maybe this is an urban legend, but...
steppenvalve
his expressionist abstracts, until it was discovered he had trained a
monkey to paint them. Has anyone got any idea who this might be? If so,
what became of him?
--
Steppenvalve
builder of fine vacuum tube audio gear
King Rundzap
stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a monkey
painted them. I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works themselves.
If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.) I couldn't care less
if it was really done by a monkey, or a homosexual, or a computer, or
a child molestor, or a serial killer, or a Democrat. I like or
dislike a work because of the way it looks, sounds, etc., not for any
external-to-the-artwork facts or ideas.
--King Rundzap
"steppenvalve" <steppe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cg97nr$6...@odbk17.prod.google.com>...
steppenvalve
King Rundzap wrote:
> Sounds like an urban legend to me, but I would criticize the folks
who
> stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a
monkey
> painted them.
I think it would be a real embarrassment to find out *I* was a poseur
art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind them.
The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.) as
if they were objets d'art. Perhaps that's a knee-jerk reaction to all
the craftless art out there, created by people who have an obvious
contempt for their own audience coupled with a lust for more money than
they deserve, and I think that's why this urban legend realy speaks to
me.
> I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
> and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works themselves.
> If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.)
Except that a monkey-made film, music, book, etc. is not as easy to
pass off on the public (or critics) as a monkey-painted abstract. I
think this is important because it points out how silly the idea of
splattering paint realy is. Even if you *like* a particular splatter
paint abstract.
> I couldn't care less
> if it was really done by a monkey, or a homosexual, or a computer, or
> a child molestor, or a serial killer, or a Democrat.
Agreed, though a child molester's work should be judged on it's merits
*after* he dies. I seem to remember a killer author (black panther?)
who was welcomed into New York society with open arms. He got so cocky
he stabbed a doorman on his way out of a reception for his book. The
doorman, it turned out, was an aspiring writer himself and died
unpublished.
> I like or
> dislike a work because of the way it looks, sounds, etc., not for any
> external-to-the-artwork facts or ideas.
Perhaps, but I still look for one external. How long has this guy been
honing his *craft*? Musicians must practice daily, and the best
practice for hours each day. They may not be trying to put feeling into
each note during a practice, though they certainly can, but they need
to keep hammering on the fundamentals. I saw a concert pianist
practicing a difficult passage, playing it slowly, speeding up till he
started screwing up, slowing it back down, constantly shifting gears
and trying to train his hands. Everyone else left the room but I was
fascinated, sitting there watching him build his chops, and I didn't
have to buy a ticket! The performance went well, BTW.
How do you *practice* splattering paint? How do you practice doing
abstract designs? I've seen a few expressionist works that had a lot of
finely detaied bits, and I could get lost in them, studying the
combination of colors and shapes, but most don't exhibit any skill. A
monkey could be behind a lot of them, and no one would know.
> --King Rundzap
<bows> pleased to speak with you, your highness.
Steppenvalve
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>King Rundzap wrote:
>> Sounds like an urban legend to me, but I would criticize the folks
>who
>> stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a
>monkey
>> painted them.
How?
>I think it would be a real embarrassment to find out *I* was a poseur
>art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind them.
>The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
>now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
>engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.) as
>if they were objets d'art.
Because most engineers can produce better work than most of the
charlatans calling themselves artists.
>
>> I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
>> and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works themselves.
>> If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.)
In spite of artzy fartzy dellusions most people still judge artwork by
what they see rather by what they have been told by critics they are
supposed to see.
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
steppenvalve
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2004 08:16:18 -0700, "steppenvalve"
<steppe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >King Rundzap wrote:
> >> Sounds like an urban legend to me, but I would criticize the folks
> >who
> >> stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a
> >monkey
> >> painted them.
>
> How?
How what? I'm not sure what you are asking here.
>
> >I think it would be a real embarrassment to find out *I* was a
poseur
> >art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind
them.
> >The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
> >now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
> >engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.)
as
> >if they were objets d'art.
>
> Because most engineers can produce better work than most of the
> charlatans calling themselves artists.
I said "marketting dept.", not artists. If I see an artist's work I
like I would certainly support him/her, even if I could only afford
moral support in the form of a pat on the back.
> >
> >> I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
> >> and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works
themselves.
> >> If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.)
>
> In spite of artzy fartzy dellusions most people still judge artwork
by
> what they see rather by what they have been told by critics they are
> supposed to see.
And a lot will go along with crowds to museums and nod ignorantly as if
they *get* it. Tom Wolfe's book, "The Painted Word" is something I'd
recommend to all art students.
>
> No skill no art!
My sediments perzackle. Artists must find a way to *practice*, like
musicians. There have got to be technical excersizes even the
splatter-painters can do. Or, rather, there are technical excersizes
for *all* artists, and splatter-painters should do them just like the
rest.
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
I saw some similar sediments on a different thread (after starting this
one) so I checked out your web site. I don't see picasso in your
picassos. I seem to see a lot of dali, though. I've bookmarked your
site and will give it a thorough read sometime. Nice chatting with you.
Steppenvalve
sarpedon
I value it more than art
> now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
> engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.) as
> if they were objets d'art. Perhaps that's a knee-jerk reaction to all
> the craftless art out there, created by people who have an obvious
> contempt for their own audience ...
I would not overdo it in stereotyping designers. Most of their stuff
fails but it is the one in a million that contributes to the world.
Without designers we would never have the Queen Ann chair, designed by
the French btw.
Designers are not the same animal as fine artists, whether either
group is considered good or bad.
Without designers, the engineers would be lost because appearance is
so important to marketing. Just look at stuff that designers do not
work on, like plumbing and industrial devices. Many people would find
a world in which that was all there was very ugly. Look at how
ridiculous the Pompidou Centre is.
In large companies that manufacture designed products, a project
usually has to go through at least three departments.
First the designers work out the design.
Second, it is given to the engineers and technicians to see if it
feasible.
Third, finance department has to pass on the economic viability.
There are often tremendous conflicts between these departments, in,
say, car companies.
sarpedon
King Rundzap
> > Sounds like an urban legend to me, but I would criticize the folks
> who
> > stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a
> monkey
> > painted them.
>
> I think it would be a real embarrassment to find out *I* was a poseur
> art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind them.
> The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
> now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
> engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.) as
> if they were objets d'art. Perhaps that's a knee-jerk reaction to all
> the craftless art out there, created by people who have an obvious
> contempt for their own audience coupled with a lust for more money than
> they deserve, and I think that's why this urban legend realy speaks to
> me.
Well, it's interesting that here you're basically saying, at least as
I'm reading it in the context of my post, that you don't care so much
what the finished picture looks like, you're liking or disliking what
went into making the picture instead. So I suppose you wouldn't hang
something on your wall because you like the way it looks so much as
you like what it symbolizes, in terms of the processes you're (maybe
guessing) went into making it. Does that mean that you wouldn't hang
up something if you didn't have a pretty good idea of those processes,
and who engaged in those processes?
> > I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
> > and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works themselves.
> > If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.)
> Except that a monkey-made film, music, book, etc. is not as easy to
> pass off on the public (or critics) as a monkey-painted abstract.
I agree that abstract visual art tends to be more recognized popularly
than "abstract" music, filmmaking, or other art forms, and also that
monkeys probably would do something more abstract than more like human
representationalism, traditional harmony, etc. But there certainly is
a lot of "abstract" music, there is abstract filmmaking, even abstract
writing.
> I think this is important because it points out how silly the idea of
> splattering paint realy is. Even if you *like* a particular splatter
> paint abstract.
Well, it's silly because other animals could do things that someone
could think a human animal did instead? I don't get why that's silly.
> > I couldn't care less
>> if it was really done by a monkey, or a homosexual, or a computer,
or
> > a child molestor, or a serial killer, or a Democrat.
> Agreed, though a child molester's work should be judged on it's merits
> *after* he dies. I seem to remember a killer author (black panther?)
> who was welcomed into New York society with open arms. He got so cocky
> he stabbed a doorman on his way out of a reception for his book. The
> doorman, it turned out, was an aspiring writer himself and died
> unpublished.
> > I like or
> > dislike a work because of the way it looks, sounds, etc., not for any
> > external-to-the-artwork facts or ideas.
> Perhaps, but I still look for one external. How long has this guy been
> honing his *craft*?
I don't really understand why this would be important to someone, but
I can understand that it is important for some people, I suppose.
> Musicians must practice daily, and the best
> practice for hours each day.
Well, we're going to get into a lot of disagreement there, too. I
don't admire technique over other qualities in music. I'll take Jeff
Beck over Yngwie Malmsteen, to use that cliche.
> They may not be trying to put feeling into
> each note during a practice, though they certainly can, but they need
> to keep hammering on the fundamentals. I saw a concert pianist
> practicing a difficult passage, playing it slowly, speeding up till he
> started screwing up, slowing it back down, constantly shifting gears
> and trying to train his hands. Everyone else left the room but I was
> fascinated, sitting there watching him build his chops, and I didn't
> have to buy a ticket! The performance went well, BTW.
> How do you *practice* splattering paint?
By splattering paint, presumably. The same way you practice drawing
figures--by drawing figures.
> How do you practice doing
> abstract designs?
The same answer. You seem to be implying here that someone
splattering paint or doing something abstract is necessarily pleased
with their initial results. That's not necessarily true. The same
ideas apply as with practicing figure drawing. The artist may have
some ideal in mind that they're trying to achieve with the technique,
and they practice to hopefully come closer to that ideal.
"Objectively", you can't judge that with figure drawing any better
than you can with abstracts, because you can't automatically know that
the artist is trying to reach a particular goal with figure drawing.
Maybe the figure drawing looks like Rembrandt, but the artist is
trying to make it more like Otto Dix, or Klee, or something else.
> I've seen a few expressionist works that had a lot of
> finely detaied bits, and I could get lost in them, studying the
> combination of colors and shapes, but most don't exhibit any skill.
It's a skill to put paint on a canvas in a particular way. How could
that not be a skill?
> A monkey could be behind a lot of them, and no one would know.
I think it's ridiculous to say that monkeys can't be skilled.
King Rundzap
> On 22 Aug 2004 08:16:18 -0700, "steppenvalve" <steppe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >King Rundzap wrote:
> >> Sounds like an urban legend to me, but I would criticize the folks
> who
> >> stopped liking the artworks just because they discovered that a
> monkey
> >> painted them.
>
> How?
By pointing out that they're not liking the work itself, but facts
that aren't contained in the work itself. It's fine to be a fan of
ancillary facts to the artwork, but to pretend that those facts are
the artwork would be misconceived. I would expect someone who has
that attitude to presumably reserve judgment on any artwork until they
have some kind of documentation about who made it, what they did to
make it, etc. Otherwise, if they look at a painting, or an apparent
painting, and say, "I like that work", without knowing those facts,
they might have to retract liking the painting based on later
information. But to emphasize again, they not actually liking or
disliking the painting itself, as just a painting.
> >I think it would be a real embarrassment to find out *I* was a poseur
> >art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind them.
> >The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
> >now, and I find myself examining things that were designed by an
> >engineer (rather than kitchy stuff designed by the marketting dept.) as
> >if they were objets d'art.
> Because most engineers can produce better work than most of the
> charlatans calling themselves artists.
Anything can be looked at as an art object, in my view, and none of it
is "objectively better" than any of the other stuff. There's no
problem liking whatever you like the best for the stuff you consider
to be artworks.
> >> I think we should judge artworks on their own merits,
> >> and not on facts "behind" the works, or not in the works themselves.
> >> If I like a painting (or film, music, book, etc.)
> In spite of artzy fartzy dellusions most people still judge artwork by
> what they see rather by what they have been told by critics they are
> supposed to see.
But that's exactly what I was talking about above--judging it on what
you see, rather than other facts, such as what you are "supposed to
see", who or what painted or created something, how it was created,
etc.
--King Rundzap
Marc Sabatella
> art-patron who praised works that had no technical skill behind them.
> The thing I appreciate is *craftsmanship*. I value it more than art
> now
I look at it this way: I think the view from the top of a mountain is
beautiful, as is the view looking upstream at the river that passes near
my house, as is my wife, as are about a zillion other things that were
not created through any sort of human technical skill. It's fine to
appreicate craft. But I don't see what that necessarily has to do with
aesthetics. Knowledge of craftsmanship can obviously affect market
value for a piece of work, but that's about it.
> Perhaps that's a knee-jerk reaction to all
> the craftless art out there, created by people who have an obvious
> contempt for their own audience coupled with a lust for more money
than
> they deserve, and I think that's why this urban legend realy speaks to
> me.
The irony here is, of course, that is works of craft that usually are
created for the money, whereas modern art is much more likely to never
be sold or appreciated.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Thur
> painting, and say, "I like that work", without knowing those facts,
> they might have to retract liking the painting based on later
> information.
To like a painting does not require the viewer to comprehend
the intentions of the artist, merely to enjoy the initial visual
pleasure.
If one learns that Turner meant to express something really
deep in his works, then what's that to his admirers, except
something more in his works to look for?
The problem of a work of art that relies too much upon an artist's
intentions to make itself appeal, is something for many abstract
works, which on the face of it, are unappealing.
> Anything can be looked at as an art object, in my view, and none of it
> is "objectively better" than any of the other stuff. There's no
> problem liking whatever you like the best for the stuff you consider
> to be artworks
If we accept that there can be no objective way of discerning good
art from bad art, or even art from non-art, then how do we all know
what we are looking at? How do we know that one work of one artist
is better or worse than another of the same artist?
Perhaps if Piccaso had decided to frame one of his palettes as
a Mickey-take, would we be able to judge that it was not art, or
do we stick faithfully to the idea that it is art, because he said so?
How can we assess the works of anyone or anything if we insist on
your world where values do not exist? Perhaps this runs parallel to
the real world in some ways, but the actions and words of everyone
I have listened to regarding art, tells me they all make judgements.
Because we all have our own set of values in our heads does not say
that we can jump from this to say that there can be no agreement
between different groups. It does not say that we cannot have people
who make objective judgements on art, and say that something is not
art.
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com...
Thur
> has to do with aesthetics.
But where do we find our senses of art appreciation?
Aesthetics is a set of values learned from our experiences, and
changes with our emotions, our knowledge, our sense of shared
values that few will admit to.
Amongst these preferences is undoubtedly a preference for fine
craftsmanship, and especially from those who would be so skilled
themselves
Thur
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:10ikalr...@corp.supernews.com...
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> Knowledge of craftsmanship can obviously affect market
>value for a piece of work, but that's about it.
For someone who exhibits no craft.
>The irony here is, of course, that is works of craft that usually are
>created for the money, whereas modern art is much more likely to never
>be sold or appreciated.
>
-Because it contains almost nothing, not craft, ideas or skill. There
are millions of patzers out there producing much the same worthless
repeat of Dada which was antiquated by 1923. Its as modern as an
average corpse.
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
King Rundzap
message. Further on the question of how I'd criticize I would
criticize the act of ceasing to like artworks just because one
discovered that a monkey, say, painted them, it brings up at least two
very interesting aspects of aesthetics (there are many other issues,
but these two seem pressing to me right now).
The first I mentioned a bit in another post, and that's reproductions
of an artwork. Based on aesthetic appreciation arising for what went
into a work rather than for the work itself, it invites problems for
claiming that you like a print, or some other kind of copy or
reproduction of an artwork, including JPGs, etc., since at best, the
only human craft that actually went into making the final image on
those kinds of works was inking a plate and hand rolling the
paper--something we could probably teach a chimp to do. As I
mentioned below, this would require one to claim that what they like
isn't the image on the reproduction (since that particular image
didn't involve the kind of craft you desire), but what the image on
the reproduction is a symbol for. Of course, you wouldn't probably
describe it that way, but being precise about what you like, it's the
processes that the reproduction is a symbol for, not the actual
picture on your wall, on your desk, etc.
Now, maybe you only have original works of art hanging up, because of
this problem, but there is an additional problem, at least
hypothetically, when it comes to originals as well. Imagine a
painting you like the look of, but instead of finding one instance of
the work, you discover two perceptually identical paintings (that is,
they are not logically identical, but we can not tell them apart by
looking at them). There are a number of scenarios we could devise for
the next step. For one scenario (if you don't like this one, I'll
give you some of the alternatives in the future), we could say that
one was painted by Joe Smith, who took 10 years to learn all of the
techniques he used in this work, and the work took him a year of
paintstaking application, 40 hours per week, with only two weeks off
for vacation, and a lot of it was done with tiny scriptliner brushes.
The other instance of the painting was done by John Doe, who started
painting a week ago, and by chance, naturally produced the kinds of
detailed representational work, in correct perspective, etc., by
slopping around paint he's picking at random and applying with a
four-inch housepainting brush. It took him about 25 minutes to finish
the work. Now, you do not know which painting is Joe Smith's and
which is John Doe's. How do you pick which of the two paintings you
like? Per Mani's criteria, and apparently some other regulars here,
one had skill behind it and the other didn't. Which of the two
paintings, without knowledge of who executed which one, and otherwise
perceptually identical, is the good one? Although presenting the
example in this way is a thought experiment, it is easy to "tone it
down" so that it applies to most practical cases of one saying they
like an artwork, since in most cases one at best makes educated
guesses about the processes that went into the work.
Hopefully, the above shows some of the folly of making aesthetic
judgments based on a criterion not actually contained in the work
itself.
--King Rundzap
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote in message news:<425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com>...
Mani Deli
wrote:
> How do you pick which of the two paintings you
>like?
Lets see the paintings.
>Per Mani's criteria, and apparently some other regulars here,
>one had skill behind it and the other didn't.
Don't lecture me on criterior. Lets see the painting.
>Hopefully, the above shows some of the folly of making aesthetic
>judgments based on a criterion not actually contained in the work
>itself.
>
I base my criteria on what I see.
King Rundzap
> > Otherwise, if they look at a painting, or an apparent
> > painting, and say, "I like that work", without knowing those facts,
> > they might have to retract liking the painting based on later
> > information.
>
> To like a painting does not require the viewer to comprehend
> the intentions of the artist, merely to enjoy the initial visual
> pleasure.
Yes, I agree strongly with that--that was a large part of my point.
> If one learns that Turner meant to express something really
> deep in his works, then what's that to his admirers, except
> something more in his works to look for?
> The problem of a work of art that relies too much upon an artist's
> intentions to make itself appeal, is something for many abstract
> works, which on the face of it, are unappealing.
Although many people do not find them unappealing, which is something
I was trying to point out in some earlier threads. A lot of people
buy abstract works by unknowns, where they do not know the person's
intention with the work, if in fact there was one (and I gave an
example of paintings by a turtle selling for examples of works where
they may not be an intention). A lot of people just "enjoy the
initial visual pleasure" of such abstract works.
> > Anything can be looked at as an art object, in my view, and none of it
> > is "objectively better" than any of the other stuff. There's no
> > problem liking whatever you like the best for the stuff you consider
> > to be artworks
> If we accept that there can be no objective way of discerning good
> art from bad art, or even art from non-art, then how do we all know
> what we are looking at?
We don't all have the same view of what is good art versus bad art or
what counts as art versus what doesn't. That should be pretty
obvious, at least if you talk to a number of people about art, read
their views, etc., and presumably, by reading this newsgroup, you do
that.
> How do we know that one work of one artist
> is better or worse than another of the same artist?
It's a subjective opinion. Not a fact in the external world.
> Perhaps if Piccaso had decided to frame one of his palettes as
> a Mickey-take, would we be able to judge that it was not art, or
> do we stick faithfully to the idea that it is art, because he said so?
Something is art to you if you consider it such. That's always the
case. It could be art to Picasso and to no one else. It could be not
art to Picasso, but art to Joe Schmoe. It could be art or not art to
80% of the people looking at it and "voting" on whether it's art. Or
everyone could agree that it's art, and it's still just opinion.
Agreeing on opinions doesn't make them non-subjective.
> How can we assess the works of anyone or anything if we insist on
> your world where values do not exist?
Oops! I did _not_ say that values do not exist. I said they're
subjective. They're like thoughts. Do thoughts exist? It seems
absurd to say that they don't, right? But they don't seem to be
floating around in the world, either. Instead, they're in people's
minds. That makes them subjective (they'd only be objective if they
were also existing _outside_ of people's minds). So thoughts exist,
but they're subjective. Aesthetics, and value judgments in general,
are the same. Subjective, and not "floating around" in the world
outside of people's minds.
> Perhaps this runs parallel to
> the real world in some ways, but the actions and words of everyone
> I have listened to regarding art, tells me they all make judgements.
Well, I wouldn't say that everyone does that, but most of the people
who are really "into" art, especially enough to chat about it on
newsgroups, make judgments, sure. I didn't say that people do not
make judgments, I said they're subjective. "Subjective" isn't a
synonym for "non-existent". I'm not sure where anyone got the idea
that it was. Roughly, subjective just means "only opinion based".
> Because we all have our own set of values in our heads does not say
> that we can jump from this to say that there can be no agreement
> between different groups.
Sure, there is plenty of agreement on all kinds of opinions. None of
that agreement will ever make them more than opinions, though.
> It does not say that we cannot have people
> who make objective judgements on art, and say that something is not
> art.
Well, yes, it does. Because they remain opinions only, not objective,
not something external in the world. That is the _judgments
themselves_, as judgments. Those are different, for example, than an
"utterance" of a judgment, which can travel out into the external
world as sound waves, or as ink on a piece of paper. But those things
aren't judgments themselves. Judgments are only mental, and only
subjective. To be objective, we'd have to show some evidence of the
judgment itself existing externally in the world somehow, not just in
minds.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On 23 Aug 2004 16:25:20 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
>
> > How do you pick which of the two paintings you
> >like?
>
> Lets see the paintings.
The posit was that the two paintings are identical. So you'll see no
apparent difference in them. Do you go "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe?"
> >Per Mani's criteria, and apparently some other regulars here,
> >one had skill behind it and the other didn't.
> Don't lecture me on criterior. Lets see the painting.
I'm not sure you read the whole section of the post you're responding
to. You didn't seem to "get it" at least.
> >Hopefully, the above shows some of the folly of making aesthetic
> >judgments based on a criterion not actually contained in the work
> >itself.
> I base my criteria on what I see.
The scenario was that you see two apparently identical (I say
apparent, because I don't believe they can be logically identical)
paintings.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> > It's fine to appreciate craft. But I don't see what that necessarily
> > has to do with aesthetics.
>
> But where do we find our senses of art appreciation?
Well, you look at something and like it or not. What's wrong with
that?
> Aesthetics is a set of values learned from our experiences, and
> changes with our emotions, our knowledge, our sense of shared
> values that few will admit to.
Aesthetics, as a set of values, arises from the way your brain works.
I agree that others can influence it, in that you'll consider things
you hear them say, write, etc. and then for a variety of reasons
(often not related to aesthetics itself) maybe agree or disagree, or
partially agree or disagree, but those reasons, and the judgments,
still come from your mind, and remain in your mind.
> Amongst these preferences is undoubtedly a preference for fine
> craftsmanship, and especially from those who would be so skilled
> themselves
Well, there are problems with the assumption that you can tell such
things from just looking at the finished product, however. I was
pointing out some of those problems earlier in this thread. And if
that's part of how one determines to like the finished product or not
(which is contrary to "merely enjoying the initial visual pleasure"),
then you'd have to withhold judgment on most works until you had some
kind of documentation about the craftsmanship that went into it.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
abstract works, and the comments about art marketing, versus waiting
for the world to come knocking at an artist's door.
Oh well.
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ekkki0l39uogcirkj...@4ax.com>...
Thur
> I agree that others can influence it, in that you'll consider things
What I am trying, (with difficulty) is to put forward an idea that our
judgements, our sense of art appreciation, our take on art in general
is not, or ever has been solely an individual process. I think many
would accept that we are all influenced to some degree by the society
we live in, and I say by the artworld we see as current, and the artworld
we see receding into the past. Our opinions are formulated within these
influences ( and no doubt other influences).
Certain values we have for art are held by more than one person, and we
might say there is a general opinion today that : etc.
Without this, how can there be a taste of any sort? How can Kincade
formulate his work, or tailor it for his market so successfully if we are
all locked in the prison of our own individuality?
Our thoughts are just thoughts until we articulate them. Once we have
given our opinion, even if simply I do/do not like, then the thoughts
are put in the real world, that which shapes the art world.
The queues for certain exhibitions, the visitors to galleries, the
purchasers
of new works, the opinions of respected critics, the media's use of the
art world in it's quest for readers and viewers, all form opinions which
shape tastes.
>then you'd have to withhold judgement on most works until you had some
> kind of documentation about the craftsmanship that went into it.
It's a complicated world. I look for and really enjoy expert watercolours,
and I think I know enough to see at least some of the skills used in
creating what I see as the better works. e.g.
http://www.islandfinearts.com/pages/single/156.html
When I see a superb piece of pottery, it's true that I know very little of
the skills that were used to create it, so I am left with the simple
pleasures of viewing perfection, form, beauty, decoration. e.g
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/science/portland%20vase/sr-portland-p1.htm
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:<dbsWc.350$jj1...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>...
>> > It's fine to appreciate craft. But I don't see what that necessarily
>> > has to do with aesthetics.
>>
>> But where do we find our senses of art appreciation?
>
> Well, you look at something and like it or not. What's wrong with
> that?
>
>> Aesthetics is a set of values learned from our experiences, and
>> changes with our emotions, our knowledge, our sense of shared
>> values that few will admit to.
>
> Aesthetics, as a set of values, arises from the way your brain works.
> I agree that others can influence it, in that you'll consider things
> you hear them say, write, etc. and then for a variety of reasons
> (often not related to aesthetics itself) maybe agree or disagree, or
> partially agree or disagree, but those reasons, and the judgements,
> still come from your mind, and remain in your mind.
>
>> Amongst these preferences is undoubtedly a preference for fine
>> craftsmanship, and especially from those who would be so skilled
>> themselves
>
> Well, there are problems with the assumption that you can tell such
> things from just looking at the finished product, however. I was
> pointing out some of those problems earlier in this thread. And if
> that's part of how one determines to like the finished product or not
> (which is contrary to "merely enjoying the initial visual pleasure"),
> then you'd have to withhold judgement on most works until you had some
King Rundzap
> > Aesthetics, as a set of values, arises from the way your brain works.
> > I agree that others can influence it, in that you'll consider things
> > you hear them say, write, etc. and then for a variety of reasons...
> What I am trying, (with difficulty) is to put forward an idea that our
> judgements, our sense of art appreciation, our take on art in general
> is not, or ever has been solely an individual process.
I understand that you believe that, but I don't. The judgment, as a
judgmnet, is an individual process, in my view. I'm separating the
judgment itself from things that can and do influence the judgment the
individuals make.
>I think many would accept that we are all influenced to some degree
by the
> society we live in, and I say by the artworld we see as current, and the
>artworld we see receding into the past. Our opinions are formulated
within >these influences ( and no doubt other influences).
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that the
judgments themselves aren't individual. I don't think that the
objective stuff that influences and the judgments are the same thing.
As I mentioned above, "I agree that others can influence it, in that
you'll consider things you hear them say, write, etc. and then for a
variety of reasons (often not related to aesthetics itself) maybe
agree or disagree, or
partially agree or disagree, but those reasons, and the judgments,
still come from your mind, and remain in your mind."
Maybe I should point out some more concrete examples of this. For
example, you're in art school, you've just been exposed to Rothko for
the first time, you're not sure what you think, and the professor
says, "Rothko kicks ass" (lol--not that he'd say it that way, but you
get the idea). Now, there are countless reactions you could have,
over varying degrees of time after hearing your professor. Some of
them include continuing to reserve judgment on Rothko as before
because you aren't sure if you like his work or not, deciding that the
professor is off his rocker and you think Rothko sucks, or deciding
that you like Rothko's works too and agreeing with your professor.
Another of the many possibilities is that you think it's a good idea
to agree with your professor because, after all, he's a big professor
and knows more than you do, etc., so you also say, "Rothko kicks ass"
but you still aren't sure if you like Rothko or not. In this latter
case, you're not actually making a value judgment about Rothko,
although you appear to be. You're only making a judgment when you
have a thought like "Rothko kicks ass" or "Rothko sucks" or "Rothko is
okay but definitely not my favorite", or whatever, and mean it to
yourself in that way.
In all of this, I'm just trying to stress how I believe judgments are
mental events, and influenced from external things, but not the same
as them.
> Certain values we have for art are held by more than one person, and we
> might say there is a general opinion today that : etc.
Right. Again you're getting no disagreement from me that a lot of
people can agree on an opinion, or a subjective evaluation of art. I
just hope that you're not conflating "agreement" and "objective
judgment".
> Without this, how can there be a taste of any sort?
Well, taste is about whether you like something or not. You do not
need anyone else around to like something or not.
> How can Kincade
> formulate his work, or tailor it for his market so successfully if we are
> all locked in the prison of our own individuality?
Well, assuming he does that and it's not just a "happy accident" that
he loves doing work that a lot of people like to buy. But I agree he
has to do _some_ marketing, as almost everyone does, to make any money
with something like art. But I don't understand what the great
mystery is about watching what people say they like, or are buying,
and giving them more of that stuff as long as they're buying it.
I suppose it's because you see me as saying something about "being
locked in the prison of our own individuality", but I didn't say
anything like that, and I'm not sure what you're reading as me saying
that. The fact that some things are mental-only doesn't mean that
_everything_ is, including human-oriented things. Speech, hand
motions, respiration, and so on are not mental-only.
Maybe you're thinking that if someone believes that value judgments
are subjective, they must believe that everything is? A lot of people
make assumptions like that on subjects like these, but that's made
more curious by them not thinking that any property that one thing has
must be a property that all things have, for all properties. In other
words, if I said, "A computer monitor can be used as a doorstop", you
wouldn't think that I'm saying everything can be used as a doorstop
(such as a single piece of toilet paper, a hair, etc.) Likewise, if I
believe that value judgments are subjective, it doesn't mean that I
think that everything is subjective.
> Our thoughts are just thoughts until we articulate them. Once we have
> given our opinion, even if simply I do/do not like, then the thoughts
> are put in the real world, that which shapes the art world.
Well, I disagree that the thought itself is put into the real world.
I know that's a common manner of speaking, but technically, I don't
think it's true. We put sounds like speech, or symbols like writing,
or gestures, or any number of other things "into the world", but I
believe that thoughts are things that only occur in minds. The
speaking or writing or gestures often elicit thoughts in other
people's minds, but I don't think that a thought travels from our mind
to theirs like a freight train would travel from Los Angeles to New
York.
> The queues for certain exhibitions, the visitors to galleries, the
> purchasers of new works, the opinions of respected critics, the media's use > of the art world in it's quest for readers and viewers, all form opinions
> which shape tastes.
All of that can influence subjective judgments,yes. None of it
necessarily influences subjective judgments, although that might not
need to be said.
> It's a complicated world. I look for and really enjoy expert watercolours,
> and I think I know enough to see at least some of the skills used in
> creating what I see as the better works. e.g.
> http://www.islandfinearts.com/pages/single/156.html
Although you could always be wrong. For example, a
computer/robot/automation system could have created it with some
clever programming behind it. What we really do, at least in absence
of some kind of technical documentation (which we'd have to trust is
telling the truth, anyway) is figure out what we'd have to do to
create a picture that we'd judge is "something like that". Maybe the
actual process involved is similar to what we think was done based on
what we'd do to create that look, but maybe it wasn't, too (a good
example of this is some kinds of modern printmaking that actually
duplicate paint texture (including impasto), brush marks, etc., but
use what is essentially "inkjet" technology). No matter what created
the finished picture, or what technique, intentional or not, was used,
the end result looks the way it does, and I base whether I like a work
or not on what the finished piece looks like. I can appreciate human
craftsmanship, too, but to me that's separate from the way a painting
or picture looks. I'm more apt to appreciate craftsmanship for its
own sake when I'm watching a craftsman work.
--King Rundzap