Jackson Pollock, Autumn Rhythm (No. 30), 1950, enamel on canvas, 8.75' x 17.25'. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Photo taken from Google.- "It looks like a first-grader did that!"
- "What does it mean? How can it mean anything if it doesn't look like anything?"
- "I like art that looks like time and effort when into making it."
In my experience, when people hear "art" they think of something heroic like this:
Jacques-Louis David, Oath of the Horatii, 1784, oil on canvas, 10'10" x 14'. Louvre, Paris.Or they expect something extraordinarily "real" looking, like this:
William Kalf, Still-Life with a Nautilus Cup, 1662, oil on canvas, 31" x 26". Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid.
William Kalf, Still-Life with a Nautilus Cup, 1662, oil on canvas, 31" x 26". Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid.Or, they want something that has symbols that, once understood, enrich our understanding of the scene. (White lilies = Virgin's purity, for example):
Robert Campin and assistants, Annunciation, central panel of the Merode Altarpiece, 1427, oil on wood, 25 1/4" x 24 7/8". Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Robert Campin and assistants, Annunciation, central panel of the Merode Altarpiece, 1427, oil on wood, 25 1/4" x 24 7/8". Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.So once a person is presented with a piece like Jackson Pollock's Autumn Rhythm, the initial response is suspicion. How can something like that "mean" anything? And it doesn't look like it took any effort or talent to make it! Worse yet, the extraordinarily cynical 21st century mindset is that someone is out to make them look foolish by not "getting it," or that Pollock was out to make a quick buck the easiest way possible.
Here, I'd like to address from where people's ideas (misconceptions, really) stem. Subsequent posts will address the complaints introduced at the beginning of this entry, and then someday, we'll discuss Pollock.
Everyone remembers someone from K-12 that was considered a great artist. This would be the person who won the class contests for No Smoking campaigns, the person's whose lecture-time doodles were remarkably naturalistic, or the person who was voted "Best Artist" during high school. This person always created art that was recognizable - their apples looked JUST LIKE apples, for example. Your apples never looked like real apples, and despite how hard you tried, you never won the elementary school poster contest. The rewards this person garnerned (Best Poster, Best Artist, etc.) led you to conclude that art needs to be a pretty good imitation of real life for it to be considered "good."
No matter that the fourth grade teacher who chose the winner for the poster contest has no artistic background whatsoever, and that the same people who voted for "Best Artist" are the same losers who prevented you from RSVP-ing for your high school reunion.
Then, your pop culture consciousness becomes more acute. You notice that in movies/tv, the pretentious and elitist people hang out in strangely clinical art galleries, work in auction houses, and wear funky eyeglasses. These people say things like, "This really conveys the alienation the artist was feeling at the time. So existentialist yet hopeful" while standing in front of a terrible piece of abstract art. This made you feel bad because you didn't know what existentialism was, and you didn't know how someone could "see" it in the painting. The show Law & Order is especially guilty of this stereotype. These black-clad losers are usually somehow made out to be the fool - they didn't know that the suspect was an embezzler! - and then another seed is planted: modern art appreciators may "see" something in a bunch of squiggles, but they are also tools. And you, sir, are no tool.
Plus, in college, you hated the art students. They smelled like a weird combination of cigarettes, turpentine, and sandalwood. They were losers who weren't very articulate in explaining their art and "what it means." Plus, you were suspicious of anyone who didn't major in anything highly practical like political science or physical therapy. Maybe you took an intro art history class for your humanities requirement and it killed your GPA. All in all, your life has been just fine without art and you don't need or want it. Anyways, you prefer black-and-white photography ever since you saw a coffee table book about Ansel Adams.
And then finally, you read in the news about the latest art auction. A "masterpiece" like this was just sold for $72.8 million:
Mark Rothko, White Center (Yellow, Pink, Lavender on Rose), 1950, oil on canvas, dimensions unknown. Private collection. Sold by Sotheby's in 2007.
Here, I'd like to address from where people's ideas (misconceptions, really) stem. Subsequent posts will address the complaints introduced at the beginning of this entry, and then someday, we'll discuss Pollock.
Everyone remembers someone from K-12 that was considered a great artist. This would be the person who won the class contests for No Smoking campaigns, the person's whose lecture-time doodles were remarkably naturalistic, or the person who was voted "Best Artist" during high school. This person always created art that was recognizable - their apples looked JUST LIKE apples, for example. Your apples never looked like real apples, and despite how hard you tried, you never won the elementary school poster contest. The rewards this person garnerned (Best Poster, Best Artist, etc.) led you to conclude that art needs to be a pretty good imitation of real life for it to be considered "good."
No matter that the fourth grade teacher who chose the winner for the poster contest has no artistic background whatsoever, and that the same people who voted for "Best Artist" are the same losers who prevented you from RSVP-ing for your high school reunion.
Then, your pop culture consciousness becomes more acute. You notice that in movies/tv, the pretentious and elitist people hang out in strangely clinical art galleries, work in auction houses, and wear funky eyeglasses. These people say things like, "This really conveys the alienation the artist was feeling at the time. So existentialist yet hopeful" while standing in front of a terrible piece of abstract art. This made you feel bad because you didn't know what existentialism was, and you didn't know how someone could "see" it in the painting. The show Law & Order is especially guilty of this stereotype. These black-clad losers are usually somehow made out to be the fool - they didn't know that the suspect was an embezzler! - and then another seed is planted: modern art appreciators may "see" something in a bunch of squiggles, but they are also tools. And you, sir, are no tool.
Plus, in college, you hated the art students. They smelled like a weird combination of cigarettes, turpentine, and sandalwood. They were losers who weren't very articulate in explaining their art and "what it means." Plus, you were suspicious of anyone who didn't major in anything highly practical like political science or physical therapy. Maybe you took an intro art history class for your humanities requirement and it killed your GPA. All in all, your life has been just fine without art and you don't need or want it. Anyways, you prefer black-and-white photography ever since you saw a coffee table book about Ansel Adams.
And then finally, you read in the news about the latest art auction. A "masterpiece" like this was just sold for $72.8 million:
Mark Rothko, White Center (Yellow, Pink, Lavender on Rose), 1950, oil on canvas, dimensions unknown. Private collection. Sold by Sotheby's in 2007.This pisses you off. You work REALLY HARD at your job for not nearly enough money, and some white guy who committed suicide someone still managed to make more money than you'll ever see in your life. "WHAT?!" you screech, "that doesn't look like anything!" And you remember your crushing defeat in the fifth grade JUST SAY NO poster contest and before you know it, the words come rushing out of your mouth: "It looks like a first grader made that!"
In this little narrative, I've managed to touch on when/how people come into contact with art: primary school, pop culture, college, and the media. At no time was there any type of thoughtful inquiry or insight into the production, history, and reception of art. Admittedly, this type of information is rarely introduced at the K-12 level, and as my earlier post indicates, there are some real problems with the survey course at the undergraduate level. The only time the mainstream media discusses art is is to exclaim "look how much this PAINTING fetched at auction" without explaining the history and technique of the object, or explaining the mechanisms of the bloated/weird art market. And sadly, there are some really inarticulate/pretentious people in art who like to pretend that only a privileged few can truly understand art. (FWIW, these people usually feel that way as a defense mechanism to those who tell them that their beloved art "looks like a first grader made it. Or they're tools.) So it isn't really surprising that the average person doesn't really know where to begin when to look at a work of art.
In this little narrative, I've managed to touch on when/how people come into contact with art: primary school, pop culture, college, and the media. At no time was there any type of thoughtful inquiry or insight into the production, history, and reception of art. Admittedly, this type of information is rarely introduced at the K-12 level, and as my earlier post indicates, there are some real problems with the survey course at the undergraduate level. The only time the mainstream media discusses art is is to exclaim "look how much this PAINTING fetched at auction" without explaining the history and technique of the object, or explaining the mechanisms of the bloated/weird art market. And sadly, there are some really inarticulate/pretentious people in art who like to pretend that only a privileged few can truly understand art. (FWIW, these people usually feel that way as a defense mechanism to those who tell them that their beloved art "looks like a first grader made it. Or they're tools.) So it isn't really surprising that the average person doesn't really know where to begin when to look at a work of art.
So before this blog can go any further, I ask of you, dear reader, to examine your own views about art: What comes to mind when you think "art"? Where did you get those images or ideas? What types of experiences have you had with art? How much do you really know about the production, history, or reception of art?
And then, once you've thought about your own biases and preconceptions, we can start discussing art with an open mind.
And then, once you've thought about your own biases and preconceptions, we can start discussing art with an open mind.
6 comments:
I think that this blog is a very true and accurate examination of how many people feel about art in our day and age. I was particularly struck by the part about how Mark Rothkos painting sold for 72.8 million. I do myself feel that the amount is certainly exorbinate. But I do value and appreciate the work of pop artists, and abstract expressionists. I feel this because I can see (whether it is true or not) emotion and thought in such works, and becasue I myself have tried to create beautiful abstract works and have not come anywhere close to the brilliance of Rothko, Pollack, or Duchamp. Through their pieces I can still see the skill that went into their art and for that I find the ability to appreciate their work and to dig for the meaning behind it.
Upon examining my own views of art I find that I tend to appreciate renissance art ,cubism, expressionism and realism more than any other forms. This is true for me becasue I like to be able to look at a picture, know what it means, see the skill that went into it by the mark of the brush or what have you, and then feel the emotion that it portrays. Such things are are what defines good art to me. I wouldnt say that I hold much bias agains pop art or other forms- but to me they just arent as clear cut, or as beautiful. I think I reached this opinion after my first college art class. I tried long and hard to appreciate pop art but it was certainly difficult. I much preferred to see a picture of a ship sailing a turbulant ocean in a storm against a cliff face than a silk screen picture of marilyn monroe. I havent had alot of experience with art as from the time I was a little girl I knew that I wasnt a good artist so I gave up on it. I saw that even when I colored with crayons my lines were harder and sloppier than others, as such I took the sideline approach and simply appreciated what others were created. I have had one college level course and it certainly broadened my horizon where art is concerned because the class opened my mind to the beaty of lines of symmatry- ans so now when I look at a picture I look for them and try to appreciate them alone. I would say that I know a little about the history of art from the class that I took but that there is still much I have to learn.
I had to laugh when I read this blog. I have always thought it is fascinating that art can incite such outrage. But it demonstrates just how powerful that art is.
One of the most profound things I ever read about art was Man Ray's recollection of his own growth as an artist. He wrote about a child who was looking at a painting he was just completing. It was a still life and he was putting the finishing touches on it while the child looked on. He recalled that the painting was technically perfect. The color and shape of the fruit was a perfect reproduction of the subject, etc. He knew the child would be impressed. But instead, the child looked the the bowl of fruit on the table and then the bowl of fruit on the canvas and asked him,"why would you want two of the same thing?"
I loved this. It points out that the artist has a responsibilty of being brave enough to show us what he sees through his artistic eyes. This is what creating is all about.
After reading this blog I have come to the conclusion that the topic of art will always be controversial among our society. Everyone has their own opinion about certain things, and when it comes to art which can be a very outgoing, not always appropriate subject, people always tend to agree to disagree. I would have to say that the very beginning of this blog is what most caught my eye, or was the area that I could identify with. I thought the three statements and or complaints about art made after 1890 were quite funny and very true.
When I think of art, I think of Leonardo Da Vinci, or Michelangelo. I also think of Andy Warhol, or Jackson Pollock. I think of artists and or their artworks that made the most impact on me. I could be considered naive when saying that, because here I am listing some of the most well known artists in our society, but their art is true art in my eyes, that is my opinion. I have had only wonderful, teaching, growing experiences with art. Having been raised in a very artistic and creative family helped. I would love to learn more about the history of art, the areas of history that are not very well known. I want to broaden my knowledge of art history.
I relate to all of the ill feelings and stereotypes mentioned in this blog. Many times, I find myself associating the word art with high-end galleries filled with stuffy couples who nod and pretend that they understand what the meaning is behind the painting that they're looking at when really, they have no clue. It's a stereotypical way of thinking about art and I try to challenge this view and remind myself that, “no, it means much more than that.” I think people become easily cynical when they encounter things they don't relate to, or things that aren't meant to be simply understood. It's apart of our human nature to “defend” ourselves. When we are challenged by something that we can't comprehend, we immediately blame the “offender” and write it off as something that is not worth our time. And I believe that statement is true for many people who confront art.
My first encounter with art occurred when I was ten years old. My mom decided that I needed to take this art history class at our local library. From what I remember, I found the art that we had been studying to be quite boring(Renaissance, Gothic, and Baroque pieces are not very exciting when you're a kid.) It never interested me until we got to the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists.(I remember seeing Van Gogh's Starry Night for the first time and thinking that it was the most stunning thing I had ever seen.) I loved Monet, Renoir, Degas, and Cassatt. We barely had the chance to cover Cubism before I had to quit the class because it overlapped with my karate lessons. Since then, art was always something I considered to be “important” but not important enough for me to take the time to continue studying. My next run-in with art came ten years later at UW-Milwaukee when I took the Art Survey course. I was only taking the class to knock off some of my required arts credits. I wasn't particularly excited about it, but as the class progressed I really started to enjoy it. Obviously, I didn't remember much about the backgrounds or meanings of the paintings that I had seen in my first class, so it was really refreshing to see a painting I had remembered and learn something significant about it. I gained a fair ammount of information from that class, but I know that I've barley even touched the surface of the vast history, production, and reception of art.
After reading each "complain about art made after 1980" I said to myself, "Yep, I've said that." I do believe that anyone can be an artist, so many times my statements are premature, however it can be frustrating when I don't see the big deal of certain modern pieces. I enjoy Cubism and Impressionsm the most out of all the painting styles, but that doesn't mean other styles are completely irrelevant. The thing I love about art and art history is that anyone can look at a work of art and see something, or in some cases nothing. It's only once you have learned about the background behind the work, the setting, the reason why it was commissioned, can you truly begin to understand the work. Most of the time. That's why I have signed up for this class. I want to learn more about the actual paintings and works themselves so that I can form my own intelligent opinion.
By examining this blog post, the part that stood out to me the most is how the writer touched upon the introduction into art, and who is/are the portrayer(s) or teacher(s) in each person’s life. Who showed you your first Monet or Picasso? Each have very different styles and attitudes, yet both pieces are trying to portray a meaning. Analyzing a portrait, and evaluating its time period or movement can show so much more understanding of the piece, rather than simply taking a class to the art museum without any knowledge of what or why they may be looking at this picture. In the shortest explanation, what people don’t understand; they tend to have an aversion to. I have taken a number of Art classes, where I had devoted teachers giving me an in depth explanation and information on different Art. I can never truly grab every artist’s motive that he/she is trying to portray or their specific purpose. However, understanding that there is a purpose, and trying to see it, or create one in your mind, is the most important aspect to me.
Post a Comment