Famous works of art that you hate

Cafe Society
181

Roadfood, I don’t have 3 more hours of time to spend on this drivel. I’ll give you 30 minutes.

Are you people waiting for me to give you one singular, perfect formula that separates “competent” (I won’t even go into “good” or “genius”, let’s just settle for “competent”) art from “incompetent” art, for all time, in every situation?

Because no, that’s not possible. Absolutely not.

Yes, the criteria DO change (and will continue to). Geniuses reinvent the “game”, just as outstanding athletes redefine their sports.

capybara can tell you a great deal more about the evolution of criteria, that’s her bailiwick, not mine.

What I know a little about, what I have some experience with, are ways of looking at art as a visual experience. I’ve tried to relate here that art students are taught how to make their work coherent, and that a consistent, sustained treatment of what’s being presented is an essential (but not the only) ingredient in a coherent painting. Particularly when the artist, such as Kinkade, purports to be a “painter of light”.

I think that YOU don’t see those qualities, you don’t understand what the term “same treatment” refers to, because when it comes to art, YOU don’t know shit from shine-o-la. And rather than acknowledging that, you’ve decided to argue about it.

You want to prove me wrong? Do it.

People can learn to recognize and become more sensitive to those visual qualities, if they so desire, and doing so can enhance their enjoyment and appreciation of art. But apparently some people, rather than taking it upon themselves to learn, deny that there’s anything valid being taught.

Just for the intrepid, and because I took too much pseudoephedrine at bedtime, here is some information about analyzing art, not written by me, but written by a much, much better teacher under whom I studied for a couple of years. Under “Introduction to Art” there’s a link to “Art Criticism”. It’s a brief (6-page) word document that really explains how artists look at art in Painting 101. It’s not a road map to “this is great and this isn’t”, he doesn’t provide a formula (and we’re only talking an Intro to Art class, not Thesis Time).

But if you want to read it, you can learn to recognize some of the visual properties in painting; you can, if you would like, begin to understand the tools and techniques artists are using.

I DO need to retract something – I checked back on Kinkade’s website, to see if he was making any claims specifically about his realism before I attacked that point, and I happened to click on his “Plein air” series. That means “painted on site” (in French it’s en plein air).

And honestly, some of these, like “Sedona Cliffs” aren’t an abomination. This painting does show the consistency of treatment I’ve been complaining about, his palette isn’t full of illogical choices, and the whole thing does “work”, i.e. the different elements come together, as opposed to heading off on contradictory tangents. I’ve seen better paintings of that type, and this one’s not going to register on capybara’s radar because it’s not original or inventive (Kinkade’s isn’t all that different from Jerry Pond’s, although I think Vince Fazio’s is a lot more interesting, more complex).

But at least he’s putting something competent out there. I honestly hope he continues to offer a better product, given the fame that he’s managed to accumulate. Hey, if Oprah can go from tabloid fodder to getting people to read, maybe Kinkade can teach them how to see (although how he’ll explain his other work is a mystery to me).

Lastly, finally, if baseball is so perfectly objective, concrete and uniform, why is it there has never been a unanimous election to the Hall of Fame? Where’s the perfect formula for that one? I still don’t get that.

182

Roadkill, that’s a lot of time, effort, and space that you’ve devoted to convincing people that **your ** opinion that no opinion is more valid than any other opinion is superior to **fessie’s ** opinion that some opinions are. :dubious:

183

Doesn’t prove your point at all except that you don’t jack shit about chemistry, Roadfood, you see chemistry is very much an art. Especially synthetic chemistry where there are multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. Some ways are just better than others, but all the ways obey the rules we learned. There is no judgement that is going to turn a childs finger painting into the Mona Lisa either.

184

Damn, Diana, that’s beautiful.

185

Roadfood has done an excellent job saying basically what I have to say. fessie, you spend a whole lot of time answering questions that no-one is asking. Instead answer the one important question, which isn’t what the criteria are, or who meets them, or who fails them, or if beer goes well with sports, or if Thomas Kinkade is a genius or an incompetent, or if Velvet Elvis is the height of artistic excellence. It is “what makes your opinion objectively superior to anyone else’s?”.

Note that there is nothing in there about Thomas Kinkade or any other artist. There is nothing in there about American football. There is nothing in there about treatment of light or Art for Dummies. It doesn’t ask for lists of criteria or a history of art criticism. It just asks why, no matter what the criteria used, your criteria are better than anyone else’s.

186

We’re disputing that there is an objective ranking of subjective opinions, which isn’t in itself a subjective opinion but a statement of fact that you continuously fail to provide evidence for. This was a nice try, though; I’m sure you felt you really stuck it to him there.

187

Actually honey, it just struck me funny. My mouth is a bit less foamy than some of the others in here.

I’m impressed that you actually read all that though. Kudos. I decided that my time would be better spent with Janson. :stuck_out_tongue:

188

Oh, my mouth isn’t foaming at all, trust me. I’m merely and calmly asking a simple question and noting that it is never answered.

189

::head explodes::

Hello? What is the matter with you people? Why is it that all of the “critical thinking” skills people around here pride themselves on cease to exist when art is mentioned?

It’s not that my OPINIONS (if by that you mean my PREFERENCES) are “better”.

It’s that I can discuss art in objective terms (and perceive it and understand it and know it, etc. etc.) that extend far beyond “if I don’t like it, then it’s not good.”

Because in order to be “good”, everyone has to “like” it, right? Right?

YOU defined that. Not me. I don’t think that “good” art is liked by everyone. Nope. Sure don’t.

ARTISTS are engaged in an endeavor (not all of them to the same extent or degree, yadda yadda) ------there’s an activity going on-----you can see that, can’t you, that activity has taken place------ doesn’t it make sense that in order to know if they’d succeeded, you need to know what the point was in the first place?

Oh, that’s right - you’ve already decided that (for all art. forever). The point is that it has to elicit a universal response. Because YOU think that’s what “art is”.

Well you’re wrong. Art is not about eliciting the same response from everyone, everywhere, every time. Nobody’s trying to do that. You just THINK we are.
And because I can discuss art in objective terms (and perceive it and understand it and know it, etc. etc.) that extend far beyond “if I don’t like it, then it’s not good”, I can discuss it with other people. I can learn more. I can (sometimes) begin to understand artists who, initially, mystify or alienate me.

“It didn’t effect me, therefore it’s not good” <----------- there’s nowhere to go with that. You can’t transmit effect-ed-ness to other people, you can’t teach that; knowing that bit of information won’t enable you to draw or paint better than you could last week.

The point of real criteria is that you can do more with them.
That’s why they’re better.

190

fessie, I think this would go much smoother if you’d start reading what we actually write. I never said the point of art was to elicit a universal response, or that in order for art to be good it has to appeal to everybody.

What you seem to be saying, now, is that because certain criteria are agreed upon by several people, they’re better for those people because then those people can discuss art. The point is that all you get with that is discussing how well art meets those criteria, which can certainly be interesting in itself, but it says nothing about the quality of the art, which remains subjective.

I’ve studied journalism. There are rules (well, more like guidelines, but let’s call them rules) for how to write a newspaper article or a headline, how to place articles according to importance, how to evaluate the importance of an article and so forth. Now, when I read an article I can appreciate the writer’s knowledge of those rules and how skillfully he applies them, but that in itself says precisely zip about the quality of the article. Also, personally, I feel that several of those rules are bullshit and should be revised; that they remain only due to inertia. Each generation teaches the next and doesn’t question.

It’s the same with criteria in art. They enable discussion among a group of people, but in the end a piece of art is only good if the beholder considers it good. Like I’ve said earlier, knowledge can change one’s perception and preferences, but that doesn’t make one’s later preferences superior to one’s earlier.

191

You don’t believe that preferences that you have WITH knowledge are better than those you have WITHOUT knowledge? Really.

Geez, my 3-yr-olds are smarter than that, they spend all day testing hypotheses and then using their knowledge.

If you don’t understand the basic concepts of visual communication, like, say, color, value, contrast, perspective, I don’t know how you can imagine that your opinions about visual communication are equal to a person who has that knowledge.

Except that you think knowledge has no value.
In which case, why are you trying to “educate” me?

“Beauty” may well be in the eye of the beholder, but I never presumed to discuss or define beauty, there’s no frickin way I’m taking that on with you people.

I’m just talking about competent visual communication, i.e. art.

192

I just grew tired with the insults and bullshit, so this is my last post in this thread. If you don’t get it by now, you never will anyway. I’ll finish by pointing out something I find very funny: I have never brought up Thomas Kinkade, or sports, or Velvet Elvis, or any specific cases at all. I have said nothing about my own preferences or tastes, or about my level of formal education about art, or informal knowledge about art. None of you have a clue about any of that. You have assumed a lot, though. Obviously, no-one who has had an education about art could say what I’m saying, right? So I must be a Kinkade-loving, Velvet Elvis-admiring, sports-and-beer-consuming, ignorant hillbilly. Knowledge you have none, but assumptions you have plenty. What do you think that says about you?

Buh-bye.

193

I don’t think this debate requires so much verbosity.

Some people think that educated opinions of art are more valuable than uneducated opinions of art.

Other people think that uneducated opinions of art are just as valuable as educated opinions of art.

I don’t know how to convince one side of the other as clearly people are quite set in their opinions.

194

Some people like William Shakespeare, some people like Dan Brown. And they like liking him

The second lot can’t be helped, fessie. Don’t even try.

195

Well, you did say you were blown away or something to the effect by Van Gogh, so you can’t be all bad. :wink:

Of course, the quality of art is subjective, but subjective opinions, at least in my case, change with experience and knowledge. I think the more you study, the more you see, the more you’re able to discern what is historically good art and bad art. Sure, that’s still subjective, but in the process of analyzing and critically observing art that’s been considered good through history, you begin to develop an intuitive sense of what looks good and what doesn’t.

Of course, in the end, it’s your opinion. But I do think some opinions are more valuable than others. The best analogy I can think of is music. Let’s pretend I’m trying to listen to traditional Indian music. Most of it sounds incoherent and disharmonious to me. They don’t fit into my Western sensibilities and understanding of harmony, melody, rhythm. For the most part, it sounds awful to my ears. Now, I am more than entitled to hold that opinion, but I think I would be arrogant to declare that my opinion of Indian music and who is a good Indian musician and who is not is equal to, say, I dunno, Ravi Shankar or somebody who grew up with it and studied it.

196

Tell me this. Go back through this thread, and count how many times you or fessie have mocked or insulted people for saying art is subjective, and then count how many times me, or Priceguy, or Roadfood have insulted people for saying that art is objective. And then tell me who’s foaming at the mouth in this thread.

Which, incidentally, is precisely the thing that led me to supporting the subjective approach to art discussions in the first place. A subjective debate leads to people talking about how a particular work affects them. An objective debate leads to people yelling at each other for having the wrong opinion. You seem to prefer the second approach, which, I suppose, is also a subjective opinion, so I can’t really blame you for holding it. But I still find it pretty tedious.

Valuable? Sure, although I prefer “interesting.” But that’s not the same thing as “valid.” fessie’s deconstruction of Kincaide’s painting was very interesting and informative, more so than someone who just says, “It sucks.” But it’s not “more right,” it’s just better articulated.

But, say you do study it, and you still don’t like it. Can you say it’s bad then? How much study do you need to do to get to that point?

It seems to me that the subjective approach is simpler. Just recognize that when someone calls something “bad,” they’re speaking from their personal opinion, see how they support that opinion, and counter it with your own. Getting hung up over wether someone knows enough to say something’s good or bad is pointless, and just ends up in an academic dick-measuring contest. And there’s nothing sadder than that.

197

Hey, fessie? I was just wondering…does your ego have its own congressman?

This reminds me of an article I read several years ago. Some old multi-millionaire wanted to build an art museum for his city. He’d cover all the expenses. A commission was set up to determine its feasibility. Naturally, it was headed by an elitist douchetard. The millionaire had one condition. He wanted one alcove to be reserved for the permanent exhibition of the millionaire’s own paintings. Turns out the guy’s work consisted of nothing but embarassingly awful crying clowns.

Naturally, the head of the commission said something to the effect of “We will NOT be held hostage by the tyrannical demands of the benefactor!” :rolleyes:

So the whole project was scrapped. Typical elitist fuckwittery. Myself, I’d have preferred that my city had an art museum, and if I didn’t care for it I would have simply avoided the Crying Clown Wing.

198

You could well just end up not liking it. Nothing wrong with that. But I would imagine that you would have the critical faculties to at least understand where it’s coming from and whether it is good or bad based on your knowledge and understanding. For example, I don’t like Dali. I would never say he’s a bad artist. His painting looks good to me, his technique, composition, use of color, etc…, are solid. I just don’t like his work. But I would never say Dali is bad art. He’s clearly good art to me–he obviously has control over his craft and a vision–but art I don’t like.

199

Well, it does kind of cheapen an art museum when you could literally buy yourself a gallery into it. I’d still say any art museum is better than no art museum, but I could see where the idealistic head of the commission is coming from, and I can’t exactly fault him for holding to his ideals. I’m glad at least some people can stick to them and not be bought out.

200

Exactly. The position that “there are no objective standards for art so all art is equally good” really overlooks the technical craftsmanship that is involved in painting. You can appreciate something as being well-made without liking it personally, or you can be engaged by something intellectually without being moved by it emotionally. With a good piece of art the artist’s technique works towards the effect he is trying to achieve, not against it.

Sure, for some people “I like it” or “I hate it” is as far as they want to go with engaging with a piece of art. But a lot of us like to think about why we like something or why we hate it and understand the underlying techniques and structures that can be used to achieve certain effects. And once you get beyond just a pure thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach and start analyzing artworks you can begin to develop a set of general aesthetic principles that can be used to judge good from bad.

This isn’t just idle intellectual wankery. Because if you’re an artist interested in producing art you need to be able to analyze your own works critically to find weak points in your own technique and improve upon it. It’s not enough to look at a failed painting and say “well, I’m sorry I painted that, that sucks”. You need to be able to figure out why it sucks and how you can avoid it in the future.

Here’s an example from my own field. I design videogames. And a reoccuring theme at many professional game conferences is the lack of critical language for game development. We all know that some games are great and some games suck, but because the game industry is so young as an art form we don’t have the analytical tools to determine why sucky games are sucky.

One of my areas of expertise is level design. At a professional conference this spring I gave a talk where I applied some of the critical theory that’s been developed for urban planning to level design. It was well-received, because finally here was a way to break down level design into a set of abstract principles. By decomposing a level into a set of abstract primitives related to gameflow function you can identify suckiness in advance. Rather than just building a level and hoping it turns out fun, you can design the fun in from the start. It’s abstract analysis used as pragmatic critique, the same thing that happens over and over hundreds of times a day in every art school in the country.

So, when people say a piece of art is “bad”, what they’re saying is that a piece is violating a set of abstract principles of form and design and color use that experienced artists understand thoroughly. And furthermore, it’s violating them in a way that’s clearly unintentional. The artist wasn’t trying to break the rules for particular effect. He’s just breaking them because he doesn’t understand them, or doesn’t have the skill to follow them.