Where's the "Art"?

[john]

Well again I refer to the much hated Stella Vine Princess Diana painting. Craftsmanship was not that important, ( although I argue that there more there than meets the eye). It is the idea that makes it good art. The emotional jolt. The concept.

Oh come on; that painting was a piece of crap. If I want crap Art I'd stick with Manzoni... whose can o' crap was almost better.

How are you judging it? Certainly not by NY conceptual art criteria.

Hey, it invokes an emotional response from you, so it's good art.

 

[stlukesguild]

Again, as Matisse suggested, there is no separation between the "concept"... the "idea"... the "Art"... and the craftsmanship... the process.

 

[stlukesguild]

Art may evoke an emotional response, communicate a narrative, communicate an idea... and still be a mediocre or poor work of art.

 

[E.J.H.]

How are you judging it? Certainly not by NY conceptual art criteria.

Hey, it invokes an emotional response from you, so it's good art.

"You hate my art? That's great, you see it invokes a strong emotional response from you, so it's good art"

I know you are joking, but really I have seen that incredibly ridiculous argument being dead serious put forward. Last time as a response to criticism of a very expensive art work financed by the city of Reykjavik. In public space, and quite ugly in my humble opinion

 

[Artyczar]

Art can be ugly and still be art. Art doesn't have to be fantastic for everyone. It can even be good enough for most. I didn't think it was an issue of argument about what is good or bad, but what was considered craft and art, or defining the separate categories best we could, and and/or how they blur.

 

[john]

Again, as Matisse suggested, there is no separation between the "concept"... the "idea"... the "Art"... and the craftsmanship... the process.

Yes, when the result is art. But craftsmanship alone doesn't automatically create art. It must be joined with concept etc.


If the Stella Vine painting was done with perfect craft, realism and neat writing, it wouldn't work. It works partly because of the sloppy mess nature of it. It reflects the nature of the incident. It works because it's horrible.

Now, I'm not saying anything about her work in general. This painting may be just one of those lucky things. The garish messy way she paints happened to hit the right target here.

 

[Artyczar]

John, a lot of people don't "get" that kind of art or have the opinion that it "works." I'm with you however. I think it's great. This is what I think SLG means when he says it's art when someone else deems it art and not when the artist/maker calls it so. I'm not sure I agree with that however. I think it is about intention, then finding the audience--eventually. Or maybe never finding your audience because everyone thinks it's awful or not "art." But does that matter? The maker can also be one observer and like it, hang it on their wall, etc. Therefore, it's art. Monetary value does not make the art.

 

[E.J.H.]

Art can be ugly and still be art. Art doesn't have to be fantastic for everyone. It can even be good enough for most. I didn't think it was an issue of argument about what is good or bad, but what was considered craft and art, or defining the separate categories best we could, and and/or how they blur.

I agree, but it's the absurdity of considering any reaction to art no matter how negative as a sign of quality, that was my point.
That I found the art in my exemple ugly, is as I pointed out just my personal opinion.
By the way, it was a hot pink sculpture of a turd like shape, situated in the middle of a pond.

 

[laf.art]

Painting, sculpture, ceramics, metals, engraving, wood-carving, weaving, etc... are all crafts. They may also be termed works of "visual art". The merit of the work is not based upon the medium but upon the aesthetic merits of the individual works. Every work of Visual Art begins with a concept or idea... but these are useless unless they are realized in a visual form. The "craft" is the means or process by which concepts are realized visually. This process itself involves continual thought: evaluation and re-evaluation. Matisse (who I trust on matters of Art far more than Aristotle) spoke of the painting process as follows:

"A work of art is never made in advance. There is no separation
between the thought and the creative act; they are completely
one and the same."

DeKooning suggested a similar approach:

"I think I'm painting a picture of two women but it may turn out to be a landscape."

I like this TED talks video on Art & Craft:

Is there a difference between art and craft?

Cool TED talk

 

[Artyczar]

a hot pink sculpture of a turd like shape, situated in the middle of a pond.

Maybe some people love it though and find it a thing of beauty. High-quality beauty.

 

[E.J.H.]

Not unlikely. And of course there is an artist behind it that invested time and energy in the project.

We have a dutch saying "over smaak valt niet te twisten", you can't argue about taste....I disagree

 

[Artyczar]

You certainly can, that's for sure!

 

[stlukesguild]

I'm sorry but it's a piece of amateurish crap IMO. And the notion that "some people" may not relate to or "get" such art doesn't necessarily apply to everybody who finds this particular painting to be crap. Personally, I love Max Beckmann, E.L. Kirchner, Edvard Munch, James Ensor, Willem DeKooning, Phillip Guston, Francis Bacon, and a good many other Expressionist artists. Simply declaring that every sloppy painting is "expressive" and every painting of art that evokes a response is "good art" simply doesn't work for me.

 

[Artyczar]

Good for you. Never said it applies to everyone or that it was "good" or whatever. It's opinion.

 

[stlukesguild]

That's why I concluded my statement with IMO.

 

[stlukesguild]

craftsmanship alone doesn't automatically create art. It must be joined with concept etc.

That may be true... but unless an individual is mass-producing an image or object it would seem any work of craft must begin with an idea or concept. Even a photorealist painting must begin with the artist choosing a specific photo and often cropping the image to strengthen the composition. The question of the quality of the art has less to do with the novelty or originality of the concept and far more with how well the concept is realized. This should in no way be taken as suggesting that the well-realized work of art means only that which exhibits a mastery of traditional academic skills in rendering the illusion of visual reality. Van Gogh, Gauguin, Matisse, Bonnard, Kirchner, Beckmann, Klee, Ensor, Munch, Nolde, DeKooning, Bacon, etc... all exhibit a mastery of their own. There is a reason they (and certain others) stand out from the many other artists of their time.

 

[john]

The question of the quality of the art has less to do with the novelty or originality of the concept and far more with how well the concept is realized.

Ahh, this is at the heart of it isn't it. Modern art favors novelty over execution.

 

[Iain]

I haven't followed the argument here, so I appologise for jumping in. Art is about the human spirit, about freedom. It is intangible and cannot be reduced to this or that. That is why it survives and thrives and doesn't become ossified. and why people have such strong feelings about it.

 

[Nufocus]

IMHO (!!!), art (be it visual, musical, poetical, prose, whatever) appeals to a person’s SENSITIVITY! If you ain’t born sensitive enough, and again IMHO, not all human beings are born with equal amounts of sensitivity which causes smaller or bigger reactions when confronted by any of the art forms (in brackets above and more), hence the effect of such confrontation may vary anywhere from 100% to just about 0%. Even though such an effect or lack thereof can not be scientifically measured accurately.
My own humble experience taught me that when a work of mine seems shitty to myself, chances are close to 100% that it will seem shitty to viewers too, the ones whose level of sensitivity commands any reaction at all. My guess is that the same occurrence applies to other painters, sculptors, composers, poets etc. etc.
How many time have we read or heard or seen (of) painters destroying their own work or painting over and over the same work, sculptors breaking their pieces, musician or poets burning their creations or making endless changes to them??
At the end of it all, simply because “art is not a science” (a very valid cliche), if you ask 5000 “artists” what is their definition of “art”, you’ll probably get 4023 different answers.
For me personally, and I’ll restrict it here to my confrontation with a painting or a sculpture, the WOW factor (again, very different for different people, even the highly sensitive) is all important. I hope that you know what I mean.

 

[Nufocus]

I believe that in order to highlight the point I made, music is possibly the best art form to use as an example:
The incredibly beautiful subtleties, melodious passages etc. of Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata, the slow movement of Mozart’s Elvira Madigan concerto or Rachmaninov’s piano concerto no. 2 undoubtedly “go over the heads” of the less sensitive audience. On the other hand, a very simple tune built on 2 or 3 chords with a powerful drumbeat will become so popular as to have 3 billion views on YouTube. I’m not judging one or the other’s “quality”, I’m merely referring to how the level of inborn sensitivity or lack thereof applies or does not.