Originally posted by Bosse de NageYet it is not simply about taste, most good works of art need at least a basic level of understanding of the art in general.
I don't have a set of criteria, I'm afraid. A work of art either claims my attention or it doesn't. Discovering the reasons for one's particular response can be difficult. I don't distinguish between good and bad art, although poor technical skill is self-evident.
For example, I generally abstain from commenting about the quality of sculptures since it is an art that I'm not really interested enough to know about. I can say I like it or dislike it, but I don't qualify it as good or bad since I would be judging something I am absolutely not fit to judge.
There is art that I consider good yet it displeases me yet I find that I can only make this distinction in some realms of art which I know something about. This doesn't mean I can't be wrong about the judgements I make in such realms.
But to reduce it merely to taste, however, is simply too politically correct for me. I'm not agnostic or absolutely relativist about the quality of art.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTechnical skill, although despised by many "art-lovers", is certainly one of the criteria, but it can be a deceptive one. Sometimes even technical skill isn't necessary, in case of conceptual art for instance or "idea" art. The Tracey you mentioned is one of the instances I can refer to.
I don't have a set of criteria, I'm afraid. A work of art either claims my attention or it doesn't. Discovering the reasons for one's particular response can be difficult. I don't distinguish between good and bad art, although poor technical skill is self-evident.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYeah. Dali prided himself on being the only surrealist who could paint properly (though that wasn't really true). Max Ernst (to name a favourite) couldn't have produced a quarter of what he did without basic training in how to draw and paint properly. Looks like we agree on this.
Technical skill, although despised by many "art-lovers", is certainly one of the criteria, but it can be a deceptive one. Sometimes even technical skill isn't necessary, in case of conceptual art for instance or "idea" art. The Tracey you mentioned is one of the instances I can refer to.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse: "Looks like we agree on this."
Yeah. Dali prided himself on being the only surrealist who could paint properly (though that wasn't really true). Max Ernst (to name a favourite) couldn't have produced a quarter of what he did without basic training in how to draw and paint properly. Looks like we agree on this.
This calls for a celebration 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4604850.stm
It's an age old recipe for success.
Naked skin and lots of it - but not necessarily the sort of skin you might expect to find at that Parisian purveyor of luxury luggage and handbags, Louis Vuitton.
The world has become accustomed to Vuitton's initial-branded signature luggage, but this time, the naked skin is Art, with a capital A.
For Louis Vuitton's recently opened emporium in Paris is now not just a consumer temple but, from Thursday, boasts a chic art gallery on the seventh floor that will be open to the public.
The Espace Louis Vuitton is a separate space for contemporary art and culture.
Is it art?
But just how separate or independent can that art be when it is commissioned by a commercial patron such as this powerful global brand?
etc etc .......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4604850.stm
I know that some modern art objects I like and some appear to be so much welded clutter or childish looking paintings.
To each his own I like Francisco de Goya,Salvador Dali ,William Blake.
and others.My wife worked with an artist who made alot of money painting pictures that looked like a 6 year old had done them.I am sure she laughs all the way to the bank.
Originally posted by aspviper666I hate modern art, it looks like a kid painted them mostly.
I know that some modern art objects I like and some appear to be so much welded clutter or childish looking paintings.
To each his own I like Francisco de Goya,Salvador Dali ,William Blake.
and others.My wife worked with an artist who made alot of money painting pictures that looked like a 6 year old had done them.I am sure she laughs all the way to the bank.
I know somone who makes alot of money painting, and you can almost tell the dfference between the sky and the ground, some of his outdoors paintings you cant even make out what is what, it looks he just gets paint and splashes it on the canvas, yet he makes a ton of money doing it
Originally posted by catfoodtimThanks for the interesting link.
interesting!
"Sell more handbags? Yes, that's my dream," says Yves Carcelle with a disarming smile.
art has always relied on patrons. the idea of the impoverished undiscovered artist is a myth. the most successful artists have always prostituted their talent.
i like the idea of the sensory deprivation lifts. might suggest that in work.
int ...[text shortened]... min in the observer:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1685132,00.html
If modern Arts intention is to deconstruct the aesthetic
then it should at once provide an alternative viewpoint
or philosophy.
Unfortunately in a lot of cases this just doesn't happen
and the viewer is left to root around in their own mind
for a reason to like it.
I would say for the large part, modern art is simply primer
on the canvas of a much bigger picture. Insipid but necessary.
Originally posted by catfoodtimI used the term insipid for the 'most part' of modern art.
it's fine deconstructing traditional art - as modern art does in questioning traditional art techniques and narratives, but they aren't replaced with anything. as you say, one of modern art's most challenging aspects is that it doesn't provide an alternative to what it deconstructs - it just raises lots of questions.
thats why, when we view modern a ...[text shortened]... ipid - as was pointed out earlier in the thread, you get out of modern art what you put in.
I would agree that some modern art is truly inspiring but this
may not be true on a person-to-person basis.
Is there an element in the definition of good art whereby
it must hold some form of universal appeal?