Jamie123
Veteran
Aren't schools and universities also publicly funded? Isn't the public library publicly funded? Why shouldn't the taxpayer's money be used for cultural education?
Should the government start to fund reality tv just because it's comprehensible to even the most ignorant citizens? I don't want my money going to Big Brother.
Besides, do I really have to agree with or benefit from everything my taxes are used for? I don't drive a wheelchair, should I protest if my taxes are spent on making the city friendlier for handicapped people?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of art (publicly funded or not) is crap and there's nothing wrong with a public discussion about what art the tax money should be spent on. What I don't agree with is that ''my ignorant ass that's too lazy to pick up a book and educate myself on what this piece of art is about doesn't understand this so it's crap'' attitude.
Sparrow
Veteran
Well I was OK explaining stuff up to the 1930s, but then I found the Hepworth and Moore thing very difficult to explain, I've skimmed a few books over the years and I'm incapable of passing my understanding on to my kids, I don't like that. Sorry about the attitude
Jamie123
Veteran
That's complete BS. Marcel Duchamp's Readymades are great works of art yet they require certain knowledge in order to be appreciated. But that example is a cliché so let's pick something else.
You might look at a painting of a great 14th century painter. Now if you have no knowledge whatsoever of art history you might just say that 14th century painter produced crap. His paintings look flat, the proportions are all wrong and the babies have adult faces which is just weird.
Now if you are interested enough to find you might pick up a book at the library about 14th century art and you might find out more about that period in art history. You might get exposed to other 14th century art and see why this particular painter was better than his contemporaries. You might also learn about the symbolism in the painting which will open up a whole new level of meaning for you which makes you see these paintings in a new light.
But of course you can also just look at the painting and say ''These paintings are crap. I saw a paintbrush artist at the mall the other day whose pictures of dolphins were much more realistic than this. let's go to the mall.''.
Richard G
Veteran
Certainly my 16 year old daughter has been an education to me in art in many ways. I don't know why what you said here requires a response to suggest we read more (Jamie123). A lot of what we know doesn't have to be read in books. One can have an immediate response, say to Andreas Gursky, that must be informed by one's previous experience but I cannot see immediately how all my interest in photography and even sometimes reading on it led me to an immediate response to Gursky. I think it is probably just one or two photographs, a Munkasci photo of throngs of figures resting on the grass, taken from high up, and maybe a few others. But it would also be knowledge of the holocaust and even one of my daughter's photographs taken with her phone, and a million other things. Some abstractions are just so compelling without any theory on golden section or Fibonacci or any formal knowledge. How is a 16 year stopped in her tracks by Bach unaccompanied violin? The artist I am seeing today may be very clever, and it is my daughter who made me take him seriously, but I am distrustful. But I am going.
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm not suggesting that you have to read books about art in order to appreciate it. Books were just one example for how one can educate oneself. You can also educate yourself visually or through experience etc..
You can also, of course, have an immediate response to an art work without any specific knowledge. What I'm saying is that some art requires a certain theoretical and/or historical background in order to be understood and appreciated and, in my opinion, that doesn't make it any less worthy.
By the way, I think there's also one other misunderstanding. I'm not saying one should have to read what critics or academics say about a specific work of art in order to understand it. That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if, for example, you look at a piece of political art about the Holocaust then it probably requires some knowledge about what the Holocaust is in order to understand and appreciate it.
Same goes for most conceptual art which is probably what most people seem to struggle with. It's almost impossible to understand without having at least some knowledge of what it is about.
Finder
Veteran
And here we reach a problem in art--what is the person's relationship to it. Taking photography specifically, I know how I view it is very different from a non-photographer or a painter or a (cringe) writer. Also, my relationship to my work and other people's work is different--difference being one of the creator and viewer.
antiquark
Derek Ross
But, which work of art is greater: one that everyone likes, or one that only art historians like? (I'd say the first choice).
There are a few contemporary artworks that everyone appreciates on some respect. For example: (not my pics)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wvs/48885603/
Or, for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astrozombie/2376351140/
Plus lots of old artworks that everyone likes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/purplegecko/2158408860/
Or...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26467316@N00/2201527394/
So, my point is that the artistic "greatness" and "accessibility" are not mutually exclusive.
Sparrow
Veteran
It comes as a surprise when they start having views of their own doesn't it?
Alice is a dancer so she already has a well developed understanding of the abstract and conceptual stuff so when she finds somethings impenetrable, not just difficult, one has to ask what it's purpose is.
As a kid I stumbled upon Rodin's The Burghers of Calais on a school trip, despite knowing nothing about it I was impressed enough to ask my art-master (Alan Jones a great teacher) for an explanation, and get one, it lead me to a life long love of Rodin's work and eventually a visit to his museum in Paris.
Alice visited the Yorkshire Sculpture Park last year and came back with more questions than answers, and nowhere to go for those answers
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
Firstly, ''Which work of art is greater'' is a pointless question.
But let me get this straight. So you honestly believe that the deciding factor to determine the quality of something is a popular vote? So 'Twilight' is great literature because many people like it? The best movies are romantic comedies because they attract the most people?
No one is saying that anyone should have their taste dictated by art critics or art historians. What I'm saying is just because some art requires an effort on the side of the viewer that doesn't mean it's bad. And of course, just because something is easily accessible to and appreciated by the masses it's not necessarily good.
PS: Interestingly, at least two of the four examples you posted are by established artists that, by Sparrow's standards, are probably part of or celebrated by the 'elite'.
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
No, my point was more like "there are works of art that historians like, and also regular people like." So that would exclude Twilight and romcoms. (But who knows, maybe in 500 years historians will be hailing Twilight!
)I agree, if popularity was equal to "goodness" then Thomas Kinkade would be the king!
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/
One of my friends is a lifelong Jazz fan. I was talking about artistic accessibility with him, and he emailed me this music by John Coltrane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tePeHM7bL64&feature=channel
In personally don't "get it", but I don't dismiss it either. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything, that there are some artistic works that are at a higher level than my ability to understand.
Also, the two modern artworks are too new to determine if they're historically important, so probably I could have chosen some better examples.