Good vid about contemporary art.

[john]

Stuff that I guess I knew about but need reminding of. Some great art and artists presented. Contemporary and abstract art is where the best art comes from IMO. Always has and always will. The rest is just decoration. Doing what has been done before. A comfortable constant. Profundity comes from commenting on some deeper understanding. This (only?) happens in contemporary art. Which doesn't include the pretty realist landscapes I like to paint.

Any of this make sense? Tell me I'm wrong. I want to paint simple pretty landscapes that have no deep meaning. Art as comfort or art as intellectual exercise. Which way to go.

 

[laika]

Any of this make sense?

No. But the problem may be on my end.

Doing what has been done before.

In a sense, that is all that I humbly aspire to. Specifically, to express myself in a way that might have something in common with post-Impressionism or Expressionism (not of the abstract variety).

Profundity comes from commenting on some deeper understanding.

See the above. Not that my ignorant ass would know the first thing about profundity.

I want to paint simple pretty landscapes that have no deep meaning.

Paint a pretty landscape and leave meaning to the beholder? Painting a pretty landscape may be meditative to you, and you're honing your skills and hoard of knowledge every time you paint. There's value in that, yes?

 

[Hermes2020]

.... Art as comfort or art as intellectual exercise. Which way to go.

I think we can have it both ways, so the challenge is to make something that is an intellectual exercise as well as a comfort.

 

[Artyczar]

Did they really answer the question about why it's important?

 

[trufflecat]

I'm working simultaneously on a realistic pointillist landscape and an abstract landscape with bold colors. I find them very different, but each satisfying in its own way. As long as we keep learning and enjoying the process, it's all good. As to the end value of the art itself, that's difficult to measure, I'd say. I think rather than picking a particular art movement or style as the best - or important - it's better to find the best works no matter the style. I would have a hard time relegating great works of the past such as those by Rembrandt or Vermeer or Michelangelo as 'decoration'.
As to the video, it seems more of an argument for why all art is important, not only contemporary art.

 

[john]

Good comments all.

No. But the problem may be on my end.

In a sense, that is all that I humbly aspire to. Specifically, to express myself in a way that might have something in common with post-Impressionism or Expressionism (not of the abstract variety).

See the above. Not that my ignorant ass would know the first thing about profundity.

Paint a pretty landscape and leave meaning to the beholder? Painting a pretty landscape may be meditative to you, and you're honing your skills and hoard of knowledge every time you paint. There's value in that, yes?

Absolutely. And good art doesn't have to be some high minded comment on our psychosocial condition. Sometimes we just want a comfy chair for the brain. To relax and smile. Nothing wrong with that. right?

I think we can have it both ways, so the challenge is to make something that is an intellectual exercise as well as a comfort.

Ah yes, I keep thinking about how to do that. How to merge pretty with profound. If you know how please tell me.

Did they really answer the question about why it's important?

Maybe not fully but they did mention how it captures current conditions, concerns, sociopolitical issues. It deals with things like racism, sexism depersonalization etc. In the past the contemp art scene captured those feelings also. In ways that still lifes and landscapes and realist portraits and such do not. The cutting edge art has always been contemporary art, by definition I think. Anything new and different is in that category.

 

[laika]

Sometimes we just want a comfy chair for the brain.

Hah! I love it!

The cutting edge art has always been contemporary art, by definition I think. Anything new and different is in that category.

I wondered if a definition of contemporary art could be so simple. Art by living artists?

 

[john]

I'm working simultaneously on a realistic pointillist landscape and an abstract landscape with bold colors. I find them very different, but each satisfying in its own way. As long as we keep learning and enjoying the process, it's all good. As to the end value of the art itself, that's difficult to measure, I'd say. I think rather than picking a particular art movement or style as the best - or important - it's better to find the best works no matter the style. I would have a hard time relegating great works of the past such as those by Rembrandt or Vermeer or Michelangelo as 'decoration'.
As to the video, it seems more of an argument for why all art is important, not only contemporary art.

I agree. But probably 99% of all art is just that. It doesn't say anything profound. It's cool look at an old artist's face(Rembrandt) and we can marvel at the brushwork and skill but what else? It's a photographic realist masterpiece of light play (Vermeer) but is it really anything that new? It's pretty, and not much to think about. Of course Michelangelo's works showing religious scenes were more than that.

All art is important. But I just can't shake the suspicion that contemporary - I would like to call it progressive as it involves more than just being done now - art is more important. If only because it is reacting to current culture. It comments on the current conditions.

I hope we see your landscapes Realist pointillist? Wow, you have more patience than I do.

 

[OliveOyl]

If anybody didn’t watch the video, it says…contemporary art is important because as a HISTORICAL recording of our time, it can create awareness of POLITICS-IDEOLOGY, strives SOCIALLY-CULTURALLY for a better world, and holds EDUCATIONAL, ESTHETIC and SPIRITUAL value for both artist and audience. I don’t know…but I would assume the great art of the past held some different values?

In a sense, we’re all “contemporary artists” since we’re making art now - today - although we all chart our own particular stylistic course. But I think if you’re the kind of contemporary artist that wants to be known beyond your family and friends as an IMPORTANT (ie. impactful, significant) artist, it’s probably good that you believe FIRST that there is in fact, some inherent value in contemporary art. Not everybody likes or understands it, including us artists.

I once heard (and it might actually have been Kerry James Marshall but not sure) that as an artist, you have the choice to work WITH art history, or to push against it. I don’t know. But that’s always lodged in my head as simple and succinct advice. I interpreted it as…you can either take the lessons from the art history past and try to incorporate what you’ve learned into your own work. OR…you don’t, and find ways to “rebel against” or challenge those learned lessons in the hopes of achieving, as the video said, “radical originality.”

Personally I say…hahaha…good luck with that originality thing. I won’t bother to expand on that, but I’ll say I’ve ALWAYS had an interest in making comments - in my own cornball dumb way - about social, political, and cultural stuff, despite how hoity toity that sounds. I like talking about those things and reading about those topics since forever and so it all sort of naturally flows into what I do. So I understand the point made about art being a kind of commentary on US (we the people). Recording, satire, awareness…check. Education, inspiration, esthetics…uhhhhh, no. Too pompous. And probably yes to spirituality but only in the way the process works for ME. I can’t imagine a viewer feeling anything like “spirituality” as they look at gorilla faces, broken dolls, cartoon figures, meat, criminals, and all the other silly things I paint.

In other words…I’m not following the path to CONTEMPORARY IMPORTANCE. And I’m fine with that. And I’m also not ambitious enough to figure out how to make myself important. And I am fine with that, too. I suppose I’m just happy enough playing in the mud all day like a big old fat baby pig. (Not sure why I just went THERE…but…oh well.)

oink

 

[john]

Good to see your comments Kim. Your art is clearly in this category.


I think I've been watching too many YT videos about the NY City art gallery scene. Everything is "Comments on the reverse subliminal psycho adaptation that we all enjoy" and " It shows the troubles of being born a rich white male" . Makes my pleasant landscapes seem a little tame. Not contemporary/progressive.

 

[laika]

oink

Yes to your entire reply!

 

[Artyczar]

I only skimmed the video, and will come back to this conversation. The truth is, I just haven't had time to get as involved with conversations here as I'd like right now. But these are the type I like to participate in.

 

[trufflecat]

An interesting conversation. One thing that strikes me is that while art that comments on society, culture, etc. may make it 'important' as a chronicle for history, ie historians of the future looking back trying to understand our world, to me that doesn't mean that all art must be 'important' in that sense. The video does touch on other beneficial aspects of art, briefly, eg eliciting emotions such as joy. Why can't that be enough?

 

[P. Barrie]

An interesting conversation. One thing that strikes me is that while art that comments on society, culture, etc. may make it 'important' as a chronicle for history, ie historians of the future looking back trying to understand our world, to me that doesn't mean that all art must be 'important' in that sense. The video does touch on other beneficial aspects of art, briefly, eg eliciting emotions such as joy. Why can't that be enough?

It’s enough for me. I very much enjoy making or “seeing” a piece for the sake of the work itself, without looking for more than the elements of craft and expertise that went into making it. Although I find works like Guernica inspiring as craftand commentary as well.