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

[fessie]

Ahhh, the inherent difference between engineers and artists. Everything in life isn’t about limits - some stuff is about pushing them. Anarchy has its place.

I say this as someone who DOES representational art (I have a few old pieces on the Teemings gallery page; my own page died & I haven’t restarted it since I’m raising babies right now & have had to set my art aside for the time being): ALL art is the artist’s interpretation. You’re confusing the outer appearance with the thing itself.

I’ve taught art to adults quite a few times and have run into many, many students with your viewpoint. Somewhere along the way, someone must’ve grabbed a crayon out of your pudgy fist and told you you were doing it “wrong” and mustn’t; all I can say is, I’m sorry there are so many lousy art teachers in the world.

[Frank]

Well, I’m semi-convinced. Convinced enough that from now on I shall say “That is a style of art for which I do not care” rather than “You call that art?” Unconvinced enough that I’m not going to put a lot of effort into trying to develop an appreciation that’s just not there. There’s plenty enough stuff out there that I do like.

For instance - I’ll go back to Composition VIII here, since I do rather like it. I find it quite pretty, colorful, enjoyable to look at. I don’t see movement or stillness, I don’t feel rythym, I don’t hear jazz music. It doesn’t make me feel anything except the normal appreciation for something pretty. I wouldn’t mind having it hang on my wall, except then it would take away space from something that does make me feel.

I said earlier that I, for one, fully understand how talented and skilled the artists are. It does not follow that I have to adore the end result of their work. But I’ll readily accept that it’s art; everyone else can accept that it’s art I don’t like.

[matt_mcl]

That’s absolutely fair enough. It’s just annoying to have it dismissed out of hand.

[Yookeroo]

@CandidGamera

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…

Coward. Big insults, but when it comes down to it, you can’t back up your claims. If a monkey could produce similar works of art, you should be able to also. Or are you less skilled than a monkey?

[Terminus_Est]

@CandidGamera

Couldn’t tell it to look at the finished product.

To continue my Pollack example, researchers were able to determine the fractal nature of his paintings using computer analysis. Fractal patterns are very common in nature, so the human eye is conditioned to detect and appreciate them. Pollack worked before fractals had been described. But he knew what he wanted to achieve. As he gained experience, his latter works exhibit greater fractal dimensionality.

In case the name doesn’t ring a bell, here’s a typical Pollack “paint dribble”:
http://www.soho-art.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.pl?fid=1033296216&cgifunction=form

[Terminus_Est]

Sorry, that’s Pollock not Pollack.

[Jenaroph]

CandidGamera, I guess I’m still stymied by your insistence that abstract art has no structure - here’s the thing…I went to the dictionary to try to find a less ephemeral way to define structure, and found this:

1.Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way: hierarchical social structure.
2.The way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole; makeup: triangular in structure.
3.The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity: political structure; plot structure.
4.Something constructed, such as a building.

The first and fourth definitions do not inherently exclude abstract art. Moreover, the second and third definitions mean there is nothing that exists that is WITHOUT structure. Structure can be described, it cannot fail to exist. It can be simple, it can be complex, it can be loose and poorly formed, but it is there.

Abstract art is often very carefully constructed. When you are trying to communicate a concept without words or concrete pictures, if you don’t choose your constructs carefully you will fail in your communication.

And I’m surprised by your assessment of Starry Night in the face of your insistence that abstraction is meaningless. It is a very non-literal (i.e.“abstract”) representation of the night sky. On some level, you DO get it; you’re simply failing to realize that.

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

I never suggested that aggressiveness of stance is never appropriate. I’m just saying that you’ve chosen to frame a clear case of “I don’t get it, what’s the big deal?” as a case of “It’s all bullshit.” Your grapes seem a tad sour; you seem defensive at being left out of the discussion or something. You seem angry that there’s a whole mode of communication that some people enjoy and you don’t. At any rate, you’re certainly not coming across as a person intelligently and objectively discussing his understanding of art; you come across as a man with an emotionally invested position who’s “defending” it against attackers. I’m just sayin.

I’ll have to chalk that up to you reading things into my words that aren’t there. Personally, I’m of two minds on the subject - half of me wants to make sure you lot understands my point as well as possible, and the other half is laughing at you all. That’s the half that keeps making the monkey jokes.

[lissener]

Once again it’s a matter of context: CG has a rigid definition of what a rectangular canvas is “for”: I’m sure a lot of paintings that he considers useless wouldn’t elicit a second glance in another context: wallpaper, frex.

[CandidGamera]

@fessie

ALL art is the artist’s interpretation. You’re confusing the outer appearance with the thing itself.

Artist’s interpretations are fine. However, when someone draws a square and tells me it represents a hummingbird - I will laugh at them.

I’ve taught art to adults quite a few times and have run into many, many students with your viewpoint. Somewhere along the way, someone must’ve grabbed a crayon out of your pudgy fist and told you you were doing it “wrong” and mustn’t; all I can say is, I’m sorry there are so many lousy art teachers in the world.

No, I did most of my doodling at home - we didn’t have much of an art program at school, you see. Never really had any boundaries on what I was doing - which is why I call it doodling, incidentally.

[CandidGamera]

@Yookeroo

Coward. Big insults, but when it comes down to it, you can’t back up your claims. If a monkey could produce similar works of art, you should be able to also. Or are you less skilled than a monkey?

Uh… hello? Said I could - said I might, subject to my acquisition of sufficient space to actually do so. I just think my time would be better spent.

Plus, it wouldn’t matter anyway. No matter what I did, the art-zombies here would point and say ‘See! That random doodle is in no way like Kandinsky’s masterpiece!’ And then wander off in smug self-satisfaction. So what would it achieve?

[pulykamell]

@This Year's Model

I said earlier that I, for one, fully understand how talented and skilled the artists are. It does not follow that I have to adore the end result of their work. But I’ll readily accept that it’s art; everyone else can accept that it’s art I don’t like.

And this is exactly the reasonable stance I respect.

[CandidGamera]

@Jenaroph

CandidGamera, I guess I’m still stymied by your insistence that abstract art has no structure - here’s the thing…I went to the dictionary to try to find a less ephemeral way to define structure, and found this

Clarification is found in post #158.

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

the other half is laughing at you all.

Always a good sign.

[CandidGamera]

@pulykamell

And this is exactly the reasonable stance I respect.

Well, you should have no problem with me, then, as I admit it’s all art - just that most abstract art requires no skill.

Can someone honestly tell me that the piece by Mondrian with the squares and colors took skill? I mean, with a straight face?

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

Uh… hello? Said I could - said I might, subject to my acquisition of sufficient space to actually do so. I just think my time would be better spent.

Plus, it wouldn’t matter anyway. No matter what I did, the art-zombies here would point and say ‘See! That random doodle is in no way like Kandinsky’s masterpiece!’ And then wander off in smug self-satisfaction. So what would it achieve?

See if you can set up a blind test; I still think you’d be surprised.

I’m pretty good at representational art, but I have zero talent for abstract art. No matter how hard I try, it doesn’t gel.

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

Well, you should have no problem with me, then, as I admit it’s all art - just that most abstract art requires no skill.

Can someone honestly tell me that the piece by Mondrian with the squares and colors took skill? I mean, with a straight face?

Dude, maybe the fact that only the people on your side of this debate are making such a priority of the criterion of “skill” should indicate something.

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

Always a good sign.

Don’t take it personally. Half of me is almost always laughing. I find humor in nearly everything. Especially monkeys.

[Homebrew]

The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Chapter 1
Once when I was six years old I saw a magnificent picture in a book, called True Stories from Nature, about the primeval forest. It was a picture of a boa constrictor in the act of swallowing an animal.

[snip]

In the book it said: “Boa constrictors swallow their prey whole, without chewing it. After that they are not able to move, and they sleep through the six months that they need for digestion.”

I pondered deeply, then, over the adventures of the jungle. And after some work with a colored pencil I succeeded in making my first drawing.

[snip]

I showed my masterpiece to the grown-ups, and asked them whether the drawing frightened them.

But they answered: “Frighten? Why should any one be frightened by a hat?”

My drawing was not a picture of a hat. It was a picture of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant. But since the grown-ups were not able to understand it, I made another drawing: I drew the inside of a boa constrictor, so that the grown-ups could see it clearly.

[snip]

The grown-ups’ response, this time, was to advise me to lay aside my drawings of boa constrictors, whether from the inside or the outside, and devote myself instead to geography, history, arithmetic, and grammar. That is why, at the age of six, I gave up what might have been a magnificent career as a painter.

[snip]

Whenever I met one of them who seemed to me at all clear-sighted, I tried the experiment of showing him my Drawing Number One, which I have always kept. I would try to find out, so, if this was a person of true understanding. But, whoever it was, he, or she, would always say:

“That is a hat.”

Then I would never talk to that person about boa constrictors, or primeval forests, or stars. I would bring myself down to his level. I would talk to him about bridge, and golf, and politics, and neckties. And the grown-up would be greatly pleased to have met such a sensible man.

CandidGamera sees only the hat.

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

Dude, maybe the fact that only the people on your side of this debate are making such a priority of the criterion of “skill” should indicate something.

That we value skill/talent, and you all don’t?

If that’s the case, then there’s going to be no resolution to this.