[cmeisenzahl]

I found this column both amusing and thought-provoking. Carlin once said (I'm paraphrasing) something like, "If famous paintings can be reproduced so easily and convincingly, why are the originals worth so much?"

---------------------------------------------

"Upcoming art auctions at Sotheby’s and Christie’s in Manhattan are hugely noticed in the Arts section of the New York Times. Two Picassos are especially prominent. The first is labeled “Dora Maar With Cat,” and it is expected to fetch $50 million. The second, called “Repose,” is even uglier, and is expected to go for about $20 million.

The display raises several questions, the first of them being the interesting one, Why would anyone wish to own these Picassos? There is only a single answer to the question, which is, “Because they are so valuable.” Imagine a situation in which you woke to find in the morning mail a package containing “Dora Maar.” It is yours, with a single condition attached: you are not permitted to sell it.

What would you do?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp

[sknapp351]

This guy seems like a silly bigoted man who doesn't appreciate something, so he lashes out and attempts to belittle it. He obviously doesn't care for Picasso, or any Modern and Contemporary Art I expect. I love it when people make blanket statements like, " The reason the genuine article brings crowds in from the streets to admire it isn’t that it is manifestly unique. It is that it’s worth $10 million." This may be true of people who have no appreciation of art, but it certainly is not universal.
I wish people like him would have the sanity to admit to themselves that this is something they don't understand, and therfore don't like. It must be so much simpler to belittle and attempt to discredit something that try to learn what you may not know.
SAm

[dcmacdaddy]

<disappointed>
Geez, I thought the former Red Sox first baseman had become an art critic in his retirement.
</disappointed>

[DigitalEl]

I wish people like him would have the sanity to admit to themselves that this is something they don't understand, and therfore don't like. It must be so much simpler to belittle and attempt to discredit something that try to learn what you may not know.

Agreed. Consider the source.

[abe]

“Dora Maar With Cat”


"Repose"


I say Buckley has a point.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

"If famous paintings can be reproduced so easily and convincingly, why are the originals worth so much?"

That's on par with "why travel when you can just look at pictures"

Because it is the original.

[abe]

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

Agreed. Consider the source.

[img]http://www.chrisbuck.com/images/PreviewPhotos/William%20F%20Buckley%20Jr%20a.jpg]

You'd be a fortunate man, indeed, if you had a quarter of his accomplishments, 3/4 of his smarts or an even smaller number of the people who think of him in the most reverential terms and who love him.

And the way it looks you can say goodbye to ever having his imagination. That's something you'd evidence by this stage of the game and I don't see any signs of it.

Sorry.

And here's a more flattering photo.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

You'd be a fortunate man, indeed, if you had a quarter of his accomplishments, 3/4 of his smarts or an even smaller number of the people who think of him in the most reverential terms and who love him.

And how does this qualify him to judge art?

[abe]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

That's on par with "why travel when you can just look at pictures"

Because it is the original.

Like, why go to a concert if you can hear it on a cd?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

And how does this qualify him to judge art?

Funny!

Just as a work of art is a subjective pleasure, so is a review of that art.

Aside from plenty of people agreeing that it stands up to SOME benchmark, it really has to do with what you think.

Picasso offered up those two pieces and someone bought them. If I had the money I would have bought them ONLY if there were no other originals available from the artist at a similar price.

They do not give me pleasure to look at. But I recognize they are valuable because Picasso painted them.

After seeing the works, how can you argue that Buckley is wrong?

Or are you just trying your hand at devilish advocacy?

[abe]

William F. Buckley biography

A brief biography of William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review magazine, an author, lecturer, sailor, socialite, and pop icon.

William F. Buckley was born on November 24, 1925, in New York City, the sixth of ten children in a devoutly Roman Catholic family. Because his grandfather had made a fortune in the oil business, Buckley's childhood in Connecticut was one of wealth and privilege, but also one of discipline and intellectual rigor. He was educated in England and France, and graduated from the Millbrook School in Millbrook, NY, in 1943.

Buckley's first language had been Spanish, having been raised by Mexican nannies, and he now studied at the University of Mexico before being drafted into the Army in 1944. After being discharged in 1946, he worked briefly for the CIA. He then attended Yale University, graduating in 1950. Shortly thereafter, at the age of 25, he became a literary sensation with the publication of his book, "God and Man at Yale," a scathing indictment of what would later be called "political correctness."

Buckley founded National Review magazine in 1955, at a time when the words "conservative" and "intellectual" were rarely seen in the same sentence. His magazine revolutionized political thinking, and had a profound affect on conservative leaders such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He became even more influential when his newspaper column, "On the Right," was syndicated in 1962. In 1965 he ran for mayor of New York under the Conservative Party banner and received 13.4 of the vote.

What finally propelled Buckley to iconic status was his weekly television show, "Firing Line." He had been a skilled debater at Yale, and viewers loved to watch him spar with such guests as Norman Mailer, Germaine Greer, the Dalai Lama, and Groucho Marx. A disturbing Psychology Today poll conducted in the early Seventies found that an alarmingly high percentage of women fantasized about Buckley while having sex with their husbands.


With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Buckley and his wife, Pat, became the most sought-after socialites in Washington. His Blackford Oakes spy novels were consistent best sellers. With the high life, however, came controversy. Many were shocked at Buckley's callous response in the early years of the AIDS epidemic; he went so far as to suggest that those who suffered from the disease should be tattooed on their backsides.

In the early 1990's, Buckley stepped down as editor of National Review, though he continued on as a contributing editor, and devoted more time to such passions as sailing and playing the harpsichord. He broadcast his last "Firing Line" in the year 2000.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

Funny!

Just as a work of art is a subjective pleasure, so is a review of that art.

Aside from plenty of people agreeing that it stands up to SOME benchmark, it really has to do with what you think.

Picasso offered up those two pieces and someone bought them. If I had the money I would have bought them ONLY if there were no other originals available from the artist at a similar price.

They do not give me pleasure to look at. But I recognize they are valuable because Picasso painted them.

After seeing the works, how can you argue that Buckley is wrong?

Or are you just trying your hand at devilish advocacy?

I'm not going to tell you that you should like it. I'm telling you that you shouldn't dismiss because of that. Art is subjective, but art is also deeper than just 'how it looks' (And I don't mean this monetary crap).

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'm not going to tell you that you should like it. I'm telling you that you shouldn't dismiss because of that. Art is subjective, but art is also deeper than just 'how it looks' (And I don't mean this monetary crap).

If it isn't enjoyed for it's aesthetic beauty, nor as a monetary oddity, then what else is there?

I think maybe someone has placed "ART" on a very lofty pedestal without really knowing why.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

If it isn't enjoyed for it's aesthetic beauty, nor as a monetary oddity, then what else is there?

Creativity, innovation, originality. Many times the idea is just as important as the finished product, particularly at the beginning of art movements.

Originally Posted by abe

I think maybe someone has placed "ART" on a very lofty pedestal without really knowing why.

I think someone is as boring as I expected.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Creativity, innovation, originality. Many times the idea is just as important as the finished product, particularly at the beginning of art movements.

I think someone is as boring as I expected.

(abe hands Dakar a broom) This might come in handy when you find yourself grasping at straws.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

(abe hands Dakar a broom) This might come in handy when you find yourself grasping at straws.

DURR HURR HURR

I meant every word I said.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

DURR HURR HURR

I meant every word I said.

'Tis more the pity.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by abe

'Tis more the pity.

HURR HURR

[dav]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Many times the idea is just as important as the finished product, particularly at the beginning of art movements.

right, i'd say the idea or intent behind the media.

[olePigeon]

I think "Repose" is fantastic, I like fluidic abstract paintings. Can't say I like "Dora Marr with Cat," cubism just isn't my cup of tea. However, I tend to think that there's practically a novel in meaning behind those pictures. Picasso could do still lifes and and lifelike renditions as easily as some of us can breath, but he chose to do these very peculiar abstract paintings. There's a lot of thought that went into them, and now that Picasso isn't around to ask what they mean, it sure is a heck of a lot of fun to try and guess why he painted them.

People spend hours in front of these paintings trying to find "messages" in them. Sometimes it's just as simple as, "Because the artist felt like it." But other times there's a specific reason, perhaps something that coincides with an event during his or her life.

[Monique]

What is incredible about those painting is that you can stare at them and discover new things about them.

If you want to see bad really bad art think about Klee; when I went to the George Pompidou centre, there were 3 or 4 paintings by klee and I looked at them then I looked at the people around me; and while I was sitting I talked to some French people around me and said I can't believe they hang those awful things in a museum. It was 2 horizontal bars on a canvass. Now, it has not signification, no meaning, just a guy that found a way to laugh at a bunch of know it all people that know nothing about art. And please do not come up with the arguement of Picasso, Bracque, Pollock being so controversial then.

Also, over the weekend I went to see Marie Chouinard lastest laugh at the public farce. Please I am fairly opened minded when it comes to art but that was awful; it was like Yoko Ono singing.

[DigitalEl]

Originally Posted by abe

You'd be a fortunate man, indeed, if you had a quarter of his accomplishments

<blah, blah, blah... bullsh!t snipped>

I don't see any signs of it.

Sorry.

No need to apologize. Your thoughts on my accomplishments .. of which you know nothing .. is so far beyond irrelevant, even this response is too much.

So the son of a Connecticut oil man does well. Surprise, surprise. What obstacles he must've overcome. And liberals are called elite.

F you, dude.

[abe]

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

[/b]No need to apologize. Your thoughts on my accomplishments .. of which you know nothing .. is so far beyond irrelevant, even this response is too much.

So the son of a Connecticut oil man does well. Surprise, surprise. What obstacles he must've overcome. And liberals are called elite.

F you, dude.

Well "Z" you!

[abe]

Originally Posted by dav

right, i'd say the idea or intent behind the media.

That's as lame as the guy who says he THOUGHT of getting her something for Valentines Day and she thinks a minute, buys into his BS and then gives him a BIG HUG!

OF COURSE IDEA & INTENT ARE SECONDARY AT BEST AND MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE GOODS ON THE CANVAS!

Otherwise I'd charge a million bucks for spilling coffee on a sheet of paper and hoping it would result in world peace!

Do you realize how stupid you guys sound??? HAWWW!!!!

[abe]

Originally Posted by Monique

What is incredible about those painting is that you can stare at them and discover new things about them.

If you want to see bad really bad art think about Klee; when I went to the George Pompidou centre, there were 3 or 4 paintings by klee and I looked at them then I looked at the people around me; and while I was sitting I talked to some French people around me and said I can't believe they hang those awful things in a museum. It was 2 horizontal bars on a canvass. Now, it has not signification, no meaning, just a guy that found a way to laugh at a bunch of know it all people that know nothing about art. And please do not come up with the arguement of Picasso, Bracque, Pollock being so controversial then.

Also, over the weekend I went to see Marie Chouinard lastest laugh at the public farce. Please I am fairly opened minded when it comes to art but that was awful; it was like Yoko Ono singing.

If someone made you the proposition: You can have either of those paintings but you can't sell or monetarily benefit from the painting. Would you take it?

[dav]

Originally Posted by abe

That's as lame as the guy who says he THOUGHT of getting her something for Valentines Day and she thinks a minute, buys into his BS and then gives him a BIG HUG!

OF COURSE IDEA & INTENT ARE SECONDARY AT BEST AND MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE GOODS ON THE CANVAS!

Otherwise I'd charge a million bucks for spilling coffee on a sheet of paper and hoping it would result in world peace!

Do you realize how stupid you guys sound??? HAWWW!!!!

i never said intent was secondary, intent could be more influential than the media or vice versa, but both are necessary for art.

i don't think your analogies make any sense at all.

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think "Repose" is fantastic, I like fluidic abstract paintings. Can't say I like "Dora Marr with Cat," cubism just isn't my cup of tea. However, I tend to think that there's practically a novel in meaning behind those pictures. Picasso could do still lifes and and lifelike renditions as easily as some of us can breath, but he chose to do these very peculiar abstract paintings. There's a lot of thought that went into them, and now that Picasso isn't around to ask what they mean, it sure is a heck of a lot of fun to try and guess why he painted them.

People spend hours in front of these paintings trying to find "messages" in them. Sometimes it's just as simple as, "Because the artist felt like it." But other times there's a specific reason, perhaps something that coincides with an event during his or her life.

Glad you like it.

Not saying anything about you, but when I was a teen we used to smoke pot and stare at this painting of a woman that was hanging on the wall in my aunt's living room. She decorated nicely, but the painting certainly didn't cost more than a hundred bucks. Anyway, we'd stare at that painting and we found a hamburger, a turkey leg and all kinds of stuff 'hidden' in the lines of that portrait.

Once again, not talking about you.

A friend of mine was a car dealer and he sometimes made mistakes when ordering cars from the factory. In the days before computers he had to use a sheet of paper for each car and on the sheet he'd check the options he wanted and the color and etc.

Well, being human, every once in a while he'd mess up and order a fully loaded car (Luxury trim, light package, leather, windows, locks, roof. The whole nine yards. But he'd forget or mark the wrong box and he'd wind up with a loaded 3,000 lb car with a 4 cylinder engine. Or that same car with a manual transmission with the gear shift lever ON THE STEERING COLUMN (on the tree) or some such mistake.

These were called oddball units.

And where the dealership wants to turn over their inventory every two months or so, sometimes these cars would sit 6 months or longer.

And though it wasn't something he'd do intentionally and he didn't like it when he mis-ordered, he took it in stride. He said, "there's an ass for every seat." And sure enough, someone always came along sooner or later, who'd buy it. Sometimes that car would be JUST what the oddball buyer wanted.

So, as I said at the top, I'm glad you like it.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dav

i never said intent was secondary, intent could be more influential than the media or vice versa, but both are necessary for art.

i don't think your analogies make any sense at all.

I'M saying intent is secondary! If it's not on the canvas then you are jerkin yerself no matter HOW much intent or how good the intentions are.

[dav]

Originally Posted by abe

I'M saying intent is secondary! If it's not on the canvas then you are jerkin yerself no matter HOW much intent or how good the intentions are.

and i'm saying intent is not necessarily secondary in art.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dav

and i'm saying intent is not necessarily secondary in art.

You are standing at the end of a twig hoping it's not too flimsy to support this debate.

IT IS TOO FLIMSY. So, I won't pursue it. I'm right and you escape by a technicality.

Don't look back in anger. Just walk away and know you were pushed, by your poor choice, to the edge.

Peace out.

[sknapp351]

Abe, have you ever stopped to study art history or modernist theory? You are supremely convinced of the correctness of your stance that what you say is fact, when it is nothing more than your opinion. If you think there is nothing more to art than aesthetic concerns or monetary value than you really need to go back to school. Art going all the way back to the Caves at Lascaux has been in effort to communicate an IDEA. The art made for the Catholic Church was made to communicate church ideals to peasants who could not read, it was not so they could admire the stunning quality of Mary's blue outfit or lament on the rising value of the painting. Each and every movement of art has had a reason behind it. I wont say that I agree with every one, or fully understand them, but that does not mean that the art was made without intention.

The final object created is made explicitly to meet the end of that idea. If that means that there is a solid field of color than that is what the artist deemed suited to meet the idea at hand. These ideas were ground breaking at the time, and now seem amazingly trivial and banal to people of our generation, but that is the way of life. If you are truly interested in learning about what you obviously do not know I will be happy to go through my books tomorrow to find you some sources to look at.

I also agree that art is subjective and as someone half way through achieving my MFA I can tell you that I do not like half of the art I see made these days. But to judge Art only by appearances is really sad. That is akin to me saying that Bill Buckley is not someone to pay attention to because I don't find him pleasing to look at and he's not making me money. You make a very convincing argument that there is more to him than an unflattering image, yet hypocritically judge these paintings without looking further into them.
SAm

[abe]

Originally Posted by sknapp351

Abe, have you ever stopped to study art history or modernist theory? You are supremely convinced of the correctness of your stance that what you say is fact, when it is nothing more than your opinion. If you think there is nothing more to art than aesthetic concerns or monetary value than you really need to go back to school. Art going all the way back to the Caves at Lascaux has been in effort to communicate an IDEA. The art made for the Catholic Church was made to communicate church ideals to peasants who could not read, it was not so they could admire the stunning quality of Mary's blue outfit or lament on the rising value of the painting. Each and every movement of art has had a reason behind it. I wont say that I agree with every one, or fully understand them, but that does not mean that the art was made without intention.

The final object created is made explicitly to meet the end of that idea. If that means that there is a solid field of color than that is what the artist deemed suited to meet the idea at hand. These ideas were ground breaking at the time, and now seem amazingly trivial and banal to people of our generation, but that is the way of life. If you are truly interested in learning about what you obviously do not know I will be happy to go through my books tomorrow to find you some sources to look at.

I also agree that art is subjective and as someone half way through achieving my MFA I can tell you that I do not like half of the art I see made these days. But to judge Art only by appearances is really sad. That is akin to me saying that Bill Buckley is not someone to pay attention to because I don't find him pleasing to look at and he's not making me money. You make a very convincing argument that there is more to him than an unflattering image, yet hypocritically judge these paintings without looking further into them.
SAm

The essence of your argument is that what the painting looks like is not important if the intent is there.

Fine. I'm going to THINK about painting the most beautiful painting in the world.

There. I just did it.

Now, pay me a million dollars.

The intent is all that matters.

[sknapp351]

Also, I would happily hang Dora Maar With Cat in my living room. I like it.
SAm

[abe]

Originally Posted by sknapp351

Also, I would happily hang Dora Maar With Cat in my living room. I like it.
SAm

Oh, man! Wait til you hang "abe with apes!" That's the name of the most beautiful painting in the world, intention wise, that I just didn't paint.

[sknapp351]

The essence of your argument is that what the painting looks like is not important if the intent is there.

Um, no. Try to stay with me here.

What I am saying is that the intent and the final object ( aesthetic and formal qualities ) go hand in hand. This is not always an equally proportioned relationship. Some times one can be more important than the other. It depends on the intent of the Artist. You have a preconceived notion of what the intent may be and that is what you seem to defaut your statements to. Please take a moment to read a little on the subject so you don't sound so bigoted and uneducated.
SAm

[abe]

Originally Posted by sknapp351

The essence of your argument is that what the painting looks like is not important if the intent is there.

Um, no. Try to stay with me here.

What I am saying is that the intent and the final object ( aesthetic and formal qualities ) go hand in hand. This is not always an equally proportioned relationship. Some times one can be more important than the other. It depends on the intent of the Artist. You have a preconceived notion of what the intent may be and that is what you seem to defaut your statements to. Please take a moment to read a little on the subject so you don't sound so bigoted and uneducated.
SAm

NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo

[sknapp351]

Allright. Last post of the night.
Abe, having read some of your other posts in the past I know you are not uneducated. You seem very knowledgeable on the subjects you choose to be knowledgeable on. Art does not seem to be one of them. If you choose to look at Art exclusively from an asthetic judgement or monetarty standpoint that's cool, because it is you choice to do so. But to make that choice and then blatantly say there is nothing more to it, and anyone who disagrees is " jerkin themselves" is bigoted and uninformed. And that attitude will always be percieved as uneducated, bigoted , and frankly rather childish.
Have a good night, we'll talk again tomorrow I imagine.
SAm

[abe]

Originally Posted by sknapp351

Allright. Last post of the night.
Abe, having read some of your other posts in the past I know you are not uneducated. You seem very knowledgeable on the subjects you choose to be knowledgeable on. Art does not seem to be one of them. If you choose to look at Art exclusively from an asthetic judgement or monetarty standpoint that's cool, because it is you choice to do so. But to make that choice and then blatantly say there is nothing more to it, and anyone who disagrees is " jerkin themselves" is bigoted and uninformed. And that attitude will always be percieved as uneducated, bigoted , and frankly rather childish.
Have a good night, we'll talk again tomorrow I imagine.
SAm

http://ask.yahoo.com/20020903.html

Dear Yahoo!:

Where does the phrase "the proof is in the pudding" come from?

Heather
San Bruno, California

Dear Heather:

Perhaps it's a sign of our increasingly fast-paced, short-attention-span society that even our old proverbs are being shortened and clipped down from the original full sayings. Word Detective and other etymology sites pointed out that the phrase originated as "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." It means that the true value or quality of something can only be judged when it's put to use. The meaning is often summed up as "results are what count."

Good night. And I would LOVE to believe this matter can be finally settled with this exchange.

[Dakar]

"Ya just don't get it, do ya Scott?"

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

"Ya just don't get it, do ya Scott?"

Sigh, you are saying that intent and theory and all of the intangibles are important to any respected work of art.

Your argument comes out looking like you are saying the intangibles are more important than the work itself, which is the point where some of you 'intellects' began arguing.

Buckley was right. Those two paintings, he suggests and I agree, would not be widely considered beautiful and he says the only reason for their multimillion dollar price tag is because they are works of Picasso and have great value to the collector.

I agree.

Any other discussion veers from the OP and Buckley's point.

If you want to debate that some more then call me at the Bat Cave.

[dav]

Originally Posted by abe

You are standing at the end of a twig hoping it's not too flimsy to support this debate.

IT IS TOO FLIMSY. So, I won't pursue it. I'm right and you escape by a technicality.

Don't look back in anger. Just walk away and know you were pushed, by your poor choice, to the edge.

Peace out.

more nonsense.

without the 'intangibles', you're talking about craftsmanship, not art. those two works are beautiful because of their intent and media.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by abe

If someone made you the proposition: You can have either of those paintings but you can't sell or monetarily benefit from the painting. Would you take it?

Yes I would because I would prefer to see people benifit from it. Or I would lend it to the Picasso museum in Paris.

[chrisford]

Originally Posted by abe

Buckley was right. Those two paintings, he suggests and I agree, would not be widely considered beautiful and he says the only reason for their multimillion dollar price tag is because they are works of Picasso and have great value to the collector.

I agree.

(Oh now I've gone and fallen for the bait...)

Abe, the statement above is just ridiculous. "not ... widely considered beautiful'? How can anyone make that statement? The style which Picasso adopted for the Dora Maar painting may be brutal, stark or even discomforting, but to say that it's not beautiful just because it's not painted in a sfumato style with gentle blending and a more conventional composition is just insane.

Personally, I love Picasso's paintings. Some of them more than others of course. I understand that this is just my personal view, but you'd have to have a very narrow view of art - and a very, very limited knowledge of art history - to argue that Picasso's paintings are anything less than revolutionary, inspired and beautiful.

Unless, of course, you happen to like those paintings of dogs playing pool in smokey bars. In which case, more power to you...

cf

[abe]

Originally Posted by chrisford

(Oh now I've gone and fallen for the bait...)

Abe, the statement above is just ridiculous. "not ... widely considered beautiful'? How can anyone make that statement? The style which Picasso adopted for the Dora Maar painting may be brutal, stark or even discomforting, but to say that it's not beautiful just because it's not painted in a sfumato style with gentle blending and a more conventional composition is just insane.

Personally, I love Picasso's paintings. Some of them more than others of course. I understand that this is just my personal view, but you'd have to have a very narrow view of art - and a very, very limited knowledge of art history - to argue that Picasso's paintings are anything less than revolutionary, inspired and beautiful.

Unless, of course, you happen to like those paintings of dogs playing pool in smokey bars. In which case, more power to you...

cf

Out of all of these attempts to undermine the validity of Buckley's article and POV, yours is as close to being considered sensible as there may ever be. Because it closes with what I've already said.

If you like it, then more power to you.

That's the only point of art. That it please your SENSES.

[subego]

Originally Posted by abe

That's the only point of art. That it please your SENSES.

This sounds more like the point of entertainment rather than art.

[abe]

Originally Posted by subego

This sounds more like the point of entertainment rather than art.

Oh stop fisking with me. How many paintings do/does (??) Stevie Wonder own?

[chrisford]

Originally Posted by abe

That's the only point of art. That it please your SENSES.

Hi Abe -

I think I'd agree with your definition, but I'd probably want to extend it a little. Historically, a great deal of art has been created to appeal to the senses, but that intention or ambition only spans periods of time, not the full history of art. I guess the earliest known examples of art were more records of time and experience: the cave paintings that were discovered at the turn of the last century, for example, seem to serve a purpose beyond decoration or pleasurable distraction. You might say that they exist to tell the world that the artist (and her/his people) existed. This is more than just a sensual message.

And, more recently, a significant number of artists have appealed as much to the intellect as they have the heart. Magritte is probably the most famous - he grappled with the problem of representation in art (which Buckley touches on, inelegantly, I think!):

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

His work is continued in some of our contemporary artists. Love him or hate him, Damian Hirst has produced some of the most intellectual and sensual pieces of art of recent times:

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

(nb - I'm aware that Hirst makes some people gag. I'm only offering him because I liked his formaldehyde period...!)

So I guess I'm saying that an appeal to the senses (the sensual aspect of painting) is core within art history - but also that painting can appeal to the intellect in equal measure. I've avoided rambling on about appeals to the political mind or social conscience or religious sensitivity or romantic instinct - these are also facets of painting I think.

Anyway - nice to discuss without any of us resorting to "But yu are tex suxxor!!11one"



cf

[subego]

Originally Posted by abe

Oh stop fisking with me. How many paintings do/does (??) Stevie Wonder own?

Let me rephrase.

There is plenty of art that is intentionally not pleasing to the senses.

[abe]

Originally Posted by chrisford

Hi Abe -

I think I'd agree with your definition, but I'd probably want to extend it a little. Historically, a great deal of art has been created to appeal to the senses, but that intention or ambition only spans periods of time, not the full history of art. I guess the earliest known examples of art were more records of time and experience: the cave paintings that were discovered at the turn of the last century, for example, seem to serve a purpose beyond decoration or pleasurable distraction. You might say that they exist to tell the world that the artist (and her/his people) existed. This is more than just a sensual message.

And, more recently, a significant number of artists have appealed as much to the intellect as they have the heart. Magritte is probably the most famous - he grappled with the problem of representation in art (which Buckley touches on, inelegantly, I think!):

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

His work is continued in some of our contemporary artists. Love him or hate him, Damian Hirst has produced some of the most intellectual and sensual pieces of art of recent times:

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

(nb - I'm aware that Hirst makes some people gag. I'm only offering him because I liked his formaldehyde period...!)

So I guess I'm saying that an appeal to the senses (the sensual aspect of painting) is core within art history - but also that painting can appeal to the intellect in equal measure. I've avoided rambling on about appeals to the political mind or social conscience or religious sensitivity or romantic instinct - these are also facets of painting I think.

Anyway - nice to discuss without any of us resorting to "But yu are tex suxxor!!11one"



cf

Hi Chrisford!

Both of the linked examples are appealing in their own way. I liked both and would have either one or both in my personal collection based on their aesthetic appeal, alone.

I've never denied the need or the importance of thought in creating what is offered as art.

Appeals to the intellect are as valid as any other and appreciated most widely when accompanied by a form factor that, at least, doesn't gross you out.

Thanks for your reply!

[abe]

Originally Posted by subego

Let me rephrase.

There is plenty of art that is intentionally not pleasing to the senses.

How interesting that you'd speak for such art.