Why non-artists don't understand art?
category: general [glöplog]
Well I don't care about the monochromatic paintings that are hung on the wall, what is art for me there is the chaotic order you can find in the pattern that those paintings are hung on the wall. See, I don't pretend to get it or anything, if there was only one single black rectangle hung there I'd call it shitty, but a cumulus of those make sense.
but repetitive patterns = computer addiction also ...
"show me what you like , i will tell you what you are." freud/phenomena
"show me what you like , i will tell you what you are." freud/phenomena
Quote:
Yeah, you have to force yourself, or at least pretend, to "get it". And don't under any circumstances suggest that the modern art community is little more than a self-congratulatory bunch of hacks. You're probably the only one who thinks the emperor is naked. Best just play along, right?
tascha's pictures are craft, not art. at least not after what happened during the last 90+ years, from marcel duchamp to joseph kosuth to .... but seriously, it's such a weary discussion that it's not worth it.
oh well, sander already told what i ment to say, better read the whole thread before replying :P
@KKODAK^NE:
Instead of trying to define what is art and what is not, I'm going to try to answer your question of why some people might think Tascha's work is not impressive.
People are impressed mostly by rarity, no matter the activity. Suppose an Olympic games. In each competition, you see 10 or 20 of the best athletes in the world. You will probably never be as good athlete as the less good in that group, but people get only impressed by the one who wins... and maybe by the second and third - who got medals, but who really cares and get excited about the one who was in the last position, or even in a middle position?
Painting is an extremelly populated activity. Much more in its realism/figurative part. In every town with some hundreds or thousands of people, there is at least one average or good painter. You can have hundreds of them in a big populated city, not to say in a full country or in the world.
So, the odds of knowing skilled painters, even in your same area is extremelly high. In the case of Tascha, her work is very skilled, but, it is probably very similar to what the best local painters a person knows do. Also, it is not comparable to the skills of the classic painters.
Let say, just to use some numbers, suppose Tascha is better painter than the 99.99% or 99.999% of the population - rarity 1 in 10,000 or 100,000). Everybody will see that she is good, and that not everybody reach that level, but probably people get impressed only by painters in the 99.99999% - rarity of 1 in 10,000,000 -, or said other way, being one of the very best in your country.
Finally, with Internet, standars are even higher. Now sometimes is not enough to be the best in your country, because people have a lot of fast information all around the world, so, to impress people you need to be of the very best in the world.
If you try a Google search into fantasy art/illustration, you will see that there are already hundreds of extremelly talented and skilled painters on that all around the world.
Instead of trying to define what is art and what is not, I'm going to try to answer your question of why some people might think Tascha's work is not impressive.
People are impressed mostly by rarity, no matter the activity. Suppose an Olympic games. In each competition, you see 10 or 20 of the best athletes in the world. You will probably never be as good athlete as the less good in that group, but people get only impressed by the one who wins... and maybe by the second and third - who got medals, but who really cares and get excited about the one who was in the last position, or even in a middle position?
Painting is an extremelly populated activity. Much more in its realism/figurative part. In every town with some hundreds or thousands of people, there is at least one average or good painter. You can have hundreds of them in a big populated city, not to say in a full country or in the world.
So, the odds of knowing skilled painters, even in your same area is extremelly high. In the case of Tascha, her work is very skilled, but, it is probably very similar to what the best local painters a person knows do. Also, it is not comparable to the skills of the classic painters.
Let say, just to use some numbers, suppose Tascha is better painter than the 99.99% or 99.999% of the population - rarity 1 in 10,000 or 100,000). Everybody will see that she is good, and that not everybody reach that level, but probably people get impressed only by painters in the 99.99999% - rarity of 1 in 10,000,000 -, or said other way, being one of the very best in your country.
Finally, with Internet, standars are even higher. Now sometimes is not enough to be the best in your country, because people have a lot of fast information all around the world, so, to impress people you need to be of the very best in the world.
If you try a Google search into fantasy art/illustration, you will see that there are already hundreds of extremelly talented and skilled painters on that all around the world.
There appears to be limited creativity involved in taschas art, although the quality is very high. To me, it looks exactly as I would expect MMORPG art to look like and that is probably what she is paid to do.
Quote:
i'd also count her as illustrator not as an artist
Quote:
tascha's pictures are craft, not art
Just out of interest: does this mean that you wouldn't consider, say, the Mona Lisa as art by today's standards? I can't see any attribute that the Mona Lisa has which would qualify it as art where Tascha's paintings don't - but maybe that's just me being a philistine.
I think most people in the world would find a definition of "art" that doesn't include the Mona Lisa rather ludicrous (it's the single most stereotypical example of an artwork in the public awareness, after all). Maybe you can argue that the definition of "art" can (and should) change over time, but I don't think that's something that the general public would accept, and I can't think of any other instances of words that change their definition like that. (No, "gay" doesn't count...) Even "technology" has a fixed meaning... a steam engine may not be modern technology, but it's still technology. The Mona Lisa certainly isn't modern art, but it's still art... right?
Still talking about the fantasy tits pictures gasman?
i love playboy too you know, but mona lisa makes me cum easier.
my english is correct ?
i love playboy too you know, but mona lisa makes me cum easier.
my english is correct ?
Every good painter paints what he is. (Jackson Pollock)
in case of painters doing tits and dragons.. that means the painter is a pervert with a rich imagination..
Quote:
i'd also count her as illustrator not as an artist
Quote:
tascha's pictures are craft, not art
I have to second this..
I've shown my gf some of their pictures. She's knows a tad more about history of art than I do, and she pointed out one interesting fact:
The images suffer from "horror vacui" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui
E.g. a naked kneeling woman was not not enough. There need to be a organic fog in the background. Some ancient pillars, A raven sits on the shoulder, some blood-drips on the floor, a skull. Tribal paintings. White feathers on the ground ect. ect.. That's symbolic overkill.
Now take a look at the mona lisa: Is there *anything* that distracts from the portrait of mona?
Got the point?
there simply is no absolute and persistent concept of art. "art" can never be judged without context, that is its relation to traditions, social reality, other works of art and the expectations of different audiences. you won't find a static definition since every static definition would ruin the social impact and potential of art which is in my opinion less a selection of creative and technical skills than a general cultural practise.
texel: olympic games are based on strict rules and - mostly - objective numeric results (if we disregard figure skating...) but if paintings and demos could be metered by a stopwatch and automatically put into the notorious chart rankings of the demoscene, there surely wouldn't be that much need for discussion in the threads after the compos.
taschas paintings assume a general consent within their audience, they supply defined needs and expectations. you won't find surprises here, you won't have the chance to get disturbed or alienated about your viewing habits and you won't be able to think twice about their meaning. that's fine. They represent a serious passion for detailed handmade paintings, but judged by the "art" standard they would be rendered as "kitsch". (which does not mean that i don't like kitsch sometimes.)
but seriously: after more than twenty years of demoscene, why are we still stuck with glamour models wearing animal body parts placed into misty woods?
and I second torus: If a dozen redundant symbols must be used to make sure you get the desired impression, then it's really kitsch.
texel: olympic games are based on strict rules and - mostly - objective numeric results (if we disregard figure skating...) but if paintings and demos could be metered by a stopwatch and automatically put into the notorious chart rankings of the demoscene, there surely wouldn't be that much need for discussion in the threads after the compos.
taschas paintings assume a general consent within their audience, they supply defined needs and expectations. you won't find surprises here, you won't have the chance to get disturbed or alienated about your viewing habits and you won't be able to think twice about their meaning. that's fine. They represent a serious passion for detailed handmade paintings, but judged by the "art" standard they would be rendered as "kitsch". (which does not mean that i don't like kitsch sometimes.)
but seriously: after more than twenty years of demoscene, why are we still stuck with glamour models wearing animal body parts placed into misty woods?
and I second torus: If a dozen redundant symbols must be used to make sure you get the desired impression, then it's really kitsch.
this boils down to the age-old "if you can't do it better, you're in no position to criticise", which is still as wrong as it has always been.
but it mixes up multiple issues. first off, just because i don't appreciate a particular work doesn't mean i don't know (or don't care) about the amount of work involved. but work is a means, not an end. some people are slow workers, some are fast workers. if you can draw something extraordinary in 15 seconds, good for you. if you spend months on a single painting, kudos for your hustle and your dedication, but it won't make it any better, or any worse; the painting just is. the very instant your work is done, the work and its creation become two separate entities; the latter may make for a good story of its own, but if the work can't stand on its own, then it won't, and nobody will care about it in a few years. harsh, maybe, but that's how it is.
second, creating a work of art and appreciating a work of art are two very separate skills - and both take a lot of time and effort to master, make no mistake. for an artist craftsmanship is important, but it's not enough; you need to have something to say, something that drives you, something that compels you to create art. and it's not about consciously trying to say something; it's way deeper than that. (if you try and make do with just the conscious aspects, you end up with stuff like fr- 05: konsum - disjointed, heady, overly preachy, too direct, too artless). if you don't have this voice, then you may become a master craftsman, but your work will always lack that little something that makes it more than the sum of its parts.
criticising art (and i mean criticizing in the original sense here, "discerning", analyzing, interpreting, not necessarily judging) is the other side of that coin. it's a heightened state of perception, seeing the whole and the parts at the same time, putting the puzzle pieces together and seeing what fits and what doesn't, reading between the lines, it all means the same thing. truly great art has all its elements working towards the same goal, every single aspect driving the point across. criticism is about noticing this, about the tingly feeling that truly great works evoke (let's call it "art sense"), but also about being able to verbalize it, about drilling down to exactly what makes it work, about seeing what's in there - even when the artist may not have noticed it's there himself (or herself). and it's also about noticing what doesn't work, what is filler, half-baked or unnecessary, and being able to verbalize that too. criticism is often associated with verbal aggression, and the former is certainly often used as excuse for the latter, but that's a mistake; that verbal aggression is a way to vent the frustration of seeing something that could've been great but failed to. not to say that there's only one way to understand something - what some people call faults, others might say are strokes of brilliance, and both people can be right, even at the same time. criticism and understanding of art are every bit as subjective as creating art is.
nonetheless, it takes both a deep understanding of art and very precise verbal expression to be a good critic, and that's a combination of skills every bit as rare as good artists. both disciplines are swimming in people that are going through the motions but never really getting anywhere. but that doesn't mean that a good critic must necessarily be a good artist, or vice versa. in fact, i'd say the two are dual to each other.
but it mixes up multiple issues. first off, just because i don't appreciate a particular work doesn't mean i don't know (or don't care) about the amount of work involved. but work is a means, not an end. some people are slow workers, some are fast workers. if you can draw something extraordinary in 15 seconds, good for you. if you spend months on a single painting, kudos for your hustle and your dedication, but it won't make it any better, or any worse; the painting just is. the very instant your work is done, the work and its creation become two separate entities; the latter may make for a good story of its own, but if the work can't stand on its own, then it won't, and nobody will care about it in a few years. harsh, maybe, but that's how it is.
second, creating a work of art and appreciating a work of art are two very separate skills - and both take a lot of time and effort to master, make no mistake. for an artist craftsmanship is important, but it's not enough; you need to have something to say, something that drives you, something that compels you to create art. and it's not about consciously trying to say something; it's way deeper than that. (if you try and make do with just the conscious aspects, you end up with stuff like fr- 05: konsum - disjointed, heady, overly preachy, too direct, too artless). if you don't have this voice, then you may become a master craftsman, but your work will always lack that little something that makes it more than the sum of its parts.
criticising art (and i mean criticizing in the original sense here, "discerning", analyzing, interpreting, not necessarily judging) is the other side of that coin. it's a heightened state of perception, seeing the whole and the parts at the same time, putting the puzzle pieces together and seeing what fits and what doesn't, reading between the lines, it all means the same thing. truly great art has all its elements working towards the same goal, every single aspect driving the point across. criticism is about noticing this, about the tingly feeling that truly great works evoke (let's call it "art sense"), but also about being able to verbalize it, about drilling down to exactly what makes it work, about seeing what's in there - even when the artist may not have noticed it's there himself (or herself). and it's also about noticing what doesn't work, what is filler, half-baked or unnecessary, and being able to verbalize that too. criticism is often associated with verbal aggression, and the former is certainly often used as excuse for the latter, but that's a mistake; that verbal aggression is a way to vent the frustration of seeing something that could've been great but failed to. not to say that there's only one way to understand something - what some people call faults, others might say are strokes of brilliance, and both people can be right, even at the same time. criticism and understanding of art are every bit as subjective as creating art is.
nonetheless, it takes both a deep understanding of art and very precise verbal expression to be a good critic, and that's a combination of skills every bit as rare as good artists. both disciplines are swimming in people that are going through the motions but never really getting anywhere. but that doesn't mean that a good critic must necessarily be a good artist, or vice versa. in fact, i'd say the two are dual to each other.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Art has at least two plains - social and personal. The social part of the art is about "getting it", about "being an artist". The personal part has nothing to do with that. Personal side of art doesn't even care about skill. Sometimes an amateur tune which definitely suffers from lack of skill can touch you in ways no other tune can.
Art becomes a problem and something to "get" only when social stuff are involved. As an intimate experience art is an absolutely different country which might have very weird and unknown things on top of the charts simply because those things evoke something beautiful and something important and yet unspeakable.
And, btw, that abstract painting mentioned in the 1st page of the thread is actually quite nice - I want to keep looking at it, it really has something in it. This Tascha's work, on the other hand, while interesting technically, looks more like form. Art is more about content. Her works did not evoke anything in me, but that abstract painting did. To me, the latter is art and Tascha works are just illustrations.
Art becomes a problem and something to "get" only when social stuff are involved. As an intimate experience art is an absolutely different country which might have very weird and unknown things on top of the charts simply because those things evoke something beautiful and something important and yet unspeakable.
And, btw, that abstract painting mentioned in the 1st page of the thread is actually quite nice - I want to keep looking at it, it really has something in it. This Tascha's work, on the other hand, while interesting technically, looks more like form. Art is more about content. Her works did not evoke anything in me, but that abstract painting did. To me, the latter is art and Tascha works are just illustrations.
ryg: very nice analysis, I wholeheartedly agree
This is the best pic ever because it has EVERYTHING:
thec: bah, no tits :(
thec, no cars.
needs more cowbell.
why artists don't understand non-artists?
I think the pictures linked in the original post looks like damn nice art to me.
Same thing with Boris Vallejo pictures that most seem to think is "cheesy".
Nowadays art seems to be about coming up with weird shit that looks like nothing so that pretentious people can stand around and sip wine and pretend to see some deep meaning in it.
Sure, I can appreciate abstract art when it is done right, but still, a true artist should be able to handle the craftmanship part as well (that is, lighting, perspective, proportions etc.)
Same thing with Boris Vallejo pictures that most seem to think is "cheesy".
Nowadays art seems to be about coming up with weird shit that looks like nothing so that pretentious people can stand around and sip wine and pretend to see some deep meaning in it.
Sure, I can appreciate abstract art when it is done right, but still, a true artist should be able to handle the craftmanship part as well (that is, lighting, perspective, proportions etc.)
Artist can generally know that a piece of work is Art simply because they know what is Art.
That non artist don't understant it is perfectly normal. Because Art isn't to speak to the masses about something that they already know, thus many simply believe it's a piece of junk.
To enjoy art in it's modern evolution you need to have an artistic culture.
Art is not something natural.
A child cannot appreciate grand chef cooking and will always say that his mother's fries are tastier...
By the way the pictures in www.tascha.ch are absolutely non artistic at all. Well, they would have be in the mid XVI century... They are beautiful btw. But Art has nothig to deal with beauty.
That non artist don't understant it is perfectly normal. Because Art isn't to speak to the masses about something that they already know, thus many simply believe it's a piece of junk.
To enjoy art in it's modern evolution you need to have an artistic culture.
Art is not something natural.
A child cannot appreciate grand chef cooking and will always say that his mother's fries are tastier...
By the way the pictures in www.tascha.ch are absolutely non artistic at all. Well, they would have be in the mid XVI century... They are beautiful btw. But Art has nothig to deal with beauty.
