# Somebody explain the artistic merit of this painting to me please **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 15, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380 "2013-05-15T06:28:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/221 "2013-05-17T00:55:34Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I was equally stunned by his response, as it seemed to me more or less the opposite of scholarship. Someone looking into the artist’s intention is doing the scholarship that goes into biography. Art criticism is a different kind of scholarship. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/222 "2013-05-17T01:02:50Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I was equally stunned by his response, as it seemed to me more or less the opposite of scholarship. But I quickly confirmed that this was the common reaction among the curatorial staff. What the artist meant to do was irrelevant or at most a historical footnote, it was the audience who gave art its meaning. That sounds about right to me. I don’t want my art to have a meaning, as I said before. I just want it to be. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/223 "2013-05-17T01:09:41Z")
I’m going to be crude here, but I really don’t understand why people need “meaning” in their art. Who gives a shit what the intent was? What does it mean to YOU? I have no clue what Chopin intended when he wrote his Nocturne in Eb, Op 9. No 2. But it evokes a feeling and emotion in me. It makes me want to cry. It sounds sentimental, plaintive, reflective, etc. to me. Do I care what Chopin’s intent was? Not one iota. And I don’t think he cares either. There is no singular meaning to art. Art, IMHO, should be ambiguous. It should be imbued with meaning by the viewer. It should have multiple interpretations. Art that has an obvious viewpoint isn’t art to me–it’s propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/224 "2013-05-17T01:10:31Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > That sounds about right to me. I don’t want my art to have a meaning, as I said before. I just want it to be. I don’t disagree. But I don’t always know why some work of art affects me the way it does any more than the artist knows what he is communicating when he creates it. A good interpretation can have a real ring of truth. It’s also nice to know when I am not alone in seeing a piece in some particular way. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/225 "2013-05-17T01:17:10Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m going to be crude here, but I really don’t understand why people need “meaning” in their art. Who gives a shit what the intent was? … I agree with this, but nevertheless it seems that art requires a meaning or rationale in order to push it to the level of $40 million dollar price tags. I suspect that it is too embarrassing for many rich folks to say, “I spent $40 million because it was so pretty.” It’s also required to sell it to a museum collection. Someone has to give a rationale and context for how it fits into the museum’s collection and their acquisition goals, whatever those might be. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/226 "2013-05-17T01:24:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This is a fact, or at least it was a fact yesterday when the painting was officially sold for that amount. Monetary value is an extremely variable quantity in the case of things like works of art. > > This is an opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion. Yes, I am. But not all opinions are equal. It seems to me that someone defending two purple squares with a line between them as having artistic merit has the quite a bit of verbal jazz hand waving to do. > [@](#): > > This is an accusation that AFAIK is entirely false. Whatever you may think about the merits or lack thereof of Barnett Newman’s work, it’s extremely unlikely that he or other Color Field painters deliberately tried to make paintings that they didn’t think were art but hoped to fool critics and buyers into accepting as art. I think the art speaks for itself, and I think that it’s saying, “Let’s see if some sap will buy THIS!” > [@](#): > > To recap some of the things said previously (and repeatedly) about Abstract Expressionism/Color Field painting, since it seems pretty clear you haven’t bothered to read the thread: Actually, did read the thread. I just disagree with you. > [@](#): > > If you personally think the answer is “no”, that’s fine, you don’t like Abstract Expressionist/Color Field genres and you’re entitled to your opinion. > > But that doesn’t mean that painters like Newman were deliberately “bullshitting” about what they were trying to achieve aesthetically, or that they were not genuinely attempting to produce works that were well-crafted and artistically important. It’s the nature of the art that says it’s bullshit. Two purple squares with a line between them. Come on. Give up. You don’t have a leg to stand on. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/227 "2013-05-17T01:26:56Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Someone looking into the artist’s intention is doing the scholarship that goes into biography. Art criticism is a different kind of scholarship. Surely art criticism should consider the artist. Whether the art actually conveys what the artist intends to convey should say _something_ about the merit of the artist. And AFAIAC, scholarship that intentionally ignores easily available avenues of research is inadequate scholarship. That’s not to say that Johns would agree with the interpretation or even respond to the inquiry, but to fail to make the inquiry or even to conceive of making it was, and to me still is, an indictment of the whole field of study. Ultimately, lacking input from artists, all they have to study are each others’ opinions, and perhaps some less “scholarly” sources like art critic reviews in the media. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/228 "2013-05-17T01:32:30Z")
**Evil Captor** , someone can learn to draw a passable person with a few months of practice. This doesn’t mean that portraiture is just a body with some clothes. Your conclusions aren’t worth engaging with because your characterization is so shallow. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/229 "2013-05-17T01:32:46Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I agree with this, but nevertheless it seems that art requires a meaning or rationale in order to push it to the level of $40 million dollar price tags. I suspect that it is too embarrassing for many rich folks to say, “I spent $40 million because it was so pretty.” > > It’s also required to sell it to a museum collection. Someone has to give a rationale and context for how it fits into the museum’s collection and their acquisition goals, whatever those might be. One thing that isn’t being emphasized enough here is that the money isn’t tied directly to the quality/meaning/deepened of a painting. There is a historical element to that 44 mil price tag. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/230 "2013-05-17T01:34:35Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I don’t disagree. But I don’t always know why some work of art affects me the way it does any more than the artist knows what he is communicating when he creates it. A good interpretation can have a real ring of truth. It’s also nice to know when I am not alone in seeing a piece in some particular way. OK. Well, I don’t disagree, either. (Holy litotes, Batman!) And I’m fine with people who need or want more “meaning” in their art, or who find “intent” particularly important. As I said before, I’m a simpleton: for me, it’s the visceral reaction. Sometimes, a little scholarship helps me appreciate or understand a work of art more, but at the end of the day, it’s the aesthetic that hits me. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/231 "2013-05-17T01:43:01Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m going to be crude here, but I really don’t understand why people need “meaning” in their art. Who gives a shit what the intent was? What does it mean to YOU? Honestly? I care, for a couple of reasons. First, art is a form of communication for me. Sure, it’s one-way, but the artist is putting an idea from his or her head into mine via the art. Knowing the artist’s intent can flavor that meaning, or give me a greater appreciation of it, sometimes. Second and related, art is social for me. By experiencing art I’m connecting with someone else. I especially don’t like it when someone imputes gross motives to someone else’s art in the name of criticism. Last summer I sat through a lecture in which someone analyzed the naked boys in Maurice Sendak’s works as the eroticized fantasies of a dirty old man, and it drove me up the wall. I’d much rather hear what Sendak himself had to say about his use of nudity than hear someone come up with such twaddle. (That’s an example of specific criticism I don’t like, I know, not a general indictment of criticism). Criticism can be helpful, especially when it helps to contextualize a work or to point out something I didn’t notice before (the same lecturer also had fascinating things to say about the deliberate use of white space in _Where the Wild Things Are_). But a critic’s views are at best less interesting to me than the views of the artist. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/232 "2013-05-17T01:56:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It seems to me that someone defending two purple squares with a line between them as having artistic merit has the quite a bit of verbal jazz hand waving to do. […] > > It’s the nature of the art that says it’s bullshit. Two purple squares with a line between them. Come on. Sigh. Okay, so according to you, exactly what is the minimum amount of color or design complexity required for an artwork to have artistic merit? Having three colors instead of two? ([Rothko _Earth and Green_](http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/mark-rothko/earth-green)) Having circular shapes instead of rectangular ones? ([Kenneth Noland _Beginning_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%27Beginning%27,_magna_on_canvas_painting_by_Kenneth_Noland,_Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture_Garden,_1958..jpg)) Having only two colors but more rectangles? ([Mondrian _Composition in Black and White, with Double Lines_](http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/waltzer/waltzer5-6-09_detail.asp?picnum=5)) Having more rectangles **and** more colors? ([Mondrian _Composition in Red Blue and Yellow_](http://mowglisurf.com/3318/tuesday-art-attack-piet-mondrian-composition-in-red-blue-and-yellow/)) Having more shapes and more colors but still a very simple and regular structure? ([Frank Stella _Harran II_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frank_Stella%27s_%27Harran_II%27,_1967.jpg)) Having less regular placement of shapes? ([Rothko _1944 Red Abstract_](http://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/3606007076/)) Having less regular placement of shapes with some quasi-representational elements? ([Rothko _Number 26_](http://artsy.net/artwork/mark-rothko-number-26)) Please explain to us which of these well-known works you consider to have artistic merit, and exactly what features of composition form the dividing line between having artistic merit and having no artistic merit. This will be a great boon to future painters as well as enlightening to readers of this thread, since henceforth the painters will know exactly how much and what kind of composition features they need to put in their work to ensure that it is capable of having artistic merit. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/233 "2013-05-17T02:14:02Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > OK. Well, I don’t disagree, either. (Holy litotes, Batman!) And I’m fine with people who need or want more “meaning” in their art, or who find “intent” particularly important. As I said before, I’m a simpleton: for me, it’s the visceral reaction. Sometimes, a little scholarship helps me appreciate or understand a work of art more, but at the end of the day, it’s the aesthetic that hits me. But that’s just me. I can read a literary work “straight”, just letting the words flow over me and enjoying the pictures they conjure up without questioning. Or I can think about the writer’s intention. Are there any symbols? Are there any interesting allusions? Where is the plot foreshadowed? What is the theme of the story? Knowing these things can change the experience from a passive one into a more engaged one. Asking about the artist’s intention is like trying to find out if there is a layer to the work that may not be readily apparent. Sometimes the artist is creating only beautiful eye candy, and sometimes they are communicating something deeper. Most times I really don’t want to dissect something, though. If something doesn’t illicit an emotion in me within the first few seconds of viewing it, I’m probably not going to want to spend much time thinking about it. However, sometimes I will see something and recognize that I’m not seeing all the “there” that’s “there”, and I’ll try to learn more just so that I can have an informed opinion. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/234 "2013-05-17T02:17:51Z")
And that’s fine. But I think people get too wrapped up in “meaning” instead of the experience. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/235 "2013-05-17T02:41:14Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Surely art criticism should consider the artist. Whether the art actually conveys what the artist intends to convey should say _something_ about the merit of the artist. And AFAIAC, scholarship that intentionally ignores easily available avenues of research is inadequate scholarship. Only if the easily available avenues are actually relevant. What most art critics today think (last I heard anyway) is that they are not engaged in an inquiry to which artist’s intention is relevant. They’re not evaluating the piece as a person’s communication of a message. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/236 "2013-05-17T03:11:19Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > And that’s fine. But I think people get too wrapped upe in “meaning” instead of the experience. Many people don’t really “experience” art. It’s more of a cerebral affair than a visceral one to them. And then some art asks to be appreciated more cerebrally than emotionally. I don’t think art is any one thing. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/237 "2013-05-17T03:17:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Only if the easily available avenues are actually relevant. What most art critics today think (last I heard anyway) is that they are not engaged in an inquiry to which artist’s intention is relevant. They’re not evaluating the piece as a person’s communication of a message. What then are they evaluating? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/238 "2013-05-17T03:25:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Many people don’t really “experience” art. It’s more of a cerebral affair than a visceral one to them. > > And then some art asks to be appreciated more cerebrally than emotionally. > > I don’t think art is any one thing. And I wouldn’t disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/239 "2013-05-17T03:27:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Honestly? I care, for a couple of reasons. First, art is a form of communication for me. Sure, it’s one-way, but the artist is putting an idea from his or her head into mine via the art. Knowing the artist’s intent can flavor that meaning, or give me a greater appreciation of it, sometimes. So, what do you do if the artist tells you his intention, and you find that explanation to be shallow, or stupid, or offensive? Does that diminish the work for you? I don’t, personally, have a problem with learning what an artist has to say about his own work, but I don’t like the idea that artist’s intention is controlling, or necessarily more valid or interesting than anyone else’s interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/240 "2013-05-17T03:35:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sigh. Okay, so according to you, exactly what is the minimum amount of color or design complexity required for an artwork to have artistic merit? > > Having three colors instead of two? ([Rothko _Earth and Green_](http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/mark-rothko/earth-green)) > > Having circular shapes instead of rectangular ones? ([Kenneth Noland _Beginning_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%27Beginning%27,_magna_on_canvas_painting_by_Kenneth_Noland,_Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture_Garden,_1958..jpg)) > > Having only two colors but more rectangles? ([Mondrian _Composition in Black and White, with Double Lines_](http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/waltzer/waltzer5-6-09_detail.asp?picnum=5)) > > Having more rectangles **and** more colors? ([Mondrian _Composition in Red Blue and Yellow_](http://mowglisurf.com/3318/tuesday-art-attack-piet-mondrian-composition-in-red-blue-and-yellow/)) > > Having more shapes and more colors but still a very simple and regular structure? ([Frank Stella _Harran II_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frank_Stella%27s_%27Harran_II%27,_1967.jpg)) > > Having less regular placement of shapes? ([Rothko _1944 Red Abstract_](http://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/3606007076/)) > > Having less regular placement of shapes with some quasi-representational elements? ([Rothko _Number 26_](http://artsy.net/artwork/mark-rothko-number-26)) > > Please explain to us which of these well-known works you consider to have artistic merit, and exactly what features of composition form the dividing line between having artistic merit and having no artistic merit. > > This will be a great boon to future painters as well as enlightening to readers of this thread, since henceforth the painters will know exactly how much and what kind of composition features they need to put in their work to ensure that it is capable of having artistic merit. Sure, Kimstu. The Rothkos are worth looking at, the rest, well, I suppose some corporation might part with a couple hundred bucks for any of them if they were in a nice frame, so they could hang them on the wall and have art that won’t offend (or interest) anyone. How much am I getting for this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=13)