My son used to bring home drawings and fingerpaintings that he did in preschool. Although it was of dubious quality, according to the experts, we still matted the works and proudly displayed them among our art collection.
Art IMHO is whatever moves the heart, and doesn’t necessarily have to be beautiful or enjoyable to qualify as art.
I’m not troubled at all….all artists had to start somewhere, and even the greatest were known to have a bad day. That being said, I can see where someone would like that work you posted. I have one piece of modern art in my collection, and rest assured, the artist was having a bad when he did that piece:)
I wouldn’t consider myself to be an expert in modern art, in fact I know less about modern art than any student taking Art Appreciation 101. I have a period and type of art that I collect, and rarely venture outside that box. On the other hand, some modern art is very confusing to me, such as Jackson Pollock’s splatter paintings. While they’re certainly decorative, I think a 20 million dollar price tag is enough to make me look the other way and consider something less…….modern.
Jeff
Darrell,
May 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm :
Yes it’s art, but stuff like this or Pollock’s is more what I like to call “design art”. It’s the motor sports of art. It’s like NASCAR. Yes there’s talent, yes it takes balls, and yes it’s enjoyable by some, but I think the overwhelming majority of people are more impressed with a football players ability then a drivers, drivers included. I’m sure there’s going to be that argument about the nuance of abstract art and how it’s not “something my kid could draw” , but to me it’s artistic, but not on the same levels of a painting like this
D: Yeah, that kind of hyper-clarity is at the other end of the spectrum. At some level, when it comes to artistry, I always ask myself how hard something was to accomplish. Difficulty and virtuosity aren’t the only standards that matter, but when it comes to visual art I can’t help dismissing things that I (or a small child, or a semi-trained monkey) could have done.
elaine,
May 12, 2008 at 8:53 am :
…oops anon was me!
Dr. Denny,
May 12, 2008 at 10:07 am :
Art? Dunno. Worth a lotta dough? Dunno. But it doesn’t move me.
The question of whether something is or isn’t art doesn’t always come down to skill, in my opinion. Genius in skill produces one kind of art. Genius in seeing the world through eyes totally different than everyone else’s produces another kind of art. Genius in reducing an emotion or experience to its most fundamental components produces a third kind. Genius in using media in a way no-one had ever thought to use it before begets a fourth kind (this is Pollock, IMO). And so on.
So is that art? Yep. I don’t particularly like it, and I certainly wouldn’t care to call it good art, but it’s still art.
Loading ...
Sure, that’s art.
My son used to bring home drawings and fingerpaintings that he did in preschool. Although it was of dubious quality, according to the experts, we still matted the works and proudly displayed them among our art collection.
Art IMHO is whatever moves the heart, and doesn’t necessarily have to be beautiful or enjoyable to qualify as art.
Off topic, here’s a link to the final prices of Sotheby’s Impressionist day sale that I had the pleasure to attend the other day.
I ended up leaving that auction with a little less money, but much richer in so many ways.
Jeff
So you aren’t troubled to learn that this masterpiece is by one of the modern age’s more famous artists?
Dr. Slammy,
I’m not troubled at all….all artists had to start somewhere, and even the greatest were known to have a bad day. That being said, I can see where someone would like that work you posted. I have one piece of modern art in my collection, and rest assured, the artist was having a bad when he did that piece:)
I wouldn’t consider myself to be an expert in modern art, in fact I know less about modern art than any student taking Art Appreciation 101. I have a period and type of art that I collect, and rarely venture outside that box. On the other hand, some modern art is very confusing to me, such as Jackson Pollock’s splatter paintings. While they’re certainly decorative, I think a 20 million dollar price tag is enough to make me look the other way and consider something less…….modern.
Jeff
Yes it’s art, but stuff like this or Pollock’s is more what I like to call “design art”. It’s the motor sports of art. It’s like NASCAR. Yes there’s talent, yes it takes balls, and yes it’s enjoyable by some, but I think the overwhelming majority of people are more impressed with a football players ability then a drivers, drivers included. I’m sure there’s going to be that argument about the nuance of abstract art and how it’s not “something my kid could draw” , but to me it’s artistic, but not on the same levels of a painting like this
http://www.albrightknox.org/ArtStart/Vibert_t.html
Anyone who spends more than £1 on that has more money than sense or sensibility.
D: Yeah, that kind of hyper-clarity is at the other end of the spectrum. At some level, when it comes to artistry, I always ask myself how hard something was to accomplish. Difficulty and virtuosity aren’t the only standards that matter, but when it comes to visual art I can’t help dismissing things that I (or a small child, or a semi-trained monkey) could have done.
…oops anon was me!
Art? Dunno. Worth a lotta dough? Dunno. But it doesn’t move me.
Now, a black-velvet Elvis? Damn. That’s ART!
The question of whether something is or isn’t art doesn’t always come down to skill, in my opinion. Genius in skill produces one kind of art. Genius in seeing the world through eyes totally different than everyone else’s produces another kind of art. Genius in reducing an emotion or experience to its most fundamental components produces a third kind. Genius in using media in a way no-one had ever thought to use it before begets a fourth kind (this is Pollock, IMO). And so on.
So is that art? Yep. I don’t particularly like it, and I certainly wouldn’t care to call it good art, but it’s still art.