Discussion: Museum worthy?

[Overread]

Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence

Only for people who stupidly believe art must have technical excellence in order to be "good".

It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside when people judge art purely on the basis of technical excellence when that might not have been the artists intention in the first place.

One has to wonder who the elitists really are.

I never stated that art had to have technical perfection - perfection in itself with art is almost like a Holy Grail - something they all seek but which might never be found and might not in fact exist.

this may be a case of "he did it first" art.
like one of those...white box on white background pieces. we can all scoff, but that artist laughed all the way to the bank.

but i havent seen his work, so it may very well be beautiful.

Ah, but so many of the great masters were also the "he did it first" type of artists. So many were rejected during the time they were producing, because they went against standard conventions of the time.

Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence and which tends to display a rather - what I would call - childish level of talent to produce.

So yes I would say its both art that isn't that impressive to behold and doesn't make me want to think about it.

So many of the comments here, and I am sure in future posts, say so much more about the viewer, rather than the artist.

:lmao:

Are we thinking of different artists?
John Baldessari - Google Search
is what I found with google - some might have some inner meaning and might be entertaining, but the majority looks just like GCSE students who have found photoshop for the first time

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

My comments stand.

 

[Idahophoto]

you are so right, and it's likely most of it is right over my head. i can view it and certainly appreciate it. but will i always get it?...probably not.
admittedly, im a bit dim.

Art isn't created for mass appeal.

Just because Ansel Adams can be seen everywhere, doesn't mean he was visionary.

True art affects and moves you. Makes you think and maybe look at something differently than the way you would of looked at it in the past.

So then, Picasso, by your standards is indeed true art. He makes you think at look at something differently than you have in the past. But then, you think it's rubbish, and can't even appreciate his point of view, like it, or not.

:roll:

I believe that's what I said. No Heis work has never moved me or change my way of seeing things. He was just a guy without any talent like 95% of the actors and actresses on screen today. Though apparently other feel different as his stuff goes for a damn fortune so I guess it works and that's fine. Just don't expect me to ever buy any of it as I think my white walls have more art in them than his so called "masterpieces"

 

[reznap]

How could you not appreciate Picasso? They have a painting from his 'blue period' here in Cleveland and I don't know how anyone could stand before this and feel nothing..

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MsjSjTeBy...RU/s400/vida_realizada_Pablo_Picasso_1903.jpg

 

[KenC]

Well, OP, it sounds like you've found what you like/dislike in art, which is pretty much subjective. I went to the photography museum once when I lived out there and wasn't that impressed either, although I saw some stuff I liked by a couple of the photographers whose work was on display. Based on your reaction, you should avoid the Museum of Contemporary Art there, which has similar stuff, although most of it isn't photography; I didn't care much for that place either.

 

[pbelarge]

One of the beautiful aspects of 'art' is that there is something for everyone. We do not have to like what someone else does.

Next time you are out and about, look at people's shoes...I think you will understand what I am saying.

 

[pgriz]

What you "see" (perceive) depends on what you've learned to recognize and give meaning to. That is, your interpretation of what you see is based on your experience, your learning (not necessarily education, per se), and your cultural references. If you discuss art (or a specific item of art) with a person from a very different culture, it is often both confusing and fascinating to realize that what each person sees, the other person doesn't or has a very different understanding. That may related to the use of color (white, for instance represents purity in some cultures, but death in others), shapes, expressions, postures, and even background objects. The same also occurs over time, as the visual conventions change. As Bitter has suggested, an art history course often helps supply the missing "scaffolding" allowing us to better understand what is being shown in front of us.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

He was just a guy without any talent like 95% of the actors and actresses on screen today.[/B] Though apparently other feel different as his stuff goes for a damn fortune so I guess it works and that's fine. Just don't expect me to ever buy any of it as I think my white walls have more art in them than his so called "masterpieces"

Somehow, I don't think you have a clue what talent is. Camparing a painter to actors? Fail. Can you parse out why? How can you compare a painter to an industry that tries to crank out as many movies as possible to have mass appeal to make millions of dollars?

You don't seem to know anything about talent, creativity, or why an artist makes art. It's fine that you don't get anything from Picasso, but to call it rubbish, and that the man had no talent, really shows how ignorant you really are.

:er:

 

[gsgary]

If you are ever in London head here Photographers Gallery first, but there are plenty of other place most are free

 

[JG_Coleman]

There are two types of art viewers: those that look at art hoping to see the best examples of what they expecting, and those that look at art ready to try and understand whatever they happen to find.

It's just two different attitudes to art appreciation. The former serves the function in art of helping to refine existing techniques and styles... the latter serves the purpose of championing new techniques and styles.

Achieving a consensus on art is not much more realistic than achieving a consensus on religion... it's always a debate with no end... and nobody is really more right than anyone else. Some are just more confident in their opinion than others.

 

[HorseLuvR]

That's the beautiful thing about art "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I might not be a fan of John Baldessari but I do respect his work. Some people love his art... clearly

 

[AverageJoe]

Interesting discussion here, but ultimately is the question really "what is art?" and isn't that subjective?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

So many of the comments here, and I am sure in future posts, say so much more about the viewer, rather than the artist.

:thumbup:

If you want to see landscapes, go take a walk.

If you want to see portraits, go take a walk. In the city.

What is the point of "art" that shows you what you can see any day of the week by taking a walk?

Now, if you are too lazy to take a walk, that's another story, lol, but Ansel Adams photos are boring as photos. Their subject matter is not but they are a hundred times more fascinating seen in person.

Take a walk.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Interesting discussion here, but ultimately is the question really "what is art?" and isn't that subjective?

What is talent?
What is creativity?

 

[AverageJoe]

What is talent?
What is creativity?

I would define talent as: the ability to perform exceedingly well at something and that something could be: drawing, painting, filing tax returns, convincing people, designing lightbulbs...

And creativity as: the ability to find elegant or unique solutions to complex problems or tasks.

Thoughts?