Effort it takes to create a work of art

[sweet]

Hi everyone, this was a question posted by sussimatthew. I thought I would give it a thread of its own to see what others think.


All right, recently I went to the HoustonArt Museum. I'm not expert, but I have half a sense of art appreciation. If I don't get it on an artistic level, I can at least appreciate the craft, attention to detail, time and effort it takes to create a work of art. Then there was the modern art. I couldn't understand it, nor could I appreciate the craft as it all looked so much like a rush job. How is a canvas with painted squares art? Am I missing something, or is modern art simply a statement that there is nothing left to explore?

s.x

[Focus on Life]

I'm not a huge modern art lover but neither a traditional art lover either, I kinda like the stuff "in between" if that makes any sense.
I know if I see modern art with ultra-simple forms - like just a square or two - or just stripes - my first thought is "anyone could do that, why would I pay for it?"
But if it has just a bit more to it, and especially if the colours hit me, then I like it
...now as for cows cut in half!....pah....cut the artist in half I say! :D

Shaz x

[sweet]

I am a self taught artist, so these are just the opinions of someone who is not a 'qualified' artist as such. A graduate artist may see things differently to me!

Then there was the modern art. I couldn't understand it, nor could I appreciate the craft as it all looked so much like a rush job. How is a canvas with painted squares art? Am I missing something, or is modern art simply a statement that there is nothing left to explore?


I think this is the very essence of what art is. It is not an objectable force, it is subjective in its very nature. If I were to paint an abstract piece what I feel and see of my painting could vary a great deal from person to person.

Modern art is (imo) not a single movement in itself, it includes impressionism, fauvism, expressionism etc. Each of these have a lot to offer, its more than squares on canvas. Fauvism is one of my favourites, the work of Derain particuarly. Yet many hate his work, making comparisons to the way he painted to the way a child paints, named a fauvist by the french, meaning wild beast.

Ok, so I found something from the tate modern that probably explains what i'm getting at alot better!

This painting for example by Mondrain (first one on the left, composition c)

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/explore/room.do?show=1334&code=02&tourid=undefined&action=3

The Tate modern has this to say:

Mondrian..continued to make paintings that placed emphasis on the balancing of vertical and horizontal elements. In this painting, the dominant vertical line sits just to the left of the centre of the canvas and the two horizontal lines divide the canvas into three unequal bands. In avoiding placing lines along the main axes of the painting, Mondrian sought to create a ‘dynamic equilibrium’. This equilibrium manifested itself in the complex rhythms and relationships he established between the black lines and coloured planes.

Now whether you see or feel this I dont think is the point. The point is that this is the reasoning behind the painting. I dont think it matters how long a painting takes, it takes aslong as is neccessary. I threw out two abstract paintings in less than half hour the other day, I was happy with the out come, I didnt like them, but I was happy how they turned out. I posted them onto a painting forum and got a really good response about them, which I was surprised at. I do not 'create art' to please people, 'pretty art' that you can by from ikea I find unpleasing, yet my sister loves that kind of art to bits. It is about subjectivity and what you get out of it, if you dont like painted squares then thats cool. Although a square has quite a lot of representational value in itself so too does a triangle & a circle....

Its just not about the shapes used, its about the lines, the tones, the atmosphere it can create.

Thats all I can think of at the moment to say. I hope my ramblings have helped. I would suggest if you see a piece that you dont get and want to know something about why it was painted, take the artists name and the title of the painting then go google! You may never what you can find out!

s.x

[sweet]

If your interested in other peices of art take a browse round the tate modern site, click on the pics and it gives you a description of the painting and its meaning

[mymiyel]

I could never do something like art in any situation where it was to be graded. It is so subjective and if you happen to get an examiner or assessor who doesn't like your style then you've had it. A friend of mine did fine art for her degree and I loved her final piece - she got from mags like Grazia and Men's Health like "beer gut", "bingo wings", "thunder thighs" and cross stitched the words onto material and then made clothes out of it. But she got a 2.2 because the examiner didn't like it. It was the single mark that caused her to get a 2.2 since everything else she had done was either a 2.1 or 1st.

I personally like the more classical stuff. Like Michelangelo. I just think there is a lot of talent involved in being able to recreate the human form in such perfect detail compared to splashing paint onto a canvas. I also really like Dali, but his stuff is a bit trippy sometimes.

[ethel&edna]

Having just graduated from a Fine Art HND I can see and appreciate both sides of the debate.
Personally, while I can understand the idea behind Tracey Emin's manky bed I actually hate it, but her patchwork quilts I love. Anything that promotoes the profile of textiles is good by me.
All through my course I had a huge problem with the fact that the concept or idea behind a piece was THE most important thing. Technique was of no relevance at all. I went to last year's degree graduate show at UCE in Birmingham (where the other half of ethel and edna is now studying) and it was - in my opinion - all a pile of doodoo!! Everything was so poorly cobbled together and made no sense at all. That's why I didn't carry on to degree level.

[ilovecrafts]

personally i think modern art ( well the vast majority anyway) is a total load of pony!
earlier i had a look at the top 10 selling paintings! Wouldn't give them houseroom, if they were given to me ! ( well i would take them and quickly sell them on to some gullible idiot!)

i think that with the right hype you can sell anything, and I think some of these "artists" got such good hype from someone or other, and they then became " good" and collectible and valuable. Much modern stuff doesnt even have any quality in the technique either!

wasn't there a program a few years back where they took paintings by chimps or kids (or both maybe) and purported them to be by some great newly discoverd artist, and then had loads of so called renowned art critics praising them?

Art is however VERY subjective, and if one likes it, fine , and if not well that's ok too. It's like falling in love. Other people often can't even remotely imagine what we might see in our partner of choice, but then they don't need to, it's not their choice!

[igw]

:nopity:Hi,

My tastes lie somewhere in the middle these days. People painting in a traditional style today, seem a bit dated, though I like wide range of artists work. There’s a lot of trendy 'shock art' that is created to get publicity for the artist, I can't stand that stuff! It's cynical in the extreme. The challenge for any artist is to give their subject a different approach to the main body of work out there; this need however, has culminated in art colleges driving out any technical skill what-so-ever. The sole emphasis seems to be on being total different.

This latter point is a crime, since it turns out artists without the basic skills required to compete in a really tough market! Museum curators have a lot of trouble keeping some art works on the canvas, due to the poor understanding of the materials used. Actually, I think a lot of so called ‘modern art’ is now a bit dated and tardy itself! It’s time for a shift back to more representational art I feel.

Opps! I've fallen off my soap-box now! Good thread!

igw:)

[Peter]

Art, of any description, will always be as diverse as the people who make it. Try people watching on a saturday morning and work out the percentage of people you look at and think, 'wow, they really look good!'. That will roughly equate to the art you see that makes you think, 'wow, that really looks good!'. :)

[somerset artist]

hmmm... an interesting thread.

I reply as an artist who has painted some 'modern style' art, and sold it! Although I hasten to add not for loads of money.

I sold quite a large painting that was basically orange all over with a small darker circle of orange/red in the centre. This was painted just after I had witnessed a quite spectacular sunset. However without knowing why the painting was done or what the artist (me) wanted to convey it was just an orange painting with a smaller darker circle.

To fully appreciate a lot of modern art, you have to be able to connect with the artist in some way. Very often a painting will represent that moment in that artists life and by looking at the painting you can sympathise or whatever with the artist. Just looking at a painting and not understanding it or why it was painted can often lead to not appreciating it.

That said, I too sometimes wonder at some 'modern art'!

Andrew

[sweet]

The challenge for any artist is to give their subject a different approach to the main body of work out there; this need however, has culminated in art colleges driving out any technical skill what-so-ever. The sole emphasis seems to be on being total different.

Opps! I've fallen off my soap-box now! Good thread!

igw:)

I think your right...the 'greats' have been and gone, picasso, derain, dali, cezanne, monet, munch (another of my favs!)...etc....the 'styles' have been formed, pop art, abstract, realism, expressionism, fauvism, romanticism etc...what to do next...copy, learn from, adapt, add to what is already there.

I read on another forum...you take sombody elses art and make it your own. you adapt a 'movement' but kick in some personal flair.

although saying this...sculputured art i just do not get, i dont care to look at it and i dont care for understanding it..lol. Theres an artist that most probably know, Damian Hirst, the guy who 'created' a skull encrusted with diamonds for £50million...why? who cares? oh, he also pickled animals:horse: