BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?!

[pulykamell]

@CandidGamera

First link heads to a placeholder .gif that seems to indicate they don’t want people linking to their stuff directly.

The second actually has elements that look like something. Couldn’t tell you what, but I think I saw a hand.

Weird. When I click on it, I get the image. Oh well.

Anyhow, Composition IV is one of his more famous works. And you’re right. This work contains some identifiable figures. Composition IV, in particular, has what appears to be a hill, some Cossacks or knights with lances, a rainbow, etc…

I react viscerally to Kandinsky’s vibrant use of contrasting colors and contrast between smooth curves and sharp, aggressive lines. There is a movement in his work and interplay between shapes which somehow stimulate me.

Anyhow, later on in his career, during his Bauhaus days, he developed more of a geometric style – the work that has been linked to before. Personally, I am not as emotionally attached to this work. It’s much more quiet, much more intellectual. It lacks the romantic impluse of his earlier work. But it’s still very good and very well put together. I just happen to prefer his earlier stuff.

What I don’t understand is why people cannot appreciate an artist’s brilliance or genius without actually liking his work. For example, I cannot stand Salvador Dali. I’m pretty much unaffected by Monet. Warhol I can take or leave. I can look at Rembrandt all day, but Michaelangelo? For some reason, I don’t have the patience for him. I know, I’m a heathen. But I can recognize that all these artists contributed something of great work. I have no doubt they are geniuses, even if their work doesn’t affect me personally. Why is this not possible for other artists?

The canonical artists don’t get there by accident. Kandinsky, Klee, Miro, Rothko, Pollack, Warhol, etc., have all established themselves as 20th century art masters, and it’s not because they had the right agents or had the talent of orangutans. Maybe, just maybe, they knew what the hell they were doing.

[CandidGamera]

@Jenaroph

You’re mistaking what the word “abstract” means. It doesn’t mean “weird artwork where the artist has to explain what they mean.” It doesn’t mean “lacking framework or rules.” It is the opposite of “concrete” in this context. In music and artwork it can be an interpretation of a literal object that does not involve reproducing it perfectly as it exists; it can also be an interpretation of an idea or emotion, something that does not have a physical or palpable presence in reality. For example, take one you probably know, Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the Bumblebee. It is abstract, in that it is not a literal recording of a bumblebee buzzing as it flies through the air. Yet he still manages to convey not only the buzzing of the bee, but its speed and the dips and turns and stops in its flight. All in a well orchestated, very much rule-following piece.

I gave you a property of abstract art that I have observed in all abstract art that I have seen. IE : No structure.

Flight of the Bumblebee is a lovely little piece of music and pleasant to listen to. It has a very intricate structure. Therefore, it’s not the sort of “abstract” that I’m railing against, even if it meets the art world’s definition of ‘abstract’. What’s your point?

[YoudNeverGuess]

@Jenaroph

You’re mistaking what the word “abstract” means. It doesn’t mean “weird artwork where the artist has to explain what they mean.” It doesn’t mean “lacking framework or rules.” It is the opposite of “concrete” in this context. In music and artwork it can be an interpretation of a literal object that does not involve reproducing it perfectly as it exists; it can also be an interpretation of an idea or emotion, something that does not have a physical or palpable presence in reality. For example, take one you probably know, Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the Bumblebee. It is abstract, in that it is not a literal recording of a bumblebee buzzing as it flies through the air. Yet he still manages to convey not only the buzzing of the bee, but its speed and the dips and turns and stops in its flight. All in a well orchestated, very much rule-following piece.

Thank you Jenaroph. I agree but I would like to go even further to say that most music doesn’t even claim/ intend to represent anything other than itself. Take your average classical symphony for example. Anyway this is all getting a little off the point and sorry for going on about music when this thread was supposed to be about art.

OK it was time to leave this godforsaken office 12 minutes ago. I’m outta here.

[pulykamell]

@This Year's Model

If (as commented on by other posters) one has to be trained to appreciate modern art, and such training results in descriptions as that above, is it really art or simply elitist intellectual masturbation?

No, you don’t have to be trained to appreciate it. Maybe it has to do with how you grow up or what your visual experiences are at an early age, or maybe it just has to do with your temperment or personality, but intellectualization is not necessary for appreciation of modern art.

I instinctually gravitated towards Wassily Kandinsky (gee…can you tell who my favorite painter of the 20th century is?) I didn’t need explanation or anything. His work simply effected me on a profound level that realistic artists never have been able to do. After that, I sought out books on him, read up on art history, became a photographer, and furthered my appreciation of his work. I see a lot of modern graphic design ideas in his work, as well as classical approaches to composition.

Now, I’m not saying that I’m somehow special or better for understanding his work right away. What I’m saying is that there are many people who do immediately respond to his work; who don’t see gibberish and haphazard splotches of color. And we’re not trying to out-cool you or be snobs. We truly and honestly react to this work.

[CandidGamera]

@YoudNeverGuess

Exactly - from your perspective. Therefore it is all worthless …

…to you.

You cannot deny other people the right (especially people who may be more dedicated to this field and more educated/ practitioners of the Art in question) to judge something differently. A little humility is all that’s required.

You may be right about some abstract art but probably not about all. As I’ve said already history can only answer this for once and for all. Without the benefit of hindsight it can be difficult to see the wood for the trees.

What’s history going to answer? ‘Yeah, a bunch of people really liked easy-to-produce paintings that were popular in the 19th to 21st centuries, resulting in the foundation of the Simian Art Institute, training chimps whose output was legally certified in 2057 as ‘Valuable Art’ by the American Reichminister of Drivel’…?

And no one’s denying your right to judge it differently. I’m just exercising my right to disagree with you vociferously.

[Skywatcher]

@Lobsang

My argument is about skill. If skill is involved in making something then it is worthwhile. To use your analogy, some ‘art’ would be the equivelant of scribbling, or writing meaningless random words.

Like abstract painting and free association poetry?

[pulykamell]

@CandidGamera

I gave you a property of abstract art that I have observed in all abstract art that I have seen. IE : No structure.

And you’d be wrong. Just because you say there’s no structure in the abstract art you’ve seen doesn’t make it true. Read any art history book, and you will see the rigorous and exact composition that dominate much of abstract art.

These paintings are NOT easy to produce. If you can produce a reasonable facsimile of a Kandinsky, I will gladly pay you for it. I would like to decorate my room with some hand-painted art. I’m not kidding. If you can do it, I will buy it.

Anyhow, have you ever considered the possibility that millions of art lovers, art critics, art historians, and casual aesthetes, etc., might, just might, just know what the hell they’re talking about? Or do you seriously think this is some 20th Century con?

Sometimes I just want to smack my head into a wall, because Kandinsky is one of the easier abstract artists to grasp, and to me the compositional principles are so self-evident. I would love to explain it to, if you had an open mind about it, but I get the sense you’ve already dismissed nearly a hundred years of remarkable art.

[fessie]

CandidYou have every right to dislike non-representational Art, that’s not my beef. You say it has no structure - none of it, ever. You’re wrong. You simply don’t understand it. There’s nothing wrong with being uneducated, but you’re coming across as wilfully ignorant.

Of course I’m using “it” as a broad brush - there’s plenty of non-representational Art whose structure includes theoretical components and must be explained in an essay in order to be understood. And plenty of Art and art that’s crap. But to condemn all non-representational art is too broad, superficial and stupid. That’s like putting Thomas Kinkade into the same category as Edward Hopper, because they both painted buildings (using the term loosely and rather generously where that moron Kinkade is concerned).

Lobsang I think to understand someone like Ellsworth Kelly you have to take into consideration the context of his work. Personally I don’t like it either, but there is a reason why he’s respected. Good reason? Dunno, time will tell. But I think in order to appreciate the skill involved with non-representational painting (in general) it helps to actually do it yourself, which is why I’ll never understand golf.

[CandidGamera]

@pulykamell

Anyhow, Composition IV is one of his more famous works. And you’re right. This work contains some identifiable figures. Composition IV, in particular, has what appears to be a hill, some Cossacks or knights with lances, a rainbow, etc…

This link works.

And we’re in territory that’s moderately better than an orangutan, as I doubt they could represent a rainbow even as poorly as that painting does. In addition to finding no skill necessary to the creation of that one, though - it’s ugly.

Are you sure you didn’t link to one of young Marla’s early efforts instead?

[Frank]

@pulykamell

We truly and honestly react to this work.

OK, good point. And as you mentioned earlier, there are artists you don’t react to. I’m the same way, but the bulk of modern art is created by artists I don’t react to. I don’t believe any amount of learning would teach me to react to them - they just don’t reach me. But that’s not a fault in me anymore than a failure to appreciate Monet is a fault in you. The broad perspective of modern art afficianados seems to be that a failure to appreciate modern art is a failure in the viewer, and I don’t like that attitude a whole lot, and I suspect that’s where some of my touchiness on this subject is coming from.

[CandidGamera]

@pulykamell

And you’d be wrong. Just because you say there’s no structure in the abstract art you’ve seen doesn’t make it true. Read any art history book, and you will see the rigorous and exact composition that dominate much of abstract art.

Tracing a few circles on a canvas is not structure. It’s doodling. Perhaps somewhere there’s a painting the art world deems ‘abstract’ that I would find ‘structured’ - until I see it, I stick by my assessment.

These paintings are NOT easy to produce. If you can produce a reasonable facsimile of a Kandinsky, I will gladly pay you for it. I would like to decorate my room with some hand-painted art. I’m not kidding. If you can do it, I will buy it.

I may just, as soon as I have the room for a canvas and easel. Of course, my time would be better spent actually learning to paint meaningful things…

Anyhow, have you ever considered the possibility that millions of art lovers, art critics, art historians, and casual aesthetes, etc., might, just might, just know what the hell they’re talking about? Or do you seriously think this is some 20th Century con?

Millions of people can be fooled. What George W’s approval rating right now?

Sometimes I just want to smack my head into a wall, because Kandinsky is one of the easier abstract artists to grasp, and to me the compositional principles are so self-evident. I would love to explain it to, if you had an open mind about it, but I get the sense you’ve already dismissed nearly a hundred years of remarkable art.

The only remarks I have for that sort of art are the sarcastic kind.

[Frank]

Oh, and by the way, pulykamell, of the three Kadinsky’s linked to so far in this thread, I like Composition VIII the best. Sorry.

[pulykamell]

@This Year's Model

OK, good point. And as you mentioned earlier, there are artists you don’t react to. I’m the same way, but the bulk of modern art is created by artists I don’t react to. I don’t believe any amount of learning would teach me to react to them - they just don’t reach me. But that’s not a fault in me anymore than a failure to appreciate Monet is a fault in you.

I’m not at all saying it’s a fault in you not to react to modern art. I’m just saying that it’s wrong to dismiss something as crap just because you don’t understand it.
That is all.

Like I said, I don’t particularly like Money or Dali, but I don’t deny them their genius. They’re clearly amazing artists in their own right.

I’m not trying to force this art upon everyone. It’s your decision not to like it. But I don’t think you can make an honest appraisal on its importance in art history without having some knowledge of what you’re talking about. Is it not possible not to like something, yet recognize its importance. There’s a lot of art that I don’t get, but I always keep in mind the possibility that I simply don’t understand it or will understand it later on.

It’s happened to me before that I was particuarly dismissive of a certain artist, only to finally “get it” one day later. To use one example, “Pet Sounds” by the Beach Boys has been hailed by critics as one of the greatest records of all time. I just thought it was a decent pop record, nothing more, nothing less. Then one day, it just all clicked together, and I could not believe how I missed the genius of Brian Wilson’s magnum opus. I mean, the record really was incredible genius and I don’t know how I was such an idiot not to notice it before. The music afficianados were right.

Moments of revelation like that make me very hesitant to dismiss any art form that has widespread appeal or is lauded by people who are experts in such matters. I’ve found that these people actually do know what they’re talking about.

Once again, it is possible to dislike something, yet reserve the possibility that perhaps there is something great in there that one does not understand.

Why is this so difficult to do?

[pulykamell]

@This Year's Model

Oh, and by the way, pulykamell, of the three Kadinsky’s linked to so far in this thread, I like Composition VIII the best. Sorry.

No need to apologize. A lot of people prefer his graphical work. I like the sheer radiance of color and the vibrancy of looser and more organic forms rather than the rigid geometrical figures of his Bauhaus work. It’s the romantic in me. His later work was much more left-brained, for lack of better expression.

Anyhow, seeing his work in Munich, MOMA, and the Art Institute…it has always been incredible, something that a computer monitor or book cannot reproduce. I still remember the first time I saw “Starry Night” by van Gogh in person at MOMA. The textures, swirls, and immediacy of the colors first made me realize just how different it is to see a print of a painting vs the real thing. I actually think I came to Kandinsky via van Gogh. I like Vincent’s color palatte (strong, contrasting hues, extensive use of complementaries), bold strokes, abstraction of subject matter, and strong use of texture.

[CandidGamera]

@pulykamell

Anyhow, seeing his work in Munich, MOMA, and the Art Institute…it has always been incredible, something that a computer monitor or book cannot reproduce. I still remember the first time I saw “Starry Night” by van Gogh in person at MOMA. The textures, swirls, and immediacy of the colors first made me realize just how different it is to see a print of a painting vs the real thing. I actually think I came to Kandinsky via van Gogh. I like Vincent’s color palatte (strong, contrasting hues, extensive use of complementaries), bold strokes, abstraction of subject matter, and strong use of texture.

Van Gogh - is he abstract? Or Impressionistic? I had the idea he was the latter. Van Gogh did good work. He had structure.

[CandidGamera]

I’m trying to find a link to a picture I recall as exemplifying all that I hate most about abstract art - but I can’t find it. I thought it was a Picasso, but perhaps I have misremembered. To describe it, it is essentially a black-on-white grid, with some of the spaces in the grid colored in with bright, primary colors. Anyone know the name?

[Terminus_Est]

I’m guessing CandidGamera’s definition of the word structure is: “Something I can recognize”.

Mondrian has structure. Pollack has structure.

[fessie]

I suspect that one of the problems is that you, Candid, have never personally painted anything. If you had, you would realize that in order to paint something the artist must disassemble it in his/her head. It becomes an abstraction. Because think about it - there is no magic paint brush with “tree” paint loaded on it in all the right places. The artist has to break up the image, painting this shade and then that one, creating a broad line where needed. We work in positive and then negative space, building relationships between the elements, creating balance and emphasis. And even when painting from reality, and attempting to do so faithfully, the ARTIST creates the structure because the ARTIST edits, crops, expands, shrinks the image to fit the canvas. It DOESN’T MATTER what the subject matter is, that process still takes place. The “structure” of a piece isn’t a magical quality bestowed by the subject matter. That’s why non-representational work CAN have just as much structure as photo-realism.

[Frank]

@fessie

Because think about it - there is no magic paint brush with “tree” paint loaded on it in all the right places.

Yes, but doesn’t the canvas have little numbers all over it?

[stpauler]

@CandidGamera

Van Gogh - is he abstract? Or Impressionistic? I had the idea he was the latter. Van Gogh did good work. He had structure.

Van Gogh is considered to be the beginning of abstract art .

The French impressionism technique innovations, together with the paintings of Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh are seen by many as the starting points of the paintings of abstract art. It has been said that modern expressionistic paintings can be traced back to Van Gogh’s paintings, while the opposite stylistic trend was due to the Pope of abstract art, Piet Mondrian. One can hardly escape the impression though, that for Mondrian himself Van Gogh’s paintings were important for his development