Can i have your attention please

[EBristow]

Hi everyone, I am wondering if I can get some of the readers here there opinion. I am working on an essay about art; my topic is how art is perceived differently. My theory is that everyone sees art differently. One might call a piece trash, while it is a treasure to another. What I am wondering is what do you think makes something art. Is it just the person’s name that you see, and automatically think that it is another masterpiece that we should learn more about? How would you teach someone to look at something so they don’t just see a painting, or figure, or a bust?
What about when you are working on your next piece. What ritual do you usually do to mindset yourself to put yourself in the right frame of mind? For example, I myself listen to music that usually sets my mood.
I really appreciate everyone’s input they do give. If you know of any other links that would be useful in my research, please do pass them on.

Izzie

[Scottyarthur]

Hi Izzie, There are many factor to me that make art, so here is a list of things I concider

The creation, from a blank canvas or paper to a blob of clay or peice of wood ect..
The thought pattern behind how to start
The choice of medium(s), colors, subject

A name never dictates that it is a master peice, I think that for a work of art to be a masterpeice all parts must be in harmony together.

We do all see things differently but may like the same thing for different reasons,

One thing I tell non artist is to look at the grass, and ask them what color is it, suprisingly most say green, I ask them to look closer because it is not just green, it may have yellows, reds, blues, purples, browns, same thing with the sky, it is not just blue depending on the atmosphere it can have many colors to it, some very subtle.

normally I go through photos over and over till I find the one I like, then begin to lay in shapes and colors. sometimes I listen to music.

This is how I veiw it

[cjorgensen]

This is a big question!

I think art consists mainly of two elements: craft and “art”.

Craft is how well you can use the materials. For example, you can sew a dress, but can you do it well like a tailor? Or can you do it sloppily? The same with a painting: just slathering oil paint on a canvas to make a picture that somewhat resembles a house does not make it art. It takes a long time to master any craft: woodworking, sculpting, painting, glass blowing, etc. That is why in the olden days they had apprentices who became journeymen and when they had learned everything the master knew, they created a “master piece” and they became a master.

Then there is the “art” side. That is where the creativity comes in. You can make something perfect, like the dress, but it can be boring. “Art” needs something creative and unique about it.

I am a born artist. I know that I see things that other people don’t see. My job as an “artist” is to show the world what I can see. When non-artists see a mountain, they see a brown pile of dirt that is far away. I see blue and lavender, and I see the sun bathing it in golden light. I need to master the craft of handling the oils and brushes so that I can put down what I see so YOU can also see it. Van Gogh and Monet are good examples of this. They saw a beautiful, colorful world and they put it on their canvas so others could see it too. Other artists see other things. Michelangelo closed his eyes and saw God creating Adam, and then he painted it so that we could all see it.

I think the GOAL of all art is to elicit emotion. When someone looks at art, they need to say, “Oh! That is so [real / sad / moving / pretty / peaceful / inspirational / etc.]”

When a person masters the craft of their materials, and can see amazing things, and can put it down in an amazing way, and we are dumbstuck with awe, THAT is art. That is how things get into museums.

Of course, people have different tastes, and different cultures and times have different fashions, but when we see something that is amazing, we know it. We look at cave paintings of animals, and we see the skill and the keen observation, and we KNOW it is art.

Here is a painting of “Floor Scrapers”



I saw this “in person” once and I was dumbstruck by it. It was a huge painting, something like, “life size”. The artist mastered the craft of oils, composition, color relationships, texture, lighting, anatomy, foreshortening and to top it off, he took an ordinary scene and made it breathtakingly beautiful. That is art to me.

Now I re-read your questions:

I agree that everyone sees art “differently”, that some call it trash and some call it “art”. Picasso and the cubists are a good exaple of this. I happen to not like their work, so “I” would call it trash. But I don’t dare do so because the “art community” gives it value.

On the other hand, Van Meegeran forged Vermeers, and once his work was accepted as “priceless Vermeers”, they BECAME priceless Vermeers. But, one of the was traded to Goring during WWII for 200 pieces of stolen art, and he was going to hang for “collaborating with the Nazis”. How was he going to get out of that? Only one way, to tell the word that the painting was worthless trash, and not priceless. Of course, no one believed him so he had to paint another one before their eyes. Then they wondered, “How were the “experts” fooled into thinking this trash was priceless?

Hilter also had “taste” in art. Anything he liked was considered “art” and anything he didn’t like was considered “degenerate”. But he had “bad taste” and labeled great artists are degenerates.

Many people also like Thomas Kinkade and buy his “art”. I think his work is very good – much better than mine. Yet, he paints “kitsch”: cute stuff that decorates walls. I don’t think his work will ever hang in a museum. On the other hand, you have Norman Rockwell. He never considered himself an artist, but always referred to himself as an “illustrator”. His works are well crafted in every sense, enjoyable to look at, and elicit emotions. I think he is an artist and I have seen his work in museums. He painted fun subjects because that was what his clients requested, but he also painted emotionally moving pieces, like the Four Freedoms, and paintings dealing with racial issues.

When I make a painting, I know I want to sell it, so I look for something pretty. But it has to be something that *I* think is pretty. If I paint something that does not appeal to me, it comes out lifeless, no matter how “perfect” it is. I know this because when I paint a picture that someone wants me to do, but I find it boring, it comes out boring. I learned I can’t do that any more. When I DO love the picture, each brush stroke becomes a loving gesture, and the whole painting looks good.

I think it is hard to teach people to appreciate art. I think they either born with an innate appreciation, or they were brought up to appreciate art. I show my work to people and they usually comment on the subject, as in, “I’ve been there”, or “I like your picture of the cat because I like cats”. Only another artist (or craftsman) can say, “I love how you did the eyes on the cat, even thought I don’t like cats”. Even in museums, I hear people say, “I like the pretty dress on that portrait”. I have figure drawing books around the house, and I have heard people see them and say, “Nice boobs”. I think, “Obviously, you are not an artist, because that book is not about ‘boobs’.”

That’s all I can think of to say for now. I hope it helps.

[muchuela]

Hi, Izzi, an interesting question, Scott and Carolyn have put in really interesting thoughts about this difficult topic. Recently I happen to discuss this quite often since I became member of a local art society and joined in the first time for a public show. There for instance have been exposed so many different kinds and styles of painting - how is a "non-skilled" person supposed to judge them? I think they can only say, they like it or they don't, for whatever reason (they like the colors, they like the topic or they just need something colorful to cover the white wall they have at home;-) ).
And I must admit, the same counts for me - as I did not have a special art education, I'm one of the "self-taught" painters and so far do not consider myself an "artist". When I see a painting, I can tell I like it or not - I like the colors, I like the way it's done, maybe I even can see when it is done "skillful" or "light", but that's about it !
Now, besides of the trash or non-trash judgement there is something else. Only recently I learned f.i. that I paint grass not only with one pre factured green color because then it would look "artificial", where we want it to look "natural". As Caroly says sometimes I see something beautiful and I want to bring this beauty down to the paper for others to see it as well. In the meantime I've learned a few techniques (and am struggling with many more) in order to do so. But then there are people who say, I should not just paint "what I see" or what is there..... hmmm!!! So, Carolyn, what you said about the learning process and the masterpiece, I always looked at it he same way but there seems to be still another "dimension" when talking about "ART".

Last week I visited the opening of the exhibition of one of our members. This woman shows a lot of pictures done in several techniques (oil, egg tempera, acrylics) and she has a very "spiritual" way to depict things - there was a real "studied" person who showed us around and explained the pictures but for the live of me I could not understand or see what she told us the artist had wanted to "express" or had thought and felt while painting.

Now I'm not sure, whether there is still hope that one day I will become a "real" artist. (And I'm not sure either whether my english is good enough for this kind of discussion, but I thought I'd give it a try).
So, what is art - is it the "gift", the "talent", the "skill" or whatever we want to call it, to see something and to transform it into a breathtaking picture, to make it seen by others and to "store" it for future people to see -
or is real art something quite different, now that because of modern media the painter has no longer the role of a "story-teller" and there is no longer the need to have paintings to make future people see what happens or how life is in our world ??

Or asked the other way round: is something "real art" just because I take it and depict it in a different way or - f.i. create a sculpture or whatever piece of art as something non-recognizable ??

I think this discussion is one of the never ending stories of our world!!

[billday]

Any form of expression is art in one form or another. In some cultures there is an elitist approach. In others art comes from and is a part of everyone. So about teaching art?... it depends on where you sit in relation to the above statement. BUT to teach people to see beyond a literal image is just a matter of repeated critique, discussion etc... teachers everywhere do it every day. Its harder with some people than others but most get it eventually. I will never agree that artists are born artists and everyone else is a tryhard... pfft. I think its more that most people are artists and are restrained by a range of things in their lives.

How do I prepare? Think about it for ages, wring my hands for a few hours, then start.

[stlukesguild]

My theory is that everyone sees art differently. One might call a piece trash, while it is a treasure to another.

In a great sense art is subjective. Everyone has an opinion. Of course some opinions are better than others. Some are rooted in experience and a knowledge of art. Some aren't.

What I am wondering is what do you think makes something art.

Isn't that the million-dollar question just reworded slightly: "What is art?" To my mind all art begins with craft, whether it is painting, drawing, dancing, photographing, ceramics, using words, sounds, etc... ART is what happens when the end result transcends mere craft and attains something unique (not merely novel) that resonates and communicates beyond the experience of merely impressing with technical skills. ART can have the most humble of origins... or the most aristocratic.

Is it just the person’s name that you see, and automatically think that it is another masterpiece that we should learn more about?

The obsession with the name is part of the cult of personality that has little to do with art. The unknown sculptors who decorated the Romanesque churches, the anonymous glass artists and master architects who built the Gothic cathedrals, and the unknown scribes who created the fantastic medieval illuminated manuscripts are every bit as much "artists" as any well-known art star... if not more so. It is the work that matters, not the name brand.

How would you teach someone to look at something so they don’t just see a painting, or figure, or a bust?

How do you teach someone that art is more than the subject matter or the technical skill at rendering an image or object in an illusionistic manner? This is a long, drawn-out process. A great many never get beyond the seduction of technical skills. Others wrongly imagine that such skills are meaningless. Developing a sophisticated appreciation for art takes time and experience. One might do best to always begin by looking at real art objects in real life.

What about when you are working on your next piece. What ritual do you usually do to mindset yourself to put yourself in the right frame of mind?

There are no "rituals". "There are no tricks in plain and simple faith," this sayeth the bard. There are no tricks in art. I simply get in there and begin working. Indeed, I would suggest that the work of art is rarely ever done. I am continually looking... looking at other art... looking at the world around me... looking while drawing... reading about art.

For example, I myself listen to music that usually sets my mood.

I don't need to be "in the mood"... indeed I find the whole notion to be a rather Romantic idea about how art is made. I don't need to feel sad to paint a sad painting, or angry to paint an angry image. My paintings evolve over weeks... even months. There is no way that I can remain "in the mood" for such an extended period of time.

I am a born artist.

I personally don't believe in the idea of being a "born artist". Painting, drawing, sculpting, etc... are all learned visual languages. I was not born with an understanding of them or a mastery of them. My brain may certainly have been wired in such a way that I can more rapidly grasp certain spatial concepts faster than others... but but art, I would argue, is largely learned. The learning, of course, involves far more than that which we learn about drawing, painting, sculpting under any formal learning situation. For this reason one can be a mster craftsman and yet lack any real vision.

I know that I see things that other people don’t see.

I doubt that, myself. Oh, I certainly agree that no artist... no tow human beings experience the world in the same way. We all are products of our perceptions and our experiences. I would also acknowledge that there are artists who are visionaries or who have a deeper understanding of human relationships or social/political issues than the average person. But there are lawyers and plumbers who are the same. As an artist my ability is to give visual form to my perceptions. An artist is one who creates art. If you are not making art you are not an artist. Thinking deep thoughts and seeing the world in a visionary manner does not make one an artist. Making art does.

I think the GOAL of all art is to elicit emotion. When someone looks at art, they need to say, “Oh! That is so [real / sad / moving / pretty / peaceful / inspirational / etc.]”

Mmmmm... I am always wary of any blanket statements about what art SHOULD be. There are works of art that are complex intellectual puzzles or expressions. There are works of art that attempt to convey the purely sensual... touch, vision, atmosphere. Of course any experience elicits an emotional response. A work of hard edged abstraction may illicit a feeling of boredom. A commercially cranked out work by Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst may result in a feeling of disillusionment... frustration... even anger.

When a person masters the craft of their materials, and can see amazing things, and can put it down in an amazing way, and we are dumbstuck with awe, THAT is art. That is how things get into museums.

To an extent, I agree... but I wonder about the term "amazing". Did Monet really see something "amazing"... or did he have an amazing ability to draw our attention to the simple everyday realities that were there before our eyes? I would also note that while some art employs "amazing" technical prowess, other marvelous works of art are of the most humble manner... but the manner... the form perfectly suits the original vision of the artist.

I agree that everyone sees art “differently”, that some call it trash and some call it “art”. Picasso and the cubists are a good example of this. I happen to not like their work, so “I” would call it trash. But I don’t dare do so because the “art community” gives it value.

Yes... it makes sense to recognize that our personal subjective preferences are not always the same as objective fact. I prefer Bonnard to Matisse or Picasso... but I have no problem with acknowledging that Matisse and Picasso are the greater artists. I will acknowledge Jackson Pollack's status... in spite of the fact that his work does little for me and has nothing to do with what I do as an artist. On the other hand... I recognize that the more recent a work of art or an artist is, the less objective we can be... and the less objective the opinions of the "art community". The recent work has yet to be absorbed by the culture and built upon by later artists... and there are too many external influences... especially money... at work pushing to maintain the reputation of this or that artist.

When I make a painting, I know I want to sell it, so I look for something pretty. But it has to be something that *I* think is pretty. If I paint something that does not appeal to me, it comes out lifeless, no matter how “perfect” it is. I know this because when I paint a picture that someone wants me to do, but I find it boring, it comes out boring. I learned I can’t do that any more. When I DO love the picture, each brush stroke becomes a loving gesture, and the whole painting looks good.

Of course the art lies not in the subject matter but in what you do with it. I choose to paint what I paint because I have the option... because I can. Great portraitists such as Van Dyck and Sargent or artists who painted yet another Madonna and child on commission did no always have this option. And yet they recognized that the art wasn't in the subject... it was in the search for the ideal composition, the play of colors, the movement of the line, the touch of the brush, etc... I am certain that if I were forced to paint flowers I would find something to engage me in the creation of such. I was without a studio for some 2 years during which time I was forced to abandon my love of large figurative painting. I turned to creating small, abstract collages and discovered an entire world of untold possibilities that ended impacting my work in ways I might have never guessed when I returned to the figurative paintings.

I think it is hard to teach people to appreciate art. I think they either born with an innate appreciation, or they were brought up to appreciate art. I show my work to people and they usually comment on the subject, as in, “I’ve been there”, or “I like your picture of the cat because I like cats”. Only another artist (or craftsman) can say, “I love how you did the eyes on the cat, even thought I don’t like cats”. Even in museums, I hear people say, “I like the pretty dress on that portrait”. I have figure drawing books around the house, and I have heard people see them and say, “Nice boobs”. I think, “Obviously, you are not an artist, because that book is not about ‘boobs’.”

I don't believe that the subject can or even should be ignored... even by the artist. There are paintings where the subject does attract attention... where I cannot help but notice the gorgeous dress... albeit, what I am admiring is how brilliantly the artist painted that dress. We teach children something of literature in school... we have then read Poe and Whitman and Shakespeare in the hope that some will gain an appreciation for language and metaphor and literary construction... but we offer little such exposure to art. Few people outside of artists and art lovers are exposed to the idea that one might appreciate the the artist's touch, the use of color, the use of line... and that one might interpret the subject matter through these abstract elements. At the same time... nothing wrong with the appreciation of boobs. renoir admitted that he never would have become a painter were it not for boobs.

[stlukesguild]

I will never agree that artists are born artists and everyone else is a tryhard... pfft. I think its more that most people are artists and are restrained by a range of things in their lives.

Exactly!

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up. ~Pablo Picasso

I think Baudelaire said as much before him.

[it'sALLart]

"Artist" is a broad term. Some are born with talents for drawing, some for playing an instrument, etc... As hard as it may be to accept, many are born with absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a true thing.

[EBristow]

You guys and gals are awsome. Thanks so much for helping me!

[billday]

Ah - but does the fact that you are not born with an innate talent mean you can't aquire that talent later in life. That can happen at least two ways - by hard work or by some event that rewires the brain.

[it'sALLart]

IMO, you can't "learn" talent. It might seem like re-wiring, but it was simply there all along, waiting.

You can, however, learn skill, craft, technique, method, process, etc. but all the hard work in the world isn't going to create talent. You either have it or you don't.

It's the difference between knitting a sweater and creating a masterpiece. Given enough time, anyone can learn to knit something. But not everyone can create a Sistine Chapel ceiling, write War & Peace or compose The Moldau.

[cjorgensen]

Hi St. Luke's Guild,

Thank you for commenting on my random essay about "what is art". I love your website and I have learned a lot from it.