But that’s not remotely a part of this conversation. Nobody here is talking about the definition of art. No one is saying that a replica of a work of art isn’t art itself. Saying that the experience of viewing a work of art in person can’t be duplicated with a photograph of it has nothing to do with what is and is not defined as “art”.
Every human being’s reaction to every piece of art is defined by that person’s life experiences.
And the idea that the experience of seeing a work of art can be informed by the environment in which you see it is hardly controversial. If I have a digital copy of a movie - seeing it in a crowded theater, watching it on my TV at home alone, or viewing it on my iPhone on a crowded bus are going to give me vastly different experiences, even though the movie itself is exactly the same in all three contexts.
Yeah, well, space and time are a thing, and that’s not the fault of art “elites.” It’s just a fact of existence that there are intangible elements to viewing a work of art in person that aren’t easily reproduced. Especially with really old artifacts - there’s something about looking at an object, and knowing that another human touched that specific object a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years ago that absolutely cannot be reproduced by any replica, for obvious reasons.
And let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re not generally talking about “sufficiently accurate replicas.” We’re talking about people looking at art through a Google search. A person who has only ever studied a full-sized, exact replica of “David” might have had a poorer emotional experience than someone viewing the original, but they certainly have enough information to have an informed opinion about the statue. That is absolutely not true for someone who’s only ever seen a Rothko in a browser window.
Why is the opinion of the late Roger Ebert more valid about a movie any better than mine?
We’re talking about interpreting art. Whether or not to restrict interpretation to only original art and not replica art is on topic.
I missed the memo. I’m taking about actual replicas of art, as indicated by my reference to professional reproductions like Lascaux. I accept without reservation that viewing pixels is fundamentally different than viewing a concrete object.
The OP isn’t talking about the definition of art, though? “Why is this guy’s opinion about art better than mine?” is not remotely the same as “What counts as art?” The distinction between seeing art in person and viewing a reproduction isn’t about the definition of art, its about who has the most informed opinion. If the van Gogh museum burned to the ground, and all of the originals of his works were lost, then viewing reproductions of his work would be the only possibly way to interpret them. It wouldn’t be as good an interpretation as those made by people who still had access to the originals, but it would be the best we could do under the circumstances.
Which is fine, but I’m pretty sure Exapno wasn’t, when you first replied to him. It wasn’t clear you were talking about replicas until several posts into this digression. High quality replicas don’t even exist for the vast majority of fine art.
Does it? Complaining about the plot of The Usual Suspects being too confusing is pretty different from complaining about the plot of “Blade Runner” being too confusing. The whole point of The Usual Suspects is that the plot is supposed to be super confusing, until the end, where it all falls into place. But it still needs to keep the viewer’s interest up until the big reveal, and for Roger Ebert, at least, it failed to do that. No part of the bit of his review you quoted is inaccurate about anything.
Well, yeah, of course. There is no wrong answer to “Did you like this movie?” Your opinion is 100% as correct as Roger Ebert’s opinion, even when they’re diametrically opposed.
See, this is why I’ve tried to get out of this lunatic argument. I never said or implied that the average person needs to see the original to appreciate art. I agreed with you that reproductions of art can be “impactful”. I do go further than that and insist that seeing the original adds a, say, special sauce. You argued that “There’s no magic essence that makes the originals special.” Maybe you’re wrong about that. Maybe that’s where your arguments parted from reality. Ironic that magic would be involved.
I did say that professional critics have a duty to see originals whenever possible, emphasizing the point that critics and reviewers are different creatures, and both of them different from ordinary viewers. You’ve ignored that aspect entirely, despite it being at the core of my argument. I rate that “interesting technique, but not art.”
Yeah yeah, this quote was about The Usual Suspects. Can I just say that Blade Runner was in fact a 1.5 star movie and Blade Runner: 2049 was far worse? Talk about knowing not art when you see it.
My first wife was an artist. Her style was representational, but often in fantasy ways. When my father first saw one of her pieces, he did a spontaneous commentary on it, pointing out each element how they connected to form the whole, and what it represented. After he left, I said to my wife, 'He’s obviously very impressed by what you did."
“Yeah,” she said. “Too bad he’s completely wrong.”
“What do you mean, wrong?”
“What he saw was not what I meant, at all.”
“What did you mean? What did you want to say?”
“It really doesn’t matter,” she said. “I drew what I felt. He saw what he felt.”
I spent my entire working life in communications. To me, if you mean to say something and the other person doesn’t get what you’re trying to say, it’s a failure. To her, the point was not the message, it was whether or not it inspired a reaction.
BTW, I personally loved the piece, whatever the hell she intended it to say. It’s the one piece of her art I asked for in the divorce and it still hangs in my house.
Well, just as I don’t see a significant distinction between an original object of art and a sufficient replica, I don’t see a significant distinction between a viewer, a reviewer, and a critic. To be clear, this is in the context of art interpretation. There’s clear economic differences among all those.
The upshot is that you, as the creator, have no right to dictate how your creation is interpreted (any more than I have the right to dictate that anyone click on any links I embed in my post).
I don’t think the author has the final say in how his or her work is interpreted. I can imagine a work calling to mind an association for the majority of their audience, one that the author missed at the moment of the work’s creation. Indeed, Nick Cave goes further in the Red Hand Files linked to in Post #7 (thanks don_t_ask)
There is great danger in asking a songwriter to explain their songs – or at least to make the assumption that their interpretation is in some way more valid or true than your own. This is simply not the case. I believe the fan often has a deeper understanding of a given song than its creator. Sometimes, I feel that I am the last to know what one of my own songs actually means. Sometimes, they take many years to reveal themselves. With that in mind, as you’ve asked, I will tell you what I think is going on in ‘Rings of Saturn’. I only hope my answer does not diminish the value of the song for you.
All that said, there are interpretations that don’t make a lot of sense and can be demonstrated as such. By extension, there are better and worse interpretations by fan-wank standards. All the same, if someone wants to stick with their reaction after having certain internal inconsistencies pointed out, there’s no helping it and no necessary falsehood, provided they are merely stating how they reacted. Some reactions are of wider interest than others though.
And that right there is the crux of the debate whether art is a form of expression, as my first wife claimed, or communication, which I claimed. I’ve had this conversation with many graphic designers (some of whom are married to “fine artists”). And the line gets even blurrier, because a reporter can turn around and write a novel, and a painter can do illustrations on the side.
I love Pollock. And I am sure he had loads of pat answers.
He was full of shit, tho’
Drunk, mean and probably abusive, and was messing with young girls he shouldn’t have been. Schizophrenic and killed himself in a car, drunk.
Yeah, I wouldn’t have believed a word he said. But I love his canvases.
A thereby hangs a thread. Because when Jimmy Breslin wrote novels they were pretty good, but when Tom Wolfe switched from New Journalism to fiction it was disappointing. Andy Warhol started out as a gifted commercial artist, created some worthwhile statements as a pop artist, then reverted back to a celebrity artist not more much esteemed than Leroy Neiman.
The other thing I’ve noticed about viewing Rothko and Pollock in person is seeing not just one, but several works in the same room, greatly enhances the experience.
Unless your Dad was some kind of savant at getting his paint splatters to land with intentionality in fractally-complex patterns, no, his drop cloths were nothing like a Pollock.
I “get” Pollack. I don’t “get” Rothko. But i haven’t really looked at his works since i was young, maybe i should try again
Pollack’s works aren’t just large, they are 3D, and brimming with energy. I don’t really like them, but they are impressive and moving in a way a painter’s drop cloth just isn’t. I understand why someone who isn’t me might want to spend millions to have one in his mansion and enjoy it up close and personal every day.