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

[Cioran]

I wonder what ftil thinks of this:

A marvelous Picasso... brutal... almost violent in his handling of paint and clash of colors and jagged lines. And yet incredibly expressive of the fear and horror and suffering of WWII... and ultimately quite beautiful.

Yes, exactly. Ftil, unfortunately like so many others, conflates prettiness in the visual arts with beauty. But beauty is not prettiness. Beauty is expressiveness and originality and authenticity. In the visual arts, true beauty is that which challenges you -- same with all the other arts. The ax the breaks the frozen sea, as Kafka had it.

Ftil prefers visual wallpaper. Banalities to lull one into insensibility like a stiff drink combined with a tranquilizer. Of course try that combo too many times and you go to sleep for good.

One of the most beautiful paintings ever made is the Potato Eaters. It's just not pretty.

Thanks for your good work here, stlukesguild, it is a pleasure to read, and I thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge about art.

[JCamilo]

Beauty has nothing to do with originality or authenticity. I do not know what you mean by expressiveness, but I am guessing it may not be something that beauty must have. True beauty neither challenges anything. Most beauty is banal and you step over it without even nodding.

[Cioran]

Beauty has nothing to do with originality or authenticity. I do not know what you mean by expressiveness, but I am guessing it may not be something that beauty must have. True beauty neither challenges anything. Most beauty is banal and you step over it without even nodding.

Whatever.

Of course, I'm not talking about "beauty" as a general concept. I'm talking about beauty in the visual arts.

I do not know how I could be clearer, or where your confusion lies. ftil (probably you, too) likes pretty art. Pretty art is wallpaper art, designed to deaden the mind with visual banalities.

I hold, as does stlukesguild, that Picasso's Weeping Woman is beautiful -- even though, like Van Gogh's Potato Eaters, it is also jarringly ugly. Can you understand that? Can you understand how something, in the visual arts (also the other arts) can be both beautiful and ugly -- indeed, can be beautiful precisely because it IS ugly?

I doubt it. But do let me know.

As to expressiveness, see stlukesguild's passage on the personal expression of the artist, the need to put his stamp, his signature, on a work.

Authenticity: See the early works of Van Gogh, especially, when he was striving to be a social realist painter, a painter of the peasants around him. See, in fact, The Potato Eaters, for a paramount example of authenticity in the visual arts. Van Gogh was reproached, even by his own brother, for this painting, for its titanic ugliness (and also for alleged bad drawing). Contrast this painting with the prettified idealizations of peasant life of other painters, including, to some extent, even Millet, Van Gogh's idol. Authenticity means the artist was trying to express something REAL about his life, and the lives of those around him, and not idealize it.

I'm baffled I even have to explain this stuff.

[Cioran]

Beautiful!

[JCamilo]

Sorry, but I have no confusion. It seems to me that you are the one who likes pretty art, except you think you like prettier than ftil. I have no idea where I even said what kind of art I like - yet you just tried to define it. A bit too much assumptions from your part about me.

Frankly, I find Picasso impressive. He is awesome. I do not need to call him beautifully ugly. This is just the notions that art must be beautiful so what is completely contrary to it, so let's accept it. You are completely missing Picasso if you have to adjust a traditional notion of beauty to explain why his works have such impact.

Now, let me explain: artists needing to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiviness, is not beauty. Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience. It is a manifestation. That is where "beauty" manifests. Yet, still very mundane. Beauty in visual arts, in all arts, is the manifestation of the artwork, not the artwork. Artworks can be expressive? Sure. But that is one way, one element of art, not of beauty.

Authenticy? Again you confuse the artwork - mostly one style of art - with beauty. How silly is to claim authenticy is trying to express something real (all art express something real and about the author life) and how ridiculous is too say Van Gogh does not idealize. You just admire plain realism and if we accept the only art is the kind of representation of the mundane, so what about Michelangelo extremelly idealized heroes? Does he lacks authenticity? An artwork, an artist may need this authenticity, but beauty? Beauty just is. No explantion, no rules, no need to be authentic. Beauty just happpens, all the time, ready to surprise us on the next corner.

And originality, good luck trying to explain this one. Near Stlukes, who dislikes the naive romantic version of orginality and is a borges's fan. And yet, this is the artwork, beauty can be copied - it is - a hundred times, used, tossed on the ground. Beauty happens everyday.

Be carefull. You just didn't stop to think that baffled you. Not your explanations (which explained why your romantic notions can be so wrong, only this).

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

[COLOR="#B22222"]...The next artist whose name immediately came to mind, was Emil Nolde. Nolde was a personally and politically quite conservative. he grew up on a farm and was raised as a devout Lutheran. He joined and exhibited with both of the radical German Expressionist groups, Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter but he was eventually expelled or left both of these groups – foreshadowing of the difficulty Nolde had maintaining relationships with the organizations to which he belonged. His paintings often explored Christian or Germanic myth and legend. Nolde was a supporter of the Nazi party from the early 1920s, having become a member of its Danish section. He expressed negative opinions about Jewish artists, and considered Expressionism to be a distinctively Germanic style. In spite of this Nolde was also one of the first and most audacious of the German Expressionists... and as such he was particularly targeted by Hitler and included in the Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937, despite protests of various high-ranking Nazis, notably Joseph Goebbels. He was forbidden to paint—even in private—after 1941... on penalty of death. Nevertheless, during this period he created hundreds of watercolors (which didn't have the tell-tale odor of oils), which he hid. He called them the "Unpainted Pictures".

....Scully's painting undoubtedly refers more to Duccio's painting than it does to the subject of the Virgin. Considering the title, the black and white stripes of Scully's painting suggest the similar stripes of the cathedral of Siena:

Ha, a couple of days ago I was considering offering up Nolde as an example, but had to do the dishes or some other domestic chore.
Anyhow, Nolde is featured in a book I have on the Vatican Museums. I believe there's another Nolde painting regarding the Adoration of the Magi.

The Duomo of Siena is breathtaking, the moment I entered, my legs became weak and felt the need to immediately sit down for a moment to take it in.


btw- another interesting stop in Siena is the Basilica of San Domenico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilic...menico_(Siena)

Inside you will find the relic of Saint Catherine, as in... her head!
The head is located in the side chapel dedicated to Saint Catherine.
The chapel includes works by Il Sodoma and Francesco Vanni.


Cioran,

Just a friendly suggestion to a newcomer, be careful with the size of the images you post, otherwise you might get your palms whacked with a 12 inch rule by Sister Mary Catherine.
The standing rule is to use thumbnails.

[Cioran]

Sorry, but I have no confusion. It seems to me that you are the one who likes pretty art, except you think you like prettier than ftil. I have no idea where I even said what kind of art I like - yet you just tried to define it. A bit too much assumptions from your part about me.

Frankly, I find Picasso impressive. He is awesome. I do not need to call him beautifully ugly. This is just the notions that art must be beautiful so what is completely contrary to it, so let's accept it. You are completely missing Picasso if you have to adjust a traditional notion of beauty to explain why his works have such impact.

Now, let me explain: artists needing to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiviness, is not beauty. Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience. It is a manifestation. That is where "beauty" manifests. Yet, still very mundane. Beauty in visual arts, in all arts, is the manifestation of the artwork, not the artwork. Artworks can be expressive? Sure. But that is one way, one element of art, not of beauty.

Authenticy? Again you confuse the artwork - mostly one style of art - with beauty. How silly is to claim authenticy is trying to express something real (all art express something real and about the author life) and how ridiculous is too say Van Gogh does not idealize. You just admire plain realism and if we accept the only art is the kind of representation of the mundane, so what about Michelangelo extremelly idealized heroes? Does he lacks authenticity? An artwork, an artist may need this authenticity, but beauty? Beauty just is. No explantion, no rules, no need to be authentic. Beauty just happpens, all the time, ready to surprise us on the next corner.

And originality, good luck trying to explain this one. Near Stlukes, who dislikes the naive romantic version of orginality and is a borges's fan. And yet, this is the artwork, beauty can be copied - it is - a hundred times, used, tossed on the ground. Beauty happens everyday.

Be carefull. You just didn't stop to think that baffled you. Not your explanations (which explained why your romantic notions can be so wrong, only this).

This is just such a muddled mess of histrionics that I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

I will say, from what little sense that I can glean from this obtuse rant, that you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Van Gogh and Michelangelo, and of course you misconstrue what I say, either deliberately or out of ignorance, perhaps both. No one was more authentic than Michelangelo. So now I suppose I shall have to explain authenticity in terms of the context of its times. Or ... not. I don't have stlukesguild's estimable patience in suffering fools.

stlukesguild is a fan of Borges? Good for him! Do you find that bad?

Honestly, not that I care.

BTW, Van Gogh ADORED Michelangelo. As do I.

[ftil]

Ha, a couple of days ago I was considering offering up Nolde as an example, but had to do the dishes or some other domestic chore.
Anyhow, Nolde is featured in a book I have on the Vatican Museums. I believe there's another Nolde painting regarding the Adoration of the Magi.

Inside you will find the relic of Saint Catherine, as in... her head!
The head is located in the side chapel dedicated to Saint Catherine.
The chapel includes works by Il Sodoma and Francesco Vanni.

The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg


Or, wheel of fortune.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg

[Cioran]

The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg


Or, wheel of fortune.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg

LOL, more idiot occultism. And before that a post by JCamilo which appears to have been typed while under the influence.


Too bad it's so hard to have meaningful discussions on the Internet. They always get hijacked by ... well, I won't even say; probably to do so would break a rule here

[JCamilo]

This is just such a muddled mess of histrionics that I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Look, if you are going to hide behind Stlukes, keep quiet. Your attempt to impose vallues such as expressiviness, originality or authenticity as the definition of beauty just because you like them is not the kind of argument he would have here. But if you are going to be obnoxious calling other fools, you better present something useful. "BTW, Van Gogh ADORED Michelangelo. As do I" is just a histerical rant for footballing fans. Of course, someone who just claimed an artist didnt idealize something is just not thinking much of his own muddled mess to even grasp what others are talking.

[miyako73]

My God, this thread is active.

Aren't all paintings expressive and authentic if their painters actually paint them? Even if I piss on a canvas and peddle it a painting, it is expressive of my intent and yes, authentic because I use my own piss.

I took several art studies courses, and in each course, I saved my spit by sticking to my mantra: beautiful paintings comfort me amid the ugliness in the world that disturbs, and ugly paintings discomfort me amid the beauty in the world that quiets. Both keep me sane and balanced.

[JCamilo]

I suppose one can have an unexpressive pissing, but since it is something real, about your life it is really the authentic pee.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg


Or, wheel of fortune.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg

Yes; a couple more of many examples of wonderful art within the Cathedral, some of which I do remember (I was there in January of 1998)

Just a minor point of clarification though; the part of my message you quoted regards the other church I referenced that being the Basilica Saint Domenico which is also in Siena. i.e.- Catherine's head is at the Basilica not the Cathedral.

LOL, more idiot occultism. And before that a post by JCamilo which appears to have been typed while under the influence.
Too bad it's so hard to have meaningful discussions on the Internet. They always get hijacked by ... well, I won't even say; probably to do so would break a rule here

In this instance, I chose to take ftil's message as simply pointing out a couple more beautiful works found inside the Cathderal.

Unfortunately I did not see the Piccolomini Library or the Baptistry, if I had it is likely I would have been taken out on a guerney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_Cathedral - scroll down about 2/3 of the page.

.

[ftil]

In this instance, I chose to take ftil's message as simply pointing out a couple more beautiful works found inside the Cathderal.

You are free to choose what you think and I would be the last person to convince you otherwise. I wasn’t focusing on the art though but on the fact that we may find Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx in catholic cathedral.

[miyako73]

another thing:

I thought Postmodernism has successfully blurred the division between high and low art/literature/culture. If it hasn't, many years then have been wasted by scholars in colleges and universities pretending that the meaningful use of the theory as pacifist is applicable.