More about art
Sep. 2nd, 2002 12:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynIf you haven't lat least glanced at the article I linked to in my previous entry, well, you really should at some point. Interesting stuff.
One point in particular caught my eye: "To truly judge your own feelings and opinion about a work of art, you need to look at it as if it were painted by a complete unknown, perhaps some student in another town, and then ask yourself what your opinion of that work would be then."
One of the stupidest notions in any field of art, in my opinion, is "The name makes it good." I remember hearing about a local museum which had received a donation of several "early Georgia O'Keefe works". These works were some of the of masterpieces this museum's collection (not a very big museum), and they were extremely proud of them. Recently, however, evidence indicated that these works might not be by Georgia O'Keefe after all.
And if they weren't by her, then they were worthless.
Excuse me? If they were great works when they were by Georga O'Keefe, they ought to still be great works if they're by Joe Schmoe. And if they stink now, that means they stunk before, too. Nothing about these pictures has changed, but their provenance has, and that makes all the difference. Garbage.
I do accept that there's a certain legitimate academic interest in the "early works" of a great artist or author. There's nothing inherently wrong with analyzing the ouevre of an artist as a whole, of trying to trace influences and ideas for later works back to the earlier ones. And, to that degree, I can see why a value is placed on otherwise unremarkable sketches and paintings.
But we're not talking about people who said "These works were noteworthy because they led to X or Y in her later career." No, these paintings were praised for themselves, for 'sensitivity' and 'power' and all that stuff critics like to talk about. They were considered Art, of interest to the public at large, not just to the critic or the student.
But if they're not by O'keefe, well, then, they're not of interest to anyone.
Bah.
One point in particular caught my eye: "To truly judge your own feelings and opinion about a work of art, you need to look at it as if it were painted by a complete unknown, perhaps some student in another town, and then ask yourself what your opinion of that work would be then."
One of the stupidest notions in any field of art, in my opinion, is "The name makes it good." I remember hearing about a local museum which had received a donation of several "early Georgia O'Keefe works". These works were some of the of masterpieces this museum's collection (not a very big museum), and they were extremely proud of them. Recently, however, evidence indicated that these works might not be by Georgia O'Keefe after all.
And if they weren't by her, then they were worthless.
Excuse me? If they were great works when they were by Georga O'Keefe, they ought to still be great works if they're by Joe Schmoe. And if they stink now, that means they stunk before, too. Nothing about these pictures has changed, but their provenance has, and that makes all the difference. Garbage.
I do accept that there's a certain legitimate academic interest in the "early works" of a great artist or author. There's nothing inherently wrong with analyzing the ouevre of an artist as a whole, of trying to trace influences and ideas for later works back to the earlier ones. And, to that degree, I can see why a value is placed on otherwise unremarkable sketches and paintings.
But we're not talking about people who said "These works were noteworthy because they led to X or Y in her later career." No, these paintings were praised for themselves, for 'sensitivity' and 'power' and all that stuff critics like to talk about. They were considered Art, of interest to the public at large, not just to the critic or the student.
But if they're not by O'keefe, well, then, they're not of interest to anyone.
Bah.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-02 01:05 am (UTC)Art-Fags. The term isn't nice, but it imparts the image of the gallery snob better than any other term I've heard. I don't have any respect for that crowd that insists only they can judge the worth of a piece, and the hoi poloi should shut up and bask in their magnimosity. I disagree with the other end of the spectrum that insists art be commercially viable; there is a higher purpose than simply making money. The value of a piece should be on it's technical merit - it either is or isn't thought provoking, well executed, or whatever. A famous signature on a piece of used toilet paper shouldn't make it valuable, but the way some gallery types behave you'd imagine it might.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-02 06:31 am (UTC)That's pretty much the sound-bite version of how I feel about art. I have a hard time with the concept of "art" in general, however. Sometimes I think that I have bought into both what the classicals say about the modernists, and what the modernists say abou the classicals. The result? I hate it all. :/
Ok, I'm not quite that bad. But it's still an issue for me.
Salon Selective
Date: 2002-09-02 05:54 am (UTC)Trickster
Re: Salon Selective
Date: 2002-09-02 06:20 am (UTC)In the meantime, however, you should get a chuckle out of this. The comic at the bottom, for august 14, is particularly pertinent. :)
Whoops, forgot, no links allowed in comments. Here it is: http://www.absurdnotions.org/page105.html
Re: Salon Selective
Date: 2002-09-02 06:30 am (UTC)Very amusing comic. :)
Trickster
Re: Salon Selective
Date: 2002-09-02 06:50 am (UTC)"Especially the one with the rotting peanut butter."
:)
Is Uriel Ok ?
Date: 2002-09-02 07:58 pm (UTC)(wry smile)
And much as it pains me to be on the same side as him, I have to agree, modern philosophy of art has huge problems, though where he and the author want it all retroactively deleted as absolutely worthless, I found there were artists I liked...Dali and Cesan, Klimt....I'm not well versed in names but I know there's a been a fair amount of stuff that was novel and interesting and had heart.
Yes, he says "I'm not condemning the whole genre out of hand" but that sounds about as weak as my conclusion in that essay on Stalin I told you about.
But, I can't blame him for feeling that way really. And I hope he is right and a rebirth of many classical concepts is in progress.
Certainly I'm reminded of that comment "Warhol's art wasn't art objects, but the process of making art" and you commented "the art of fooling people isn't a particularly entertaining one". And you're right, really.
Still, I hope the countermovement doesn't result in a flip flop. I like disonance, murkiness, and such. Just because there was a bizarre coup and arrogant depressed people dominated art is no reason there still shouldn't be some philosophical respect for some of their art...
(wry look)
Re: Is Uriel Ok ?
Date: 2002-09-03 07:35 pm (UTC)And, yes, I don't wholeheartedly approve of Fred Ross's sentiment either. Salvador Dali is an excellent example of a modern artist who showed obvious technical mastery. Dali's not the only artist of the modern or post-modern era whose art is novel, but not primitive. And primitivism isn't necessarily bad; it just shouldn't be the beginning and end of all new art, as it has been for most of the last century. Of course, Ross makes this point, too, even if it's not convincing after his blistering attack.
And some of Bouguereau's works are as banal as an Anne Geddes photograph.
(Ok, maybe not that bad. But those little cupids are appallingly cute in several cases.)
But, on balance, I think Ross has a point well worth making.