my 3-yr-old can do that!
Hi folks. I'm new here. And I feel so lucky to have stumbled upon this site!!!
I've been reading a few of the threads and i realized that I'd like to participate. I think you're mostly way out of my league, but maybe your genius will rub off on me!!
Ok, here's my question, and I'm sure its come up before. How do you, as artists or art dealers or art critics, reply to comments like "my 3-yr-old can do that"?
To an extent, I think that to appreciate an art work it has to be something that is beyond my capacity of doing. If it looks like something I could easily do, then its not that good.
But other times, its not the painting itself that gets me, but what I see in it. You know, it could be a single line drawn across a canvas - something anyone can do - but for some reason, it touches me, it resonates a truth.
But such resonance is purely subjective. Another viewer might shrug it off as trash.
Anyway, whenever someone uses that line, I get pissed off and I don't know how to reply. I mean, if they don't see it, then they just don't see it. Other times, when I don't think the painting is any good either, I'll just nod in agreement.
I hope this questions doesn't leave you huffing with frustration or mere boredom with the idea. Like I said, it must have come up a million times and you're all probably fed up with it. But if any of you have any comments for me, I'd really appreciate it!
Thanks
I guess visual art has to be in the eye of the beholder....for me, it has to make me feel an emotion....any emotion.
The owner of this site, Nous Poetikos is the resident visual artist (and a damn fine one too!), so when she pops in I'm sure she will have something to say on this topic.
Don't worry about being "out of your league"...we are all human and still learning...some of us have just been doing it longer than others. Just jump in any topic and let us know your opinion.
I'm assuming you are a painter? If so, do you have anything on a website so we could take a peek?
By the way, there's a "Welcome new member" topic down in the Fluffy and Flaming forum where you are being greeted by some of the inhabitants of this haunt....stop by there when you have a chance.
---------- The next best thing to playing and winning....is playing and losing
thanks!
Thank you!
Yeah, I definitely agree, good art has to provoke an emotional response.
I guess most folks of the "my 3yr...." state of mind hold that art should be both decoratively pleasing and technically difficult. Probably the former more than the latter.
Re: thanks!
For me the "technically difficult" part doesn't enter into it at all. I agree with manniac about art making me feel emotion - that's also my barometer for whether or not it has merit. But difficult implies that the artist had to work at it to make it worthwhile, which I think doesn't accurately convey the truth of it. Some artists find their work to be easy - they have a flair or gift for it. That doesn't make the work any less. And you know what? If someone's three year-old can paint something that makes me feel an emotion - I'll like it!
flutter
"The world is all gates, all opportunities, strings of tension waiting to be struck."- Ralph Waldo Emerson
If we can use minimal art or conceptual art as a jumping off point here...(since those are the most often maligned). With the aid of a ruler, everyone is certainly able to draw a line across a page, frame it and hang it on the wall. Not everyone is able to explain *why* they did this...or even more astonishingly, to make a convincing argument on why they should be paid any attention when they continue to do this repeatedly.
Does this ability to know "why" matter? Yes. It does. It should in fact permeate the piece and the environment in which it resides. If it does not do this then either there is something lacking in the viewer or in the maker or perhaps in a combination of the two.
If one steps down the road a little further, intent links up to individuality quite nicely...pieces of art become evidence of a persona that can draw a line and put it on the wall AND know what that line is supposed to do within the environment. The less material the image (or sculpture) makes use of, the more the weight of every bit that is used, is counted. The minimalists had far more ego than even the most pompous of three year olds.
I think perhaps part of the problem is that figuring out works of art that are...erm, "less than accessible" takes time. Some art functions like a conversation...you have to ask questions of the piece. They start at the very basic: how big are you? what are you made of? when were you made? and work their way up in complexity...what is your relationship to art history? How is that relationship being played with here? How do you relate in the context of this space (gallery, museum, home, etc.)? Stand and talk to it a while...it will eventually let you figure out exactly what you like about it.
What do you generally find yourself responding to in art?
Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 3/5/03 1:13:30 pm
Re: ...
I guess there's a difference between having a gut reaction to a work of art, and to analyzing it and appreciate its history or intent. I can look at a minimalist work, appreciate the effect the artists was going after, but its still not my cup of tea. I was looking at paintings by Argentinian artists Fabien Carredo, he has a whole sequence of a character, Gargantua, wallowing in mud. My first reaction was the it literally looked like a pile of s**t. He uses some sort of foam that gives the painting a textured quality. But then, after sitting back and looking at it for a while longer, a noticed the figure's gestures, that there was a primitive sense of joy and freedom in this quite ugly picture.
So I suppose the beauty of a work of art is directly proportional to how much time and attention you give it when observing it.
Its interesting that you mention INTENT as a primary distinction between valuable art and otherwise. Where I come from, we have a saying "Actions are Measured by Intentions." You have to intend to do anything before you set out and do it, otherwise it doesn't count.
Re: ...
Interesting. I've enjoyed minimalist and other modern art as viewed in a museum, in my case - the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Modern Art. There is such a wide range of artwork and the "my 3 year old could do this" pieces have their place. Some of them are incredibly moving and I'm just not the sort to over-analyze.
Nous...I'm not sure I care about intent. I'm a writer, not a painter. But I know that once I finish a piece, good or bad, and put it out there...my intent no longer matters. What the reader gets out of it - good or bad - is between them and the piece, not between me and them.
And all the intent if the world won't matter to me if I can't appreciate the piece at all. Sometimes a line on a page is just a line on a page. I won't say that it's not still art - it may just be art I don't like.
I think I'm an artistic neanderthal.
Better your own truth, however weak, than the truth of another, however noble.
~Shakyamuni Buddha
Re: ...
DeShaz thanks for your input! I think you most understood what I meant, which puts us both in the neanderthal categorie. I just wanted to point out that my question didn't concern minimalist art in particular but any art that is, i guess, not figurative. I mean, it could be an expressionist painting a-la-Pollock or a bunch of geometric shapes in Malevich's work or those jagged paintings of Clyfford Still. You know what I mean?
I mean, its easy to love and appreciate paintings from the pre-Raphaelite movement, for example. Their characters are almost photographically realistic, the scene is an easily understandable story, the feeling is romantic, there's immaculate attention to the most delicate of details, and the paintings as a whole is full of atmosphere.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that its difficult for artists to make a living selling their work if its not easy to appreciate. If it looks unimpressive, a jagged line or a bunch of scribbles or a color field or whatever, how does the artist survive? Is it their responsibility to inform their audience what they meant by what they drew? That doesn't seem right. How does an artist make his art understood if it is not within the typically appreciated styles?
Quote:it could be an expressionist painting a-la-Pollock or a bunch of geometric shapes in Malevich's work or those jagged paintings of Clyfford Still.
I can find things to appreciate in all of those. Shapes, colors, strength or gentleness of lines and brushstrokes...what I have more trouble with is the, erm..."toilet seat" art. Okay, I can appreciate intent if explained to me....and I even see some of it as artistic.
I just don't necessarily like it.
Better your own truth, however weak, than the truth of another, however noble.
~Shakyamuni Buddha
Ok, among my group of friends, I'm usually the one pulling them along to artsy stuff and taking them to galleries and what not. Yeah, my friends are mostly lawyers and engineers. Anyway, sometimes i just have trouble explaining the price tags on the paintings we see, especially when its a bunch of incomprehensible brushstrokes or an inverted urinal .
Re: ...
Comments like that do not even deserve a response. I suppose after a long life of painting, you become immune to idiotic comments from 'critics of the arts'. Your other response is to give them a very scolding art history crash course and then ask them why their three your old's painting isn't hanging there and then suggest if their three your old can do it, why don't you?
Anyway, sometimes i just have trouble explaining the price tags on the paintings we see, especially when its a bunch of incomprehensible brushstrokes or an inverted urinal 
.
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies