Lunchbox
You need to get out more.
You write off stuff as an attempt to be "over the top" but that is just the mainstream now. You are just out of touch.
If you saw more stuff, you would realize that the stuff that makes it to the biggest venues is not EVEN "over the top" but just part of the mainstream of NOW. Not then.
And those artists doing those attempts to be "over the top" often have a long and consistent track record. But then you wouldn't know because you have already thrown a blanket over it all, and then you go about attacking the blanket that you just threw over it.
Very tidy way to write off something that you dont understand. I deal with this all the time. Its a matter of lack of exposure.
I dont get the "rationalizing YOU" thing... can you explain yourself a bit on that?
Communicating with strangers
in the internet age is . . . pretty difficult. We don't know what part of the animal we're hearing from -- as in that allegory about the blind men describing the elephant, each from a different part of the beast ?
In the end we hear what we want, even if it isn't the (whole) truth.
I don't know, EH...
FWIW, I agree with you that nature trumps all artistic creation. But this whole over the top, controversial angle going mainstream just strikes me as the law of diminishing returns rearing its ugly head.
And the rationalization comment was referring to your assumptions. You assume that I can't see it. You assume that I haven't been exposed to much art I suppose. You assume that I haven't been properly educated perhaps. These are the things that you tell yourself from the off to diminish my opinion in your mind. It's a very common thought process.
When the truth is that I have. I got into it at a young age and I was immersed in it. Now I can't stand the stench of it. And you just don't like that.
that makes perfect sense
You rejected art, pretty much altogether.
It didn't work for you on some or many levels.
Its a hard road indeed.
(I have much the same issues with art, to this day, and im sure that is obvious)
It fails often.
But it sounds like a big overreaction to me. You sound more than a bit resentful in your tone. "The STENCH of it.... " etc.
But totally understandable why you would not want to go near it any more.
Nah, I never tried my hand professionally...
Even as a youngster I found the world of canvases and canvas appreciators bizarre. I suppose I should qualify my comments to such art or anything purely ornamental. Teachers were pressing me onward but I just couldn't see the point, even then.
I ended up as a writer/musician/quasi chef. And I deal in design. See the trend.
The art world
and the collector world always made me REALLY uncomfortable.
I dont produce much now. I am just a humble public servant now. LOL
I had some early successes, about ten years worth, but the whole thing was just a hell. I dont really like "art world" people either. I have to say...
Probably why I no longer participate, save the occasional faculty show, but those don't count.
I proved way too socially nervous to go to dinner at some collector's house and BS them all night just to sell a painting. I never could be one of those guys who had all the collector's kids names on a rolodex and would be greeting them off the elevator at the opening.
But I would never call the best art purely (or only) "ornamental". Sure it has to look "good" ... but I think a Soutine painting of a hanging bloody carcass of beef is a BEAUTIFUL "paint job" , even if the subject matter might not appeal to some.
Or Francis Bacon's "Screaming Pope" downright creepy, but GREAT PAINTING!!
Hardly what I would call ornament. Even though his paintings adorn some wonderfully considered spaces Im sure.
I think to be art, it cant be ONLY ornament.
Those LA light and space guys, in thier best works they make some stuff that stops you in your tracks. But in a good way i mean.
I have always believed that people who were good at one thing are good at many things. Sounds like you. So your dilemma is how to get the time to do all of these things I guess?
I have a house full of...
I have a house full of amazing pieces that I have uptraded over the years.More furniture than art but I am now looking more than ever at what I find inspiring or beautiful.
Most people who visit have no idea and don't get it but they are simply not interested or exposed to good design whatever the style.The average person buys what the average local shops pump out which is usually price and quality led downwards.
I find it kinda funny when I see some looks on their faces but I don't care.
When I walk through I am inspired and feel good looking at what I think are objects of beauty.That to me it's as natural as admiring nature in itself.
How and why those objects were created is important yet also in some way irrelevant as it can be analysed and dissected in many ways.
I believe it to be an acquired taste that changes over the years
That is due to what one is or chooses to be exposed to in a design context as well as personal taste which leads you in a certain direction.
Vintage Sergio Bustamante art or decor?
Who cares I personally love it.
Fiercely....
Ornamental.
Maybe that was your point.
But what about Francis Bacon?
Somehow I don't see Starline enjoying a great painting of a screaming Pope, or a well painted bloody animal carcass hanging in the meat locker.
Is that a sculpture then? Or a "WALL DECORATION" that makes no pretense to be sculpture?
Do you care?
This piece is perfect for this thread topic.
SDR
Im fine with not disputing taste. I totally agree with you on this one.
But I AM interested in the idea of what ART is. Or what constitutes an attempt at "art".
So it is important to me if Starline is saying that the deer head is ART-- or that it is just something that he/she enjoys. To me, it is a lot easier to make "an enjoyable THING"( or dare I say... "ornament") than it is to make Art.
Even the worst attempt at "art" deals with far more than than "I like it" or "I don't like it". Taste matters, but its not all there is. Like you say Starline, context matters.
Gustav Klimpt made decorative paintings that I would consider Art.
To me, to attempt only to make a "decoration" is in many ways aiming lower, or an easier goal, right from the start. Nothing wrong with decoration per se.
I am sincere in this, and I am trying to use restraint here.
No... really.....
I guess when it was made it...
I guess when it was made it was for decoration but what did Sergio consider himself when making the pieces.A sculptor,an artist or just a fabricator of decor.
I would think just a fabricator would be insulting but one would need to ask him of his thoughts.Could be a deep belief in creating something from his passion or would he say no I just slapped it together to hang on the wall and make some cash.
In reality any artist with say perfect intentions can get steered into making things that are commercially viable or they think will sell.
Some seem to think a true artist is anti run of the mill and goes against the grain.Even this may be looked at as being confronting with ones art simply for the purpose of being an artist.I personally feel much of it is like that but it's still irrelevant.Being an artist is not easy or a money spinner so I give respect to the ones that venture into it whatever the reason.
Most of us seek the safety or should I say common reality of the 9-5 job so good luck to those that can create.
if I overreacted earlier....
It is because it gets rather difficult to hear all of contemporary art so overly generalized into the attitude of "you know, THAT kind of stuff...." without a single visual example that could actually be discussed /critiqued in concrete terms.
On a board that demands specific examples when it comes to DESIGN, it seems pretty weird to be defending a whole genre-- based on nothing but generalized disgust.
Don't expect me to defend an invisible generalization. I wouldn't expect anyone here to defend an invisible design.
And by the same token, it is way too easy to post some horrible example of one-liner contemporary art, just as it is easy to find some lame painting somewhere. I am not interested in defending really shitty art. Why would I?
I never said ALL contemporary art was good. I just took offense at the blanket generalization.
I am reminded that Jackson Pollock used to get similar critiques all the time too. ("My kid brother could do that" ... "a monkey could do that...", etc.)
Well looking back after 60+ years, Pollock did okay.
But my reaction was less than nice, and I apologize. (Even if Lunchbox deserves it sometimes LOL ) And I don't want SDR to cringe at the thought of me teaching kids, if i ever did.
(PS I am out today for the next 14 hours-- so please do not interpret any silence on my part in the wrong way!)
The problem of
what is art, and what is craft, and what is neither solves itself when one looks at it all from the perspective of the maker.
People design (conceive and arrange) and paint and sculpt because they want to -- it pleases them and they know how to do it effectively -- not so different from cooking, sewing, or any other useful craft. That's where it started, after all.
Art (so-called) is the word we give to creation that's elevated beyond the "merely" utilitarian.
The motivation for any design or craft, beyond self-satisfaction, is need; someone, either the maker, or his client (actual or projected), wants something made. Thus, commercial art, illustration, decoration, etc.
That's all that is necessary to understand an object: why was it made. Once we know that, the terms Art, Craft, Decor become less important, and fall into place in the scheme of things. The painter needs and wants to make paintings, regardless of the market. The illustrator ditto, but in his case the skills are harnessed to create something the market wants.
The latin phrase "De gustibus . . ." ought to be separated from the idea of "taste," it seems to me; the original meaning was more along the lines of "There's no arguing with personal preference." "Taste," as we use it now, seems to mean personal preference filtered through, or subjected to, approval of a larger group . . . ?
SDR
Yes I agree with most of what you say here...
INTENT is pretty much the only issue (as a starting point at least) and without even getting to issues of quality.
The one thing I might add is CONTEXT.
A box of Tide laundry detergent was perhaps creatively designed, but it is not asking to be looked at like a painting. No matter how much the artist would like it to be seen for more than the role it plays, the way it gets assimilated has limits.
The box's main purpose is trying to stand out for a split second and make someone buy it. That role dominates its potential for meaning.
In this case, you could say that it doesn't matter if the artist tells you his intent is this or that, because the context overpowers the visuals. (Unless a particular applied design, over time, somehow transcends it's initial situation and gets appreciated in another way, with the help of time and distance.
I know that most laundry soap box designers are well aware of the limits on how their work will be assimilated. And are not expecting anything more to be read into their designs. (My dad designed a few of the many versions of the Clorox bottle, and Kikkomann Soy sauce labels. LOL)
There was something i didn't agree with too, but I have to re read to remember what it was... maybe Ill address that next...
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com