What should the viewer look for?
discussion
Todd Strickland prompted me to ask what do artists expect
their 'public' to look for when they are viewing their works?
If the work is a commission, then of course, the product is
specifically targeted for one requirement. When it finally
appears either for resale, or in a gallery, then it will be viewed
by the same public.
There must be an infinite number of differing views form the
public, - even the buying public.
Here are some things that I think are looked for:-
1: A work that touches on an emotional level
2: A work that is admired for the supreme technique on show
3: A work that the viewer recognises and shares an interest and
appreciation
4: A work providing a challenge of intellect without being too
obscure.
5: Something 'nice' that will go with the wallpaper
6: Something from a well known artist for to show off to one's
friends and to appear to be rich and intelligent.
7: Something from a well known artist for speculative reasons.
I invite others to add their views.
I wonder if an artist with a correct view of what his buyers are
looking for would have an effect on what is being produced?
No problem if the artist wants to spend a life without recognition,
knowing his public have not yet been born.
N.H
--
for email replies use:- neil "at" nharris dot u-net dot com
Marilyn
> I have lost the thread so no quote, but reading a post from
> Todd Strickland prompted me to ask what do artists expect
> their 'public' to look for when they are viewing their works?
A SURPRISE!
Holly Daize
>> what do artists expect
>> their 'public' to look for when they are viewing their works?
>
>A SURPRISE!
Uhhhh. I suspect that's what the VIEWER would like
to experience. The question was: "what do ARTISTS
expect" of the public. I can't speak for anyone
but myself, but I consider my work successful if
a passing viewer does a double-take, or expends
more than a half-second glance at my work. A raving
success is when they call someone else over to
discuss some aspect of the work!
Bob & Dale Ford
question.
Dale
Lauri Levanto
1. Who are your intended audience?
2. Why should they mind looking your works?
-lauri
Holly Daize
>
>For me it depends on the purpose of the work.
I don't care what the "purpose of the work" is,
I can assure you that EVERY artist yearns for
their work to garner more than a passing glance.
I can't imagine an artist producing work for
the sole purpose of having it totally ignored.
RBrac53660
Felix Gonzaleas Torres did something kinda along these lines. Its bit of a
streech. But he would do these works that would disappear.
Marilyn
You bring to mind the shamanistic incentive to image making.
It's done for the gods to see, in dark caves,
or sand paintings by the Navajo or Buddhist mandalas,
which blow away into the air.
The paintings in the Egyptian tombs were not for the public,
rather they represented an idealized after world for the entombed
dead.
Giacometti at one time believed that the public was not ready to
view his work.
There was a ceramic artist in the US (name escapes me)
who left his body of work to his children making them promise not to
show it until 10 years after his death. When it was shown it was
shocking in its beauty because he had used experimental glazes
never seen before.
It just seems that there is no simple flat-out broad statement which can
be applied to the arts. Keep on trying though.
MW
supermann
I follow a basic precept that there is a three-way interelationship
between the artist, his work and the audience whom observes it. These
elements are almost essential because the production of the piece takes
on the meaning of a kind of display ethic by the artist. That is, the
artist is nothing if there is noone to see his work; to proclaim him
an artist as an eyewittness, to bestow on him the title of what he claims to
be.
Success as such, as shallow a thing as it may seem, is essential to most
artists in their habitual gatherings and exhibitions....whether they admit
so or not.
Supermann
RBrac53660
A statement of non statement is a statemnet to.
Corny huh? ;)
Bob & Dale Ford
You must be feeling sorry for me because we just got dumped on by mother
nature...........
:-)
Dale
Todd Strickland
I recently said the "matter of toughness" isn't any kind of quality to
be admired in a painting. I gave the example of tourists in the
Sistine Chapel being impressed with how long it took Michelangelo to
finish the ceiling, but not knowing how to appreciate it for its
artistic merits. Is that the thread you have in mind? Incidentally,
my apologies to Jay C. for ragging too much; I've been trying not to
do that recently. I must have been in a bad mood that day.
What do artists expect their audience to look for in their painting?
I can't answer that; there are as many different answers as there are
artists.
But approached from the opposite direction--what should viewers look
for in a painting--I think we can come up with some reasonable ideas.
I'm only discussing fine art here, as opposed to illustration or
design, which is "made to order," for a specific ulterior purpose;
nothing wrong with that, and there's some overlap between fine and
graphic art in "what to look for" when evaluating it. But some of
what follows might not always be true in graphic art and design.
Basically, the viewer needs to evaluate the painting in terms of its
form and content. In the visual arts, most critics would say form
takes precedence over content; a sublimely painted still life is
superior (as fine art) to a poorly executed crucifixion. On the other
hand, as Mark Rothko aptly put it, "There's no such thing as a great
painting about nothing." I would say that fine art ALWAYS has some
content (significant meaning), and art should be evaluated by how
effectively its form conveys this content; to me, that is the
definition of skill.
Form, in painting, consists of color, line, and contour (by contour I
simply mean the shape of an area of color; I don't mean shading to
produce the illusion of solid form). Visually, everything we see in
the painting can be reduced to these basic elements. Some people try
to include "solid form," "sense of depth," or "quality of light" as
basic elements, but they are confusing effects with means; the
illusion of solid form, depth, and light are effects produced through
color, line, and contour. A painting may or may not have these
effects, and the degree to which it has them may figure into its
evaluation (how well the form conveys the content). But we should
keep in mind that these effects are not essential to painting, in any
general sense.
First, the viewer should look for the basic structure of the painting
in terms of these elements. For some reason, the human mind seems to
take pleasure from apprehending balance, contrast, harmony,
repetition--i.e. structure. The viewer should look for these
structural devices, as expressed through the elements of color, line,
and contour.
Let's look at Raphael's School of Athens.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/stanzas/Aw-Athens.jpg
The first thing we notice is the symmetrical balance of the hall and
archways (for simplicity's sake we talk as if there is a "hall" and
"archways" but, of course, we really only mean the line and color
which sits on the flat painting surface). Forms on the right are
balanced with forms on the left, and the archways are centered. In
this picture the balance is almost perfectly symmetrical, but in
general, symmetry is not needed so long as balance is maintained. We
also notice in this picture that certain lines and forms repeat, most
obviously in the archways and columns. The archways also echo the
actual shape of the fresco. Furthermore, there is a general balance
of "style," a consistent treatment of color and technique across the
entire surface of the painting.
Along with the explicit line and contour of the architecture and human
forms there are also many "implied" lines formed by the groupings of
people; the horizontal line of people on the top step; diagonal lines
of people coming "down" the stairs (major lines coming down and in
toward the center, with numerous minor lines countering these at right
angles). These implied lines balance and repeat each other, and also
interact with the explicit lines of the architecture.
On this formal level, it doesn't particularly matter who the people
represented are (or even that a "scene" is being represented). The
painting is structured in such a way as to be aesthetically pleasing;
there's also an element of "intellectual" pleasure, contemplating the
geometry of the "perspective," for example. But basically, there's
just something satisfying about the structure of lines and forms.
Now, some painters might take the opposite approach to Raphael and
"upset" the balance of the picture, create elements which clash rather
than harmonize; we were recently talking about Goya in just this way.
In Goya, some of the aesthetic pleasure of viewing the painting might
be lost, but the structure is still serving the purpose of expressing
content.
From the formal level we read the content of the painting. Content is
a difficult word to nail down, and the levels of meaning we can
discern are many. In representational art, the story of the painting
is one level; who are these men in robes and what are they doing? The
narrative elements may also carry symbolic meanings. The structural
devices convey a certain content, as well; the balance of the painting
seems to suggest that Raphael wanted to praise the "balance" of
Classical art and philosophy. Furthermore, the style of the painting
carries another level of content; the naturalistic rendition of the
human form in this painting (and in Renaissance art, in general) is
meant to convey philosophical ideas about man and his significance in
the scheme of things. Some paintings are structured in such a way as
to elicit emotional responses from the viewer; Rembrandt,
Gainsborough, and Rothko come to mind. Aside from simply being swept
up in the emotional effect of these paintings, the viewer should, I
believe, contemplate how the paintings "express" these emotions.
So, simply put, a viewer should look for the ways in which the basic
elements create structural devices and express content. This is as
true for viewing a Pollock as a Raphael.
Pollock's paintings lack the narrative content of Raphael or Goya, but
still express content (spectacularly, I would say) through their
formal elements. Just as Raphael's painting expresses balance (as an
artistic and philosophical ideal) through the painting's balance,
Pollock expresses dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity,
"nature," and a host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're
talking about.
Finally, it's useful to know a little about the artistic and
philosophical trends of the time which may have influenced the artist.
For example, Pollock's "dripping" of paint grows out of Surrealistic
"automatic" writing and drawing, as practiced by Miro and Arp, among
others. The idea was that by drawing without the inhibiting factor of
"reason," images from one's subconscious would emerge. Pollock was
very interested in such ideas, and his dripping technique is an
extension of this surrealist automatism. In the field of aesthetics,
the '40s and '50s saw much writing about the strengths and weaknesses
of allegory, metaphor, symbol, and other rhetorical devices. Most of
the Abstract Expressionists were well read in these fields, and all
had a strong interest in myth. In light of all these ideas, the art
of Pollock and Rothko begins to seem less obscure (though it will
never be easily accessible to most people).
This just scratches the surface; I didn't even touch on areas like
adherence to (or rejection of) artistic convention, color theory, and
"subconscious" or unintentional meanings. But I think I'll stop there
for now (I keep feeling that Robin Williams might suddenly appear and
shout accusingly at me, "Be gone, J. Evans Pritchert!!!").
Todd Strickland
Marilyn
> Gee I see I don't have to take up this argument. Good answer.
> You must be feeling sorry for me because we just got dumped on by mother
> nature...........
> :-)
> Dale
>
Wot? Are you under cover of a beautiful blanket of snow?
I've been going through old Montreal b/w winter photos,
(even if I had used coloured film, they would have been
black & white!) and longing for snow. Especially in
the evening when it would make everything so quiet & white.
By 7 the next morning the snow plows would shatter that quiet.
Here, I'm still picking calendula flowers from my garden.
Keep cozy.
MW
Bob & Dale Ford
We have foot of snow and -27 wind-chill. But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger
right. Or some thing like that.
Think I need some hot chocolate (with a wee bit of the irish cream :-))
Actually it is a bit warmer right now but not for long.
I definitely live in the wrong province.
Dale
Holly Daize
bryant...@yahoo.com says...
> I follow a basic precept that there is a three-way interelationship
>between the artist, his work and the audience whom observes it.
Good for you! I was trying to say that
same thing in a different manner:
>An artist
>is one who says "This is Art" and
>then presents something (anything?)
>as an "art object." That object, by
>definition, then becomes "art" be it
>a urinal or whatever.
Holly Daize
>It just seems that there is no simple flat-out broad statement which can
>be applied to the arts. Keep on trying though.
But the examples you use were not
necessarily produced with artistic
intent - or intended for a general
audience. They were largely ceremonial
or ritualistic in intent. An artist
Marilyn
I began with the qualifier "shamanistic intent"
and I was thinking of a universal timeless
idea of artist.
Your description of 'artist' is Western,
20th century. But accepting
your description, that artist can still make
visual images without any public in mind.
They can be made just for the process,
or they can be made for posterity. The
artist's intent does not necessarily include
a known viewing public or any viewer
at all.
Back to the subject line, what should the viewer expect?
There's a painting exhibition opening at
www.aggv.bc.ca
I'm going there expecting to be surprised.
MW
discussion
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.01120...@posting.google.com...
> "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:<QQPO7.84$Ae.1...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
> > public, - even the buying public.
> > Here are some things that I think are looked for:-
> > N.H
>
> I recently said the "matter of toughness" isn't any kind of quality to
> be admired in a painting. I gave the example of tourists in the
> Sistine Chapel being impressed with how long it took Michelangelo to
> finish the ceiling, but not knowing how to appreciate it for its
> artistic merits. Is that the thread you have in mind?
Yes Todd.
> snip<
> What do artists expect their audience to look for in their painting?
> I can't answer that; there are as many different answers as there are
> artists.
>
> But approached from the opposite direction--what should viewers look
> for in a painting--I think we can come up with some reasonable ideas.
> I'm only discussing fine art here, as opposed to illustration or
> design, which is "made to order," for a specific ulterior purpose;
> nothing wrong with that, and there's some overlap between fine and
> graphic art in "what to look for" when evaluating it. But some of
> what follows might not always be true in graphic art and design.
>
> Basically, the viewer needs to evaluate the painting in terms of its
> form and content.
My point is that artists might do well to know just how what potential
buyers look for.
>.. as Mark Rothko aptly put it, "There's no such thing as a great
> painting about nothing."
I have to ask of him how can you say something great about - or with
a simple rectangle?
I once attended an exhibition of Rothko's (or one of his pupils). It was
a room full of large canvases containing a rectangle in either red or blue.
By the way, I have seen one where he pushed the boat so to speak, and
included two rectangles.
I have today seen a film by Desmond Morris about "The human animal"
where he gives an interesting analysis on art's function. Quite fascinating,
but he went on to stand in front of some large paintings which were no
more than blank spaces with a few dots. Quite in opposition to what he
was trying to say. Primitive art, such as Australian aboriginal art looked
to be the 'higher' art. It had a function, - it told a story in a format
with which
viewer had become familiar, yet allowed for flair by the individual.
>I would say that fine art ALWAYS has some
> content (significant meaning), and art should be evaluated by how
> effectively its form conveys this content; to me, that is the
> definition of skill.
>
> Form, in painting, consists of color, line, and contour (by contour I
> simply mean the shape of an area of color; I don't mean shading to
> produce the illusion of solid form). Visually, everything we see in
> the painting can be reduced to these basic elements.
Personally I rejoice in art's inability to be defined by a few words.
I would add words like texture, movement, tone, narrative etc. , but it's
a worthless exercise.
Ultimately art has to meet it's viewer head to head, without any qualifying
text. If it cannot reach out from the canvas in some way, no matter how
worthy an effort, it will have been a waste of time.
> Some people try
> to include "solid form," "sense of depth," or "quality of light" as
> basic elements, but they are confusing effects with means; the
> illusion of solid form, depth, and light are effects produced through
> color, line, and contour. A painting may or may not have these
> effects, and the degree to which it has them may figure into its
> evaluation (how well the form conveys the content). But we should
> keep in mind that these effects are not essential to painting, in any
> general sense.
>
> First, the viewer should look for the basic structure of the painting
> in terms of these elements. For some reason, the human mind seems to
> take pleasure from apprehending balance, contrast, harmony,
> repetition--i.e. structure.
Agreed.
It's my view that the brain has a go at making harmony of all it's inputs
from the senses.
> The viewer should look for these
> structural devices, as expressed through the elements of color, line,
> and contour.
>
> Let's look at Raphael's School of Athens.
>
> http://www.christusrex.org/www1/stanzas/Aw-Athens.jpg
>snipped<
A satisfying image, worthy of more than just a glance, and of being
hung in permanent view.
I have no arguments with your analysis.
er.. I wonder if you were expecting me here to comment on the pre
Raphaelites?
>........But basically, there's
> just something satisfying about the structure of lines and forms.
> Now, some painters might take the opposite approach to Raphael and
> "upset" the balance of the picture, create elements which clash rather
> than harmonize; we were recently talking about Goya in just this way.
This has now led to the equivalent of the Punk Rocker
mentality - anything so long as the older generations are offended.
To purely try to give offence to attract notoriety and an anarchistic
youthful
following leads to the trash can, eventually.
< snipped>
> Todd Strickland
Holly Daize
>Back to the subject line, what should the viewer expect?
>
>There's a painting exhibition opening at
>www.aggv.bc.ca
>
>I'm going there expecting to be surprised.
This is Fri, Dec 7, and 5:00pm. I was SUPPOSED
to be entertaining a bunch of art lovers at
Village Hall, where my 14 paintings were to
hang for the months of Dec and Jan. But the
village's FULL TIME SALARIED person who fulfills
the job description ART COORDINATOR failed
miserably. She called me LAST Fri evening to advise
me that a HUGE Xmas tree had been installed in
the spot where my centerpiece painting 'would'
have hung. I told her to cancel tonite's opening
and reschedule it for after the holidays, after
the tree is hopefully history. I wonder how many
others reading this have been preempted by a
bloody Xmas tree??
Todd Strickland
> "Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
> news:910eb03.01120...@posting.google.com...
> >.. as Mark Rothko aptly put it, "There's no such thing as a great
> > painting about nothing."
>
> I have to ask of him how can you say something great about - or with
> a simple rectangle?
> I once attended an exhibition of Rothko's (or one of his pupils). It was
> a room full of large canvases containing a rectangle in either red or blue.
> By the way, I have seen one where he pushed the boat so to speak, and
> included two rectangles.
(snip)
I don't know what to tell you but many people do see something great
in Rothko's art, even if you don't.
Rothko decorated a chapel down in Houston, Texas. I've never been
there but I've heard that many people who go there (just people, not
art-lovers, necessarily) are deeply moved by the paintings. I've
heard it's not unusual for people to be moved to tears. Mind you,
these are people who don't necessarily know who Rothko is, or have any
particular love of Modern art.
I can only tell you my own experience. I don't have an art
background; I didn't study art or art history in college; I've never
attended an art school of any kind. The first time I saw a Rothko at
the LA Museum of Contemporary Art I didn't know who he was, or
anything about Abstract Expressionism. But the painting mesmerized
me. It moved me in some deep and mysterious way, much more so than
the fine "traditional" paintings over at the LA County Museum. I
didn't understand it, and I couldn't fathom how such a simple image
could have such a profound effect on me, but that it did have an
effect was inescapable.
I had always "liked" art, and I guess I had a knack for drawing, which
I pursued from time to time as a hobby. But it was seeing that Rothko
(as well as a nice Pollock at LA MoCA) which really lit the fire in
me. I was determined to learn about this art because I was first
moved by it, and I was inspired to take up painting and drawing as a
serious pursuit.
To this day, Rothko still eludes my complete comprehension. I'm still
amazed at how he can elicit powerful emotions in the viewer with such
simple forms. But from my own experience I know that his paintings
are deep and moving. Furthermore, the more I study the more I realize
that his art is part of the tradition of art, not something outside
that tradition, not some kind of obstinate, obscure joke. Falling in
love with Rothko's paintings first forced me to probe deeply into art,
not to just be satisfied with simple or superficial readings of
paintings. This, in turn, gave me a much better understanding and
appreciation of all art.
> >........But basically, there's
> > just something satisfying about the structure of lines and forms.
>
> > Now, some painters might take the opposite approach to Raphael and
> > "upset" the balance of the picture, create elements which clash rather
> > than harmonize; we were recently talking about Goya in just this way.
>
> This has now led to the equivalent of the Punk Rocker
> mentality - anything so long as the older generations are offended.
> To purely try to give offence to attract notoriety and an anarchistic
> youthful
> following leads to the trash can, eventually.
> < snipped>
This may be true of art graduate student's works, sometimes. I guess
I can think of three or four well established artists who also fit
this description. But it's not a very accurate assessment of all
Modern art (or abstract art). And lumping Rothko in with such a group
is really an insult to his art. He certainly didn't paint in this way
for "shock value," and by all accounts, he was deeply hurt that the
public didn't understand or accept his art.
Todd Strickland
Alison A Raimes
> This may be true of art graduate student's works, sometimes. I guess
> I can think of three or four well established artists who also fit
> this description. But it's not a very accurate assessment of all
> Modern art (or abstract art). And lumping Rothko in with such a group
> is really an insult to his art. He certainly didn't paint in this way
> for "shock value," and by all accounts, he was deeply hurt that the
> public didn't understand or accept his art.
>
> Todd Strickland
This is very true. I've always been confused by his decision to take
up the Seagram Mural commission and a little sceptical of his claim to
believe that his work could have some sort of impact in the capitalist
world of the people who worked within that environment. But this was
part of his belief in the power of art to move the mind beyond the
self destructive world of his fellow mankind. It's a belief that
hasn't been shared by many, and I think that is what sets his work
aside.
Rothko was deeply moved by the work of Turner in Britain and bequithed
the mural works to the Tate Museum on the condition that they would
hang alongside his work. He committed suicide while the paintings
where en route to England. Until recently they had residence in a
quite room at the Tate where one could sit and contemplate and allow
the paintings to move into one's mind. But recently his request has
been broken as the paintings have taken up their place in the Tate
Modern. Turner remains at the Tate Britain. The paintings have
somehow lost their meditative quality in the re-location - in fact I
didn't even find them for the first year. They are to be found in a
walk through gallery space that doesn't invite viewers to stop and
think. Rothko would have been deeply hurt by this.
Perhaps those who decry Rothko's work so readily are those who are
afraid to confront their own minds, because for those who have the
guts to do so, the affect is profound and unforgettable.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Holly Daize
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp says...
>Rothko decorated a chapel down in Houston, Texas. I've never been
>there but I've heard that many people who go there (just people, not
>art-lovers, necessarily) are deeply moved by the paintings.
Well, I'll play the contrarian since I have been
to the Rothko chapel a number of times. Added to
the admonition to speak only in hushed tones when
one enters, the chapel does have a meditative
quality due to the bench seating and "chapel"
connotations. It reminds me more of an eastern
meditation center than it does a church or western
"chapel." I've seen people sitting there, quietly
meditating but I've not seen anyone moved to tears,
although those who come to meditate do so for
many and varied reasons - not the least of which may
be that they are troubled by something.
As for the paintings themselves, I am NOT one who
is moved by them. I think the ones on display in
the Chapel are much changed from when Rothko painted
them - either faded or the paint has darkened, or both.
I've viewed many of Rothko's works in other museum
settings, where they had to stand alone against other
works of their kind. While they do indeed make a bold
statement as the "first of their kind," I find no
great meaning in them generally. Not caring much for
Rothko's work, I have not studied him in depth. When
I think of his works, I think of two rectangles of
color with wide borders between and around them - and
that's about it!
Wynnk
Wynnk
discussion
> background; I didn't study art or art history in college; I've never
> attended an art school of any kind. The first time I saw a Rothko at
> the LA Museum of Contemporary Art I didn't know who he was, or
> anything about Abstract Expressionism. But the painting mesmerized
> me. It moved me in some deep and mysterious way, much more so than
> the fine "traditional" paintings over at the LA County Museum. I
> didn't understand it, and I couldn't fathom how such a simple image
> could have such a profound effect on me, but that it did have an
> effect was inescapable.
Ok, I have to accept that your description falls right into my own
definition of great art.
There are a few abstract images and semi abstract images that do attract my
interest.
eg. Portrait of Ambrose Vollard by Picasso, Portrait of his mistress from
his 'Blue
period'(forgotten the title), & some Modigliani perhaps, and a very little
of Matisse.
I did not wish to put down other peoples' points of view - rather to find a
way of
understanding.
N.H
discussion
> background; I didn't study art or art history in college; I've never
> attended an art school of any kind. The first time I saw a Rothko at
> the LA Museum of Contemporary Art I didn't know who he was, or
> anything about Abstract Expressionism. But the painting mesmerized
> me. It moved me in some deep and mysterious way, much more so than
> the fine "traditional" paintings over at the LA County Museum. I
> didn't understand it, and I couldn't fathom how such a simple image
> could have such a profound effect on me, but that it did have an
> effect was inescapable.
Ok, I have to accept that your description falls right into my own
Holly Daize
>
>Do you generally respond to abstraction?
Since you asked that question twice, I guess
it deserves an answer.
YES! I do respond to abstraction if it's
something that strikes my fancy. For example,
I love Hans Hoffmans thickly smeared canvases
that are also intellectual applications of
color theory. My tastes are very eclectic
when it comes to art, food and entertainment.
I am drawn to anything that reeks of expertise.
And I don't dislike Rothko so much as I find
his repititions just a bit too repititious.
Like Franz Kline and his bold black on white
slashes - the first one is revelatory but
a whole series of them are just plain boring.
Even Frank Stella has become boring to me.
Wynnk
attitudes but find Rothko a new experience and a new challenge each time
I see it. The Houston chapel inspired Brice Marden to make five
drawings that open the Rothko dilemma to further exploration.