mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Why is it Wharhol's Campbell tin so important? Options
loureed4
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 3:15:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
I always thought that "art" was referred to "what is difficult to do , what is impressive and unique."

Then now you see those one-color paints, hanged on a museum's walls.

Or for the matter, Wharhol makes a three-picture paint about Elvis or Mao or Marylin Monroe, and that is considered to be art.

To me, art is where you are amazed and say: "Wow!!"

What are your thoughts on this? . I am somewhat confused.
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 4:57:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
loureed4 wrote:

To me, art is where you are amazed and say: "Wow!!"
What are your thoughts on this? . I am somewhat confused.


Hi Loureed, I think sometime in the 50's people began looking at works and saying, "WTF, that's art?
But somewhere along the way the question mark was lost.
pedro
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:52:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022


The first time I went to a Rothko exhibition I misguidedly spent much concentrated time focusing on the seats in the middle of the gallery. I wouldn't worry too much about the 'Art' status, after all postmodern litcrits think that the full stops and spaces are at least as important as the rest of the 'Text'
Ah! now I remember why I was staring at the seats..



[image not available]

Elvandil
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 7:33:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/5/2014
Posts: 339
Neurons: 151,436
Location: East Montpelier, Vermont, United States
Art is very hard to define. In almost all cases, it is something that expresses the emotions or thoughts of its maker, but does not necessarily have any practical purpose. Warhol's soup can used to leave me empty just as it seems to do to you. But then I began to see that it represented something, was an icon of an age and a symbol of a consumerist society. When I saw a poster of it on a wall in a Korean teenager's bedroom, I began to see how it has spread its meaning world-wide. Even if art doesn't look "difficult", it may spring from something deep inside the artist, and it may well have been "difficult" for him or her. A child's badly-formed lump of clay may well be as meaningful to him as anything you might consider "difficult". Art is emotion and impression made flesh.

Medicine is often said to be half art and half science. I think that in that context, the "art" part refers to physical skills, difficult to define, and acquired over time. A soup can may seem simple to many, but I'm pretty sure that I couldn't draw one like Warhol's. ;-)
IMcRout
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:39:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/27/2011
Posts: 35,380
Neurons: 563,379
Location: Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
loureed4, did you know that Lou Reed was a very close friend of Andy Warhol's?

Art has always also been involved in social criticism and not only been just about beauty or the glory of god. You will see many examples when you go through the Prado in Madrid. Velázquez and Goya are very well-known examples of artists who were critical of their contemporaries and the political system they lived in. I am sure, you'll find some proof in Sevilla, as well.

A life-like picture of a tin of soup was something revolutionary in the 60s.
People began to see differently and perceive their environment with different eyes, not unlike van Gogh, Renoir or Picasso - to name but a few - who forced their contemporaries to adopt a different perspective.

I think just this very discussion shows that it is worth thinking about it.
pedro
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 9:46:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
Andy Warhol tragically died before he could develop his Covent Garden school.
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:01:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
IMcRout wrote:
A life-like picture of a tin of soup was something revolutionary in the 60s.
People began to see differently and perceive their environment with different eyes,

LOLOL Yes they most certainly did. Especially folks like Warhol, Thompson, and Leary.

loureed4
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:05:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
Thanks all.

Yes, IMcRout, I knew they (Lou Reed and Andy Wharhol) were really closed friends.

So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?

A novel can be great for what it says about society, because it criticizes the society we live in, but....there must be some beauty in such novel, mustn't it ?



pedro
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:47:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
loureed4 wrote:
T

So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?




I think the mid to late 20th century marked a move from heart to head in all art forms. Think Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, Boulez etc in music,
Joyce, Beckett, Burroughs, Vonnegut in literature and..I'm not sure where we begin with new art forms such as cinema, but I know I've wasted plenty of revisits before DVD's were invented to attempt understanding some of the obscurer films. There has to be something compelling in such works, but it can be more discordant than in romantic works. Perhaps it reflects our now predominantly urban surroundings in all their noise and unsightliness.
IMcRout
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:21:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/27/2011
Posts: 35,380
Neurons: 563,379
Location: Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
loureed4 wrote
Quote:
So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?


No, not necessarily. I don't mind art also being beautiful, but it's not the only and not the most important criterion for me.

I want art to change me, to make me a different person from the one I was before looking at an exhibit, even if only a tiny little bit. It can be something beautiful, which I admire and which gives me pleasant feelings.
It can also be something ugly, terrible or horrifying, which can make me think about the artist's motives or the reason why I'm impressed or even depressed.

But I am quite aware that many people look at this differently.
And they are welcome to it.

tootsie
Posted: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:56:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2010
Posts: 6,883
Neurons: 23,730

Quote:
De gustibus non est disputandum



It is difficult to explain why different people like different things, especially things that you do not like. If it amazes you and makes you go "wow", surely that's all that matters.



loureed4
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 9:54:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
pedro wrote:
loureed4 wrote:
T

So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?




I think the mid to late 20th century marked a move from heart to head in all art forms. Think Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, Boulez etc in music,
Joyce, Beckett, Burroughs, Vonnegut in literature and..I'm not sure where we begin with new art forms such as cinema, but I know I've wasted plenty of revisits before DVD's were invented to attempt understanding some of the obscurer films. There has to be something compelling in such works, but it can be more discordant than in romantic works. Perhaps it reflects our now predominantly urban surroundings in all their noise and unsightliness.


......

Yes, specially in music....has it not to be beautiful to be called "piece of art" ?

When I listen to Stravinsky , well, I just don't feel that is beautiful, I love: Beatles, David Bowie, Bjork, Neil Young, Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and so on, and at the same times some beautiful pieces from Chopin, Mozart, Brahms, Bach... and again: There is beauty on them, instant beauty, not strange-soundig music, "from the head", as you put it.

I didn't understand when you said: "I've wasted plenty of time of revisits..." . Would you mind rephrasing it? , probably it is my English (I am Spanish), sorry !

Also, is it too much to ask for you to elaborate on this?: "...Perhaps it reflects our now predominantly urban surroundings in all their noise and unsightliness...." , it seems an interesting reflection.

loureed4
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 9:58:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
IMcRout wrote:
loureed4 wrote
Quote:
So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?


No, not necessarily. I don't mind art also being beautiful, but it's not the only and not the most important criterion for me.

I want art to change me, to make me a different person from the one I was before looking at an exhibit, even if only a tiny little bit. It can be something beautiful, which I admire and which gives me pleasant feelings.
It can also be something ugly, terrible or horrifying, which can make me think about the artist's motives or the reason why I'm impressed or even depressed.

But I am quite aware that many people look at this differently.
And they are welcome to it.





I somehow agree, but not enterily: "The scream" , by Munch, it may depress you, but it is still beautiful.

Also: Think of those one-colour paintings...how can one know that that is art?, Does that move you ?

loureed4
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 5:34:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
I have just seen Rothko, and... I guess I will be regarded as an iliterated person but ...Could a child do that too?.

I feel really iliterate now.
Allana
Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 5:56:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/14/2014
Posts: 693
Neurons: 621,360
Location: Saint Albans, England, United Kingdom
I was once told that the purpose of art was to invoke a reaction; and that the nature of the reaction did not matter. It was the fact of the reaction that was important. Even disgust or hatred are valid responses. If an object makes you think, then it is art.
By that criterion, Tracey Emin's bed was art even though some of us thought it both disgusting and shameful.
loureed4
Posted: Sunday, December 7, 2014 4:45:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
Allana wrote:
I was once told that the purpose of art was to invoke a reaction; and that the nature of the reaction did not matter. It was the fact of the reaction that was important. Even disgust or hatred are valid responses. If an object makes you think, then it is art.
By that criterion, Tracey Emin's bed was art even though some of us thought it both disgusting and shameful.





I often hear that too, about the impact, but then I think: Music must have an impact on you indeed, but it has to be beautiful to your ears, you have to feel it is beautiful, so, in music, beauty is a feature of art, in my view.

Then I see this two-color paintings and think (feeling kind of guilty and iliterate): "Can this truly move someone?"

Or those painting by Pollock...gee, there is when I feel: "I must be dumb to not understand this great painting."


Romany
Posted: Sunday, December 7, 2014 8:47:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,740
Neurons: 57,489
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Loureed,

I once had a brilliant friend who was an artist. But we were both only 18 and she wanted to break into the Art world. So she enlisted my help and bought a very large canvas. The we got people to walk all over it. She sent it off to one of the most prestigious Art competitions in the land...and won hands down. We walked around the gallery where it was hung and listened to critics waxing eloquently to people about what it meant and what its significance was until we had to run outside and collapse in helpless giggles in the street. "It was only feet" we kept spluttering.

But it did launch her and she is now a very august and highly respected member of the art elite and winner of many National and International awards. But it taught me a huge lesson and I've never, since, been afraid to suggest that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30343083
Is rather a long article, but the first part is about theatre. If you'd like to read the part about Art further down I'm sure it won't make you feel 'dumb' or 'art illiterate' ever again!!
loureed4
Posted: Sunday, December 7, 2014 10:03:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
Thanks a lot Romany !!

I was watching this, to educate myself on this, but I will read the article you suggest.

What is Abstract Art? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kdzGAjG26s

eDaddy
Posted: Sunday, December 7, 2014 9:42:32 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/8/2012
Posts: 2
Neurons: 10
To me "Art" is a creative activity that keps people from other activities harmful to others.
pedro
Posted: Monday, December 8, 2014 6:31:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
loureed4 wrote:
pedro wrote:
loureed4 wrote:
T

So, "beauty" is not necessarily a feature of art ?




I think the mid to late 20th century marked a move from heart to head in all art forms. Think Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, Boulez etc in music,
Joyce, Beckett, Burroughs, Vonnegut in literature and..I'm not sure where we begin with new art forms such as cinema, but I know I've wasted plenty of revisits before DVD's were invented to attempt understanding some of the obscurer films. There has to be something compelling in such works, but it can be more discordant than in romantic works. Perhaps it reflects our now predominantly urban surroundings in all their noise and unsightliness.





......

Yes, specially in music....has it not to be beautiful to be called "piece of art" ?

When I listen to Stravinsky , well, I just don't feel that is beautiful, I love: Beatles, David Bowie, Bjork, Neil Young, Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and so on, and at the same times some beautiful pieces from Chopin, Mozart, Brahms, Bach... and again: There is beauty on them, instant beauty, not strange-soundig music, "from the head", as you put it.

I didn't understand when you said: "I've wasted plenty of time of revisits..." . Would you mind rephrasing it? , probably it is my English (I am Spanish), sorry !

Also, is it too much to ask for you to elaborate on this?: "...Perhaps it reflects our now predominantly urban surroundings in all their noise and unsightliness...." , it seems an interesting reflection.




Thanks for your comments loureed4. You didn't mention Lou Reed for obvious reasons. The revisits are physical revisits and further parting of money to go and see the same film because a)it was so obscure or b)We just missed the first showing and spent the spare time in the bar waiting for the next one (with predictable results given that it was a long film).
loureed4
Posted: Monday, December 8, 2014 7:45:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
Romany wrote:
Loureed,

I once had a brilliant friend who was an artist. But we were both only 18 and she wanted to break into the Art world. So she enlisted my help and bought a very large canvas. The we got people to walk all over it. She sent it off to one of the most prestigious Art competitions in the land...and won hands down. We walked around the gallery where it was hung and listened to critics waxing eloquently to people about what it meant and what its significance was until we had to run outside and collapse in helpless giggles in the street. "It was only feet" we kept spluttering.

But it did launch her and she is now a very august and highly respected member of the art elite and winner of many National and International awards. But it taught me a huge lesson and I've never, since, been afraid to suggest that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30343083
Is rather a long article, but the first part is about theatre. If you'd like to read the part about Art further down I'm sure it won't make you feel 'dumb' or 'art illiterate' ever again!!







I read the article ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30343083 ) , but I am not sure that many people agree on it.

I also found this (quite shocking to me):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhjtGFvsuQ


loureed4
Posted: Monday, December 8, 2014 7:52:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/10/2014
Posts: 155
Neurons: 1,760
Location: Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain
pedro wrote:

Thanks for your comments loureed4. You didn't mention Lou Reed for obvious reasons. The revisits are physical revisits and further parting of money to go and see the same film because a)it was so obscure or b)We just missed the first showing and spent the spare time in the bar waiting for the next one (with predictable results given that it was a long film).




Sorry if I got it wrong but...you mean to say that because of the movie was so obscure, you somehow felt like watching it? , because the critics say how amazing it was?

I remember watching "El perro Andaluz" by Buñuel, to me: not a piece of art whatsoever ; but maybe I missed something about it, I am just an iliterate guy who cannot grasp how amazing "El perro andaluz" is because...[explanation about the value of the movie]


Absurdicuss
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:22:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,884
Neurons: 30,654
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States

Romany, Your account of the feat of artistry, featuring feet, understandably evoked from the souls of it's viewers, questions concerning the underlying meaning of the canvassed soles before them, with never a thought that a ruse was afoot.

Your tale got me thinking that "art", being a thoroughly subjective thing, the boundaries of which are dynamic and fluid, one must wonder how many people are required to determine whether or not a particular piece is art or rubbish.




Romany
Posted: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:08:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,740
Neurons: 57,489
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Abs - very punny!!

But, yes, I've always been grateful for learning that lesson so early. If you're interested, you can look up Davida Allen's work and you might even find the image I was talking about.

As to determining how many people are needed to determine if a piece of art is rubbish? Well, it doesn't seem to work that way.

Once upon a time, when Australia was still very uncertain about its foothold in the world of "Cultcha" the Government bought, at a cost of millions of dollars, a piece of art called "Blue Poles" (I'm sure it will be on Google Image). Practically the whole population of Australia rose up when they saw it, and decried it, if not as absolute rubbish, then at least as having as much artistic merit as the student offering that can be picked up for a few quid at any market.

Did no good. The small coterie of culture-vultures who had advised its purchase simply told the whole population of Australia that they were all uncultured knobs!
Antonia40
Posted: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:39:03 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 3/12/2013
Posts: 46
Neurons: 576
Location: Košice, Kosicky, Slovakia
to everyone:

i have read about this topic a few books, and i have visited the traditionaĺ and modern galleries to compare the old paintings and modern fine art.

there are various streams of the fine art, not only old paintings form the period of reinessance or gothic...
there exists also moderna, postmoderna and antimoderna where belongs expresionism,cubism,fauvism, and also mentioned pop art with the Campbell soup tin.

the core of the old paintings - the basic sense and goal/ focus was to explain and to show the beauty, but later- after year 1900 it was about the communication - what does the artist tell to the public and it was not only beauty,but also awfull things, to which he wanted to pay attention - the politics critisizing the war and other senses...

the decorative sense of old paintings focusing on the beauty are already dead, not actual.

Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:31:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,427
Neurons: 228,163
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Great story Romany!

This bit of your (or "The BBC's") article struck a chord with me:
"So powerful is the impetus towards the collective fake that it is now rare to be a finalist for the Turner Prize without producing some object or event that shows itself to be art only because nobody would conceivably think it to be so until the critics have said that it is."

This is 'Blue Poles Number 11'


I knew a guy who was quite a well-known avant-garde artist.

He had a 'studio' which was one long, narrow room with twelve (I think) canvasses - six on each side - and an office chair (one of those on wheels).
His 'technique' was to load his brush with one colour and move down the room putting a bit of that colour on all the canvasses, then come back up the room with a new brush and new colour. Each canvas was, in the end, unique - each picture was different. I'm sure someone could spend weeks figuring out what the artist was trying to communicate . . .
Jadesqr
Posted: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:21:54 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 6/2/2014
Posts: 58
Neurons: 25,255
Location: Carolina Beach, North Carolina, United States
Aaannndd, the question remains. Is it art?

Todays world makes it possible to 'photo shop' a can of soup, or a can of anything else, as long as it doesn't plagiarize someones 'copyright'. But is it art?

The eye of the beholder may then become the deciding factor, and of course, how much one is willing to pay for it.

Ia the real value of the picture in the value, or is it appreciation?

You each be the judge.

Just saying.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.