# 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:** 17
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/321 "2013-05-17T19:37:55Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Let me take a guess at why you think the second one is more attractive: > > 1. It has a much more restricted pallette of colors. > 2. There’s a definite dark/light/dark symmetry to the piece. > 3. The first picture appears to bulge in random directions; the second actually has a simpler composition, which is easier to follow and appreciate: you can guess why he put that line in place, why black rather than white, etc. 1. No. I tend to like expansive color sets, in general, in my art. Kandinsky, for instance, is my favorite painter, but mostly his pre-Bauhaus days. Not a fan of the more geometric stuff which looks “cold” to me. “Blue Poles” is probably my favorite Pollock. 2. Maybe. I do appreciate symmetry. But I also enjoy aggressive asymmetry. They just have different feels to me. Symmetry is quiet; asymmetry is more active, dynamic. 3. Yes. The second painting looks cohesive and like a composition to me. The first looks like someone playing around and seeing what happens. It looks like an artist unsure of his voice. But you bring up a good point. My own art tastes are actually quite conservative in my opinion, and you see some of the things that are important to me. That’s why it confuses me and surprises me at how many people still hate Rothko and Pollock, when to me their work is still imbued with a lot of classic compositional principles. I do tend to like order in my art–no doubt about that. “Order in chaos” is the type of art I gravitate towards. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/322 "2013-05-17T19:45:36Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > But you bring up a good point. My own art tastes are actually quite conservative in my opinion, and you see some of the things that are important to me. That’s why it confuses me and surprises me at how many people still hate Rothko and Pollock, when to me their work is still imbued with a lot of classic compositional principles. I do tend to like order in my art–no doubt about that. “Order in chaos” is the type of art I gravitate towards. This gives me some insights into why I dislike so much modern art. When I was a kid I got a battery of psych tests for school. On verbal and math sections I scored pretty well. On visual tests I scored slightly above average, but the tester made a note: he thought I would have scored a lot lower, except that I was constantly verbalizing while I completed the tests. In other words, I’d take the visual puzzle, convert it into language, solve it in language, and then convert it back into an image. Art that I like is art I can access in the same way: I can understand it through language. There’s a story in it, and there are iconic symbols I can understand, and I can talk about it easily. Art that doesn’t have much going on for me linguistically does absolutely nothing for me, and things like the two different Pollock paintings almost defy language (for me), so I lack a means of accessing them. ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/323 "2013-05-17T19:52:46Z")
So how does it work with instrumental music for you? Do you not like it, or do you have some sort of vocabulary that allows you to understand and conceptualize it? Or is it simply that with music, it’s just somehow different, and you don’t need to connect it to language? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/324 "2013-05-17T20:01:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I like how both sides of this debate view **Evil Captor** ’s picture as proof that they’re correct. Well opinion about subjective material will do that sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/325 "2013-05-17T21:07:33Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > So how does it work with instrumental music for you? Do you not like it, or do you have some sort of vocabulary that allows you to understand and conceptualize it? Or is it simply that with music, it’s just somehow different, and you don’t need to connect it to language? I was just thinking about asking that question! Also, what sort of games do you like to play? This isn’t a gotcha … like \*\*pulykamell \*\*I’m honestly interested in how you engage with more experiential/less interpretive art forms. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/326 "2013-05-17T21:41:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Art that I like is art I can access in the same way: I can understand it through language. There’s a story in it, and there are iconic symbols I can understand, and I can talk about it easily. Art that doesn’t have much going on for me linguistically does absolutely nothing for me, and things like the two different Pollock paintings almost defy language (for me), so I lack a means of accessing them. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit this in public, but I find that when a non-representational artwork connects with me, it often inspires a verbal response that’s kind of…regressive. For instance, when I first saw an image of [Ellsworth Kelly’s _High Yellow_](http://igetitart.com/2012/05/02/high-noon/ellsworth-kelly-high-yellow/), I actually found myself saying aloud “Sun ball egg!” And no, I can’t even claim that I was just vocally condensing a more nuanced mental response along the lines of “Well, the position and background of the yellow shape are clearly evoking the sun in the sky, while its non-circular form both strengthens the composition and reinforces the viewer’s mental focus on yellowness by hinting at a bright yellow egg yolk” and so on and so forth. What I was thinking at that moment, and the only thing I was thinking, was “Sun ball egg!” _And I enjoyed it._ As I noted above, I don’t feel that I personally get much out of most non-representational art, and I generally don’t seek it out, partly because I don’t want to be caught talking like a toddler in art museums. But I’m glad it’s out there and sometimes I like to take a shot at looking at it, largely because there’s something that feels surprising and fun in the way it temporarily trainwrecks my relationship with language. (I will leave it to the art experts to figure out why I saw _Onement VI_ and squeaked “Door!” ;)) ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/327 "2013-05-17T21:49:31Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Let me take a guess at why you think the second one is more attractive: > > 1. It has a much more restricted pallette of colors. > 2. There’s a definite dark/light/dark symmetry to the piece. > 3. The first picture appears to bulge in random directions; the second actually has a simpler composition, which is easier to follow and appreciate: you can guess why he put that line in place, why black rather than white, etc. Looking at the first one makes me very nervous. The second piece feels like the resolution of a chord at the end of a piece of music. It is over, finished, stable. The first keeps pulling on my eyes towards the upper left quadrant. It is restless. > [@](#): > > I’m not claiming that there are people that do not like it or don’t have genuine enjoyment of the piece. However, I am a bit skeptical that their enjoyment is as objective as they claim. If they passed that very same painting at a garage sale painted by some random forgotten nobody, would they be as emotionally moved? If yes, I’m glad it makes you happy and I’ll never begrudge you your right to hanging it on your wall…how much would you pay me to come over with a roller and a couple buckets of paint and give you a mural of equal quality? Nobody claims that enjoyment is objective. It’s not. Pleasure is subject to the same psychological priming effects as anything else. If I believe I am about to drink a special bottle of wine, I will certainly enjoy it more than I might otherwise and I’d probably rate it higher on a blind taste test. This doesn’t make me a fraud; I still know if I am drinking vinegar and it would be damned hard to convince me otherwise. So if I saw a badly preserved masterwork in some piece of shit garage sale, I probably would miss it altogether. I cannot think of a better argument for the importance of museums and art criticism. The right context and priming may be essential to appreciating highly subjective things. It may be easy to fool me about wine, but it is much harder to fool a professional. And even if you can fool one pro, you probably can’t fool all of them. So it pays to listen to what people who devote their lives to art say even if one doesn’t always agree. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/328 "2013-05-17T23:13:22Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I cannot think of a better argument for the importance of museums and art criticism. The right context and priming may be essential to appreciating highly subjective things. It may be easy to fool me about wine, but it is much harder to fool a professional. And even if you can fool one pro, you probably can’t fool all of them. So it pays to listen to what people who devote their lives to art say even if one doesn’t always agree. Exactly. I happen to think Renoir was not that great - he had a “look” but few of his paintings rise above banal to me. But understanding how Impressionism fits into the Ongoing Conversation about Art, and Renoir in particular, is still good to know and appreciate as part of learning. Hey - why am I the only one referring to the Ongoing Conversation about Art? It’s important - heck, it frames this whole damn argument. If you look at Art as a set of Rules, then you judge a work based on whether it complies with those rules. If you look at Art as an ongoing conversation, then stuff like “two purple squares and a white line - I mean, come on!” may be part of an interesting discussion about whether it matters 😉 ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/329 "2013-05-17T23:30:49Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Hey - why am I the only one referring to the Ongoing Conversation about Art? It’s important - heck, it frames this whole damn argument. If you look at Art as a set of Rules, then you judge a work based on whether it complies with those rules. If you look at Art as an ongoing conversation, then stuff like “two purple squares and a white line - I mean, come on!” may be part of an interesting discussion about whether it matters 😉 Because either you accept that that knowledge about art is socially produced or you don’t. People clamoring for objective standards already reject this idea by definition, so for them, the conversation (especially one that does not include them) is only so much masturbatory bullshit. To the people who accept it, the idea of objective value is solipsistic and false. The importance of the conversation is self-evident to the people who accept it and totally unpersuasive to those who don’t. The fact that we have these threads all the time suggests that bridging this epistemological gap ain’t easy. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/330 "2013-05-17T23:54:02Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Because either you accept that that knowledge about art is socially produced or you don’t. People clamoring for objective standards already reject this idea by definition, so for them, the conversation (especially one that does not include them) is only so much masturbatory bullshit. To the people who accept it, the idea of objective value is solipsistic and false. The importance of the conversation is self-evident to the people who accept it and totally unpersuasive to those who don’t. The fact that we have these threads all the time suggests that bridging this epistemological gap ain’t easy. NEWMAN! (Really well said; thanks) ---
**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 18, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/331 "2013-05-18T01:08:28Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > So how does it work with instrumental music for you? Do you not like it, or do you have some sort of vocabulary that allows you to understand and conceptualize it? Or is it simply that with music, it’s just somehow different, and you don’t need to connect it to language? THat’s an interesting point. Music definitely works differently for me, and I’d not thought about that before either. I don’t listen to a lot of music compared to most people (I can go a week without turning music on and not even realize it), but I sing all the time to my baby, and I used to listen to music a lot more. I prefer lyric music, but I can certainly listen to some instrumental music and really enjoy it. I’m not sure what the difference is. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/332 "2013-05-18T02:09:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Hell, that red square is clearly in the foreground of a picture that doesn’t _have any foreground._ It’s just flat squares, yet that red seems to almost hover off the surface. > > So, with the Newman, how does a white stripe against a blue background communicate, as the Professor put it, “you are the zip and the fields represent life and the world trying to wear you down, assimilate you, make you less than you are?” Well, let me start by saying that I haven’t seen this painting in person, so I’m just going off the images I can find on the web. Consequently, I’m defending an interpretation I may not necessarily agree with - were I to see this painting in person, I might find that I have a much different reaction to it. > > The first thing I notice looking at the picture is the stripe. Like Napoleon’s cape, your eye goes right to it. It’s right in the middle of the canvas, and the bright white make it pop. This feels pretty strongly like the “subject” of the painting to me. It’s pretty automatic to anthropomorphize abstract objects ([Everyone sees the faces here, right?](http://www.tiburonenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Electrical-Outlet.jpg)), so it’s pretty easy to view an upright line as a guy. A guy with no distinct or discernible features is kind of an everyman, a stand-in that could represent any individual, including the viewer. So, that’s how we get “you are the zip,” in the Professor’s quote. > > … > > Viewed that way, they feel constricting, like they’re squeezing the center line. The wobble in the line’s edge helps with that impression. … They feel oppressive, almost overwhelming. It feels like two huge gloomy boulders gradually grinding away at whatever is between them. Man, I don’t know what you’re smoking, but you really need to start sharing with the rest of us… ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/333 "2013-05-18T02:18:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I’m sure I would have done better if I’d taken the full 15 minutes, but I think I made my point. I think my art is BETTER, those dark green blobs add a lot of pizzazz to the work. Are they holes in space-time? Are they figures flying through the air? Perhaps this is how a spider sees bugs when it sits in a leafy bower. Or does the yellow line signify the division between two 35 mm images on a film strip, are we perhaps watching images of a sprinkler hose, the dark irregular blobs being the holes where the water comes out of? The art is ALIVE with possibilities! > > (Do I get my millions now? Please say “yes!”) Well, I would certainly be willing to pay as much for yours as I would for the other guy’s! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/334 "2013-05-18T04:42:15Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Let me take a guess at why you think the second one is more attractive: > > 1. It has a much more restricted pallette of colors. > 2. There’s a definite dark/light/dark symmetry to the piece. > 3. The first picture appears to bulge in random directions; the second actually has a simpler composition, which is easier to follow and appreciate: you can guess why he put that line in place, why black rather than white, etc. It’s less busy. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/335 "2013-05-18T14:25:32Z")
If you look at the white stripe, its edges are not distinct. Clearly, they did not have Frog tape back then. A serious techionical flaw, IMHOP.🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/336 "2013-05-18T14:59:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Powers’ works that impressed me were his SF illustrations. He did some really nice abstract stuff that conveyed “alien” and “otherworldly” in a way no other SF artist ever did. Your stuff is from the 1980s, I prefer earlier stuff,[like this.](http://www.munchkinpress.com/cpg149/displayimage.php?album=312&pos=1) Just a note: The linked work is not abstract. ---
**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 18, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/337 "2013-05-18T15:02:43Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Reverse snobs to me share similar personality characteristics with conspiracy theorists. It’s, as you say, ego-stroking behavior that they are somehow privy to The Truth that nobody else can see, and that we’re all just a bunch of unthinking crowd-followers. And they are just as entrenched in their beliefs, as this thread shows. There’s nothing we can say that will convince **Evil Captor** that this art has merit. No amount of people expressing their sincere relationship with and reaction to the piece in question will convince him otherwise. These accusations of reverse snobbery powerfully remind me of Christians accusing atheists of dissing their religion just by professing disbelief. Just because you take issue with someone or some group of someone’s, you aren’t necessarily doing it to be snobbish or to put others down. There is such a thing as simple, honest skepticism. Deal. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/338 "2013-05-18T15:50:09Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I think you are brilliant at the verbal jazz hands. But I think your talent is wasted on that particular piece. > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Just because you take issue with someone or some group of someone’s, you aren’t necessarily doing it to be snobbish or to put others down. There is such a thing as simple, honest skepticism. Deal. I think you have a confused idea of what is or isn’t putting someone down. ---
**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 18, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/339 "2013-05-18T15:51:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > These accusations of reverse snobbery powerfully remind me of Christians accusing atheists of dissing their religion just by professing disbelief. Wow. Really, dude? We’re talking about the _subjective_ appreciation of art. Your argument is more like saying “well, because _I_ don’t like sushi, it’s just a bunch of hipster bullshit with no intrinsic worth” than whatever weird religion analogy you’ve got going here. Most people just shrug their shoulders and say, “eh, sushi isn’t for me.” Your objection sounds more like “any schmuck can cut up a fish and serve it on rice. It’s raw. It tastes like shit to me. It’s objectively terrible. Look, here, I took a picture of some cod I stuck on some rice. I, too, am a sushi chef!” It’s not mere skepticism you’re exhibiting. I’m skeptical about modern art. As I said above, there’s as much, if not more, modern and contemporary art that I don’t like. I don’t really like Warhol, for instance. But if somebody enjoys it or gets something out of it, who am I to say? Warhol has obviously spoken to many people, whether intellectually, culturally, aesthetically, whatever. I’m not saying he’s worthless, and that, I too, can mass produce silk screened copies of Campbell soup cans. He simply doesn’t do it for me, but I have no reason to believe others are lying or delusional when they do find worth in their work. I listen to what fans have to say, learn about about his artistic statement on consumerism, mass production, etc., and, even though I still don’t like most of it, I can understand how some people do. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/340 "2013-05-18T15:52:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > These accusations of reverse snobbery powerfully remind me of Christians accusing atheists of dissing their religion just by professing disbelief. Just because you take issue with someone or some group of someone’s, you aren’t necessarily doing it to be snobbish or to put others down. There is such a thing as simple, honest skepticism. Deal. Okay - so you are saying that you respect that this Newman is regarded as Significant, and you can see why folks who care about that stuff might pay $44mm? You don’t like it yourself and think the amount is stupidly high, but you don’t disrespect folks in the Art world or look down on them? And you agree that “I or a kid can do better” is not relevant when it comes to discussing What is Art? and the value of Significant artworks that shaped the Art world over the 20th century? If so, then you are welcome to your simple, honest skepticism and more power to ya. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=18)