# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/381 "2013-05-20T22:42:46Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Art is not a puzzle to be solved. Sometimes when you look at a piece you come away with an interpretation of what it means. But other times you look a piece just because it interesting or moving to look at. You don’t decipher it, you just experience it. This is why music is a good analogy. What idea is Toccata and Fugue in D Minor trying to communicate? Yes, I think good musical works affect something intrinsic in us as humans, regardless of their place in history and whether they are trying to communicate something. On the other hand homeopathy only has an effect on us due to suggestion. On the third hand, I like this apple that I’m eating now. But that doesn’t mean it’s special, I like most apples. So, which of these examples is our appreciation of Onement VI most similar to, and why do you think so? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/382 "2013-05-20T22:44:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > These accusations of reverse snobbery powerfully remind me of Christians accusing atheists of dissing their religion just by professing disbelief. Then you really aren’t getting the point. Enjoying a painting isn’t like belief in the actual existence of a deity. Nobody (except you) is claiming that artistic merit is some kind of objective quality, or that there is some kind of factual, universal answer to the question of whether Newman’s painting has intrinsic artistic merit. Nobody thinks you’d be “dissing” their enjoyment of Newman’s painting just by stating that you personally don’t like it. So when you say you’re being “skeptical”, you’re not bravely questioning anyone’s dogma. You’re just accusing people who disagree with your opinion, as **Miller** noted, of being either idiots or liars. The fact that you see your role in this discussion as that of the heroic clear-thinking atheist courageously questioning superstitious dogma and being persecuted for it illustrates the extent to which, as I said, reverse snobbery is founded in conceit. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/383 "2013-05-20T23:00:48Z")
**Wordman** , I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. I am still curious about why people are so moved by the paintings. I don’t exclude myself from this group, I can also appreciate abstract art to some degree. Is it the painting themselves that cause it, or is it the spirit surrounding them? People can feel drunk without drinking alcohol if you tell them they did drink alcohol. Maybe people can feel this sense of being moved because we tell them that this painting has that effect. Maybe most simple combinations of colors and shapes have the potential to give us the sense of being moved if presented right. Or maybe only a few, thoughtfully put together by the artists do. I’m curious about which of these is correct. ---
**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 20, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/384 "2013-05-20T23:01:58Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > So, which of these examples is our appreciation of Onement VI most similar to, and why do you think so? It’s all of them. It creates an interesting sensory experience as you stand in front of it … AND it’s interesting on a conceptual level as a statement about what constitutes art … AND it’s interesting on a historical level as an important stage in the ongoing dialog of art … AND its a status marker for the person who possesses it … AND it’s a commodity that can be bought and sold. It’s impossible to say which of these things is the True Essence of the work because which one dominates depends on who’s looking at it and in what context. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/385 "2013-05-20T23:08:35Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > It’s all of them. It creates an interesting sensory experience as you stand in front of it … AND it’s interesting on a conceptual level as a statement about what constitutes art … AND it’s interesting on a historical level as an important stage in the ongoing dialog of art … AND its a status marker for the person who possesses it … AND it’s a commodity that can be bought and sold. I agree with all of the last ANDs. But I’m questioning the one about that “it creates an interesting sensory experience”. Maybe it doesn’t, maybe we only think that because of suggestion. I am not questioning why it would be worth whatever it’s worth. I’m just curious about what is the cause of this sensory experience, that after all is the originator of the other factors. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/386 "2013-05-20T23:10:03Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > **Wordman** , I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. Hey, cool. > [@](#): > > I am still curious about why people are so moved by the paintings. I don’t exclude myself from this group, I can also appreciate abstract art to some degree. Is it the painting themselves that cause it, or is it the spirit surrounding them? People can feel drunk without drinking alcohol if you tell them they did drink alcohol. Maybe people can feel this sense of being moved because we tell them that this painting has that effect. Maybe most simple combinations of colors and shapes have the potential to give us the sense of being moved if presented right. Or maybe only a few, thoughtfully put together by the artists do. I’m curious about which of these is correct. And the Ongoing Conversation about Art cares about whether folks feel the need to debate it for a long freakin’ period of time 😉 Seriously! The fact that the question of Color Field art is still something we can debate passionately? _That’s the whole point - to get you thinking about what Art is - to you and to others._ The Conversation has its desired effect. Is there an element of Emperor Has No Clothes? Jeez, isn’t their always? And yeah, the more an artist steps _away_ from Art = Craft/Thing and puts their entire “statement” on Art as Idea, the _much_ bigger risk they are taking, toying with how far the Idea of Art can be pushed. Some folks love the thought of discussing and seeing how differently Art as Idea can be twisted. And some folks think it is hooey made up by poopyheads. Most Modern Art is somewhere in between those two ends…isn’t that usually the case with stuff like this? ---
**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 20, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/387 "2013-05-20T23:33:27Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > I’m just curious about what is the cause of this sensory experience, that after all is the originator of the other factors. The perceptive act cannot be divorced from the circumstances of perception. There are no neutral viewers whose experience is untainted by “suggestions” of what a work of art should be. Interestingly, one of the original motivations behind the abstract art movement was to purify art in the manner you describe – to strip away all of the “suggestions” implicit in representation and reduce the work to pure color in space. After all, if I look at a picture of a pretty girl, part of my experience is shaped by what I think of pretty girls. Do I like the painting as a painting, or just because I like pretty girls? My response is not shaped purely by the work itself, but also by the real world thing that the work is pointing to. Wouldn’t it be truer and purer to create a work that is nothing but color and composition? It doesn’t point to anything real, and is therefore uncontaminated by the viewer’s preconceptions … . ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/388 "2013-05-21T00:26:33Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > No, because it is representational, it looks like a person, and will thus certainly invoke feelings regarding that person. So the appeal of Mona Lisa is some sort of combination between suggestion and the feelings it would invoke by itself. However, a simple abstract work like Onement VI doesn’t look like a person, so it’s possible that the appeal is caused solely suggestion / knowledge of its place in art history. It’s also possible that it does invoke some feelings by itself, but so would any work with the same basic components. And by that I’m not thinking of exact replicas, but other simple, big blue paintings. I don’t have any feelings towards the people in representational art most of the time. I can also look out my window to look at people were I so inclined. Perhaps i don’t want the art I consume to free ride off the feelings other people do (or do not) produce. It is certainly possible that subtle variations on one theme in representational art can produce very different experiences. Supposedly this is what Monet’s series of 25 [haystacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haystacks_%28Monet%29#Monet_background) does. For my part, I simply don’t see it. To me, they’re all just haystacks. The quality of the light, etc is lost on me. Haystacks on Mars would still be haystacks. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/389 "2013-06-28T14:30:03Z")
Quick update to this thread with two points: - **James Turrell** is having a few exhibitions this summer and is getting a lot of press. He has transformed the central rotunda of NYC’s Guggenheim for instance: [http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view/james-turrell](http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view/james-turrell) What is relevant to this thread is that Turrell is kinda like Color Field painters - but even does away with canvas or other concrete surface. Turrell works with light - natural and man-made - and mirrors and room shapes to create floating shapes that are meant to perplex your perceptions - your senses, your mind, your whole system. I have not seen his works in person, but folks who love it describe the same sense of “neurons firing” that I was trying to describe in this thread - Turrell seems to have taken it a step further. So his works appear to be interesting entries into the further discussions about What is Art? If folks are still up for this discussion, I would be interested in impressions - overall, and vs. the Color Field art we’ve been discussion. Is his stuff “more” Art-y? Less? Equally confounding? * * * - There is an article in the New Yorker about LA artist **Ed Ruscha** - it includes a reference to his painted-word painting “OOF” - [http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object\_id=79298](http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79298) Now, just to cause trouble for myself as someone who has been arguing for an open mind in this thread, _this_ painting - the word OOF in yellow against a blue background - is one I struggle with. It doesn’t affect my sensory systems like Color Field or Turrell works (again, I haven’t seen Turrell in person, but you get the idea) - it is meant to ask you to look at the word differently. “I like the idea of a word becoming a picture, almost leaving its body, then coming back and becoming a word again” says Ruscha “I see myself working with two things that don’t even ask to understand each other.” Yeah - doesn’t really work for me - but I like other works of his, and clearly, his word paintings have been part of the Ongoing Conversation about Art for a few decades - so the fact that they don’t work for me…well, all part of the conversation… Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/390 "2013-06-28T14:49:12Z")
That “OOF” is kinda interesting from a technical point of view, as it looks like he painted the blue field around the letters, rather than painting the letters over it. That might mean… something, but I’m not sure what. It’s horribly ugly, though. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/391 "2013-06-28T15:30:34Z")
Just to get a somewhat better idea of what he was up to, this link is to Ruscha’s online catalogue raisonne (this is the 1963 page with “OOF”). I think it helps with context, and shows how his art fit in with Roy Lichtenstein’s and other pop artists. Other years are available by clicking on the timeline at the left of the page. [http://www.edruscha.com/site/workList.cfm?year=1963](http://www.edruscha.com/site/workList.cfm?year=1963) ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/392 "2013-06-28T17:43:36Z")
As a poet, not a visual artist, I feel great sympathy for those in the thread who are trying to explain what art can be to those who just want art to conform. I’ll admit that by the time the fourth or fifth person came in just to declare it was trash, I started skimming. The painting is beautiful, but mostly for me it’s just because of color and those ragged wobbles that make it more tactile than a pure even application of paint would be. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/393 "2013-06-28T18:30:21Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Quick update to this thread with two points: > > - **James Turrell** is having a few exhibitions this summer and is getting a lot of press. He has transformed the central rotunda of NYC’s Guggenheim for instance: > [http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view/james-turrell](http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view/james-turrell) > > What is relevant to this thread is that Turrell is kinda like Color Field painters - but even does away with canvas or other concrete surface. Turrell works with light - natural and man-made - and mirrors and room shapes to create floating shapes that are meant to perplex your perceptions - your senses, your mind, your whole system. I have not seen his works in person, but folks who love it describe the same sense of “neurons firing” that I was trying to describe in this thread - Turrell seems to have taken it a step further. > > So his works appear to be interesting entries into the further discussions about What is Art? If folks are still up for this discussion, I would be interested in impressions - overall, and vs. the Color Field art we’ve been discussion. Is his stuff “more” Art-y? Less? Equally confounding? > > * * * > > - There is an article in the New Yorker about LA artist **Ed Ruscha** - it includes a reference to his painted-word painting “OOF” - > [http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object\_id=79298](http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79298) > > Now, just to cause trouble for myself as someone who has been arguing for an open mind in this thread, _this_ painting - the word OOF in yellow against a blue background - is one I struggle with. It doesn’t affect my sensory systems like Color Field or Turrell works (again, I haven’t seen Turrell in person, but you get the idea) - it is meant to ask you to look at the word differently. “I like the idea of a word becoming a picture, almost leaving its body, then coming back and becoming a word again” says Ruscha “I see myself working with two things that don’t even ask to understand each other.” > > Yeah - doesn’t really work for me - but I like other works of his, and clearly, his word paintings have been part of the Ongoing Conversation about Art for a few decades - so the fact that they don’t work for me…well, all part of the conversation… > > Carry on. I wouldn’t mind seeing this and I haven’t been to the Guggenheim in years. If you’ve got some time, **WordMan** , I will save it for when you are in town. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/394 "2013-06-28T18:39:27Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I wouldn’t mind seeing this and I haven’t been to the Guggenheim in years. If you’ve got some time, **WordMan** , I will save it for when you are in town. 🙂 I like your thinking. I’ll ping you offboard. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/395 "2013-07-06T03:41:25Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > So did I, but then I realized we already have four or five Rothko threads, so it just couldn’t be that again. I’m certainly glad to learn about a new artist! I read this as \*\*\*“then I realized we already have four or five Rothkos” \*\*\* (said with slightly-embarrassed ennui… and a Back Bay Niles Crane-esque accent) ---
**Author:** ![Felarhin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b5ac83/32.png) [@Felarhin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felarhin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/396 "2014-04-27T20:12:38Z")
Because the Jewish mafia likes to pick very artistic ways to launder money. ---
**Author:** ![jimbuff314](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c57346/32.png) [@jimbuff314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimbuff314)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/397 "2014-04-27T20:21:24Z")
Goodbye, dude. ---
**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:** [April 27, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/398 "2014-04-27T20:56:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Then you really aren’t getting the point. Enjoying a painting isn’t like belief in the actual existence of a deity. Nobody (except you) is claiming that artistic merit is some kind of objective quality, or that there is some kind of factual, universal answer to the question of whether Newman’s painting has intrinsic artistic merit. Nobody thinks you’d be “dissing” their enjoyment of Newman’s painting just by stating that you personally don’t like it. > > So when you say you’re being “skeptical”, you’re not bravely questioning anyone’s dogma. You’re just accusing people who disagree with your opinion, as **Miller** noted, of being either idiots or liars. > > The fact that you see your role in this discussion as that of the heroic clear-thinking atheist courageously questioning superstitious dogma and being persecuted for it illustrates the extent to which, as I said, reverse snobbery is founded in conceit. Rich people can spend as much money as they like for obvious crap, and their syncophants can make up whatever stories they like about it, but I’m free not to buy it and I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/399 "2014-04-28T01:09:18Z")
The singer, not the song. ---
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380/400 "2014-04-28T01:19:26Z")
To me it looks like someone hung a blue ping-pong table on the wall. If you can come up with a way to get $44 m for it then more power to ya. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-explain-the-artistic-merit-of-this-painting-to-me-please/658380.md?page=21)