But what if the intended meaning IS for the spectator to create his own meaning?
Great art isn’t about telling the audience a specific thing. Art that conveys a simple, obvious message tends to be trite and boring. Instead, great art *gestures *in a particular direction, but remains open and ambiguous enough that a range of different responses are possible. The point isn’t to arrive at the “proper” understanding of the work, but rather to have the experience of working toward an understanding of your own construction. It’s the journey, not the destination, that’s important. And a great work of art is one that starts you off on an interesting journey.
I have stood in front of the Rodchenko monochrome paintings. Walking up to them, there is a temptation to dismiss the monoliths of pure color and to think, “what creativity is there in THAT?”
However, what may not be understood by most is that these monochrome paintings were not manufactured colors squeezed from a paint tube. The artist spent considerable time grinding and developing the palate far beyond what a commercial machine creates that all other painters use. And when you stand so close to it as to obscure all else – including most of your peripheral vision – you eyes and mind go to an indescribable place of light and life and creativity.
For me, it was a truly shocking experience and one I did not expect. Imagine when you close your eyes and in the blackness, you see the reflections of the lights and shapes that your eyes was just seeing, but in the sudden darkness, there are squiggles and flashes and remnants of its recent shapes and images. In these giant monochrome paintings, the complete and utter saturation of a particular color (blue, in the case that you reference) forces the eye to react to its unaccustomed surroundings and in the mind, creates remarkably different shapes and squiggles and flashes. It is electric and vibrant and completely unexpected – but is something that can only be experienced in the presence of the artwork itself. Mere miniature gif images on a tiny computer screen are pointless.
The only way I can describe it is to see one of these monoliths of color in person is to be momentarily on a visually-induced psychadelic drug which immediately dissipates as you step away from the painting and re-introduce other images of white space and overhead lights back into your mind’s eye.
Hmmmmm like the folks in Space Odyssey were by the giant stone monolith?
I am like the OP. I have a very difficult time “getting” or being overwhelmed by a painting or other art. And I particularly dislike the “ugly” ones. Probably because I find that sort of art irritating. It always strikes me as, (sorry since I’m not a good art critic this will not be well spoken in good “artese”. :)), indulgent and done “ugliness for ugliness” sake JUST to get a reaction or to say “see, I am an Artiste” (chest puffed out). But then, if the true purpose of art (or so I’ve heard) is to provoke, or get a reaction, I guess they succeeded then didn’t they?
If they can’t reduce you to tears, overwhelmed with indescribable beauty, then they can at least make you say “why you! I oughta!” …
I’ll tell you what though, even though I couldn’t( or didn’t) appreciate the monochromes on a mere computer screens, I loved his constructivism and black on black paintings. The constructivism ones put me in mind of planets, and the black on black look like really good modern metallics for home decor.
I know that if art doesn’t well represent something real, (like Picasso’s really abstract stuff, bugs the crap out of me) I will generally dislike it. I can’t quite explain it, or put my finger on it, but it irritates me in a more than visual way.
I really dislike abstract stuff like that. When I was a little girl, my sister, my girl cousins and I all got little dolls. I don’t remember what they were called (this was in the 60s), but they had little permanently attached pjs with a permanently affixed bonnet. The dolls had little heads that could turn inside the bonnets to show three different expressions. I couldn’t stand the darned thing. Not because it wasn’t cute, but because it wasn’t real. Or rather wasn’t like a real baby or person (if that makes sense).
I have no idea if that will help or not, but maybe, hearing from a fellow “I don’t get art” doper, it might help you understand some of why you don’t get it. I think those who are truly moved by it have the ability to let go more easily that folks like us do. At least insofar as the art realm.
There is some music that can move me to tears, so I know I can be moved artistically speaking, just not in this particular realm maybe.
(just my 2 little cents :D)
I saw that one too Baron, wonderful stuff. I loved Whistlers Nocturnes but the biggest surprise for me was how abstract Turners works seemed, even compared with works created 50 years later.
And my other big art revelation was seeing Constable’s works in person. So over-reproduced and cliched but a joy to behold…the sky, the cloud, the light! stunning.
I wanted to thank everyone in this thread, but especially Sam Stone and The Hamster King for their contributions. As someone who appreciates art but never taken any classes, it’s making me wish I could go to an art museum right now with this conversation still rattling around in my head.
For those scientifically inclined sorts who haven’t found art that they could connect with yet, try to see an exhibit with Leonardo da Vinci’s works. His sketches are an especially perfect marriage of artistic skill and scientific curiosity. I saw an exhibit of his sketches at the Getty several months ago and his anatomical drawings renders the human form beautifully.
What do you mean, though, by “something that is done well”?
As for the intended effect, just because a hypothetical artist couldn’t articulate in so many words precisely what he’s shooting for doesn’t mean there’s not a deliberate effect in what he’s doing. He’s doing art because he needs to communicate something in a level beyond the verbal. It’s the same with literature - there are great poets and novelists who are good at writing statements about the intended effects of their work, and some who couldn’t write self-criticism or statements of poetics to save their lives. They resort to art because they can’t outright say what they have to - otherwise art would be redundant.
That’s not to say there aren’t artists who explain what they’re up to in very eloquent ways, or criticism that brilliantly captures the essence of a work (for instance T.J. Clark’s The Sight of Death, a book entirely about Clark’s reactions to a couple of Poussin paintings) but an artist’s inability to articulate what he’s trying to accomplish doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
I can’t seem to see what everyone else sees in Guernica. I see the bull’s head under the horse, but I don’t see the horn. The skull is invisible to me. I am not familiar with Picasso’s ‘harlequins’, so I don’t know what to look for. I fear that painting is wasted on me.
So don’t look for anything. Just see the painting. Where do your eyes want to go? What attracts you? What irritates or frustrates you? Interesting shapes? Colors? Contrasts? How does it make you feel? Angry? Sad? Tired? Hungry? Sleepy? Do you form a story in your head? Do you see relationships between the images and shapes?
I think, ‘The bombing of Guernica was the defining atrocity of the Spanish Civil War, and this is all they could come up with?’
My interest lies in WWII, from 1939. The Spanish Civil War only interests me in that it provided a ‘training ground’ for the Luftwaffe and the Soviets. So while I recognise the atrocity, I lack the knowledge of the complete context of the painting. The abstract images don’t induce in me the horror of the event. I thought the ‘secret images’ would help me grasp it. But I can’t see them. The figures bring to mind '50s advertising and Ren and Stempy. The guy burning to death, seen in that light, is comical; as is the mother wailing while she holds her dead child. And what’s up with the UFO flying between the bull and the horse?
So it’s frustrating. I understand the significance of the event. I like abstract art. I see the horror Picasso was depicting. But without having studied the Spanish Civil War, without ever knowing anyone who lived through it, without having studied Picasso, and not being able to even see the ‘secret images’, it doesn’t do anything for me. it’s frustrating to know the general elements, but as a Gen-X cusper born in the Space Age I lack the background to appreciate the work.
