Art Question
NENSLO
>
> In alt.slack Sketchy Albedo wrote:
> } Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>
> Both ways is wrong.
>
> It's emotion given form.
>
> 'Meaning' is the ostensibly rational though subjective descriptor given to the
> perception of the form. However, being subjective, that descriptor frequently
> has no more to do with the artist's intent than a hot dog vendor's hat size
> have to do with the outcome of the baseball game.
>
> I am, of course, full of shit. However, I am not wrong.
>
Luckily, art is one of the few things you just CAN'T be wrong about,
since it's entirely subjective. I will say that up until about 1913 the
intended function of High Art was to depict or symbolize the nobler
sentiments or intents of humanity. Recall that Millais was castigated
for realistic depictions of working people - though Breughel's rather
vulgar peasant paintings were sanctified by some 400 years of
existence. Recall also that a painting like THE OATH OF THE HORATII
(you can find it in five minutes by doing an altavista search) was
called the greatest painting of its century - we now call it stiff,
stagey and - worst of all - unrealistic. Then after 1913 crafts and the
decorative arts got all muddled in with High Art and what would have
been mere exercises in design became the new High Art, and it all got
more and more degraded until you get smeary scribbles by the likes of de
Kooning and Basquiat, which are just totally fucking UGLY no matter how
you look at them, as High Art and actual depiction of a real object is
now considered decorative art, craft, or "mere" illustration. Sucks,
but that's how it is. That's the history of modern art in a flea's ear.
Jim Vandewalker
<rev...@radix.net> wrote:
{ NENSLO explains it all:
{ :I will say that up until about 1913 the
{ :intended function of High Art was to depict or symbolize the nobler
{ :sentiments or intents of humanity.y doing an altavista search)
{
{ There's a poster of a painting on the wall by where I work. The painting
{ is "Tea in the Garden" by Richard E. Miller (1875-1943). It depicts a
{ woman having tea in the, um, garden. I think it's "Impressionist".
{
{ Miller states: "[A]rt's mission is not literary, the telling of a story,
{ but decorative, the conveying of a pleasant optical sensation."
{
{ I don't know why that chaps my ass, but it does. I understand that the
{ appreciation of art is subjective, but Miller comes about as close to
{ being "wrong" about it as anyone I've heard.
{
See, this is why saying words about art is ALL WRONG. That whole 19th
century notion that Nenslo's very fairly recounts of High Art's PURPOSE
being "to depict...[etc]" comes from WORDS written by CRITICS. Likewise,
what Miller (of whom I have never before heard) has to say also comes from
WORDS written by critics. In the visual arts you should NEVER trust what
the artist has to say. If they knew the right words they wouldn't have to
draw or paint. When it comes to saying words about WHAT THEY DO they just
crib stuff from critics, and critics are the generals who are stuck
fighting the PREVIOUS war. All of what Nenslo has to say ("...and it all
got more and more degraded until you get smeary scribbles by the likes of
de Kooning and Basquiat, which are just totally fucking UGLY no matter how
you look at them, as High Art and actual depiction of a real object is now
considered decorative art, craft, or "mere" illustration.") is due to
CRITICS.
Every one of these people took all those courses and read all those art
history books that had the SAME PLOT, which was "Lookit how stupid those
PREVIOUS critics were, they really missed the boat on" Impressionism, or
Cubism, or all the other Isms of the 20th century, so by the middle of the
century there were two or three whole generations of critics absolutely
determined NOT TO MISS THE BOAT (and get laughed at by the NEXT generation
of critics), who promoted all this weird stuff and CAME UP WITH WORDS ABOUT
IT.
Now, in the visual arts, it is possible to arrange pigment on a flat
surface in such a way as to convince the eye (actually the visual center of
the brain, but "the eye" is the conventional way of saying this) that it is
seeing a three dimensional object. This is a skill of the hand which can
be acquired by the dint of hard work and long practice. The next level is
to arrange pigment (or other design elements) on a flat surface in such a
way as to produce in the viewer an emotion (or feeling or sentiment, or
even notion, although "emotion" is the conventional way of saying this).
This is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than the skill of the hand in representing an
object. It is also MUCH LESS FREQUENTLY ACCOMPLISHED, but it is what all
the Good Stuff, from twenty-thousand year-old cave paintings, to the one
true thing that might shine out of this year's harvest, has in common.
The 19th century Academics thought you had to be depicting noble sentiments
and the 20th century guys think, as Nenslo says, that "actual depiction of
a real object is...'mere' illustration," and both are wrong because both
are just SAYING WORDS. You can't say in words the tranquillity of Vermeer
or the power of Rodin or the slyness of Picasso or the disquiet of Wyeth.
You could mix all those modifiers up with all those artists and a lot more
besides and still not get it right. But you can FEEL NON-WORD STUFF in the
presence of those pictures (er, pardon, "pieces of visual art"). And it is
DIRECTLY RELATED to the Supreme Court Justice's comment that he couldn't
define pornography but he knew it when he saw it.
--
Jim the Prophet
Licensed SubGenius Minister
kevbob
<6qcvec$8r8$1...@news1.Radix.Net>...
> Miller states: "[A]rt's mission is not literary, the telling of a story,
> but decorative, the conveying of a pleasant optical sensation."
>
> Miller comes about as close to
> being "wrong" about it as anyone I've heard.
it seems overly condescending and arrogant to me.
i picture a portly "chap" in a suit with vest and pocket watch. some
ridiculously pompous moustache, and spectacles.
he peers nervously.
he masturbates while thinking about choirboys.
he reads books on plants, solely so that me might learn the latin names,
not in any interest towards botany, just so as to seem more intelligent
than the everybodies at coctail parties whom he despises so.
he feels underappreciated, and is jealous of his colleague. he is aware of
this jealousy, he id not in denial. this bothers him more than if he could
lie to himself about it.
--
excuse, justification, reason. these are not the same.
TarlaStar
>The 19th century Academics thought you had to be depicting noble sentiments
>and the 20th century guys think, as Nenslo says, that "actual depiction of
>a real object is...'mere' illustration," and both are wrong because both
>are just SAYING WORDS. You can't say in words the tranquillity of Vermeer
>or the power of Rodin or the slyness of Picasso or the disquiet of Wyeth.
>You could mix all those modifiers up with all those artists and a lot more
>besides and still not get it right. But you can FEEL NON-WORD STUFF in the
>presence of those pictures (er, pardon, "pieces of visual art"). And it is
>DIRECTLY RELATED to the Supreme Court Justice's comment that he couldn't
>define pornography but he knew it when he saw it.
yeah, what you said!
*****
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the
beans of Java, that the thoughts acquire speed, the hands
aquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by
caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
*****Rev. Mutha Tarla Star*****
e/w bear
> NENSLO explains it all:
> :Luckily, art is one of the few things you just CAN'T be wrong about,
> :since it's entirely subjective. I will say that up until about 1913 the
> :intended function of High Art was to depict or symbolize the nobler
> :sentiments or intents of humanity. Recall that Millais was castigated
> :for realistic depictions of working people - though Breughel's rather
> :vulgar peasant paintings were sanctified by some 400 years of
> :existence. Recall also that a painting like THE OATH OF THE HORATII
> :(you can find it in five minutes by doing an altavista search)
>
> Guys with swords. Interesting lighting. Subtly unsettling perspective.
> Cool.
>
> There's a poster of a painting on the wall by where I work. The painting
> is "Tea in the Garden" by Richard E. Miller (1875-1943). It depicts a
> woman having tea in the, um, garden. I think it's "Impressionist".
>
> Miller states: "[A]rt's mission is not literary, the telling of a story,
> but decorative, the conveying of a pleasant optical sensation."
>
> This really chaps my ass for some reason. I hope he said it in 1943 and
> was lynched, that being the reason why he died in 1943. Probably not how
> it happened.
>
> I don't know why that chaps my ass, but it does. I understand that the
> appreciation of art is subjective, but Miller comes about as close to
> being "wrong" about it as anyone I've heard.
>
maybe he was just trolling
Peter Hipwell
> Now, in the visual arts, it is possible to arrange pigment on a
> flat surface in such a way as to convince the eye (actually the
> visual center of the brain, but "the eye" is the conventional
> way of saying this) that it is seeing a three dimensional
> object. This is a skill of the hand which can be acquired by
> the dint of hard work and long practice. The next level is
> to arrange pigment (or other design elements) on a flat surface
> in such a way as to produce in the viewer an emotion (or feeling
> or sentiment, or even notion, although "emotion" is the
> conventional way of saying this). This is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
> than the skill of the hand in representing an object. It is
> also MUCH LESS FREQUENTLY ACCOMPLISHED, but it is what all
> the Good Stuff, from twenty-thousand year-old cave paintings, to
> the one true thing that might shine out of this year's harvest,
> has in common.
>
> The 19th century Academics thought you had to be depicting noble
> sentiments and the 20th century guys think, as Nenslo says, that
> "actual depiction of a real object is...'mere' illustration,"
> and both are wrong because both are just SAYING WORDS. You
"Yesterday's miracles are tomorrow's furniture".
Depiction is "mere" because of the advent of photography. When a
machine has the ability to perform a task that in a human takes
"talent", we no longer remain in awe of that talent.
> can't say in words the tranquillity of Vermeer or the power of
> Rodin or the slyness of Picasso or the disquiet of Wyeth.
> You could mix all those modifiers up with all those artists and
> a lot more besides and still not get it right. But you can FEEL
> NON-WORD STUFF in the presence of those pictures (er, pardon,
> "pieces of visual art"). And it is DIRECTLY RELATED to the
> Supreme Court Justice's comment that he couldn't
> define pornography but he knew it when he saw it.
"To talk of a thing is to be in error about it".
Last time I went to the art gallery, they had a smashed up cello
with all the pieces arranged correctly relatively to one another
in a block of perspex (not actually perspex, this was old stuff)
so it was sort of "exploded". It looked COOL!!!
I like Marcel Broodthaers because he plays around with the meaning
of words and the way they are used. Check out "Animals Of The
Farm" at:
http://www.artincontext.com/LISTINGS/IMAGES/FULL/E/BOVZ5ME2.htm
I have this book from 1971 called "Computers and Art" which has
some of the most honkingly ugly images known to mankind.
Never listen to Henri Chopin.
--
"I want to write about the philosophy of sitting in chairs because
I have a reputation for lolling." -- Lin Yutang
kevbob
<35CAECE7...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>...
> Depiction is "mere" because of the advent of photography. When a
> machine has the ability to perform a task that in a human takes
> "talent", we no longer remain in awe of that talent.
i am unable to draw a straight line with a ruler.
i remain in awe of talents i possess the antonyms of.
MegaLiz
: See, this is why saying words about art is ALL WRONG.
Thanks Mr. JimVan. This is JUST SWELL.
: That whole 19th
: century notion that Nenslo's very fairly recounts of High Art's PURPOSE
: being "to depict...[etc]" comes from WORDS written by CRITICS.
Unlike the BUYERS who wanted PORN and the ARTISTS who wanted money so
that the artists made porn and the buyers friends wanted some too and
everybody could make money and have porn and be happy about themselves
in secret.
This sums up my knowlege of Art.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emancipate a comma! Evict mental ergonomics!
David Gerard
:Recall also that a painting like THE OATH OF THE HORATII
:(you can find it in five minutes by doing an altavista search) was
:called the greatest painting of its century - we now call it stiff,
:stagey and - worst of all - unrealistic.
Who was it called that by, though?
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and
evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
actual3
>
> I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
No, you don't.
JohnnyPez9
johnny pez
Carlos Froggy May
: I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
Curious. With me, it's just the opposite.
-- Froggy
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
http://www.angelfire.com/la/carlosmay/