Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: old versus new art

  1. #16
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,104
    Blog Entries
    2
    I agree with you about the garbage on the floor. But here are some examples of an interesting use of garbage in art:
    https://www.artsy.net/artist/vik-muniz
    Last edited by Danik 2016; 04-22-2016 at 08:22 PM.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  2. #17
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by fajfall View Post
    I once sardonically jested that I could just paint a canvas white and say it's a completed artwork that belongs in a modern art gallery. Later I actually saw it be done.
    I think I saw something like this hanging at the Art Institute of Chicago some decades ago. I can't remember who did it. Probably someone famous.

    I'm doing my own version in the basement of our town home, but it is an off-white and covering the entire cement wall.

  3. #18
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    Kasmir Malevich, White on White, 1918:



    Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting, 1951:



    Robert Ryman, Untitled, 1965



    The crap that flourishes in Modern/Contemporary Art is the price we pay for the increased freedom and experimentation that has also resulted in a body of art that is only rivaled by that of the Renaissance. The difference between our time and the Renaissance is that in opening up Art to endless possibilities long rejected, the result has been an elimination of any agreed-upon standards (for better and worse) and an opening up of Art to anyone and everyone. Anyone and Anything can be art, it is argued... and this leads to a lot of crap. But the Modern and Contemporary Arts are also laden with an incredible array of really brilliant Art.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  4. #19
    Registered User Iain Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    xxxxx
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
    The crap that flourishes in Modern/Contemporary Art is the price we pay for the increased freedom and experimentation that has also resulted in a body of art that is only rivaled by that of the Renaissance. The difference between our time and the Renaissance is that in opening up Art to endless possibilities long rejected, the result has been an elimination of any agreed-upon standards (for better and worse) and an opening up of Art to anyone and everyone. Anyone and Anything can be art, it is argued... and this leads to a lot of crap. But the Modern and Contemporary Arts are also laden with an incredible array of really brilliant Art.
    What?!
    Most Renaissance Era art is uninspired crap. I don't care what national museums it hangs in, technically it's masterfully executed... crap. Most of the paintings, sculptures, furniture, and other artifacts we see in galleries and museums were works created out of patronage. That is artists and artisans working for wealthy people, creating what those wealthy people deemed proper and acceptable.
    I'll take a pleasant Sunday stroll through a modern art museum any old day, rather than another slog through a history museum full of Renaissance portraits of the wealthy and noble, whom never seem to even have the slightest hint of a smile in those paintings.

  5. #20
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    Oh please! Before you make comments dismissive of one art style or period it might be well to actually know something about Art and what inspiration looks like. This is true whether speaking of the Renaissance, the Baroque, Modernism, or Contemporary art.

    The artists of the Renaissance were creating for wealthy patrons?! Gasp! I never knew! And who exactly are the artists working today creating Art for... the gang at the local pub? The traditional visual art forms are costly and time-consuming to create. In economic terms they are one of the ultimate luxury items. Historically, music and literature were no less indebted to wealthy patronage. Literature escaped from the dominance of such patronage with the spread of the printing press and mass-production of books combined with the increase in literacy. Music... at least popular/populist music was freed from the dominance of the wealthy patrons with the invention of sound recording and the mass production of recorded music as well as broadcast music. The traditional visual arts remain dependent upon wealthy patronage, for better or worse. Perhaps the contemporary artist isn't as dependent upon commissions as the "old masters"... but he or she must still adhere to the expectations of these patrons if the artist wishes to make a living from the art.

    This also raises the question as to why art created for a given patron or on commission is deemed somehow inferior. Many of the illustrators of the last 100+ years are every bit as good... or better than many of the "fine artists" of the same period... in spite of creating under requirements of commercial patrons. The reality is that creating a work of art of real merit while meeting the expectations of a patron can be quite challenging. The artists of the past worked for patrons who were not only extremely wealthy, but were also among the most educated and cultured. I don't see art created for wealthy patrons as being inherently any better or worse than art created for the public. Both have resulted in good and bad art. Music, literature, film, and art marketed at a broad commercial/popular/populist audience can be quite good... but it can also result in Justin Bieber, Hollywood schlock films, etc...

    You prefer Modern art. Fine. Perhaps I have broader tastes. I like works of ancient art, the "old masters", non-Western art, as well as Modern and Contemporary art. How does your personal preference for Modern art lead to the assumption that the art of the past is all crap? "I don't like something" = "It's crap"?
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  6. #21
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post

    This also raises the question as to why art created for a given patron or on commission is deemed somehow inferior. Many of the illustrators of the last 100+ years are every bit as good... or better than many of the "fine artists" of the same period... in spite of creating under requirements of commercial patrons. The reality is that creating a work of art of real merit while meeting the expectations of a patron can be quite challenging. The artists of the past worked for patrons who were not only extremely wealthy, but were also among the most educated and cultured. I don't see art created for wealthy patrons as being inherently any better or worse than art created for the public. Both have resulted in good and bad art. Music, literature, film, and art marketed at a broad commercial/popular/populist audience can be quite good... but it can also result in Justin Bieber, Hollywood schlock films, etc...
    ?
    Well, as a member of "the gang at the local pub", perhaps I might prefer art that appeals to me.

    Let's compare painting to photography. If a talented photographer was commissioned to document someone's wedding, isn't it likely that his snapshots would bore anyone who doesn't know the lucky couple? Isn't it likely that his photos designed to please the general public would have more appeal to the general public?

    No doubt creating a well-done set of wedding photos can be "quite challenging" -- but why should we viewers care whether it is challenging or not? Let's face it: most snap shots of people we don't know don't hold our interest.

    Of course portraits by Karsh or Brian Lanker (http://www.brianlanker.com/portfolio.html) may have emotional resonance even if the viewer doesn't know the person being portrayed. Same with portraits by Rembrandt or Leonardo. But that doesn't hold true for snap shots by lesser photographers, or portraits by lesser painters. Pictures that depict some beloved family member whom we don't know and about whom we couldn't care less had better be awfully good to hold our attention.

    So I don't think Iain is all THAT far off base. Of course not all modern artists are trying to appeal to the general public, either. They are painting for a small, elite group they think will understand their work. Their work might not appeal to me any more than mediocre portraits of some family scion would. One test of genius is that it transcends genre -- some great film directors can imprint their personal artistry on banal studio assignments (i.e. commissions).
    Last edited by Ecurb; 04-28-2016 at 10:37 AM.

  7. #22
    Registered User Jackson Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in the South East of England
    Posts
    1,273
    it wasn't just Renaissance artists who worked for the politicallly and socially powerful.

    All commissions will be from people with spare cash even now, which put them in the same category as patrons in the past - those with undue social and political influence.

    When Mark Rothko was commissioned in 1959 to paint pictures for the dining room of the New York offices of Seagrams (now here in London at Tate Modern) he told a friend "I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a ***** who ever eats there".

    I expect a lot of Renaissance artists had just the same attitude towards their patrons..
    Previously JonathanB

    The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1

  8. #23
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    Indeed, Jonathan. There are commissions and commissions. It seems to me that many of the portraits one sees in old houses or government buildings are like snapshots. They aren't very artistic; they're designed to depict the sitter. On the other hand, paintings commissioned by the church often tell an emotionally resonant story (or try to). Centuries ago, when many people were illiterate, religious paintings were often a way to tell bible stories to church members. The great masters, of course, can turn any subject into art.

  9. #24
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    Well, as a member of "the gang at the local pub", perhaps I might prefer art that appeals to me.

    As do we all... but that doesn't mean that the art which doesn't appeal to you is crap. I doubt the "gang at the local pub" have much use for Kafka, Borges, Philip Roth (or nearly any other Modern of Contemporary writer) any more than they do for Dante or Shakespeare. Is the "gang at the pub" to be taken as the last word in aesthetic judgment?

    Let's compare painting to photography. If a talented photographer was commissioned to document someone's wedding, isn't it likely that his snapshots would bore anyone who doesn't know the lucky couple? Isn't it likely that his photos designed to please the general public would have more appeal to the general public?

    If all that the work of art has going for it... whether it is a painting or a photograph... is a well rendered documentation of a person, place, or event... then no, it wouldn't have much aesthetic merit.

    But what of these portraits?





    Certainly I recognize the sitters... but this recognition isn't what makes these photographs memorable. There are hundreds of thousands... perhaps millions of photographs of celebrities. Those that continue to resonate have something more... artistic merit.

    These two portraits speak to me in spite of the fact that I have no idea who the sitters are:





    I will point out that Ian is not alone in dismissing older art; there are a good many who fail to recognize the aesthetic merit of art due to a dislike of the subject matter. I'm not overly fond of contemplating the nude male body... but I have no problem in recognizing that these are magnificent works of art:





    No doubt creating a well-done set of wedding photos can be "quite challenging" -- but why should we viewers care whether it is challenging or not? Let's face it: most snap shots of people we don't know don't hold our interest.

    The "difficulty" in creating a work of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merit. Fragonard reportedly painted this marvelous painting in an hour:



    Again, I have no idea who the sitter was... or if she even even really existed or was but a product of the artist's imagination. But it doesn't matter. The painting remains quite delicious.

    Of course portraits by Karsh or Brian Lanker (http://www.brianlanker.com/portfolio.html) may have emotional resonance even if the viewer doesn't know the person being portrayed. Same with portraits by Rembrandt or Leonardo. But that doesn't hold true for snap shots by lesser photographers, or portraits by lesser painters. Pictures that depict some beloved family member whom we don't know and about whom we couldn't care less had better be awfully good to hold our attention.

    OK... now we are getting somewhere. Portraits by Leonardo and Rembrandt continue to resonate. So do paintings by hundreds of other artists... to a greater or lesser extent. I agree that the majority of the art of the past was mediocre at best... but then the majority of the art of the present is no better. The past has the advantage of having been cherry-picked: critics, historians, collectors, well-informed art lovers, and subsequent generations of artists have picked things over where when looking at the art of the present we have to dig through the huge wealth of crap to find the real gems.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  10. #25
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    Actually, Stluke, from what I've read, the "gang at the local pub" used to troop down to the Globe Theater to catch the new Shakespeare play. I don't know much about the popularity of Kafka or Borges, but Philip Roth has written dozens of novels, hundreds of short stories, and a variety of non-fiction. It has all been popular, some of it very popular (I tried to google how many Roth novels have been sold, but couldn't find out. It's surely multi-millions).

    Tolstoy thought "interestingness" was a form of "false art". In other words, historical novels may "fake it" by "interesting" their readers with the history parts, while failing with the actual artistic parts. That may be a reasonable critique, but (since you mention Dante) I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of.

    The same is true of mediocre portraits. I (at least, but probably others as well) am more interested in a picture of what Napoleon looked like, or Catherine the Great, than what Joe Blow looked like. Of course we needn't care about Mona Lisa to like the picture.

    Surely the purpose of art might have SOME bearing on whether it appeals to a particular audience (like me). Snapshots that commemorate a family Christmas had better be quite good before they appeal to me, unless I know the family involved. I'm sure plenty of painted portraits that don't appeal to me resonated with the family of the now deceased sitter. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just a fact, for most of us.

    By the way, aren't the Einstein and Hepburn portraits your posted taken by Yousuf Karsh? I did mention being a fan. Did he take the two other photos you posted, as well?

    The gang at the local pub does not have the last word on artistic merit; neither does the gang at the New Yorker, or at Academia, or at MOMA. Indeed, it is reasonable for someone (me, for example) to find the sections of "Inferno" that deal with minor Florentine potentates a bit dull, despite Dante's luminous reputation. We need not conform to the tastes of the "gang at the pub"; we need not conform to the tastes of the elite. However, liking art (I'll grant) gives more pleasure than disliking it, so we should all try to broaden our tastes, whether by reading Dante or J.K. Rowling.
    Last edited by Ecurb; 04-29-2016 at 09:57 AM.

  11. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    72
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cacian View Post
    art has evolved through time and undergone changes to suit the present time enclosure,
    what significant changes has it occurred?
    for example
    has contemporary art benefited or moved away from classic art?
    Uh, the way I see it art has de-evolved in what is required of artists to make their creations. In the 1800s before photography was in vogue painting on canvas had reached it's all time high. The detail and vibrance in many paintings of the 19th century rivaled what photography couldn't become until the late 1970s! The fine skill and craft required to paint with such accuracy and detail is possessed by far fewer folks today than then. These days high art is usually in the hands of corporate execs who use it to further their business pursuits. Few independent artists can. And of those that can they have little incentive to actually do it because those who demand it can get it cheap and quick with computer modeling programs that have become so refined you can invent fake people from scratch and put them on a magazine cover and nobody will ever know any different.

    With the digital age the wonder and achievement of art has been sidelined.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    Tolstoy thought "interestingness" was a form of "false art". In other words, historical novels may "fake it" by "interesting" their readers with the history parts, while failing with the actual artistic parts. That may be a reasonable critique, but (since you mention Dante) I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of.
    You, you, you. Too much of what you would do, which is a bit strange to say when you argue we should broaden our horizon instead of limiting our perception...

    And no, while many people only find some bits of Dante interesting because they reckongnize the classic references, there is people of People who find passages about less known figures as Paollo and Francesca of the Count Ungolino more interesting. I had no idea who was even Virgil when I first read Dante and I liked the whole story and would feel all the classical background false without the precese of the casual joe. Would make hell less universal and evil a matter of fame.

  13. #28
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    You complain that my critique of Dante is overly personal, JCamilo, and then embark on an incoherent diatribe about what YOU YOU YOU like about him. For those who have never heard of Virgil (like JCamilo) probably ALL of the sinners in "Inferno" are "less known figures".

  14. #29
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    Actually, Stluke, from what I've read, the "gang at the local pub" used to troop down to the Globe Theater to catch the new Shakespeare play. I don't know much about the popularity of Kafka or Borges, but Philip Roth has written dozens of novels, hundreds of short stories, and a variety of non-fiction. It has all been popular, some of it very popular (I tried to google how many Roth novels have been sold, but couldn't find out. It's surely multi-millions).

    Shakespeare wrote for the theater. The theater was among the most popular forms of entertainment of the time... although not as popular as bear baiting... not unlike the movies or TV today. One of the lasting strengths of Shakespeare's plays is that they work on multiple levels. They can entertain the audience with little literary experience as well as the well-read. There are certainly exceptions... artists of great merit that were/are also very popular: Dickens, Dumas, Poe... arguably Tolkein (sorry Loka). Philip Roth may have sold a couple million novels total. The only statistic I could find online suggests that his best selling novel sold 400,000+... but this is quite good considering a sale of 5,000-10,000 is considered great for most books... and 1,000-1,500 for poetry.

    I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of.

    Personally, I also find the narratives dealing with the lovers, Francesca da Rimini & Paolo Malatesta and that of Ugolino (among others) to be among the most powerful... in spite of the fact that upon my initial readings I had no idea who they were.

    The same is true of mediocre portraits. I (at least, but probably others as well) am more interested in a picture of what Napoleon looked like, or Catherine the Great, than what Joe Blow looked like.





    Personally, I don't find any portraits of Napoleon or Catherine the Great as marvelous as these portraits of largely unknown sitters... or sitters known only because of the artist:


    -Rogier van der Weyden


    -Raphael


    -Pontormo


    -Bronzino


    -Rubens


    -Van Dyck


    -Rembrandt


    -Pompeo Batoni


    -Ingres


    -John Singer Sargent


    -Renoir


    -Lucian Freud

    Ultimately it is the art that matters, not the subject matter.

    By the way, aren't the Einstein and Hepburn portraits your posted taken by Yousuf Karsh? I did mention being a fan. Did he take the two other photos you posted, as well?

    Yes, the first two are Karsh, the third is Sally Mann and the fourth is Dorothea Lange.

    The gang at the local pub does not have the last word on artistic merit; neither does the gang at the New Yorker, or at Academia, or at MOMA.

    Of course. If there is anything close to an objective "opinion" in art, it is a collective opinion taking into consideration the opinions of "experts" (academics, critics, historians, etc...), subsequent generations of artists, and the well-informed art lovers.

    Indeed, it is reasonable for someone (me, for example) to find the sections of "Inferno" that deal with minor Florentine potentates a bit dull, despite Dante's luminous reputation. We need not conform to the tastes of the "gang at the pub"; we need not conform to the tastes of the elite. However, liking art (I'll grant) gives more pleasure than disliking it, so we should all try to broaden our tastes, whether by reading Dante or J.K. Rowling.

    Of course, the "opinions" of others... even the collective opinions... should not replace our own personal opinions based upon what gives us pleasure... although, perhaps, they will open us up to a broader perspective than our immediate uninformed taste.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    You complain that my critique of Dante is overly personal,
    The only thing "personal" about my critic to your argument is just that I reckon it is your argument. Other than this there is no reference to your persona (Which would be ridiculous, we do not not know each other at all).

    JCamilo, and then embark on an incoherent diatribe about what YOU YOU YOU like about him.
    Sorry, if it is hard for you to understand that some people, unlike your claim, enjoy the "tales" of less famous characters in Dante, I will be satisfied with the fact that Stlukes can just after me to exemplify my claim.

    You are missing that I didnt went on what I like about Dante. First I mentioned about what "People", other people, not me liked about him. I have to mention that at no moment I suggest that your experience shouldnt be shared. My problem is how you use your experience to justify a broader experience with art, as you did to justify Tolstoys claims (Tolstoy failure on accepting Shakespeare is due to this same mistake, thinking his personal experience is universal), while my experience was posted just to show you there is more perspectives than yours. A complete different use of you, you, you.


    For those who have never heard of Virgil (like JCamilo) probably ALL of the sinners in "Inferno" are "less known figures".
    Well, i was aware of a handful of mythological greek figures, biblical characters and more famous philosophers (not exactly suffering in Hell, but well), the point is that Dante certainly did invest a a lot of art to some minor figures, specially considering several individuals were well know to him and other readers albeit not famoust historical wise.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. art versus nature
    By whitman in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2013, 03:20 PM
  2. Who I Am Versus Who I Like To Think I Am
    By E.A Rumfield in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2012, 11:05 AM
  3. joy versus bliss
    By kate in forum Siddhartha
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 06:29 PM
  4. Man versus State
    By Eagleheart in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-14-2006, 02:33 PM
  5. Satanic Versus
    By BJU in forum General Literature
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-22-2005, 05:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •