Okay, let’s try this again - do *you *have any interesting, insightful stories about how you didn’t know how to approach a work of art, but something happened that opened your eyes to and helped you appreciate it? If so, bring it on.
Pouty? nah. Exasperated? Oh yeah. You’re asking for the explanation to a joke and not appreciating that the moment of the actual Funny is long gone…
:: Hand up ::
Please sir, I have a few. Well, they might not be interesting, but they might be insightful. Here’s two.
The Stravinsky violin concerto left me cold when I first heard it. And on many subsequent listenings, and on studying it at a first-year undergraduate level. A year later, I started to play it (well, verrrry slowly learn it, anyway). Gradually details of its structure, of the way it toys with traditional forms, started to make much more sense. I also developed a far greater appreciation of his orchestration techniques. Now, I think it’s one of the best violin concertos there is, and I also ‘get’ the humour in it. (Yet on listening to an unfamiliar piece of neoclassicism, I’m often still left cold all over again…)
I never liked Mozart as a teenager. Too predictable, too set in its ways, never quite close enough to the edge of the envelope. Playing a Schubert symphony, I started to enjoy the way the harmonic structures created senses of culmination, of conflict, of conclusion, of resolution. And I had a lightbulb moment, realising that this was what was going on in Mozart as well.
The two conflicting uses of ‘art’ in this sentence demonstrate why semantics is integral to tackling your question.
Why is immediacy so vital?
Nobody needs that. Plenty of kids have commented on how something is or isn’t “your kind of music, sir”. They’ve pigeon-holed me, which is understandable, given what I’m teaching them. But what I never do is suggest that there’s any barriers, and all I need to do to show their assumptions to be false is let them have a look through my iTunes collection.
And no, it isn’t! That was an endurance test to rival Female Perversions.
Thank you Sir - a question asked and examples provided.
if this was Great Debates, I would agree - but I am not looking to unpack the concept, merely asking what I thought was a light-hearted question about what happened when a person got past their preconceptions and just saw the art of something - for the purposes of this OP, the art of something generally seen as Art with a capital A, but they just perceived as something intimidating…
it’s not, per se - it is more about finding yourself at a loss to when it comes to connecting to a work of art for whatever reason, but then realizing that you could connect - could be immediate or, as in your examples, something that occurs over time. My use of immediate was too limited.
What is High Art? WordMan, don’t you think one can recognize the techncial execution of piece without internalizing it?
I don’t especially care for Robert Rauschenberg’s work, but I certainly recognize it as important in the scheme of modern American art. I understand his impact, but he simply doesn’t speak to me. His work strikes an intellectual chord, but not necessarily an emotional one.
That’s out of the way.
I was raised in a very simple household. Art and music were uncharted territories.
When I was in college, a friend took me to the Nelson-Atkins in Kansas City.
I was sure I’d be bored to tears. Indeed, I shed tears, but not of boredom. I felt as though I had awakened. At the time, they had exibits of Monet, Jackson Pollock, and Andy Warhol. They each touched me in different ways. Those were emotional.
Surprisingly, (or not,) that exposure to visual art sparked a new interest in classical music.
It may engage you in more complex ways, but in the end, it’s syill emotional. Intellectual stimulation is still stimulation. If something makes you think, and you enjoy thinking, isn’t that enjoyment an emotional response?
I like modern art - a lot. And I appreciated quite a bit of it just from prints. But I never really appreciated Pollock until I saw some works in real life at the Tate Modern. So much more - texture, layers, colour, movement, emotion - that a print could never convey. Same-same for Rothko and Brancusi.
See, I would say that GorillaMan’s experience is the whole point of art appreciation classes. Most of us don’t have the kind of immersion in the art world that makes it instantly understandable. We have to take classes to be exposed to the history and have some of the dots connected for us.
Mine is a little more literary. I had read several of Dashiel Hammett’s novels, and I really enjoyed them. (Otherwise I would only have read the one…) Then I read an essay about The Maltese Falcon that focused on the different levels of story telling in the novel. Hammett is writing a story about Sam Spade tracking down his partner’s killer. But along the way everyone tells stories to each other, most of them lies. In fact, one of the most gripping parts of the novel is the man who got used to girders falling out of the sky.
Back to the point, as the story wraps up Sam has decided that he’s figured out what’s going on. He recaps his interpretation of the events, and then takes the same story and tells Brigid how it’s going to be. Then he twists it around for Gutman, and then fixes it again for the version he’s going to tell the police, because the police aren’t going to be satisfied with the “true” story. Of course, he’s not entirely on the up and up with Gutman, and he has a different version planned for what he’s really going to tell the cops.
So, what happens in the novel? We have the story that we see through Sam’s eyes as told to us by the narrator, and we have all these different ways that it could have happened, none of which are quite the same. So should we be trusting the narrator or not?
Anyway, the first time I read the book it was just a fun ride. The second time I had all this in mind and watched these threads of plot come together into a massive tangle, only to be rewoven into several different sweaters.
Great point, **picunurse ** - I only intended “High Art” to mean something you knew that Conventional Wisdom (e.g., academia, long-standing public reputation, etc.) held in high esteem, but for whatever reason, you didn’t connect with. But my basic question may apply to any art. I was looking for those moments where you’re going “man, they tell me this is the Good Stuff, but it just doesn’t…oh, hey, waitaminnit…”
I have yet to have such a moment with Rauschenberg, and suspect I never will… :dubious:
**MrDibble **- Another perfect example, to my mind: Pollack’s work doesn’t translate to small photos in art books at all, so walking into a gallery where one of his works fills the wall can be a revelatory “oh, NOW I get it” experiences…
**Tenebras ** - thanks for the example and, based on your Edit comments, that you for de-snarking! I apologize to all for my snarkiness - I suppose I was thrown off by the detour this thread apparently needed to take…now, off to a plane to fly back to NY from SF…
I had that same: “Dude, I was drawing this stuff when I was five years old!” response to some modern art, when someone pointed out that this kind of indulgence in what looks like childish nonsense is part of the point of modern art, because art no longer needed to capture moments realistically–that was what a camera was for.
I still think a lot of it is pretentious garbage, but now I can appreciate the honest explorations of silly dabbles of paint a lot more.
See. this is what I’m talking about. It’s not largely in my imagination, and I don’t feel left out- I intentionally abstain. You perceive it as my problem- I don’t really think about it at all.
When I want to participate in some “in-group” sausage fest discussing the latest guy who shit in a bag and called it art, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, I will continue my exposure on my terms and formulate my own opinions, thanks.
Given that art and appreciation of it is a personal matter, I submit that it is ALL about me.
More often than not anymore they speak down to me simply by calling their nonsense art. I’m sorry, but some dude spreading feces on a statue is not art. Neither is taking photographs of some guy pissing in some other guy’s mouth. And yet those people are held up as examples to be followed the world over by people “in the know”. Give me a break.
The current art scene is hardly monolithic. (Actually, it never was.) Someone fixated on scatology & urolagnia–as you apparently are–can find some examples if they look hard enough. (“I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!”)
But people are still making figurative art–& selling it in “hip” galleries. Have you ever seen Owen Smith’s paintings? (You probably have–he also does a lot of illustration.)
Texas artist Lynn Randolph uses a very “old fashioned” style. (Some of her political pieces will upset you–but she paints a variety of subjects.)
Kermit Oliver–another Texan–uses classical & biblical subjects. With exquisite precision.
Houston’s own Art Guys do conceptual & performance art, as well things that show up in galleries. But their art is witty & amusing on several levels.
Don’t waste your time fuming about the latest art “scandal” to hit the headlines–generally so some bluenose can call attention to work very few people would normally see, in order to gain a reputation as a Guardian of Public Morality.
Find out what’s going on in your own community. Open your eyes & your ears. Certainly, form your own opinions. But don’t base them on close-minded ignorance.
Women don’t discuss art? 
I have no issues with any of the above. I rather enjoy political artwork and to a limited degree pop art (Warhol and his disciples leave me a bit cold). I also enjoy the classics, for my own reasons. But I don’t enjoy the fawning over the colors and the brushstrokes and the techniques, and I dislike it when people dismiss my interpretation out of hand in favor of theirs. I take the work as a whole, the mechanics don’t interest me.
Again with the pretense. You assume that it is close-minded ignorance. I am more inclined to say that it is detached interest. I know what I like when I see it or hear it.
Your profile doesn’t indicate where you live. Do you check out local musuems? Not just The Big Shows. Wandering through the permanent collections can educate your eye.
Are there galleries nearby? In Houston, galleries cluster in certain neighborhoods & have openings on the same night. People walk from place to place, have a glass or 2 of wine & see what’s going on. Some boring stuff, a bit of crap & the occasional wonderful surprise.
You dislike “fawning over the colors and the brushstrokes and the techniques.” Are you a sports fan? Have you ever critiqued a certain player’s technique? Or a certain manager’s decisions?
When, exactly, did a bunch of art snobs abuse you?
I found that I did (History of Art, for example). I took a few of those classes in college, and for me it put art and architecture into historical context and gave me an appreciation of some earlier artists I may have missed.
A similar example: I never quite understood the fascination with Pablo Picasso, sometimes wondering if he was hiding a lack of talent under gimmickry. Then a few years ago a Picasso retrospective came to our Museum of Art. It showcased a lot of his earlier work, and it was both instructive and fascinating seeing him change from being quite talented but more “traditional” artist into the Picasso we all think of today. It added another dimension of understanding. Still don’t care for Guernica, though, but who knows? Maybe a little more context with that and I might change my opinion.
Actually, it’s “What’s Opera, Doc?”
When I see a work of art that has big reputation, I try to think about the process of creating it. That usually personalizes it for me because I do that myself - not that I can paint or write music to any significant degree. Reading up on how the piece was created or its artistic context is another way in.
I think this is exactly the point. People “dismiss” your interpretations your likes and dislikes are probably not very interesting. No one’s are, save to ourselves.
More interesting is someone who enough knowledge to put the work of art in context, who can say how one piece fits into a conversation among many artists, or who can shed a little light on the technique of how it is created. This opens up new possibilities for considering and understanding art. I fail to see how this is pompous or pretentious. If you aren’t interested in this, well, that’s fine. Do something else with your time. But don’t try to pretend that everyone’s opinions and insights are somehow of equal value to people who really care about such things.
What is pretentious is believing that one’s uninformed opinion is as valuable or interesting as informed, nuanced opinion. Trust me. It isn’t. There is a real language to art. If you don’t know it, it is often quite obvious to those who do.
I am another one who had some difficulty with Mozart. I can immediately relate to many baroque/early composers and as well to 19th century and forward. I have had tremendous difficulty understanding Mozart.
That is, until I learned to play his clarinet concerto when I was in high school. It is a repertory piece, so I had to suck it up. I began to play it. As it turns out, it is pure joy to play in every bar. It beautifully shows off the fluidity, mellowness, and enormous range of the clarinet.
I was flabbergasted when I learned how soon Mozart wrote it after the clarinet was invented. The fact that Mozart understood the clarinet and its capabilities so incredibly quickly gave me a different perspective on how to listen to his works, especially concerti that show off the virtuosity of the musician and the possibilities of the instrument.
Well, Maeglin did a better post than mine, but since I’ve written all this, I’ll post it anyway.
First, bear in mind that artists are trying to please someone. This is because artists, like everyone, have to eat, and artists, like everyone, crave approval. So there’s nothing terribly mystical going on in the motivations of artists.
Second, art is almost always within the bounds of what the common viewer/listener/reader can comprehend. Basically, the artist goes for a mix of the expected and the unexpected. If too much is in the expected category, it’s boring. If too much is unexpected, it’s alien. Neither gets an audience. If something is wholly alien to you, it’s because you’re missing intermediate steps that led up to it. Find out what those are, have a look, and then see if the alien thing makes more sense.
Third, art afficionados have a natural tendency toward being pains in the ass. They confuse “I (don’t) like it” with “It’s (not) good.” At the lowest level, you get “Beavis and Butthead” assessments: This is cool, that sucks. Go to youtube, search for your favorite guitar god, and then read the comments. The world is awash in snobs. Screw 'em.
Then you get to a higher level where someone is actually eloquent about explaining why he does or doesn’t like something. Enough people saying the same thing apparently makes it true, at least to the people who pay attention to such things. That doesn’t mean you have to fall for it, though.
So, seek out good critics of an art form, by which I mean, people who are dedicated to expanding one’s knowledge of the art form in question. Avoid people who are only in the business of passing judgement; they are singularly unhelpful.
Fourth (and really just coming back to the first point), people seem to like sacred cows. Ignore that. Before Michaelangelo and Beethoven and Shakespeare were sacred cows, they were just artists, trying to please someone. Keep that in mind.
Well the point of discussing art is to further analyze and express why one likes something when you see it or hear it, beyond “I know what I like when I see/hear it and that’s that”.
As for the question posed in the OP about “getting past a given work’s reputation” and simply enjoying it for what it was… Well I did do this once:
but it was in an Infocom computer game version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.
Seriously though, yes, I have encountered works to which my initial visceral reaction was negative, but which after repeated analysis and review, I came to appreciate in its proper context. Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, for instance. Upon first reading passages from it in High School English, I thought he was an awfully self-absorbed, navel-gazing guy who couldn’t even make his “poetry” rhyme or even have the lines the same length or meter. Now I consider it a masterpiece of poetry that I have gone to some trouble to get a very fancy hard-bound copy of, and given a place of honor on my bookshelf.
On the musical side, I remember having the “they call this music?” reaction to rap/hip-hop the first few times I heard it (back in 1980, blared out of boom boxes in the NYC subway). Not long after, artists like Grandmaster Flash and Public Enemy put out tracks that, after hearing them several times and really listening to them, I realized how this was going to reshape music forever (that and how awesome the hooks were).
I suggest you turn the question around from an implied negative (“has anyone ever gotten over the art’s reputation and just liked it…”, i.e., “the only reason I could see for liking it before was to fit in with some pretentious crowd worshipping the meaningless”), and you might get more replies: “who has gotten over an intial negative reaction to art, and come to appreciate/understand it in a positive light”?