who paints these 35 dollar oil paintings???
Iron Soldier
shop that sold oil paintings on actual canvas for 35 dollars (24x36)
now I look at them they are signed by the artists etc.. Large
selection of different types I found a couple of nice ones and framed
them for a total of 100(frame, painting) where do these come from and
who paints them? I have seen stuff that is no where near as nice as
some of the pieces I bought by semi-established artists/established
artists for (600 to a few thousand) Are the paintings that inexpensive
because they are broke artists who need to make a living by cranking
out oil-works? I have seen a piece by a semi established artists (few
splotches of paint very minimal 24x36) for 2k while some interesting
pieces of art that looked like it took much more work and thought into
it for 35 bucks.
so whats the deal here??
rfxN
> so whats the deal here?
At least in Europe, a lot of the paintings sold for peanuts (around 30-50
(euro)bucks) are made in East European and Russian art schools. I suspect
some of them are shipped to US as well.
I've also heard of Chinese sweatshops cranking out oil paintings at cut-
rate prices. Based on what I've seen, most of those are technically very
nice. But, practise makes perfect, if you paint a hundred copies of the
same ocean scenery something must go right...
--
/rfxN
Richard
Years ago I saw a great painting of a square rigger ship at sea for
only $40. I wanted it really bad but I was broke. I was tempted to
steal it. Now I'll eventually paint one like it myself.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Bernt Oker
theironso...@yahoo.com says...
>so whats the deal here??
First of all, are you sure they are truly
"hand painted" paintings? There are now
machine processes that can replicate paintings
to look like the real thing. "Giclee" prints
are very popular now for making reproductions,
including the photographic arts. Some of
the Giclee machines can print on canvas -
refer to the long-winded thread on the subject
in this forum.
On the other hand, there have been articles
in past years about senior citizens in places
like Florida who have a cottage industry where
they crank out scenes assembly-line style. One
person paints the skies, another the trees,
another the beach etc etc. Where I live there is
a sculptor who hires a shop-full of assistants,
all of whom have some artisan skills, to do all
of the 'detailing' on his sculptures. They work
on the latest multiples of a given sculpture
in an assembly-line fashion:
William Palmer
> In article <68925e3c.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> theironso...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >so whats the deal here??
>
> First of all, are you sure they are truly
> "hand painted" paintings? There are now
> machine processes that can replicate paintings
> to look like the real thing. "Giclee" prints
> are very popular now for making reproductions,
> including the photographic arts. Some of
> the Giclee machines can print on canvas -
> refer to the long-winded thread on the subject
> in this forum.
>
> On the other hand, there have been articles
> in past years about senior citizens in places
> like Florida who have a cottage industry where
> they crank out scenes assembly-line style.
I would suspect this "assembly line" painting
as being more likely how the work was produced.
For one thing, if the paintings were sold in
a manner where it was stated or otherwise
represented that they were hand-painted,
the seller could be sued for fraud if that
were not the case. As a result, I would
therefore think the "cottage industry" theory
might be the reality. After all, oils are
still "hand painted," even if several people
are involved in the painting effort.
One
> person paints the skies, another the trees,
> another the beach etc etc. Where I live there is
> a sculptor who hires a shop-full of assistants,
> all of whom have some artisan skills, to do all
> of the 'detailing' on his sculptures. They work
> on the latest multiples of a given sculpture
> in an assembly-line fashion:
And there is also the element of the sucker
being born every minute. That is, some naive
segments of the public have the naive belief
that if it is a GENUINE oil painting and has
some element of realism about it, then it has
to be worth something. (In the same way that
some people have an awe for the printed word:
"It must be true because I saw it in a BOOK.")
But I guess it gets back to the emperor's
new clothes. The buyers might be paying
thirty-five dollars for something a person
with a little savvy regarding oil painting
would see as a piece of worthless rubbish,
but if the buyer is satisfied with the thing,
and hangs it proudly on his wall, who is to
say that he or she (or the seller) is wrong?
After all, plenty of couples go a trashy
movie these days and spend more than $35
bucks on admission and refreshments. The
fact that some people would view the $35
oil as an atrocity of taste is no big deal,
because the buyer does not likely know
people like that in the first place.
a.g.b-p
>
> http://www.davemcgary.com/
Bernt Oker
willia...@prodigy.net says...
>And there is also the element of the sucker
>being born every minute. That is, some naive
>segments of the public have the naive belief
>that if it is a GENUINE oil painting and has
>some element of realism about it, then it has
>to be worth something.
OHHHHH, it's a MUCH larger issue than whether
or not it's a "real" painting. I live in a
town where the economy is driven by the tourists
who visit here. There are MANY galleries and
MOST sell very high-dollar framed prints. By
that I mean they are reproductions of paintings
by recognized artists. And the frames are not
cheesy. The prices are in the hundreds of USA
dollars range. And someone must be buying these
reproductions (usually in unlimited edition) or
these galleries wouldn't stay in business more
than one season - come to think of it, some
don't!
But making my point, I would personally rather
have a reproduction of some recognized
artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
DeeDee
made ME happy ..... even if that meant the works of a brand new artist
...... that began just yesterday ..... for me .... the 'name' or recognition
mean nothing .... if the art doesn't make me happy .... or doesn't make me
smile.
Dee
"Bernt Oker" <b...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3dcfb...@oracle.zianet.com...
Neil Maxwell
Palmer) wrote:
>>And there is also the element of the sucker
>being born every minute. That is, some naive
>segments of the public have the naive belief
>that if it is a GENUINE oil painting and has
>some element of realism about it, then it has
>to be worth something. (In the same way that
>some people have an awe for the printed word:
>"It must be true because I saw it in a BOOK.")
>But I guess it gets back to the emperor's
>new clothes. The buyers might be paying
>thirty-five dollars for something a person
>with a little savvy regarding oil painting
>would see as a piece of worthless rubbish,
>but if the buyer is satisfied with the thing,
>and hangs it proudly on his wall, who is to
>say that he or she (or the seller) is wrong?
Indeed, my 14 year old daughter is fond of inexpensive paintings. I
bought her one she wanted at a "cheap original art" sale, and she
bought 2 more in Paris this summer with her own money. None of them
were over $40. She likes them, I like them better than the N'Sync
posters they replaced, they're technically rather good, and they're
attractive, if not challenging. She can't afford thousands of dollars
and up for "name brands", but she's buying original art that she
likes. It's hard to see anything wrong with that. I'm rather pleased
with it.
>After all, plenty of couples go a trashy
>movie these days and spend more than $35
>bucks on admission and refreshments. The
>fact that some people would view the $35
>oil as an atrocity of taste is no big deal,
>because the buyer does not likely know
>people like that in the first place.
There are several artists in my family, and none of them consider
these inexpensive pieces an "atrocity of taste". Again, they're
better by far than the posters and prints most kids and many adults
prefer.
If you have a Chuck Close self-portrait you'd like to donate to her
art education, that's what she liked best during our last museum
outing. It's a little out of her range, though.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Andrew D
wrote:
[snip]
+But making my point, I would personally rather
+have a reproduction of some recognized
+artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
+some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
You buy art by the label?
As an investment, an unlimited print by a recognised artist probably has
less potential than an original painting by an unknown.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Sharr Truce
says...
> Again, they're
>better by far than the posters and prints most kids and many adults
>prefer.
Be careful not to confuse "reproductions
of fine art" with "poster art" that was
originally intended as advertising, or
whatever generated the "poster."
I don't know "many adults" who like poster
art, unless it's poster art that has some
value as art. There is a huge after-market
in posters that are considered "rare" for
one reason or another.
On the other hand, many artists sell reproductions
of their work for the same price they ask
for an original. You can find all sorts of
examples of that on Web sites. And in another
reply I mentioned galleries that sell framed
reproductions where the frames are often worth
far more than the commercial un-limited edition
prints they contain.
Bernt Oker
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>+But making my point, I would personally rather
>+have a reproduction of some recognized
>+artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
>+some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
>
>You buy art by the label?
I don't know what you mean by that question.
It has no relevance that I can see to the
distinction I was making.
>As an investment, an unlimited print by a recognised artist probably has
>less potential than an original painting by an unknown.
You could be right, but I made no reference
to "investment" either. If you'll go back
and re-read what I said I prefaced it with
"I would personally rather" - indicating I
was NOT suggesting everyone has the same
taste as I.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Be careful not to confuse "reproductions
>of fine art" with "poster art" that was
>originally intended as advertising, or
>whatever generated the "poster."
When I said posters, I meant inexpensive mass-produced reproductions,
excluding fine-art techniques such as lithography, screenprints,
woodblocks, etc. Even there, the conceptual lines start greying
between the numbered and un-numbered repros, IMO.
We do have a fondness at my house for advertising art from France,
such as the pochoirs by Barbier and his ilk from Gazette du Bon Ton
back in the '20s, as well as illustrators like Rockwell Kent and
Yoshitoshi. One person's art is another's throw-away Sunday insert...
I'll admit we prefer originals or small run repros and don't have any
fine art mass reproductions, though I rotate a variety of small inkjet
(or maybe giclee ;-) ) prints on the wall of my cube at work. One of
my co-workers asked me if a Kandinsky was something one of my kids had
done. Mani would be proud!
>I don't know "many adults" who like poster
>art, unless it's poster art that has some
>value as art. There is a huge after-market
>in posters that are considered "rare" for
>one reason or another.
Yes, I know someone who collects rock concert posters. Whatever
floats your boat. I also know lots of adults with art reproductions
on paper that I call posters, both fine and not-so, which was the gist
of my original reference.
>On the other hand, many artists sell reproductions
>of their work for the same price they ask
>for an original. You can find all sorts of
>examples of that on Web sites. And in another
>reply I mentioned galleries that sell framed
>reproductions where the frames are often worth
>far more than the commercial un-limited edition
>prints they contain.
Now, this is where the PT Barnum aspect comes in. To pay a lot of
money for mass-produced reproductions seems a lot more foolish to me
than to buy cheap original art such as my daughter likes.
Fortunately, we all have these choices, and if someone likes Anne
Geddes posters of cute babies in flowers on their walls, well, I'm OK
with that. I'll indulge my own foibles, though.
Neil Maxwell
>May I suggest that your daughter buy inexpensive reproductions of master
>paintings instead? If she likes Chuck Close (good choice!), try the major
>museum stores on line.
I suggested some at one point, but she was not too receptive. One of
the things she likes about these inexpensive originals is the texture
and depth given by the paint, which you lose in reproductions. She
just doesn't get excited by reproductions like she does by originals.
Technique over content, maybe, but there it is. I'm sure she'll grow
in her tastes.
While I expose her to as many influences as I can, I try not to
directly guide her choices in such things (as if I could!). I'm often
surprised at what kids like best at museums and galleries. Sometimes
it's obvious stuff like Erte or Norman Rockwell, others it's more
unusual like Ofili or Close. I'm Warhol fan, but they don't give him
a second glance. Abstracts tend to leave them cold as well.
It's an education to go out viewing art with kids. I always ask them
what they'd hang on their wall if they could.
Neil Maxwell
>But making my point, I would personally rather
>have a reproduction of some recognized
>artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
>some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
By this approach, it's less likely you'll ever have originals,
depending on your budget. For those who don't have thousands of $$ or
more to spend, emerging/unknown artists can be a better bet. I'll
admit that the type of art you get at the $35 art sales is not what
I'd buy. It does tend toward the decorative, since non-challenging
art sells best in this price range.
In any case, you can have the best of both worlds, and get
hand-painted reproductions of recognized artists' work at a wide
variety of online sources. A friend of mine brought back a Kandinsky
repro from Thailand that's good for a quick double-take when you see
it on the wall. It looks quite real to my eye, but I know my friend
could never afford the real thing. The painted surface is
substantially more compelling than printed paper, IMO.
The repros of more realistic subject matter are a bit trickier. The
Tamara de Lempicka repros I looked at a while back were awful, and the
difference was immediately obvious.
In any case, searching for original art on a budget is a worthy
education on its own, I think. There are only so many Gaugin and
Picasso and Whistler posters you can fit on your walls.
Sharr Truce
says...
>I suggested some at one point, but she was not too receptive. One of
>the things she likes about these inexpensive originals is the texture
>and depth given by the paint, which you lose in reproductions.
I think I led readers astray by my comparison
of "fine art" reproductions to "cheap original
paintings." What I was responding to was a
thread that began by discussing "assembly line"
paintings that are sold as "nothing over $35.00"
sofa art. And I said I'd rather have a reproduction
of a reputable artist's work than one of these
cheap "originals" of "trite subject matter."
Now there is another distinction to make here.
VAST LEGIONS of artists turn out "original"
works that they sell for peanuts when they
are first beginning to sell. And some even after
they've been selling for years. You can't compare
these artist's works to those created by an
assembly line of artistisans working piecemeal
on paintings. Some of the artists who sell their
works in malls, art fairs, and alternative gallery
spaces are quite remarkable and well worth having
if one is turned on by their work. I'm talking
about buying art because it has visceral appeal
to you, not because you are contemplating
appreciation in value as a collector.
John Ng
> +But making my point, I would personally rather
> +have a reproduction of some recognized
> +artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
> +some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
>
> You buy art by the label?
This is a 60 million dollar question. There are two categories of
art:
1. Beautiful Art
2. Bank Notes
The first is something you like no matter who or how it is done... you
just feel a sense of well-being owning it.
The other is something you don't care to like but you expect its value
holds. Give me a Kadinsky and I will jump for it... it is money not
beauty... it is investment not enjoyment.
Both way of buying art is valid (although I won't call "Bank Notes"
art). Think about it, would you pay $40,000 for an unknown painter
who comes equal with Bouguereau (which you aren't sure it will hold
its value), or would you pay $40,000 for a genuine Bouguereau? No
mark for the answer.
There is a certain threshold value you put on a painting (for personal
enjoyment), but beyond that, you are not paying for the painting at
all... just the investment value like stock and shares. The, still,
high prices of a Picasso has got NOTHING to do with Picasso's ability
to paint... absolutely NOTHING.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Andrew D
Oker) wrote:
+In article <right-12110...@i165-104.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>+But making my point, I would personally rather
+>+have a reproduction of some recognized
+>+artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
+>+some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
+>You buy art by the label?
+
+I don't know what you mean by that question.
+It has no relevance that I can see to the
+distinction I was making.
You essentially said you'd go with the name rather than the subject.
+>As an investment, an unlimited print by a recognised artist probably has
+>less potential than an original painting by an unknown.
+
+You could be right, but I made no reference
+to "investment" either. If you'll go back
+and re-read what I said I prefaced it with
+"I would personally rather" - indicating I
+was NOT suggesting everyone has the same
+taste as I.
Since you appeared to be putting artist before painting, I assumed you
might be thinking investment. If not, then I can't see why you would
automatically go for a "recognised artist" rather than a painting you just
happen to like.
Andrew D
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
+On 11 Nov 2002 06:32:00 -0700, b...@noemailever.com (Bernt Oker) wrote:
+>But making my point, I would personally rather
+>have a reproduction of some recognized
+>artist's work than a "real oil painting" of
+>some trite subject matter painted by unknowns.
+
+By this approach, it's less likely you'll ever have originals,
+depending on your budget. For those who don't have thousands of $$ or
+more to spend, emerging/unknown artists can be a better bet. I'll
+admit that the type of art you get at the $35 art sales is not what
+I'd buy. It does tend toward the decorative, since non-challenging
+art sells best in this price range.
What is "challenging" art?
Andrew D
Truce) wrote:
[snip]
+I think I led readers astray by my comparison
+of "fine art" reproductions to "cheap original
+paintings." What I was responding to was a
+thread that began by discussing "assembly line"
+paintings that are sold as "nothing over $35.00"
+sofa art. And I said I'd rather have a reproduction
+of a reputable artist's work than one of these
+cheap "originals" of "trite subject matter."
+Now there is another distinction to make here.
[snip]
+I'm talking
+about buying art because it has visceral appeal
+to you, not because you are contemplating
+appreciation in value as a collector.
It all becomes much clearer now. ;)
Sharr Truce
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>If not, then I can't see why you would
>automatically go for a "recognised artist" rather than a painting you just
>happen to like.
I give up. I'm not going to keep
repeating myself. Apparently you
and I don't speak the same version
of English...but thanks for your
interest anyway.
William Palmer
> In article <3dd18...@oracle.zianet.com>, sha...@noemailever.com (Sharr
> Truce) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> +I think I led readers astray by my comparison
> +of "fine art" reproductions to "cheap original
> +paintings." What I was responding to was a
> +thread that began by discussing "assembly line"
> +paintings that are sold as "nothing over $35.00"
> +sofa art. And I said I'd rather have a reproduction
> +of a reputable artist's work than one of these
> +cheap "originals" of "trite subject matter."
>
> +Now there is another distinction to make here.
>
> [snip]
> +I'm talking
> +about buying art because it has visceral appeal
> +to you, not because you are contemplating
> +appreciation in value as a collector.
Your remark about "visceral appeal" puts me
in mind of the current situation regarding
"pulp art," that is, the work of the best
artists who did paintings for the covers of
the old pulp-fiction magazines of the Twenties,
Thirties, and Forties. For decades, that
work was considered to be of so little worth
that it often languished in publisher's storage
rooms, was given away, or even thrown out
in the trash! In fact, even the artists
doing the work generally did not place
much value on it. Those covers were often
something the artists did for their day job,
to support themselves while they did their
"real art." Now, while most dealers don't
give a hoot about their "real art," those
pulp cover paintings, the ones that were
not destroyed, are worth a small fortune
and are auctioned by some of the best
galleries. Why? Is this some silly
fad? Not at all. The best of those
pulp artists had an immense talent for
what they did. They produced real art,
even though in some cases they seemed to
feel they were just hacking out a living.
My feeling about that is, when someone is
a true artist, then, conditions being right,
that talent has a way of manifesting itself,
almost even without the artist realizing it...
a.g.b-p
John Ng
> Apparently you
> and I don't speak the same version
> of English...but thanks for your
> interest anyway.
Correct... he is Australian and you are American?
Sharr Truce
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>Correct... he is Australian and you are American?
DUH!
Andrew D
Truce) wrote:
You clarified your position elsewhere. Now I see where you're coming from.
But it wasn't clear from the less specific post to which I first responded
here.
William Palmer
I agree. Factors like the QUALITY of the
reproduction have everything to do with the
matter. For instance, when I made my posting
about whether Carlos Schwabe's "Death and the
Grave Digger" was beautiful or ugly, while I
was not totally satisfied with the quality of
the responses I received in this group, one
poster did post a very helpful link
to a site where high-quality reproductions are
sold. It looks as if they have some excellent
Khnopff's for sale, for instance, though I am
very hesitant to invest in anything that is going
to hang on my wall before I have seen it. Anyway,
while I am toying with the idea of having Khnopff's
"Caress of the Sphinx on a wall, I would not even
considerhaving something that I found boring on a
wall simply because it was an original. In
fact, I would reject both an original with an
interesting subject that was unskillfully
painted, as well as something with a boring
subject that was masterfully painted. Naturally,
an original Khnopff would be preferable to
even the highest quality reprodution, but
I am not aware of any Khnopffs being on the
market, nor could I afford one if they were.
Of course, while every reader here has his
or her favorites, I would suspect that many
readers feel the same way: there is little
satisfaction in having poorly-done originals
on your wall, unless for they are there for
sentimental reasons, such as being painted
by a dear friend or beloved family member.
a.g.b-p
Neil Maxwell
D) wrote:
>In article <3ddc83f9....@news.intel.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>+It does tend toward the decorative, since non-challenging
>+art sells best in this price range.
>
>What is "challenging" art?
OK, I'll bite.
Several applicable dictionary entries for "challenge" are:
- to confront or defy boldly
- to arouse or stimulate especially by presenting with difficulties
However, I'd start with "non-challenging" art, being the phrase I
used. I consider it art where the meaning is clear and obvious, there
is no interpretation required or necessary, and it doesn't make
viewers uncomfortable or unhappy. Landscapes fall most easily into
this category, though portraits, still lifes, and other styles can as
well. Or not. As always, some artists can present such things in a
way that provokes thought, discomfort, exploration, or whatever.
There are times when a landscape is just a landscape.
This doesn't mean it's not good art; Hokusai's landscapes or
Hiroshige's fish are not particularly challenging, and I prefer
Yoshitoshi's more intense works, but the former two are considered
higher art than the latter. Caravaggio's dramatic Judith and
Holofernes piece is not something most people would want over their
sofa. For all of it's classical elegance, I'd consider it a
challenging piece.
Like everything in art, YMMV, and the lines are grey and quite broad.
Andrew D
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:11:59 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
>D) wrote:
>
>>In article <3ddc83f9....@news.intel.com>,
>>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>
>>+It does tend toward the decorative, since non-challenging
>>+art sells best in this price range.
>>
>>What is "challenging" art?
>
>OK, I'll bite.
>
>Several applicable dictionary entries for "challenge" are:
>- to confront or defy boldly
>- to arouse or stimulate especially by presenting with difficulties
>
>However, I'd start with "non-challenging" art, being the phrase I
>used. I consider it art where the meaning is clear and obvious,
Or apparently so. Perhaps the real challenge is to see beyond this. Seeing
"a cottage by a country road" is akin to looking at a Pollock and seeing
paint spillage. Why is one "challenging" and the other not?
>there is no interpretation required or necessary, and it doesn't make
>viewers uncomfortable or unhappy.
It does concern me that so many people apparently believe art should
always do these things. Whatever happened to making people comfortable and
happy?
> Landscapes fall most easily into
>this category, though portraits, still lifes, and other styles can as
>well. Or not. As always, some artists can present such things in a
>way that provokes thought, discomfort, exploration, or whatever.
Perhaps they all do. Perhaps the real failure here is on the part of the
unsophisticated viewer (The Dan Fox theory) who doesn't even try to look
for anything beyond the obvious.
>There are times when a landscape is just a landscape.
>This doesn't mean it's not good art; Hokusai's landscapes or
>Hiroshige's fish are not particularly challenging, and I prefer
>Yoshitoshi's more intense works, but the former two are considered
>higher art than the latter. Caravaggio's dramatic Judith and
>Holofernes piece is not something most people would want over their
>sofa. For all of it's classical elegance, I'd consider it a
>challenging piece.
>Like everything in art, YMMV, and the lines are grey and quite broad.
My point is that, if the challenge in modern/expressionist art is to find
a message among all the mess then why shouldn't viewers look beyond the
obvious niceness of a pretty landscape? It seems to me that whether a
piece is challenging or non-challenging depends entirely on the will of
the viewer to accept the challenge and look deeper. So, while it's true
that many people don't look past the obvious subject matter depicted in a
"realistic" landscape, many also don't see beyond the smears or patterns
in an expressionist piece. So why is one more challenging than the other?
Neil Maxwell
D) wrote:
>In article <3de60e23....@news.intel.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>>Several applicable dictionary entries for "challenge" are:
>>- to confront or defy boldly
>>- to arouse or stimulate especially by presenting with difficulties
>>
>>However, I'd start with "non-challenging" art, being the phrase I
>>used. I consider it art where the meaning is clear and obvious,
>
>Or apparently so. Perhaps the real challenge is to see beyond this. Seeing
>"a cottage by a country road" is akin to looking at a Pollock and seeing
>paint spillage. Why is one "challenging" and the other not?
I'd say because mostly everyone agrees about what the cottage depicts,
while the Pollock is a source of controversy, and means a wide variety
of things to a wide variety of people. Consensual vs. non-consensual
reality, and all that.
>>there is no interpretation required or necessary, and it doesn't make
>>viewers uncomfortable or unhappy.
>
>It does concern me that so many people apparently believe art should
>always do these things. Whatever happened to making people comfortable and
>happy?
I can't speak for others, but I like comfortable, attractive art as
well as uncomfortable art. I have examples of both. I make examples
of both.
>> Landscapes fall most easily into
>>this category, though portraits, still lifes, and other styles can as
>>well. Or not. As always, some artists can present such things in a
>>way that provokes thought, discomfort, exploration, or whatever.
>
>Perhaps they all do. Perhaps the real failure here is on the part of the
>unsophisticated viewer (The Dan Fox theory) who doesn't even try to look
>for anything beyond the obvious.
There may be some validity here, though I'm not usually fond of art
that has to be explained. I like for *something* about it to grab me
and lead me deeper on my own. I'm sure the deconstructionists could
write a lengthy essay on the cottage on a country road. Different
strokes, though.
>>There are times when a landscape is just a landscape.
>
>>This doesn't mean it's not good art; Hokusai's landscapes or
>>Hiroshige's fish are not particularly challenging, and I prefer
>>Yoshitoshi's more intense works, but the former two are considered
>>higher art than the latter. Caravaggio's dramatic Judith and
>>Holofernes piece is not something most people would want over their
>>sofa. For all of it's classical elegance, I'd consider it a
>>challenging piece.
>
>>Like everything in art, YMMV, and the lines are grey and quite broad.
>
>My point is that, if the challenge in modern/expressionist art is to find
>a message among all the mess then why shouldn't viewers look beyond the
>obvious niceness of a pretty landscape? It seems to me that whether a
>piece is challenging or non-challenging depends entirely on the will of
>the viewer to accept the challenge and look deeper. So, while it's true
>that many people don't look past the obvious subject matter depicted in a
>"realistic" landscape, many also don't see beyond the smears or patterns
>in an expressionist piece. So why is one more challenging than the other?
It's a good point, and I can only speak for myself ultimately. I find
the art I've categorized as non-challenging rarely gives up further
depth as you live with it, though it can remain attractive and
visually appealing (which is a fine goal for art, IMO, though not the
only one). Challenging art may or may not give up more through time,
depending on your outlook and perspective.
Some art is challenging because of absurdity or social commentary, but
gives up little past the initial point (like Tracy Emin's works);
other has unpleasant depictions of difficult subject matter, but
speaks worlds about human nature (like the vast variety of Judith and
Holofernes pieces out there); and still others just don't seem to have
anything obvious there but may give up more in time (like many claim
for abstract works). There are many other possibilities, of course.
I can't really speak for modern abstract works. The few abstract
prints I have on the wall of my cube are there because I find the
design and colors pleasing. They have not yet revealed any secrets to
me. Frank Stella - Talladega Three II is on the wall now -
http://www.yohs.com/art/stella/stella_html/works_stella.html (not a
great image, but there are few on the web). I love the image, and
it's visually stunning (to me) in real life, but I'd buy any of a
number of other pieces for the same money if I had it.
blueb...@yahoo.ca
Soldier) wrote:
>I am not rich and cannot afford 900+ paintings but I came across this
>shop that sold oil paintings on actual canvas for 35 dollars (24x36)
>now I look at them they are signed by the artists etc.. Large
>selection of different types I found a couple of nice ones and framed
>them for a total of 100(frame, painting) where do these come from and
>who paints them?
>........< >.......
>
>so whats the deal here??
About ten years ago I had a friend from Korea whose brother, she said,
was a very talented artist but she complained that he was wasting his
talent. He worked in a painting "factory" where he painted only parts
of paintings. They were done on an assembly line, each artist
contributing a piece of the painting. They were signed with a name
like "Robert Wood". We see them everywhere!
Andrew D
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:09:43 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
>D) wrote:
>>In article <3de60e23....@news.intel.com>,
>>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>>>Several applicable dictionary entries for "challenge" are:
>>>- to confront or defy boldly
>>>- to arouse or stimulate especially by presenting with difficulties
>>>
>>>However, I'd start with "non-challenging" art, being the phrase I
>>>used. I consider it art where the meaning is clear and obvious,
>>
>>Or apparently so. Perhaps the real challenge is to see beyond this. Seeing
>>"a cottage by a country road" is akin to looking at a Pollock and seeing
>>paint spillage. Why is one "challenging" and the other not?
>
>I'd say because mostly everyone agrees about what the cottage depicts,
>while the Pollock is a source of controversy, and means a wide variety
>of things to a wide variety of people. Consensual vs. non-consensual
>reality, and all that.
So to be art, it should have no meaning?
[snip]
>>My point is that, if the challenge in modern/expressionist art is to find
>>a message among all the mess then why shouldn't viewers look beyond the
>>obvious niceness of a pretty landscape? It seems to me that whether a
>>piece is challenging or non-challenging depends entirely on the will of
>>the viewer to accept the challenge and look deeper. So, while it's true
>>that many people don't look past the obvious subject matter depicted in a
>>"realistic" landscape, many also don't see beyond the smears or patterns
>>in an expressionist piece. So why is one more challenging than the other?
>It's a good point, and I can only speak for myself ultimately. I find
>the art I've categorized as non-challenging rarely gives up further
>depth as you live with it, though it can remain attractive and
>visually appealing (which is a fine goal for art, IMO, though not the
>only one). Challenging art may or may not give up more through time,
>depending on your outlook and perspective.
What I'm suggesting is that "sophisticated" people - those who want/need
more than the obvious in their art - could actually set their own
challenge to "look deeper" into a landscape piece. They shouldn't just
accept the prevailing view that there's nothing more to it than the
obvious subject matter.
For example, if an expressionist can view a landscape and interpret it
onto a canvas to the point where no one would recognise it as a landscape
then surely that same person should be able to look at a well painted
landscape and see what they want to see - just as if they were viewing the
real thing. The same should apply to anyone able to extract meaning from
an expressionist piece.
Neil Maxwell
D) wrote:
>In article <3df568b2....@news.intel.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>>
>>I'd say because mostly everyone agrees about what the cottage depicts,
>>while the Pollock is a source of controversy, and means a wide variety
>>of things to a wide variety of people. Consensual vs. non-consensual
>>reality, and all that.
>
>So to be art, it should have no meaning?
Umm... I'm unable to find this implied in my response anywhere.
Perhaps you're responding to someone else's post? The topic was
challenging art vs non-challenging art. Both are art. I have both.
I make both. I see no disconnect here, except for the thorny issue of
defining what is art, which has been covered ad infinitum, and will
never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
>>It's a good point, and I can only speak for myself ultimately. I find
>>the art I've categorized as non-challenging rarely gives up further
>>depth as you live with it, though it can remain attractive and
>>visually appealing (which is a fine goal for art, IMO, though not the
>>only one). Challenging art may or may not give up more through time,
>>depending on your outlook and perspective.
>
>What I'm suggesting is that "sophisticated" people - those who want/need
>more than the obvious in their art - could actually set their own
>challenge to "look deeper" into a landscape piece. They shouldn't just
>accept the prevailing view that there's nothing more to it than the
>obvious subject matter.
Indeed, they're welcome to do that. I generally respect people who
can interpret things in ways that I'm unable to, and to get more depth
out of a Bob Ross landscape is beyond my capabilities. I have a tough
time parsing Shakespeare as well, yet William S. Burroughs is an
enjoyable read to me. Fortunately, there is enough variety out there
for all of us.
>For example, if an expressionist can view a landscape and interpret it
>onto a canvas to the point where no one would recognise it as a landscape
>then surely that same person should be able to look at a well painted
>landscape and see what they want to see - just as if they were viewing the
>real thing. The same should apply to anyone able to extract meaning from
>an expressionist piece.
Yep, no problem. There will always be exceptions to every rule.
However, for the purpose of broadly categorizing things, which seems
to be a human trait, you are more likely to be successful applying
labels that make sense to a statistically meaningful portion of
humanity. To insist on defining something such that it includes every
possible viewpoint and interpretation is ultimately doomed to failure,
IMO, but I would never dream of stopping someone from trying.
In a landscape, a pastor may see the greatness of God's creative
powers, omnipotence, and order; a physicist may see the astonishing
chaotic randomness of the universe; an art student may see techniques
he considers far above his own; an abstract expressionist may see a
trite, non-challenging depiction of mundane, boring reality; my
daughter may see a pretty picture that she likes on her wall. Are any
of them wrong?
Andrew D
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:29:46 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
>D) wrote:
>>In article <3df568b2....@news.intel.com>,
>>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>>>
>>>I'd say because mostly everyone agrees about what the cottage depicts,
>>>while the Pollock is a source of controversy, and means a wide variety
>>>of things to a wide variety of people. Consensual vs. non-consensual
>>>reality, and all that.
>>
>>So to be art, it should have no meaning?
>Umm... I'm unable to find this implied in my response anywhere.
If there is no consensus on the "meaning" ("means a wide variety of things
to a wide variety of people") then unles the artist states what the
meaning is then it effectively has no meaning. I take your point on your
acceptance of "both kinds" of art as art however.
[snip]
>>For example, if an expressionist can view a landscape and interpret it
>>onto a canvas to the point where no one would recognise it as a landscape
>>then surely that same person should be able to look at a well painted
>>landscape and see what they want to see - just as if they were viewing the
>>real thing. The same should apply to anyone able to extract meaning from
>>an expressionist piece.
[snip]
>In a landscape, a pastor may see the greatness of God's creative
>powers, omnipotence, and order; a physicist may see the astonishing
>chaotic randomness of the universe; an art student may see techniques
>he considers far above his own; an abstract expressionist may see a
>trite, non-challenging depiction of mundane, boring reality;
And it is this person we are interested in here because s/he's the one
declaring the art "non-challenging". My point, and I'll restate it, is
that if this person looks out the window and "sees" huge sweeps of muddy
brown randomly strewn about then this person should be able to look at a
"trite", realistic painting of the window scene and "see" huge sweeps of
muddy brown randomly strewn about. I can't understand why they would find
the former a challenge but not the latter - unless they simply don't try.
Whilst I understand and largely agree with your acceptance of all kinds of
art as art, I'm bothered by your willingness to declare realism as
non-challenging.
Neil Maxwell
We're kind'a going in circles here (in this newsgroup? no way!), but
realism can be quite challenging. Caravaggio's Judith and Holofernes,
mentioned earlier, is a good example. As realistic as they come,
disturbing, and endlessly fascinating to me. Art of the highest
degree, IMO. It's the subject matter, not the realism.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/caravaggio/judith.jpg.html
Likewise, the simple landscapes; I've seen some with disturbing
elements (piles of bones and other unexpected depictions tucked under
the trees, for instance). Monet's Wheatstacks (End of Summer) doesn't
do much for me, while his Haystack at Sunset near Giverny (Meule,
Soleil Couchant) moves me much more. Both are shallow landscapes to
me, but one is aesthetically more pleasing. Possibly heretical, but
there it is.
I'm fascinated by watching Bob Ross paint on TV, as he talks about the
little creatures that live in the woods and the folks who walk the
paths he paints, but I still can't get much more depth out of his
work. He paints landscapes that are landscapes, as far as I can see,
but I'll admit many people see much farther than I do.
I suppose it boils down to what presses your buttons. Luckily,
there's lots to go around!