When I think of it, the historical value probably can’t be ignored. Last time I went to the Louvre, and went through the wing dedicated to large 19th century paintings, the only one I stopped by was “La liberte conduisant le peuple”, and most certainly because of its historical significance.
And I superbly ignored your beloved David 
, despite the inherent difficulty of ignoring a 650+ sq ft painting. I don’t like propagandists.
But I’m digressing.
Wow.
Wow.
Listen, you’re free to play arm chair art critic to your heart’s content, but if you are going to completely disregard history, culture, and context to fulfill your aesthetic ideal, you’re going to be talking to yourself. It’s like saying the Wright brother’s airplane was a failure because they did not make it out of aluminum, or criticizing Farnsworth for not making the television in color. You make do with what you’ve got, and if that’s a chisel and some rudimentary hand tools and you make something like the Taj Mahal, fuck it if it’s “too busy”. We now have incredible technological innovations that makes construction so much easier than it was then, do you see anything being produced today that can rival the beauty of the Taj Mahal? (The answer is no, in case you are wondering.)
Since when did this become about availability of technologically advanced tools?
The ancient Greeks did not, I assume, have access to better tools than people centuries later in other, developed, parts of the world. And yet they produced some superb pieces of art.
I think a better analogy would be to say the Wright brother’s airplane was a failure because they did not make it out of aluminum, if someone else had made one from aluminum 2000 years ago.
But supposing they don’t think it’s too busy; they think other works aren’t busy enough. What then? We’re left at a matter of taste. But, you would say this is evidence of a deficiency in the artist’s taste… [It’s certainly a deficiency in the artist’s ability to craft something to suit your tastes, but others seem to enjoy it.]
At points, you hint at the idea that more realism = better (e.g., the use of perspective), and then, when it becomes inconvenient to defend, you drop it. At points, you hint at the idea that more skill = better, and then, when this is interpreted as “harder to make” and it becomes inconvenient to defend, you drop it. Etc.
It’s all good and well that you prefer a certain style of Western art, but you’ve really not presented any convincingly consistent argument that there’s more to it than your own tastes.
To put it another way: if the notion of “skill” is gerrymandered to mean “good at producing the kind of art I like”, there’s no longer any point in pretending “skill” is somehow a more objective measure of artistry than mere conformance to particular aesthetic norms. You might as well not bring up “skill” anymore, and just talk directly about matters of taste, subjective though they be.
Italian marble is a very distinct material that is perfectly suited for the kinds of sculpture/architecture you’re talking about. How many places in Africa had very fine marble to work with? On the other hand, how many hardwood trees do you find in Italy of the quality that’s found in some parts of Africa? Marble sculpture developed in a culture with access to a lot of marble, wood sculpture developed in a culture with access to the right kind of trees.
Likewise, painting is very much driven by technological breakthroughs. It was only after certain materials (pigments, brushes, canvas, primer) was developed that a certain standard of quality could be established in European art. In Japan, where these materials were not available, for whatever reason, wood block printing gained more prominence than oil painting. This method tends to produce flat, rather shallow work, without a lot of depth. After awhile, it becomes the tradition, and it’s no longer a limitation, it’s what is expected.
(And in case you are wondering, The Makers of the Bayeux Tapestry = Wright Brothers; flat, dyed textile = Wood airplane; modern art = Aluminum. The Wright Brothers are not at fault for technological limitations, especially if what they do with the materials they have is extraordinary.)
Not having marble is not a limitation if you have the artistic ability to make a great sculpture. See thisexample of a wooden sculpture that is pretty decent.
Haggis is a food item that arose from reasons that were particular to the region. After a while it became the tradition, and it’s no longer a limitation, it’s what is expected. But do you see millions of non-Scots rushing to eat it around the world, like they do with Chinese, Indian, French and Italian foods? No.
Just because something arose and/or became popular in a region due to particular hardships in that region, does not mean that we have to treat it as equivalent to other things produced in regions without this limitation.
In case you are wondering, I got what you were saying. It’s just that
-
By focusing so much on the “dyed textile” aspect, you are ignoring the fact that a lot of art from that era also had that flat, fifth-grade, look (e.g. this). So, it wasn’t the textile that was holding them back. It was their inferior artistic ability.
-
You are ignoring the fact that people produced art of much higher quality before the Makers of the Bayeux Tapestry. So, the better analogy would be if we were to admire the Wright brothers even though someone had produced a much better airplane many hundred years before them.
The relative international popularity of various cuisines has many influences that have nothing to do with how things taste, in particular migration patterns, and by extension politics and history. Rather similar to how cultures and their art rarely exist in isolation.
And, for the record, haggis tastes good.
Sorry, forgot to include this:
That’s a great picture. The absence of subservience to realism allows the viewer to be drawn to one part of the frame after another, so that instead of a moment frozen in time, there’s a narrative to be followed, and I see in it rather striking similarities to Guernica.
Again, for the nth time, what criteria do you use to assess “quality”? And, why can you claim these criteria are universal and not just a reflection of your own tastes?
Some years ago, I went to a Manet exhibition that was held in Nara, Japan. One of the most interesting exhibits was a book of drawing studies by Hokusai. Next to it was one of Manet’s notebooks, in which he very carefully copied Hokusai’s studies. Apparently even an established painter like Manet thought he had something to learn from Hokusai’s draughting skills.
–
Medieval portraits aren’t photorealistic because they’re not meant to be. People of the time just didn’t care what, say, Francis of Assisi looked like. They’re not representing his lowly, material, mortal form but trying to teach something about his immortal sainthood. Note that medieval artists knew of Greek and Roman art, yet they did not seek to emulate its naturalism. Why do you think that is? It’s only with the rise of humanism in the Renaissance that once again artists thought of the material appearance of the world as a worthy subject.
Similarly, when Hakuin draws Bodhidharma he’s seeking to capture his subject’s wild and iconoclastic essence, not the way he looked.
But imagine how much better Guernica would be with proper perspective!
Because without it the only thing you can say about any work of art is “I like it.” or “I don’t like it.” And that gets boring.
If you want to talk about how a work of art functions or draw parallels between it and other works, you need a critical discourse. There’s more to art appreciation than “Oooooo … pretty!”
I agree with the OP from the perspective of ability or talent in technique, in the example of Mozart versus ‘some guy banging on drums’ I’d say that Mozart by far and away is far more sophisticated and so much further beyond in abilities as to be considered ‘superior’. Now in terms of emotional connection, I would expect that Africans (god I hate lumping a massive and diverse group of people in 1 pile) connect more emotionally with ‘some guy banging on drums’ than with Mozart. But I think it’s foolish to pretend that the drums is equal to Mozart in complexity and in the talent required to produce it.
Same applies to Michaelangelo, and having seen his pieces first hand I am blown away by the genius and talent that must have been required to produce his magnificent pieces. If someone was to compare his works to carved wooden faces on the basis of skill, then that would appear to me to be so absurd that it would be pointless to discuss. However on an emotional level, well, it’s a personal thing and I think it’s a mistake to attempt that sort of comparison when it’s purely a ‘feeling’.
See, just the use of the expression “some guy banging on drums” shows that you’re not making a fair comparison, unless you’re willing to replace “Mozart” with “some guy banging on a fortepiano”.
You will find that traditional Yoruba Bata from Nigeria or Indian tabla (Zakir Hussain) is far, far more rhythically complex and sophisticated than anything Mozart, or any European before the 20th century, ever wrote. However, culturally, many westerners are led to think that pitch (melody and harmony) are more important than rhythm. There is no reason for that to be.
Oh come on… I just listened to the first link. Calling that more “sophisticated than anything Mozart, or any European before the 20th century, ever wrote”, in any sense of the word sophisticated, is patently ridiculous. These guys wouldn’t qualify to wipe Mozart’s ass (musically).
Would you care to present an argument? Clearly, there are those who disagree, and I doubt your post will have changed their minds.
Also, you left out an important qualifier in your middle sentence: jovan called these pieces more rhythmically complex and sophisticated than anything Mozart, etc., ever wrote. Can you point to a work of equal rhythmic complexity to counter this statement?
I think the difference between the image I linked to and Guernica is that the former was made by someone who wanted to, but could not, draw more realistically, while the latter was made by someone who intentionally drew it like that (to convey a specific message).
Although I don’t like Guernica, aesthetically, I can still see the talent behind it. The other image? Not so much.
I should point out that I said “in any sense of the word sophisticated” (i.e. rhythmically, or otherwise).
Did you actually listen to that first link? It’s pretty bad. I’ve heard percussion pieces from around the world, and some of them were pretty amazing. This one was very mediocre.
My apologies; you did indeed say that and I missed it.
Yes, I did listen to it. It wasn’t particularly the sort of thing I would listen to on its own for pleasure (yes, I too have my own aesthetic tastes, influenced by my own cultural goggles), but I would plausibly describe it as more rhythmically complex than Mozart.