What is a "Masterpiece"?
Sharon Barcone
What, in your opinion, would merit a painting being called or considered a
masterpiece?
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mitch Kern
unifies of form and content at a high level.
Mitch Kern
Masterpiece defined: (master-peece) Any work of art in any medium that
unifies form and content at a high level.
Sharon Barcone
"Mitch Kern" <mak...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:39BDAF15...@psu.edu...
of how you personally apply that defination to a work of art. Do you
completely agree with the defination provided? What does your heart say to
you about a masterpiece? And what do you personally consider is a painting
that qualifies as a masterpiece. Thanks.
Andrew Werby
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39bbf...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
>Yes, of course I have my own opinion about this but I am interested...
>What, in your opinion, would merit a painting being called or considered a
>masterpiece?
>
>sharon
[While presently this is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, (one
person's masterpiece being another's piece of trash); in former times this
term had a precise meaning. Under the guild system that prevailed until
modern times, one needed to create a "masterpiece" in order to qualify as a
"master" of ones art. This was an artistic equivalent of the Master's Thesis
that is still required for an advanced academic degree. It was judged by a
committee of the guild, who shared a set of standards the piece in question
had to meet or exceed. ]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Maharat1
I feel a masterpiece is whatever the art historians call a masterpiece. My
first mentor in the arts told me "never become a master at anything." I stick
by that. I let other people cast judgement upon art. I just enjoy the many
aspects of it.
Mitch Kern
moment to scrutinize my previous post, a "definition" of masterpiece, you would
see that I am making a play on words. There is obviously no such "definition"
anywhere but in my head. Hence, my definition is precisely what you say you
seek, pure opinion. Try flexing some intellectual muscle and hurling something
thoughtful and provocative rich in meaning back my way if you dare. Let's try
and stay focused on the "unification of form and content", if that's okay.
Hmm. Form, content, and their unification. What could these terms mean and
how do they possibly fit together. Cheers. Mitch
Lauri Levanto
Andrew Werby wrote:
> Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39bbf...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
> >Yes, of course I have my own opinion about this but I am interested...
> >What, in your opinion, would merit a painting being called or considered a
> >masterpiece?
> >
> >sharon
>
> [While presently this is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, (one
> person's masterpiece being another's piece of trash); in former times this
> term had a precise meaning. Under the guild system that prevailed until
> modern times, one needed to create a "masterpiece" in order to qualify as a
> "master" of ones art. This was an artistic equivalent of the Master's Thesis
> that is still required for an advanced academic degree. It was judged by a
> committee of the guild, who shared a set of standards the piece in question
> had to meet or exceed. ]
>
> Andrew Werby
> http://unitedartworks.com
> >
That is exactly why I call myself a journeyman of sculpture. The masterpiece is
for me
the piece that proves for me (there is no guild commitee anymore),
that I master my skills to a degree that I can take and fill any reasonable
commission
on my own, without mentoring.
The term sure has another meaning for me, too. It is a piece that
I appreciate for *some extraordinary quality* and which is also
more videly reckognized .
- lauri
Sharon Barcone
First you should know I am not the hostile type, defensive sometimes but not
hostile.
My own cheap dictionary defines masterpiece as: an artistic work done with
consummate skill.
So much for definitions.
I do love a dare however.
"Unification of form and content" touches somewhat on my own opinions of
this subject. I have noticed in my own paintings and some of those of others
that there is often an element that is not quite on the mark. A color
slightly off, an element of composition that doesn't quite fit, a line not
executed quite well enough. So, my own idea of a masterpiece is when all
elements of a painting come together, good composition, skill in execution,
all the right colors in all the right ways, and the conveying of the artists
idea reaches me. So yes "unification of from and content" might well apply
to my own thoughts on the matter. However there is also that mystical
element Marilyn mentions.
I read a review of a painting not long ago where the writer pointed out what
a masterful work it was.He was referring to a painting, I believe called,
"The Perfect City". I am showing my ignorance here because I can't find the
article right now and don't remember who painted it. He pointed to the
excellent draftsmanship of the (Italian?) city, the perfect perspective,
the mood and atmosphere. And yes, it was masterfully portrayed but he missed
the mystical element of the work. The perfect city contained no people.
Now, don't say it. I will say it for you. Who am I to judge whether one's
work has all the right colors or good composition or for that matter if I am
getting the right message from the artist. Agreed.
But art is judged by the viewer! It is subjective. This is why I posted the
question. I wondered if there was any consensus for judging a contemporary
painting as a masterpiece. I readily admit that I may be judging work based
on what others consider out-dated standards. Again, that is why I asked the
question.
Is that intellectually muscular, thoughtful and provocative enough for you?
Ah...but that is subjective too!
Sharon Barcone
"Lauri Levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:39BF683F...@nokia.com...
that I too feel is important. Is there a consensus building here?
sharon
John Haber
there's no single criterion for quality, we're making one up of the
nothing and calling it mystical.
That sounds to me as much of an evasion of the differences among works
and the different ways they carry meaning and provoke thought or
feeling than any vacuous rule like "unity of form and content" could
ever be. In fact, it's worse than a vacuous rule, since it can work
against some great artist who, let us say, thinks too much. Poor da
Vinci.
Nothing's existence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- one would hope,
can ever be encompassed by a rule or verbal description. That should
be cause for celebration ... and more words. Use it as an excuse to
talk about THIS PARTICULAR work and what it means to YOU. Of shut up
and enjoy the work. Either's fine with me, and either beats handing
out mystical blue ribbons as if you've decided something.
Erik A. Mattila
I think it would be a lot of fun to ponder the components and/or taxonomy
of Benjamin's "Aura of the work of art" in regard to this 'masterpiece'
idea.
Surely Benjamin, who was very bright, was avoiding going into a lot of
detail about what constitutes the 'aura' for some reason -- maybe he
thought it was just incidental to his main idea of machanical
reproduction. Well, he did historicize the idea a bit, revealing his
atrocious views on anthropology (IMO) with his 'ritual value' idea, but
he also touched on the ideas of economic value and social consensus etc.
But we habitually attempt to describe this kind of epheria in terms of
our sense of individualism, in contrast to a social explanation. I think
if we fell over into the social, there are indeed an array of specific
criteria that assembles into the consensus of the "masterpiece" in art.
"My Karma ran over my Dogma." The concept of "Karma" indeed addresses a
concept of the human individual, while the concept of "Dogma" addresses
the concept of the collective social self. It seems to me that an
explicit definition of a 'masterpiece' would be dogmatic by nature, and
that troubles people.
Erik
Rick Piacenti
to understand the meaning of the word "Masterpeice". It's nice to know that even
in art there are some things that are not just a matter of opinion. Even if you
don't like a particulare work; if it demonstrates a particular artist's mastery of
a medium, it is that artist's "masterpiece". Thanks for bringing it up, Sharon.
I've learned something from this thread.
Glenda
Sharon Barcone
"John Haber" <jha...@haberarts.com> wrote in message
news:39bfb5f...@news.columbia.edu...
> I'm not convinced by this thread.
No one is asking you to be convinced by the discussion.
> To me, it just means that since
> there's no single criterion for quality, we're making one up of the
> nothing and calling it mystical.
>
I believe you are confusing the term quality meaning value with the term
quality meaning one of the aspects which makes a thing what it is.
> That sounds to me as much of an evasion of the differences among works
> and the different ways they carry meaning and provoke thought or
> feeling than any vacuous rule like "unity of form and content" could
> ever be. In fact, it's worse than a vacuous rule, since it can work
> against some great artist who, let us say, thinks too much. Poor da
> Vinci.
Not at all, da Vinci is one of the great masters of providing that extra
quality in his work. It is exactly his thought process and ability of
expression that infuse his work with the haunting aspects to which we refer.
>
> Nothing's existence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- one would hope,
> can ever be encompassed by a rule or verbal description.
Maybe you should study the laws of physics!
> That should be cause for celebration ... and more words. Use it as an
excuse to
> talk about THIS PARTICULAR work and what it means to YOU. Of shut up
> and enjoy the work. Either's fine with me, and either beats handing
> out mystical blue ribbons as if you've decided something.
>
> John
> jha...@haberarts.com
> http://www.haberarts.com
Maybe you should put up or shut up. You have provided no input as to your
own ideas of what merits being called a contemporary masterpiece which is
the subject of this discussion, and please, we are interested in personal
opinions not a regurgitation of the opinions of others.
Sharon Barcone
Mitch,
I received your last post in my personal mailbox. Please repost to the group
as I think your reply would be of interest to all.
Thanks,
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>Nothing's existence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- one would hope,
>can ever be encompassed by a rule or verbal description.
Nicely put, John. I think that the Sharon's and Marilyn's of this world
only feel comfortable when they have something defined for them. Its an
easy option. Contemporary art relieves the viewer of that comfort -
goddamn if the viewers don't have to think for themselves! no nice neat
definition or category for them to nod their heads to and spend their
minute on.
>That should
>be cause for celebration ... and more words. Use it as an excuse to
>talk about THIS PARTICULAR work and what it means to YOU. Of shut up
>and enjoy the work. Either's fine with me, and either beats handing
>out mystical blue ribbons as if you've decided something.
You've got it! Now I am wondering how Sharon, in her bout of
hypocritical hostility to you, has accused you of not being original in
your thoughts - perhaps its because you don't fit into her comfortable
zone! Empty brains ...........
Alison
http://www.raimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
John Haber
reliance on something magical wouldn't happen if we didn't have a
function for art in our culture that requires it and has connections
to things like money.
I was looking from a different angle -- the natural tendency of people
to take whatever they like as the thing that makes everything special.
You know that Wittgenstein bit where he gives up trying to find
something in common that ties everything together as long as it shares
a name? The idea of family resemblences, the way a couple of people
might share this, one of them share that with a third person, and so
on?
I've always liked that. When he says don't assume something in
common, but LOOK, he seems just to be skeptical, just to be discarding
something. But turn the phrase around, and take it as a reminder of
how much we won't see if we don't look. People who know how gorgeous
Monet and Raphael are may not make the effort to discover how the work
actually came about, and their guts will stop them from finding out
about artists who aren't "pretty" enough.
I think what actually turned me onto art wasn't how much of an impact
art first made on me. It wasn't some great moments in my life, like
when I couldn't move past the van der Goes on my first visit to the
Uffizi. It was NOT getting what my best friends liked, like Johns and
LeWitt. What was I missing? Maybe that's why I'm reluctant to fall
back on anything we can assume is universal.
Even Wittgenstein's formula misses something. It misses that
experience we learned from later writers -- how you often CAN see
everything fruitfully through a single lens. That is, you encounter
new ideas, new work, new perspectives, new information, and it doesn't
just focus you on one subset of the family, the blue-eyed or
brown-haired cousins. Rather, you look back at everyone, and you get
a new kick from it.
John Haber
I don't follow that one. What's the point of having a discussion if
you don't hope to offer something to others through your insights,
tastes, and arguments? It's certainly better to be undogmatic than to
be like a religious proselytizer, looking for converts. I agree
there. But falling back on each with our own special insight that
can't be communicated, if more tolerant, is just as foolishly a false
religion.
>I believe you are confusing the term quality meaning value with the term
>quality meaning one of the aspects which makes a thing what it is.
How so? You may not want every work to be the same in all its
aspects, so that each can still have its own qualities, but you still
want your one criterion for value. I'm saying that, first, it's a
poor idea to start with; second, the one you suggests is suspiciously
vacuous.
>Not at all, da Vinci is one of the great masters of providing that extra
>quality in his work. It is exactly his thought process and ability of
>expression that infuse his work with the haunting aspects to which we refer.
That's beautifully put. Thank you. So this mystical source of value
is kind of like a summation of everything we can know, intellectually
and physically and emotionally all together? Hmm. An awfully baggy
way to define anything.
>
>> Nothing's existence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- one would hope,
>> can ever be encompassed by a rule or verbal description.
>Maybe you should study the laws of physics!
I've a BA in physics, actually with four graduate courses in quantum
mechanics, nuclear physics, and general relativity, plus an 80-page
undergraduate thesis on string theory. I believe we were glad to be
able to explain things, but it wasn't our hope to explain them away,
to provide the only way of talking about them. I'm surprised you
suggest it. I thought your mystical twaddle would be horrified by us
nasty, reductive intellectuals.
>Maybe you should put up or shut up. You have provided no input as to your
>own ideas of what merits being called a contemporary masterpiece.
I take it just to be a fancy way of saying something means so much --
particularly to other top creative people -- that you are happy to
keep coming back to it to make sense of the art around you. As to
what makes some stuff so powerful to me, all I can do is write about
THEM. I'll be happy indeed to hear criticism of things I've tried to
write about art on my site. But I've always made it a point of
keeping the number of adjectives down. Don't, I tell myself, just
inform your reader this is great. Make the work live for the reader,
maybe even in a different way, because I'm a different person.
>please, we are interested in personal opinions not a regurgitation
>of the opinions of others.
Just whom was I regurgitating? Anyhow, I like regurgitation, since
things come to life through connections. When Erik mentioned Benjamin
just now, things came to life for me.
Rick Piacenti
at least give your version of what he meant. I'm curious because I feel I have
never really mastered any particular form of art and yet I love trying all of it.
Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm just a "Jack of all trades" and I think I
should try to "master" something.
Glenda
Sharon Barcone
> >No one is asking you to be convinced by the discussion.
>
> I don't follow that one. What's the point of having a discussion if
> you don't hope to offer something to others through your insights,
> tastes, and arguments? It's certainly better to be undogmatic than to
> be like a religious proselytizer, looking for converts. I agree
> there. But falling back on each with our own special insight that
> can't be communicated, if more tolerant, is just as foolishly a false
> religion.
You may note that I did not express my personal opinion in my original post.
I was seeking the opinions of others. I was hoping to provoke the thoughts
of those who responded and of those who read the replies. I also think it is
foolish the believe that anyone would be convinced merely by reading this
discussion.
>
> >I believe you are confusing the term quality meaning value with the term
> >quality meaning one of the aspects which makes a thing what it is.
>
> How so? You may not want every work to be the same in all its
> aspects, so that each can still have its own qualities, but you still
> want your one criterion for value. I'm saying that, first, it's a
> poor idea to start with; second, the one you suggests is suspiciously
> vacuous.
Does this mean that you believe there are no contemporary masterpieces? I
admit that the term masterpiece may imply value. But what elements of the
painting are the contributing factors which make up that value. That is what
I am seeking in the opinions of others. If this is an invalid question then
why are there critics at all. I wanted personal opinions from this group on
that subject.
>
> >Not at all, da Vinci is one of the great masters of providing that extra
> >quality in his work. It is exactly his thought process and ability of
> >expression that infuse his work with the haunting aspects to which we
refer.
>
> That's beautifully put. Thank you. So this mystical source of value
> is kind of like a summation of everything we can know, intellectually
> and physically and emotionally all together? Hmm. An awfully baggy
> way to define anything.
Please realize that it was Marilyn's reference to a "mysterious component"
and Laura refered to this aspect as an "extraordinary quality" and in
another area of the net Judith refers to it as "a work that communicates the
human spirit of the maker".
>
> >
> >> Nothing's existence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- one would hope,
> >> can ever be encompassed by a rule or verbal description.
> >Maybe you should study the laws of physics!
>
> I've a BA in physics, actually with four graduate courses in quantum
> mechanics, nuclear physics, and general relativity, plus an 80-page
> undergraduate thesis on string theory. I believe we were glad to be
> able to explain things, but it wasn't our hope to explain them away,
> to provide the only way of talking about them. I'm surprised you
> suggest it. I thought your mystical twaddle would be horrified by us
> nasty, reductive intellectuals.
Then you know that the existence of some things are encompassed by a rule.
All we are trying to do is provide a way of talking about an aspect we feel
exists in some paintings. I agree this aspect is hard to define but I cannot
admit the this aspect does not exist. I think it is something that goes
beyond technical ability and mastery of the elements of art. Maybe it has to
do with outstanding creativity and imagination and the ability of some
artists to stimulate an emotional response in the viewer. But for those of
us who find this aspect to there, it does add to the value of the work in
own opinions. Maybe this is why I find to hard to completely accept Rand's
philosophy of objectivism.
I believe there are educated, intelligent people who respond here and I was
seeking their opinions. I am stimulated by the discussions of thinking
people.
>
> >Maybe you should put up or shut up. You have provided no input as to your
> >own ideas of what merits being called a contemporary masterpiece.
>
> I take it just to be a fancy way of saying something means so much --
> particularly to other top creative people -- that you are happy to
> keep coming back to it to make sense of the art around you. As to
> what makes some stuff so powerful to me, all I can do is write about
> THEM. I'll be happy indeed to hear criticism of things I've tried to
> write about art on my site. But I've always made it a point of
> keeping the number of adjectives down. Don't, I tell myself, just
> inform your reader this is great. Make the work live for the reader,
> maybe even in a different way, because I'm a different person.
>
> >please, we are interested in personal opinions not a regurgitation
> >of the opinions of others.
>
> Just whom was I regurgitating? Anyhow, I like regurgitation, since
> things come to life through connections. When Erik mentioned Benjamin
> just now, things came to life for me.
>
> John
> jha...@haberarts.com
> http://www.haberarts.com
You were regurgitating no one yet...but please John, what I would like to
hear is your own gut reaction (or intellectual take) on what a masterpiece
is. What, in a painting, brings it to life for you (not your readers)? Do
you have hard and fast rules or does it differ with different paintings? Is
there ever an aspect to a painting that endears it to you for reasons your
have difficulty explaining? (Probably not.)
To be specific, I think Dali's painting "Persistence of Memory" is a
masterpiece. All I have to do is bring a mental image of this painting to my
mind and I get a feeling of nostalgia and a melancholy that I cannot
explain. I know from my study of Dali that his soft watches were an
expression of the fluidness of time and his feelings of the timelessness of
his home in Port Ligat. But I have never been there. And I feel these
expressions are somewhat contradictory. Nonetheless, that painting haunts me
and plays with my emotions. It is not so much how he painted it but what he
painted that makes it so masterful to me. I do believe that Dali was a
master of the illusion and incredibly capable at creating an image and
breathing life into his visions. How he does that would be hard for me to
explain though I think the mystery in his visions has something to do with
it.
John Haber
>I was seeking the opinions of others.
I'm not convinced. In other words, I was wrong to attribute to you
the opinions I disagreed with. Sorry about that. But then, why did
you jump on me so for disagreeing with them?
>Does this mean that you believe there are no contemporary masterpieces?
I never said we can't make value judgments. I do all the time. Who
in his right mind would think all art is equally interesting?
I don't like the word "masterpiece" so much, because it comes with a
certain baggage that other value terms don't -- baggage about the
cultural system. Sort of like disputes over "the canon," but with
overtones of that "aura" and that economic class that Erik rightly
mention. But as I just posted to Erik yesterday, while I much admired
him for pointing this out, that wasn't on my mind at all.
>But what elements of the painting are the contributing factors
>which make up that value.
I should just shut up, since I've had my say. I'll just repeat the
bottom line, since you don't just object to it, you don't even hear
it: (1) there's no formula; and (2) it certainly isn't the empty
formula of that special something.
>Please realize that it was Marilyn's reference to a "mysterious component"
>and Laura refered to this aspect as an "extraordinary quality" and in
>another area of the net Judith refers to it as "a work that communicates
>the human spirit of the maker".
Well, back to just before: are you saying that you're not responsible
for what they say, only you're personally hurt if anyone disagrees
with them? This makes no sense at all to me.
BTW, the third version here has different problems than the first two,
and I find that interesting. Whereas the first two just make no sense
to me, as noted just above, the third is more of a real claim that
possibly could make sense. It runs into two potential objections,
though. One is, as so many critics have written, much of art helps
see through assumptions implicit in our humanism. Another is that to
communicate a person is again too broad: just as there's no rule for
a great painting, there's no rule defining people. I think in therapy
they tell you that if you're trying to define your perfect mate, then
you need to grow up and encounter people.
>Then you know that the existence of some things are encompassed by a rule.
Well, I know that electrons are spin 1/2, negatively charged
particles. I don't think anyone can exactly account for their
existence, only describe them. And that's what our job is in
responding to art -- take the time, respond, describe, react, suggest
connections to other artists because it's a special insight and not
because all artists would do (these all being masterpieces for the
same reason).
We all you fall back on that special something we can't define,
because no one can explain everything. After all, each of us sees
only what we see, and that insight is worth cherishing. But when we
move from "I like it" or an acknowledgment of our limits to a claim
that our limits and our taste IS the explanation, then we've abandoned
ship.
>I think it is something that goes beyond technical ability and mastery
>of the elements of art.
You're certainly right that some great art doesn't involve the best
technique. We've had that argument with Mani up the wazoo.
>But for those of us who find this aspect to there, it does add to the
>value of the work in own opinions.
There's nothing that IS the work, adding to the tecnical ability (or
the artist's beliefs or intellect or anything else). Look at it this
way, would you subtract the tecnical ability of a da Vinci and still
have the same work?
>Maybe this is why I find to hard to completely accept Rand's
>philosophy of objectivism.
I don't know enough about her to know how that might be connected
here. I'd have said she'd love your attitude -- the greatness of the
human spirit and all that. The special something that only the great
people worth knowing have, that set them apart from the mere mortals
they'll victimize.
>You were regurgitating no one yet...but please John, what I would
>like to hear is your own gut reaction (or intellectual take) on what a
>masterpiece is. What, in a painting, brings it to life for you (not your readers)?
>Do you have hard and fast rules or does it differ with different paintings?
Different. I can't even find a formula for a single painter, for that
matter, which is why we can have so many different books about them.
But suppose I could, just for the sake of arguments and examples. I
might argue that Rothko makes me feel at home with the world and
myself, like wanting to sit still, while appreciating the majesty of
perception for itself enough to tune out for a moment the things I am
not seeing. Rauschenberg makes me more of both a realist and a boy at
play, the kind who can't tune anything out and can't sit still,
because paradoxically he can't turn away from the grit of things.
Picasso makes me feel personalities more than things, from the
tenderness of Ma Jolie to the threat of Les Demoiselles to the sly,
sturdy intelligence of Kahnweiler, and he makes me feel that
personality is a thing I can touch, like the forward projection of
Cubist spaces. Johns makes me feel how facile and limited my sense of
ordinary personality is, how it's hidden behind things and icons it
doesn't choose and how an artist can only hint at a life that still
remains really personal. da Vinci makes me think how little
personality matters when you can really understand nature inside out.
And so on. They appeal to different imaginings of the world, and on
different days they'll call up new ones or help me re-experience ones
I miss.
These are incompetent formulas. I wouldn't write like this in a
review. But then, anyone who thinks they've got a formula for art has
given up responding to it.
John
William Engell
(best?) work of a master?
piece which is sufficiently regarded to suspect mastery in its maker?
magnum opus?
great painting?
(?)
What is a masterpiece seems a problem of language initially. I've sort of
assumed it's the "great painting" that you want to know about. Is that not
correct?
Those characteristics comprising the best work of a master, in someone's
valuation, might not be the same as comprise a great painting produced, for
example, by a competent but not usually masterful painter.
I don't mean to regress, or split hairs, or pluck down when there's still
pin feathers (God, it just went folksy on me!). But this type of question,
and it's a valid one, inevitably leads into a subjective morass. Defining
or delimiting the terms a bit more tightly may help.
Then there are other problems (legion, legion!). For example, would the
characteristics which permitted us to refer to a Constable painting be at
all applicable to a Turner? [My initial impulse was to use
Constable/DeKooning or Constable/Rauschenberg, but I'm not up to the
fallout, so I'll stay with Constable/Turner.] Is there a set of
characteristics or criteria which can be used to determine if either or both
The Haywain and/or The Grand T. are/is a masterpiece. If there is such a
set, can it be filled with anything other than subjective evaluations?
Doesn't seem likely.
If it's true that the determination of a masterpiece-- regardless of what we
mean by that-- is inevitably subjective, then the idea of the masterpiece
may be illusory. I don't mean, of course, that the works in the Louvre are
illusions or that they delude us. What I mean is that the work, is the work
, (and pardon me) is the work. And that's all folks. In this case what
makes something a masterpiece is the audience, we the viewers, not
necessarily we the makers. It's what we bring to it when we look, not
what's there.
Okay, it makes a difference what's on the canvas, but the difference is in
how it engages us. And can we really know how that engages us? Know it in
that way necessary for us to be able to encompass it with words? I wonder.
It seems to me that what we have here, when we talk about art in this
fashion, is a prodding at shadows with sticks.
A masterful work might display the elements of other masterful works.
That's uncomfortably self referential, and nearly circular. But, since
we've got earlier masterpieces, we can compare and contrast them to later
candidates. We can even segregate them so that we refer the realistic
landscapes to realistic landscapes and AE canvases to other AE canvases.
What then? Then, it seems to me, after we've decided that both works of
realism have a high degree of verisimilitude or not, are loose or restrained
in approach, are coloristically accurate or inventive or arbitrary or
fanciful, etc, then we always arrive at: I like this one better, or I like
them both. Oh, we might phrase it differently. This one has a stronger
sense of morning light, that one seems to be open, airy, the other seems to
reveal (usually termed, capture) something/ emote/evoke/ stimulate, what
have you. We devolve from the purely formal and rational (I think) to the
informal (not-formal) and irrational (unrational?).
Here is the area that seems to be the ground for determining great works.
They move us. And on a very subjective and often, though not always
emotional, level. And occassionally whether we like them or not. Artists
have devised images which remove us from common language to another
communication. Artists have fabricated works which elicit reaction.
Rarely, I think, is the true basis for this action in the arena of formal.
It seems to me that the art we react with has succeeded in finding the
ineffable diction which is why we pursue art, as makers or as audience.
Try as we might, we don't seem to be able to map the raison d'etre, the
immanent force, of the master work in language. We fail, over and over
again. [Personally, though, I think it's worth the effort.] I can't say
that I've ever even seen an adequate delineation of the calculus of the
plastic elements and the results they produce in terms of this implicit
force of art. I've seen that such an underpainting and these successive
layer result in luminosity. But luminosity is not really the entire
fascination for us. It's merely another element. Or else we aren't looking
any more deeply than journey work.
It may be that we will not be able to define masterpiece beyond describing
the multiplex of reactions we have to one. And then, it's not obvious that
we can do this without reference to the reactions of others.
Sharon Barcone
> >You may note that I did not express my personal opinion in my original
post.
> >I was seeking the opinions of others.
> I'm not convinced. In other words, I was wrong to attribute to you
> the opinions I disagreed with. Sorry about that. But then, why did
> you jump on me so for disagreeing with them?
>
No, no! That is not what I said. I do believe that technical ability is
important in my own evaluation of a masterpiece. But that alone doesn't do
it for me. Add that to the other aspect that some of us have been talking
about and you come closer to understanding my own opinion.
>
> >But for those of us who find this aspect to there, it does add to the
> >value of the work in own opinions.
>
> There's nothing that IS the work, adding to the tecnical ability (or
> the artist's beliefs or intellect or anything else). Look at it this
> way, would you subtract the tecnical ability of a da Vinci and still
> have the same work?
No.
>
> >Maybe this is why I find to hard to completely accept Rand's
> >philosophy of objectivism.
>
> I don't know enough about her to know how that might be connected
> here. I'd have said she'd love your attitude -- the greatness of the
> human spirit and all that. The special something that only the great
> people worth knowing have, that set them apart from the mere mortals
> they'll victimize.
Rand doesn't believe in the mystical either.
If you were talking about individual paintings and what sets them above
others in your mind, then you would have come closer to talking about what I
was interested in learning from you.
>
> These are incompetent formulas. I wouldn't write like this in a
> review. But then, anyone who thinks they've got a formula for art has
> given up responding to it.
>
> John
You don't get it John. In asking this question I was seeking to understand
more of the hearts and minds of the people in the group than looking for
formulas for judging art. For example someone responding about why a certain
AE painting is a great masterpiece to them would give me insight as to what
they get out of it.
There is a common thread in many of the replies here. It goes beyond just
skill and into the realm of the emotional response people feel from viewing
some paintings. I understand what they are expressing because I feel it too.
We may not all feel the same way about the same paintings but that wasn't
the point. And since you don't get it all I can say to you is UNCLE!
Sharon Barcone
"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:ss5o6f...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> It may be that we will not be able to define masterpiece beyond describing
> the multiplex of reactions we have to one. And then, it's not obvious
that
> we can do this without reference to the reactions of others.
>
Actually Bill, that is exactly what I was looking for in my question, the
multiplex of reactions we have to a work of art that we think is a
masterpiece without giving a damn about what other think about the same
work. Maybe is was an unfair question, to ask others, in a public format,
what is in their hearts. Again, I was not looking for some definitive
formula that we can all live by, only to understand how others feel. It is
becoming obvious that some do not seem to think for themselves and must rely
on the thoughts of others to express an opinion.
Thomas Ziorjen
Sharon Barcone wrote:
> Yes, of course I have my own opinion about this but I am interested...
> What, in your opinion, would merit a painting being called or considered a
> masterpiece?
>
Anyone interested in this question might want to check out an article in this
month's ARTnews,
What Makes a Great Painting Great?
Experts on Johns, Warhol, and Richter explain how they
evaluate a modern masterpiece
By Katie Clifford
http://www.artnewsonline.com/currentarticle.htm?art_id=780
At the risk of copyright infringement I've excerpted the following:
Rosenthal here offers a rare glimpse into the way she, and
the Met, evaluate a modern
masterpiece. The classics
generally come to us fully
validated, but who
determines—and how—what makes
a modern masterpiece?
To find out, ARTnews asked
eight people, including art
historians, museum directors,
curators, and an artist, to
discuss what they consider to
be the greatest works of three
pivotal artists of the last 50
years: Jasper Johns (b. 1930),
Andy Warhol (1928-87), and
Gerhard Richter (b. 1932). Each
focused on one of the artists
while sometimes commenting on
the others.
--
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
William Engell
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>So what are you spending most of your time on right now that might end up
>NOT being your masterpiece?
>
>Marilyn
Lately, trying to keep my french easel from blowing into the lagoon. But I
WILL master this! It's much too cool to swim after my panels.
(Or before them, for that matter.)
Bill
William Engell
It certainly is true that some folks assume all or part of the opinions
of others. In fact, to some extent, we probably all do that. Almost any
basis we have for a communicable determination is informed by the work or
thoughts of others. We're constrained to this social aspect of our thought
processes, I believe, by the very language we use.
If we're looking for what people think or believe we're going to hear a
lot of common denominators. And that can be boring and frustrating, but
we're probably doing it too. I think my opinions on economics are going to
be a real hurdle to the creative flow of conversation on a financial
newsgroup. Not all opinions are created equal.
Still, everyone brings something to the conversation, even if it's just
an obtuseness or a misunderstanding. Sooner or later you're bound to run
into something deliciously unusual. Then it's worth all the shucking and
hulling it took to get at it.
You didn't ask anyone to strip. There's nothing unfair in the question.
It's not so much that the issues surrounding art are personal (in the same
embarrassing way a little misplaced adipose might be). The problem is that
a lot of us don't (literally) know what we're doing. Maybe most of us
don't. Reflection can be a real burden. It's hard work and not for
everyone. When reflection moves on to such daunting abstractions as we deal
with when we speak of art, the pack begins to thin. Some aren't up to it.
Some just can't stand it. But it certainly never hurts to ask. And this be
the place.
I think it's apparent that there is no adequate set of criteria for
determining a masterpiece. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that there
is a reaction that we might call a "masterpiece reaction"-- that elicited
complex response to a work of art that results in our feeling that it is in
fact a masterpiece-- which can occur in a viewer without some reference
points or background context pertaining to art, and then pertaining to the
notion of relative value in art. If you were to see a new painting, hot off
the easel, you might understand very well that the work was (or was not) a
masterpiece, despite never having heard or read a thing about it. But you
wouldn't be a tablula rasa. You'd have a background, experience, some
reference point, the context for working out your valuation.
Okay, so the big problem here (or at least one of them) is the regress
thing. But at some point a work of art was placed into a category of it's
own and differentiated from other objects which were not art. I don't know
how that happened, but it must have. And ever since we've been building our
house of cards quite successfully, it seems to me. We have so much context
and so many points of reference that two very intelligent individuals, both
of whom have in depth knowledge and extensive background, can come, quite
seriously, to totally dissimilar conclusions about absolutely any art topic
at all. And that's more apparent in this newsgroup than almost any I've
read. We're not really splitting hairs, the way they do on the Aesthetics-L
or PhilosopyCorner mailing lists (where it's intrinsic to the philosophical
discourse). Here, we're stumbling over the most major components at the
upper levels of the discipline. That's great! That means we haven't
strangled the life out of the topic, or settled on something of which there
should be doubt, or made the perennial blunder of assuming we've put some
major issue to bed, having found the ultimate truth. It also means that we
expect rough going, that we suspect things may not be uncomplicated, that
they may (will, in fact) change. Good for us, asking the hard questions.
We're going to get difficult, problematical answers.
More on topic: One characteristic of my behaviour which leads to my
deciding that (for me) something is a masterpiece is that I repeatedly want
to look at it. For a long time. Even when the effect is no longer new to
me, it has an allure that keeps me looking. It must be similar for a monkey
which tickles itself and laughs. No matter that I understand and can
delineate in detail the technical aspects of the work, the reason I look is
that I love the feeling I have when I do.
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39c37...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
>
>"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
>news:ss5o6f...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> It may be that we will not be able to define masterpiece beyond
describing
>> the multiplex of reactions we have to one. And then, it's not obvious
>that
>> we can do this without reference to the reactions of others.
>>
>
>Actually Bill, that is exactly what I was looking for in my question, the
>multiplex of reactions we have to a work of art that we think is a
>masterpiece without giving a damn about what other think about the same
>work. Maybe is was an unfair question, to ask others, in a public format,
>what is in their hearts. Again, I was not looking for some definitive
>formula that we can all live by, only to understand how others feel. It is
>becoming obvious that some do not seem to think for themselves and must
rely
>on the thoughts of others to express an opinion.
>
mdeli
>
>"John Haber" wrote:
>> You're certainly right that some great art doesn't involve the best
>> technique.
Name three acclaimed masterpieces of the past that lack good
technique.
> We've had that argument with Mani up the wazoo.
>
>No, no! That is not what I said. I do believe that technical ability is
>important in my own evaluation of a masterpiece. But that alone doesn't do
>it for me. Add that to the other aspect that some of us have been talking
>about and you come closer to understanding my own opinion.
You can go on talking about other aspects until you are blue in the
face. I never said anything about "technique alone" Technique is a
foundation. No work lacking sound technique can be considered to have
any merit.
The implication that those who disagree with you say that all a work
needs is technique to have merit, is WRONG.
Every building needs a foundation, not all buildings are good
architecture.
The reason I mention skill technique and craft so often here is
because I feel that the majority of Modern Academic Art is sorely
lacking in these qualities. That is precisely why I consider the
majority of this sort of artwork to lack merit.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
William Engell
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>rigour or just tough trying to express ourselves in good writing. But if
>you mean rough in the sense of hostility and personal attack, that has a
>chilling effect, making some people who would otherwise contribute, clam
>up.
Marilyn,
Rough in the sense of difficult going on-topic.
I'm not much on sticking around when there's a lot of personal assault
or rudeness. What I don't mind at all is people taking apart ideas, even
mine. I've never been particularly invested in anything I have to say at
any particular time. Not that I'm insincere (normally). It's just that
these ideas take on a life of their own. They morph into other things or
don't hold up under rigourous examination. The best thing is when revealed
as demonstrably in error or incomplete. That means we're getting somewhere.
I've always felt that not having to be correct should be a stimulus to
conversation. One of the rules of brainstorming is that no one is permitted
to trash an idea. That helps free people to think outside-the-box. While
there wouldn't be much discussion on these art topics if we couldn't trash
ideas, I think maybe we should have at the ideas with a vengence and forego
trashing the folks. It's one thing to say, "I'm not sure that's right," or
"Isn't it rather like this," than to say, "Well, you got it wrong again," or
even the milder "You missed the point."
On the other hand, some cultures are rife with personal references and
there isn't much anyone can do about it. The company I work for recently
opened an off-shore (I'm being discreet here) division. I was working with
one of the staff people. In fact, I was involved with hosting him for a
day's field trip to a supplier in this country. I doubt if five minutes
elapsed between the incidences of his saying offensive things to people.
When confronted, toward the end of the day, he was astonished we thought
he'd been rude. Now his cohorts actually thought he was a difficult person.
I've done some work with a few of them, and they were not half a rude. The
offensive remarks came at ten minute intervals. It's apparent that these
people speak to one another differently than do we. I assumed that as an
American (US), it was my responsibility to be rude, if someone had to do it.
I'm certainly capable of it, but why ruin the effect by having it leak out
constantly?
The repeated assertions thing is sure a bore. It's pretty much the same
as speaking loudly so the non-anglophone will understand. We're not all
articulate. In fact, some artists seem downright pre-verbal. But that
doesn't mean they aren't intelligent and capable. Does muddled, stagnant or
addled speech always reflect similar thinking? I'm not sure it does. A lot
of our thinking related processes are not conscious. Bringing things to
order consciously is a hard won skill. A hallmark of our times is the
highly educated person who seems not to be motivated or is unable to think
particularly well in abstract ways. Then only a portion of those use
language very well. Rational thinking is work, and unfortunately it places
one in jeopardy of error if one shares the results. I'd like to remove some
of that jeopardy. The zapping, that's for aggravating behaviour. As a
child I thought trolls were fictive. Shows how much I know. I'm a lot more
careful crossing bridges....
Bill
lauri levanto
>for what they say, only you're personally hurt if anyone disagrees
>with them? This makes no sense at all to me.
lauri13.09.200
>... It is a piece that
>I appreciate for *some extraordinary quality* and which is also
>more videly reckognized
lauri to John:
Just for record, Sharon's misquote makes no sense to me either. As you see
in the last quote, my point was
that a "masterpiece" has nother socially conditioned meaning, which is not
subjective 'I like it'. The extraordinary quality may be anything like
- draftmanship or Gerome
- elephantshit of Ogili
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
Sharon Barcone
"lauri levanto" <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:sjjx5.10920$oL4.2...@news2.nokia.com...
> lauri to John:
>
> Just for record, Sharon's misquote makes no sense to me either. As you see
> in the last quote, my point was
> that a "masterpiece" has nother socially conditioned meaning, which is not
> subjective 'I like it'. The extraordinary quality may be anything like
> - draftmanship or Gerome
> - elephantshit of Ogili
>
> - lauri
> journeyman of sculpture
>
>
>
John Haber
>initially. I've sort of assumed it's the "great painting" that
>you want to know about.
Absolutely fine with me. We'll continue to make value judgments and
use adjectives to express them. The danger comes only when we try to
find a rule for what makes some things important everywhere and for
all time -- or even for one of us now. The first amounts to creating
some dogma that will be leaden with a dominant ideology and obsolete
in a few years. It reduces OTHERS to our needs. The latter amounts
to reducing OURSELVES, when we need to give us new ways to respond to
things.
So formulas like the greater glory of god, unity of form and content,
perfect picture of nature, fulfillment of the artst, what-have-you,
all sound silly as can be and all still teach us something about how
we approach works of art. A little humility suggests remembering that
balance -- as a reminder of how silly we are.
I argued further that saying the greatness of art consisted in
something we can't express had two problems. On the one hand, it
avoids those issues -- of diversity, ideology, and the ways we DO in
fact approach works, learning and with words. On the other hand, it
amounts merely to putting a fancy but empty word on the truth -- that
there is no rule we can express (or can't express, for that matter).
I was thinking over the weekend of two wonderful essays by writers
I'll never match that use the word "masterpiece" well, but also essays
that have their limits, too. Let me split the post up for them, to be
sure I'm not cut off....
CONTINUED....
John
John Haber
In reviewing Shirin Nashat's video "Rapture," Arthur Danto describes a
masterpiece as a concept that ought to survive AFTER we acknowledge
the political dangers or political limits of a canon AND the
disappointments we had when we hoped in the early 1980s, with that
wave of expressionism, that old concepts of greatness were back with
us despite Pop, Minimalism, and the first wave of appropriations and
Pomo. (The 1980s neo-Expressionism, too, turned out just to be a
moment in time.)
He suggests using it also apart from a value judgment on, say, an
artist's best work. He likes it as a way of saying a work both in
some way represents its time AND will retain at least some appeal
outside of its time. I like that, in part because it gets at how we
use words (even "great" and "a masterpiece" are different words, after
all) and because it doesn't suggest that any time has any rule for
what in particular will get represented, what won't, and how.
I also like it because it's non-spiritual. After all, it's praising
an artist who's whole career is about seeing how religion, ideology,
and notions of gender identity oppress people while art and notions of
identity can still pierce and stir us.
But it's also a bit limited, in part because it IS so vague. Lots of
things, maybe EVERYTHING, say something about their time (maybe the
real Brillo box more than Warhol's). Lots of artists despise their
time.
Gertrude Stein also an essay that hasn't been cited here and ought not
to be missed. It's in her wonderful, weird prose, those sentences
between fine craft, spoken informal English, and illogic, all in the
service of precision. She argues (if I can follow her at all, which I
don't dare promise!) that a masterpiece is rare because it doesn't
match too popular criteria. It isn't "necessary" (that perfection and
unity) and it doesn't represent nature. Rather, it's an artist who
has the courage to do something that's not inevitable and to speak up
for the fact that art never really related passively to its subject
and needn't even pretend in the age of photography.
I like this, because it's such an original way of thinking, because it
makes a masterpiece so much a part of its maker, and because it means
our relationship to greatness isn't passive: it doesn't sit there
waiting for us, and if we sit there waiting for the expected to hit
us, we'll miss out.
But it, too, is limited: 75 years later, it looks so wrapped up in
Modernism's protests.
So I love how great writers still allow themselves to use words we
shoudl be comfortable with -- words to do with value. And yet
works, creators, their times, history, and beliefs are always
colliding because that's what experience and life are, and when
someone pulls out a corner of the story and puts it on a pedestal --
our time, self-expression, the human spirit, etc., etc. -- it becomes
a lie. When we praise art for our lies, then art starts to mouth our
lies, too, but then it won't be a masterpiece any longer.
John
John Haber
> I think it's apparent that there is no adequate set of criteria for
>determining a masterpiece. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that there
>is a reaction that we might call a "masterpiece reaction"-- that elicited
>complex response to a work of art that results in our feeling that it is in
>fact a masterpiece-- which can occur in a viewer without some reference
>points or background context pertaining to art, and then pertaining to the
>notion of relative value in art. If you were to see a new painting, hot off
>the easel, you might understand very well that the work was (or was not) a
>masterpiece, despite never having heard or read a thing about it. But you
>wouldn't be a tablula rasa. You'd have a background, experience, some
>reference point, the context for working out your valuation.
I couldn't do better than that! (But then, this seems to have been a
long thread about very little. It's as if we just need some
reassurance we don't have to deal with the power of real art.)
John
William Engell
John Haber wrote in message <39c68992...@news.columbia.edu>...
>It's as if we just need some
>reassurance we don't have to deal with the power of real art.)
>John
John,
I don't know what you mean by this. Would you elaborate?
Bill
Maharat1
(one
>person's masterpiece being another's piece of trash); in former times this
>term had a precise meaning. Under the guild system that prevailed until
>modern times, one needed to create a "masterpiece" in order to qualify as a
>"master" of ones art. This was an
>artistic equivalent of the Master's Thesis
>that is still required for an advanced academic degree. It was judged by a
>committee of the guild, who shared a set of standards the piece in question
>had to meet or exceed. ]
Hum...Thank you Andrew. Maybe we should make our own guild of online artist
and go around casting judgement upon the work of others. We can even give out
awards for people to attach to their resumes. Anyone wanna give it a try?
David