I painted a picture

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Dottore

"With art it's only necessary to make the music. Let the viewers dance."

I agree. But fumblefooters on that dance floor seem driven to sling insults at those who know a few dance steps rather than showing an interest in learning a few themselves - or just walking away.

What's interesting to me is that music, dance and literature don't generate the instant animosity that the visual arts so often does. I'm guessing that has a lot to do with the "in your face" immediacy of visual art as opposed to music, dance and literature, all of which require an investment of one's time to experience.

[m21sniper]

Dude do not even try to take the moral high ground. You've tossed more insults in here than everyone else combined.

As you do in virtually every thread you comment in. Which is why you are on so many peoples ignore lists.

The only thing you know about art is that it's hard.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

...You've tossed more insults in here than everyone else combined...

No, I indulge in childish behaviour and return insults to childish insulters - I don't generate them.

Geez! Doesn't your head hurt after all the whack-a-mole you insist on playing and losing at?

I'm not playing with you anymore snippy - just gonna ignore your adolescent hissy fits. You've long been on my ignorant list anyway.

[m21sniper]

So you were being mature in this thread?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

So you were being mature in this thread?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

With the exception of playing childish games with you, yeah - read my posts.

[m21sniper]

I thought you just said you were putting me on ignore?

That lasted all of 0 posts.

For the good of the board, i'm re-adding you to my ignore list. Though you amuse the hell out of me, from the comments on this thread, a few are sick of the back and forth flaming.

So, i will be the bigger man, though i will miss your abject stupidity. Back on ignore you go.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I thought you just said you were putting me on ignore?

No...you really don't read very well, do you? I said "just gonna ignore your adolescent hissy fits". You have been on my "ignorant list" for some time, but, if you start posting intelligent comments, that would change (though I know you couldn't care less).

[varmint]

person A doesn't really "get" art. but someone in college told him that liking abstract paintings is a sign of intelligence. so he praises some abstract art. person B doesn't get "art" either. but he praises abstract work as well because he wants to look smart. A and B meet and spend more time stroking each other's egos and demeaning those who don't pretend to understand than objectively discussing/critiquing/explaining the work.
person C has no clue as to what's going on, but want's in on the circle jerk.


it becomes a self licking lolipop.

[Jim Horton]

Originally Posted by varmint

person A doesn't really "get" art. but someone in college told him that liking abstract paintings is a sign of intelligence. so he praises some abstract art. person B doesn't get "art" either. but he praises abstract work as well because he wants to look smart. A and B meet and spend more time stroking each other's egos and demeaning those who don't pretend to understand than objectively discussing/critiquing/explaining the work.
person C has no clue as to what's going on, but want's in on the circle jerk.


it becomes a self licking lollipop.

I'm not really sure what this comment is saying. If you (as an individual) have taken the time to try and learn about both abstract and representational art, and have found that there are aspects of abstract art that you appreciate or even prefer, does that mean you are in on the circle jerk? Or does that put you outside the circle?

[m21sniper]

Clearly what he was saying is that one does not need to be "educated" to know the difference between art and trash, while simultaneously denigrating people who denigrate others for not "understanding art."

Clearly.

[Taz's Master]

In regards to the clothespin statue, is scale the determining factor? I wouldn't believe you would accuse the production line at a clothespin factory of being staffed with artists, even if one got stood on end outside of a public building. Can experiencing the subject of a work of art be as artistic an experience as experiencing the work of art itself, and if so does that make the subject art?

As far as performance art is concerned, is a Willie Mays catch, or a Ted Williams swing artistry on the same level as ballet or opera? If you answer no, would it be appropriate for me to conclude that you need to spend more time learning to appreciate the history of the artist and the significance of his body of work?

[imcarthur]

Please, will someone enlighten me?

Where does it say that one must like/understand/appreciated ALL art? In what rule book? In what manual? In what text? In what scroll from the ancients?

Isn’t it just a smidgen possible that one can appreciate certain styles or genres or ages of art & yet be unappreciative about others?

And if asked for an opinion, should I lie & mumble something about the artist’s feelings or his wretched life? Or should I express my actual feelings & give you my honest point of view?

And to attach the necessity of education to the subject of art appreciation is just so pompous & so typical of an academic’s dismissal of lesser mortals. I didn’t need education to tell me that I liked Renoir (as an example). After my 1st exposure, I wanted to learn more about Impressionism & I did. The deeper education gave me a better insight into the artists' time, lives, motivations etc but – a big but here - I didn’t need education to tell me that I liked Renoir.

Ian

[m21sniper]

Some art is just not admirable in any way.

SEE: Piss Christ

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

In regards to the clothespin statue, is scale the determining factor?

Good question. It's absolutely a major factor. Look into Claes Oldenburg and his contemporaries if you are interested in what these artist were doing within the context of the art world that they worked in.

I wouldn't believe you would accuse the production line at a clothespin factory of being staffed with artists, even if one got stood on end outside of a public building. Can experiencing the subject of a work of art be as artistic an experience as experiencing the work of art itself, and if so does that make the subject art?

In some instances I'd say yes; regarding Oldenburgh's clothespin sculpture I'd venture to say that that appreciation of the form of the clothespin was not his objective.

As far as performance art is concerned, is a Willie Mays catch, or a Ted Williams swing artistry on the same level as ballet or opera? If you answer no, would it be appropriate for me to conclude that you need to spend more time learning to appreciate the history of the artist and the significance of his body of work?

Another good question. I'd say that the two are on the same level in terms of athletic prowess. But performance art isn't competitive or a game.

I see using a Mays catch or Williams swing in a performance work or a dance as a creative use of that which is familiar and understood in the context of sports. Baseball fans recognize the beauty of the athletic prowess of its players and probably "balletic" would be the last adjective to enter most (not all) of their minds - and might question or laugh at its use in that context if they new nothing about ballet.

On the other hand, one might not even know what baseball is, see a performance or ballet wherein the motions of Mays catch and Williams swing are incorporated and appreciate it purely in dance terms. If they were familiar with and interested in the performance or dance form they would most likely be interested in knowing how those movements came to be incorporated in the work - and probably wouldn't (though some probably would) question or laugh at their use in that context, i.e., one might find its use creative and clever whereas another might deem it pedestrian and detracting. I think if those two examples were to discuss their different takes, it wouldn't involve insults being tossed back and forth and both would have the possibility of their perception being changed.

Does this adress your questions in a reasonable manner?

..

[Lazarro]

Sorry if this was mentioned in previous posts, I just could not muddle through 16 pages of ''dialog''. But there was a movie made called "Who the FUDGE is Jackson Pollock?"

About a woman who found a Pollock.

One of my art teachers told the class (back in '75) that Jackson used a lot of automotive paints in his art. I forget the details but he got the leftovers (free) from some car painting facility.

Alas, art much like porn is in the eye of the beholder.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Please, will someone enlighten me?

Where does it say that one must like/understand/appreciated ALL art? In what rule book? In what manual? In what text? In what scroll from the ancients?

Beats me. In what rule book, manual or text does it say that you DON'T have to appreciate all art?

Isn’t it just a smidgen possible that one can appreciate certain styles or genres or ages of art & yet be unappreciative about others?

Certainly. But there is a difference between appreciating or not appreciating something about which you have little knowledge and appreciating or not appreciating something about which you do have some knowledge that can be used to explain your position beyond simply saying, "I don't like it; I don't appreciate it".

And if asked for an opinion, should I lie & mumble something about the artist’s feelings or his wretched life? Or should I express my actual feelings & give you my honest point of view?

The former, no. Who cares but you? The latter, yes, if "feelings" are the issue (and of course honesty should be a given prerequisite in life). But consider that if only how one "feels" about something is the issue, there is no place for a discussion with someone who has different "feelings" on the matter because - and here's the rub: "feelings" are purely subjective and it is perfectly valid to not want to discuss them with or validate to others who feel differently...in which case, no discussion, end of conversation.

And to attach the necessity of education to the subject of art appreciation is just so pompous & so typical of an academic’s dismissal of lesser mortals.

Being a bit stereotypical aren't you? Plenty of pretentious, pompous people perpetually proliferate pomposity in all professions (not just academia)!

I didn’t need education to tell me that I liked Renoir (as an example). After my 1st exposure, I wanted to learn more about Impressionism & I did. The deeper education gave me a better insight into the artists' time, lives, motivations etc but – a big but here - I didn’t need education to tell me that I liked Renoir.

Ian

You didn't need education - but you wanted it, so you educated yourself and gained an even better insight into something that you liked but didn't know much about. Great! But to exclude yourself from asking questions about something you don't like from the start and educating yourself to whatever degree on the matter, limits your horizons. But, as you ask, where is the book that says you have to? You don't of course. But realize that uninformed criticism of that which you don't like isn't of interest to another who may not like it either and also knows something about it except that fact.

..

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by DARISC

But realize that uninformed criticism of that which you don't like isn't of interest to another who may not like it either and also knows something about it except that fact.

Then perhaps the OT section of a car part's forum is not the best venue for a 'learned' discussion of modern art. We tend to be an opinionated crowd here. So be sure to preface your threatened new art thread with a warning that you are not looking for real opinion but merely want a discussion with posters of like mind. Go for it. I promise to stay off of that post.

Ian

[Taz's Master]

Can experiencing the subject of a work of art be as artistic an experience as experiencing the work of art itself, and if so does that make the subject art?

In some instances I'd say yes;

Then in those instances, experiencing art is entirely subjective and simply about what the viewer appreciates. I love Bill Watterson's and Matt Groening's perspectives on the issue of art appreciation. Art for me needs to serve a purpose, for me to appreciate it I should enjoy it. I'm comfortable being a neanderthal. I do believe however that those who are inclined to educate themselves to better appreciate art do so to improve their own life not so they can more easily look down on me.

Another good question. I'd say that the two are on the same level in terms of athletic prowess. But performance art isn't competitive or a game.

But that means that a figure skating competition cannot be art, and batting practice can be. I disagree, I do not see how competition disqualifies a performance from being art. If art is about mood, tension, emotion, grace, violence, love and enmity, natural beauty and human struggle then athletic competition is certainly a legitimate expression of performance art. And seriously what is the difference between you saying art isn't competitive and Sniper saying art isn't scribbles?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

[B]Can experiencing the subject of a work of art be...

There can only be meaningful discussion of any topic if there is an agreement on a basic definition of terms. In this case, that begins with first coming to an agreement on a definition of art.

My post ##318 states how I define art as I understand it. To try to have a discussion with someone who defines it differently is pointless - unless that discussion is about the differences in our definitions of art. But until some common ground is established as far as what art even is, it's a waste of both parties time to bang away at each other about what is art and what is not from perspectives that are mutually exclusive from the start.

I doubt that you're a neanderthal and I believe that if you ever get interested in art to the extent that you decide to study it and its history in greater depth, your perspective will change a lot.

[tabs]

Darry anything beyond a painting on black velvet is beyond your level of taste and sophistication in art...That is the simple truth of why I stopped replying to this thread...as your meandering of pseudo sophistication bores me.