# Artspeak drives me nuts.



## The_Traveler (May 11, 2014)

I saw this quote:"The temporal modeling of .......... and ..........s visual and architectural projects is configured to warp and reform the space-time continuum.  Language is embedded into these works not as something to be read, as on a page or even a screen, but as something to interact with in an unfolding/enfolding web."

and read this essay and came away wanting to find something really heavy to break the keyboards of art critics.

Perhaps I'm jealous because I can't fabulate at that level of obscurity.

This kind of meta-talk is just agonizing and encourages, I think, the post-modernist flight from actually making art to having an idea and talking about it while the actual art itself is purely secondary to the talk and not of much importance at all.


----------



## tirediron (May 11, 2014)

I'm with you 100% Lew; how about joining me in a rousing chorus of, "Get off of my lawn you damn whippersnappers!"?  Seriously though, that kind of "language" drives me crazy.  It means NOTHING, is utterly pretentious and only done because the author believes that it makes him or her sound artistic.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 11, 2014)

Critics have the same problem as artists; they have to continually find something new to say.
Much of art fails because it ends up being non-communicative or silly or derivative - and artists have a lot more to work with than just words about something.
I feel a bit of pity for critics, trying to find something interesting and insightful to say about art pieces that may be very shallow.
"I like it' or 'It's interesting' just don't work.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 11, 2014)

You know an artist statement is good when it reads like a thesaurus.


----------



## jenko (May 11, 2014)

My favorite (recent) art critic is the late Robert Hughes. Brilliant, straightforward, and insightful. Minimal academic jargon--there is always a little in criticism--and no pseudo-philosophizing. Dave Hickey is also really good.


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> non-communicative or silly or derivative



I find communicative art self-important and pretentious. It has a certain "look at me, my ideas are so important that they have to be shared".

That Modern authorial voice that says "the truth I choose to see is the only truth worth documenting, because it's inherently factual and original, and any other interpretation is inherently false" - it's an entitled, self-centered viewpoint that I think pretty much encapsulates the Boomer generation.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

unpopular said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > non-communicative or silly or derivative
> ...



a lot of it yes. I have to agree. And the artist can be as pretentious as the critic. Lot of communicative art is communicating nothing.


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



I'd rather it be about nothing than be pigeonholed into intentional fallacy. At least with postmodernism I can conclude the artwork is outside my worldview, rather than being chastised for a lack of intellectual insight!


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

jenko said:


> My favorite (recent) art critic is the late Robert Hughes. Brilliant, straightforward, and insightful. Minimal academic jargon--there is always a little in criticism--and* no pseudo-philosophizing*. Dave Hickey is also really good.


wait wait wait.
I like the pseudo philosophizing. without that most work has nothing but some pretty colors and who gives a crap a four year old can finger paint. If I cant find something to study or philosophize in a work, i really don't have a lot of purpose in even looking at it. That is the problem i mentioned above as a pet peave, you leave the philosophizing you end up with the non communicative or communicative. the communicative these days is a joke they don't even communicate simple concepts are so shallow not worth communicating. The non communicative some is okay, a lot of it borders on the four year old finger painting.


----------



## 480sparky (May 11, 2014)

id rthr rd it thn tri 2 undrtd d gbbsh sum ppl lyk 2 us on innt frms


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



well. there are types of art that actually discourage use of intellect. i think it could be in the contemporary expressionism realm. Not sure, im not a art pro. i usually know it when i see it though it bleeds no intellect. what is the problem with post modernism?


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> what is the problem with post modernism?



being a postmodernist - NOTHING!

LOL - no. Postmodernism can be taken easily to an extreme that just isn't very productive. The whole "nothing new and novel" in particular lends itself to not even trying. I think it's kind of a silly idea anyway, if truth is unique to the worldview of the participant, then wouldn't everything be novel even if the objective element isn't?


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > what is the problem with post modernism?
> ...


i would tend to say they are trying too hard. And there is hardly a novelty it is the subscribed to novelties that come off as pretentious when attempted communicative. simple concept contrived to a complex overstated piece. With the concept itself lacking much of interest. 
Exactly why it has become pretentious. The simplicity or complexity of the communicative needs to match the complexity or simplicity of the piece. And if you pick one single thing of elementary level for a communicative the pretentious comes from expounding on that to such a complexity in the medium the artist intention becomes more asinine than a effective communicative. But they are grasping at straws trying to draw greater interest. Assuming they have something important to say at all might be the originating of the pretentious aspect.
maybe?


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

Well. For me though the artist intention isn't as valuable the the interaction between the art object and the audience (including the artist, who becomes audience upon it's construction). I don't think that *communication* is really the role of art, but rather as an extension to or exploration of the world/universe that we share.

(see http://wordandimage.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-difference-between-art-and-communication/)
(see PHILOSOPHY OF ART - Page One)

As for 'pretention', I really do think that is more of a Modern ideology - art becomes pretentious because of the viewer's willingness to accept the artist as an authority, the audience places pretention onto art - it's a reaction that is formed by the audience, not a material property of the object. I think if a postmodernist is "trying too hard" then they are placing authorial voice into the work. At which point the approach is more Modern than Postmodern.

Certainly, though, there may be responses to the virtue of "genuine" in Modern Art and pretentiousness is flaunted in return. I don't think though that is what you're talking about, though.


----------



## table1349 (May 11, 2014)

Ya'lls problem is simple to fix.  You just don't have the right tools. The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator


----------



## rexbobcat (May 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



I talked to a friend who attended a school of art, and he said that one time a student's final project consisted of a deflated balloon. The professor was like "Um...ok...and?" and the student ended up getting an _A_ because he explained that his piece is about what the balloon represents and not the balloon itself. 

My sister also shared an exhibit with a guy whose piece was a receipt being blown against a piece of glass by a leafblower. "A dialogue on consumerism." This is why I don't particularly enjoy postmodernism. It feels like the artist is insulting my creative intelligence. "Lol look at these people analyzing my plastic bag stuck on a tree limb. Idiots."

However, not all is bad. It seems like these sorts of situations are more prevalent in fine art and less so in functional art. Postmodernist architecture is pretty badass.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 11, 2014)

While there are some smart people in the art world, there are a lot of idiots that think they're smart.   Watching an artist mumble when asked what his art means or is saying, right after hearing him say he deals in "conceptual art"; then to have him say "it's not that easy [to explain the concept], if it was easy everyone would be doing it."  Followed by.."I just lose all respect for artists who can answer a question like that...".    It really shows that not only is there a huge intellectual void there, but many critics have reached the point where they can't even be _critical_ anymore.   As Einstein said, if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.      Many of these people can't explain it to themselves.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

unpopular said:


> Well. For me though the artist intention isn't as valuable the the interaction between the art object and the audience (including the artist, who becomes audience upon it's construction). I don't think that *communication* is really the role of art, but rather as an extension to or exploration of the world/universe that we share.
> 
> (see is it art or communication? | word and image)
> (see PHILOSOPHY OF ART - Page One)
> ...


Appears a good article. im taking my time reading this one. ill get back to you.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 11, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


In my opinion these peoples talent isn't art, it's B.S.  There's a documentary from the BBC on YouTube called "Is It Art, Goldsmiths".  It's about a high end art school in England.   It's pretty enlightening, amusing, and frustrating all at the same time.   The first installment opens up with a girl explaining her art; which consists of stealing jewelry, eating it, and then cleaning it up and displaying it after she craps it back out.  All of her works consists of simply stealing other artists work and displaying it as her own.  Anything she steals becomes her "art".  Whatever.  Then there's the guy who's told his work is to "literal" so he decided to hang a giant sheet of camo up and shoot it with a paintball gun.  Why? Because he thinks that's what the teachers want, no other reason.  What is he trying to say?  He doesn't really understand what he's supposed to do, but he thinks they'll like it.  You just can't make this stuff up.


----------



## jenko (May 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite (recent) art critic is the late Robert Hughes. Brilliant, straightforward, and insightful. Minimal academic jargon--there is always a little in criticism--and* no pseudo-philosophizing*. Dave Hickey is also really good.
> ...



By pseudo philosophizing, I meant obscure and muddled references to Nietzsche and Holderlin, etc. There's plenty of philosophical insights in Hughes and Hickey's criticism, but neither sound as if they are deconstructing, as an aside, the very ideas and words they are using.


----------



## unpopular (May 11, 2014)

jenko said:


> By pseudo philosophizing, I meant obscure and muddled references to Nietzsche



Oh. You would LOVE Richard Rorty!

---

I know what you mean though.


----------



## KmH (May 11, 2014)

Eschew obfuscation.


----------



## minicoop1985 (May 11, 2014)

You gotta wonder if it's easier for people without a formal art education to create real art... Not "Oh lemme sit here and explain this for 20 minutes and sell you on my belief that this is art and not the crap you think it is and actually is."

I agree in this circumstance. Art shouldn't require an explanation. Yeah, I know, I post pictures with blurbs on a blog, but that's not intended to be art so much as it is informative, and those photos are more illustrations for the blurbs. But anyway, the point is if you have to sit there for 20 minutes explaining what the hell you mean so people think it's art, it isn't, and I agree with pretty much everything else in this thread so far.


----------



## table1349 (May 11, 2014)

Personally if feel that with regard to the issue of content, the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial relationships brings within the realm of discourse the distinctive formal juxtapositions. 


Damn, that phrase generator really works.  Pomposity by the numbers.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 11, 2014)

It's called international art english. Google it. Triple canopy had the definitive essay on the topic.

It's not about you. It's not about the art. It is, roughly, about the artist and the at community. Arguably the purpose is to exclude you.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

unpopular said:


> Well. For me though the artist intention isn't as valuable the the interaction between the art object and the audience (including the artist, who becomes audience upon it's construction). I don't think that *communication* is really the role of art, but rather as an extension to or exploration of the world/universe that we share.
> 
> (see is it art or communication? | word and image)
> (see PHILOSOPHY OF ART - Page One)
> ...


okay, I had to shoot a birthday party, started reading again, got somewhat lost, picked up what was was being discussed again. And im only at the end of page two. And im thinking this first one you posted would needs it own thread and have to go page by page to actually discuss. I need to start page three now..:lmao:
edit: my mistake, ive actually made it to page four
okay skipped from page 11 to the last one. im not reading all that. no way... lol


----------



## CdTSnap (May 11, 2014)

I agree/disagree with some of the things that have just been said, but the sublime beauty of the negative space contextualize the accessibility of the work.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

To me I think the biggest problem confronting art is it lacks purpose. And hence short of the mystical figures (we have long since accepted santa clause demise) it has difficulty finding purpose in the art world. But art itself has also moved itself outside of the art world where it does find purpose and always has. Architecture for example, and as a record.
The remainder of art beyond the functional, beyond the purpose, beyond communication of any great concept or ideology, probably is also copies but unnecessary copies. And while each has a voice they fall on deaf ears as the ears are listening to a more realistic tune. There are a million different reflections of the human state, but reactionary and effects of that state not a cause for it.
Hence it will always have its limitation. The shoemaker can be a artist in making shoes, which have a purpose. The drawing of a shoe pattern can aid the shoemaker. Beyond that the drawing has little purpose. A painting of the shoes after they are made can show a appreciation, but the painting cannot be made. Its primary purpose could be a record for other shoemakers to devise a pattern from. In religion the cross has a representation and holds some significance on that representation. A artist modeling a cross can use that symbolism to add purpose to his art. But the art will never define the actual purpose of the cross. It bleeds its importance from the basis of its subject. The art itself, is a reactionary, effect, representation. The cross exists without the art, the art does not exist without the cross. The sculptur that makes the cross devises a symbol with meaning. The Artist who paints it, is portraying that meaning, but they will never be that meaning.
A artist that makes a work with no meaning, or no purpose. will have to do so in new territory. As the only real meaning in the work will be from its historic place in changing art itself and its time in place in history showing the new course and those patterning after it.
Much to the author of the article references, as art taking a subordinate spot, I believe it is warranted. And also that it found reasonable that philosophy long abandoned it. Clearly philosophy and the contemplating of human existence for future guidance would outweigh the expressions of the current existence, especially if those expressions lack purpose or reason. Arts slow death. As the mystics it originally found its place from are long since discovered to be purely of imagination, much as the art. And we find ourselves in reality. So while we may nod to the childhood santa in appreciation it is the history of santa we may rejoice in. The celebration of. Not the expression of. while every child may find a smile on their lips at a store bought santa it is soon outgrown with the reality of the world. Hence we outgrew art with no communication, or primarily, no purpose or meaning.

two cents


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comes to mind. One would notice some of the paintings mentioned where in gained notoriety partly on the subject matter borrowed from the religious state. One would also notice that his art was incorporated in engineering, design. without the historical church the last supper would have never been started and it borrowed from that.
Hence, it had direction and purpose, meaning.. it was not art just for the sake of "art". imo And perhaps why he became so renown.  so I would totally understand part of the problem art critics are having, they are having trouble finding something to say of importance and use. As the art is they are critiquing..


----------



## AlanKlein (May 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite (recent) art critic is the late Robert Hughes. Brilliant, straightforward, and insightful. Minimal academic jargon--there is always a little in criticism--and* no pseudo-philosophizing*. Dave Hickey is also really good.
> ...


Often however the philosophic comments are about things in the work that are only seen by the person critiquing the work.  That comes from self aggrandizement or maybe just to make the work seem more important to raise its monetary value.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > jenko said:
> ...


TOTALLY Agreed. Also maybe its just that ineffectual as a piece in doing or saying anything, of importance, they are trying to find something in it with content??? Perhaps in disbelief that something really can have nothing to offer of value and the artist MUST have had some kind of hidden intent? Perhaps a inability to admit how much some art is failing as they may be cast to judgement? I would suggest, that while everyone has a different minds eye and knowledge of art in which to understand a piece, or that the artists intention in the medium may very well be received very differently by any particular viewer, there is no doubt you are correct and I imagine MANY times over. :lmao:
The answer of course is to critique the differences between the piece and other, often similar and perhaps just as poor works and add a lot of mumbo jumbo.
:cheers:


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 11, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> ..........
> Often however ..........  That comes from self aggrandizement or maybe just to make the work seem more important to raise its monetary value.


We common folk just call that sophistry, which is a synonym for B.S.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

here we go. what I find astounding here is i've seen work worse than his.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

Some of the responses above clearly fall into Artspeak territory.


----------



## jenko (May 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> comes to mind. One would notice some of the paintings mentioned where in gained notoriety partly on the subject matter borrowed from the religious state. One would also notice that his art was incorporated in engineering, design. without the historical church the last supper would have never been started and it borrowed from that.
> Hence, it had direction and purpose, meaning.. it was not art just for the sake of "art". imo And perhaps why he became so renown.  so I would totally understand part of the problem art critics are having, they are having trouble finding something to say of importance and use. As the art is they are critiquing..




Yeah, but then you look at a secular work, like Mona Lisa, and really--what does it _mean_? It is a portrait, but not one of royalty or a public personality. At the time of its conception, it did not follow the rules. While I agree meaning is important, it is not always definable or translatable. Also, consider the idea that until the late 19th century, Western art was couched in strict tradition and controlled primarily by either wealthy patrons, the royal academy, or both. When artists began to break away from the academy and its traditions (Manet, the impressionists, etc) the vocabulary for understanding art was demolished as the rules were broken one by one and new methods, modes, and motives for creating art opened up. Quite literally, all the rules were thrown out the window. Art movements used to last 100's of years, but there were dozens of art movements in the 20th century alone. Many of these movements had no reference to history, thus no ready vocabulary to describe them. I think what happens is that there is no vocabulary for rapidly shifting art movements, and as a result they either get dismissed or misunderstood. Later, they are reconsidered because we have had enough time to develop a way of articulating their meanings. Impressionism is accepted now partly because we have a way to articulate what it means. Same goes for Dada, De Stijl, Cubism, Fauvism, Bauhaus, Streamline, Surrealism, Symbolism, Abstract Expressionism, etc. I have never really looked into exactly how long it takes us to "catch up" but I am thinking at least a few decades. My point is, it's not that the critic is having trouble saying what is important, it's that they don't know yet. Of course, in many cases, there is nothing important.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

I think the more you have to explain about your art, the more it has failed.


----------



## Steve5D (May 12, 2014)

jenko said:


> Yeah, but then you look at a secular work, like Mona Lisa, and really--what does it _mean_? It is a portrait, but not one of royalty or a public personality.



Why does it have to "mean" anything? I've never understood this odd need we have for artistic works to "mean" something.

Should a painting (or, in the more present, photograph) only be of someone famous or of royalty? 

That's absurd.

The only people more ridiculous than "critics" are those who put stock in what critics say.

Practice your art. Enjoy it. That's what matters...


----------



## Steve5D (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Some of the responses above clearly fall into Artspeak territory.



Kinda' like when someone uses the word "fabulate"...


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> The only thing more ridiculous than "critics" are those who put stock in what critics say.



Critic by nature are those who cannot create so they criticize. Lowest rung on the creative food chain. I think most critics get wood when they get to destroy someone's work.


----------



## mishele (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing more ridiculous than "critics" are those who put stock in what critics say.
> ...



Part of the job. They need to hate as much as possible so when they like something it's...Ooooo, this must actually be good! 
Art world is as much politics as anything else. A group of snotty people get together and decide what they are going to push as the next big thing. Look at the fashion industry, those nut bags are trying to push the high waisted pants again!! GOD!! The horror!!


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

mishele said:


> Part of the job. They need to hate as much as possible so when they like something it's...Ooooo, this must actually be good!
> Art world is as much politics as anything else. A group of snotty people get together and decide what they are going to push as the next big thing. Look at the fashion industry, those nut bags are trying to push the high waisted pants again!! GOD!! The horror!!



Well it's hard to take people seriously who cannot do what they are critiquing. Like on here, you post good work and I listen to your comments, you post ****, and I ignore you.


BTW, mom jeans are hot. Lets hope acid wash comes back too.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

jenko said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


he was paid to paint the mona lisa from what I gather. A record. They didn't have cameras and some wealthy person wanted a "photo" of their wife.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the job. They need to hate as much as possible so when they like something it's...Ooooo, this must actually be good!
> ...


I totally missed my calling. I should have been a critic. wth was I thinking with photography and painting it is so much more fun ripping stuff apart. 


you raise a interesting question. I wonder how many critics also are artists and to what extent.


----------



## jenko (May 12, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but then you look at a secular work, like Mona Lisa, and really--what does it _mean_? It is a portrait, but not one of royalty or a public personality.
> ...



I agree with your last sentence, wholeheartedly. 

But I never said the subject had to be famous or royal. My point was this: 



jenko said:


> While I agree meaning is important, it is not always definable or translatable.



Bribrius had stated the importance of direction, meaning, and purpose in Da Vinci's work as being key to its timelessness. However, the Mona Lisa, his most famous piece, had no obvious purpose or meaning, other than the personal. In fact, he carried the painting around with him until his death. Its lack of obvious purpose does not lessen its power.


----------



## jenko (May 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> he was paid to paint the mona lisa from what I gather. A record. They didn't have cameras and some wealthy person wanted a "photo" of their wife.



That is all speculation. He never delivered it to anyone. He carried it with him for over 20 years.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

jenko said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > he was paid to paint the mona lisa from what I gather. A record. They didn't have cameras and some wealthy person wanted a "photo" of their wife.
> ...


Speculation by the majority of the art world and historians..i hadn't read he carried it for twenty years.
Then to further speculate: Perhaps a woman he had been having a affair with.  If someone carried a work for twenty years as you say, pretty good chance it had purpose and reason. Either someone wanted that done or he had a thing for her. He kept his diagrams and notes too keep in mind. I just find it hard to even consider that the mona lisa was a piece of art with no purpose.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you raise a interesting question. I wonder how many critics also are artists and to what extent.



I am willing to bet most tried to be artists at some point, realized they had no talent and found it easier to **** on other people who do have talent.


----------



## jenko (May 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Well, if you think about it, what is really created with absolutely _no_ purpose? In photography, perhaps the "accidental" shot--the one of the ceiling or floor you click accidentally. Even if I tried, it would be considerably difficult to go out and photograph a thing with NO purpose. Even if the purpose is a mere technical exercise, like getting the exposure or focus correct, that is still a purpose. I would argue that every single image has a purpose, even if it is a personal one.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you raise a interesting question. I wonder how many critics also are artists and to what extent.
> ...


art criticism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

I had to look up art critic to gather my thoughts on that one. I would guess few artists actually know as much about art or art history as critics. Making a art piece and knowing about art in general are very different things perhaps? The artists concentrates on their work. The critic objectively (theoretically ) reviews that work scaled amongst thousands of works over time.

I would still be tempted to at least partially agree with you. There are probably critics that really would be horrible artists.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

jenko said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > jenko said:
> ...


I was thinking of a higher bar than that when I said purpose. I should have clarified. 
Very few, VERY few, of my photographs or paintings have real purpose (meaning, usefulness). short of photos of record of land or buildings or of family members both of which are niche purposes. if the majority of my stuff disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make a difference. Perhaps if I ever get to the point I can say something enlightening or actually meaningful through one it would matter. Really though it isn't exclusive to me,  or anyone else though. Entire art galleries could burn to the ground and the world would still go round with nothing serious of value lost there as the work in them didn't have much purpose or reason for it anyway.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> Well it's hard to take people seriously who cannot do what they are critiquing.



This is misguided.
A carpentry student probably wouldn't be able to get much help with making dove-tail joints from an architect.
Criticism is much different from critique of technique at the basic level that is needed and done here.
It is silly to try and talk about intent and meaning and influences with someone who is struggling with the basic concepts of composition and technique.

There are very, very few people here whose work has a coherent, persistent style and intent and whose 'art' could be criticized.
The ones that comes most easily to mind are Binga63, Dan Ostergren and Sashbar. There are certainly others but the names don't come as easily.

Most are just working at making pictures, some good, some mediocre, some bad; they don't yet have a style, haven't found a voice or something to say.

I don't think it's fair or sensible to declaim that most art is crap or most criticism is stupid and conceited.
In fact, I think that's a stance for know-nothings and a defense mechanism.

The goal is to get to a point in one's work where you have a reason for deciding that specific work isn't any good and specific Artspeak is BS and, most of all, that you have an intent and a style and actually something to say with your work.
People who say they aren't artists, just technicians, are almost certainly correct; they are interested only in copying what looks good in others and saying nothing interesting themselves.

I would much rather see work by people who are trying to say something with their work and not achieving too much than look at the 'close to perfect' work of technicians.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

How can someone be expected to judge a cabinet if they cannot tell the difference between a dove tail and a lap joint? Sure they can say "Oh i like the look" but knowing the details of the wood working can give you a greater appreciation. With me personally as I have grown my skills, my appreciation has grown. Photos that I thought were "cool" before I now appreciate them even more so because I know how much work went into it.

I think a vast majority of online critics are of the type that don't know enough about the craft they are criticizing which in turn affects their perception.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> How can someone be expected to judge a cabinet if they cannot tell the difference between a dove tail and a lap joint? Sure they can say "Oh i like the look" but knowing the details of the wood working can give you a greater appreciation. With me personally as I have grown my skills, my appreciation has grown. Photos that I thought were "cool" before I now appreciate them even more so because I know how much work went into it.
> 
> I think a vast majority of online critics are of the type that don't know enough about the craft they are criticizing which in turn affects their perception.



You are making some vague generalizations with no data but opinion; there is a difference between critique and criticism and I can't believe you think that, for example, Susan Sontag should be able to take a picture as well as Nina Berman in order to be considered a decent critic.
Must Terry Teachout be able to write plays?
Must Alastaire MacAuley be able to choreograph ballets or must he actually be able to dance?
Must every art critic be able to actually do the art that he/she writes about?

This is a naive, mechanical way of thinking about critics and one that shows a real lack of understanding of the gulf between critique and criticism.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the responses above clearly fall into Artspeak territory.
> ...



You're correct; in the future, I will use simple, short words to be certain you will understand.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

someone has to do it. Cant leave it to popular opinion it is too feeble. Look at the music industry and the type of stuff the general populace likes. I can just look at facebook likes on some of my work and see where that is going....
someone has to be informed to make a judgment that has more of a knowledge base.  
That could be where critics come in.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > How can someone be expected to judge a cabinet if they cannot tell the difference between a dove tail and a lap joint? Sure they can say "Oh i like the look" but knowing the details of the wood working can give you a greater appreciation. With me personally as I have grown my skills, my appreciation has grown. Photos that I thought were "cool" before I now appreciate them even more so because I know how much work went into it.
> ...



I am having a hard time with my thoughts today.

No, critics shouldn't be able to do the thing as good as the person they are critiquing. But they should be able to at least recognize little details about the subject. This often comes from doing an activity. 

Take for an example this weekend I watched a car race. 3 announcers, 1 was a former driver, one was a former mechanic boss, and the last was an dedicated announcer. Now the best and most insightful comments of the day came from the guy how had done the thing that they are commenting on. I see that as a distinct advantage when continuing that onto critics.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


But then you say critics cant paint so became critics. wouldn't they be painting just to make sure they have a basic understanding of the process to aid in their review of work? shouldn't they be trying to make the dovetail joint? But they do, people might say they aren't any good at it so are critics. If they don't, people say they never did it enough so don't know how to be a critic . sounds like a no win for the critic. I would guess most critics have practiced actual art, perhaps without stellar results but enough to have basic understanding of processes /form.


----------



## Steve5D (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Oh, I know perfectly well what it means.

My point, and it's one which clearly did a fly-by on you, was that in your criticism of "artspeak", you say you're not able to attain a certain level of obscurity by using a word which, believe it or not, most people have never, ever used in a sentence, and have probably never heard or read.

Thicker irony is not often found...


----------



## limr (May 12, 2014)

I think the car analogy fails in one major aspect. Car racing has one objective: to win. You don't need to be a driver or a mechanic to understand who won the race. You just need a basic understanding of time and of the concept of winning. The drivers and mechanics, however, can explain better than the layman WHY a certain car+driver combo won the race. They understand the intricacies of the mechanics, the track, and the driving. And to be really insightful, they should also have some knowledge of the history of racing, how a certain car might be different from those that came before, or how a driver might be introducing new techniques into the sport.

Art is a skill as well, but the goal is different and much more subjective. A critic's job is not necessarily to understand how the piece of art was put together, but to gauge the effect and make a judgment on that. Maybe they are failed artists or playwrights, but they can still recognize quality (or lack thereof) without being able to produce it. They still understand _reactions_ to that art and how the piece might fit into a wider context of art history and current social mores. They might not be as informed on the actual technique, or might even have physical limitations on what they can create themselves, but there's more information that goes into a critic's knowledge than just technique.

Yes, perhaps _better_ critics are those who can also create - to an extent, at least - the kind of thing they are offering an opinion on. I don't know if Terry Teachout can write a _play_, but he still writes beautifully. But that really only affects their ability to explain their opinion - for example, to explain where a certain technique failed or where it was executed well. Even if a critic has tried and failed, that might have given them an appreciation of how difficult it can be to produce good art, and they've learned enough to recognize quality in others' work.

Having said that, some of them are chock full of sh*te.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

I suggest that those of who are interested in this issue read 'Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images' by Terry Barrett

In Chapter 1, under the chapter heading of Defining Criticism, he write:


> The term criticism is complex withseveral different meanings. ln the language of aestheticians whophilosophize about art and art criticism and in the language of artcritics	 criticism usually refers to a much broader range ofactivities than just the act of judging.
> Morris Weitz, an aestheticianinterested in art criticism, sought to discover more about it bystudying what critics do when they criticize art.  He took as histest case all the criticism ever written about Shakespeare's Hamlet.
> After reading the volumes of Hamletcriticism written through the ages, Weitz concluded
> that when critics criticize they do oneor more of four things: They describe the work of an. they interpretit,  they evaluate it and they theorize about it.
> ...





Steve5D said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Let me preface my response to this that my impression that Steve5D's major participation on this forum is to hang around, looking for a place to look smart, then jump in with a snide remark intended to show shows how intelligent, cool and experienced he is and then he runs away.

My use of a single perfectly fitting word, that may be unfamiliar but is easily understood, (after all Steve understood it), is completely different than people who construct entire essays of unintelligible, perhaps meaningly, goo.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

It is nonsense and false, to say nothing of trite, to claim that critics are inherently not capable of creating. See also Glenn Gould.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2014)

A work of art is like a joke.

If you have to explain it, it is not good.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

It's not at all clear to me where critics came up. The vast majority of art criticism is fully  comprehensible. It's the artists who mainly use IAE, and they use it for reasons already mentioned.

There isn't any mystery here, there's just the usual chain reaction of being offended that other people have ideas.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> It's not at all clear to me where critics came up. The vast majority of art criticism is fully  comprehensible. It's the artists who mainly use IAE, and they use it for reasons already mentioned.
> 
> There isn't any mystery here, there's just the usual chain reaction of being offended that other people have ideas.



Man, does this explain the usual run of discussion in this thread.

There is a great deal of difference between good or even standard writings on art and the crap that I quoted.

That's a bad example of the type and I'm sorry I gave it as an excuse for people to sink their teeth into.
My belief, with no data to back it up, that those people here who claim they've read art criticism and dismiss it as crap, have rarely if ever read any criticism but think its cool and expected to be dismissive and cynical.


----------



## mishele (May 12, 2014)

My problem with critics comes from the fact that there is nothing pure out there anymore. EVERYONE has an agenda! Much of the art world is a "Who do you know?" adventure.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> ......There isn't any mystery here, there's just the usual chain reaction of being offended that other people have ideas.


Not at all.  I think what confounds most people (including other artists and critics) is the current state of contemporary art.  We've reached a point where _anything_ is art so long as it is said to be so by and "artist".    Certain aspects of the contemporary art world are literally at the "emperor has no clothes" stage and it seems like everyone but the gallerists who endorse them can see it.   No one is saying that all modern art is incoherent B.S., as often the B.S. isn't needed when the art is actually good or, when dealing with conceptual art, that it actually has a statement behind it.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

I am punching out. It seems that if you don't agree with Lew you're better off not commenting.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

mishele said:


> My problem with critics comes from the fact that there is nothing pure out there anymore. EVERYONE has an agenda! Much of the art world is a "Who do you know?" adventure.


I wonder often if the best stuff never even rises to the surface. chit floats. Not just on who you know, but the extent of the involvement in the artist in getting known. Add to that the million art pieces made every year and the amount of gallery room most works are never even seen or considered. From a choosing perspective they then perhaps have the issue of looking through a thousand similar works all basically of the same thing. While each original all pretty much a copy same ole meme. so they choose what floats the best. Probably never even considering that is the best piece but rather the most obvious and closest one floating to fill the space and MAYBE bring a audience. That audience really doesn't have to have taste or knowledge either, just money.

Cant count on popular opinion. We really need critics to sort through it all and figure out which end is up. Maybe. if you care about the direction of art in the larger sense if you don't care don't pay any of it any heed.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> I am punching out. It seems that if you don't agree with Lew you're better off not commenting.



If you want universal agreement with every pearl of wisdom that drops from your lips, speak to your mother.


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I am punching out. It seems that if you don't agree with Lew you're better off not commenting.
> ...



Well if you want to have a true debate don't disagree with everyone who has a differing opinion.

You tend to start lots of threads asking people for their opinions then attacking them if they don't align with your own predetermined ideals.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

Contemporary art always looks like a naked emperor. Always has, always will.

Contemporary art is also made, usually, by a fairly insular guild with somewhat arbitrary and obnoxious entrance criteria.

It's not an awesome system, but it's not new.


----------



## TammyCampbell (May 12, 2014)

My response to critics. If I ever had any.. Believe me we all are judged in one way or another is PFFFFFF.. Like I'm blowing a dandelion seed. There is no way we can please everyone ever.  I love getting older in that respect, how and what people feel about what I'm doing bothers me less,and less . I will take an honest critique, especially if I find the information something useful to know. But art is so subjective. So what speaks to one person probably will look like crap to another or just won't move them.  And yes ,I do believe that some talk that way for Self aggrandizement.. That's a humdinger there.. See I can use a dictionary too.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

Wait. So Lew isn't allowed to disagree with people who comment disagreeing with him?

Have I got that straight? Is this just Lew or anyone who starts a thread?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I actually didn't start the thread asking for other people's opinion.
What I said was that the quote and the essay was irritating as hell.
I didn't say anything about art criticism in general.
Everyone jumped to give their opinion that all art criticism is bad which I disagree with.

And, for your information, a debate is actually that, where both people talk about the issues.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What I said was that the quote and the essay was irritating as hell.


Why?  Why is it irritating?


----------



## sm4him (May 12, 2014)

All I know is that when I read Lew's original comment, I *thought* I understood and agreed with him. After watching this thread twist and weave and do loop-de-loops for the last several pages, I now have no clear concept of what we're even talking about anymore. 

So ignoring all the rest of it, and just in response to Lew's OP--my son JUST posted this on his FB page and I immediately thought of this comment about (some) art critics:


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I actually didn't start the thread asking for other people's opinion.
> What I said was that the quote and the essay was irritating as hell.
> I didn't say anything about art criticism in general.
> Everyone jumped to give their opinion that all art criticism is bad which I disagree with.
> ...



What did you expect to happen? Everyone to say "Hey you're right Lew" and carry on?

I never said all criticism was bad, I said that criticism from reputable sources is better than from non reputable ones.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

I actually believed lew posted these types of things to encourage dialogue and conversation on the site and just try to aid it along..


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

I think you are right, bribrius. TPF usually has one or two such rabble rousers at work. Luckily, the tireless community runs them off as quickly as they arise and we can get back to the important work of making women feel uncomfortable here and complimenting one another's photos for excellent adherence to community tastes.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

We could do this the democratic way.
Put up a poll
1) I would rather have Lew's comments on my pictures
2) I would rather have Runnah's funny comments in the threads
3) I would rather have Gryphonslair99's aphorisms

And the winner would stay and the rest would leave?
That's fine with me; I don't want to waste my time where I'm not wanted.


----------



## Steve5D (May 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> I never said all criticism was bad...



No one did...


----------



## Steve5D (May 12, 2014)

When critics start paying me, then the opinion of critics will matter.

And not a moment sooner...


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> We could do this the democratic way.
> Put up a poll
> 1) I would rather have Lew's comments on my pictures
> 2) I would rather have Runnah's funny comments in the threads
> ...


I don't necessarily believe in democracy but if you totalitarian insist. i'd have to pick runnah. He is a fellow mainah and pretty amusing. Like the art circles things often go in popularity contests. I don't agree with him necessarily but that is how it rolls. Thanks for starting all these threads to keep us busy and thinking. Very appreciated. All difference put aside.  And for the occasional input.  Nice knowing you.  :salute:


----------



## runnah (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> We could do this the democratic way.
> Put up a poll
> 1) I would rather have Lew's comments on my pictures
> 2) I would rather have Runnah's funny comments in the threads
> ...



No need to be dramatic. Someone just doesn't agree, not the end of the world.


----------



## manaheim (May 12, 2014)

A thread with a charged topic name leads to a multi-page charged thread?

Who woulda' known?


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 12, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> When critics start paying me, then the opinion of critics will matter.
> to
> And not a moment sooner...


The thing is, in the art world they do matter.  The critics and gallerists are the tastemakers who decide if your work "matters".  If your work "matters" rich people pay lots of money for your work so everyone will think they "get" it.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

Something to ponder:

It is often said, roughly, that Art or at any rate Good Art, should require no explanation.

Why? What is the problem with requiring an explanation?

For extra credit, to whom must the Art be accessible without explanation? All sentient beings? All humans? Humans and dolphins, but it's OK if you have to explain it to baleen whales? Everyone? Everyone over the age of twelve? White people over the age of eighteen? 

I don't think there are any clear cut answers, but I do think that thinking it through can be useful.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Something to ponder:
> 
> It is often said, roughly, that Art or at any rate Good Art, should require no explanation.
> 
> ...



I hear the no explanation thing all the time. I find it short sighted. It may even dumb down art. If you require no explanation for it to be good art then by its very nature it has to be dumbed down so people "get it" without explanation.
Do you want to look at nothing but art that has been "dumbed down"? I sure don't. if I can size up every piece with no explanation im not exactly putting much thought into it am I? I might as well walk around the gallery drooling and hunchback with a oversized forehead cave man style.

what this also leads to is catering to the masses (so it doesn't require explanation). if you are catering to the masses then who is leading the section of the upper thinking art knowledgable ten percent that break new ground? There is a point the work is being dumbed down for the jerry springer audience too. "if it needs a explanation" could very well just mean that particular person doesn't get it. And really, who cares. Now if NO ONE "gets it", well, then you might have a problem...

that does irk me. ive been to showings before with long explanations of the artist and pieces. Posted on this last week. Often verbal commentary on top of written. Then come on here and people keep saying "good art shouldn't need a explanation".
well, maybe if the person viewing is a art connoisseur with a specialty in that type of art I could potentially agree. To me that statement just means "in my mind good art has to be simple". Which is the nature of catering to the masses. Which puts a significant barrier on what can be considered good.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

The more digested art is, so that people don't need to have any other references, the more accessible it is to everyone, thus Ansel Adams gives us 'majesty' and everyone can see it right in front of them.
So does Cartier Bresson; the moment is there on the page and people can see it, and without external references, can understand what might be interesting. Ditto, someone like Peter Turnley; great, beautiful stuff there in front of your eyes - easy to like.
Garry Winogrand not so much; lots of external references to society and the time; the point is sometimes ambiguous and easy to gloss over.
Without access to the references and the willingness to try to think about it, one doesn't get Winogrand.

People, used to seeing only what is in front of them and being uncomfortable that the art isn't digested for them will be uneasy in the presence of ideas they don't get and, in defense, will say it's crap or meaningless.

My goal is to try and understand what is being shown, see if the underlying idea has some aesthetic or intellectual value to me and how well the idea comes across to me, and then come to a knowing decision.
Just the same way, people learn to love fine wines, fine Scotch, great movies, great music; knowledge first, attempts at understanding, then judgement.

If the underlying idea is contrived or silly or unoriginal or just weak and execution fails in some way, those are the criteria to judge something, not because it's not understandable at first glance.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

I'm pretty populist, myself. But that doesn't mean I think art has to be comprehensible to dogs.

Most of all I object to truisms thoughtlessly repeated.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Something to ponder:
> 
> It is often said, roughly, that Art or at any rate Good Art, should require no explanation.
> 
> ...



While I'm certain there are plenty of people that think art should just be pretty pictures and nothing more;  I think the argument also comes from people who expect art to at least present some aesthetic appeal.   They may feel that art should at least be enjoyable to look at, even if you don't "get" it.   Basically, even if you don't get the content, you should still be able to enjoy the form, or at least acknowledge that it may be good but not to your taste.   I think the oversimplified "It shouldn't need to be explained" is a sort of knee jerk reaction to the ascension of process art and conceptual art where the final product doesn't really matter; and where aesthetics may be intentionally disregarded.  when your average person walks into a gallery and sees a Shop Vac in a plexiglass case on display as some sort of high end conceptual art, it's easy to see where this reaction comes from.  When you see a can of poop on display it's _really_ easy to see where the backlash comes from.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2014)

manaheim said:


> A thread with a charged topic name leads to a multi-page charged thread?
> 
> Who woulda' known?


I would suggest that perhaps, just perhaps mind you, it might have been a Magic Rabbit that knew.

Possibly some of the more experience audience members as well.  But definitely the Magic Rabbit.


----------



## manaheim (May 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Something to ponder:
> ...



That's like saying it's ok to write a book that is incoherent, as long as you provide a second book that explains all the things that the first book failed to explain.

Art has to stand on its own because you cannot be there to explain what you're trying to say or show in the image.

Art CAN to stand on its own, because some artists have mastery of the craft and the tools to convey the message.

If their art can stand on its own, and yours requires an essay to explain it, which one is better?


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2014)

Socialites Claim They Got Tricked into Paying $50k for Finger Painting
Pierre Brassau, Monkey Artist, 1964
The Smart Set: Bird Brain - August 26, 2009
The forger who fooled the world - Telegraph
Toddler fools the art world into buying his tomato ketchup paintings | Mail Online
The Disumbrationist School of Art, 1924
my pointless: art gallery fooled by two-year-old artist

The reason that ART Critic is #4
The 6 Most Statistically Full of **** Professions | Cracked.com

Food for thought from the other side. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/opinion/sunday/in-praise-of-art-forgeries.html?_r=0


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

manaheim said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


they have names for that , often they are considered "commentaries". To go with the book. But you can find them in various forms and names. it isn't uncommon.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 12, 2014)

manaheim said:


> That's like saying it's ok to write a book that is incoherent, as long as you provide a second book that explains all the things that the first book failed to explain.
> 
> Art has to stand on its own because you cannot be there to explain what you're trying to say or show in the image.
> 
> ...



These statements all come from the position that you are at the highest level of intelligence and understanding of art that there needs to be.
My late mother-in-law was a James Joyce scholar and, up until the time I audited a class with her and then spent the summer talking about the books we had read, I was completely at sea with Joyce.
After that time, I was more more knowledgeable.

Why do you think that where you draw the line is the high water mark for coherency?


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > That's like saying it's ok to write a book that is incoherent, as long as you provide a second book that explains all the things that the first book failed to explain.
> ...



It's funny you would bring up Joyce because I was going to use him for an analogy.  Basically, you can read his work and enjoy it without understanding all that is going on within the work; from literary devices to structure and metaphors.  With some modern art that simply isn't possible.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 12, 2014)

I think what you wrote was very sensible, manaheim.

I'm going to ask more questions, though. Not because I want to snottily lead you to The Answer like some arrogant Socrates, but just because my answers are not likely to be the same as yours, and that is OK.

Consider the book you're writing. To "get" it, I am going to guess that one needs, at least:

- the ability to read english at, say, a high school level
- a grasp of judeo-christian reilgious tradition

and it would probably help to have read some fantasy novels already, but that is (assuming you're doing a good job) not strictly necessary.

The point is that books have audiences, and any book should be written to be accessible _to that audience_. I think this is the most common piece of advice given to new writers: know your audience.

When people say "Art should require no explanation" what they usually mean is that an adult and more or less well educated member of the society at which the Art is aimed should require no explanation. That is both a reasonable position (albeit quite populist) and quite a different position than "should require no explanation".

There's Art that's accessible to the common man, to, well, to me. I like that kind (obviously). There's Art that's some sort of equivalent to a scholarly text. It's not aimed at me, it's not interesting to me. Also, I cannot distinguish it from Bad Art Dressed Up To Look Scholarly. So it goes.

I'm populist, but I am also generous to us commoners. I think we get a lot more than we're given credit for. An example:

Once upon a time I saw a piece of Art that consisted of the carpet from the artist's grandmother's living room, nailed to the wall.

If you're uncharitable, you react thus: _This is crap. The Emperor Has No Clothes. NEXT._

If you're charitable, you might instead react thus: _hmm, I see stains. The markings of furniture. This carpet is old, and has seen much. I wonder what that stain is..._
One might then sink into a set of ideas, random connections, mulling the ambiguities and possibilities in the stains and markings, wondering and thinking about this woman and her family and her life.

In short, if you are open to it, you can and you will experience this thing As Art. You need no special training, you need only have some experience with carpets. You can experience, you can relate to, you can abstract Art-Like Value from this thoroughly modern piece of conceptual art, while being just a regular bloke. You don't even have to like it. It's not really a "like it" "don't like it" piece anyways, and there's no way it's pretty. It's ART, if you let it be.

You might get more out of it if you're familiar with similar work, or work by the same artist, or whatever. Maybe the piece fits into something bigger and more interesting. I dunno.

In a similar way, you can get a whole bunch out of Gulliver's Travels with a basic grasp of English. You get a lot more if you know about the British politics in the, uh, 18th century I think it was, but you can just read the thing as an adventure story and get a lot of joy out of it. Or you can just dismiss is as genre fiction "tiny people?!! Giants! TALKING HORSES? PFAAGH!" Your choice!

Not really headed toward any specific point here, just things to think about, you know?


----------



## JacaRanda (May 12, 2014)

So basically art is what each and every one of us makes of it?  Or takes of it?


----------



## mishele (May 12, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> So basically art is what each and every one of us makes of it?  Or takes of it?



Stop making it so complicated! hehe


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > That's like saying it's ok to write a book that is incoherent, as long as you provide a second book that explains all the things that the first book failed to explain.
> ...


For me it wasn't a late mother in law it was friends of our family growing up. Summer time lemonade with MIT professors and beer with state college professors and a couple authors. I couldn't say exactly what I learned, more questions were posed to me than answers given. Spent much of the conversations confounded. But my thinking has a lot to do with those conversations they effect you over time. I might have learned how to think. I seem to feel dumber the more I do though...:lmao:

imo. The art stands by itself anyway. what is up for question is perhaps the person standing in front of it or the basis of the art and its legitimacy in the artworld. Either way it stands whether a person understands it or they don't, they get it or they don't, they like it or they don't.

Shakespeare (as a example there are many others perhaps better examples) stands without the commentary. If someone picks it up and decides "it doesn't stand on its own I don't like it" that has nothing to do with Shakespeare it is the person picking up the book. They would then have the choice of putting it down and making a quick judgement " its no good" or reading a commentary to help them understand it to come up with a more informed opinion. No matter what the opinion then becomes still has nothing to do with Shakespeare. Either way it is standing. I have a 1800's Longfellow on the shelf next to me from my little collection. I don't understand half the book. im not going to say "it doesn't stand on its own". Books been standing just fine since the 1800's the problem is mine.


----------



## manaheim (May 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > That's like saying it's ok to write a book that is incoherent, as long as you provide a second book that explains all the things that the first book failed to explain.
> ...



Nice straw man.  

I'm not going to even bother replying to your borderline inflammatory remark.  You really need to chill out, Lew. You start these stupid-ass threads from hell and then jump all over people.



photoguy99 said:


> I think what you wrote was very sensible, manaheim.
> 
> I'm going to ask more questions, though. Not because I want to snottily lead you to The Answer like some arrogant Socrates, but just because my answers are not likely to be the same as yours, and that is OK.
> 
> ...



If I'm reading what you're saying right... you require a certain base level of capability to understand any art. (or to read any book) Certain pieces of art may require higher capabilities to appreciate.  That's fine, and I'll buy that, but the artwork STILL has to stand on it's own.  Maybe you need more experience to understand it, but in the class of artworks "at that level", if people who CAN appreciate works at that level are still scratching their heads... then you've probably failed.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 12, 2014)

manaheim said:


> If I'm reading what you're saying right... you require a certain base level of capability to understand any art. (or to read any book) Certain pieces of art may require higher capabilities to appreciate.  That's fine, and I'll buy that, but the artwork STILL has to stand on it's own.  Maybe you need more experience to understand it, but in the class of artworks "at that level", if people who CAN appreciate works at that level are still scratching their heads... then you've probably failed.



Which is rather ironic when you think about it, because then you would only know whether or not something was "good" based solely on what other people taught you was good art.  Which of course would rely solely on the opinion of the person that taught them, which would be based solely on the opinion of the person they learned it from, etc.. etc..

So really you wouldn't be "appreciating" anything, merely mimicking what you had learned and regurgitating the exact same opinion that had been force fed to you on what does and does not constitute art, all of which would be based on the opinion of a person long since dead whom you had never met and who's name you never even knew.

I guess for me it all comes down to a simple comparison of experiences.  When I saw Michelangelo's David, I was awestruck.  I'm not a particular fan of sculpture, but the first time I saw it I didn't have to have anyone "explain" it to me to appreciate it.   I didn't need an advance degree in art or even a minor in underwater basket weaving to stand there completely slack jawed and utterly dumbfounded by the level of skill that went into it's creation.  No history lesson needed, it spoke for itself.

When I first saw Picasso's Guernica, frankly it didn't do a thing for me.  Made zero sense actually.  A friend of mine who was very much into art and a huge Picasso fan took time to carefully explain the events behind the work, the complete history, the symbolism, etc.  After nearly an hour of careful instruction in which she related her vast knowledge of both the painting and the painter and carefully described every detail - well honestly it still looked like crap to me.  Does to this day.



[h=2][/h]


----------



## JacaRanda (May 12, 2014)

The only thing I have not seen argued is that art is subjective.  That pretty much sums it up for me.  

Reminds me of another subject that is frowned upon rightfully so on TPF.  As soon as I am almost convinced that someone has a really good point, something is said that leads my right back to my final answer ((((greed)))).


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

manaheim said:


> If I'm reading what you're saying right... you require a certain base level of capability to understand any art. (or to read any book) Certain pieces of art may require higher capabilities to appreciate.  That's fine, and I'll buy that, but the artwork STILL has to stand on it's own.  Maybe you need more experience to understand it, but in the class of artworks "at that level", if people who CAN appreciate works at that level are still scratching their heads... then you've probably failed.



That's a fair summary, I think.

I think of it more as simply having the relevant background (usually cultural), or not. If you don't have it, then someone's got to fill you in, to "explain" it. Your book, for instance, might need "explaining" to a, say, a 9 year old. It would need to be translated -- but probably not "explained" -- to a non-English speaking Swede (if there even is such a thing). It would probably need to be translated, explained, and read out loud, to an uneducated low caste Hindu (again, if there is such a thing).

Another angle on a similar issue is this: where does the piece end and the explanation begin?

The carpet I described would have been just a piece of garbage nailed to the wall without the information "this is my grandmother's carpet". Not because the information is particularly informational, but because that personal connection, that random fact, begins the chain of thought and association that allows a more or less open minded but otherwise pretty ordinary jerk like me to experience the thing as Art rather than garbage.

Is the little block of text on the plaque next to the carpet part of the piece, or is it an explanation? It is necessary, either way.

I think some people argue that it doesn't matter and the question is stupid. Art exists in, and is part of, a social milieu. Where one thing ends and the other begins is both blurry and irrelevant. Separate Art from Society and both become meaningless. It's kind of an attractive view.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

And just to circle back around to the OP.

Artspeak, the little blocks of IAE that accompany artworks and portfolios, can actually be interesting and useful. While this stuff is mainly guild-internal posturing, sometimes it does provide a little connective tissue for the work. Sometimes, not often, it acts as a sort of little free verse poem fitting the piece into whatever cultural context is necessary to make sense of the work. You can argue that this little poem is part of the work, or an explanation, or something else, as you see fit.

If it's all just "playing with the dialectic of matter v. non-matter" well that's not much help. But there are sometimes chunks of this glop that do contribute something.

Sometimes, as with my carpet example, there's actual useful explanation provided in more or less ordinary English before the text block dribbles off into gibberish.


----------



## jenko (May 13, 2014)

I can't believe this conversation is still trudging along, lol. It has been rather interesting, to me, to read the various viewpoints. 

As to whether a work of art needs an explanation, well I think it depends. We are all born with an intuitive sense of basic design. The rest of the gaps are filled in and reinforced culturally. We also bring our own experiences to a work which influences our tastes. This is certainly enough to make a subjective opinion, but not enough to write art criticism. The goal of art criticism is not to look at a work and say I like it or I don't. It is to tease out the references and analyze the image, so that the reader understands why the work is important or not, what the details of its message are, and if it succeeds or not in delivering its message. Art criticism is not about if it is pretty or nice to look at or whether you will love or hate it in a few seconds. Historically much propaganda is designed specifically for that viewer.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> The only thing I have not seen argued is that art is subjective.  That pretty much sums it up for me.



This is a commonly held position, but it's wrong.

Societies tend to accrue over time collections of stuff that are more or less universally recognized as Art. In my culture, we have a bunch of dead white painters, some sculptors, a bunch of writers, and so on. There's a symbiotic relationship between this Art-from-the-past and my culture. My culture recognizes it as Art, and my culture is to a goodly extent built on that Art. My language was in part invented by Shakespeare, and I recognize Shakespeare as a great writer. Rembrandt and da Vinci both hewed to the cultural ideas of visual art, and invented them.

100 years from now, my culture will probably have similar relationships to contemporary art. The Beatles are practically assimilated into the culture. Warhol likewise. Rap/hip-hop music is on its way into the tapestry, into the foundation. Which artists will be looked back on as foundational I do not know, but I guarantee you that there will be artists in writing, music, visual arts, sculpture, performance, and so on, that will be looked back on as foundational.

Artists who nowadays the closed minded dismiss as worthless noveaux junk, the emperor has no clothes, I don't get it. The open minded probably get too much. We appreciate artists who will be forgotten in a decade, artists who will not stand the test of time. So it goes.


----------



## pixmedic (May 13, 2014)

I don't know Art, but I know what I like.


----------



## jenko (May 13, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I have not seen argued is that art is subjective.  That pretty much sums it up for me.
> ...



I have often wondered if *some* of the problems _Westerners_ have with contemporary art is that it has adopted iconography (through imperialism, the advent of tourism, then globalization, etc) from various cultures in which we do not have access to those references and cultural rituals. Picasso, for example, used African masks completely out of context, and more or less so because of the popular appeal of primitivism, which can confuse viewers, and rightly so! The masks themselves have their own cultural meanings and rituals, specific to a group, and unless you are exposed to that culture, the meaning of them is lost and one simply does not get it. So, I think it can get confusing for people when cultural references and iconography are borrowed and taken out of context, and there seems to be more of that in contemporary art.


----------



## Designer (May 13, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> So basically art is what each and every one of us makes of it?  Or takes of it?



Yeah, probably.  There are many levels of art which confounds the question of "what is art?"  

There is art that is intended simply to sell breakfast cereal to children.  There is art to commemorate, celebrate, sanctify, and inspire.  There is art that is designed solely to infuriate.

Then there are multitudes of different observers which makes multiple layers of interpretation not only possible, but entirely likely.  So each of us brings our own understanding and background to the party.  Is it any wonder then that some artists become exasperated at our lack of understanding?  And is it any wonder that art critics sound so foreign to us?


----------



## pgriz (May 13, 2014)

"Art" is always interpreted by the viewer.  What associations we bring to this task, depends on our experience, education, culture, and probably character.  These associations "may" be what the artist intended, leading a viewer with shared associations, to perceive the artist's intent.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, there may also be no common ground of culture and context, leading the viewer to have a very different experience.  Neither is "right" or "wrong".  However, if one is aware, through education or experience, the context in which the artist created the work, then it is possible for a viewer to have some appreciation of how the artist expressed his or her ideas in the medium.  As for art-speak, it's no worse than political talking points, or commercial image-making, in which words are used to construct an imaginary edifice to hide what isn't really there, or to disguise what IS there.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

Your disdain has been noted, robbins. Again. As always, thank you for your insightful commentary and bless your heart.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

Lol.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 13, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Your disdain has been noted, robbins. Again. As always, thank you for your insightful commentary and bless your heart.



Hey, your welcome.  Always happy to help.


----------



## AlanKlein (May 13, 2014)

I shoot landscapes for their aesthetic value.  I don't suppose they say much but hopefully look good hanging on a wall.  I don't call them art because the viewer must determine that.  But there is much art that really says little beyond their aesthetic value to the viewer.  If people want to know what's going on in the world, they can ready a newspaper.


----------



## pgriz (May 13, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Hmmm...  I think I seduced my girlfriend (soon-after, wife) with a grilled mushroom and cheese sandwich on soudough bread.  35+ years after, she still asks for it when the mood strikes her.  Fortunately, I expanded my repertoire of things that she really enjoys.   It is true - Happy wife, happy home.  That site has lots of good things.  The "garlic french-fries" are pretty close to the garlic roasted baby potatoes that my extended family always wants me to make for our family dinners.  

I can handle "Art-speak" on a full stomach any day.  Depending on the amount of beer or wine that accompany the meal, we'll even add to the atmospherics.  But on an empty stomach - no patience for that.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 13, 2014)

pgriz said:


> "Art" is always interpreted by the viewer. What associations we bring to this task, depends on our experience, education, culture, and probably character.



If this = subjective, then it is wrong


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

Well, I count it about 6 pages of actual photography related discussion, much of it civil, before the terrified rabble showed up with their usual conversation-ending tactics to make the scary scary _ideeaz_ and alarming _thing-king_ go away.

Maybe TPF really is changing!

I enjoyed it while it lasted, anyways. Thanks.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 13, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Well, I count it about 6 pages of actual photography related discussion, much of it civil, before the terrified rabble showed up with their usual conversation-ending tactics to make the scary scary _ideeaz_ and alarming _thing-king_ go away.
> 
> Maybe TPF really is changing!
> 
> I enjoyed it while it lasted, anyways. Thanks.



Beauty thing is, if you'd like you can go back to the previous thread on the same topic and find the exact same 6 pages of the exact same conversation there - nearly verbatim in fact.  If that doesn't suffice you can go back to the thread before that on the same topic - or the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that.  Pretty much the exact same conversation.  No doubt in a few days to a week at most the exact same conversation will take place again, so not to worry.  You'll get another 6 pages of the same soon enough.

So really, buck up little camper.  No need to wear a frown.  You'll have more than enough chances to beat this dead horse even more to death, I'm sure.


----------



## limr (May 13, 2014)

See, this is the problem with the ignore list. People get quoted and then I STILL see the posts. :roll:


----------



## photoguy99 (May 13, 2014)

"In my judgement, your toys suck. That makes it OK for me to break them"

lol.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 13, 2014)

limr said:


> See, this is the problem with the ignore list. People get quoted and then I STILL see the posts. :roll:



Welcome my dear, to the ranks of the terrified rabble.  Oh, say, have you signed up for our newsletter yet?  We call it the "Petrified Neophyte".  lol


----------



## pixmedic (May 13, 2014)

ok...please keep things on topic. 
food discussions can be done in their own thread. 
thanks


----------



## limr (May 13, 2014)

For the record, I really do think a thread about visual art should include pictures. 

These discussions get repetitive so quickly that I think including examples could help keep the ideas more concrete and focused. 

I was a being cheeky when I used the graphic to make that point, so I apologize for my contribution to the derailment. But actually, isn't the descent (for the nth time) into "Well, what is art anyway?" also off the topic of the OP? For me, the original sentiment was more about a call for plain English in art criticism than about the art itself.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2014)

limr said:


> These discussions get repetitive so quickly that I think including examples could help keep the ideas more concrete and focused.



Yes, they do and yes, that was my original point.

That being said, lots of questions posed are repetitive and we have been cautioned to respond civilly.

There is a distinct failure in the way this  forum is being moderated.
Instead of letting those who care to be serious or who are trying to learn continue to do so, those with seemingly little buy-in into the forum or photography are allowed to be disruptive.

How does this look to newbies?
How does this impact more experienced people who actually care about photography?
It's like trying to study in a room full of chimps.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Curious Lew, but where did I every say you or anyone else wasn't free to discuss pretty much anything you liked? I have pointed out the irony of the fact that you in particular keep bringing this exact same topic up over and over and over again and the discussion is pretty much always the same, but I've never said you weren't free to discuss it.
> 
> Also reading through TPF rules I do note that there really isn't anything in there about "derailing" threads or adhering to some incredibly strict guideline in which anything that isn't considered 100% on topic can and will get you banned or censored. I do note that they do have quite a bit in there about personal attacks on other posters, a behavior that you regularly and routinely engage in yourself. Might want to consider how fragile that house of glass is that you reside in before you start hurling stones.
> 
> ...



I didn't bring up the subject of art, if you read my original post, but it diverted that way.
    My original post was about the incomprehensibility of some artspeak.

Who are you to decide that anyone else's discussion is wrong and should be sabotaged?

You make real attempts to derail a thread that you don't think is OK.
Whether that is a RULE or not, how is doing that in any way productive to the Forum?


----------



## terri (May 13, 2014)

Things have certainly come full circle when you express concern for how this place looks to newbies, Lew.   I've no problem in cleaning up your sullied thread.    You took part in quite a bit of the sullying, however.   Oftentimes, when a thread seems to be in danger of going off the rails, people interject some humor in an attempt to lighten things up - and usually the the thread gets back on topic.   

That is all that happened here, for all your insults to your fellow posters.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 13, 2014)

All I hope for is some assurance that attempts to derail threads or hijack threads be dealt with by the mods.

It would even be nice if those who practice this constantly were told that, even though there isn't a RULE against it, they shouldn't do it.
Perhaps there should be a rule about it.


----------



## terri (May 13, 2014)

Start a poll, why don't you?       

This thread's done.


----------



## pixmedic (May 13, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> All I hope for is some assurance that attempts to derail threads or hijack threads be dealt with by the mods.
> 
> It would even be nice if those who practice this constantly were told that, even though there isn't a RULE against it, they shouldn't do it.
> Perhaps there should be a rule about it.



your right. here it goes. hope it helps. 

The_Traveler -> stop engaging in inflammatory debates over volatile topics. If a post offends you, or you feel it is out of place...report it. 
Everyone else -> KEEP ON TOPIC, or START A NEW THREAD
Mods -> Issue an infraction and/or a temp ban to the next person to violate either


----------



## terri (May 13, 2014)

It'll have to be a new thread, bro - this one's closed!


----------

