra-cotta-warriors/mazzatenta-photography
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/shaanxi/xian/terra_cotta_army/face_2.htm


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
 

What is Art?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 15 of 15Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 13, 14, 15

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of expression ... :: The Arts-