Art Lovers discussion

I have noticed a few comments containing opinions of different artists or works. I want to open up this thread for you to express your feelings! Tell us what you like or dislike about an artist and/or his or her work. In addition to your own opinion, you're welcome to include comments made in the media whether they be facts or opinions of the publisher. That could be interesting, right?

***RULES FOR THIS THREAD***
No belittling a persons point of view or opinion. You may comment with your own opinion, but do not attack the person's thoughts or expression.

Let's hear it!

I'll start. I don't care for Fountain by Marcel Duchamp. I have to say it is...different, an original idea. But that's all I have to say. I'm curious as your opinions. Maybe I don't have the facts that could make this valuable as 'art'. Would anyone like to share?

Hmmm, interesting, Jim. Thank you. Although I don't like his "readymades", I can appreciate that the history of 20th Century art does emphasize 'What is Art?'.

But if I came up with something as simple, but original as that, I could be a famous artist? It's the 21st century, but then again I think it's all in who you know.

The minute someone places something in the context of art, we look at it differently. If you saw a neon sign that said "MOTEL" on the wall of Larry Gagosian Gallery, you'd think differently about it than if you saw it on a dark road near midnight when you were tired. An entirely different set of standards and expectations.

This was where Duchamp was going with his readymades. Placing something in the context of art makes it art because we think about as we would think about any piece of art.

Duchamp was very much the intellectual and much of his work addressed ideas about what is art and why.

@ Jim, you're right. I didn't mean to imply, in that it wasn't my intention to actually 'point a finger' directly at Duchamp (or any other artist). And it was sort of a 'tongue in cheek' statement.

The comment about 'who you know' is also true for anything...art, business, employment, etc. I was actually just referring to creating a new face of art for the 21st century like he did for the 20th century.

But thank you for more information, I am realizing how little I actually know about him as an artist and as a person. Anyone have any book suggestions?

@ Ruth, I like your examples! I don't doubt that he was an intellectual. I am a huge fan of ideas and concepts in the context of art.

The facts and info you both have provided have enlightened me, in that I understand him a little bit better. Unfortunately, my taste hasn't changed, but my interest in the history and background of his work and reasonings has been piqued. Thank you!

Isn´t Meta-Art just intellectual masturbation? why should we continue to consider the question time and time again. Once raised by a single artist, why be beleagured by copy cat conceptual artists who really don´t have anything to say? Fie on them. I refuse to waste my time on such nonsense.

Geoffrey wrote: "Isn´t Meta-Art just intellectual masturbation? why should we continue to consider the question time and time again. Once raised by a single artist, why be beleagured by copy cat conceptual artists ..."

Often what is fresh and original in one century is stale and derivative in the next. That's not to say that you can't work in a tradition, just that you can't recycle being a revolutionary. It's like picketing to protest the Czar's repression of the peasants. So nobody can replicate what Duchamp did, the context is not there. Some art is embedded in a certain time and place.

In Duchamp's day, the anti-art was totally unmarketable. He was a gifted traditional draughtsman, and also had attained complete mastery of the avant guarde Cubist idiom. It was a major career risk he took by choosing to be the bad boy prankster that raised meta-art questions. He was largely funded by his knack for forming friendships with wealthy women: he was very charming and witty, this is the only way he was able to survive financially.

Today, art marketing is often centered around a statement, and explanation, and some kind of meta-artistic hook. This tends to tempt some artists to make a "statement" instead of an aesthetic object. The problem is that any kind of art that is sensual (visual, auditory, tactile, etc.) is that it is capable of all kind of nuances that fall between the possibilities of words, so this often results in bland formalism, or recycled ant-art, or some other facile strategy.

Ed wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Isn´t Meta-Art just intellectual masturbation? why should we continue to consider the question time and time again. Once raised by a single artist, why be beleagured by copy cat co..."

Well said.

I think we can agree to disagree on the merits and demerits of artists.
I think we need to be respectful enough to try to sympathetically understand what they are trying to do, and what aspects you like and dislike about them. Or maybe that you have no clue as to what they are trying to do, and that irritates you.

So let me start out with Julian Schnabel, who was an art-star in the 80's when neo-expressionism was in vogue. I've always thought that he was a bit overrated, and here's why I think so, and also factors why I may reconsider my opinion in the future. This always seemed odd to me, as I have always appreciated "Die Brucke"--the German expressionists.

He combined that old expressionist style with worried, discarded and broken materials (such as old tarps for canvases). It always seemed to me that there was a bit of reaching for effect, and too cool to really carry the expressionist aspect. Here's a typical example:


Of course he has done a lot since then and has branched out as a film director, and his films have been well received. ( The Diving Bell and the Butterfly earned him the award for best director at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival)

Some of his art work branched out into using broken pottery, and it may be that this direction may be of some interest. I was always rather discouraged by his attraction to dirty color in his pure paintings, unlike the original expressionists, who used extreme palettes that matched their emotional temperature. I had mostly been aware of his canvases, but I recently discovered his broken pottery work.

The pottery seems to be bringing in more color, so I may rethink my position a bit, although I still don't think he deserves quite the reputation he has. Here's an example:

He was doing the broken pottery stuff in the 80s. At the time I thought it was a bit of a gimmick.

Ruth wrote: "He was doing the broken pottery stuff in the 80s. At the time I thought it was a bit of a gimmick."

Generally my reaction too. I think one artist can use something and it's a gimmick, even though it's not for another. Maybe there's a sense that there is no inner necessity in it.

I need to see his films though.

Wonderful take on this thread, Ed. I appreciate your opinion and rationale, especially regarding work of which I'm not familiar.

I want to insert here how much I enjoy reading posts from members so well acquainted with art such as you, Ruth and Ed, among many of our other members.

Question: What makes a gimmick a gimmick that distinguishes it from what would be considered authentic art?

I guess I mean that art to which a huge monetary value is assigned or accrued. But anything can be art whether it is famous or not. So does that mean that the label 'gimmick' is merely an opinion held by some where others may value the piece as art? (I worded that incorrectly. Thank you, Jim.)

My mention of "inner necessity" as a criterion came from Kandinsky. It's similar to the test of authenticity in a human being.

And yes, being art--it's subjective--and not really something that can be pinned down perfectly.

The danger is that an artist may really be driven in a certain direction, but we don't know that, and we think it's a gimmick, but it's not; it may be they are not a very good artist, and it only looks insincere because they are confused. It still relates to how we react--but we have needlessly maligned their character, instead of their aesthetics.

I think monetary value, when it is sustained over a long time period to ensure that it is not a momentary reflection of the art market can suggest quality. Short term it doesn't really do it.

Incidentally, van Gogh died at 37. It is not exactly true that he was unappreciated in his lifetime, just that, being an extremely advanced painter, taste had just barely caught up with him when he died. (Manet had not sold anything of significance until he was 40). He would have been 67 in 1920, and could have been a very rich man.

Of course, the discussion of money and art, although amusing, is always a bit crass--that's what makes it fun.

Oh here is an interesting article that's raising a lot of discussion:
Zombies on the Walls: Why Does So Much New Abstraction Look the Same? By Jerry Saltz
http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/why-ne...

In interest of full disclosure, I think he has some valid points, and I am an abstract painter, and I love abstraction. and I by no means think this criticism applies to all abstract art (especially me and my friends ;) ).

I don't know if it's been brought up in one of these threads already in relation to what is art or not art but I especially enjoyed this quote by Pablo Picasso but what an artist is:

"What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who only has eyes, if he is a painter, or ears if he is a musician, or a lyre in every chamber of his heart if he is a poet, or even, if he is a boxer, just his muscles? Far from it: at the same time he is also a political being, constantly aware of the heartbreaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people, and with a cool indifference to detach yourself from the very life which they bring to you so abundantly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war."

Pablo Picasso-

as quoted in Picasso's War by Russel Martin.(2002) after contents page.

wow! Excellent.

Jim wrote: "Heather wrote: Question: What makes a gimmick a gimmick that distinguishes it from what would be considered authentic art? ..."


Answer: What is "authentic art"?"

I believe that one can infer what is "authentic art" It is art that comes from the heart. Basquiat, Munch and Greco come to mind. So does Sue Coe, Francesco Clemente and Breughel. They are not pretentious but the personal values they espouse in their artwork is true to themselves. I wasn`t ever impressed with Duchamp and I have always suspected he was susceptible to intellectual gimmickry and pretentiousness. Anyway that`s my take.

Gary wrote: "I don't know if it's been brought up in one of these threads already in relation to what is art or not art but I especially enjoyed this quote by Pablo Picasso but what an artist is:

"What do you ..."

And that counters completely the Abstract Expressionism theory of the 50`s.

Ed wrote: "I think we can agree to disagree on the merits and demerits of artists.
I think we need to be respectful enough to try to sympathetically understand what they are trying to do, and what aspects yo..."

But wouldn`t you agree that Basquiat did the same kind of work but it was "authentic" Ed. That may very be a case in point in which two different artists, working in the same direction as the painting of Schnabel that you include on this message thread, but two different levels of "authenticity" (honesty)

Geoffrey wrote: "But wouldn`t you agree that Basquiat did the same kind of work but it was "authentic" Ed. ..."

I agree completely.

Basquiat has a certain sincerity, even though there is considerable irony in his work, it is always quite powerful not "phoned in".

It's interesting that Schnabel directed a film about Basquiat. This makes my very curious to see it. Here's a little excerpt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBfD2...

Here's an artist I very much admire. And there is a unique sensibility to him; sometimes he is forgotten in a list of major artists simply because he is inimitable, and not a direct influence on most anybody.


Paul Klee: Rose Garden, 1920.

I like Klee a lot, too.

Geoffrey wrote: "I believe that one can infer what is "authentic art" It is art that comes from the heart. Basquiat, Munch and Greco come to mind. So does Sue Coe, Francesco Clemente and Breughel. They are not pretentious but the personal values they espouse in their artwork is true to themselves. I wasn`t ever impressed with Duchamp and I have always suspected he was susceptible to intellectual gimmickry and pretentiousness. Anyway that`s my take. "

I really like your 'take' on that. It makes a lot of sense and I agree. Thank you, Geoffrey.

"...I believe that one can infer what is "authentic art" It is art that comes from the heart. t..."

Following up on this old thread, I just saw a very interesting film on Basquiat. It gives a good insight into his character, learned a lot about him. He really worked hard to hide his sophistication, to make it look street and childlike. He was very young, too young to really deal with the sudden success. He was very knowledgable about art in general, one interesting part is where they show where other artists influenced him; he goes to considerable pains to make things raw and direct and very much his own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTbyk...

The one criticism I would make is that the film quality doesn't show a lot of his work very well. This film by James Kalm (spy camera snuck into the Gagosian Gallery, until he was thrown out) gives a much better sense of the scale, and some of the really stunning things he did with raw and vibrant color:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLJTa...

Thank you, Ed, for posting this about Jean-Michel Basquiat. I didn't have time this morning to look at your first video, but I did just watch the second video.

I am not as familiar with his life or many of his works. The ones I do know haven't stood out for me as much maybe because to me, they aren't as aesthetically pleasing as many other artists (mostly before his time). But I have to agree with Kalm in this video when he speaks of Basquait's work being "brutally forward" to the point that one can't really copy it. That seems to be a difficult feat and I commend and appreciate that aspect.

Also, and you mentioned, too Ed, about his use of color, it is amazing. I love the stark contrasts and realities of the color that accompany the picture. And to again help me focus on yet another aspect of his art, actually reassigns my opinion of his work so that I appreciate it a lot more than I did previously.

Thank you, Ed!

Heather wrote: "Thank you, Ed, for posting this about Jean-Michel Basquiat. I didn't have time this morning to look at your first video, but I did just watch the second video.

I am not as familiar with his life o..."

I'm personally not as interested in work that is based on written words only. So I like the ones which are more about painting.

I did find the video very interesting because I learned about how he had started out in grafitti that was based on cryptic combinations of words that were mysterious or poetic or disturbing in their ambiguity, so I started to understand more about his use of text in his paintings.

By the way, James Kalm does a lot of videos of different big art events in NY that are on YouTube. He's a great resource on modern and contemporary work.

Even though his technique is very crude cinema-verite with jerky hand held camera, he's a painter, so he's very good at picking up what is interesting, and you really get a good sense of the scale and what the paintings are actually like, in addition to his low key appreciative narration.

OK here's an artist that is very strange. Sort of creepy beautiful, so he often provokes strong reactions.

Henry Darger was an outsider artist who created an eerie and visionary world. His early childhood was very unfortunate, and he was obsessed with the plight of children who suffer. His magnum opus, The Vivian Girls, In The Realm of The Unreal was a 15,000 page novel with thousands of illustrations!

Capsule biography from the video below:

Henry Darger is an isolated janitor in Chicago, spending most of his time alone in his apartment. What no one knows is that he is completing an epic work of art within the four walls of his home. This work, a book with 15,000 pages and countless images, is unseen until after his death 1973, when his neighbors discover what he's created. Jessica Yu uses Darger's book to explore his life and mindset, supplementing his own drawings and words with interviews from people who knew him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRlvD...


Here are two images.