Didn’t there used to be a TV show called Cockrock?
Sewell had an art series in the UK, tried to watch it a few times and just could not get along with it.
He has appeared in a few other non-art shows as a ‘personality’ things like ‘Have I got news for you’ - he is well enough know over here.Why wouldn’t I know a little of him?
As for ‘The Independent’ seems to me one of the few papers that goes around the provinces, its not as London centric in terms of art reporting as the rest of our press. I even get that on my mobile these days.
I certainly have not done any more on art critics that received it through the media, for good or bad, so that makes me maybe very lightly more aware than much of the public but obviously not any sort of authority on critics at all.
Point about someone like Hockney is that he explained what he was doing and why it worked - but the other artist was just smearing paint around and letting others call it art.
The issue about smudges and smears on canvas is that it only gets some value when it is perceived as being by a famous artist, and that value is soon removed - despite receiving initial critical acclaim, when the true source of the work is revealed. There is at least a significant part of the art world for whom the work is less important than the name in the corner.
As for this,
Well here goes, its certainly not a question I had ever considered - why bother with it if it is not intended to convey meaning? You’ll need to explain this one to me - to say I do not get that question, or even why it would be asked, may reveal more about me than is wise - but go on, have at it.
Do you appreciate classical music? If so, what meaning is there to, say, a Chopin nocturne or a Mahler symphony?
art is meaning. Art is feeling.
For the experience itself. The experience MAY result in the generation of meaning (or it may not) but the point of having the experience is to HAVE IT, not as a means to some other end.
If all you want from a piece of art is meaning, why bother engaging with the actual art at all? Instead of looking at a painting, why not just cut to the chase and have someone tell you what it means? It will be much faster. Visual art is a really lousy way to communicate a specific message. It’s confusing and inefficient. And it’s open to all sorts of errors and misreadings. If you want meaning, you’re better off reading a novel.
Sometimes art appreciation is taught like cryptography. Learn these techniques and you can decode what this painting means! But that’s really a horrible way to look at art. Paintings don’t exist to be figured out, they exist to be experienced. Particularly with abstract art the point is not to try to puzzle out the secret message that’s hidden inside. The point is to let your mind wander over a particular configuration light and color that’s within your visual field. It’s like a walk in the park for your mind.
Some parks are fun to walk through and some are dull. There’s an art to good park design. If you walk in a lot of parks you can tell a good park from a bad one. Pollock designs good parks. They’re fun to walk in, even if you can’t say what the experience is supposed to mean.
Wow.
I’ve never heard of this guy before but I just fell in love with this one of his
Yeah, I wonder why this guy isn’t more well-known.
(BTW, did you notice on that webpage you linked to, abstract expressionism is defined under “abstract impressionism”? What’s the deal with that? I see that Wikipedia does have an entry for “abstract impressionism,” but the article on the art history page you linked to is clearly talking about abstract expressionism.)
Your disorganized complaining again fails to touch in any way on Jackson Pollock or anything anyone has said in this thread.
What “meaning” is conveyed by any piece of instrumental music? What “meaning” is conveyed by a delicious meal?
I can’t say anything about Mahler, and most likely anything heard from Chopin is likely to have its roots in an advert backing track - no I am not knowledgeable about classical music, but still I take your point.
You could have readily mentioned a great number of other musicians that I do know of and you might not relate to at all - so that comes down to personal appreciation. We do have music that does have all sorts of meanings, from the ‘have a good time’ right through to earnest and political campaigning protest song and with many levels of subtlety and allegory in between.
Musicians as art I can understand though, there is a technical skill, which means little if it is not coupled to expression. Music played dead flat, straight from the page loses life and interest. learning the technical ability takes years and its what makes the expression possible.
Abstract art to me frequently lacks the technical ability and the discipline that goes with it - I will however qualify this.
Lowry, I understand, was a very good draughtsman and yet his works look deceptively simple - I’m not in a position to say why - since I have received this only on tv shows , such as when when local councils get into the news for trying secure Lowry work for their local galleries - in the course of those shows, more conventional and true representational images have been shown to make the point.
I have no doubt that there are abstract artists who have technical skills and choose to use them in a manner that is not obvious at first glance.
That still does not cover all abstract art, why does the work of Escher seem to lack a certain credibility with art critics? - I went to a display of his work in Bradford (Cartwright Hall) a couple of years back and it seemed to me that was a huge amount of technical skill along with some real unusual concepts - and some wit too. In that exhibition there were some comments about Escher which included statements about this lack of acceptance This work had recognisable elements but put into strange situations - that’s not what I see with Pollock. At which point I have to admit - I just don’t get it at all.
You got there in the end. Bear in mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with not appreciating a particular work of art, it might simply not match your sense of aesthetics. This is especially true of abstract art, it either clicks for you or not. With something like a film, I can appreciate the visuals or the acting without necessarily enjoying the whole effect. Abstract art can’t really be broken down and rationalised in the same way, people can only talk about how they experience it.
He was a skilled draftsman, and he had funky ideas, but his images come off as one-note gimmicks. There’s not a lot that you can say about them besides “nicely done.”
Critics like art that’s fun to talk about. Art that’s fun to talk about tends to have a bunch of different things going on inside it. It works on a variety of different levels. It breaks new ground, either conceptually or in terms of technique. There’s an internal tension between different strategies of interpretation.
There’s not much ambiguity in Escher’s work; there’s not much room for intellectual play. A picture of a room with weird curved perspective is a picture of a room with weird curved perspective. It’s hard to say anything about it other than “Wow, that’s a nicely drawn picture of a room with weird perspective!”
Yes, the point isn’t Mahler or Chopin specifically. The point is, if you appreciate any kind of instrumental music, perhaps you can analogize and see the perspective of those who appreciate non-representational art.
What is the purpose of instrumental music? What is the meaning of instrumental music? There is none. With a few exceptions, it doesn’t mimic anything in the real world; it has no universal meaning. One culture’s music can sound like noise to another culture. It exists because it evokes emotions, memories, beauty, etc. I can’t tell you the meaning of Chopin’s Nocturne in E flat major, but I can tell you it makes me feel wistful and sentimental. If I listen to it deeply enough, I might even tear up. Others might just hear a pretty melody, and nothing else.
In the same way, when I look at a Pollock, I may feel feel energized and excited or meditative and reflective, depending on the piece. But, like the Chopin piece, there’s no intrinsic meaning or purpose to it and others may perceive it simply as a canvas of random squiggles.
I disagree with the last paragraph. (Well, I don’t disagree that to you it lacks technical ability), I think to do what folks like Kandinsky and Pollock and Rioppole and the many other artists mentioned in this thread does require a command of the craft. Yes, there is contemporary art that is more conceptual and lacks in technique, but the ones being discussed in this thread I would consider master craftsmen.
But, as in music, technique isn’t everything. Or even that important at all, as long as the feeling comes through or it evokes a response from the listener. Does it make a difference to me whether a piece is easy to play or difficult? Not at all. All that matters is how it makes me feel. Good technique does facilitate expression, and there needs to be some basic base of technique, but mastery of technique is not what makes expression possible. I think it’s a worthy goal, but even those rough edges of technique, a little slop here and there, can help evoke an emotion.
Why are you so focused on discussing your paranoid fantasies about what you imagine the evil art critics are saying rather than discussing the topic of the thread?
Mister Nyx
Looking at the content of your posts in this thread it seems pretty clear what you are aiming at.
The accusations of paranoia are quite interesting, I understand exactly how you are preparing the ground. You are expecting me to react and attack you for being offensive, and then you will then use your unfounded allegations of paranoia as a vehicle to prove your point.
You manner has been pretty provocative to almost anyone who questions or posits a different outlook to yours. I believe that what you are doing is nothing more than trying to get a rise out of other posters merely for your own entertainment. A useful effect for you would be to draw other posters into a similar vein of posting and create a pile-on.
Your intention is to try and get me to use a certain word to describe the sort of person who indulges in this sot of behaviour, and then you can sit back and chuckle at all the damage you have caused. I will not do you the dignity of researching of your posting history, I would not waste my time on you. Your posts so far have been just this side of abusive and very much content free.
I look forward to your next post in this thread, or perhaps you would invite me to discuss things further in another, and more appropriate part of this message board.
You are, as far as I can tell, a person who throws out wild accusations, and from my very wide experience in life, I have found that such people are very much the object of their own disdain. Such people as yourself are mirrors - they look at the world and see their own failings reflecting in it. People such as yourself then strive to impose their flawed personality upon the world so that they do not feel alone and unloved, they will then have the comfort that others are either easily led, or as sadly deluded and as paranoid as themselves.
I regret that the beauty of art is not something that is evident in your posts in this thread, you have not shown any reason for any non-art aware person to endeavour to discover more, in fact you truly display all the very worst aspects of a person who appears to have some knowledge of art, and assumes that others who do not are ignorant - there has not been one word of encouragement, no suggestion that perhaps I might introduce myself to abstract art with some recommendations, not one comment you have made has been constructive.
I think your accusations of paranoia are the classic defensive posture of a person who is insecure about their own personality and indeed it is usually the first person to use the word ‘paranoia’ that is the person who displays all the qualities that make up the paranoid narcissist.
I have noted that other posters have perhaps been exasperated by my postings, and maybe from their point of view they are fed up with explaining or defending art, however their posts have been polite and civil, and the best advert for art is the maturity and politeness and tolerance of such posters. Perhaps they understand that trying to educate and lead will result in encounters of this sort, it is such a pity that you are unable to emulate them.
casdave, after an opening salvo like…
…and other posts, it’s a little late to take the moral high ground on open-mindedness. That said, I appreciate that some people in this thread have still tried to explain why they like Pollock, or art in general.
And, in related news, Munch’s The Scream was a real steal yesterday @ 120 million dollars.
To be fair, in this case, some forms could be distinguished.
Why do you care how much someone is willing to pay for a painting?
So I was at the Tate Modern today, and of course I thought about this thread. I have to say, there really is a lot of shite that gets called art - particularly anything called an ‘installation’ - but there was also a lot of gripping, interesting art as well.
I found a few comments to be very informative and intelligent.
We just viewed the Jean Paul Riopelle exhibition at the QC Musee des Beaux arts, and it’s even more awesome in person. I hadn’t heard of him either, and frankly had forgotten this thread, but seeing the art reminded me. Wholly engaging indeed.
Sadly, however, it was only the second-best exhibition in the building! How is Alfred Pellan not better known outside Canada!? I could have spent hours looking at his art and random scribblings if my feet hadn’t finally tired out.