DiscussMormonism.com

Blixa:

In your opinion, are some works of (visual) art better than others? If so, what, in your opinion, is it that makes some items of art better or worse than other such items?

As for me, my rule of thumb is, "if anyone can do it, it ain't art." Is that a reasonable baseline?

Thanks in advance.

Well, should we start an art thread for everyone else!? If I'm not supposed to answer you can delete this! :P

What makes art "good" for me is that it captures my attention in the sense that it is visually interesting. If it induces some sort of emotional or intellectual response for me I consider that "good" art. It may be something that is disturbing for me. Something that may even make me cringe. Makes me open my eyes a bit more and soak in the elements as my eyes move over the piece. A piece that expresses an emotion or thought in a way I've never considered before-- or if the piece expresses my own emotions or thoughts in a way that I haven't been able to do myself. Anything that I can't take my eyes off of -- that I may walk away from then turn to go back for a second look.

That is my definition. :)

I hope Blixa provides images!

The reason I ask is because Blixa provided several examples of visual art in this post. She didn't make any judgment calls, so I didn't know if she was merely giving a random sample or if she somehow did indeed consider them to be qualitatively equal.

Hmmm...I'll try to devote some quality brain time to this later..but right now I'm dead. I've been in New Haven all day with Don Bradley playing amid the Mike Quinn papers. I have to get to bed because we need to go back tomorrow and make more gleanings...

"if anyone can do it, it ain't art." Is that a reasonable baseline?"

Not as easy to answer as you might think. If you mean it to mean something like, "well my 5 year old can draw as good as Picasso," then the answer is no. If you mean Thomas Kincade paintings take a level of technical skill many do not possess and therefore are art...then the answer is still no. If you mean, any actual work of art is situated conceptually in ways that not everyone can do...then the answer is more yessy. But I can imagine creating a solid work out of accessible technique, or displaying as art (in terms of installation) actual work done by "non artists" that anyone could replicate. So I guess I'd have to say that in the final analysis, NO that is not a reasonable baseline because art is much more than a skill set.

the second question about the images I provided: Yes, I guess in general I would consider all of them qualitatively equal, but I don't know that that means a great deal. I grabbed works by particular artists and so sometimes I didn't take works of theirs I though were their best work (for several reasons, Hannah Hoch's "Cut With a Kitchen Knife" is too hard to reproduce small and I wanted something from Max Ernst's collage novel, but don't like the page I used that much, nor do I like that project as much as I like other work of his, etc).

I think there is an underlying question here about "taste"/"critical judgement" that needs sorting. I could contribute some ideas later, but I suspect this kind of question already locates things more in a realm of "art appreciation" than critical analysis and so some different foundations may need to be laid.

Of course I could be making no sense at all. I am very tired. I am also suffering from Stendhal Syndrome. I had my first attack at the Temple of Dendur in the Met's Egyptian collection a few days ago. Today I suffered a relapse with extra bibliomanic symptoms...

Blixa wrote:[T]he second question about the images I provided: Yes, I guess in general I would consider all of them qualitatively equal, . . .

REALLY? You didn't think a couple of them were. . . forgive the choice of word. . . reprobate?

Dr. Shades wrote:

Blixa wrote:[T]he second question about the images I provided: Yes, I guess in general I would consider all of them qualitatively equal, . . .

REALLY? You didn't think a couple of them were. . . forgive the choice of word. . . reprobate?

no.

So, is anything anyone slaps on a canvas automatically "art?"

Dr. Shades wrote:So, is anything anyone slaps on a canvas automatically "art?"

No and I thought my reply made that clear. I don't know where you are going with this...I have a hard time beleiveing you're asking this stuff seriously.

Blixa wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:So, is anything anyone slaps on a canvas automatically "art?"

No and I thought my reply made that clear.

Sorry, I was just totally confused by your response. Maybe others were smart enough to "get it," but I'm not, I'm afraid.

I don't know where you are going with this...I have a hard time beleiveing you're asking this stuff seriously.

I'm totally serious. It just seems to me that the rise of that unfortunate blight on the collective intellect, postmodernism, has coincided with a parallel rise of "anything goes" in the world of art as well. A sort of "Hellenization" of attitudes toward what is or isn't art, if you will.

Ever since the first few decades of the Twentieth Century, it seems like practice, talent, technique, etc. are no longer required to "make it big" in the art scene. Gone, it seems, are the Raphaels and the Michelangelos of yesteryear.

You, as a scholar of this sort of thing, are my only resource to whom I can ask such questions.

I don't think they are 'qualitively equal'.



This one makes me feel uncomfortable. From a distance it looks like a very messy shed. But up close I see naked or semi naked people on their hands. It is very vertical and sharp. I don't like how it makes me feel so I would not say it is 'good'. It appears that the being that is standing and doesn't have his hand/s on the ground is evil in some ways and the others might be bowing toward him.



This peice of work is no where near as complex as the previous and I like it more as it is calmer. It looks like shapes stuck together with no purpose. From a distace I originally thought it was a plane, but then I saw a laser or camera in a room containing a lightshade.




This peice of work has too much going on. It is very upward pointing.


This is strange. Why does a man have no eye? They have missing limbs. I think this picture is more sybolic than anything else. It appears to be propaganda in a way. They are obviously military men without a leg to stand on. And aare not seeing things as they are. it is interesting that the artist had shown all the cards. I think this would show who has the most power. I do not know who these men are however.

I like this in a way as it is simple. But in ways I don't like it.


I do not think these pictures are equal at all.