I immediately thought "Elfen Lied!" When I saw your second picture. What's up with these art creations with a man eating what seems like a baby? (enlighten me!)
... it's called the Kiss. It's a portrait of a man and a woman in an erotic embrace.
Maybe you're thinking of a painting called Saturn Devouring His Son. That's a mythological reference.
Yeah the portrait was pretty self explanatory but thank you; it just reminded me of the opening from Elfen Lied, but instead of a kiss they were just embracing each other.
On January 21 2011 00:41 white_horse wrote: so now the attitude is that artists like rockwell are reduced to storybook illustrators?
No, they aren't, but you can't blame contemporary art for not being what you expect of it. Illustration is not a lost skill, it's just not what contemporary artists choose to use to express themselves.
sure they do, they use all mediums at their disposal
On January 20 2011 12:31 nitram wrote: Zdzislaw Beksinski
Props to you man. His work is amazing. Despite what many see to be horrible, nightmarish works, I saw only wonder. His buildings really seem to be what I saw in my dreams once. XD
I think "good art" is when it impacts you in a way that inspires you. This is where the subjectivity that many speak about comes in. If a child's simple painting causes you to think, wonder and dream then that would be considered art.
What good is a million different paintings when not one touches your soul?
Art isn't subjective. If anything, it is ruled by an understanding by consensus in the art world. That consensus basically says that everything can be art, regardless of critera. Even the notion of the artist is up in the air, considering the whole artist/curator relationship.
Somebody saying "I don't like this, therefore it is not art" changes nothing.
edit: good vs bad is of course subjective. But that's a pretty mundane thing.. it's like saying a movie is good or bad, you don't really gain anything unless you're able to understand why it's good or bad.
I might just wanna say that what separates good from bad art (as in "visual" art), also applies to music, dance, architecture, and basically most kinds of art (in a general sense). In this context, I always found it interesting that "quality" of art (as in "technically skilled") does not necessarily contribute to its popularity. You might say "Well why the hell do people go to museums to see the best of the best works of art, if - after your theory - they might equally enjoy some random guy painting stuff". Here's why: Thing is, a skillful artist can create art that is considered as an achievement for human history, if the audience finds their emotions reflected in it. But by no means is a piece of art necessarily getting a huge popularity. The best example might be dodecaphonic music. It's based on a pretty recent musical theory (early 20th century) that doesn't bother implementing the melodies, intervals and harmonies that made popular pretty much all the music that is listened today (classic-pop-rock-jazz-techno-whateveryoulistento). Which leads to the widely shared opinion that it sounds plain awful. It just doesn't feel right. One might think that it's nothing that a mentally sane person could listen to for more than 3 minutes without getting a strkme (btw, that's the usual problem of people getting used to something, they look at something new in a kind of pejorative way, especially if they don't understand it). BUT - this by no means is indication for lack of quality of this particular genre of art. It just ain't made for the masses, although pretty much the majority of "theoretical musicians" admit that it's thoughtfully constructed, composed, and executed. Same reasoning also goes the other way around: There's a lot of beautiful music out there that isn't based on great instrumental skills or singing abilities. But people love it and consider it great music (and thus great art). I personally still love listening to Rise Against (check them out if you haven't, they're awesome) but I would never consider them skillful in a technical sense. You instantly hear that the lead singer had no education and that the guitar solos can be played by any child with 2 years of guitar class. BUT - I am still touched by their music, it makes me feel great, it makes me feel sad, it makes me feel angry. So there we have music that I and everyone I talked to (who isn't a biased fanboy) considers not essentially "good" (still, in a technical sense) music but definitely music that is worth listening to. Same thing applies to architecture. If you admire how the arabs built like half of the city of Granada in Spain and erected the most amazing buildings and gardens and mosques there - I heard people saying, they don't like it, but that's fine, it doesn't imply that it's not "good". Seeing someone dancing might get you aroused, even though the movements aren't based on any dance education or years of practice, just a natural sense (or talent) of how to do it. So, in short: The quality of a piece of art (however you really define "good") does not have as huge of an influence on the likability of a piece of art. If you actually like a piece of art is rather defined by if you see yourself somewhat reflected in there (sometimes without actually knowing how). If the piece has been created by a grandmaster of his class, even better. But that just makes it more enjoyable, only very few people start liking a piece of art just because it is well crafted.
I hope, I made myself at least partially clear, might have gotten a lil confusing here or there.
tl;dr - The link between the quality of art and its popularity is widely overvalued imo. And after all, it doesn't really matter. Listen to what you makes you feel good, and look at pictures that impress you. Who rly cares if it's good or bad? That's what art is all about, isn't it?
Hm... I like the direction of this discussion, let me try to put in my own measily 2 cents =)
I think art is subjective and objective at the same time, because I believe art is very much related to beauty and inspiration. It's easy for me to argue that inspiration is something that must be felt personally -- a short film may convict me to be a better person, I may find sympathy in a song, I may derive courage from a poem -- and someone else may just pass these things by, not finding any personal connection with the same pieces of art.
And then there is beauty, which I think there are some forms of which are objective -- something that awes your soul, no matter who you are, that makes you go "wow....." and you are lost within it, you are mesmerized, you are entranced. I think the human soul cannot help but be captivated by certain beautiful things -- tremendous landscapes, performance that seems superhuman, colors, harmonies and pictures that seem out of this world ... for example, a sunrise or sunset... (or a double rainbow??)
Hm, I do want to acknowledge that there are things beautiful to some and not others -- for we are all different (eye in the beholder?). But I just want to establish that there is "inspiration" and/or "beauty" inherent in all art, and that there is such a thing as "universal" beauty.
You need to study art history before making a thread like this. The Mona Lisa was a great picture for it's time, because it is the first known picture in which a woman is smiling. Before that, there were no smiling women in pictures.
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.
Hahaha... Piss Christ. As demeaning as it is I really do like the lighting But I probably also like it merely because it's demeaning.
Personally I think that any pop song that uses lyrics that aren't words (as in, the vocalist just makes incoherent noise during the song) is bad. So I guess I agree that there is certain art that is outright bad, but it's also subjective. A lot of people really like pop songs for some awful reason, so who am I to say they're bad? Especially considering I find amusement in Piss Christ.
I really don't have time to study art. But I do like some of Dali's paintings.
Also, this is SICK music:
So in summary, all art is enjoyable to someone, most art is un-enjoyable to someone else, but you're allowed to give your opinion on just how amazing or horrible you think art is no matter the context. Not that it matters at all to anyone else
I think it comes down to time. The ability to garner a human response is relatively easily, but to find a piece that maintains its potency across generations and cultures is the defining quality that sets some things apart from others. It seems more noble to appreciate art that transcends a simple moment, given that the process requires the sacrifice of the ability to commit to the more common-place joy that others find in having loose standards.
There's also the principle of artistic aftertaste, which most modern art shock pieces simply do not have. After you see a composition, there sometimes comes a wonder of how it came about. When you have something rendered so well that it defies the audience's ability to deconstruct it and replicate it by their own process of thought, you have something worthy of being good art.
The biggest problem is the fact that many people place art as a centerpiece of their identity, so therefore we have arguments in order to legitimize our passions. In the scope of things, whether something is good or bad art isn't all that important to people other than artists, who actually have to change something with their means of work or simply be destroyed by the brutal democratic nature of art in general.
On January 21 2011 00:32 white_horse wrote: im sorry to say this but contemporary art is terrible imo. Someone can draw a red box in the middle of a paper and apparently that is very good art simply because of the name brand the artist carries. We all know art is supposed to be subjective, but when you walk into the contemporary art section in an art museum, it gets to be ridiculous.
But seriously, in addition to other nice paintings people posted, why can't people draw like this + Show Spoiler +
I actually live very close to the Rockwell Museum in Vermont and I've grown up seeing his works practically everywhere. Some are quite good like the first one you posted while others are honestly very bland.
I'll take pictures of my few pieces of art when I get home. They very clearly reflect that I'm a geek.
People can "draw" like Rockwell, they just don't because they aren't asked too. He was paid alot of money to do those, something that would never happen today. The world of illustration is basically dead to large extent, at least compared to what it once was.
Sorry for the essay, but I really like discussions like this ^^. TL;DR art can be subjective depending on the audience, but becomes more objective (but not completely) the more knowledge the audience has of it, making good art the art that the people with the most knowledge think is good. There are exceptions, of course, but in general, this is how it works. How I come to this conclusion:
Art is really anything that is creative and incites an emotional response, therefore anything can be art. People feel that there is art in nature (and they would be correct, because people can obviously find beauty in physique), which comes, well, without any sort of creative intention (that we know of). Because of this, people feel art is subjective (if the art incites an emotional response from the audience, then is there such thing as non-art?)
In truth, I feel that anything can be art. But is there a such thing as bad art? Is it all subjective, relative to the audience? What makes good art good and bad art bad?
First, let's look at the creativity that goes into art. Now, not all art has to be intentional, but let's focus on that because looking at a blade of grass and feeling inspired is so godamn specific; anything that isn't intentionally art but people find beautiful usually falls into a niche, or ends up being a force of nature. So, what goes into creative design?
Aesthetic appeal (sight, sound, smell, feel, you know the senses): Artistic creation will explore the senses to connect with the audience's emotionality. Is it appealing to the senses?
Cognitive appeal: Is there a point? What does the piece of art say? Does it provoke ideas? Force questions? Is it funny? Does it make you think?
Display of skill: Is the skill required to implement this piece of art beyond average? Obviously if any joe could replicate it, then it might not be worthy as a masterpiece.
The brain often tries to find patterns, so good art usually works by exploring patterns and evoking an emotional response based on the aspects previously mentioned. The audience's experience usually comes into play because of this, due to the fact that an experience can tie reference to something and evoke an emotion -- this is why memes become so popular on the internet, because experiencing an idea and seeing it applied to something new / funny / thought provoking can be emotionally exciting.
What makes good art good is the implementation of those three aspects to some degree, and still accomplishing the basic notion that art has to incite an emotional response. If the artist is going for a minimalist approach, and therefore his technicality (display of skill) is not expansive, then usually the other two aspects are much more prominent in a good piece of art. Here is a classic minimalist piece of art:
That is a painting of Tony Smith's "Free Ride." Obviously the image is not very technical, doesn't require a lot of skill to replicate, but the ideas behind the piece are thought provoking and the aesthetic appeal coincides with the cognitive appeal. You look at the image for long enough and you start to wonder at the angles and what the meaning behind the title is in reference to the image itself.
Similarly, if a piece is very technically oriented, say Steve Vai's epic guitar playing the Aesthetic and Cognitive appeals aren't as important for it to be considered "good," or emotionally inciting. Obviously there are aesthetic aspects, and the combination of chords / progressions can incite a different response from the audience, but the thoughts behind the music aren't as important as making it sound cool and being very difficult to play.
I find that the subjectivity of art diminishes as knowledge and understanding increase. There are things that people will always find attractive; the brain is not a random mishmash of character traits and ways of thinking. Humans are much more similar than they are different, therefore, we generally appreciate the same things and dislike the same things. As your knowledge of art expands, so does your knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Any critic will say "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was a bad movie, but it still makes a lot of money because it was entertaining to some extent. In general, I have found that capitalism does not always favor the best art, just whatever the masses want to see, so you can't really base what is good and what is bad on how much money something pulls in. Keep in mind, historically, artists have been notoriously poor, with very few becoming rich and/or famous in the past. Off the top of my head, Edgar Allen Poe comes to mind, a man that died drunk and destitute without seeing any of his work becoming a success. Nowadays, most people that made it through middle school know of Poe's poetry, but the man's genius was not recognized in his lifetime. Only recently have artists been able to effectively live off of their talent, and only a fortunate few make it to superstar status.
I work at a movie theater, and I have a bachelor's degree in creative writing. With my knowledge of what makes a good story, I can confidently say which narratives are good and which are bad, but I still have preferences and I'm not 100% impartial to every genre. I can experience a story and judge it more objectively than most, however, because I know what makes a good story good, I can pick out those little nuances that reflect a skilled writer, I see all the grammatical mistakes or all the immature dialogue tags, I can see the Deus Ex Machina and judge whether it was appropriate or whether it was a cop-out. I can see when a story is relying on its audience being ignorant, or whether it is expecting it to be knowledgeable. I can see when a story has wit.
I still like my comedies, though, and I still enjoy shitty movies from time to time, but for the most part, knowledge of art makes for a more objective viewer, and therefore better at judging whether something is good or bad. Just look at the primary audience for most pop-music: young, impressionable teenagers that have a lot of expendable income (their parents' money) but not a lot of experience or knowledge of music. I would argue that most pop music is bad, because it does little in combing skill, aesthetic appeal, and cognitive appeal, but still exists due to its audience.
And so, because knowledge gives credibility to critics and such, their opinion is usually valued. There are some bullshit professions, however, like wine tasters and (some) painting critics, which have been scientifically trolled.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mindspring.com/~mc.escher/escher/escher29.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/k/klimt/kiss.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/The_Dancing_Couple-1663-Jan_Steen.jpg)
Jan Steen: The dancing couple![[image loading]](http://redtreetimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pieter_brueghel_the_triumpf_of_death.jpg)
Pieter Brueghel: The triumpf of death![[image loading]](http://www.nicepicture.info/data/media/46/Salvador_Dali_Geopolitical_child_watches_the_birth.jpg)
Salvador Dali: Geopoliticus child watching the birth of the new man![[image loading]](http://img508.imageshack.us/i/viejoscomiendosopa.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img171.imageshack.us/i/326pxfranciscodegoyasat.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/The_Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Ophelia_1894.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/GENTILESCHI_Judith.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Lempicka_musician.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fEVDI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/V1vlN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OilGESChvLI/SRnphWdHf6I/AAAAAAAAAdY/Nr2dea7Hl-4/s400/zdzislaw_beksinski_1983_3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ihazabucket.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/beksinski_9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/06/09.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img171.imageshack.us/i/chroniquesdepekinbenjam.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/11118923.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://artmight.com/albums/classic-n/Norman-Rockwell/Saying-Grace.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thomas-kinkade-norman-rockwell-pictures-paintings-art.com/Norman%20Rockwell-No-Swimming.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd-wright/fallingwater-pictures/fallingwater-1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://valemapena.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/02-guggenheim-museum-bilbao-spain.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cursodehistoriadaarte.com.br/wp-content/uploads/Steven-Holl-Museu-Nelson-Atkins.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.egodesign.ca/_files/articles/blocks/7559_seagram_building_by_mies_van_der_rohe__philip_johnson_ezra_stoller_new_york_1954_58.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.scuolamediavirgilio.it/cittanellastoria/post-ind-moderna/img/mies-van-der-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://figure-ground.com/data/mies_pavilion/0011.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Tonysmith_freeride_sculpture.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.graffiti.org/sd/tribal2004_daim_5715.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://allisonbeilke.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1024magritte-sonofman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg)
