It ain't art!

[Flying _Naked_People]

Have you noticed...

A painting is not (really) considered a painting, unless it *looks* like a
painting?
Nor is a drawing (really) considered a drawing, unless it *looks* like a
drawing?

There seems to exist undefined definitions that dictate a drawing:

1. must be done in one color
2. must appear "unfinished" (to a degree - objects still demand accuracy)
3. must not entirely cover the surface of the paper
4. must show the artist's pencil movements
5. must not encase an object in a closed outline

There seems to exist undefined definitions that dictate a painting:

1. must not include minute details
3. must have a muted palette
4. must show the artist's brush movements
5. must have an obscure background

Why is that? Why is it, that people can look at a "dictated" drawing or
painting and say, "Now that's art!" as opposed to a multicolored, detailed,
finished one?

What is it about the "unfinished quality" of an artwork that causes people to
prefer it?

Anything lesser, or, more than, a "dictated" piece of work, does not seem to
be "art". It becomes an "image"? A "graphic"? An "icon"?

I'm not talking about abstract or non-rep art. If you would compare a drawings
of... oh, let's say Durer, to the drawings of Leonardo... which would you
prefer... and why??

[Andrew D]

In article <vjd5ueh...@corp.supernews.com>, "Flying _Naked_People"
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:

[snip]

>What is it about the "unfinished quality" of an artwork that causes people to
>prefer it?

In my humble(?) opinion, it isn't always a matter of it having an
"unfinsihed quality" as such but of being finished to a point where it
leaves details for the viewer to fill in. The viewer isn't necessarily
aware that they are doing this and therefore may not perceive the painting
as "unfinished".

It's a little like when people see the movie version of their favourite
book and find the main characters are not portrayed as they had imagined
them - they are usually disappointed. I even suffered this when I saw my
first Charlie Brown TV animation and found their squeaky American accents
entirely out of character!

>Anything lesser, or, more than, a "dictated" piece of work, does not seem to
>be "art". It becomes an "image"? A "graphic"? An "icon"?

Photo-realists often do incredibly detailed work that is generally
recognised as "art".

Andy D.

"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"

[DNALJM]

>1. must be done in one color

Pastel drawings seem to sell better and I'm sure they register as "drawings"
to people. But I find the chalky feel on my hands too disgusting to deal with.
Colored pencil gets that wax film on it and are too "slick" for me. So I like
pen and ink and pencils.

>2. must appear "unfinished" (to a degree - objects still demand accuracy)

I think people feel this way because they think Old Masters=drawings
incomplete. They fail to realize that these are studies for paintings and were
never intended to be finished artworks in their own right. A finished drawing
to them would be a woodcut or wood engraving, and then they did indeed work to
the edges and achieve a high degree of form description.

As for accuracy, not sure what you mean. Drawn correctly I think the artist
and the viewer both demand that things be drawn correctly, or you no longer
think, what a great drawing, you think, boy they fucked up that arm and that's
all you see.

If by accurate you mean tight then I think it's a matter of taste, and
there are just as many people who like smudgy, loose drawings as there are
people who like tight ones.

>3. must not entirely cover the surface of the paper

For the reasons above I imagine. I work right up to the edge, that's the
barrier not some arbitrary point before that.

>4. must show the artist's pencil movements

If you look hard enough you will find them, that's what it was done with after
all.
; )

>5. must not encase an object in a closed outline
>

I think style again, and taste which is all over the board. For
observation work outlining can make a drawing lose depth.

I enjoy drawing more than painting.

Jane

www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
<---- Figurative art and exobiology links

[Mike Stengl]

I don't know about peoples opinions on what is or isn't something, but
I would like to think it is a matter of taste for the artist. In my
painting I do a lot of lost and found, parts of the painting that are
defined and undefined, for me it makes the painting more interesting
than one that is all there for the eye to see. I believe it is simply
style and what you percieve as peoples tastes in style...