Art is objective
mani deli
> Do you know
>so many hundreds of abstract artists who never "learn how to draw or
>paint?"
I've seen the work of hundreds of abstract painters ( I refer to
Modern Academic abstraction) and they sure can't draw. I bet you are a
good example.
>Did anyone ever suggest to you that too much technical training would
>cause the artist's personality to be "hidden" in a painting?
> Did they
>also suggest this lunacy as an argument promoting abstract over
>representational painting? If so, this shows only that person was an
>idiot. It doesn't say anything about the merits or faults of
>abstraction.
Abstraction is the oldest art form, Minimalism is a far later ploy.
Modern Academic abstraction is what is taught in most art schools.
>>Great artists have prominent personalities, and it shows from their
>>artworks. Having a tremendous background in technique doesn't
>>necessarily means that he/she doesn't have the capability of
>>self-expression and experimentation through his/her art.
Having no background in technique means an artist has no capabilities
at all.
>As if simply choosing to follow a representational style is PROOF of
>talent?
No one said that but you.
> What if the artist DOES have a STRONG TRADITIONALLY ORIENTED
>art background AND STILL CHOOSES TO PURSUE ABSTRACTION?
Don't be fooled by this sort of nonsense. What counts is what's on the
wall not a song and dance where the artist or some critic assures you
he can really do this or that.
>Ironically, the most artistically talentless people that I know are
>all people who hate modern art and insist (as if they had thought
>deeply about it) that abstract art is some kind of sick joke. The
few
>people I personally know who love abstract art tend to love ALL
STYLES
>OF ART; they also happen to be the ones who do have some talent (by
>any definition of the word), not to mention open minds.
Send this to "True Confessions."
Some of the most stupid people here are into abstraction and hate
realism and have a bad case of black velvet fear.
>And again, ironically, all the galleries in MY city show nothing but
>very crappy still lifes and nature scenes!
Yes, but do good still lifes and nature scenes exist?
>Whenever there's any kind
>of art fair, the paintings are all seashores and sunsets!
Gee where I live most is crappy abstraction.
> I can't
>find any new abstract art in my city because I CAN'T FIND ANY
>GALLERIES WHO SHOW IT!
Why don't you move?
> I judge the finished work, not the effort that went into it.
good point! What counts is what's on the wall right?
>>Quite honestly, which way would you choose? Would you rather bust
>>your ass drawing and painting 12~15 hours a day, 7 days a week
during
>>your college years to draw and paint realistically, just to get
hired
>>by Walt Disney and become a background painter for 'Hunchback of
>>Notre Dame' and 'Atlantis' to earn 1500 bucks guild minimum per
week?
Don't be a patronizing ass; perhaps its for the same reason that you
might choose to be a starving artist.
>Anyway, your comment almost proves the point that having good
>representational skills makes it easier to find work. It may be easy
>to splatter pig's blood on masonite board (as if that's what abstract
>art is all about); it may be easy (in some places...) to find SOME
>gallery which will show it; but it's not so easy to sell it.
Can you just tell us why?
> Many
>people in this group can attest to the fact that while its easy to
>make abstract art for good grades in school, its not easy to make a
>living selling it to the public.
>
I found selling modern abstract style work easy after finding the
right sucker. The work is conning the sucker. I also won scholarships
as a student doing abstract schmiers for jury jerks. There are two
ways to make a living at this; give the idiots what they want and make
money or do quality work and make money. I,ve done both.
The person who knows his craft can always out-schmier the other
schmierers.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
John Ng
>Ironically, the most artistically talentless people that I know are
>all people who hate modern art and insist (as if they had thought
>deeply about it) that abstract art is some kind of sick joke. The few
>people I personally know who love abstract art tend to love ALL
STYLES >OF ART; they also happen to be the ones who do have some
talent (by >any definition of the word), not to mention open minds.
I think you got this the other way round. Talent appreciates talent.
My desire to paint well (not that I have gotten there though) makes me
look at paintings meticulously, appreciating technique and style (just
as a carpenter appreciates the skill of another).
John
mani deli
>In a art school say like Pratt or SVA or Parsons the student is required to go
>threw a foundation year. Where that student is required to learn the basics
>of visual representation in a 2-d medium and also a 3-d medium.
>
Complete BS.
Just look at the work they produce. You can name an art course
anything you want, the fact is students don't learn the bearest
fundamentals. The best and only proof is the work. Go to a student
exhibition or that of most instructors. Yuk!
mani deli
>It seems to me, from reading random articles in this NG, that we are
>coming out of the dark ages of Modern Art into a new renaissance of
>Classic art. May be we can continue from where the 19th C left off
>before we were so rudely interrupted by the search for a new
>definition in the last 100 years.
The continuation has existed since the so-called demise of the
academy! If the artists of the Art Nuveau and Deco were to be seen in
museums this would be obvious. The best painting from the 1930's
onward is rarely allowed into museums and is unknown to students.
However, collectors are generally aware of all the fine work done
in his century and there is a good market for all this work.
Books on the best of these artists are at lasy becoming available and there is
loads to be seen on the web by anyone willing to make the effort.
The Guggenheim has allowed Norman Rockwell into the holy premises and
even the NY TIMES reviewer grudgingly admitted that, " -among the mobs
that will no doubt crowd the Guggenheim to see the show---"
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I think you got this the other way round. Talent appreciates talent.
> My desire to paint well (not that I have gotten there though) makes me
> look at paintings meticulously, appreciating technique and style (just
> as a carpenter appreciates the skill of another).
>
quite differently before I started painting myself, I was less critical
and more open to seeing what the artist wanted me to see. Now, though I
look at far more paintings and enjoy the experience far more, I do find
that it is a much more analytical process.
With really excellent works, though, they still hit you hard in the
right place and are deeply satisfying - and then seeing the technique
and composition is even more enjoyable.
--
'Say "pounds", :"sovereigns", "Bradburies" - almost
anything you choose,' said Raisley, 'but not "quid", Let us not have
proletarian usage.'
Simon Raven 'In the image of god'
dea...@optusnet.com.au
abstract art is good
i am an abstract painter and i take long periods of time to do the
works which have to be appealing to me, i think one can never portray a
feeling through representional images, as a feeling one feels is
abstract, tell me can you pinpoint your feeling in an image, you can
never do this. Also the greatest things in life is abstracted, like the
universe, parts of nature, like the ocean, we think of it as an ocean,
but actually watch a wave and see if you can put an image to the awe of
a wave and also the diverse color coming off a wave, same with a
sunrise or sunset, when one is watching it, can you put an image to
what is going inside you, i think not. I have been studying this
process for ages and i know to deal with things that are unknow or with
feeling, it has to be abstracted or the artist can portray it in a
visual sense. I suggest you to actually talk to abstract artists and
talk to them what was going on whenthey were pianting, cause i believe
the best painters are abstract, cause it comes within and also is
painted without copying something. Also if you read on any abstract
artist you will see that in the beginning they draw represental pieces
and from then on moved to abstract, i use to draw fantasy worlds and
unicorns but they didn't give me the satisfaction of what i wanted to
portary and abstract art gives me this satisfaction.
John Ng
> i am an abstract painter and i take long periods of time to do the
> works which have to be appealing to me, i think one can never portray a
> feeling through representional images, as a feeling one feels is
> abstract, tell me can you pinpoint your feeling in an image, you can
> never do this.
The length of time you take to think about it does not make it useful
art. I take a long time to think up the colour for my house and yet
it is not work of art.
Your inability to present feelings in representational art does not
mean that abstract is good. It is just an escapist medium used by
mediocre artists. If I were a good enough artist, I could convey
feelings. This has been shown in many good 19C paintings.
> Also the greatest things in life is abstracted, like the
> universe, parts of nature, like the ocean, we think of it as an ocean,
> but actually watch a wave and see if you can put an image to the awe of
> a wave and also the diverse color coming off a wave, same with a
> sunrise or sunset...
First of all, things in life ARE NOT abstracted. If it is so, an atom
is a representation of feelings. This is like saying water is life.
What are you talking about? If you want to show the awesomeness of a
wave, paint an awesome wave.
I have lost the links to many good wave paintings but here is one on
sunset. It is difficult to represent feelings in landscape but
Benjamin William Leader has certainly done so in Tintern Abbey, see
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=852&page=1
> I suggest you to actually talk to abstract artists and talk to them
> what was going on whenthey were pianting, ... cause it comes within and also
> is painted without copying something.
But can they copy as a learning process? Don't tell me I can't paint
abstract because I can do it better than anyone. If I were to say my
abstract is the best who is to tell me otherwise? It is my feelings
not theirs, am I right?
> Also if you read on any abstract artist you will see that in the beginning
> they draw represental pieces and from then on moved to abstract
That is so, but are they of any good. I have not seen any. Even the
much touted Picasso's earlier representational are mediocre student's
grade at the best.
> … but they didn't give me the satisfaction of what i wanted to
> portary and abstract art gives me this satisfaction.
No doubt about the satisfaction part. Graffatti artists are satisfied
with a good splat on the neighbour's wall.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
Leave graffiti to the scoundrels
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
>Don't tell me I can't paint
>abstract because I can do it better than anyone
That's why when one thinks of abstract art, John Ng is the first artist to
come to mind.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> dea...@optusnet.com.au wrote in message
>
>
>>i am an abstract painter and i take long periods of time to do the
>>works which have to be appealing to me, i think one can never portray a
>>feeling through representional images, as a feeling one feels is
>>abstract, tell me can you pinpoint your feeling in an image, you can
>>never do this.
>
>
I am not an abstract artist. I have found it too difficult for me.
>
>>Also the greatest things in life is abstracted, like the
>>universe, parts of nature, like the ocean, we think of it as an ocean,
>>but actually watch a wave and see if you can put an image to the awe of
>>a wave and also the diverse color coming off a wave, same with a
>>sunrise or sunset...
>
If you want to show the awesomeness of a
> wave, paint an awesome wave.
Here is the crucial point. Can you see the difference of
painting an awesome wave and painting the awe aroused by the wave?
John, you have not difficulties with abstract music.
You do not expect Jimi Herndrix splash a bucket of water
to mediate a feeling of ocean.
Why is your visua understanding so impaired?.
>
> I have lost the links to many good wave paintings but here is one on
> sunset.
www.modjourn.brown.edu/. ../MedusaRaft.jpg
www.art-and-artist.co.uk/ j_m_w_turner/artist/.
These are both representational paintings for your understanding,
but the Turner builds on emotions.
Look someother Turner pieces, how he distracts from representational
to abstraction, for emotional content.
Look at his Norham Castle works
http://www.artland.co.uk/page576hh.htm
perso.wanadoo.fr/safran2b/ tableaux-Turner2.htm
can you see how abstraction improves the emotional strength
by reducing distraction?
> http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=852&page=1
Don't tell me I can't paint
> abstract because I can do it better than anyone. If I were to say my
> abstract is the best who is to tell me otherwise?
You can always ask Art Reneval group :-) or Vatican.
Both a keepers of the keys of eternal truth.
Your abstract may be the best for you, but can you convice anybody?
The abstracts you condemn are appreciated by thousands
who know what they speak about.
Unlike King said, there is a social dimension in art.
Even the
> much touted Picasso's earlier representational are mediocre student's
> grade at the best.
Great, I see Mani has one convert!
-lauri
Sculptor and craftsman
leave kitsch to walmart
>
> John Ng
> Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
> Leave graffiti to the scoundrels
> http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
-lauri
Sculptor and craftsman
(leave kitsch to walmart)
Mani Deli
<laur...@dnainternet.fi> wrote:
>>>Also the greatest things in life is abstracted, like the
>>>universe, parts of nature, like the ocean, we think of it as an ocean,
The usual blather. What's abstracted about them?
> If you want to show the awesomeness of a
>> wave, paint an awesome wave.
>
>Here is the crucial point. Can you see the difference of
>painting an awesome wave and painting the awe aroused by the wave?
Its usual artzy fartzies to phrase a meaningless double talk and try
to confuse their opponent. Its the sort of bullshit you learn in art
school.
>Why is your visua understanding so impaired?.>
Loaded question!
>The abstracts you condemn are appreciated by thousands
>who know what they speak about.
and probably condemned as nothing particular by millions.
> Even the
>> much touted Picasso's earlier representational are mediocre student's
>> grade at the best.
>Great, I see Mani has one convert!
Now "Why is your visual understanding so impaired?
>-lauri
>Sculptor and craftsman
>leave kitsch to walmart
>>
and leave pure incompetent crap to Lauri who hasn't the skill to copy
a tin soldier.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
John Ng
> Here is the crucial point. Can you see the difference of
> painting an awesome wave and painting the awe aroused by the wave?
> Why is your visua understanding so impaired?.
Do you see it? Or is it that you want to see it? Did someone have to
tell you that it is there? My vision may be impaired because I don't
see the ghost and the spirits trying to kill that poor demented man.
> These are both representational paintings for your understanding,
> but the Turner builds on emotions.
> Look someother Turner pieces, how he distracts from representational
> to abstraction, for emotional content.
At least Turner has representation even in what you call the abstract
pieces (he is actually a very good landscape draftsman). Some of his
pieces are downright trashy as well, especially those that are just
patches of colour and no substance. I think he knows people buy those
stuff because of his name and why not give the market what they want?
> Look at his Norham Castle works
> http://www.artland.co.uk/page576hh.htm
> perso.wanadoo.fr/safran2b/ tableaux-Turner2.htm
> can you see how abstraction improves the emotional strength
> by reducing distraction?
No. Can you? Or are you imagining it. Sure doesn't look like
Pollock's abstract art to me. If you are talking about abstract in
portion, I see it even in Bouguereau's work. In fact, in that case,
Bouguereau is a damn good abstract artist in your eyes. Notice the
backgrounds of some of his paintings. You think it is forage but it
is just a patch of blur. I understand this kind of abstraction but
not De Koons etc.
By the way, this piece of Turner work is outstanding.
> Great, I see Mani has one convert!
That was my opinion long before I join this news group. By the way, I
even go as far as saying that quite a lot of Rembrant figures are
highly anatomically inaccurate. Mani didn't comment on this one.
Mani is not the only one who said so. If you bother to delve into the
archives, you will see comments like these dated to Picasso's
lifetime. Maybe you can't see Picasso's mediocrity (in his
representational pieces) so maybe this argument doesn't make sense to
you.
> Don't tell me I can't paint… or Vatican.
> Both a keepers of the keys of eternal truth.
In abstract, I paint my feelings and I paint good. Who is to tell
they are wrong. Wait a hundred years and some joker will say that it
is good.
> Your abstract may be the best for you, but can you convice anybody?
If I knew Mick Jagger, I could. After all that is what the trashy
Andy Warhol did. Want to convine some one? Easy, just make deals
with Murdoch. After all, even the media can make Bush sound like a
sane man.
> I am not an abstract artist. I have found it too difficult for me.
You are fooling yourself. Feel man. Put a stroke on a white canvas
and there you have it.
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
Terry
abstraction or non-objective art? Because I've always considered
Pollack's dribble works to be non-objective (i.e., having no
corresponding object in reality). Same goes for Mondrian's rectangles,
Malevich's squares and circles, and so on.... Everything else, from cave
paintings to the eerily real figures of Duane Hanson, are abstracted
from reality to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, I don't think that
it is possible to make an object-based artwork without using abstraction
(unless you're God).
Cheers,
Terry
Electric Nachos wrote:
>>> Don't tell me I can't paint... or Vatican.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
Lauri
>>I am not an abstract artist. I have found it too difficult for me.
>
John
> You are fooling yourself. Feel man. Put a stroke on a white canvas
> and there you have it.
So you got the point?
Meaningless abstract is easy to do
but doing it is meaningless.
Good abstract work takes a lot of skill and experimentation.
>Look at his Norham Castle works
>> http://www.artland.co.uk/page576hh.htm
>> perso.wanadoo.fr/safran2b/ tableaux-Turner2.htm
>> can you see how abstraction improves the emotional strength
>> by reducing distraction?
No. Can you? Or are you imagining it.
When I Googled the images, I saw the thumbnails side by side.
I was looking after the abstracted piece, and noticed by accident that
there was another one with the same name.
Enlarging it gives an "empty" postcard with no attraction.
That is gut reaction, not imagination.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Terry wrote:
> I've lost the direction of this thread. Are you guys talking about
> abstraction or non-objective art? Because I've always considered
> Pollack's dribble works to be non-objective (i.e., having no
> corresponding object in reality). Same goes for Mondrian's rectangles,
> Malevich's squares and circles, and so on.... Everything else, from cave
> paintings to the eerily real figures of Duane Hanson, are abstracted
> from reality to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, I don't think that
> it is possible to make an object-based artwork without using abstraction
> (unless you're God).
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
The Russian modernists wanted to call their works "concrete art", not
abstract, implying that those pieces should be considered
on their own -like music - without external reference.
Gombrich's Art and Illusion is a great study along these lines.
-lauri
Terry
have much more in common with ideas than they do with factual objects.
I'm not sure I understand the way they relate to concrete-ness, unless
in a Platonic sense they are exemplars from the divine Craftsman. (Did
He shop at Canadian Tire too, I wonder?)
Terry
Lauri Levanto
I think the concretism is more descriptive term tha "abstract"
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Mani Deli wrote:
> and leave pure incompetent crap to Lauri who hasn't the skill to copy
> a tin soldier.
>
So,
you are a besserwisser in sculpture, too
Do as you preach,
show some of your tin soldiers, so we could have a laugh.
-lauri
klunk
btw)...
then "realism" is denial
klunk
Thur
"klunk" <kl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T3xhd.90524$Pl.57550@pd7tw1no...
> if abstract art is an "escapist medium" (which is grammatically incorrect
> btw)...
> then "realism" is denial
>
>
Here's a suggestion.
Include enough material from the text you are replying to to
give your readers a chance to know what you are on about.
I searched the above quote and found the originator was John Ng.
Now if you had included the header of his text (as I have of yours) then
I would have been better informed and needn't have done a search.
Thur
Lauri Levanto
Abstract art - what Russian modernists called concrete art
*were reality*- It did not represent/visualize anything.
One waas supposed to take it * as is*.
Representational art is an abstraction,
a perspective painting displays not the sceenery,
but what you would se if the sceenery were a flat plane in front of you.
It has very little to do with what we really see,
it represents a projection of the detail's position in space.
-lauri
Thur
confuse, but it does not deal with it.
"Realist" art or art that contains a significant realist content
provides the viewer with a starting point that requires no
explanation. A view of some landscape or an imagined sene
from some Classical Myth or maybe a commonly understood
relgious or moral tale, all rendered with the touch of an artist,
versus say a Kandinsky or Pollack?
It shows that the artist understands and accepts that a creation
is nothing if it cannot be seen and almost nothing if it cannot be
understood.
I hope you will progress the argument further.
Thur
klunk
> > *were reality*- It did not represent/visualize anything.
> > One waas supposed to take it * as is*.
A piece of art, any piece of art... any piece of anything... as it exists,
by itself, without explanation, without justification for its existence,
before any human conceptual interpretation / intervention is reality... A
flower does not need an explanation in order for it to be appreciated... nor
does a sunset, or a landscape (and for some, nor does a howitzer)... each
is, on its own a piece of reality that does not "represent/visualize"
anything other than itself... interpretation is aesthetic misinterpretation.
Within this context, all art is "supposed to be taken as is"... not just
Russion "concrete art", but also "Abstract Expressionism", "Impressionism",
"Pointilism"... whether it depicts or describes something physically
recognizable or not.
An odour can be described, but never understood without direct experience...
such is the case with art (if not everything in existence)... Dealing here
strictly with 2dimensional art, that is art that doesn't require the passage
of time in order to become fully exposed to its existence (ie: a 3D
sculpture requires physical movement in order to experience it in its
entirety) "communicates itself" before the human mind begins to "grasp"
(logically) its existence... within the initial moment of contact... the
moment your eye "touches it"... that artwork has already "expressed itself"
to you... in other words, the instant your mind begins to work on
"understanding" what your eyes are seeing, is the instant your experience
transforms into an interpretive one... and thus becomes less about the
artwork itself and more about your own state of mind.
Abstract art is criticised not because it confuses or refuses to deal with
reality, but because the viewer struggles to attach some notion of their own
interpretation of reality to their experience of it.
Does anyone ever look at a flower and say, "it looks like....(something)"?
This is a common activity in reference to clouds, but no one ever seems to
question their existence... they simply acknowledge that a random
convergence of atmospheric conditions reminds them of something they already
know... it is much easier to accept nature's "hand" in chaotic creation...
nature does not require justification... it simply is and is accepted as
such.
As Pollock said, "I am nature". Yet, we seem not to be able to accept such a
statement without consequential psychoanalysis and without references to
"other pieces of nature"... A lack of context becomes justification in the
denial of its validity.
The most obvious mistake people make when looking at abstract art is to
interpret it... when they should recognize that they are simply interpreting
their own reactions... The same is true of realist/representational art...
it's just easier to bury its validation within self-serving comparative,
analytic rhetoric. If you cannot look at a piece of art and simply allow its
experience to "wash over you" without any interpretation, then you have
simply missed the point.
Understanding something does not necessarily require a structured
conceptualization of it... just like the smell of a fart.... you don't need
to know where it comes from, its chemical composition, nor why it exists in
order to understand it... Like abstract art, if you insist that you need a
"starting point" in order to understand it, then you won't be able to avoid
the subsequent shit that follows.
Lauri Levanto
unlike the extreme fundamentalists here
you have shown a real interest to understand,
so you deserve an answer.
I have picked just a couple of quotes from Klunk.
klunk wrote:
... A > flower does not need an explanation in order for it to be
appreciated...
This I think is well put.
I readily admit that there are very many abstract paintings
that do not touch me - Kandinsky is one name, Pollock is not.
For some reason there are few butterflies that do not give aesthetic
experience, but in the total realm of inverteberates disgusting seems to
be the rule.
I am conservative, but with representational art I have the same mixed
feelings. When looking at a Bougereay I see extreme virtuosity but
very little content. I can admire the skill as much as I admire
an acrobat number but that's it . When looking at a Rembrant, Ruisdael,
Velaquez and especially Turner, the reaction os quite opposite.
First I become influenced, then I start to look details
how something is represented.
> such is the case with art (if not everything in existence)... Dealing here
> strictly with 2dimensional art, that is art that doesn't require the passage
> of time in order to become fully exposed to its existence
This is just funny notation. Many abstact paintings seem to me empty at
first sight. They need time to impress (that I too seldom give to them).
within the initial moment of contact... the
> moment your eye "touches it"... that artwork has already "expressed itself"
> to you...
That is also well said. The whole purpose of seeing, is to attach
meaning to the objects. No, not that but to form meaningfull entities
out of sensations.
in other words, the instant your mind begins to work on
> "understanding" what your eyes are seeing, is the instant your experience
> transforms into an interpretive one... and thus becomes less about the
> artwork itself and more about your own state of mind.
>
"Uderstanding" then is but arranging meanings, to position them
in relation to our own experiences.
> Does anyone ever look at a flower and say, "it looks like....(something)"?
> This is a common activity in reference to clouds, but no one ever seems to
> question their existence...
Now in fact the old European herbal tradition was built on assumption
that God had friendly associated each herb with a form that tells the
usage. That fallacy lurks when you look at a painting from a
representational starting point.
>
> As Pollock said, "I am nature".
Of course 90 per cent of modern art is inferior.
So was 90 per cent of renaissance pieces. Fortunately those
did not survive.
Then I have a question to you, Thur:
How do you judge representational painting that depicts something really
disgusting. I have no good example in mind just now,
but I think something in line with Gustav Dore's
biblical horror plates, maybe Goya.
-lauri
Thur
layers of communication.
I subconciously expect a painting to please my eye, even if for example
one of the subjects is holding the severed head of someone else.
However, if it were as disgusting as I think you mean, then however
well painted, it would fail to be a valued work of art to me.
There are some subjects which I do not expect to be confronted with,
and painting is not the medium I would wish to explore them if I
had to.
This "pleasing" is part emotional and completely subjective, and another
aspect has been formed from my experience in or with Art.
Just as a poem can be read and please the ear from the first reading,
if it has no content for the trained/experienced "ear" and "eye" then
it is discarded and forgotten quickly, and so must a painting have
a deeper content.
Technical aspects that have been learnt and perhaps mastered to a
degree can also be admired and make themselves valued aspects
of the work.
While my taste is completely individual, it also cannot help but shadow
aspects of the culture within I dwell.
Thur