I beg to differ.
Abstract art is, of course, not there to depict people and things, and many people couldn’t access it because of that; or even prefer kitsch to it. Cartoonist Al Capp said “Abstract art is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” (haw haw Al, why not add the “who flung the dung” gag?)
But people will also make the mistake that a work of abstract art, particularly abstract expressionism, is therefore supposed to function as the item itself. That’s falling short too. Hans Hoffmann: “A thing in itself never expresses anything. It is the relation between things that gives meaning to them and that formulates a thought. A thought functions only as a fragmentary part in the formulation of an idea.”
Or even when modern art still incorporates recognizable stuff, but in weird ways, it’s for a purpose that can only take place in the viewer’s mind. Odilon Redon, a 19th C. Symbolist who’d painted all kinds of dreamy beings and settings saw the newby 20th C. Surrealists painting ordinary objects in bizarre juxtapositions and immediately got the point : “the logic of the visible at the service of the invisible.”
It’s not really “magic” to recognize that the impact of a work of art is very different when you view it as a post-card sized image on a website, versus in person on a 20’ square canvas.
Non-realistic art in the 20th century was often produced to support various manifestos or theories about the nature of art. Usually theory follows art, but futurism, e.g., emerged from Maranetti’s 1909 Manifesto of Futurism, a lunatic piece worthy of QAnon, whose one critical observation was that speed was transforming the world. Dada and Bauhaus appeared shortly after. Others appeared more recently, but the days of shocking the world by flat art are over. I still like Red Alan’s Manifesto, though.
Movies cost too much to be made by theory, at least full-length movies to be distributed to the public are. One notable exception is Lars von Trier’s Dogme 95, the punk rock equivalent of stripping out all the glitzy excess for a minimalist purity, but going soft rather than loud. Dogme 95 films were a thing around the turn of the century. Shouldn’t critics - even reviewers - have known and understood what the movement stood for before writing about it?
Nobody knows what capital “A” Art is. A cultural elite once pontificated that they - and only they - knew. And that only they could create it. A horde of ragamuffin artists swarmed over their ideals and proved the elite wrong, hidebound, and ist-ticated in many ways (sexist, racist, classist, etc.) If everything is Art, then nothing is Art: why even have the word? So that also seems wrong. Putting some boundaries on Art, even minimalist Dogme 95 ones, provides islands where Art can be sorted and discussed. Good critics do that.
Exactly. Size can matter, and original vs copy does not. The replicas of Lascaux are impactful, despite not being original.
That really depends on the quality of the copy. Size isn’t the only consideration, just one of the more obvious. “Starry Night” is a pretty cool painting when viewed in reproductions, but I’ve never seen one that made a real attempt to capture the texture of the painting. Rothko is often dismissed for just painting big colored squares, but there’s an interplay of technique and material in his paintings that can’t really be captured by a reproduction, that’s quite breathtaking when seen in person. Even just seeing a painting in the context of a museum filled with other art can alter your experience with a work. I’ve seen tons of reproductions of “Guernica” before I visited the Reina Sofia, but seeing it in person had a legit physiological effect on me - seeing the actual thing made me feel nauseated and rubber-legged, and I had to go sit in the hall for a couple minutes to recover. I’ve never been sure what the difference was, although the sheer size of the original was certainly a factor, but I can say with absolute certainty that I’d never really seen the painting until I was in Madrid.
No, it’s not about that. I’m happy to agree to disagree and I’m not going to slog through all of his reviews but he has been famously wrong a lot. Sometimes to the point of reversing his opinion in print. There are movies he 'one-star’ed that went on to to win the Palm and Oscars.
But worse are the movies he didn’t understand so gave bad marks. He just isn’t good at understanding complicated movies. Example; Blade Runner - he gave it 1.5 stars and wrote:
"Once again, my comprehension began to slip, and finally I wrote down: ‘To the degree that I do understand, I don’t care.’ It won two Oscars.
I remember one review where he basically spent the whole review berating the director - not the film.
If he and your sensibilities align, great. But they don’t align with mine.
…for Best Visual Effects and Best Production Design. Ebert not understanding or caring about the story doesn’t mean the look of the film is bad or that he didn’t also enjoy the design of the film.
Of course there will be people who dislike Oscar-winning movies and movies that the majority consider Great. There is not a single film in history that every single person who watched it has liked. Doesn’t mean their opinions aren’t also valid if they at least come at it with legitimate criticism.
Many people have described what it’s like to descend into a cave, transverse narrow passages, climb through holes, battle the darkness, and then suddenly behold the images from tens of thousands of years ago. Each of the ones I’ve read emphasize that the experience is utterly unlike their earlier views of pictures or reproductions.
Of course, obviously, and it does not need to be said that reproductions of art can be impactful or any number of other positive adjectives. In earlier times, before photography and other media made duplicates easily available, reproductions of art were themselves valuable treasures.
I saw the traveling exhibit on the Mona Lisa, taking it apart in a variety of ways, pointing out elements that are hard to see or require knowledge to appreciate, blowing it up in size from its tiny self. Maybe that’s better than viewing the original behind a horde of other tourists and velvet ropes. Maybe not. All I know is that from personal experience of visiting museums and seeing originals, reproductions do not have the impact of the originals. I certainly would not trust any critic who had not made the effort to see as many of the originals by an artist or in a movement or era as possible.
No one has ever been able to provide a quantitative rather than qualitative difference, true. But I certainly would not trust any critic who says there is no qualitative difference either.
What do you mean by “wrong” in this context? If he didn’t like a movie that won an Oscar, was he “wrong” to not like it?
His review of Blade Runner is available online here. He gave it three stars, and your quote does not appear anywhere in the review.
Are you sure you remember it? Because you’ve made a lot of claims about what Roger Ebert wrote that are factually incorrect.
btw I do not agree that every film that has won Palmes and Oscars is a good film. I would more take the word of someone whose critique I trust, which Ebert is for the most part.
Googling that quote, it was from Ebert’s review of “The Usual Suspects,” not “Blade Runner.” I completely disagree with his review of that film, that’s one of my all-time favorite movies, but I don’t know what @Lucas_Jackson thinks that is supposed to prove. Like I said, no film has 100% universal approval.
Altho I know that the majority of people so firmly believe in the greatness of Shakespeare that in reading this judgment of mine they will not admit even the possibility of its justice, and will not give it the slightest attention, nevertheless I will endeavor, as well as I can, to show why I believe that Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author.
-Leo Tolstoy
I haven’t seen Usual Suspects in years, but I remember being blown away by it the first time, then watching it again when I knew the big twist, and thinking, “Nothing about this actually makes any sense.”
But that was forever ago, and I can’t recall specifically what problems I had with it on the second viewing.
But now you’re not talking about the art itself, but the chain of events leading to experiencing it. Why not include the taste of the escargot eaten the previous evening? Every moment is unique of course, but I don’t see the value of ascribing special significance to art itself merely because it’s an original vs a reproduction.
It’s a cave painting - why would the cave not be part of the experience?
Does it effect the experience of viewing the art? Then by all means, absolutely include it.
You are free to go on believing this. All I can say is that you are truly missing something special by not seeing the originals whenever possible.
And there’s another problem: gatekeeping the experience of art to the few privileged enough to see the originals.
Indeed. But that is a separate subject entirely.
Sorry, that’s a problem with what, exactly? The fact that reproductions of art seldom are able to capture the experience of the original? That’s not “gatekeeping,” that’s just how the human experience of art works.
A problem with letting elites define what is art.
If someone defines an object of art as everything within some spatial-temporal proximity of it, it’s not really the object they’re talking about, but their own life experiences. Life experiences are necessarily unique and special. There’s no need to invoke the object or ascribe magical properties to it.
And insisting that one needs to see the original (and not a sufficiently accurate replica) is telling almost everyone that that art is inaccessible. When in reality, a replica could allow them to access it. Yes, it won’t be the same experience that someone seeing the original has, but that’s true even of others seeing the original.