Why do people think art is trying to be deep?

Post Reply New Topic

When I do art I'm not trying to be deep. I just copy my best doodles or photoshop creations into a more permanent form. I usually fool around on photoshop when I'm just bored. I also create stuff that I think will look cool, interesting or create a nice atmosphere in a room.

Because art is creative, and it has the ability to transcend mere superficial existence. At its best, it is quite beautiful, even more beautiful than Nature.

"Art" is far too broad of a word. It covers everything from psychologically deep Ingmar Bergman movies to pornographic doodles that have no morally or socially redeeming value whatsoever.

And everybody tends to take away something different from any piece of art, no matter how deep or shallow it might be.

Because some art is meant to be deep, while some is just aesthetic. It's what you make of it I guess.

People *want* art to be deep, so they simply assume that it is, and try to attach a deeper meaning to every work of art they see, whether it has one or not is irrelevant (to them)

Because the world of commercialized art is in such a rut of decadence that what passes for "depth" is used to jack up the price.

A pair of one-meter spheres carved from granite? Without the artifice of "depth", they're just another set of bollards for a shopping-mall parking lot entrance.

A girl wearing a pearl earring? Without the "depth" of an alleged incestuous affair between the subject and the painter, it is just another painting of a girl playing dress-up with her mother's jewelry.

And so on ...

I don't get it either, DevilKisses. For me a painting/drawing is about its motif and a book and a movie is about its topic. I neither see nor want to see comments there on anything. The plot is the only interest I have in it. trying to read more into it cheapens the story for me.

Likewise, the stories I have written are stories I wanted to write, they weren't about anything else, no comment on anything, just ideas that came to me, which in my opinion is far more interesting. I cherish fiction for what it is.

Making art reminds me of when I was a kid. I used to put words together in a nonsensical way. I just said words because I liked the way they sounded together or they described feelings or ideas that didn't have words. People just picked the closest meaning they could think of. It was often way off. I usually only spoke like this during imaginary play. I eventually stopped because I gave up on anyone understanding.

I now feel the same about art. They expect art to have a common and universal meaning like language does. I just want to be able to go to that dreamy and wordless place where meaning doesn't matter as much. I don't want to hear BS about being deep, representing yourself or social justice. I'm fine with people who's art is those things, but I don't want people to assume my art is like that.

For several weeks, all of my 2nd-grade crayon drawings were in black - black houses, black animals black clouds covering a black sun - all black.

The teacher called the principal, who called the superintendent, who called in a psychologist, who summoned my parents, and we all sat down in a big room. As the adults were talking about what was wrong with me, I sat quietly between my parents, trying to understand what was going on for what seemed like hours. The psychologist went on and on about morbid thoughts, bad television, imaginary playmates, primal scenes, sibling jealousies, and so on.

Finally, my mother asked me why I used only black crayon in my drawings.

"Because that's all I have. The other kids stole all of the good ones."

The psychologist insisted that it couldn't be the reason, until the teacher left and came back with my crayon box - my all-black crayon box.

...

Some people seem to look for greater depth of meaning in artistic expression than what the facts will support.

^Blimey.
I think that art, because it is such as broad term, can be as dreamy or simple or complex or deep as anyone wants it to be, but I agree that some people think that there are 'deeper meanings' where there are none [for instance, a picture of a cat could be seen as some sort of psychological thingy, whereas I would see it as something cute and cuddle-worthy].

I just made a playhouse for my pet rats out of steel and plywood, with a steel and plastic running wheel (I used a skateboard wheel bearing) on the inside, and I put it in with my other pieces for my final critique but without my rats because I didn't want to take them to school with me, and the professor said that it is better without rats and he also doesn't even care whether the wheel works or not. he loved the piece but as a "high art" thing meant for viewing in a white wall gallery and thinking deep thoughts. I just made it so my rats could play and get exercise while I'm away at school and work. oops! haha.

Proves that context makes art- and that's sort of the thing: art is at it's best when it triggers a response from the audience, often in form of a proustian moment.
A playhouse for rats might make for great thoughts, but if it's not in a gallery, where we go because we want that experience, we usually don't stop and think these things.

Artists themselves however don't expect art to be deep, because they know the process.
Or as my tutor at the royal college of art put it: critics don't understand picasso's blue period. Some days, it's late and blue is all you have left. (Or black crayons)
The art is in deliberately deciding to keep painting in blue only for a while and see if you find out something new, something you can only figure out by painting in blue for a while.
It's a bit like finding a design solution for a very impractical problem.
Usually, you can see if there's thought put into a piece of art, or if it's just for fun.

Personally, I like art that makes me laugh, and I usually laugh when I see something of which I know the artist must have laughed when making it, or when I find some cultural oddity in an old painting.


Unrelated: I have to type in captchas every other time I try to post. I get them wrong about 95% of the time, unless it's numbers only. For crying out loud, this is an autism forum. Of course we fail turing tests!

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

To me, a Campbell's Soup can is just a can of soup.

To fans of Andy Warhol, it is a classic Objet d'Art.

Go figure.

A true engineer designs useful objects that make art critics swoon!

By the way, are you ever going to post pics of it???

Thank you, that's very similar to what so many artists have said to me, in some way or another. And yet...I don't get it. What does that mean, please - "to transcend mere superficial existence"? That it evokes emotions and thoughts in people who are looking to have emotions and thoughts evoked? To me that almost conflates cause and effect, or possibly correlation and causation. It's not like the art is magical and imparting something on a blank slate of a viewer, right?

You also bring up an interesting observation about 'art' and Nature. Most art deemed beautiful either emulates nature or triggers neurological responses tuned to natural phenomenon. Is is the viewer's imagination then, that has the potential to make a piece of art "more beautiful" than nature, and if so...it's not really the art that's responsible.

(and yes, this is why I didn't fit in with The Artist crowds throughout my life, despite my mom having degrees in the subject)

Haha! I got a real kick out of this story. Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous how these highly paid professionals can presume all kinds of outrageous things. I think a lot of these guys may not even have a clue about what's really going on inside of us, for that matter.