There are no “circles” and nothing you MUST do. Picasso is objectively important because he was the first person to perceive a profoundly deep truth about modern existence and then render it in a persuasive new language of his own invention. Nobody doubts this, and your opinion, frankly, doesn’t matter.
What I came in here to say.
The participants in this thread who have chosen not to educate themselves on the historical context of cubism have adopted a tone that almost suggests they expect to be arrested and imprisoned for this choice.
You’ve clearly made a choice, **Endiqua **et al.; why act like you don’t have one?
To the heart of the matter though: is your definition of beauty really so exclusively sensual and divorced from your intellect?
To wit: have you ever been attracted to someone based on their character rather than their looks?
I often find art more beautiful after learning about its underlying ethics.
But…if those are “supposed to be” universally appealing because of the things behind them, why do so many people have a hard time finding them appealing, much less getting the things behind them? Maybe the “hate” comes from frustration because we’re told “this is important stuff and you should understand it” and a lot of people, me included, just DON’T get it, and it makes us feel stupid!! Are those of us who look at this and go “meh, this is worthless and meaningless to me” really that lacking?
Maybe I’m getting too hung up on the word “failure” and assigning blame. I admit I’m a tad sensitive because there are those who will sneer at anyone who says “important art” is lost on them, with the corollary that only the truly intelligent “get” this stuff (or that all one needs to do is study a bit and it all becomes clear). I don’t consider myself stupid (although undereducated and unequipped for this discussion) and there’s a lot of this that just leaves me going :dubious:
Okay. THAT particular little nugget was worth this entire discussion and raging headache. That puts it in a context I can understand.
On that note, I have to retire. Thank you all, but especially Miller and Capybara, for a fascinating discussion. It has been uncomfortable, painful, and confusing, and thus I am forced to conclude that it is important art and should be recorded for posterity. 
Looking back over the thread I see that Miller made a couple of very similar points to what I’ve just put in many more words; When you’re back I’d be interested to know what you think of the haute couture/ physics discussion.
I believe I’ve said more than once that I have explored the context in an effort to find out just why Picasso and other artists are considered so important. The context, however, has not made his work any more accessible to me.
I have made an effort and have ATTEMPTED to understand. This entire discussion has been an attempt on my part to understand by talking to people who can actually explain their point of view to me, like Miller and Capybara, as opposed to reading articles in books and magazines, etc.
Clearly I haven’t made it out yet. Yes, your explanation vis-a-vis haute couture also made a lot of sense, and both of these explanations will help me a lot as I think about this in the future. I sense shifting in the tectonic plates of my mind and while I doubt I will ever truly appreciate Picasso, cubism, Pollock, etc., I can at least perhaps put them in a better perspective.
Well, I never said they were good at it.
But really, think of it this way. There are rules of color and composition that seem to be pretty much universal. If you look at The Last Supper, it’s immediatly obivous that Jesus is the most important figure because he’s right smack-dab in the middle of the picture. If someone’s painting a calm pastoral landscape, they don’t use sharply contrasting colors, because sharp contrasts are not calming, they’re agitating. The minimalists were trying to use these rules in as pure a form as possible. If you have a painting of a man sitting in a blue room, crying, well, that’s clearly a sad painting. Mostly because the man is crying, but also because we’re all trained to recognize “blue” as a “sad” color. So, if you take away the crying man, and just have the blue room, is it still sad? What if you took away the room, and just left the blue? Does it still convey any emotion? Surprisingly often, it does.
Yes. Not just intellectually, but morally, as well. You’re bad, stupid people.
No, seriously, who actually says that? I’ve never seen anyone come out and say, “If you don’t understand this, you’re dumb,” about art before. I’m sure some examples must exist, but I can’t believe that there are enough of them to justify the almost constant refrain of, “It’s all a big con game,” that crops up in every. single. thread we have on the subject. Including the OP of this thread. That’s right, it’s a con game. I don’t actually enjoy modern art, I’ve just been tricked into thinking that I do. Either that, or I’m actively lying to you about enjoying it! You get insulted like that often enough, it’s hard not to start off the conversation defensively.
Glad you got something from it! I know I always learn something new from these threads, it’s nice to know I can reverse the flow on occasion.
I do. I don’t know jack about art, but I find Jackson Pollack’s paintings emotionally evocative. I certainly don’t know what the message is, if there is one, but who cares? I can’t tell what a lot of rock songs are talking about either, and I still enjoy them for the emotional content.
So maybe Pollack’s stuff works for some people and not for others. Which makes it no different than any other work of art. Certainly not a “big con” like BarnOwl suggests.
What really drives me nuts is the people who say “anyone could paint that”. Nonsense. Even if only 1 in 10 people (to pick an arbitrary number) gets anything out of a Jackson Pollack painting, that’s still an accomplishment. If I dripped paint on a canvas, I doubt even one in a million people would think it was anything other than pure crap.
Just for myself, I’ll say that I really like the haute coture/fashion analogy. In fact next time I find myself in a conversation on this topic, I think I’ll use it ( with all due attribution of course ). Bjork in a swan dress is a pretty evocative image.
Me, I’m one of those people with a absolutely minimal background in art history ( I have an old book or two I’ve skimmed ). I tend to find myself most attracted to those 16th/17th century Dutch/Flemish realists - exquisitely detailed portraits, landscapes, still lifes. It’s one of the main reasons I like wandering around San Francisco’s Legion of Honor, for stuff like this. By the way if anyone knows where I can get a print of this portrait of Ana de Mendoza de la Cerda, Princess of Eboli I’d appreciate it. Love the eyepatch ;).
Yet for some reason I also like Pollack quite a bit - a number of his paintings I just find fascinating to stare at. Not sure why the dichotomy. We what we like, I guess :).
How about we let Pollock speak for himself?
I’m dead serious. This really gives you a new perspective on the matter.
I prefer the explanation Tom Wolfe offers for minimalism and some other forms of abstract expressionism in his book “The Painted Word.” Wolfe argues that minimalism and these other forms were a form of communication between art critics and theorists writing in influential journals that were read by museum curators and collectors and such, and artists. The art critics would announce their theory about art, and the artists would obligingly create works that confirmed them. So that when an art critic spoke about works that “respected the integrity of the canvas as a two-dimensional surface” certain artists would obligingly put a lot of thinner in their paint and create paintings that had no hint of impasto going on in them.
The art critics would see these painting that conformed to their theories and describe them in the pages of the magazines they wrote for as important artworks that are on the cutting edge. Museum curators and collectors would read these words and then buy the paintings for huge amounts of money.
Result: profit. Wolfe’s theory is that in the case of minimalism and some other forms of abstract expressionism, there is no real artistic expression going on, it’s just whoring after money. Particularly naked whoring after money once you realize the relationship between what the critics write and what the artists create. In those cases, there is no “there” there – it’s just something someone did for money, and describing it’s artistic intent is like asking why farmers paint barns red (red paint is cheap).
Quite true. I have an example in mind from the world of art: one of my favorite science fiction book cover artists (well, OK, my favorite), Richard M. Powers who was strongly influenced by surrealists such as Yves Tanguy and Salvador Dali. Tanguy’s stuff was often criticized as works a child might paint, but Powers “got” them and realized that surrealism was a great way to convey the emotional impact of the alienness of the world of technology and space that was being explored and described by science fiction writers.
This is pretty clearly the case of Powers using the tools that Tanguy created to describe subconscious feelings in a more accessible way, that happened to be a perfect “fit” for the text his art “illustrated.”
And I have to say, it’s MUCH more interesting than all the super-realistic paintings of bodybuilders and thong babes fighting dragons and flying spaceships that presently constitutes most SF cover art.
I think Miller, capybara, KLG et al have made any contribution I could make to this discussion superfluous (except the standard “You really have to see the actual paintings, not prints!” rant), but I do have one thing to say:
It’s Pollock, people!
Once again, you forget that there are people who are capable of understanding it, even do understand it, but still think it’s crap as visual art.
I’m no art cognoswhatever, matter of fact I even followed the Pure Sciences track in high school, but I can tell you I like Juan Gris and can’t swallow Picasso if you dunk him in chocolate (any of his periods).
For me it isn’t really the specific movement or whatever - there’s some folks out there whose sense of composition pleases mine and others with whom I clash, and that’s it.
When you see paint on a canvas that has been applied in shapes that represent reality, you ARE giving it explanations and interpretations. You’re giving it meaning. You’re saying “this is a tree, this is a house, this is a person’s face.”
Actually it’s not.
Actually it’s just red, yellow, white, brown, blue, grey, green, orange. That’s really all it is.
The rest is a trick of our minds.
It helps if someone actually walks up to a painting. Looking at a reproduction in a book or on the 'net just isn’t the same. In fact, strolling through galleries full of art can open your eyes. I live in a city with some fine museums–so I’ve got a “personal” collection that has educated me over the years. Thus, I’ve been inspired to do some research.
My fave at MFAH is Derain’s Turning Road. It’s huge & the colors are blindingly bright–nothing like this thumbnail.
If someone goes to a baseball game & has managed to remain ignorant of the basic “rules”–they will be bored out of their skull.
Relative to other visual artists, Picasso is even worse in person. Many other artists actually do lose a lot from not being able to see their works in person, whereas Picasso doesn’t do anything more for me than what I see on a screen or reproduction.
In fact, before I saw some of his work in person, I didn’t dislike him, I just didn’t really have a thing for him. But I was underwhelmed by seeing his stuff in person.
I quibble–include the idea they they may not be talking to anyone but themselves. This art of course has a cultural context, but the artist does not care that it speaks to anyone else as long as it pleases himself. Labor of love thing.
(There are those stories about artists who refused to sell one particular painting, keeping it always close, with the legends embellishing on this–the statue came alive, or he struck the statue and commanded it to speak, or he stepped into his painting and disappeared. That is art done for oneself, not giving a shit what anyone else thought.)
Plenty of lit is like this–Nabokov, Tolkien notoriously, and I think Picassso too.