Subjectivity in Fine Arts vs. Other Art
Master_Of_The_Horse
lot more important in fine arts (ie drawing/painting) than in most
other forms of artistic expression (film, music, dance etc).
I've been reading a lot of debates in this group about ugly/abstract
fine art vs. pretty/realist fine art.
Personally I do not find myself squarely in either camp. What I find
much more interesing question for me is why the lack of specific skill
is a lot more acceptable in fine arts than in most others. What
follows may appear to lovers of abstract art like derogatory comments
by some Luddite but I implore you to look at the underlying question
which I think is real. I am interested in the nature of sociological
phenomena that allow some very "minimalist" fine art to be highly
prized in our society whereas there is nothing equivalent for other
art forms (music, dance, architecture).
In painting/drawing you can find a lot examples of highly prized and
famous art works which appear to have required no apparent skill to
make. It could be a dot in the middle of a circle or some misshapen
smears and it leaves one with the feeling that "I too could have done
that". _NOTE_ that I am NOT saying that a dot or a smear is bad art
(the Black Square is a prime example). I am only saying that in the
world of fine art you can find many abstract paintings where you have
a temptation to say "I could have done that". I maintain that it is
not the same for music,theater etc.
In music I cannot think of a single instance where someone comes onto
stage makes a couple of unintelligible grunts and the audience is
enraptured and finds a myriad deep interpretations. In any case of
celebrated music that I can think of a certain very high level of
talent or specialization in the subject matter is required whether it
be voice training or ability to play bass guitar. NOTE that by
celebrated I do not mean pop - I mean recognized by conosseurs for its
originality and genius.
Similarly for dance I cannot think of any famous examples of highly
abstract dance which would give you the same "I could have easily done
that" feeling that many people get from some abstract art. You do not
see someone come onto the ballet stage jump on one leg a couple of
times to Beethoven's nice symphony and claim that it is a deep
interpretation of the "how the divine is really simple" or some such.
I am really interested in hearing your opinions as to why subjective
interpretation and lack of specific skill is so much more acceptable
in fine arts than in other art forms?
Are the fine arts more evolved than other art forms? Can we expect the
same movement towards abstraction elsewhere as happened in fine arts
in the 20th century. Will we ever see examples of celebrated theater,
dance, architecture or music which has shed any utilitarian or
craftsmanship aspect of it?
One analogy I can think of is rock and punk rock specifically as an
antithesis to classical/operatic music in that there is a very minimal
emphasis on skill. But though minimalist it is quite unlike abstract
fine art in that it is much more of a movement to make music more
accessible vs less accessible as is the case with fine art.
Anyway I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
Master of the Horse
Chris
"Master_Of_The_Horse" <masterof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3673e118.02120...@posting.google.com...
> In music I cannot think of a single instance where someone comes onto
> stage makes a couple of unintelligible grunts and the audience is
> enraptured and finds a myriad deep interpretations. In any case of
> celebrated music that I can think of a certain very high level of
> talent or specialization in the subject matter is required whether it
> be voice training or ability to play bass guitar. NOTE that by
> celebrated I do not mean pop - I mean recognized by conosseurs for its
> originality and genius.
>
Try 4'33" by John Cage, for starters. Then dig up some of the writings on
that piece of music (it's 4'33" of silence) which would do justice to the
most esoteric nonsense written about abstract art, paying particular
attention to how important it is to have realy great pianists play the
piece. (The post is interesting, thought I'd just pass this along.)
Chris
gaynorgallagher
what about isadora duncan for dance?
theatre can be very minimal!! can't name any.
gaynor
--
remove spam to reply
Andrew D
masterof...@yahoo.com (Master_Of_The_Horse) wrote:
[snip]
>Are the fine arts more evolved than other art forms? Can we expect the
>same movement towards abstraction elsewhere as happened in fine arts
>in the 20th century. Will we ever see examples of celebrated theater,
>dance, architecture or music which has shed any utilitarian or
>craftsmanship aspect of it?
I have asked a similar question here numerous times. When Keith, for
example, insists that "colouring within the lines" stifles creativity and
that children are great artists but UN-learn as they grow up, I've asked
him if children are also literary geniuses since they are also not stifled
by rules about spelling and grammar?
To date, no one on the pro-abstract side of this discussion has contended
that the greatest literature is that which is seemingly thrown together in
a mad rage with no concern for the rules that govern "good" writing.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Lisa Clark
Master of the horse, you are right.
But its not only subjectivity. The fine arts world (the section that
considers itself modern or contemporary, not the traditional one) gives
great value to the context that surround an art work.
Things like the name of the artist, his curriculum, his fame, even where a
painting is placed is considered when judging a work of art.
Still, there are elements of judgment involving the quality of a painting
even if it is abstract. The truth is that most of the "value" giving to most
contemporary art, goes around the context and not the work itself. So in
this sense, the value of art is not in the work itself...in part it is
artificial, or created for economic and marketing reasons.
I find myself bored before most of the "highly valued" art that's going to
the galleries this days. But still, once in a while, i see great abstract
painters. I base my taste upon the quality and amount of work a painting
has. It doesn't matter if its a black square on top of another black
square. What matters to me is HOW those squares where painted.
Andrew Werby
"Master_Of_The_Horse" <masterof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3673e118.02120...@posting.google.com...
> lot more important in fine arts (ie drawing/painting) than in most
> other forms of artistic expression (film, music, dance etc).
>
> I've been reading a lot of debates in this group about ugly/abstract
> fine art vs. pretty/realist fine art.
>
> Personally I do not find myself squarely in either camp. What I find
> much more interesing question for me is why the lack of specific skill
> is a lot more acceptable in fine arts than in most others. What
> follows may appear to lovers of abstract art like derogatory comments
> by some Luddite but I implore you to look at the underlying question
> which I think is real. I am interested in the nature of sociological
> phenomena that allow some very "minimalist" fine art to be highly
> prized in our society whereas there is nothing equivalent for other
> art forms (music, dance, architecture).
>
> In painting/drawing you can find a lot examples of highly prized and
> famous art works which appear to have required no apparent skill to
> make. It could be a dot in the middle of a circle or some misshapen
> smears and it leaves one with the feeling that "I too could have done
> that". _NOTE_ that I am NOT saying that a dot or a smear is bad art
> (the Black Square is a prime example). I am only saying that in the
> world of fine art you can find many abstract paintings where you have
> a temptation to say "I could have done that". I maintain that it is
> not the same for music,theater etc.
[There was a huge amount of this sort of thing done in the early 'eighties-
they called it "performance art", to differentiate it from regular dance,
music, and drama. It was celebrated in a magazine called "High Performance"
(now defunct). But you can get an anthology of their greatest hits:
http://www.apionline.org/hp.html You could also go check out some of Andy
Warhol's movies, like "Empire State" (the sun rises on the Empire State
Building- about 12 hours later it sets.) ]
>
> In music I cannot think of a single instance where someone comes onto
> stage makes a couple of unintelligible grunts and the audience is
> enraptured and finds a myriad deep interpretations. In any case of
> celebrated music that I can think of a certain very high level of
> talent or specialization in the subject matter is required whether it
> be voice training or ability to play bass guitar. NOTE that by
> celebrated I do not mean pop - I mean recognized by conosseurs for its
> originality and genius.
[John Cage has been mentioned, but he had a host of imitators.]
>
> Similarly for dance I cannot think of any famous examples of highly
> abstract dance which would give you the same "I could have easily done
> that" feeling that many people get from some abstract art. You do not
> see someone come onto the ballet stage jump on one leg a couple of
> times to Beethoven's nice symphony and claim that it is a deep
> interpretation of the "how the divine is really simple" or some such.
[You used to, but Beethoven was rarely used as accompaniment.]
>
> I am really interested in hearing your opinions as to why subjective
> interpretation and lack of specific skill is so much more acceptable
> in fine arts than in other art forms?
[For one thing, it's easier to give it a one-second glance and then hit the
wine and cheese. The performance arts are harder to ignore.]
>
> Are the fine arts more evolved than other art forms? Can we expect the
> same movement towards abstraction elsewhere as happened in fine arts
> in the 20th century. Will we ever see examples of celebrated theater,
> dance, architecture or music which has shed any utilitarian or
> craftsmanship aspect of it?
[I'm not sure about the utilitarian aspects, which aren't a feature of
visual art, but there have been many examples in theater, dance,
architecture, and music which pursued the same reductive strategy as some
movements in visual art. The architectural examples still surround us.]
>
> One analogy I can think of is rock and punk rock specifically as an
> antithesis to classical/operatic music in that there is a very minimal
> emphasis on skill. But though minimalist it is quite unlike abstract
> fine art in that it is much more of a movement to make music more
> accessible vs less accessible as is the case with fine art.
[Some of these movements in fine art did actually proclaim that their
aesthetic shifts would make their art more accessible to the "masses". The
fact that said masses showed very little interest was shrugged off as due to
their current state of indoctrination with bourgeois values.]
> Anyway I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
>
> Master of the Horse
[Do you whisper to it, or what?]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
k
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10120...@i165-232.nv.iinet.net.au...
Andrew D
>Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>> [snip]
>> I have asked a similar question here numerous times. When Keith, for
>> example, insists that "colouring within the lines" stifles creativity and
>> that children are great artists but UN-learn as they grow up, I've asked
>> him if children are also literary geniuses since they are also not stifled
>> by rules about spelling and grammar?
>I have become quotable - such an honour - thank you Richard.
You're welcome Frank.