Someone looking into the artist’s intention is doing the scholarship that goes into biography. Art criticism is a different kind of scholarship.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the art speaks for itself, and I think that it’s saying, “Let’s see if some sap will buy THIS!”
Actually, did read the thread. I just disagree with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Having circular shapes instead of rectangular ones? (Kenneth Noland Beginning)
Having only two colors but more rectangles? (Mondrian Composition in Black and White, with Double Lines)
Having more rectangles and more colors? (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)
Having less regular placement of shapes? (Rothko 1944 Red Abstract)
Having less regular placement of shapes with some quasi-representational elements? (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.
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.
And that’s fine. But I think people get too wrapped up in “meaning” instead of the experience.
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.
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.
What then are they evaluating?
And I wouldn’t disagree.
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.
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?