So a painting is only worth doing if it is something pretty?
Can I refer you back to my definition of art being to do with communication?
You can, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth, or at least the whole truth. I agree that it's partly about that, but I think it's got to also look good.
Lowry didn't just paint landscapes, he painted people in landscapes. He painted unpleasant, ugly landscapes that (at the time) most of society would rather pretend didn't exist.
Yes, and I wouldn't want to hang a Lowry on my wall because I don't think it looks particularly nice.
I make the distinction between Lowry and most abstract art in that a Lowry is art, but bad art, because it took skill to think up and create, but just doesn't look good, whereas most abstract art is dubious as to whether I would even class it as art.
You could paint a really intricate detailed picture of the inside of a sewer and it would have probably took skill to create and might even convey an idea but I wouldn't hang it on my wall.
Flowchart:
Did it take skill to create AND think up ?
/ \
/ \
No = not art. Yes
e.g. Damien Hirst |
Does it look good?
/ \
/ \
Yes= No =
Good art Bad Art e.g. Lowry