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

It is not even. Before XX century, the folklorists already melted all. Even before it. Perrault, Fontaine were writing fables and faery tales. Chaucer or Bocaccio came to oral traditions.

In XX century, Yeats was collecting oral tales. Joyce is low brown with comic books reference and all. Here in Brazil, Heitor-Villa Lobos used the native music to make classic music. I would say, American and Brazilian music melted the boundaries oftenwhile. With Movies, we have Chaplin.

The thing is politically, in XX century it is important to blur the boundaries. So, much fireworks for something that always happened.

Oh! An eighteenth century poet in my country mixed local oral literature with classical literature (Greek mainly) in his works. I did not see that as a postmodern way of blurring things.

Well, paintings evoke feelings and paintings or images can manipulate how we feel. I talked about ugliness in modern art that is pervasive. Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no(t).

Yes... you have repeatedly made this argument. I have admitted that there are many Modern paintings that art dark or deal with "ugly" or "unpleasant" subject matter. Now unless you wish to look at the world through candy-colored lenses, you should recognize that it is somewhat logical that artists would respond to the various instances of ugliness and even horror with an art that isn't "pretty". Hamlet isn't "pretty". Dante's Inferno has elements that are quite ugly... horrible even. Should artists all turn their eye away from Auschwitz or WWII and simply pretend they didn't occur? I share a studio with an artist who imagines that only tragedy and pain and suffering are worthy themes of art. I find this no less absurd than the notion that only art that evokes "positive" feelings is of any value.

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.

The two problems that I have with your argument... that ugliness is pervasive in Modern art... are:

1. Your definition of "ugliness" with regard to art is surely quite different from that of many others (as discussed above).

2. I have illustrated any number of major artists whose works are quite "beautiful" by traditional terms. You have only illustrated the "predominance" or "pervasiveness" of "ugliness" in art with examples primarily of artists of little or no real importance in the history and tradition of art.

BTW, you write about Serge Marshennikov's again.

I have asked you twice what do you think about Robert Coombs' painting I posted. It was not nudity….Is it a reason you have been avoiding it?

I mentioned Marshenikov again in context with the concept of art that is "beautiful"... even well painted/composed... yet lacks a strong personal artist's "voice" for the simple reason that I had gone into some detail on this concept earlier using Marshenikov as an example. I might just as well cited Henk Helmantel:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...hio/th_1-1.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...o/th_henk3.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...elmantel_s.jpg

Although, honestly, I'd rather look at a beautiful nude woman than a bunch of still-life objects any day.

Having said this... Giorgio Morandi is still a better painter than Marshenikov... or Robert Coombs. Coombs is better than Atroshenko... but if you really like work along this line, look at Daniel Gerhartz:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...canvas_nfs.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...ae641f42_b.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...mth-detail.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...-Hindsfeet.jpg

Not to my taste. Too much of a schmaltz-laden pastiche of late 19th century French Academicism... but very well done schmaltz.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no.

---

You're wrong! :lol:

Well, that was succinct, anyway, and I got to use fitil's favorite smilie. ;)

Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own--unless he hops on the bandwagon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild

I mentioned Marshenikov again in context with the concept of art that is "beautiful"... even well painted/composed... yet lacks a strong personal artist's "voice" for the simple reason that I had gone into some detail on this concept earlier using Marshenikov as an example. I might just as well cited Henk Helmantel:

---

You still avoid making comments about Robert Coombs' painting. The reason that I have asked your opinion about that painting is the fact that "Almost Sundown" won American National Award of Excellence. To my delight, there are painters who appreciate beauty.

Robert was also awarded the $10,000 Grand Prize at the Raymar's First Annual Fine Art Competition for "First Leaves of Autumn".

When the painting depicts beauty words are absolutely unnecessary. When painting depicts ugliness and evokes disturbing feelings and negative energy....words are necessary to convince the viewer about…… artistic merits. :lol:

It is nothing else but brainwashing because words don’t math with the paintings. ;)

Robert Coombs, Almost Sundown

http://www.danagallery.com/opa/opa055.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly.

---

Sure, I can. Just look at her (I believe ftil is female) most recent post.

We know what ftil likes. Kitsch. Pretty pictures. Art that does not challenge, but rather numbs. That's fine as a matter of personal taste. I think it's unfortunate that her taste is so limited, her view of art so blinkered, but perhaps she can't change that. But, in the context of this thread, ktil goes far beyond that and presumes to pass judgement on whole bodies of art as if there were some objective truth about her blinkered, narrow view of art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

You still avoid making comments about Robert Coombs' painting. The reason that I have asked your opinion about that painting is the fact that "Almost Sundown" won American National Award of Excellence.

---

Ftil has me on Ignore. We know why. Ftil doesn't like to be challenged by art, and she doesn't like to have her views challenged, either.

So I invite someone to ask ftil about this "American National Award of Excellence" that she deems so valuable. Who sponsors this award? And -- crucially -- what is the mission of the sponsoring group?

I supply a LOL in advance -----> :lol:

Not that there is anything wrong with a group devoted to "the preservation of representational art." But please, let's not pretend that, say, Coombs' painting was competing for a prize against modernist and post-modernist artists, or non-representational artists, and was deemed to be superior to all those other speciemens, because in fact all those other specimens were ruled out in advance for receving this "award" of "excellence."

I hope someone will point this out to ftil. ;)

:lol:

About this beauty/ugliness business:

To me, in art and life, beauty is not the opposite of ugly. If ugly has an opposite, at least in the fine arts, it would be the pretty, not the beautiful.

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with pretty pictures, either, like those of Coombs. It's a surgar diet, and everyone enjoys a little sugar from time to time. Unfortunately, if all you like is sugar, your diet is ... wanting.

Picasso's Weeping Woman, which I posted earlier, has a jarring, even cataclysmic effect, upon viewing. It's not pretty. Is it ugly? Is it beautiful? Is it somehow both?

And here is where a little visual education comes in handy. The truth is, whether some people would like to admit it or not, those who have studied art, and who have created art, can see stuff in a painting that others will miss. And in fact there is great technical beauty, great mastery, in the Picasso portrait. Indeed there is a wealth of stuff inside that one painting to study and savor, just for their specifically painterly innovations.

I don't use "pretty" to describe a work of art. I use "beautiful" because I can also use it in relation to the narrative the image conveys.

The most beautiful image to me that has everything in it--culture, sociology, philosophy, poetry, religion, sex or the absence of it, fantasy and illusion, and many more is this by David Nebreda:

Attachment 8556

Others will find me and my selection strange. Well, you have to have the same experience I have before you can call it beautiful. Will I question your taste if you don't appreciate the image? NO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I don't use "pretty" to describe a work of art. I use "beautiful" because I can also use it in relation to the narrative the image conveys.

The most beautiful image to me that has everything in it--culture, sociology, philosophy, poetry, religion, sex or the absence of it, fantasy and illusion, and many more is this by David Nebreda:

Attachment 8556

Others will find me and my selection strange. Well, you have to have the same experience I have before you can call it beautiful. Will I question your taste if you don't appreciate the image? NO.

---

And, as I just explicitly stated, I am NOT questioning anyone's "taste" in art. What I am questioning is ftil's apprent desire to make her personal (limited, blinkered) taste in art an objective value, a normative judgment about what art is or should be.

I've also noted in a prior post that it's perfectly possible to appreciate the value of art that one does not like. This does not seem to be something ftil is able to do. In my own case, I mentioned Renoir. I appreciate the artistic value of Renoir's work. It's just not work I like looking at, because it's not to my own taste. But one should be able to separate matters of personal taste from objective worth.

Why do you belittle the works of Coombs? I find this painting very impressive. He used texture beautifully to evoke memory and melancholia.

Attachment 8557

I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own

What you are arguing for here is a cultural relativism: "Its all relevant. There is no such thing as good or bad art, but thinking makes it so."

Even by such a standard in which we suggest that all opinions concerning art are subjective, some opinions are better than others.

You can call it whatever -ism you have. I'm okay with using logic. Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism. This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.

It can be Pavlovian too if I'll use conditioning in my argument.

Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism.

Yet it is still a fruit.

This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.

This was Duchamp's argument: context is everything. But ultimately context only proves to be everything to art that is wholly dependent upon said context. Tracey Emin's "Bed" is only a work of art within the context of the gallery system and art public that are willing to believe that A. Emin is an artist and B. Whatever the artist makes or says is art IS art.

Michelangelo's David is still a work of art if it were placed in a parking lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Why do you belittle the works of Coombs? I find this painting very impressive. He used texture beautifully to evoke memory and melancholia.

Attachment 8557

---

Well, what did I actually say about Coombs? That I found his work to be "trite," which I do. Is that belittling his work? I suppose.

But you see, there is a more important issue here. So I will be happy to try to engage with you on it, or anyone else.

You ask me why I belittle the work of Coombs. But belittled relative to what? Is his work good or bad? If so, relative to what?

Suppose this painting you linked to were the only painting ever made. Then I'd be appreciative and a bit awed that for the first time in history, someone had magically used paint to create the face of another human, and gussied it up with some decoration to boot.

But, of course, it's NOT the only painting ever made, is it? Art, like everything, exists in a context -- social, artistic, political, historical.

Before continuing, let me try to frame (heh) this art discussion differently. Suppose someone were to hand another person a random copy of the Readers' Digest and ask, "why do you belittle this?"

Well, does the other person belittle it? If it were the only book ever printed in human history, far from belittling it, I imagine that the other person would treasure it.

But, of course, it's not the only book ever written. We have the Readers' Digest in this corner. In this corner we have the complete works of 'Shakespeare. Now if person A who handed to person B the Reader's Digest were to ask a different question -- how do you rate the Readers' Digest in relation, to say, the complete works of Shakespeare? -- now this IS a different question, and there is likely to be a very different answer.

Surely there is some difference between the random Reader's Digest and the complete works of shakespeare? Or is there? I mean, they're both made of words, they're both printed on paper. Can we find no difference between them then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own--unless he hops on the bandwagon.

---

I am not sure if you mentioned he referring to ftil or somebody else. Just in case if you meant me, I am a female. :wink5:

I never interpret paintings. It is very different to interpret paintings and to try to sit in the artist's head and making assumptions what the painter meant than expressing opinion about the theme of the painting or feelings that the painting evokes.

I am not a painter and I don’t discuss the technique but I appreciate talent. But talent is not enough. There are many talented artist who create disturbing art. I have discussed a few of them on the art thread and my search into their personal lives was quite revealing.

Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism.

Yet it is still a fruit.

This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.

This was Duchamp's argument: context is everything. But ultimately context only proves to be everything to art that is wholly dependent upon said context. Tracey Emin's "Bed" is only a work of art within the context of the gallery system and art public that are willing to believe that A. Emin is an artist and B. Whatever the artist makes or says is art IS art.

Michelangelo's David is still a work of art if it were placed in a parking lot.

---

I saw once a replica of David that pisses water in a garden. It was a water fountain.

Yes, like any painting, a watermelon is still a fruit but it has two different interpretations with two different points of reference.

If you really want to label my thinking as far as art criticism/appreciation is concerned, I'm more interested in Jung's collective unconscious, Frazer's cultural mythology, and Bodkin's archetypal patterns which, I believe, are what we all use in viewing an object. Some may like a painting with a lot of red in it because of their affinity towards the color that is meaningful to them. Others may hate a painting with a lot of black that symbolizes death. I do think archetypal criticism should have a place in visual/art studies, which is a field teeming with symbols, signs, and patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.

---

Such irony. You have revealed yourself to be foreclosed to veritable continents of beauty. I agree, it really is sad. For you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.

---

Not everybody has the same experience and the same view about beauty, and that's great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I saw once a replica of David that pisses water in a garden. It was a water fountain.

Yes, like any painting, a watermelon is still a fruit but it has two different interpretations with two different points of reference.

If you really want to label my thinking as far as art criticism/appreciation is concerned, I'm more interested in Jung's collective unconscious, Frazer's cultural mythology, and Bodkin's archetypal patterns which, I believe, are what we all use in viewing an object. Some may like a painting with a lot of red in it because of their affinity towards the color that is meaningful to them. Others may hate a painting with a lot of black that symbolizes death. I do think archetypal criticism should have a place in visual/art studies, which is a field teeming with symbols, signs, and patterns.

---

But, of course, liking and evaluating a work of art can be two different things, don't you think?

We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Not everybody has the same experience and the same view about beauty, and that's great.

---

This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.

Well, let me get back to Coombs. The problem here, of course, is that it actually is I (and stlukesguild and others) who DO appreciate "beauty" (which term I'll leave loose.) But here, ftil sets herself up as some Godlike arbiter, and with little or no liking or appreciation of much of the 20th century canon, she reproaches us for lacking an understanding of beauty. And what is this beauty we do not understand? The work of Coombs, for example!

But, actually, I do understand the strengths of his painting. No doubt stlukesguild does too. The point, though, is that to suggest that Coombs somehow represents "true beauty" and is in some way superior to so much of the 20th century canon that stlukesguild has reproduced here is the height of absurdity and arrogance. To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!

The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.

Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare.

StLuke, you don't really like Takashi Murakami's work do you? That one you posted has to be his only decent piece. The rest is just garbage. If I needed to pick a Japanese artist working in the last hundred years I'd go with Hasui Kawase, Kasamatsu Shiro, Kobayashi Kiyochika, or Ito Shinsui over that bum. And as 20th century Chinese artists go Yue Minjun is hardly the creme de la creme. That would be Zhang Daqian. Meanwhile, Yuan Yunfu, Yuan Yunshang, and Zhu Danian are all contemporaries of Minjun who's works are modern without being so repetitious. And while we are celebrating art not produced in the United States or Europe in the twentieth century, how about a little love for Mario Toral, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and Josep Renau Berenguer (although technically Berenguer did spend much of his career in Europe, I think it's still safe to classify him stylistically with the Latin Muralists).

This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.[/QUOTE]

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.


Attachment 8558[QUOTE=ftil;1195323]


I've tried staying neutral here, but it seems to me close-mindedness is used to evaluate something that is so open for many interpretations. There is a disconnect, I think.

It may be worth mentioning Norman Rockwell, a great artist who so straddled (or obliterated) that rather arbitrary distinction between illustration and fine art.

Toward the end of his life (or so I have read, I believe in a New York Times article) he said that if he had to do it over again, he would have pursued the art of modernism.

Take it for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Well, let me get back to Coombs. The problem here, of course, is that it actually is I (and stlukesguild and others) who DO appreciate "beauty" (which term I'll leave loose.) But here, ftil sets herself up as some Godlike arbiter, and with little or no liking or appreciation of much of the 20th century canon, she reproaches us for lacking an understanding of beauty. And what is this beauty we do not understand? The work of Coombs, for example!

But, actually, I do understand the strengths of his painting. No doubt stlukesguild does too. The point, though, is that to suggest that Coombs somehow represents "true beauty" and is in some way superior to so much of the 20th century canon that stlukesguild has reproduced here is the height of absurdity and arrogance. To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!

The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.

Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare.

---

You just proved my view about patterns. Coombs is just okay because it does not really fit within the patterns that are beautiful to you. Others have sets of patterns too lurking in their subconscious. Someone homely may like Coombs because the patterns she has in appreciating images involve womanhood, childhood, and motherhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

You just proved my view about patterns. Coombs is just okay because it does not really fit within the patterns that are beautiful to you. Others have sets of patterns too lurking in their subconscious. Someone homely may like Coombs because the patterns she has in appreciating images involve womanhood, childhood, and motherhood.

---

No, I'm sorry, but this is not right.

Are you a writer?

So, let me start over. Is there a difference between some random copy of the Reader's Digest and the collected works of Shakespeare? Or is it all just words on a page, and whether one is good or bad is just a matter of personal taste mixed in with patterns lurking from a person's subconscious?

We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.

And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc... If I were to claim a critical foundation upon which I look at art it would owe most to art pour l'art and Formalism. Formalism... especially Greenbergian Formalism... goes a bit too far, suggesting that a work of art is wholly self-contained. Contrary to the misinterpretation of "art pour l'art" as meaning art solely about art... "art pour l'art" is a concept that suggests value judgments concerning art should be made solely based upon formal artistic elements. In other words... questions of non-art issues such as theology, politics, morality, etc... should not be taken into consideration when judging a work of art. In the past, a work of art might be deemed "bad art" because it conveyed the "wrong" religious ideas or because it was immoral. The idea of art pour l'art does not set about to suggest that we ignore political or social or theological issues raised by a work of art... only that these extra-art or external non-art issues should not have any bearings on the judgment of the artistic merits of a work.

If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created. The judgments that I have offered forth concerning specific works of art have been based first and foremost upon a grasp of art history and the tradition in which a given work of art was created. As Cioran suggests, opinions upon the relative merits of Robert Coombs may indeed differ... based upon experience of the viewer (which establishes a context in which the work is seen). I look at Coombs with the experience of a degree in art/painting including a great deal of formal and informal study of art history and the study of the actual art works in real life. I can tell you which artists he was likely inspired by/what tradition he works in... and as such I am able to make comparisons and value judgments. Within the context of the whole of art history, there are a great many artists... a great many working with similar formal issues/goals/intentions who are quite a bit better.

T.S. Eliot, in his great essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, argued that any work of art that will enter into the "canon" must struggle to earn this place in comparison with the other works of art. The work of an artist like Robert Coombs is not overly "original"... it clearly fits within a specific tradition and the work will be compared with that of the greatest artists working in that tradition. There is no reason why an artist today could not take it upon themselves to work in the style of Impressionism or Cubism... but they must realize that their work will not be valued as being overly original... and it most certainly will be measured against the finest achievements of the masters of Impressionism and Cubism.

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 found what your wrote until "absurdity and arrogance" reasonable. Then you wrote this:

"To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!

The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.

Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare."

And what do you find unreasonable about what I wrote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="#B22222"]

If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created.

---

Well, I think we cannot tell the context will be more important (or if will be one). Iliad and Odissey were never appreciate due the context they were created. Mostly, it was appreciate as a classic of literature and not as a popular oral product that it is. And maybe, we can say the Mona Lisa has a different vallue because the context today is more significative than what Da Vinci planned for it. I would say, context alone is meaningless and great artworks usually carry a history of contexts. Everything has importance, just not the same importance.

Anyways, I do not think miyako is defending that you do not have better or more important works. Just that something more simple in the lines of beauty appreciation is relative and you just cannot set fixed rankings for what is more beautiful. One about having experience and other about living an experience. Hence, no sharing of the watermellon.

StLuke, you don't really like Takashi Murakami's work do you? That one you posted has to be his only decent piece.

Actually that piece is one of a series based on old Japanese screen paintings, Hokusai's "Great Wave" merged with contemporary Japanese anime. I agree that most of the rest is crap... as is the whole of Yue Minjun, whose work is little more than a single one-liner. I merely used these artists as examples of artists straddling the line between "high" and "low" art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.

And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc... If I were to claim a critical foundation upon which I look at art it would owe most to art pour l'art and Formalism. Formalism... especially Greenbergian Formalism... goes a bit too far, suggesting that a work of art is wholly self-contained. Contrary to the misinterpretation of "art pour l'art" as meaning art solely about art... "art pour l'art" is a concept that suggests value judgments concerning art should be made solely based upon formal artistic elements. In other words... questions of non-art issues such as theology, politics, morality, etc... should not be taken into consideration when judging a work of art. In the past, a work of art might be deemed "bad art" because it conveyed the "wrong" religious ideas or because it was immoral. The idea of art pour l'art does not set about to suggest that we ignore political or social or theological issues raised by a work of art... only that these extra-art or external non-art issues should not have any bearings on the judgment of the artistic merits of a work.

If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created. The judgments that I have offered forth concerning specific works of art have been based first and foremost upon a grasp of art history and the tradition in which a given work of art was created. As Cioran suggests, opinions upon the relative merits of Robert Coombs may indeed differ... based upon experience of the viewer (which establishes a context in which the work is seen). I look at Coombs with the experience of a degree in art/painting including a great deal of formal and informal study of art history and the study of the actual art works in real life. I can tell you which artists he was likely inspired by/what tradition he works in... and as such I am able to make comparisons and value judgments. Within the context of the whole of art history, there are a great many artists... a great many working with similar formal issues/goals/intentions who are quite a bit better.

T.S. Eliot, in his great essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, argued that any work of art that will enter into the "canon" must struggle to earn this place in comparison with the other works of art. The work of an artist like Robert Coombs is not overly "original"... it clearly fits within a specific tradition and the work will be compared with that of the greatest artists working in that tradition. There is no reason why an artist today could not take it upon themselves to work in the style of Impressionism or Cubism... but they must realize that their work will not be valued as being overly original... and it most certainly will be measured against the finest achievements of the masters of Impressionism and Cubism.

---

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?

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.