Author Topic: "I don't get art"  (Read 23282 times)

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #175 on: 25 November, 2015, 08:05:09 am »
Some might argue that prints are of art, not art itself.
By that argument, there are no books on my shelf. There are originals, and there are reproductions. The art, I think, is what produced the original, rather than the original itself.

Very sad for those who are concerned with owning art, but there we are. You can't buy skill. The prints are of works of art.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #176 on: 25 November, 2015, 08:25:04 am »
I have Klimt prints, pencil drawings and my Grandad's oil paintings hanging in my house, as well as some sculpture, and paintings by various painters.  They have meaning for me.  They communicate something to me.

Some might argue that prints are of art, not art itself.

What about when the art specifically is a print such as etchings. The end product is a print and was always designed to be a print.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #177 on: 25 November, 2015, 08:38:28 am »
Although the etchings remain works of art. The art is what produced them.

We talk about arts and crafts. Ornate furniture is not a craft. Furniture-making is the craft. Arts work the same way, surely?

red marley

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #178 on: 25 November, 2015, 08:56:30 am »
The relation between 'original' and 'reproduced' art is exactly the theme of Part 1 of Berger's Ways of Seeing I mentioned in Post #100 (and mentioned again in Post #166). Worth a watch, even just for the first 10 minutes.

It is also the theme explored in much of the 1960s American Pop Art movement, for example the hand painted halftone Ben Day dots of Roy Lichtenstein.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #179 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:10:40 am »
Much in agreement with PCOlbeck - there is definitely an art to producing a silk screen which is only ever intended to yield a (finite) number of prints - regardless of what the subject / content of those prints is.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #180 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:25:13 am »
I second jo's recommendation of the Berger series. All four parts of it are interesting. Each part starts off in similar fashion, as if it's going to be an overly deep for the sake of it, obfuscational, darkly seventies, narcissistic piece (in fact they do discuss narcissism in part two), but in fact it's quite the opposite, more as its title suggests; there are ways of seeing any one thing.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #181 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:33:11 am »
For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.


For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.


For Argos, it's to sell reproductions to make a profit.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #182 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:39:10 am »
For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.


For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.


For Argos, it's to sell reproductions to make a profit.

and to help bring Thomas Kincade to the masses.
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #183 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:45:44 am »
For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.


For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.


For Argos, it's to sell reproductions to make a profit.

and to help bring Thomas Kincade to the masses.

There's something weirdly Warholian about Kincade.

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #184 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:46:58 am »
For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.


For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.


For Argos, it's to sell reproductions to make a profit.

and to help bring Thomas Kincade to the masses.

A status symbol for Mrs Jones.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #185 on: 25 November, 2015, 10:20:12 am »


Now the forum will catch fire :demon:

For the avoidance of doubt the business about prints is not a viewpoint with which I agree.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #186 on: 25 November, 2015, 10:32:16 am »
Although the etchings remain works of art. The art is what produced them.

We talk about arts and crafts. Ornate furniture is not a craft. Furniture-making is the craft. Arts work the same way, surely?
Right. Art originally meant the skill that went into making the thing, not the thing itself, & that meaning remains. Art as a product is a derived meaning. IMO it would be wrong for its origin to be lost, & the derived meaning to become the only one.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #187 on: 25 November, 2015, 10:37:33 am »
I have Klimt prints, pencil drawings and my Grandad's oil paintings hanging in my house, as well as some sculpture, and paintings by various painters.  They have meaning for me.  They communicate something to me.

Some might argue that prints are of art, not art itself.
Wot Drossall said, & see my posts no 165, & above.

Artisan. 'The art of (a skill)'. Etc. It's in the language you speak.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #188 on: 25 November, 2015, 10:40:17 am »
Art isn't meant to be "nice to look at". Some is deliberately hideous.

... and some is meant to be nice to look at.

[gosh, it seems I *can* play this game!  :thumbsup: ]
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #189 on: 25 November, 2015, 10:44:04 am »
Although the etchings remain works of art. The art is what produced them.

We talk about arts and crafts. Ornate furniture is not a craft. Furniture-making is the craft. Arts work the same way, surely?
Right. Art originally meant the skill that went into making the thing, not the thing itself, & that meaning remains. Art as a product is a derived meaning. IMO it would be wrong for its origin to be lost, & the derived meaning to become the only one.

The work is the expression of the idea.  If the work disappears, so does the idea.  A reproduction may or may not accurately convey the intent of the original. 

crowriver

  • Крис Б
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #190 on: 25 November, 2015, 11:29:58 am »
I have Klimt prints, pencil drawings and my Grandad's oil paintings hanging in my house, as well as some sculpture, and paintings by various painters.  They have meaning for me.  They communicate something to me.

Some might argue that prints are of art, not art itself.

Or that reproducing the artwork in this form changes the nature of it. See Benjamin and Berger above...
Embrace your inner Fred.

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #191 on: 25 November, 2015, 02:02:23 pm »
For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.


For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.


For Argos, it's to sell reproductions to make a profit.

and to help bring Thomas Kincade to the masses.

But I don't think Kincade did upright vacuum cleaners.


Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #192 on: 25 November, 2015, 03:02:46 pm »
Gilbert and George at The White Cube........It gets 5 stars - Discuss.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/25/gilbert-and-george-banners-review-art-undeniable-punch-in-the-face#comment-63945752

" a moral vision that is at once libertarian, atheistic, monarchist and existential. All are proactive."
 


(Gilbert is East London for bogey, mind)

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #193 on: 25 November, 2015, 05:05:34 pm »
Gilbert and George at The White Cube........It gets 5 stars - Discuss.

I suspect that review originally ended with the second paragraph - "…lots of quite interesting canvases, but a bit bland overall." - but was sent back to Jonathan Jones with a note from the editor saying "needs another 300 words..."
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

crowriver

  • Крис Б
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #194 on: 25 November, 2015, 07:28:14 pm »
Not having seen the exhibition, I can't really comment. I have followed their work for some decades, and sometimes enjoy it. Sometimes not. Usually thought provoking.
Embrace your inner Fred.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #195 on: 25 November, 2015, 07:45:24 pm »
At some point the metropolitan passes over into the parochial.

Quote
Then I take another look at the Gilbert and George show. It has suddenly become powerfully claustrophobic, electrically nasty. Is this the unconscious of the artists spilling out, or the collective madness of the city they channel, the scabrous soul of London expressing itself in taunts and insults? It feels like both. Somehow these men have made themselves into vessels of British (they’d surely say English) society.

They haven't made themselves into the vessels of English society.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #196 on: 25 November, 2015, 08:43:07 pm »
At some point the metropolitan passes over into the parochial.

Quote
Then I take another look at the Gilbert and George show. It has suddenly become powerfully claustrophobic, electrically nasty. Is this the unconscious of the artists spilling out, or the collective madness of the city they channel, the scabrous soul of London expressing itself in taunts and insults? It feels like both. Somehow these men have made themselves into vessels of British (they’d surely say English) society.

They haven't made themselves into the vessels of English society.

Surely that's the Royal Navy?
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #197 on: 25 November, 2015, 09:05:45 pm »
The work is the expression of the idea.  If the work disappears, so does the idea.  A reproduction may or may not accurately convey the intent of the original.
Not entirely. Certainly, if the work disappears, there is a danger of loss of the idea. However, there are also derivatives, which may preserve some of the idea.

Indeed, I assume (as a non-expert) that it is recognised that the latest ideas in art have developed from and been influenced by earlier ones. That continuous chain must necessarily go back through countless thousands of works that are now lost, but the ideas behind these continue to have influence. So the loss of the work is not the same thing as the loss of the idea.

crowriver

  • Крис Б
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #198 on: 26 November, 2015, 12:10:48 am »
The work is the expression of the idea.  If the work disappears, so does the idea.  A reproduction may or may not accurately convey the intent of the original.
Not entirely. Certainly, if the work disappears, there is a danger of loss of the idea. However, there are also derivatives, which may preserve some of the idea.

Indeed, I assume (as a non-expert) that it is recognised that the latest ideas in art have developed from and been influenced by earlier ones. That continuous chain must necessarily go back through countless thousands of works that are now lost, but the ideas behind these continue to have influence. So the loss of the work is not the same thing as the loss of the idea.

Hence tradition, schools, genres, etc.

The artist Sol Lewitt sent instructions to galleries and museums describing formulae governing the execution of his geometric drawings, which were (and still are) executed by assistants on, say, a gallery wall. So which is the work: the finished drawing, or the set of instructions?

Embrace your inner Fred.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #199 on: 26 November, 2015, 07:20:41 am »
Quote
The temperament to which Art appeals … is the temperament of receptivity. That is all.

If a man approaches a work of art with any desire to exercise authority over it and the artist, he approaches it in such a spirit that he cannot receive any artistic impression from it at all. The work of art is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art. The spectator is to be receptive. He is to be the violin on which the master is to play. And the more completely he can suppress his own silly views, his own foolish prejudices, his own absurd ideas of what Art should be, or should not be, the more likely he is to understand and appreciate the work of art in question.

I wish I'd said that.
You will, old chap. You will.
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird