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

[Cioran]

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?

[miyako73]

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.

[ftil]

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.

[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.

[mortalterror]

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).

[miyako73]

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.


tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg[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.

[Cioran]

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.

[miyako73]

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.

[Cioran]

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?

[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.

[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.

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."

[Cioran]

And what do you find unreasonable about what I wrote?

[JCamilo]

[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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[miyako73]

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?