I should know better
I was going to stay away from this discussion because, like the one about the Noguchi pedestal, I get incredibly frustrated reading ill informed opinion presented as statement of fact.
However as a studio artist of 25 years with a master's degree to prove that I know what I'm talking about ... ha!... I just want to respond to what tktoo wrote when they said, "Art is any product put forth as such by its maker."
They are absolutely correct. The only thing to add is that it should read "Art is any product or IDEA put forth as such by its maker, or identified by others as art." since conceptual art freed us of the need for a physical object and outsider art is often made by those with little or no self awareness or artistic intentions, just a compulsion to create.
tktoo should have left it at that because when they added, "there can be neither good nor bad art." they are unfortunately very wrong.
Despite pluralist attitudes that are often expressed these days, one can apply qualitative measures such as good and bad, successful or not, to a work of art. Subjective opinions, likes and dislikes, are irrelevant and should not be a measure of the quality of a work. There is plenty of good art that I personally do not care for. However I recognize that it is still "good". Bad art can be recognized and that designation has nothing to do with my personal, subjective opinion. Hell, I may even personally like some "bad" art.
the art of Nature..
or rather the acceptance of Nature as art could hinge on ones spiritual beliefs, no?
if nothing else, my most loved form of "art" is the art of everyday. the "art" of life and the living. everything you can hold, see, smell is the stuff of art and the very unsung inspiration of any other thing traditionally accepted as art.
boy do i feel like a hippy.
Yes you should know better, Pegs...
(-;
But you raise some very good points. Preference should definitely play no part. Viewing a piece for the first time should be an act of appraisal; an exercise in academically weighing up not only the finished product itself but the process by which it came to be and why and then finally what it has to say.
If you look up art in the Oxford or any academic reference, process is always mentioned... without fail. This is where conceptual art troubles me as well as many in the art world at times. Much of this conceptual so-called art requires little to no process whatsoever. The term offers far too much leeway.
The more near blank canvas "paintings" I see or fire hydrants which have been "conceptually articulated" by their supposed "creators", the more I hate this conceptual so-called art. Just an example of course, but there are many more. And no, I'm not saying that all conceptual art is a farce. Some of it is well done and deserves high praise.
But that said, I would be so bold as to say that as we can decipher good art from bad we can also draw a line at some point and say, "No, this doesn't qualify."
.
This is why I like these threads, thanks Pegboard.
I try to enjoy something first though, just for the pleasure of it and leave the pondering to later. Sometimes duck into a gallery and really enjoy it but if I'm in a sour mood it would just be pointless, best to go in or look about you when feeling fresh and open.
I'm dedicated to craft, art and design or whatever cocktail appeals but you can see in gallery closures, low attendance figures (or the same audience over and over and over) and the death of small workshops that something has gone wrong, people feel alienated by the arts, are scared off by the atmosphere in design shops and in the long run thats no good for anyone.
Heath, I would love to add something of substance
if only there was substance to which to add. Thanks for the invite, though.
FTR, I'm happily in remission from attempting to make art anymore. Just about everyone exposed to the stuff I have made judged it as "good" and I've been told that I'm talented, but the truth is that I didn't like very much the things that I had made. The only painting of mine on display in my house is hung low and partially obscured by a TV set. It works better as wallpaper than art, IMO. I do still draw, though, and I like to do small watercolor land and seascapes "en plein air" occasionally, but it's just excersize to help keep my eye-hand sharp.
Speaking of opinions, and, really, that's what we're limited to here, judging the success or failure of art is necessarily subjective. What people not versed in the esoterica of art history and theory mean when they pronounce a work "good" or "bad" is that they either like it or don't. Whatever is used as a basis for that judgement is irrelevant.
As for what I like, well, there is a lot. Too much to consider, really, and the variety is ever changing. What I don't like in art is dishonesty.
The formal elements of picture making
I hope you dont seriously mean that you stop yourself from engaging in a piece of art intuitively the first time you look at it. What a shame.
The analytical aspects of "appraisal" of a piece-- when viewed by a very experienced artist has long since been digested and has become part of the artist's intuitive eye-- over a lifetime of looking and doing.
A painting that is unresolved or (aiming too low) or wrought with cliches usually screams out that it is so-- and rather immediately in most instances-- to a well trained and well exposed eye.
Just like the comments on this board scream out when someone has not had much experience in the making of art, or had much exposure to a broad range of what is considered a balanced art education.
Yes, of course it is important to second guess one's first reactions. A painting that works for five minutes may not work after a month or a year.
But 90 per cent of the time, a mature artist who has been exposed to a broad range of ideas and approaches both historical and contemporary, traditional and non traditional, need not separate the steps of looking-- as was suggested above. Its all built in after a while.
The whole reason one goes to school, and learns about art, and does art, is so that all of this learned material can be digested-- and become part of an intuitive eye and mind.
Thats the whole point.
Learning to trust ones gut, as they say.
Old school learning to see and draw and art history are all important to be sure.
I was trying to say that ultimately, you cant teach "originality" Sometimes a teacher has to know when to get out of the way, and not try and stuff a gifted student into an academic box.
You can teach craft, but in some ways, you cant teach ART. You can only establish an open and engaging arena of intense exploration.
tktoo
tktoo,
I liked your post. My comments above were not directed to you. I can totally relate to the "remission" thing. I used to exhibit very actively, perhaps TOO actively... and have not in over twenty years now. (Unless I have to to keep my job LOL)
At some point, I said what I had to say. Nothing seems of such necessity now.
I forgot to mention that making art
was, by far, the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Maybe I'm just a lazy-assed coward.
Of course, on various levels, I must agree and disagree with just about everything said so far in this thread. It's the nature of the beast. It can't be tamed, and that's part of why these conversations are endlessly frustrating and engaging, but, alas, they are endless. And maybe I'm just a lazy-assed coward.
I like evidence of good draughtsmanship in the use of traditional mediums. I appreciate the ability to draw, so I'm drawn to works on paper lately. Sketches kinda do it for me because they offer a window to the artist's mind in a way finished works don't. Tiepolo. That fucker could draw. Degas. Is there anything the man couldn't do? Schiele. Weird dude, but I can't take my eyes away. My list goes on and on.
Happier, Heath?
tktoo et al
I've read every entry in this thread and I am humbled by your insights. My initial statement confirms I'm not qualified to speak inteligently on "Art" and I must admit, but don't tell him, that my friend glassartist might have just inspired me.
I submit that I have underestimated, overlooked, undervalued, misunderstood, etc. art in my life even with many talented artists in my family. I can honestly say that this thread has cleaned a little grime from my blinders.
Now, I have a challenge. Who, among the readers, has the stomach to share your art talent with photos on DA. Instead of what I found, How about what I made.
Thanks, and I'll take your answers off the air.......
tktoo
I'm interested in your comment that you don't like dishonest art.
I was a 'dishonest artist' at one time. What I mean by that is part of my tertiary education included Art Fraud, I'm ashamed to say. But it did teach me to paint or how I perceived more prolific artists painted, through thier eyes or how the general public wanted it.
But I don't think that's what you meant by your comment.
tktoo
I'm interested in your comment that you don't like dishonest art.
I was a 'dishonest artist' at one time. What I mean by that is part of my tertiary education included Art Fraud, I'm ashamed to say. But it did teach me to paint or how I perceived more prolific artists painted, through thier eyes or how the general public wanted it.
But I don't think that's what you meant by your comment.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com