We have been having what Kimstu called: “a discussion of the technical aspects and art-historical significance of a well-known Abstract Expressionism/Color Field painting, extending to include some broader issues about those genres and modern non-representational art in general.”
And since is the Dope, we’ve also been calling each other poopyheads.
It was voiced by WordMan that: “Art” as a concept speaks both to artistic objects (the Thing) AND to the emotions and messages being shared (the Idea).
When it comes to Art as a Thing - there are debates between what is Art vs. what has merely been well-Crafted. If MOMA takes an iPhone and adds it to their Permanent Collection, is it a well-crafted object or has that particular iPhone become Art?"
Okay?
Well, folks, MoMA is an easy target:
Yes, Tetris is now officially Fine Art.
For those who haven’t followed that thread, let me repeat myself: I have been an appraiser of fine and decorative arts (and collectibles) for over 14 years. I’ve heard more arguments about Art with a capital A than I’ve eaten brussels sprouts (and I love brussels sprouts). I have an appreciation for Art that I don’t even like.
So, given that, I feel free to tell you that whatever your thoughts about Art are, somebody with a great deal of expertise in the field agrees with you, and somebody else with even more expertise violently disagrees with you.
So, let’s begin: anybody want to post of a defense of Tetris-as-Art, or take the contrarian position that MoMA is a waste of building space?
I think Tetris is beautiful. I think Pac-Man is beautiful–for me, one of the most beautiful visual experiences.
Is it Art with a capital A?
Isn’t one of the definitions of art vs craft that art has no purpose, that it exists merely to be? I guess in that case, I wouldn’t call Tetris “art.” But I don’t care. I think something can be both functional and art. Tetris is a type of a art to me. As is Pac-Man.
I’m fine with including all of these under the umbrella term of “art.” And I would include commercial art in there, too. I love logo designs. I love Saul Bass, Paul Rand, etc. That’s just as much art to me as a Rothko painting.
Traditionally there is a line drawn between fine art and decorative art. Decorative art properties are things that have utility but have been created with an eye towards the aesthetic: Mission chairs, Liberty wallpapers, Tiffany watches and so on. Most major museums have sections devoted to decorative art properties, but they don’t have the panache or sizzle the fine art collections do.
That’s what I mean. I don’t get why utility should affect value. Obviously, I like the “fine artists,” but Louis Comfort Tiffany’s works, especially, resonate as strongly with me, despite bring labeled as “decorative.”
Money and power. Back in ye olde times the average person could not afford any kind of art unless he/she made it him/herself. Only the rich could afford something that existed solely for beauty’s sake, and it stroked the egos to be able to have it. That’s why fine art is useless. Decorative arts don’t really kick in until the 19th Century, with the idealistic notion that if the average worker was surrounded by beauty, or just had a little beauty, his world would be the richer for it, and all civilization would prosper.
That’s fine, and I understand the historical context, I just don’t like it. For me, art does not discriminate. Not everyone will resonate with works of art, but I don’t see how class should figure into an honest appreciation of an artwork. By “honest appreciation” I mean not buying art for its investment value. I don’t believe in that. If I buy something, it’s because I like it and I think it’s beautiful. Money has nothing to do with it. I understand there are segments of the art community that think otherwise. I’m not into that.
I think of it this way: if something starts as Craft, but has Big Cultural Relevance™, it can be…become Art - kinda like the Velveteen Rabbit can become Real ;). A Craft can have Big Cultural Relevance™ when it is designed as part of an Art Movement - e.g., cool Art Deco, Bauhaus, etc. objects - or when the Craft was so popular it becomes a touchstone for that time and place. Tetris - both the game and it’s design look - are very much a cultural touchstone for the 80’s and the emerging computer/video game culture. Having said that, I am not willing to endorse Tetris as Art fully - not sure why quite yet - but I like the fact that we are having the conversation.
William Morris and the artisans of the Aesthetic Movement would agree with you. A great number of kings and nobles wouldn’t. Although we’re used to having art and design surround us, it’s historically a fairly new concept. Ancient cultures had public sculptures and gardens to make art available to the everyman, so you can see it is a long-running issue.
You’re welcome, and thank you for suggesting it. The idea of Design (with the capital D) as Art has been growing since the 19th Century, and is now so pervasive as for it to be nearly unthinkable not to consider it so. Back in the 60’s Warhol made artworks featuring Campbell’s soup cans, and a year-or-so back Campbells’s issued a limited run of their cans to resemble his paintings. With the influx of various media the lines have become too fuzzy to be seen as anything more than a purely artificial construct, IMHO.
That’s fine by me, of course. I do understand the elitist historical implications of art. I just personally disagree with it. But that may be because I’m a product of my time, where this view is more acceptable. One of my friends happens to have a collection of Tiffany glass in his family. I’ve seen the Tiffany knock-off-lamps that are a dime a dozen. They do nothing for me. But when I first saw a real Tiffany tortoiseshell lamp, I was just astounded by its beauty. It may be decorative, but to me it was “Art” with a capital “A.”
They are exquisite. I’ve had the good fortune to see over a dozen real ones, and once you’ve got the eye for it, you can fairly easily pick out a fake from a real Tiffany shade. They had rooms where the shade-makers would have bins full of variously shaped and colored shards to sort through and very carefully choose from. You could take as much time as you wanted (within reason) to find just the right ones to fit together to make your lampshade. And, of course, there are more fakes than real ones out there, but that’s true of anything with real value.
Thanks Professor! Just popping in to provide a link to the concurrent Nude Bea Arthur Painting Sells for 1.7 Mil thread, which with the thread linked in your OP provides a nice range of examples of reactions to artworks and their commercial value.
The amazing thing about them is the imperfections. I just love the little bubbles and streaks in the glass. And the colors are just incredible. It’s not just stained glass, it’s glass where the color goes all the way through.
Since you like Tiffany and it seems you like modern art, have a look at my friend’s photographic interpretations of Tiffany glass, done very much in an abstract expressionist manner, with some computer manipulation involved. His grandfather happened to be a lucky guy who collected Tiffany as everyone was throwing it away in early-mid 1900s. Guy had taste.
Good to hear! And seeing the large prints of his work in person just adds so much more to the experience. I don’t believe in a lot of contemporary art I see, but I believe in his work.
Yeah, but Professor, what makes this painting discussion-worthy is the squickiness of the subject matter.
You state that the artist, John Currin, has an established reputation. Yes - as a guy who, over the past 15 or so years, has developed a reputation for making wry commentary on society, culture, gender, etc. with his very squicky portraits and nudes.
As was mentioned in the other active Art thread, Currin’s works were originally derided and dismissed in the Art world - because they were squicky. But, over time, enough folks felt that his work was funny and interesting commentary, so they bought into his Art Idea. They are also held up very highly because apparently as a painter, Currin is technically brilliant - his mastery of the Craft of painting is apparently top-shelf.
But his stuff is still quite polarizing and I appreciate why many/most folks think anyone paying $1.9mm for a cute joke is a twit. I am not a fan of his at all.
I dearly wish the art community would use terms like “squickiness”. It’s so on point.
Monet, Manet, Renoir, Picasso, Cezanne, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Being originally derided and dismissed in the Art world can be an indication you’re pushing the envelope. At Manet’s first exhibition, he sold one painting. van Gogh sold three works in his lifetime. Monet’s “L’Impression”, which gave rise to the name Impressionist, appeared in the Paris Salon to hoots, jeers and massive amounts of disdain.
I don’t like Currin’s stuff myself, either, but he does know how to paint and how to compose a picture, and how to promote himself.
I am fumbling around in my mind with some inchoate and unformed ideas, and this post may not be as well-considered as the Prof’s or WordMan, so with that caveat…
Perhaps “art” is in the viewer’s reactions to the work? WordMan describes the Bea Arthur nude as “squicky”, which I suspect is the point the artist is making. I saw the Cribbin nude, and I wouldn’t describe it as “squicky” - it’s a handsome, middle-aged woman in the nude. The “squick” comes from Bea Arthur’s memetic sexual undesirablity - something that has absolutely nothing to do with the artistic quality - the craft of the artist, if you like - of the work. So the “art” comes from Cribbin’s playing with the concept of “Bea Arthur’s sexuality is repulsive”, maybe?
No maybe’s about it, you’re right: in conventional American pop culture older women are not perceived as sexually interesting, so when Currin shows us one, however well-depicted, it’s going to register on the squickmeter.