Fun Stuff > MAKE

As abstract as you can stomach

<< < (4/18) > >>

ScrambledGregs:
I don't "know" anything about art. The extent of my art learning was a philosophy course last year in college called Aesthetics, where we debated such things as what is art, what is perception and how does it effect art, etc etc. When it comes to art, I honestly don't give a shit what method/material the artist used, or what their intention was, or anything like that. I look at art and either I like it or I don't. I hate the idea that I need to study hundreds of years of art to be "qualified" to say that I think if White on White is the greatest painting of the 20th century, then we are totally fucked as a civilization. It does not communicate a god damn thing to me, subconsciously or not. If I have to read any kind of background on a piece to appreciate it--let's not deal in "understand" because that is too pretentious for me--then it has utterly failed in my opinion.

In that Aesthetics class, we were asked to pretend that we saw three identical pieces of art. It was abstract expressionism. We were supposed to imagine that they were identical, completely identical. One was by Jackson Pollock, one was by an ape, and one was by an art student trying to be a smartass. Which was is art?? Are any of them art?? Is the ape one not art because the creature didn't intend to make art?? We went in circles, as you can imagine, but I remember wanting to say that, art or not, it just wasn't interesting. Abstract expressionism is more interesting in theory than in result. It's funner to talk about than to look at, IMO.

I like art to be intuitive. I suppose it's why I've never gotten into art, and have stuck to words and music as my art forms of choice. Sometimes you do have to work at art to get into it, but abstract expressionism has never worked for me. Some of it is cool to look at, but that's all it "means" to me. I can read my own ideas and images into it, but I do the same thing with clouds, oil rainbows in puddles, and ceiling patterns.

Johnny C:
Intent is key, sorry. If you don't care about intention and just care about pretty pictures, might I suggest watercolours of flowers and velvet paintings of Elvis?

Also you're confusing abstraction with non-objective art.

ekmesnz:

--- Quote from: ScrambledGregs on 16 Dec 2006, 11:00 ---I don't "know" anything about art. The extent of my art learning was a philosophy course last year in college called Aesthetics, where we debated such things as what is art, what is perception and how does it effect art, etc etc. When it comes to art, I honestly don't give a shit what method/material the artist used, or what their intention was, or anything like that. I look at art and either I like it or I don't. I hate the idea that I need to study hundreds of years of art to be "qualified" to say that I think if White on White is the greatest painting of the 20th century, then we are totally fucked as a civilization. It does not communicate a god damn thing to me, subconsciously or not. If I have to read any kind of background on a piece to appreciate it--let's not deal in "understand" because that is too pretentious for me--then it has utterly failed in my opinion.

In that Aesthetics class, we were asked to pretend that we saw three identical pieces of art. It was abstract expressionism. We were supposed to imagine that they were identical, completely identical. One was by Jackson Pollock, one was by an ape, and one was by an art student trying to be a smartass. Which was is art?? Are any of them art?? Is the ape one not art because the creature didn't intend to make art?? We went in circles, as you can imagine, but I remember wanting to say that, art or not, it just wasn't interesting. Abstract expressionism is more interesting in theory than in result. It's funner to talk about than to look at, IMO.

I like art to be intuitive. I suppose it's why I've never gotten into art, and have stuck to words and music as my art forms of choice. Sometimes you do have to work at art to get into it, but abstract expressionism has never worked for me. Some of it is cool to look at, but that's all it "means" to me. I can read my own ideas and images into it, but I do the same thing with clouds, oil rainbows in puddles, and ceiling patterns.

--- End quote ---

I think you missed part of my point. Intent is NOT key, and the very IDEA is that you need not read anything to enjoy White on White. This fact does not mean you must enjoy it--revulsion or apathy are both valid responses to what Malevich has done; they just aren't my responses.

Jackson Pollock is a genius, with the power to create what apes and smartass art students cannot. To give you an idea: mathematicians are finding fractals in his work. In other words, his artistic sensibility, his sense of what looks good on paper, creates some of the most complex and beautiful concepts in the known world. That's pretty intense. Again, however, not liking it is okay.

It is true that the study of thousands of years of art is a helpful component in understanding why those artists did and do what they do, but that is because these artists aren't painting in a void. They saw those thousands of years of art, and modernism and post-modernism was their response.

And about Pollock not being interesting: I highly recommend checking him out in person. It is, at least for me, life altering.

Edit:


--- Quote ---Also you're confusing abstraction with non-objective art.

--- End quote ---

Oh, and non-objective art is a form of abstraction in the pedestrian sense that abstraction are forms that you can't identify with real world objects, so they can't really be confused. However, strictly speaking, all works of art, even photographs, are abstract.

ScrambledGregs:
This is why I like words and music better. You don't have to know anything about intent to like it or get it. Again, intuitive art trumps non-intuitive art everytime for this reason. I remember hearing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as a young'un and not knowing anything about concept albums or pop art or any of that, and I loved it anyway. There was a kind of mystery to it before I read up on the Beatles and what their 'intent' was, but knowing or not knowing the intent I liked it equally.

öde:

--- Quote from: ScrambledGregs on 17 Dec 2006, 07:31 ---This is why I like words and music better. You don't have to know anything about intent to like it or get it.

--- End quote ---

I disagree strongly with that. Books like Lord Of The Flies become a million times better once you discover the intent of the author. Also the intent of many musicians  makes me appreciate the music a lot more.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page