Sand wrote:
Tintinnabulation wrote:
Sand, those comments are inappropriate and illogical. Irishwhistle gave no indication (before your comment) as to whether she only admires realistic or representational art. Even if she chose to dismiss most or all non-objective art, that doesn't mean that she is ignorant of it -- and her remarks have indicated that that is not the case.
The same goes for the earlier comment that "some people have a disinclination to learn." People are allowed to learn about an artist and then form a negative opinion. If it were otherwise, there would be nothing edifying about art.
My comments were entirely appropriate. Art is a process of creation and presentation of a point of view. Those who disdain any work through misunderstanding the approach miss out on the possibilities of understanding something fruitful. It is important through the experience of various art forms to be open minded and permit exploration. Some of the finest pieces of well appreciated music caused riots when first performed because of a lack of understanding. Art is not always easy to comprehend. It requires background and understanding and effort. And these can be very rewarding.
Let me elaborate a bit more. One of the most frequent criticisms of abstract artists is that their work looks as if it could be done by a child or a raging chimpanzee. In other words what supposedly disqualifies a work is that the artist does not display some sort of formal training or indication the he or she did not sweat over its completion, a sort of aesthetic approach to the Protestant work ethic. But any combination of line and form and color on a surface can, no matter what its method of creation, display a wonderful complexity in all the basic standards of appreciation. That Pollock or some three year old might use gravity and viscosity instead of pencils, charcoal, or brushes to attain the final result is irrelevant. If the completed work conveys a wonderful feeling of color or line or rhythm that in itself is gratifying. A wonderful sunset is frequently a beautiful effect and that is pretty much random but it still is beautiful and deserves some sort of respect. Art is valuable i that it lets you understand there is beauty and fascination in the entire world and it leads you in different ways to appreciate it. It is a mistake to disdain the opportunities offered.
Actually, curiously enough, no effort is really required to recognize what image before your eyes says to you, "We understand one another." I stand by that as a fact. Understanding and background and effort don't mean jack if you don't like what you see. Jackson Pollock could be dripping or throwing paint in front of airplane motors because he had a vision from God and I still would not, on viewing it, care much for his work. There's really no refuting that. I have learned an appreciation of Cubism I once lacked... but I still don't really connect with Cubist art. I consider the sincere brushstrokes of the humblest late-blooming Grandma to have merit if they're sincere. But it does not mean they're relevant to me. I give my 3-year-old's work the same consideration. If she was actually trying and not just spitting milk on the paper, anyway. I've got my standards.
In short, I don't give a flying crap about the execution, education, or friggin' work ethic of the artist. I don't care for Pollock's drippings because it does not convey a sense of anything to me, and because he strikes me as being a bit of a phony, so eager to perform for reporters. I don't think much of trendy art. But if he and his fans are happy, fine for them. Rothko, I know nothing about. But I don't really care for his canvases; they too convey nothing to me. I could look at them for a week between reading from his autobiography and I still would prefer something else.
I know you're just expressing your opinion, but I draw the line at your implying what my opinion is. And I indeed never said that I regularly rejected any kind of art because of the approach. I look at the art first. I decide then. If I like, I may look into it further.
Jackie Mason once said that he had no interest in foods if it was necessary to "acquire a taste" for them. If you do acquire a taste for something, that's fine. But we don't all have to. It's a visual medium,. It should do it's job on the eyes. The rest, technique, meaning, etc, is gravy.
And after all, this is a least liked painter thread.
_________________
"Pack up my head, I'm goin' to Paris!" - P.W.
The world loves diversity... as long as it's pretty, makes them look smart and doesn't put them out in any way.
There's the road, and the road less traveled, and then there's MY road.
16 Mar 2010, 6:01 pm
