word!
Van Gough used so much oil his work is almost 3 dimensional, it’s something you don’t even notice in a print, let alone experience. I also agree with the suggestion not to “do” the whole museum at once. Going on an off day, being there when they open and before the crowds, seeing a single artist or perhaps a theme.
It’s an investment, but I have had my mind dazzled and crunched as described upthread and I think it’s worth it
That article is the perfect proof that art criticism is purely 100% subjective, regardless of one’s training, experience, or credentials.
He says, “the first is unquestionably technically superior. The use of texture and shadow puts the viewer within the picture. You can almost feel the cold Chicago air and hear the sounds of the serene yet bustling city.”
No, sorry, the first is clearly not technically superior, it’s fuzzy. I, as a viewer, am not “within the picture”, I can’t feel any cold or hear any sounds. I’m distanced from that painting because, well, it’s just a badly done, fuzzy painting that looks like it was done by a somewhat talented child who rushed through and didn’t even fully finish the building.
He says, “The second painting, however, distances the viewer from the scene”.
Quite the contrary. It totally draws me in. I can almost feel the brittleness of the tree branches. I can almost smell the cool, wet air. I can almost see the horse’s left front leg move. And the reflection of the carriage wheels in the wet pavement is just awe-inspiring.
Both technically and emotionally, the second Kincade is head and shoulders above what the article calls “his more meritable painting”.
Why is “comforting” bad and “challenging or even inspiring” good? Frankly, I think the author of that article has a couple of screws loose if he finds it “dispiriting” when a painting is the former rather than the latter.
In your completely subjective opinion, of course? :dubious:
In some cases the validity of the art depends on the personality of the artist. Celebrity sells. Picasso and Dali are examples of this.
But in some cases, there’s a huge disparity. Joe Sacco draws a vivid portrayal of an artist/rock star wannabe named Soba in War’s End, who fought in the Bosnian wars. Reading it, you’d think the guy is some international superstar who hobnobs with Bono and has his art shown in galleries worldwide.
But in a piece called “The Kiss,” he glues two bic lighters together. He also does performance art of playing a guitar with no strings, to signify being overlooked in the grand scheme of things. He also participated in making a monument to canned beef.
Is Soba’s art a visually striking medium that conveys a poignant message? To me it says “overrated.” Maybe Bosnians feel differently.
I think the article is pretty poorly written and not terribly informative, but I agree with the writer’s assessment that the first is a much more interesting and better painting. For me, it’s not even a contest. However, neither of them strikes me as something special or “great.” YMMV, of course.
Thanks for the local recommendations delphica!
Do you think he knows his appaloosas are pintos?
It seems odd that you criticize the first interpretation for it’s use of hyperbole (“I, as a viewer, am not “within the picture”, I can’t feel any cold or hear any sounds.”), yet use the same hyperbole in your appreciation of the second painting (“I can almost feel the brittleness of the tree branches. I can almost smell the cool, wet air. I can almost see the horse’s left front leg move.”).
The technical superiority of the first painting comes from the artists decision to omit or over-emphasize certain details; these choices are what makes an artist artistic. The second painting is merely a faithful depiction of a rainy street scene; technically competent, but more like an academic exercise.
Note that this doesn’t mean you have to like the choices the artist made in painting 1, but he is clearly making a statement here. In painting 2 he is saying nothing more than “here’s a street scene”. This lack of voice is what makes the second painting inferior.
This may get me laughed off the SDMB, but check out one of Sister Wendy’s books on art or one of her videos (DVDs) at the library. She’s a small, stout nun with a slight speech impediment, but I have enjoyed her opinions about types of art. I don’t always agree with her, but she does cover a spetrum from Medieval art to post-Modernism. Kinkade is not covered. I have been through her books with my kids and we both enjoyed it.
(and the difference between the two paintings of Chicago is amazing. I am not fond of either one-they’re too sentimental–but in the first one he shows some skill. The second one looks like the Chicago Fire is headed toward the Watertower…).
IYAM, the criticism is not for the use of hyperbole in and of iteself, but in assuming universal reactions to the two works which are not shared by that particular viewer.
No, no, no, no, and no. Nature is nature…there is no beauty or ugliness in it. It can be somewhat pretty at times, but nothing that causes me to stop, remember something, or take a second look.
Computer chips and bridges, and architecture, and whatever other man made structures/engineering projects you care to name are simply there. They don’t inspire any kind of emotion in me.
Conversely, the surest way to snap me out of my daze and then bore me to sleep at an art gallery is to start explaining the entire historical, religious, and anthropological context of a piece. So, again, different strokes. (Heh.)
See, I think it’s brilliant. The actual acquiring and putting together of the Bics isn’t even artistic, but what I love is that this guy had a sudden realization that if you glued Bics together that way they would “kiss”. I’ve handled plenty of Bics in my life and I’m pretty sure that would’ve never occured to me. When I saw the link called “The Kiss” and the description of two Bics glued together, I didn’t even picture it like that.
Wow. Doesn’t that get kind of … boring?
Is there anything that engages you emotionally?
There are no things that engage me emotionally. People can engage me emotionally, but I really prefer that it doesn’t happen, so I don’t allow it very often. I tried a little experiment earlier, when I actually allowed myself to feel certain emotions that I usually don’t, and, well, it was a failure. Nothing good came of it, nothing really bad came of it…but I had no compelling reason to proceed in that direction.
That always struck me as a rather sad song, from the tone of the singer’s voice.
I don’t see any emotional difference between this piece and the aforementioned Ride of the Valkyries.
I do, however, see a difference between both of them and rockin robin.
As for boring…well, yes. I exist in a constant state of boredom. It’s only broken when I’m absorbed in something else enough such that I don’t have the concentration to spare to think about anything else.
Um, yeah, that was my point exactly. His opinion is that the first painting is better, my opinion is that the second one is better. The supporting “evidence” that he gives for his opinion are, to me, simply incorrect. I can provide equally compelling “evidence” to support my opinion which, clearly, would hold no more water with him or you than his “evidence” does with me.
Why is the simple subjectivity of art judgements so hard for you to accept? We’ve been down this road before, but I’ll repeat: The difference between people like that author (and you), and people like me is that he believes he is “right” in some objective way, and I don’t believe that I am “right” in any objective way. He has his view, and I have mine, and they’re different, that’s all.
If he really was “right”, then his contention that “the use of texture and shadow puts the viewer within the picture” would apply to everyone. But it doesn’t. It applies to him, it may apply to you, and it may apply to many others, but it’s just not a universal truth. “Better”, by it’s very nature, is not objective.
The Albright-Knox, across the street from Buff State.
Exactly, thank you. I intentionally used similar hyperbole to illustrate the simple point that the author’s criteria for preferring the first painting can be equally applied for preferring the second. Also note that I intentionally use the word “preferring” here, knowing that it will irk those who maintain that art criticism is not a statement of one’s personal preference or taste, but an application of objective criteria. That is, after all, at the heart of the disagreement.
To you, sure. To me, it’s the opposite. The first painting is just sloppy, the second is technically far superior. To me. The first painting is certainly not “clearly” making a statement, although that can be true for you. To me, there’s no statement there other than, “Hey, I can’t really paint”. If the second painting lacks a voice to you, I can’t quibble. But it has a great voice to me, and in my opinion is far superior. (Hey, DianaG, did I put in enough "to me"s to make it clear that I’m not claiming anything more than one person’s opinion?)
If your statements above are merely a reflection of your personal view, great. If they are meant to imply that they have some better claim to “correctness” than my view, they just don’t. It’s all opinion, nothing more.
Sorry, LOUNE, I meant to say thanks the first time.
With all due respect, the statements above seem to be willfully obstinant, and you’ve pulled up the ladder on the argument by insisting that there is really nothing to argue. I could make the same argument about anything–in particular your contention that art is entirely subjective–and we really don’t get anywhere; so why then are you hanging around?
I suspect–though it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong–that you have arrived at your conclusion without really thinking about the issue. As this board is about fighting ignorance, I’d genuinely like to read you answers to the following questions; I think they may provide food for thought:
Do you see any difference between appreciating something and liking it; in short can you appreciate something you personally don’t like (“in your opinion”)?
Do you believe Kincade was technically inept when he painted the first painting? If not, can you think of an objective reason why he would paint the scene that way? If your answer is “for the money”, that simply begs the question “why did he think that painting would earn money?”
Would you say my opinion about either painting is correct if I said “there is no horse in the painting”? I could obstinately and accurately make this claim, as there is no actual equine animal inside the frame, but most folks would think I’m nuts if I continued to cling to that opinion. At what level does detail about the painting cease to be objective?
Is it possible for physical depictions to stir predictable emotions? Horror movies seem to rely on some objective standard of what scares us, and cultural artifacts exist that remind us of love. If so, can an artist use these same standards–even if they are not as clearly defined as, say, a computer programming language–and can a viewer use this data to analyze his/her response to a painting in an objective way?