The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

Let me try again, though I realize in advance the futility of this.

I can only say that people need an art education to speak on topics like this. Sorry if that sounds elitist, but anyone would realize the absurdity of discussing mathematics without having studied any math.

Coomb's art is safe, easy, unadventurous, non-original. It replicates a formula that has been used countless times. It takes no chances with form, line or color, it offers us nothing new. It does not challenge us to think. It does not try to expand our aesthetic boundaries. Rather, it borrows on a tradition, refines it to a safe comfortable level, and no doubt this is intentional as I'm sure the artist makes a fine living because the general public has simple tastes precisely because it is artistically uneducated. This problem goes back a long time, and it's always amusing to recall that Van Gogh, before he became an artist, briefly worked as an art dealer and actually tried to dissuade people from buying some of the art on offer because he knew it was Reader's Digest style art.

If you are a writer, which I'm judging from your signature, I'm at a loss to understand what you find so bad about my analogy. Shall we accept that a Shakespeare sonnet is not better or more important than a want ad, then?

The problem, too, is this use of the word "beauty," which is loaded and off the point, and also the recurring idea that one's personal tastes are all that matter, whereas I have repeatedly made the point that personal tastes can be divorced from solid artistic judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I respect that St. Lukes, but you have to respect also why in some circles formalism is viewed as the standard postcolonial analysis must go against. If we use Western art history, movements, forms, theories, analyses, a lot of artists in developing countries will be ignored. Their art histories can only be traced back to modernism that is still either American or European-influenced.

How will you then classify the Buddhist sculptures of India? If you will just use formalism, will you deny the fact that they have religious, cultural, and social contexts?

---

What we can do in this case is understand that there is a pluralism of artistic histories and contexts, and we do not judge the art of Oceania, say, by the standards of abstract expressionism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind.

---

LOL! How have I imposed my view upon you if you don’t even know what I meant? :lol:

An interesting image you have posted....You may like Aubrey Beardsley's paintings.

Interestingly enough, a cover for Salome has not penis as it was the original intention of the painter.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salome_cover.jpg


Here is original.

http://www.wormfood.com/savoy/salome/138.html


Enjoy LitNet..... you will find members to talk.

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare.

I'm sorry but this is just pure intellectual Onanism. Pseudo-Intellectual Populism. There is no good nor bad. Shakespeare is only valued because of the preconceptions of the elite, while to your eyes and ears Readers Digest, Dan Brown and the Twilight novels may be masterpieces of literary art. By whose criteria? By those with a degree of experience and a modicum of intelligence. Once again... all opinions in art may be subjective, but some opinions are better than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

LOL! How have I imposed my view upon you if you don’t even know what I meant? :lol:

An interesting image you have posted....You may like Aubrey Beardsley's paintings.

Interestingly enough, a cover for Salome has not penis as it was the original intention of the painter.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salome_cover.jpg


Here is original.

http://www.wormfood.com/savoy/salome/138.html


Enjoy LitNet..... you will find members to talk.

---

Do you have amnesia? You wrote this:

"Well, paintings evoke feelings and paintings or images can manipulate how we feel. I talked about ugliness in modern art that is pervasive. Do you remember our discussion on your art thread where you tired to convinced me that I didn’t understand art…the art that was absolutely ugly.

Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no. You have shown a few artists on your art thread I have shown a few “masters of ugliness” here but the list is quite long."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare.

I'm sorry but this is just pure intellectual Onanism. Pseudo-Intellectual Populism. There is no good nor bad. Shakespeare is only valued because of the preconceptions of the elite, while to your eyes and ears Readers Digest, Dan Brown and the Twilight novels may be masterpieces of literary art. By whose criteria? By those with a degree of experience and a modicum of intelligence. Once again... all opinions in art may be subjective, but some opinions are better than others.

---

What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?

That's the same thing why some guys would rather have a poster of Monica Bellucci than a print of the Mona Lisa. According to their lust, passion, sexual experience and how they look at things, Monica is sexier than Mona Lisa.

I'm just repeating the absurdity of reader's digest-shakespeare comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="#B22222"]

And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc...

---

Thanks for good laughter. I must share something with you. In the past, I was irritated when you misinterpreted my words. I can laugh now……. As Mark Twain said, "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter."

I have only read one sentence from your post....... Too much laughter and too much words, of course.

You have not been posting new painters recently. Holiday is over…….

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.

One of the reasons for the recent resurgence in traditional art schools and artist ateliers is because the university-based academic approach to art has virtually nothing to do with looking... with the visual. A great many academics are notoriously insensitive to the visual beyond that which they can grasp or codify in words and theory and dogma.

You deem formalism... looking at art in purely visual terms as the easiest way of looking at art... and yet you have already illustrated your own inability to look at art in this way.

Why is Rembrandt one of the most brilliant painters? You cannot answer such questions by employing you favorite theory of the moment, and so it is much easier to dismiss the question by suggesting that there is no good nor bad than it is to actually learn how to look... with your eyes... not through your theory and dogma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

---

Is this directed at me? If it is, you obviously have not read all my posts.

In my first or second post in this thread, I specifically disavowed the idea of Art Churches -- and cited as an example how the abstract expressionists had set up their own little sect that excommunicated anyone who imported the figurative or the literary into artworks. And I have just said that we need to recognize a plurality of artistic histories and contexts.

Nobody here (except for ftil) is trying to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful, and, as I have repeatedly explained, this term "beautiful" is ill-defined and loaded. I have not said, for example, that Coombs's works lack "beauty." I have pointed out (and so has stlukesguild) that like it or not, his work exists in a context, a context of impressionism, in his case, which is what his work most closely approximates. And I have explained that he sticks safely there and does not try to push any boundaries.

And maybe that's OK for you or others, and here it's a matter of taste. But by the same logic, we can stick to writing at the level of Reader's Digest and forget about Shakespeare, yeah?

What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?

Will I call him dumb? Intellectually inferior? No. Experience is not intelligence. Having the experience needed to make an intelligent comparison between two works of literature and to recognize that one is a brilliantly written work and the other is a run-of-the-mill bit of writing is not to be confused with intelligence. You are arguing that any experience is equally valid in terms of judging a work of art. Thus a doctor (undoubtedly intelligent) might judge a work based upon its realistic portrayals of the medical world, while a Feminist might question the portrayals of characters according to their gender... but neither of these interpretations has the least thing to do with literature or how a given work compares with other works within the tradition of literature.

That's the same thing why some guys would rather have a poster of Monica Bellucci than a print of the Mona Lisa. According to their lust, passion, sexual experience and how they look at things, Monica is sexier than Mona Lisa.

We've already explored that issue. There is a difference between looking at an image... a painting... for the "beauty" or attractiveness of the subject matter... and looking at the same work as art.

let me use film to make my points clear.

I'm from a country where independent filmmakers use digital videos to make film. Do you expect me to talk about cinematography and editing which are mostly formalist considering that technically their skills and equipment are inferior? I do, however, like their themes, plots, characters that are more interesting if I scrutinize them using Marxist approach as they mostly tackle class. What's wrong with that?

Likewise, I will analyze a certain tribal art according to the context in which it is made. If the symbols used are derived from myths and rituals, I will use anthropology, of course. Do you want me to use formalist concepts on something that is viewed more as a narrative than an object?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare.

---

Sorry. Somehow, I missed this part when I read the original post.

Well, what can I say? Laugh out Loud? Why is it that people on message boards cannot settle down, put aside their argumentative attitudes, and simply read what is written?

I did NOT say Shakespeare was good and Reader's Digest bad!

That was not my point at all, and I almost think, at this point, you are deliberately distorting what I said to get up an argument.

What I am saying is that Shakespeare has a level of sophistication of language, an inventiveness, a density of meaning and a complex of symbology that clearly is far removed from that of Reader's Digest. This doesn't mean you have to dislike Reader's Digest or like Shakespeare. It does mean we can, do, and must make comparisons of texts -- and works of art -- according to criteria like inventiveness, density of meaning, symbology, et.

If one of our goals is to be emotionally and intellectually stimulated, do you not think it more likely that we will turn to Shakespeare over the Readers' Digest?

But this just speaks to yet another post I made earlier. We don't have to be intellectually or emotionally stimulated. We don't have to do anything but drink some beer, take a sleeping pill and stare at a Coombs painting and all will be right with the world. Just not very interesting, alas.


!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Sorry. Somehow, I missed this part when I read the original post.

Well, what can I say? Laugh out Loud? Why is it that people on message boards cannot settle down, put aside their argumentative attitudes, and simply read what is written?

I did NOT say Shakespeare was good and Reader's Digest bad!

That was not my point at all, and I almost think, at this point, you are deliberately distorting what I said to get up an argument.

What I am saying is that Shakespeare has a level of sophistication of language, an inventiveness, a density of meaning and a complex of symbology that clearly is far removed from that of Reader's Digest. This doesn't mean you have to dislike Reader's Digest or like Shakespeare. It does mean we can, do, and must make comparisons of texts -- and works of art -- according to criteria like inventiveness, density of meaning, symbology, et.

If one of our goals is to be emotionally and intellectually stimulated, do you not think it more likely that we will turn to Shakespeare over the Readers' Digest?

But this just speaks to yet another post I made earlier. We don't have to be intellectually or emotionally stimulated. We don't have to do anything but drink some beer, take a sleeping pill and stare at a Coombs painting and all will be right with the world. Just not very interesting, alas.


!

---

What do you mean then by reader's digest as opposed to shakespeare's works. That is a binary opposite. Don't fool me. One has to be inferior, bad, or low. You don't use both extremes if you don't intend to show the vast difference.

If you're only consistent, you could have saved your energy from typing. Go back to your previous post. You said "all art is contextual."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?

---

Uh, no.

What we CAN say, however, is that over time, it is possible to widen one's horizons, to a larger appreciation of art in particular, and the intellectual world in general.

Your suggestion here that I, or anyone else, is defaming people as "dumb" because they might read Reader's Digest over Shakespeare, or that anyone here (apart from ftil) is "monopolizing beauty" is a strawman conception entirely of your own misunderstanding, willful or otherwise.