Guernica II

...awing ?

[Aliantha]

Most real art critics (which is what we all are believe it or not) will tell you that it doesn't matter what the painting meant to the artist, it only matters what it means to you.

If it means something, then appreciate it for that. If it means nothing, then move on to the next one.

And yeah, some galleries would sell a childs painting for a million bucks if they thought they could get away with it, but if someone's silly enough to pay money for something because someone else tells them they should then more fool them in my opinion.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Most real art critics (which is what we all are believe it or not) will tell you that it doesn't matter what the painting meant to the artist, it only matters what it means to you.

That's just so the artist can't embarrass them by telling them they're wrong.

[Aliantha]

lol...perhaps. But again, who cares? The viewer can't be expected to 'feel' the same way as the painter can they? Even if they know what the artist meant, they still might 'feel' differently about it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

"I don't like Picasso's work. As a matter of fact I dislike it so much, I won't even say anything nice about it to get laid."

Well, Bruce, I suppose you don't like Art Blakey, Jimmy Smith, or any other Jazz artists either. Maybe you like Kenny G.,

Ya got me, I didn't know Picasso played jazz.

however, It takes IMAGINATION to appreciate the abstract, in all areas of art. Abstract Expressionism is just one genre of many, but don't throw the baby out with what you think is all bathwater.

I IMAGINE a pompous asshole, dictating what art (and music) everyone should like and if they don't agree, they're ignorant, uncouth, uneducated, unappreciative, street rabble.

"I contend if it doesn't explain itself, it, and the artist, are not doing their job."

That statement certainly indicates your "understanding" of art. Are you saying you ONLY like representational art? If so, that's kind of sad, because that's the only kind of art that "explains" itself.

It indicates I understand enough to not be duped into extolling the virtues of crap, to try and convince the other pompous assholes, I'm cultured enough to be worthy of their acceptance.

That said, I still think my statement about Guernica is valid.

I think your statement is valid, too.
You see those of us that are not pompous assholes, understand that art is personal and accept that other people will have their own view, without accusing them of not understanding, not having imagination and having an opinion unworthy of consideration.
I don't care if you like it, whereas you've shown you care that I don't.

[Pangloss62]

whereas you've shown you care that I don't.

What I care about is responding to a rather simplistic, defiinitive declaration that a particular work of art is a "piece of crap." That's not expressing an opinion, and it certainly is not even an attempt to say WHY you think it is a "piece of crap." I would much rather be a pompous asshole than a person who just delcares things "crap" (or a piece thereof) without saying why. And you obviously must have cared to some extent that I elevated the painting to such historical importance (curiously, I never really declared that it was "good" or that I even I liked it) or you wouldn't have reacted so...well, succinctly.

Besides, I'm actually not that pompous. I'm a high school dropout who worked 10 years of shite jobs before I decided to go to college. I didn't live under a bridge, but I did live in a boarding house and ate hot dogs out of an electric teapot. While in college, I happened to get interested in art and spent a lot of time studying it. I like art and I like discussing it.

Peace

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

What I care about is responding to a rather simplistic, defiinitive declaration that a particular work of art is a "piece of crap." That's not expressing an opinion,

Yes it is.

[JayMcGee]

no, it's a cop-out, HappyMoney.

And indicative not only of a lack of analytical skills, but also of the lack of language skills

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by Buddug

The educated international community understands the power of Picasso's 'Guernica' . Or should . I am afraid that you sound trite , JayMcGee .......

Sorry. I was aware that I was posting on a predominately American board. I may well have over-compensated...

My apologies.

[JayMcGee]

.... oh, and thanks for the Geography lesson..... without that, I would never have put 2 and 2 together and realised that Geurnica, bombed during the Spanish Civil war, was in Spain.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Most real art critics (which is what we all are believe it or not) will tell you that it doesn't matter what the painting meant to the artist, it only matters what it means to you.

If it means something, then appreciate it for that. If it means nothing, then move on to the next one.

And yeah, some galleries would sell a childs painting for a million bucks if they thought they could get away with it, but if someone's silly enough to pay money for something because someone else tells them they should then more fool them in my opinion.

I agree, most of the stuff in the Guggenheim is shit to me...don't know why, I really like a lot of modern art. Their collection just leaves me cold.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

no, it's a cop-out, HappyMoney.

And indicative not only of a lack of analytical skills, but also of the lack of language skills

But it is an opinion.

The brush-work on that painting is so exciting... it is amazing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

What I care about is responding to a rather simplistic, defiinitive declaration that a particular work of art is a "piece of crap." That's not expressing an opinion, and it certainly is not even an attempt to say WHY you think it is a "piece of crap." I would much rather be a pompous asshole than a person who just delcares things "crap" (or a piece thereof) without saying why. And you obviously must have cared to some extent that I elevated the painting to such historical importance (curiously, I never really declared that it was "good" or that I even I liked it) or you wouldn't have reacted so...well, succinctly.

Besides, I'm actually not that pompous. I'm a high school dropout who worked 10 years of shite jobs before I decided to go to college. I didn't live under a bridge, but I did live in a boarding house and ate hot dogs out of an electric teapot. While in college, I happened to get interested in art and spent a lot of time studying it. I like art and I like discussing it.

Peace

A pompous attitude does not require money or storied background.

Back in post seven I said;

I've been told by art "experts", I would like it if I understood it...

That condescending attitude, that my opinion is of no value because I have not been properly educated, which is self evidenced by the fact I don't like the painting, sets me off, unless I happen to be in a verrrry good mood.

When you followed the same vein, I was not in a good mood.

Why is it crap? Because it's ugly, hideous even. When I hear people extol Picasso's virtues, well, that of his work, I'm reminded of snake oil salesmen.

That said, I admit I over reacted and apologize for that.

[Pangloss62]

Because it's ugly, hideous even.

All you have to do is use "I think" before "it's ugly," and then you not only have an opinion, you acknowlege the intrinsic subjectivity of both the reception and criticism of art. Nonetheless, I appreciate your apology and hope you don't always mistake my own opinions as pomposity.

I read John Bolton as more of a Mondrian man, myself. All straight lines, only a couple of differnt colors, no curves, no greys, everything literally colored inside the lines.

OK. Now I WILL be pompous. Mondrian extensively used gray, especially in his rectilinear color studies. But the Bolton analogy still holds. I would still, however, rather look at ANY Mondrian painting than look at Bolton. He strikes me as a real dickwad.

The brush-work on that painting is so exciting... it is amazing.

It's unfortunate that I have never seen the actual painting, only reproductions in books and on posters. Brushwork, as you note, is a key aspect of so many paintings; if you get up really close to, say, a Van Gogh, or even a Rothko, you realize that it's actually a three-dimentional expression.