Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

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.
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Personal art appreciation

Post by Lark_Truth » April 4th, 2017, 9:30 am

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.
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!

Eduk
Posts: 2372
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Eduk » April 11th, 2017, 12:52 pm

Do you mean Art as in paintings, sculptures, photographs, things like that. Or are you including books/films/music and other things which might be considered art?
Unknown means unknown.

A Poster He or I
Posts: 1104
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by A Poster He or I » 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.

User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Lark_Truth » April 12th, 2017, 9:24 am

Eduk wrote:Do you mean Art as in paintings, sculptures, photographs, things like that. Or are you including books/films/music and other things which might be considered art?
Paintings, photographs, and sculptures, Eduk.
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Supine » May 22nd, 2017, 7:22 am

Pattern and the use of color are important parts of visual art. The focal point the eyes are drawn to in a piece is another element not to be dismissed.

Considering that... I will make the statement that good art should not require a person to have a Ph.D. as an observer to appreciate it, and that good art tends to be appreciated for centuries by even people that never went further than grade school in formal education. But that statement does not explain what makes art worthwhile.

Due to my influence from Catholicism throughout my early life and portions of my young adulthood, Catholicism having a long history of using visual arts, I will say that what makes art worthwhile if I am addressing that question, is its capability to rouse something (emotionally, psychologically) in the onlooker. For the instincts imparted in Catholicism what should be roused inside the person are things that move or even elevate the "higher" things in or about us as humans.

But I will say that if art is used specifically for propaganda (Nazi art etc.) and it is successful in doing what the artist intended it to do, then on a certain level this can be considered good art and worthwhile (for its intended purpose).

The same I will say goes for the printing and packaging on products being sold.

User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 933
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj » May 26th, 2017, 11:06 am

Lark_Truth wrote:We all see the world differently, especially the artists themselves. People appreciate art in different ways and I would like to hear your opinions.
For me it's about a kind of joy that comes from looking at a mark made by a human. You get a feeling.

Like John Dewey says, Have the experience! I was in San Francisco and saw the Bruce Connor/William Kentridge exhibits at the SFMOMA. I will never forget the day!
fair to say

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by -1- » July 26th, 2017, 6:26 am

3uGH7D4MLj wrote: Like John Dewey says, Have the experience! I was in San Francisco and saw the Bruce Connor/William Kentridge exhibits at the SFMOMA. I will never forget the day!
Visual art does not move me much. But I used to know this babe, she was totally drop-dead gorgeous, and she said that the moment she beheld a One Gogh painting at the STFUYOMOFO exhibition in Toronto at the AGO or at the ROM, she burst into tears.

The one series of paintings that grabbed me ever, were the illustrations to the music of Emerson Lake and Palmer's take on Musigorsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" which were shown on the inside fold of a double-fold record cover. Those were cool. "The Hut of Baba Yaga", "The Curse of Baba Yaga", "The Sage", "The Gnome", etc. They instilled in me a feeling of infinity, a feeling of I don't know what. But instill they did.

Of course the music helped.

I went through all the motions of the psychedelic experience without taking any drugs, just listening to the music. Such is the power that music holds over me. Little surprise, if you believe Beethoven when he said, "Music is the language in which another world talks to us, which understands us, but which we will never comprehend."

Other than that, I get my visual artistic satisfaction from looking at maps, at antique maps, esp. Spruner's Historische Landkarte which he etched in the middle of the 1800s for Justus Perthes in Gotha.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Razblo » July 27th, 2017, 5:52 am

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.
It has to maintain my interest. If I see a work that I would wish to own it would mean that I could never get tired of noticing it. My favorite works are those that tell me a story which the artist may have not necessarily intended. Others types of favorites just have a certain pleasurable balance to them. Maybe they organize the chaos of life into some semblance of order, thereby having a calming delight about them. I presume this is why many artists use the golden ratio in their work's underlying structure. A good artist seems to be a trickster of worth.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3252
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by LuckyR » July 30th, 2017, 12:28 am

I have always maintained that the value of the art lies in the accumulated experiences of the viewer. If they are similar to that of the artist, the audience will "get it" and experience the "classic" interpretation. OTOH, if the viewer has a very different life experience than the artist they may either "not get it" and dismiss the piece, or have a different or unique interpretation that can even magnify the stature of the piece beyond that in the standard audience.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by -1- » July 30th, 2017, 11:17 pm

LuckyR wrote:I have always maintained that the value of the art lies in the accumulated experiences of the viewer. If they are similar to that of the artist, the audience will "get it" and experience the "classic" interpretation. OTOH, if the viewer has a very different life experience than the artist they may either "not get it" and dismiss the piece, or have a different or unique interpretation that can even magnify the stature of the piece beyond that in the standard audience.
This makes sense... very much.

I can't place myself on this conceptual map, though. I must have had similar experiences to SOME artists'. Not to all of them. But to some. I have quite a number of decades' worth of accumulation. So how come I can enjoy no art? I enjoy music, books, plays, movies, but not art. What's wrong with me? Can you explain? (No pressure, just curious... of course I can't expect you to fully explain this to me.)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Eduk
Posts: 2372
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Eduk » July 31st, 2017, 6:04 am

-1- I'm more or less the same. I can appreciate a fine work of art. I can choose between lesser and greater works of art. But art does very little for me. A fine landscape hanging on the wall in my house will get barely a glance. I will appreciate it more than not having a fine landscape. But not greatly so. I think on the whole I'd prefer a nice wood floor in my house than a Cezanne on the wall, ignoring price.
Whereas art within the context of a movie telling a story is a very different thing. The art of tarcovsky is something I genuinely like.
Poetry also does little for me. Whereas movies, music, literature and video games are all things I greatly appreciate.
Some people love poetry. Some people love fine art. I've never really felt there was anything wrong with me. But I try to keep an open mind, maybe there is.

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 6:08 am to add the following --

Put it this way perhaps. I enjoy kicking a sphere around amongst a group of people into a net with other people trying to stop me. It's basically pointless. But I love to do it, even though I am relatively quite bad at it. On the other hand not everyone does enjoy football. But I never really thought there was anything wrong with not enjoying football.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2907
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Burning ghost » July 31st, 2017, 9:41 am

Tastes change. The issue is more about what you deem art's purpose to be in general?

If yoy are talking about mere beauty then there are quite objective measures that can be applied to paintings regarding general symmetry. In this respect what is interesting is that symmetry is generally considered to be beautiful, but slight asymmetry MORE beautiful.

A lot other than this is down to exposure and life experience. Plus, technical critique is often different to general appreciation. I can for example point out how technically well done something is. That does not mean I am going to like it though!

Also, cultural norms play a huge part in this (that would really come under "exposure" and "experience" in my book though.)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3252
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by LuckyR » August 2nd, 2017, 3:19 am

-1- wrote:
LuckyR wrote:I have always maintained that the value of the art lies in the accumulated experiences of the viewer. If they are similar to that of the artist, the audience will "get it" and experience the "classic" interpretation. OTOH, if the viewer has a very different life experience than the artist they may either "not get it" and dismiss the piece, or have a different or unique interpretation that can even magnify the stature of the piece beyond that in the standard audience.
This makes sense... very much.

I can't place myself on this conceptual map, though. I must have had similar experiences to SOME artists'. Not to all of them. But to some. I have quite a number of decades' worth of accumulation. So how come I can enjoy no art? I enjoy music, books, plays, movies, but not art. What's wrong with me? Can you explain? (No pressure, just curious... of course I can't expect you to fully explain this to me.)
Have you ever dropped acid? But seriously, I agree that having a little bit of the navel gazing gene helps with visual art appreciation. Meditation or yoga similar in that you get a lot more out of them if you can focus your mind on the desired subject.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by -1- » August 3rd, 2017, 2:28 am

LuckyR wrote:
Have you ever dropped acid?
Not too many times. After my employer had to call in the EPA to clean up the mess after I dropped the acid, he fired me to save money, and hired someone else with a less pronounced Parkinson's.

Seriously speaking, no, never. "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." I feared I'd freak out on LSD.

-- Updated 2017 August 3rd, 2:36 am to add the following --
Eduk wrote: Put it this way perhaps. I enjoy kicking a sphere around amongst a group of people into a net with other people trying to stop me. It's basically pointless. But I love to do it, even though I am relatively quite bad at it. On the other hand not everyone does enjoy football. But I never really thought there was anything wrong with not enjoying football.
Nobody can fathom the attraction inherent in kicking the object "ball". It is a mystery.

Soccer / European football is the only natural sport "l'art pour l'art". It involves kicking a ball for no known reason. All other sports sprouted from some useful and practical technicality.

(I expect -0+ to chime in and name ten other sports that have no or only little practicality in their development.)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 183
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Personal art appreciation

Post by Albert Tatlock » October 17th, 2017, 6:00 am

-1- wrote: (I expect -0+ to chime in and name ten other sports that have no or only little practicality in their development.)
Snooker (billiards, pool)? I can see how football could have come about inadvertently by someone casually kicking an object on the ground while walking along and then realising its potential for entertainment. On the other hand, it seems to me that you would have to go well out of your way to find the inspiration necessary to come up with snooker.

Post Reply