Do you ever feel like you just don't get it sometimes?

[Antithesis]

When did you start to understand fine art? Do people just nod and agree that it's cool or 'important' because it's labeled art? Even if it looks like crap?

We've reviewed a couple of different students work as well as some famed artists work in my photography course, and a lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. I know some people are trying to do new things and work conceptually, but I end up seeing a lot of this stuff without an artist statements and it makes no sense. Am I artistically challenged? I used to be good at this stuff, and now I just think the lot of it is rediculous.

 

[RyanLilly]

I think a lot of artists especially students when they are first starting out, think that everyone else just doesn't get it. At the college where I work in the theatre, the main lobby area of the building is used to exhibit work from the art department, mostly sculpture. Most of it is crap. Uninspired junk thats uninteresting, and was thrown together just for a grade. Now, I may seem a bit harsh, but year after year its a lot of the same stuff, But every once in a while, something will capture my attention out of the corner of my eye, and all I can say is "wow." When a piece triggers an emotional response, and when that piece draws my attention enough to make me pause and look at it, even if for a moment every time I walk past, I know that is good art.

But most of it is crap.

 

[Battou]

I think a lot of artists especially students when they are first starting out, think that everyone else just doesn't get it. At the college where I work in the theatre, the main lobby area of the building is used to exhibit work from the art department, mostly sculpture. Most of it is crap. Uninspired junk thats uninteresting, and was thrown together just for a grade. Now, I may seem a bit harsh, but year after year its a lot of the same stuff, But every once in a while, something will capture my attention out of the corner of my eye, and all I can say is "wow." When a piece triggers an emotional response, and when that piece draws my attention enough to make me pause and look at it, even if for a moment every time I walk past, I know that is good art.

But most of it is crap.

Viewing "Art" in large quantities tends to dull the sences to art in general leaving the majority in the crap depaetment, I know this feeling.

 

[LaFoto]

When did you start to understand fine art?

I don't.
I may very well be severely artistically challenged!
Actually, I am pretty sure that I am.

 

[Antithesis]

I've brought this up in class before, and I always end up asking the question: Well, what's more important, the content or the visual appeal?

What would you consider more important, a picture with a phenomenal subject but iffy execution, or a spectacularly beautiful picture to look at, but the subject isn't all that good?

I tend to lean towards visual appeal, and I think that's a big reason why I don't get 'art'.

 

[Battou]

I've brought this up in class before, and I always end up asking the question: Well, what's more important, the content or the visual appeal?

What would you consider more important, a picture with a phenomenal subject but iffy execution, or a spectacularly beautiful picture to look at, but the subject isn't all that good?

I tend to lean towards visual appeal, and I think that's a big reason why I don't get 'art'.

I'll answer you quesstion for my POV

I was the one who featured this months featured artist on FAC - Exelent execution of seriously twisted and odd subjects.

 

[Tangerini]

I think, at least for me, it's a matter of deciding how you define art. Then if it doesn't fit into your definition there's nothing to "get."

 

[rob91]

It's really as simple as you like what you like. Don't say you "don't get" or "dislike" fine art because you saw a few, even a dozen, pictures or photos that do nothing for you. There's literally thousands (probably more) artists to look into so there's no need to feel pressure to like certain artists and works, and it's certainly better to develop your own opinion of what great art is. Though a novice, I've usually found with looking at art that not only do I find new (even if they're old) artists to appreciate but also that my perspective on art as a whole is deepened, including fresher and more insightful opinions on pieces I may have previously been cold or lukewarm to.

 

[TATTRAT]

For the artist, they are putting it out there, the way THEY want to see it, and if some one sees it the way they intended, the the job is done.

One mans junk is another mans treasure.
"art" is WAY to open to be a matter of personal opinion. It is what it is. What makes it that way, who knows, but YOU will know, when you see it.

 

[Icon72]

When did you start to understand fine art? Do people just nod and agree that it's cool or 'important' because it's labeled art? Even if it looks like crap?

I know exactly how you feel and some very good points have been made on the subject here.

I think RyanLilly put it best, "...every once in a while, something will capture my attention out of the corner of my eye, and all I can say is "wow." When a piece triggers an emotional response, and when that piece draws my attention enough to make me pause and look at it, even if for a moment every time I walk past, I know that is good art."

Well said. :thumbup:

 

[craig]

For me art is a journey. First and foremost I try and understand what the artist is saying and or trying achieve. The visual appeal comes second. Not everything has to catch your eye or make you say wow. A slick well lit photo is going to catch your eye. A photo of the dream you had last night may not catch your eye, but may contain a certain feeling or emotion. Not like one is better then the other they are just different.

The more you study and create art the more you will understand. Of course there is work out there that you do not like. Stay focused on your work and the work that inspires you. That is the best way to "get art".

Love & Bass

 

[Iron Flatline]

Expression of taste is a reflection of self-confidence. If you don't know what is good and what isn't, you need to look inside yourself, and not to the system, for answers.

 

[Antithesis]

I think, at least for me, it's a matter of deciding how you define art. Then if it doesn't fit into your definition there's nothing to "get."

I think that sums it up pretty well. I definetely know my own personal tastes, and they tend to reside in the documentary side of photography, rather than the conceptual.

I just tend to see the majority of my classroom all agreeing that one thing is interesting, and I'm sitting over here scratching my head wondering what they see in it. I've always been overly critical of both abstract and conceptual art, so that might be where the confusion comes from.

 

[am_photoer]

I know what you mean --even though you could probably throw me into the conceptual people at times. But that kind of 'art' that i do that is purely conceptual is for more meditative than show (i don't care to show it anymore to anyone but my family). That whole 'i don't get it' is something than just annoyed me so much trying to understand art. However, the few inspired pieces always catch your eye and you get it... but not all the time like some people seem to see... and say the most common meaningless phrase::: it's interesting.

That is why i like more concrete fields -why i like photojournalism like the wonderful (depressing) series someone linked to about the child with cancer. That is why i'm in architecture - it makes sense. Granted you can be the Frank Gehry type who breaks the rules -- but then your buildings leak, drop deadly ice on people, etc. There is a balance of design and function - and the reality of creating where people live, work, everything almost it seems some times.

I just think art is inherently inward -most people don't see art at all but for the classic reproductions. So artists turn to each other -their interested audience. And hope to god they find a chord with the greater masses???

If your curious to read this::
http://www.itsartmag.com/features/dfa/DigitalFineArtMarket-page1.html
It is really true of how art is. It is a discussion about digital art and how it has every merit of fine art but is discluded from being 'fine art' because of rarety.

 

[sabbath999]

I guess I am an atavistic throwback who just doesn't value philosophy like I should, but I just really don't care one way or the other about other peoples labels of art, whether it be artist, critic, or the general public.

To me, only the WORK its self matters. The rest is just blah blah blah.

The WORK either touches me, or it doesn't. What people have to SAY about it? I can't imagine caring less.

I do listen to people such as art historians who explain symbolism in older works that I may not understand today. For example, I will learn about the heroic stories that are being represented in art that were common knowledge at the time the art was produced that would be common knowledge to both the artist and the public, but not necessarily to us in the 21st century... works like those showing stories from the Golden Legend (clicky) which were as common knowledge to people of the middle ages as American Idol is to us.

But as to listening to what others have to say about critiquing works of art today? Not interested. The art its self either works for me, or it does not.