Personal art appreciation

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Spraticus » October 18th, 2017, 3:43 pm

Lark_Truth wrote:What I am asking here is what you guys believe makes art worthwhile. What do you think makes art good? Is it the shading techniques, the pattern or free-form, color, realistic-looking objects, etc.?

We all see the world differently, especially the artists themselves. People appreciate art in different ways and I would like to hear your opinions.

I'm guessing you mean visual art because of the examples you give of properties of works. The answer is all of these and none of these. An aspect such as shading might be a significant part of what elicits an aesthetic response but I can't imagine it ever being enough on its own. Appreciation of the technical aspects of a work is fairly esoteric and requires an advanced art education. You need to know a lot about what has been done, and what can be done, to be able to make a judgment. A response based on total ignorance is still valid, in the sense that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but won't stand up to much examination or comparison with the responses of others.

Some of your suggestion would be very category specific; realistic looking objects don't have much relevance to a Jackson Pollock. Indeed realistic objects are one of the most misleading things in art. Most people can recognise the objects in a renaissance painting but very few understand the symbolism involved. If you look at the Titian painting of " Danae", you will see recognisable human figures, but without knowledge of ancient mythology and its significance in renaissance Italy, you will struggle to really appreciate what the work is about and how well it achieves its objectives. It also helps to know how Titian fits into the history of art in terms of his techique and iconography.

What I'm trying to say here is that art is about ideas as well as skills. Some beautifully made pencil marks are pretty boring just on their own.

User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 932
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj » December 20th, 2017, 5:52 am

A Poster He or I wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 1:25 pm
My opinion about what makes a piece of art good has come around 180 degrees from what I believed when I was young. Back then I believed one could specify objective criteria for assigning a value of good or bad to a given artwork. Today, I believe the appreciation of art is 100% subjective. I even believe that the attempt to define "objective" criteria for the appreciation of art is to completely misunderstand what art is.
I agree. My ideas about art have changed as well. When people would talk about communicating, I would think, if you want to communicate write a letter! But now I realize that the communication in art occurs within the sensory domain of our shared humanity.

Another thing that helped me was realizing (John Dewey) that the experience of art is a nonverbal encounter, so I should stop trying to put things into words and develop sensitivity toward other kinds of sensations, responses.
fair to say

Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Spraticus » December 20th, 2017, 7:24 pm

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
December 20th, 2017, 5:52 am
A Poster He or I wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 1:25 pm
My opinion about what makes a piece of art good has come around 180 degrees from what I believed when I was young. Back then I believed one could specify objective criteria for assigning a value of good or bad to a given artwork. Today, I believe the appreciation of art is 100% subjective. I even believe that the attempt to define "objective" criteria for the appreciation of art is to completely misunderstand what art is.
I agree. My ideas about art have changed as well. When people would talk about communicating, I would think, if you want to communicate write a letter! But now I realize that the communication in art occurs within the sensory domain of our shared humanity.

Another thing that helped me was realizing (John Dewey) that the experience of art is a nonverbal encounter, so I should stop trying to put things into words and develop sensitivity toward other kinds of sensations, responses.
One of my many objections to recent "conceptual" art is that it often relies completely on the artist's statement that goes with it, or in some cases, that completely replaces the work. I have seen shows where all there is to see is a wall with a lot of hand written material. It looks a bit like a school classroom.
It isn't visual art; it's low grade reporting.

User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 932
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj » December 20th, 2017, 8:00 pm

Artist statements can be pretty annoying, even worse if the museum provides interpretive notes.

But you went to a show with hand written material? A human hand? It took you back to your school days? Sounds pretty good to me.
fair to say

Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Spraticus » December 21st, 2017, 6:05 pm

It didn't take me back to my school days, though there was a resemblance to that. The written content was tedious, badly written and expressed nothing visual. (nothing much at all.) I know writing is visual but somebody could have read it out to me with the same lack of affect and effect.

User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 932
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj » December 21st, 2017, 7:53 pm

Spraticus wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 6:05 pm
It didn't take me back to my school days, though there was a resemblance to that. The written content was tedious, badly written and expressed nothing visual. (nothing much at all.) I know writing is visual but somebody could have read it out to me with the same lack of affect and effect.
Of course everyone is free to like or dislike anything they want. I was just kidding.

Back to the topic -- what I personally look for in art is a kind of poetry. Could be strong and elegant like Lucian Freud or fragile and ambiguous like Richard Tuttle. I mean poetry in a larger general sense. A word in a poem carries an aura of meaning that pops in your head -- an image or graphic, a shape, a line in an art piece, does the same thing. Crushing like Anselm Kiefer or tragic/hilarious like the Dadaists.

I just discovered an artist in Seattle, Whiting Tennis, seems to be down my alley -- and William Kentridge, phenomenal.
fair to say

Post Reply