Art Snobbery

[lordlundar]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

What you feel apart from disgust when you find out that the "artist" received more money than you make in 3 years for doing that?

[DesignFox]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

It's a piece of wood. With a dot or two on it. Painted white.

There's no layers of color. There's not really a thought process involved. You don't even have to have learned anything about color theory, anatomy, drawing...anything.

I guess the only thing creative about it is that person thought to stick wood on the wall first, honestly. *shrug*

I guess in the long run, who am I to judge what rich people want to waste money on. To me, work like that is ridiculous. Other than the fact that the natural grains of the wood might be attractive, but the artist didn't create those. Nature did. I could see if the grains of the wood were somehow highlighted, or the artist chose to accentuate a certain shape or create something from the shape (I've often looked at the swirls in wood or carpet and imagined real objects that they look like) but they didn't.

It's subjective. That's what makes art fun! I mean, I think a lot of Dali's work is absolutely hideous. I wouldn't hang it on my walls if you paid me. (well maybe, I am broke ) But at least I can appreciate the time, effort, imagination and talent it took to create that. A third grader couldn't paint like that. It takes some training.

*shrug* but then I like Jackson Pollack's work. Some might say their 3rd graders could do what he did (but a third grader knows nothing of color theory, layers and textures, etc etc.)

I have often painted like that myself. Using splatters of paint, and then adding touches with my hands, splatters from string, etc. A teacher in HS saw me throwing a bunch of paint around and taught me about Pollack. It actually takes a lot of time and energy to throw the paint around and add all the layers and make sure your colors don't turn to mud or you don't lose the textures. It can create a beautiful composition- if you try.

I still think some contemporary artists are just trying to see what they can make people buy or pay to view. "Hey, let me jump in front of a camera with my junk bouncing around" is not art to my mind. Yet, there it was in an art museum. If I want to appreciate the motion of a flaccid penis flopping about I'm sure there are plenty of idiots with cameras on the internet. Why should I pay to go and see that? And if I wanted to be silly, couldn't I just ask my partner to jump around a little for me? I mean, really?

[the_std]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

[DesignFox]

Why is it so hard to see the appeal in the white-painted knots?

What kind of effort does it take to slap some paint on the knots in wood? It sorta drives me nuts that people like that get grants and acclaim when people who actually put forth time and effort into their work are ignored or ridiculed. I mean, I've seen more talented artists have a rougher time making a living of it (when their attempt at opening a store failed, the two most talented young ladies I know became art teachers).

If I want to look at knotty wood, I'll go back to high school and look at the only plywood our meager budget would allow us to purchase.

I think a lot of contemporary artists just try to see what they can get away with rather than take the time and effort to really create anything special. And I've certainly seen some work that could be considered just a push on the limits- like, how much nudity can I put here....what kind of upset can I cause there...

Although, I gotta say. That lazy ass woman proved her point. I'm still talking about those stupid plywood knots 6 years later... *sigh* (one of my ex boyfriends had to take a trip to that exhibit in college- I'm so glad I was involved in my own classes that day).

What happened to taking pride in your work? What happened to creativity? What happened to an appreciation of beauty (like Seshat's examples)? I think THAT'S what bothers me.

[the_std]

Seshat, those sound gorgeous. You seem to be very talented in a multitude of fields!

But what I want to know is why people as a whole put so much more value on things like that over other things. Why is it so hard to see the appeal in the white-painted knots? Why are we so quick to dismiss everything that doesn't fit into our conventional standards of beauty? I guess that argument isn't just applied to art, but to every aspect of our lives. It saddens me, because I've had students who worked their fingers to the bone over pieces, put them up in a show... And had to stand by and listen to every viewer trash their work over and over again. "My three-year old could do better!" "Why do they call that art?" "What a waste of paint!", etcetera.

I understand that art and beauty are subjective and that, if you can't stand criticism, don't put your art out there, blah blah blah, all of those things... But when I see my students, who haven't been artists long enough to develop the thick skin you need to have in the show world, begin to cry because no one takes the time to try to find beauty in anything... It just makes me sad for the world.

[Seshat]

I do art (does that surprise anyone?).

I do some realistic art. Not at all to my satisfaction, but I try!

I do some 'quasi-realistic' art as well. I'm fairly pleased with my dragon paintings, and my husband adores my mermaid painting.


And I do abstracts.

One of my more recent abstract pieces is two curved lines - the curves that define a female human form, held a particular way. My best friend wanted a logo for her business, and I went looking for nude female images and found one that had outline curves that were very sensual and would look distinctly female without being boring.

Another abstract piece I've done is the colours a particularly gorgeous night sky was. To look at the piece, you wouldn't know it was a night sky - just bands of colour. But it was so stunning, and I think I got the colours and proportions right.

Abstracts can be (not necessarily are) taking a beautiful piece of the real world and refining it down to the absolute essence of what made it beautiful to you.

A piece which is two shades of blue and a red triangle might be derived from a boat on the water against the sky.

Right now on TV, there's a red rose against a background of grey buildings. Abstracting that, I'd paint a stylised rose against a grey background. Another abstractionist might focus more on the slash of the stem.



On the other hand, these 'refine the real world' abstractions tend to be more understandable to people than the white-painted-knots on plywood sort.

[BroomJockey]

Why is it so hard to respect it?

Because if I think it's shit, I'm not going to respect it. I've seen some excellent abstract art. I've seen some shitty abstract art. I refuse to respect something I think sucks just because someone made an attempt. I can respect the person for making an attempt, sometimes. But that doesn't mean I have to respect the product. It's like a cook in the kitchen. If they have no skill, and the food turns out awful, then I'm not going to say "that's fine, I still think it's good, even if it isn't to my taste." I'm going to say "I get that you wanted to try something, but for the sake of all of us, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."

Just because someone says it's art, doesn't mean I have to respect it.

[AdminAssistant]

I might see art in a plastic bag swirling in the wind, while someone else sees pollution. Who knows?

Y'know..I think I remember reading that a plastic bag in the wind was Alan Ball's inspiration for writing American Beauty. Hm.

[the_std]

what exactly is this thing called 'art'? What defines 'art', and thus what isn't it???

art - 19 dictionary results
1   /ɑrt/ [ahrt]
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

According to dictionary.com, almost anything can be art, but I tend to agree with the very first defition. Beautiful, appealing and of more than ordinary significance. I love how open-ended it is, because who is to say what is art for each individual person? I might see art in a plastic bag swirling in the wind, while someone else sees pollution. Who knows?

[Slytovhand]

People do say they could do it, it's just random placement of paint. But when confronted with a blank canvas, could you put colours in places that looks so good? A random collection of colours doesn't work, there needs to be space, the right colours, sizing etc (I'm not an artist and don't know the right words sorry).

But is this true?? No, seriously, I've seen stuff that primary school kids would do - yet it's supposed to be 'art' and has even been used as advertising (saw some today, which is what I'm thinking of...).

In seeing that, the thought came to me (as I realised the subjectiveness of it all... I hadn't seen this thread prior to now... ooh - spooky coincidence )... what exactly is this thing called 'art'? What defines 'art', and thus what isn't it???

[bigred]

I enjoy a lot of abstract art. People do say they could do it, it's just random placement of paint. But when confronted with a blank canvas, could you put colours in places that looks so good? A random collection of colours doesn't work, there needs to be space, the right colours, sizing etc (I'm not an artist and don't know the right words sorry).

Look at Indigenous Australian art. Much may look random, but it's not, there is something happening that the viewer doesn't necessarily understand, and it works. It isn't random. It's an understanding of the relationship between colours and space.

I also admire realistic artists, I could never do that.

[Evandril]

Art can generate controversy, but the presence of controversy does not make it art. Yes, it is still being talked about, but so are very many other atrocities that make no claim to be 'art'. I see this on the same level as a poorly controlled scientific experiment, not art.

[AFPheonix]

How are those two things not directly related? Controversy is about emotions, feelings and personal opinions.

Bingo. And again, this exhibit was very successful in my view because, hey, people in disparate places are discussing in on the internet long after the exhibit stopped.

[protege]

Does anyone consider cars to be art? I sure do. There's something to be said about how some of the older ones are styled. When vehicles started moving under their own power, very little thought was put into how the thing looked. Designers were more concerned how they ran. That is, until the 1930s...and suddenly styling became all the rage. Vehicles like Talbot-Lagos, Grahams, Delage, Delahayes, et a. appeared to be moving quickly...even while sitting still. As if that wasn't enough, there's the extremely limited-production Bugatti Royale...which had a hood ornament sculpted by Rembrandt himself! For those who don't know, Rembrandt was the younger brother of auto magnate Ettore Bugatti.

[the_std]

But art is about conveying emotions, feelings and personal opinions, not directly stirring up controversy.

How are those two things not directly related? Controversy is about emotions, feelings and personal opinions.