Art and Taste?

[stlukesguild]

Picasso famously declared "Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

Recently, an artist I follow on another social media site brought up this issue and a debate began as to the merit of taste or tastefulness in Art. So what are your thoughts?

 

[Marc]

From one line of thought (whether or not Picasso intended it that way) taste could be suppling what is desired and already enjoyed. Being completely creative is producing something that hasn't even been consumed yet.

 

[Bartc]

It's all "art", but is it "good art"? That's the question for me, and that boils down to personal taste in the end. Would I or anyone else want to look at it way in the future (other than for academic reasons)? That is the determinant from my perspective.

Who is to say that something deemed "tasteful" is not creative? That's BS, because in my definition of art it's the creative process that is the ART, the rest being the object left over. To say that it is tasteful is to say that for whatever reason it draws an appreciative response from a viewer. Could be invidual taste or it could be group acceptance, but for whatever reason, the object (or performance) got a thumbs up.

I do not believe that taste is the enemy of creativity. But it certainly determines the marketability and that has an impact on some individuals' output or visibility. If you decline (or deviate) from your own internal creative process due to concerns about the taste of others, then certainly it has been inhibiting.

So you quote Picasso, who NEVER let others' taste inhibit his experimentation or creativity. And he was handsomely rewarded for his approach, even as some of his works wouldn't stand the test of time without his name on it, IMO.

 

[E.J.H.]

To me this is kind of a hopeless discussion.
I mean defining "taste" is very difficult, and as we know from other discussions here the term "art" is even more difficult to pin down.
Now how much hope is there for a meaningful discussion applying one such term on the other..

 

[Artyczar]

I understand Picasso's sentiment here, but not so sure of his words. Others may take these words very literally and the definition of "art" will come into play, too. However, in the spirit of the quote, I agree, personally. To try to make work that you think will satisfy most people's tastes will most likely entrap you into not being very creative because you only have the familiar to work with. Being creative is about experimenting with new horizons and what is unfamiliar (at least to yourself, anyway), and stretching those muscles.

 

[Bartc]

To me this is kind of a hopeless discussion.
I mean defining "taste" is very difficult, and as we know from other discussions here the term "art" is even more difficult to pin down.
Now how much hope is there for a meaningful discussion applying one such term on the other..

Plenty, just never resolvable!

 

[Enyaw]

.

 

[stlukesguild]

The discussion we were having from which I began this thread dealt with the issue of whether "good taste" is an essential element of art. A number of participants of European backgrounds embraced the notion that good taste was indeed essential to fine art and rejected art with elements drawn from popular culture (comics, kitsch, advertising, rock & roll, pornography, etc...) as vulgar and "bad art". I disagree, and find not only are there elements of popular/low art in works by Picasso and other Modernists (Degas' and Toulouse-Lautrec's nightclubs and brothels, Beckmann, Otto Dix, George Grosz, etc...) but I also see elements that fall outside of "good taste" in the work of "old masters" such as Michelangelo, Tintoretto, Rembrandt, Bosch, Breughel, etc... There was another quote by Picasso that I can only paraphrase (not able to find it at hand) in which he argued that the finest art was created in a manner akin to that by which the Renaissance princes created their heirs: a marriage of the "high" and the "low". Perhaps populist art slips into Kitsch and vulgarity... but by contrast, "High Art" without elements of the rest of the real world slips into the sort of sterility and banality we see in a lot of Conceptual Art and Minimalism. Or so it seem to me.

 

[Terri]

I understand Picasso's sentiment here, but not so sure of his words. Others may take these words very literally and the definition of "art" will come into play, too. However, in the spirit of the quote, I agree, personally. To try to make work that you think will satisfy most people's tastes will most likely entrap you into not being very creative because you only have the familiar to work with. Being creative is about experimenting with new horizons and what is unfamiliar (at least to yourself, anyway), and stretching those muscles.

Picasso did in fact hear a lot of initial pushback on some of his stuff, a lot in the early days. From what I've read a lot of people were rather horrified when he finally released Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. What has he done?! *gasp* By the time he put out Le Rêve, most people were past all that - though that one is pretty in yer face, and the model is his mistress. Tut tut! (He did a lot more than that, but these are more well known pieces.)

If one holds back putting out what's in their mind, then everything suffers - the artist as well as the art. I'm taking Picasso's words here literally, and agree that everything should come out - good taste be damned.

 

[stlukesguild]

If one holds back putting out what's in their mind, then everything suffers - the artist as well as the art.

That's another issue altogether: self-censorship. Certainly, we all censor ourselves. I have to bite my tongue to avoid saying what I really think almost every day as a teacher. When we see the hostile comments and acts directed toward artists and works of art that were deemed "transgressive" we likely think twice and think carefully about crossing certain lines or challenging certain taboos.

 

[Terri]

If one holds back putting out what's in their mind, then everything suffers - the artist as well as the art.

That's another issue altogether: self-censorship. Certainly, we all censor ourselves. I have to bite my tongue to avoid saying what I really think almost every day as a teacher. When we see the hostile comments and acts directed toward artists and works of art that were deemed "transgressive" we likely think twice and think carefully about crossing certain lines or challenging certain taboos.

It's virtually saying the same thing, isn't it? Self-censorship in the name of "good taste" is from the same playbook as saying taste is the enemy of creativity.

Taste is subjective. It depends on artist interpretation. In this vein, sure - taste can be viewed as an "element of creativity." It seems you're using the term to strictly define the insertion of pop culture elements into a piece.

I also see elements that fall outside of "good taste" in the work of "old masters" such as Michelangelo, Tintoretto, Rembrandt, Bosch, Breughel

Some I could guess at but would love examples. I would think the simple passage of time softens the response of today's viewers to what may have been pushing the envelope of good taste at the time of its creation.

 

[stlukesguild]

Terri- Some I could guess at but would love examples. I would think the simple passage of time softens the response of today's viewers to what may have been pushing the envelope of good taste at the time of its creation.

A rather flouncy Donatello

Where do we begin with Michelangelo?

Giorgione's painting has been called the Dresden Venus for centuries... but there are absolutely no elements denoting her as the Greco-Roman goddess. She is simply a naked woman sleeping in the hills outside of Venice. Of course, the very notion of a naked woman in art (unless a portrayal of the "sinful" Eve) was taboo... and not permissible in most of Europe at the time.

Titian takes it further with his Venice d'Urbino who is essentially a portrayal of a courtesan... a high-class escort or prostitute.

The Mannerists were absolutely outrageous... Modernists of their time challenging the status quo both in formal terms (with riotous colors and anatomical and spatial distortions) and in terms of taboo subject matter. Cupi...or Amor, by the way, was Venus' teenaged son in Bronzino's painting.

Here is the same theme by Allori.

I can't help but admire Cranach's Three Graces pouncing and preening for the audience, like an Instagram "influencer".

It wasn't merely the taboos concerning sex... but also violence. Take this deliciously ridiculous and gory St. George and the Dragon by the artist who was so openly gay that he took on the name Sodoma.

Or Hendrick Goltzius, one of the leading Dutch Mannerists whose prints and paintings embraced extreme violence.

And what of the sweet Rococo? These artists were models for Renoir. Yet not only would the "me too" generation be outraged by this famous Portrait of Mademoiselle O'Murphy painted by Boucher of the French King's 14-year-old mistress... but the Rococo outraged the far more moralistic Neo-Classicists who were the immediate heirs of the Rococo. Denis Diderot, the art critic and philosopher, bemoaned the fact that Boucher and others of the era were such brilliant virtuosos... who used their skills in the service of such "decadent" and immoral" subject matter. We've seen the same sort of moralistic outrage directed at works by Picasso (of course) as well as Egon Schiele, Klimt, Balthus, Dix, Grosz, Marsden Hartley, Paul Cadmus, Tom Wesselmann, David Hockney, Mel Ramos, Lucian Freud, John Currin, Will Cotton, etc...

 

[ZenDruid]

We can always count on you SLG to bring some spice to the table!

 

[Artyczar]

St. Luke, are any of the examples you used here commissions? Just wondering. Just wondering how much creative freedom there was. Some things were more accepted as far as nudity, wasn't there?

I still believe in Picasso's sentiment. Not aimed at you, or anyone here, I think taking up the subject of "taste," literally, is a dead subject because people will never agree on what is "good" art. I just think all roads will wind up there. It seems like it anyway. However, in my own opinion, if the artist takes taste into account, it will just lead them into mediocrity or close to it.

 

[stlukesguild]

Artyczar- St. Luke, are any of the examples you used here commissions?

I know for certain that the Donatello David, the Michelangelo Last Judgment, Titian's Venus d'Urbino, and Boucher's Mademoiselle O'Murphy were all commissioned works. I'm not certain about the others. The Donatello and the Michelangelo certainly pushed the boundaries and outraged many... especially among the clergy. Caravaggio's Death of the Virgin outraged the clergy as well... not due to any erotic content, but due to the extreme realism (the Saints with dirty feet) and the fact that the models for the Saints (poor peasants) and the Virgin (the body of a drowned prostitute) were not considered appropriately lofty enough for the theme:

It seems that in many instances, the wealthy patrons were far more progressive-thinking and accepting of content that many among the masses would have found more offensive.

But then you get Goya... who's portrait of the Spanish Royal Family mocked them... yet they were too dense to recognize this blinded by the glittering, expensive clothing:

 

[Terri]

Thanks for posting these works! I do agree with Arty that the argument is pointless because it's simply too subjective. Art is not alone in this regard. I've listened to a lot of wine geeks debate and argue wine - where it comes from, how it's made, endless debates about the value of terroir over and above any skill with wine making processes, up to steel vs. oak (new v. old!) casks. At the end of the day, none of it will make the wine taste any better if all it makes you think of is cat pee.

 

[cranberryartworks]

I find some artists use shock value instead of creativity or talent.

tastelessness is very subjectional. every one has a difference definition.

 

[cranberryartworks]

trying to correct my typo of 'difference'

 

[stlukesguild]

cranberryarttworks- I find some artists use shock value instead of creativity or talent.

Yes... this idea popped to mind as well. There are more than a few examples of artists and works of art that have made a name almost exclusively due to shock value. It's easy to simply shock an audience... but art that shocks because it is truly new is something quite rare.

 

[stlukesguild]

cranberyartworks- trying to correct my typo of 'difference'

I think you only have 30... or is it 15 minutes to edit a post. That was just long enough for me to correct my spelling of "crannberry"