Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/4/15 at 5:38 pm to cornhat
quote:
I'm looking at his stuff now. Besides his self portrait and the portrait of Bella Freud, I don't get it. Art appreciation beyond 'this aesthetic is pretty and makes me feel happy' is foreign to me though. Is this an acquired thing or a natural appreciation?
I know what you're saying. The first way we come to appreciate art is via "this is pretty." That's perfectly normal. However, as you spend more time struggling with it you start to see more. Some paintings require a time investment on the part of the viewer and it's been that way as far back as we've painted. You won't like all of them no matter what but investing the time starts to pay dividends (so does art history class where you learn to understand what was at stake when it was painted and how things changed forever even if that artist/painting was just the change agent among other things).
These days we're so used to taking a short look at art and making up our minds, and that works for some paintings, but it doesn't work with all of them. So to answer your question it can be a little bit of both depending on how you're wired.
If you don't like something at first give it time and come back to it later BUT never feel compelled to like it just because critics do and never feel bad about it just don't write it off completely forever (e.g. plenty of songs blow when you first hear them). If you keep it in the back of your brain, you might find that as you age you see it anew or come to appreciate it.
Hope that helps, at least a little.
ETA: Also with Rothko you DO need to see them in person. Like I said before, I don't like all of them but some of the bolder colors are freaking amazing.
This post was edited on 3/4/15 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 3/4/15 at 5:58 pm to Prof
Yeah thanks, that explanation definitely helps and I think the art history suggestion is helpful too. I guess it just reminds me of the argument of intended vs imagined symbolism in literature: did the author put that in there for a purpose or am I imagining it? Guess that's where the art history knowledge would kick in and you can estimate some of the artists' motivations.
At least with art you can appreciate the technique and skill. Even if I don't understand it, I sure as hell can't create anything like it.
Which leads me to ask...is Picasso's work as good as it is acclaimed to be?
At least with art you can appreciate the technique and skill. Even if I don't understand it, I sure as hell can't create anything like it.
Which leads me to ask...is Picasso's work as good as it is acclaimed to be?
Posted on 3/4/15 at 6:07 pm to cornhat
A LOT of people don't like Pollack, but when you realize that no one had ever done anything like him before he came along then you can imagine how ahead of his time he actually was.
It pays to be the first
It pays to be the first
Posted on 3/4/15 at 6:16 pm to mizzoukills
While I don't get why Pollack's work is so famous, I do like it on a very superficial level.
There's an artist in Miami who's a big deal, but not by art critics-Romero Britto. He does pop art and is commissioned to do a looooooot of work, but critics do not like him.
There's an artist in Miami who's a big deal, but not by art critics-Romero Britto. He does pop art and is commissioned to do a looooooot of work, but critics do not like him.
Posted on 3/4/15 at 6:16 pm to cornhat
quote:
Which leads me to ask...is Picasso's work as good as it is acclaimed to be?
Yes but Henri Matisse was better. That fact drove Picasso batshit even though Matisse was a mentor who Picasso respected and was fond of. Hell, even Picasso would admit Matisse was his superior which was earth-shattering because Picasso was arrogant as hell. At times Picasso tried to emulate Matisse even in ways that almost look like copies but Matisse's eye for color and the way he presented things when he came into his own were simply amazing.
Picasso, OTOH, was fantastic at drawing (something Matisse wasn't as good at) and he had Guernica which was painted in response to the Spanish Civil War and is arguably THE painting of that era. Although, not everyone will agree with me, I think Picasso's best work was when he was painting in a Cubist style.
BUT Matisse and Picasso were joined at the hip for a very long time in terms of Matisse influencing Picasso. Pablo hated Matisse and loved him as a mentor at the same time.
I love both, FWIW.
Posted on 3/4/15 at 6:21 pm to Prof
I used to hate Pollack. I absolutely thinks his work is brilliant now.
Art is like food...what I hated years ago I may now enjoy.
Weird
Art is like food...what I hated years ago I may now enjoy.
Weird
Posted on 3/4/15 at 6:35 pm to Prof
Thank you gents, I learned something today.
If you guys ever come down to Miami, you should come down for Art Basel and to also see the Wynwood art district. It's a neighborhood of murals and art on sidewalks, roads, everywhere. Mostly contemporary, surrealist, pop-art, and graffiti.
If you guys ever come down to Miami, you should come down for Art Basel and to also see the Wynwood art district. It's a neighborhood of murals and art on sidewalks, roads, everywhere. Mostly contemporary, surrealist, pop-art, and graffiti.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News