Art Snobbery

[Seshat]

I do art (does that surprise anyone?).

I do some realistic art. Not at all to my satisfaction, but I try!

I do some 'quasi-realistic' art as well. I'm fairly pleased with my dragon paintings, and my husband adores my mermaid painting.


And I do abstracts.

One of my more recent abstract pieces is two curved lines - the curves that define a female human form, held a particular way. My best friend wanted a logo for her business, and I went looking for nude female images and found one that had outline curves that were very sensual and would look distinctly female without being boring.

Another abstract piece I've done is the colours a particularly gorgeous night sky was. To look at the piece, you wouldn't know it was a night sky - just bands of colour. But it was so stunning, and I think I got the colours and proportions right.

Abstracts can be (not necessarily are) taking a beautiful piece of the real world and refining it down to the absolute essence of what made it beautiful to you.

A piece which is two shades of blue and a red triangle might be derived from a boat on the water against the sky.

Right now on TV, there's a red rose against a background of grey buildings. Abstracting that, I'd paint a stylised rose against a grey background. Another abstractionist might focus more on the slash of the stem.



On the other hand, these 'refine the real world' abstractions tend to be more understandable to people than the white-painted-knots on plywood sort.

[the_std]

Seshat, those sound gorgeous. You seem to be very talented in a multitude of fields!

But what I want to know is why people as a whole put so much more value on things like that over other things. Why is it so hard to see the appeal in the white-painted knots? Why are we so quick to dismiss everything that doesn't fit into our conventional standards of beauty? I guess that argument isn't just applied to art, but to every aspect of our lives. It saddens me, because I've had students who worked their fingers to the bone over pieces, put them up in a show... And had to stand by and listen to every viewer trash their work over and over again. "My three-year old could do better!" "Why do they call that art?" "What a waste of paint!", etcetera.

I understand that art and beauty are subjective and that, if you can't stand criticism, don't put your art out there, blah blah blah, all of those things... But when I see my students, who haven't been artists long enough to develop the thick skin you need to have in the show world, begin to cry because no one takes the time to try to find beauty in anything... It just makes me sad for the world.

[DesignFox]

Why is it so hard to see the appeal in the white-painted knots?

What kind of effort does it take to slap some paint on the knots in wood? It sorta drives me nuts that people like that get grants and acclaim when people who actually put forth time and effort into their work are ignored or ridiculed. I mean, I've seen more talented artists have a rougher time making a living of it (when their attempt at opening a store failed, the two most talented young ladies I know became art teachers).

If I want to look at knotty wood, I'll go back to high school and look at the only plywood our meager budget would allow us to purchase.

I think a lot of contemporary artists just try to see what they can get away with rather than take the time and effort to really create anything special. And I've certainly seen some work that could be considered just a push on the limits- like, how much nudity can I put here....what kind of upset can I cause there...

Although, I gotta say. That lazy ass woman proved her point. I'm still talking about those stupid plywood knots 6 years later... *sigh* (one of my ex boyfriends had to take a trip to that exhibit in college- I'm so glad I was involved in my own classes that day).

What happened to taking pride in your work? What happened to creativity? What happened to an appreciation of beauty (like Seshat's examples)? I think THAT'S what bothers me.

[the_std]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

[DesignFox]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

It's a piece of wood. With a dot or two on it. Painted white.

There's no layers of color. There's not really a thought process involved. You don't even have to have learned anything about color theory, anatomy, drawing...anything.

I guess the only thing creative about it is that person thought to stick wood on the wall first, honestly. *shrug*

I guess in the long run, who am I to judge what rich people want to waste money on. To me, work like that is ridiculous. Other than the fact that the natural grains of the wood might be attractive, but the artist didn't create those. Nature did. I could see if the grains of the wood were somehow highlighted, or the artist chose to accentuate a certain shape or create something from the shape (I've often looked at the swirls in wood or carpet and imagined real objects that they look like) but they didn't.

It's subjective. That's what makes art fun! I mean, I think a lot of Dali's work is absolutely hideous. I wouldn't hang it on my walls if you paid me. (well maybe, I am broke ) But at least I can appreciate the time, effort, imagination and talent it took to create that. A third grader couldn't paint like that. It takes some training.

*shrug* but then I like Jackson Pollack's work. Some might say their 3rd graders could do what he did (but a third grader knows nothing of color theory, layers and textures, etc etc.)

I have often painted like that myself. Using splatters of paint, and then adding touches with my hands, splatters from string, etc. A teacher in HS saw me throwing a bunch of paint around and taught me about Pollack. It actually takes a lot of time and energy to throw the paint around and add all the layers and make sure your colors don't turn to mud or you don't lose the textures. It can create a beautiful composition- if you try.

I still think some contemporary artists are just trying to see what they can make people buy or pay to view. "Hey, let me jump in front of a camera with my junk bouncing around" is not art to my mind. Yet, there it was in an art museum. If I want to appreciate the motion of a flaccid penis flopping about I'm sure there are plenty of idiots with cameras on the internet. Why should I pay to go and see that? And if I wanted to be silly, couldn't I just ask my partner to jump around a little for me? I mean, really?

[lordlundar]

Why are painted knots less artistically valuable than, say, The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio? What is it about them that makes it lazy and talentless?

What you feel apart from disgust when you find out that the "artist" received more money than you make in 3 years for doing that?

[the_std]

The artist came up with that idea. You didn't. If you'd done it, and had the artist's connections, got the show, publicized it, set it up, took it down, put all the "behind the scenes" effort into it, then maybe you'd have been paid the same amount.

See, this is what makes me upset about this. Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there. Just because it isn't layers upon layers upon layers of paint, meticulously crafted with hours of finger-cracking labour, that doesn't mean that it was easy, or simple, or worthless.

Art is an idea, a feeling. It's not just about the pieces you look at, it's also about the emotions generated, the response, making you think and analyze and feel. The fact that you guys hate it and talk about it and dismiss it really just reinforces her show as a success.

[AdminAssistant]

And writing a grant isn't exactly easy. NEA grant applications are very sticky and competitive. (I'm hoping that the NEA is even still around in a year, it was one of the sticking points in the stimulus package - Republicans have been trying to get rid of it since it was instituted)

[lordlundar]

See, this is what makes me upset about this. Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there. Just because it isn't layers upon layers upon layers of paint, meticulously crafted with hours of finger-cracking labour, that doesn't mean that it was easy, or simple, or worthless.

Ahhh! I see now. It's art because he's a good PUBLICIST!

Sorry, no.

Someone who's project is 95% conning people and 5% actual work on the project is not an artist, it's a con-man. Calling it art is simply trying to make it legal. I see no difference between this person and the old snake oil salesmen, apart from getting the government hooked in the scam.

[Seshat]

Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there.

Ideas are cheap. The work comes in the development, creativity, and expression of the idea. 'They came up with the idea' doesn't impress me.

As for the rest of it, if I want to see marketing and schmoozing, I'll go to an advertising & PR convention. When I go to an art gallery, I want to see art.

I want to see the development, creativity and expression of ideas. I want to see something where the artist has had the idea, and sat back and thought 'how can I convey this idea?'

And yes, the idea the artist wishes to convey might be a mood. It might be the refinement of a scene. It might be a critique of society or of events (eg Guernica). It might even be an attempt to convey how the artist feels about a particular colour!

I'm a professional writer. In my field, it is my responsibility to ensure that the ideas I give expression to are properly conveyed to my chosen audience. If my message is lost to more than a tiny fraction of my audience, I haven't done my job.
(There's always going to be some who don't get it - but it's my job to minimise that.)

To some extent I can do it by choosing my audience: if I want to write a non-fiction book about some highly technical material, I can target the book to professionals in that field. But if I'm writing fiction, I should be targetting it to something like 'anyone who can read English to an adult level and is interested in romance novels'.


I simply don't understand artists who act as if it's not their responsibility to actually convey their idea. If they're not going to try to communicate, what's the point of their art?

[DesignFox]

Well, like I said, art is subjective. And to me, knots of wood is not art. Jumping jack man with his flopping penis, is not art. I have some pretty loose standards all things considered- having been there and done it myself. There's a lot of stuff I just don't get but can at least appreciate. Those are two examples of stuff I think is BS. I also happen to think that sticking a urinal on the wall was BS- and that was the point of the whole thing!

Again, I'm dirt poor. So who am I to say what people want to blow their cash on. But when I go to an art gallery and pay an entrance fee, I don't want to see that crap. I want to see something that required a little more than a bunch of connections and smooth talk on the part of the artist.

*shrug* Everyone's entitled to their opinion. This is mine.

(and yes, the digital revolution in photography pisses me off because it has destroyed any appreciation that ever existed for photography- especially in portraiture)

[Sylvia727]

I was discussing this issue in the Real World, and brought up the example used in this thread, of plywood with the knots painted white. My friend hopped on Google and found an article on Sherrie Levine; is she the person discussed herein? Looks like it. Said friend claims that a discussion of a certain art piece is impossible without knowing the context of the art. My position remains that if the audience requires supplementary materials to understand it, then it is not good art.

[DesignFox]

My friend hopped on Google and found an article on Sherrie Levine; is she the person discussed herein?

Yes it is. Although I guess I forgot that she at least used color. I agree with your sentiment that if the work requires supplemental material, you've missed the mark.

[Seshat]

If you can't communicate in a visual medium, why are you in visual art?


(That's what I always want to ask 'artists' who insist on supplemental material.)

[tabbyblack13]

I can understand making an abstract piece to depict emotions but when your pieces are for the most part call "unnamed #" there is no association of what you are trying to convey. There was a show in a Minnesota museum that featured an artist like that. My parents love museums and I remember going to them as a child. The only reason we went to this is that they had a show there that my parents loved years before and my parents assumed that they would enjoy this.

I enjoy realist art for the fact the reality can be beautiful too. This is for both photography, traditional, and digital art.