Originally posted by catfoodtimAh, okay, I see what you mean.
Sorry Varg, I think I meant why not just view photographs if all youre after is a replication of something.
I didn't mean I want accurate representation of life.
Here is an example of something from the Saatchi gallery which I like:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/essenhigh_Blue_Wave.htm
I'm sorry but I don't have the artistic vocabulary to say what I think is good about it.
It must be a combination of imagination, technical skill and visual impact, but at the end of the day I immediately thought "that's good" when I saw this and thought "that's shit" when I saw the pillowcase.
Note, I have not read the text under the picture above - I have no idea what the thought behind it is, nor do I care. Perhaps this is what's stopping me from enjoying Emin's work.
Isn't the purpose of art meant to communicate ideas to the person observing? If no one can interpret it apart from the artist, hasn't it become pointless? Also, in the process of communicating these ideas, it has to be interesting to the observer. When I say that, I mean ANY observer, not just other people in the modern art world, who has to analyse and to explain to everyone else something that the original artist probably hadn't intended in the first place.
Anyone could ramble their thoughts on a pillowcase, but to write it in beautiful poetry is talent.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyThe artist gives clues to the viewer. He doesn't just spell it all out and say "this means X, move along to the next one." He'll guide the viewer in a certain direction and imply certain things, without giving firm and final answers. The message being communicated is often deliberately ambiguous and left open to interpretation. It's a dialogue between the artist and the viewer and it's expected that the viewer will necessarily participate in this process of exploration, using the clues left by the artist, and with some thought come away with a little deeper understanding. If the viewer is expecting to have it all figured out in 30 seconds, or less, then he's going to be sorely disappointed. You get out of it what you're willing to put into it.
Isn't the purpose of art meant to communicate ideas to the person observing? If no one can interpret it apart from the artist, hasn't it become pointless? Also, in the process of communicating these ideas, it has to be interesting to the observer. When I say that, I mean ANY observer, not just other people in the modern art world, who has to analyse and to e e could ramble their thoughts on a pillowcase, but to write it in beautiful poetry is talent.
Originally posted by catfoodtimIntriguing.
What do you make of the zips and the erm, phallic things floating about in the background?
I'm not sure what they mean or represent but I don't think you have to understand what they mean to enjoy the picture.
It's like the old masters where you'd have a pomegranete or an open book or someone holding their hand in a certain way which all had meaning, but you don't need to knwo what it is, or even that there is one to value the work.
I have seen the inspiration for Essenhigh's Blue Wave, and I like that as well, but I quite like some of Essenghigh's other pictures (this is the first I have seen or heard of her by the way).
Originally posted by VargI don't think that's a rewarding approach.
Ah, okay, I see what you mean.
I didn't mean I want accurate representation of life.
Here is an example of something from the Saatchi gallery which I like:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/essenhigh_Blue_Wave.htm
I'm sorry but I don't have the artistic vocabulary to say what I think is good about it.
It must be a combination of imagination ...[text shortened]... d it is, nor do I care. Perhaps this is what's stopping me from enjoying Emin's work.
In this case I think it's a mistake to say that works you're unfamiliar with are either "good" or "bad." When I look at Emin's work, some of it may appeal to me. For example:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_i_got_all.htm
I can see that this is an ironic twist on the Greek legend of Danae and the shower of gold, a subject that has been treated by other artists such as Titian and Klimt, for example. So I have some context in which to appreciate the work. For other works, such as the pillow case, it's not as readily apparent to me what she's driving at. That doesn't mean it's "bad" art, though. It just means that I will have to withhold judgement until I've delved into her work a little deeper. To say that you have no care for the thought behind the work is to say that you're unwilling to put any effort into the viewing process at all. That's just intellectual laziness on your part.
Originally posted by rwingettHmmm. Art seems to be moving back into the preserve of the elite again?
I don't think that's a rewarding approach.
In this case I think it's a mistake to say that works you're unfamiliar with are either "good" or "bad." When I look at Emin's work, some of it may appeal to me. For example:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_i_got_all.htm
I can see that this is an ironic twist on the Greek leg ...[text shortened]... to the viewing process at all. That's just intellectual laziness on your part.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceWhy is challenging the viewer to do a little thinking the province of elitists?
Hmmm. Art seems to be moving back into the preserve of the elite again?
Is philosophy for 'elitists' because it's difficult to understand? Is physics? Life just requires a little effort sometimes.
Originally posted by rwingett"I can see that this is an ironic twist on the Greek legend of Danae and the shower of gold, a subject that has been treated by other artists such as Titian and Klimt, for example."
Why is challenging the viewer to do a little thinking the province of elitists?
Is philosophy for 'elitists' because it's difficult to understand? Is physics? Life just requires a little effort sometimes.
Sounds pretty elitist to me.
Originally posted by rwingettI suppose different people have very different ideas of art. Although Emin's meaning behind "I got all" could be very philisophical or profound, her approach just does not appear very artistic to me. It just seems to me that she wants to bring some ideas across but is very poor at representing it.
I don't think that's a rewarding approach.
In this case I think it's a mistake to say that works you're unfamiliar with are either "good" or "bad." When I look at Emin's work, some of it may appeal to me. For example:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_i_got_all.htm
I can see that this is an ironic twist on the Greek leg ...[text shortened]... to the viewing process at all. That's just intellectual laziness on your part.
Poutray this in a very well done painting, or as poetry, then I would appreciate it a lot more.
To me, art isn't the skill of having very imaginative ideas, but also modelling this in a skillful way. An artist could start off being able to do a very real looking portrait, then progressing on impressionism, imagination etc. Emin to me just seems to have the imagination, but I cannot see her being able to do still life.
I will stick to Dali. 🙂