|
I would like to preface this post by saying that I know absolutely nothing about art (my last art class was in middle school), and that is why I am asking this question.
What distinguishes a 'good' piece of art from a 'bad' piece of art (I am thinking specifically of paintings here, but I suppose other forms of art apply as well). When I look at a painting, I usually judge it by how aesthetically pleasing it is, and then what I think about it- does it make me think about something profound or spark a pleasant memory? I suppose I ask this question because I don't see the majesty of some supposedly monumentally important works of art.
For example:
+ Show Spoiler + The Mona Lisa. What the heck is so great about this picture? It looks pretty average to me.
or
+ Show Spoiler + Picasso. Paintings like this just don't appeal to me at all, and I don't see the beauty I guess.
However, I find paintings like these:
+ Show Spoiler + to be absolutely beautiful.
Regardless, what do you think makes a painting (or other work of art) significant and beautiful? And maybe some artists around here can explain the big deal with the Mona Lisa to me haha
|
Whatever appeals to you. I find mondrian and Jan Van Eyck equally beautiful. One for its thoughtfulness, one for its pure skill and talent. Art is entirely subjective in what you like and what you dislike.
That said, Anyone who begins to make claims about what is and is not art, or what "takes talent" and what doesn't, has immediately lost at the conversation at hand. People dismiss dada as talentless, but I question them why they didn't do it, or don't do it. And if they tried, it would be extremely kitsch. Sometimes art is more then what it simply looks like.(not saying that you were expressing any of these views, I just wanted to point this out because I know where these discussion inevitably lead to).
That said, I'll post some of my favorite pieces.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://xtazi.com/dali/d134.jpg) The ship - Salvador Dali
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/nude2.jpg) Marcel Duchamp - Nude Descending a Staircase
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/eyck/ghent/ghentopn.jpg) Jan Van Eyck -Ghent Altar Piece. I can't find a high enough resolution picture to do this justice, but if you ever find one/see it in real life, the precision used to paint this is absolutely amazing. It is one of the most highly detailed paintings I've ever seen
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lae49wXkWp1qepdj8o1_500.jpg) Nike of Samothrace
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/745/w500h420/CRI_3745.jpg) Unique Forms of Continuity in Space - Umberto Boccioni
Edit: The Mona Lisa is considered to be a great piece because of who painted it, the skill used to paint it, the mystery behind it, the visual appeal of it, and the techniques used to make it(sfumato)
|
The reason the Mona Lisa is famous is because it was stolen. What I find most interesting about the painting is the background. You can clearly see it is disconnected, but for what reason? With post modernism, cubism, fauvism and all the other isms, it seems to be more about originality and "creativity" apart from aesthetic ideals. You can look at some paintings for their "truth" value as well, especially with abstract expressionist like Pollock.
Here are some obligatory paintings:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
I find a charm within Rossetti's work even though most find it strange. He uses the same woman in most of his works, but Pandora has a mystery about her. A solemn despair almost at what she is about to do.
|
I'd say that art is mostly subjective. You're welcome to like or dislike something based on opinion.
However, there is certain art that I would just call outright bad, as a simple fact. This includes stuff like "Piss Christ", a photograph of a crusifix in a bucket of urine, or people who have gotten stuff in to a museum using feces (no joke) as their medium. Regardless of your opinion on the subject matter (religion) it is not art to pull something like that, in my opinion.
Personally, I think that art should be aesthetically pleasing to someone. You can't please everyone, but if your intention is to shit on a canvas and have people pay money to see it, it pleases noone.
|
I'm not sure why, but I love Goyas paintings. These two especially.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 20 2011 09:18 Nokarot wrote:I'd say that art is mostly subjective. You're welcome to like or dislike something based on opinion. However, there is certain art that I would just call outright bad, as a simple fact. This includes stuff like " Piss Christ", a photograph of a crusifix in a bucket of urine, or people who have gotten stuff in to a museum using feces (no joke) as their medium. Regardless of your opinion on the subject matter (religion) it is not art to pull something like that, in my opinion. Personally, I think that art should be aesthetically pleasing to someone. You can't please everyone, but if your intention is to shit on a canvas and have people pay money to see it, it pleases noone.
Why isn't it art?
Why does it have to be aesthetically pleasing? If I like a piece, not because it looks good, but for some other reason, does it cease to be art?
+ Show Spoiler +
There is nothing pleasing about looking at this man. But the detail and precision of the roman sculptor who made it makes me appreciate and enjoy it greatly. Is it not art?
|
Paintings like the Mona Lisa are so valuable because they represent an era in history. They are valuable for their historical significance, and not so much for the art itself. The Mona Lisa probably got famous because it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911, and it's appeared in pop culture from time to time since then.
|
|
|
What makes a piece of art beautiful and meaningful is the way each person perceives it.
When you see a painting that you love you are actually connecting with the artist's feelings and emotions. You 'share' something in common. You share a vision because you can relate your feelings with the ones of the artist's when he was painting it. And that kind of relation is a powerful one.
That's why there is paintings you could stare all day and never be bored. Also that's the reason why some people like certain painters and hate others. It's all in the eyes, mind and heart (soul?) of who see it.
|
Hello I'm kind of nervous to post this but here, my father is an artist , and these are some of his works, I hope you enjoy.... www.tonycacalano.com btw I love his work hehe , maybe it's just because i've been around it my whole life and he is my dad 
edit : i dont know how to post pictures sorry
|
Skill and effort is what I think separates good art from bad. For the Mona Lisa you have to look at the artwork that came before it and the history of really Florence and the Medici. Leonardo's only rival at the time was Michaelangelo . Art techniques like realistic perspective had only recently been developed. Just look at art from the dark ages and then the Mona Lisa and you should get an idea why it and allot of renaissance artist get so much credit.
Personally my favorite Renaissance artist was Botticelli
+ Show Spoiler +
But you have to understand that he could of been burned at the stake for painting nudes and pagan art. Allot of Botticelli's work was destroyed during Church book burnings, he even tossed a bunch of his work after he was told that it was sinful.
|
Visual art, or any type of art for that matter, is closely tied with emotion.
I'm not really big on paintings and pictures and stuff, but I really enjoy listening to music and I'm sure all arguments would still apply. The thing is, a good song isn't just defined by how pleasing it sounds, although that is the most obvious factor and most people (sadly) tend to judge it by that alone. Real good music evokes emotions more complicated and deep such as marvel (which can include detail and technical mastery), despair, curiosity (e.g. picasso), etc. The beauty of a piece of art is the culmination of all these things... not just the "happy feeling" which is just a small part of real beauty.
As I said before, it is sad that many people don't realize this and it is even more sad that society seems to be pressuring against it... Many things of real beauty are quickly picked apart by naive critics, ignored by the media, and quickly dismissed.
Even worse, our culture is absolutely obsessed with sex, which is not real beauty (or maybe some of it is... but "art" that only offers sex is quite shallow and lacking, and by no means good), it's just the result of our biological imperative to reproduce. This makes it even more difficult.
Here's 2 of my favorite album art:
![[image loading]](http://samcroasdale.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/the-devil-and-god-raging-inside-of-me.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/68/Dream_Theater_-_Octavarium.jpg)
|
The most simple explanation about art:
art is like human. There is something you like and something you dont like.
Enjoying what you like and respecting / sharing others opinion is the true beauty of art, not arguing about price tag or famous name.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/John_Singer_Sargent_001.jpg)
i like this kinda art!
well on topic i liked this painting cuz of composition and the skill of the painter etc..
|
|
|
heresy even if you don't like picasso you shouldn't admit it in polite company
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Gar%C3%A7on_%C3%A0_la_pipe.jpg)
if you're only looking for "beauty" you're not looking correctly
|
Good art and bad art is subjective. I hate non-representational art, personally. I love realism (naturalism).....I like to look at designs too, but on representational stuff....like an armor.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HM2xa.jpg)
EAT COLOR
|
The Mona Lisa is a typical example of the amount of perfection in composition that developed during the renaissance. If you look at it as just a portrait, comparing it to later paintings, it might not look like much, but the way it's built up, the lighting, facial features and attention to details, it's really quite a spectacular piece of art for its era.
As for artists such as Picasso, one should know he was extremely talented when it came to realism, but broke away from that genre in search of something new and innovative. Cubism and other modern art can probably be hard to appreciate unless you know the thought behind it, but it's also about colours and composition; especially how colours contrast and complement eachother. In essence, it's art that goes against the traditional standards of art just for the sake of doing just that, but at the same time being very skillfully made.
I personally prefer prefer the more classical renaissance/baroque style artworks, since lighting in such pictures tend to be superb, and the attention to details absolutely astonishing. In general I like art with lots of effort and training behind it - these days there seems to be a lot of nobodies doing weird shit for the sake of weird, without much thought or craftmanship behind it, and I really don't appreciate that.
|
On January 20 2011 10:14 sushiman wrote:
The Mona Lisa is a typical example of the amount of perfection in composition that developed during the renaissance. If you look at it as just a portrait, comparing it to later paintings, it might not look like much, but the way it's built up, the lighting, facial features and attention to details, it's really quite a spectacular piece of art for its era.
As for artists such as Picasso, one should know he was extremely talented when it came to realism, but broke away from that genre in search of something new and innovative. Cubism and other modern art can probably be hard to appreciate unless you know the thought behind it, but it's also about colours and composition; especially how colours contrast and complement eachother. In essence, it's art that goes against the traditional standards of art just for the sake of doing just that, but at the same time being very skillfully made.
I personally prefer prefer the more classical renaissance/baroque style artworks, since lighting in such pictures tend to be superb, and the attention to details absolutely astonishing. In general I like art with lots of effort and training behind it - these days there seems to be a lot of nobodies doing weird shit for the sake of weird, without much thought or craftmanship behind it, and I really don't appreciate that.
I agree, I prefer Baroque paintings. They have such nice theatrical spectacle and I love the dramatic diagonal compositions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/l/leonardo/monalisa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Picasso_three_musicians_moma_2006.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.clarkart.edu/museum/collections/images/impressionist_07.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/starry-night/gogh.starry-night.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://apah.wikispaces.com/file/view/Waterhouse-Hylas-Nymphs.jpg/34646581/Waterhouse-Hylas-Nymphs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.steveartgallery.se/upload1/file-admin/images/Dante%20Gabriel%20Rossetti19.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://eeweems.com/goya/saturn_1000.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/goya/goya.colossus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_STrsF-ai_UU/TGiohBSPLEI/AAAAAAAAAUA/k2MQpErziZ8/s1600/Judging-Portrait%2520of%2520a%2520Roman%2520(c80bc).jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iYQuY.jpg)
