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

[JCamilo]

The division is blurred and rebuild constantly, I would say. Just see here, the division between more academic members, the snobs, the harry potter fans, the piss in the painting fans, the anti-joyce brigade, the conspiracy terrorists, etc. And in the past, we had academics like Dante breaking the line, but with time, turning into a division by itself.

[miyako73]

JC, is there a new theory now (that I don't know) that constructs what has been deconstructed? Or is it simply the attempt to go back to modernism or to the structuralist construction of knowledge?

[JCamilo]

I am not on academy (I guess someone like OrphanPip would know), but I do think, beyond the theorical world, there is attempts to recover from the last 50,60 years of artistc challenges. As I said to Stlukes, the question "what is" the dominated the production in the last decades seems to have exausted the capacity of producing anything interesting. I think, guys like Stlukes, who vallue the technique necessary to produce an artwork ahead of the impact caused on the system may lead on. I may be wrong, because prophecy is always closer to failure than success, but high technology that is dominating some fields seems to be leading back to the "art" in artesian in a way.

[stlukesguild]

Before addressing some of the issues here, I'll point out that JCamilo is writing with English as a third (?) language after Portuguese (Brazil) and Spanish.

OK... now let's try to make some sense of this. JCamilo writes: artists need(__) to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiveness, is not beauty.

Agreed. And I spoke of this with regard to the painter Serge Marshennikov:



I suggested that his paintings were indeed quite beautiful... but fell short in that they lacked a strong personal voice.

Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience.

OK... I take this as suggesting that "beauty" is something along the lines of what Oscar Wilde intended when he wrote, "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." Or simply put... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" To a certain degree, I concur. The failure to appreciate James Joyce or Richard Wagner or Picasso... or as I have admitted with regard to myself: Chinese Opera... is not a failing on the part of the artist, but rather a failing on a part of the audience. But is this always so? Is there no good nor bad but thinking makes it so? All judgments in art are subjective... but some judgments are better than others?

When I suggested that Serge Marshennikov's paintings... in spite of their failing in terms of personal style or self-expression or unique artist's voice... were still "beautiful" I suggested that I was speaking of an aesthetic or artistic concept of "beauty". The paintings conveyed a facility... even a mastery of handling paint. The choice of colors were elegant and harmonic. His sense of composition is quite solid. The paintings display an internal logic. Now are we really to suggest there is no possible objective concept of "good" or "bad" when speaking of the structure and form and internal logic of a work of art? Are there not poems that are clearly awkward, disjointed, poorly written? Are there not works of music that strike you as flawless... and yet boring... not because of some failure in form or "beauty"... but because they lack the artist's voice?

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.

OK... I can buy that. "Beauty" is not the goal (or always the goal) of art... but it is an element of art. And if we accept Burke's notion of beauty as that which inspires or evokes pleasure, then "beauty" is a necessary element of art... or rather if we don't find a work of art pleasurable/beautiful we are not likely going to appreciate it. I rarely find Schoenberg beautiful because he rarely gives me pleasure... but I find Berg... and even Tristan Murail and Giacinto Scelsi beautiful/pleasurable.

In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense.

Or such are my thoughts. Defining "beauty" is surely like defining "art". Far better men than we have struggled with the questions... and largely failed.

[miyako73]

I find JC's arguments reasonable.

As far as appreciation of visual arts is concerned, everything boils down to the personal taste and interpretation of a viewer. For example, I find the painting above beautiful not because of the colors, forms, sharpness, etc, but due to the narrative I get and the "sub-images"--the ones we do not directly see that can be about the subject or the painter--that pop up in my head. You can question how I see things, but that's me--I see a watermelon as someone's labor.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense.

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.

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?

[JCamilo]

I suggested that his paintings were indeed quite beautiful... but fell short in that they lacked a strong personal voice.

Yes. His technique is perfect. I can see how in a world today, it is missing something. It is cold. It is telling so little. Maybe my failure to appreciate, but we can move on. Neither you and me try to define beauty by the authenticity of an artwork.

OK... I take this as suggesting that "beauty" is something along the lines of what Oscar Wilde intended when he wrote, "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." Or simply put... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" To a certain degree, I concur. The failure to appreciate James Joyce or Richard Wagner or Picasso... or as I have admitted with regard to myself: Chinese Opera... is not a failing on the part of the artist, but rather a failing on a part of the audience. But is this always so? Is there no good nor bad but thinking makes it so? All judgments in art are subjective... but some judgments are better than others?

When I suggested that Serge Marshennikov's paintings... in spite of their failing in terms of personal style or self-expression or unique artist's voice... were still "beautiful" I suggested that I was speaking of an aesthetic or artistic concept of "beauty". The paintings conveyed a facility... even a mastery of handling paint. The choice of colors were elegant and harmonic. His sense of composition is quite solid. The paintings display an internal logic. Now are we really to suggest there is no possible objective concept of "good" or "bad" when speaking of the structure and form and internal logic of a work of art? Are there not poems that are clearly awkward, disjointed, poorly written? Are there not works of music that strike you as flawless... and yet boring... not because of some failure in form or "beauty"... but because they lack the artist's voice?

Yes, because we know beauty is one element for art, not all of it. What often happens in the debate is that different artists or movements try to define Beauty by the internal logic of their work. They are not going to be wrong - as the artist needs the notion of what beauty he is doing, but obviously, one rule for Beethoveen another for AC/DC. (As I would say, the it is not a judgment of vallue ). So many fields happened because many have been able to spot the rules that worked so well for them and could not accept it was not universal. It is like there is Beauty and beauty.

I do not take all from the artist. The artist is trying to tell what is his vision, to give his message. He try to manipulate the audience. But since beauty in art is the result of that aesthetic momment it cannot be anything but the momment when the momment happens. In a way the artist is always there. Not out. I just would not call failures.

OK... I can buy that. "Beauty" is not the goal (or always the goal) of art... but it is an element of art. And if we accept Burke's notion of beauty as that which inspires or evokes pleasure, then "beauty" is a necessary element of art... or rather if we don't find a work of art pleasurable/beautiful we are not likely going to appreciate it. I rarely find Schoenberg beautiful because he rarely gives me pleasure... but I find Berg... and even Tristan Murail and Giacinto Scelsi beautiful/pleasurable.

Yes, I would just not use the word pleasure. It is not always it. It can be painful as Miyako suggested. There must be some impact.

In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense.

Yes, obviously. Divinity is both terrible and beautiful. But maybe, the thing is that art objective is too provoke that aesthetic emotion able to persuade us to revive emotions and experiences as if they are real and that was called Beauty. But this Beauty was just confuded with harmnoy, the perfect of forms, the physical beauty, true. Would be better maybe allure.

I think ftil is doing an mistake: he is too worried with the use of artworks. It is not that is false that artworks were used for political reason. Or occultists. Or shoes salesman. Or doctors. Or Jung. Sure. But that only mean something casual about that artwork. Nothing much important.

Or such are my thoughts. Defining "beauty" is surely like defining "art". Far better men than we have struggled with the questions... and largely failed.

Oh, certainly. I am certainly vague enough. I do not think beauty and art - or the world - i meant to be in a dictionary. The discussion of what is art, what is beauty, goes well to a uncertain territory.

[JCamilo]

I find JC's arguments reasonable.

I am reasonable, just not in english

As far as appreciation of visual arts is concerned, everything boils down to the personal taste and interpretation of a viewer. For example, I find the painting above beautiful not because of the colors, forms, sharpness, etc, but due to the narrative I get and the "sub-images"--the ones we do not directly see that can be about the subject or the painter--that pop up in my head. You can question how I see things, but that's me--I see a watermelon as someone's labor.

Yes, Art is always gambling with the perspective. I guess Stlukes worries is that his view is not the view of an uninteressed viewer, more of a critic, maybe to think where it will go or what he can use. I guess he is not against the watermellon, just wondering if it is sweaty and nutritive.

[stlukesguild]

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.

Modernism was blurring the boundaries far before the term Post-Modernism even existed. Picasso suggested that true art was produced in the same manner in which the Aristocrats of the Italian Renaissance produced their children: through a merger of the low-born and the high. Look at this painting:



With Realism and Impressionism in the late 19th century there was already a push toward art which explores "low" culture.





Degas was looking at the bars, nightclubs, cheap diners and cafes, and even the brothels for subject matter for his paintings.







By the time of the Post-Impressionists, a mass-produced, commercial art form such as the poster was already being recognized as a work of real art.



As were book illustrations.







By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, you could find major "fine artists" working on such commercial ventures as poster design.



With Cubism we find the abandonment of the notion that a painting must be an illusion of visual reality and the recognition that a painting is essentially an organization of colors, shapes, lines, etc... on a flat surface. By this definition, a painting need not even be made wholly of paint. The artist may incorporate elements drawn from the "real world"... even from the world of mass-production and popular culture.





Taken further... the entire image might be made of the detritus of our mass-produced culture.



The German Expressionists often drew inspiration from sleazy nightclubs and jazz music.



George Grosz even employed the techniques of comic books and children's "doodles" in the production of art.





Max Beckmann is one of the most interesting painters, populating hi canvases with an almost surreal mix of "high" and "low": Wagnerian heroes, Greek and Persian warriors, African totems, Biblical references... as well as cigarette girls, jazz performers, acrobats, waiters from high-class Berlin hotels, bellhops, actresses, etc...



With the onset of Pop Art, the line between "high" and "low" became ever more blurred. Robert Rauschenberg built assemblages of the detritus of the urban American streets.









Hollywood, Rock Stars, Pin-Ups and Pornography, Anime... virtually any aspect of popular culture became fair game for art.

But the divide between "high" and "low" still exists. It has little to do with subject matter, imagery, or even the media... and everything to do with the context and perceptions.





There isn't a huge world of difference between R.Crumb's comics... which a critic as esteemed as Robert Hughes compared to Pieter Bruegel... and the late comic-book derived paintings of Philip Guston. They both share the same satirical intentions. But Guston's works are exhibited in major galleries and museums and sell for millions... while Crumb depends upon the mechanization of the mass-media to sell to a large mass audience.





There is even less of a gap between an artist like Andy Warhol and Shepard Fairey. Both employ the technique of mass-production, using silk screens and employing laborers to realize their images. Both employ imagery drawn from popular culture. Warhol's works, however, are marketed within the context of the high-end "fine art" market for very very large sums of money... and Fairey's works are not.

Within the larger art world there is a growing recognition that great art can rise from anywhere... from the untrained folk artist, from popular culture, from smaller regional art markets... or from the context of the high-end "art world"... but only the latter can demand the astronomical prices... and as such their is a concerted effort to maintain the illusion of a clear separation between "high" and "low".

[miyako73]

It can be argued that the "blurring" of boundaries in modernism is actually the mere juxtaposition of binaries that is structuralist. It only compares and contrasts.

The "blurring" in postmodernism is more of deconstructing. Instead of just placing black and white side-by-side, it aims to construct gray.

[JCamilo]

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.

[miyako73]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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:







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:









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

[Cioran]

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

You're wrong!

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

[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.