Piece of crap sells for fortune

[JSB_01]

Ho! Ever heard of academia? It is still an article of faith to "read" art, literature and even music according to context and biography.

Is that not the study of art history?

 

[belamy]

Is that not the study of art history?

Yes, but art history deals with history, not with art, that´s why it´s called in good English art HISTORY and not HISTORY art

 

[JSB_01]

Yes, but art history deals with history, not with art, that´s why it´s called in good English art HISTORY and not HISTORY art

Ummm....art history deals with history AND art. Sure it's history, but it's a specialized subject in history. Have you ever been in an art history class?

Art history deals with the development of styles of art and relates it to events of the time. To say art history doesn't deal with art is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[belamy]

Ummm....art history deals with history AND art. Sure it's history, but it's a specialized subject in history. Have you ever been in an art history class?

Art history deals with the development of styles of art and relates it to events of the time. To say art history doesn't deal with art is absolutely ridiculous.

It deals not primarily with art, but on the social "superficial" aspects surrounding art, as I said in previous posts; otherwise it wouldn´t rely so heavily on documents and anecdotes.
I know about art history and art historians, and their analysis rely on the mere scholactic tradition of opinions of previous authorities.
Art history deals with art in the same way cuisine deals with farming: so a farmer must necessarily be a good cook and viceversa.

 

[belamy]

...........

 

[JSB_01]

It deals not primarily with art, but on the social "superficial" aspects surrounding art, as I said in previous posts; otherwise it wouldn´t rely so heavily on documents and anecdotes.
I know about art history and art historians, and their analysis rely on the scholactic tradition of opinions of previous authorities.

Social aspects are NOT superficial! It helps shape the way a work is presented, or the way a subject is portrayed, or even the event portrayed. For example, do you think it a mere coincidence that classicism came about during the same time as the Enlightenment? Art is social! As I have said before, art is more than colors on canvas, it has social/personal/cultural value!

Okay, let's say social aspects are "superficial." Then what are the "profound" aspects? How do you analyze art? What resources do you use? Without documents, what else is there? How do you learn about the artists that worked 100, 200, 300 years ago?

Art history deals with art in the same way cuisine deals with farming: so a farmer must necessarily be a good cook and viceversa.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[JSB_01]

It deals not primarily with art, but on the social "superficial" aspects surrounding art

So are you saying art history is more of a sociological study?

In a sense, art history partially is. But you can't teach the history of ANYTHING without dealing with socety. For example, try it with art:

Artist A painted like this. Fifty years later, artist B painted like that.

Well.....why did artist B change the style? Because he was influenced to do so.
Why the influence? His personal experiences.
Where did these experiences come from? His interaction with others, or from what he saw....as in his SOCIETAL influences and from his views on SOCIETY.

 

[cocktales]

Hmmmmmm, I posted very early on in this thread when the discussion of JP's works were considered trash....

Hey, do NOT feel alone, for when he first started painting and became sort of famous, the "TIMES" magazine labeled him as "Jack the Dripper", due to his form of painting....

Like my Art History Prof 101 said, you can teach "anyone" to paint portraits; but when you just set yourself free and paint what you feel in your heart, it's then when people like Pollock are born!

I too use to have the feeling that art is/was just over-priced crap....but now that I've delved into it, I too feel the emotion(s) of the artist and feel just how good or bad art makes me feel and for that reason I can agree with people paying far-out prices for a piece of canvas with "drippings" on it! lol

I remember reading JP's biography, describing how he felt when painting "traditional" pictorals.......so boring to him, so "in-a-rut" type of artistry; but when he developed his "In your art" type of paintings......he then excelled and he set himself free from the binds that others created and became one of the best artists in history....

 

[JSB_01]

Hmmmmmm, I posted very early on in this thread when the discussion of JP's works were considered trash....

Hey, do NOT feel alone, for when he first started painting and became sort of famous, the "TIMES" magazine labeled him as "Jack the Dripper", due to his form of painting....

Like my Art History Prof 101 said, you can teach "anyone" to paint portraits; but when you just set yourself free and paint what you feel in your heart, it's then when people like Pollock are born!

I too use to have the feeling that art is/was just over-priced crap....but now that I've delved into it, I too feel the emotion(s) of the artist and feel just how good or bad art makes me feel and for that reason I can agree with people paying far-out prices for a piece of canvas with "drippings" on it! lol

I remember reading JP's biography, describing how he felt when painting "traditional" pictorals.......so boring to him, so "in-a-rut" type of artistry; but when he developed his "In your art" type of paintings......he then excelled and he set himself free from the binds that others created and became one of the best artists in history....

Yay, another person who likes Pollock!


I don't even know how Belamy and I spiraled out of control with the art debate (don't get me wrong, this is fun!) But, I need to go to bed, so maybe we'll continue tomorrow...or, more accurately, later on today!

 

[belamy]

Social aspects are NOT superficial! It helps shape the way a work is presented, or the way a subject is portrayed, or even the event portrayed. For example, do you think it a mere coincidence that classicism came about during the same time as the Enlightenment? Art is social! As I have said before, art is more than colors on canvas, it has social/personal/cultural value!

Okay, let's say social aspects are "superficial." Then what are the "profound" aspects? How do you analyze art? What resources do you use? Without documents, what else is there? How do you learn about the artists that worked 100, 200, 300 years ago?

The fundamental information is in their actual techniques, not their vague principles and those of their society WHICH ARE STARTING POINTS, NOT THE FINAL WORK. Even if you don´t knew about how the painting is made (preparation, building-up, finishing...) the work is still there.
You donçt learn much about a Leonardo if you are told about the sfumato but at the same time you are told that works with no use of it AT ALL like Washington´s Ginevra de Benci or London´s Virgin of the Rocks are said to be Leonardo´s because some documents say that he made paintings resembling the iconography of those pictures; it is not very scientific (and that´s what historiography is supposed to be, you can say if you want art has nothing to do with science, but then don´t try to base your convictions of pseudo-science) to say that because we have documents that say Mr. X painted a lady with a red hat and we have a paiting with no know author of a lady with a red hat, it must be a painting of the author alluded to in those documents, even when that lady with the red hat has nothing to do with the technical methods set forth by the supposed author in other writings and in other pictures we CONSISTENTLY (mind it, I don´t say absolutely) know were made by him.

 

[belamy]

So are you saying art history is more of a sociological study?

That´s right. Philology, art history and virtually anything in the big ineffable sack of humanities is more about the teachers talking about themselves and their choir than about what they have right before their eyes.

 

[dpnice]

Just a desire to thank belamy and JSB for enlightening me how others approach their appreciation of art.

This thread was one of the few actually worth reading and from which one learnt something.

With little or no formal art education I approach it a different way. I see a painting and decide I like it and subsequently try to analyse why. The fact that it is considered a "masterpiece" does influence me but not blindly. The evaluation of a painting's worth is made by art experts using a language that we lesser mortals do not utilise so easily, based on these evaluations the artist becomes known and valued by those concerned with the world of art.

But us visitors to galleries and museums don't think like that and thus our initial impressions on seeing a work of art take no account of anything apart from our own personal preferences.

Thus is the reason why many of us on viewing a "Pollack" will say "crap".
Obviously a more elaborated vocabulary would give more strength to our comments but nevertheless "crap" is the first impression we get.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Good art is a personal opinion.
Art experts are like theater or movie or restaurant critics, in that just because they say the art is good or bad, we don't have to agree with them.
Guess good art is like porn, we can't exactly define it, but we know it when we see it.

 

[NedNickerson]

Check out these other paintings by Gustav Klimt:

http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/klimt/

 

[JSB_01]

belamy

The fundamental information is in their actual techniques, not their vague principles and those of their society WHICH ARE STARTING POINTS, NOT THE FINAL WORK.

Without those starting points, where would the artist begin?

Even if you don´t knew about how the painting is made (preparation, building-up, finishing...) the work is still there.

Again, that is art appreciation, which takes no prior knowledge. Art history requires you to dig deeper.

You donçt learn much about a Leonardo if you are told about the sfumato but at the same time you are told that works with no use of it AT ALL like Washington´s Ginevra de Benci or London´s Virgin of the Rocks are said to be Leonardo´s because some documents say that he made paintings resembling the iconography of those pictures; it is not very scientific (and that´s what historiography is supposed to be, you can say if you want art has nothing to do with science, but then don´t try to base your convictions of pseudo-science) to say that because we have documents that say Mr. X painted a lady with a red hat and we have a paiting with no know author of a lady with a red hat, it must be a painting of the author alluded to in those documents, even when that lady with the red hat has nothing to do with the technical methods set forth by the supposed author in other writings and in other pictures we CONSISTENTLY (mind it, I don´t say absolutely) know were made by him.

Art has a lot to do with science. For example, artists have to know what mixtures will last the longest, those who made early discovers in photography had to know about chemistry, X-rays are used to determine what was going on beneath the final product, and art restorers must have some knowledge of chemistry as well. There are some works that are unknown, and they will say attributed to “So-and-so.”
The last half I don’t really understand. You have to realize that really old works are often anonymous and it is blatantly stated so. Other works that we believe is by some artist is often stated too, but not as fact.
And so, since documents, whether primary sources or otherwise, are “unacceptable” in art history, what do you use when discussing world history? Or music history? Political history? ANY history?

That´s right. Philology, art history and virtually anything in the big ineffable sack of humanities is more about the teachers talking about themselves and their choir than about what they have right before their eyes.

What makes you say that? Do you have any examples? So all humanities teachers just talk about themselves and their beliefs? When my art history teacher teaches, she tells us about use of color, or brushstroke, or what influenced an artist to portray a certain subject, or what makes a painting real, or what other cultures had an influence on the artist. She often puts up another painting from another time period and tells us to compare and contrast them. In my architectural history class, we read theories from theorists dating back to the 19th century, and every Friday, there is a class discussion on what we thought about the readings.

Belamy, I have a simple question for you. Why do artists create?


dpnice

Just a desire to thank belamy and JSB for enlightening me how others approach their appreciation of art.

This thread was one of the few actually worth reading and from which one learnt something.

Thanks for the compliment!

With little or no formal art education I approach it a different way. I see a painting and decide I like it and subsequently try to analyse why. The fact that it is considered a "masterpiece" does influence me but not blindly. The evaluation of a painting's worth is made by art experts using a language that we lesser mortals do not utilise so easily, based on these evaluations the artist becomes known and valued by those concerned with the world of art.

But us visitors to galleries and museums don't think like that and thus our initial impressions on seeing a work of art take no account of anything apart from our own personal preferences.

Thus is the reason why many of us on viewing a "Pollack" will say "crap".
Obviously a more elaborated vocabulary would give more strength to our comments but nevertheless "crap" is the first impression we get.

I agree…partially. Like I said, everyone will have a first impression, but that impression can change. First does not mean permanent. Also, you can say that an artist failed in what they were trying to do, but I think it’s important to back it up with something more than “It’s ugly.”
Art experts may use a “different language,” but anybody can learn that language! I know nothing about hockey. If I were to go to a hockey game, how many people will bend over backwards to tell me the ins-and-outs of the game? Not many, I’m sure, unless I specifically ask….or look into it myself. It doesn’t take that much effort to research an artist (or game), all it takes is time.


unclaimedblessing

Good art is a personal opinion.
Art experts are like theater or movie or restaurant critics, in that just because they say the art is good or bad, we don't have to agree with them.
Guess good art is like porn, we can't exactly define it, but we know it when we see it.

I partially disagree. Art critics are like theater or movie or restaurant critics. And of course, you don’t have to agree with them. It is important to formulate your own opinion. Even artists and historians have their opinions. But it is not up to art historians to say what is good or not and force it onto the public. They are there to study each movement, or artist, or piece, to tell us why it is considered important. To tell us what makes it special. I personally didn’t really like impressionism all that much, but after learning about it, I liked it a little more. But more importantly, I gained a huge amount of respect for the impressionist painters, because they really did revolutionize art. I think we must respect work, not necessarily like it. I think these people, who devote their entire lives to their work, deserve more than a 5 second glance and a quick dismissal.


And here's a link to some Pollock sites, the last one definitely deserves a look.

http://www.kaliweb.com/jacksonpollock/art.htm
http://www.jackson-pollock.com/onlineartgallery.html
http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/pollockhome.shtm

 

[belamy]

belamy

The fundamental information is in their actual techniques, not their vague principles and those of their society WHICH ARE STARTING POINTS, NOT THE FINAL WORK.

Without those starting points, where would the artist begin?

THEY ARE THE NECESSARY STARTING POINTS (BETTER WORDED LIKE THAT?) , LIKE YOU COULD SAY ENGLISH GRAMMAR IS THE STARTING POINT OF THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE, BUT TO SAY THAT THE ELIZABETHAN ERA CONTAINS ALL THE ANSWERS (OR, AT LEAST, IF YOU PLAY THE CARD THAT IT´S NOT THE ANWERS THAT INTEREST YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CERTITUDES CONCERNING ART -AND I WHOLLY AGREE, LIKE THERE IS NOT CERTAINTY IN SCIENCE-) TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORKS OF SHALESPEARE IS LIKE SAYING THAT THOSE PLAYS WERE ALREADY CONTAINED, WRITTEN IN THE ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

Even if you don´t knew about how the painting is made (preparation, building-up, finishing...) the work is still there.

Again, that is art appreciation, which takes no prior knowledge. Art history requires you to dig deeper.

HISTORY (CONTEXT), TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE ARE FUNDAMENTAL, BUT IT´S, AGAIN THE STARTING POINT, OTHERWISE, ALL ARTISTS USING THE SAME TECHNIQUES AND LIVING IN THE SAME ERA WOULD NOT DIFFER AND REMAIN IN THE SAME POINT. IT´S NOT EVEN THE PERSONAL HANDLING OF ALL THAT, BUT THE MERE CONTINUITY, THE EVOLUTION OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF CREATIVE WORK THAT ARE TO BE INVESTIGATED, BUT HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE THAT WITH AN ACADEMICAL TRADITION THAT BELIEVES IN THE HANDLING OF EVERY GRRRREAT WORK OF ART AS A PURE, PERFECT ESSENCE? A TRADITION WHO CAN´T HANDLE DIFFERENT GRRRREAT VERSIONS OF A MODEL MADE BY THE SAME ARTIST IN THE SAME EPOCH BECAUSE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THEIR METHOD OF PERFECT UNTOUCHABLE CANONS, NAMES AND HYERACHIES OF GRRRREATNESS?

You donçt learn much about a Leonardo if you are told about the sfumato but at the same time you are told that works with no use of it AT ALL like Washington´s Ginevra de Benci or London´s Virgin of the Rocks are said to be Leonardo´s because some documents say that he made paintings resembling the iconography of those pictures; it is not very scientific (and that´s what historiography is supposed to be, you can say if you want art has nothing to do with science, but then don´t try to base your convictions of pseudo-science) to say that because we have documents that say Mr. X painted a lady with a red hat and we have a paiting with no know author of a lady with a red hat, it must be a painting of the author alluded to in those documents, even when that lady with the red hat has nothing to do with the technical methods set forth by the supposed author in other writings and in other pictures we CONSISTENTLY (mind it, I don´t say absolutely) know were made by him.

Art has a lot to do with science. (...)
OF COURSE IT HAS, AND YOU DON´T NEED TO READ THE NATIONAL GALLERY TECHNICAL BULLETIN TO KNOW THAT. YOU MAY AGREE WITH ME, FROM WHAT YOU JUST WROTE AFTER THAT, THAT ART IS ANOTHER FORM OF INVESTIGATION, BUT I NEED A WHOLE THESIS TO ELABORATE ON THAT AND I CAN´T SHARE IT HERE (WHO WOULD CARE )

The last half I don’t really understand. You have to realize that really old works are often anonymous and it is blatantly stated so. Other works that we believe is by some artist is often stated too, but not as fact.

THAT´S WHY THE ULTIMATE COHERENCE WE MUST SEEK IN A WORK OF ART IS NOT A HISTORIC PERSONALITY, BUT THE AESTHETIC "PSHYCHE" OF THE WORK ITSELF, WHICH YOU MAY FIND RELEVANT TO RELATE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

And so, since documents, whether primary sources or otherwise, are “unacceptable” in art history, what do you use when discussing world history? Or music history? Political history? ANY history?

AGAIN, I´M NOT SAYING THEY ARE "UNACCEPTABLE", "IRRELEVANT": I´M NOT AGAINST THEIR USE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE MIPORTANCE THEY ARE GIVEN BY A METHOD WHO INSISTS ON RELYING EXCLUSIVELY ON THEM WHILE, LIKE I SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE, THEY ARE JUST "STARTING MATERIAL".

That´s right. Philology, art history and virtually anything in the big ineffable sack of humanities is more about the teachers talking about themselves and their choir than about what they have right before their eyes.

What makes you say that? Do you have any examples? So all humanities teachers just talk about themselves and their beliefs? When my art history teacher teaches, she tells us about use of color, or brushstroke, or what influenced an artist to portray a certain subject, or what makes a painting real, or what other cultures had an influence on the artist. She often puts up another painting from another time period and tells us to compare and contrast them. In my architectural history class, we read theories from theorists dating back to the 19th century, and every Friday, there is a class discussion on what we thought about the readings.

RIGHT BUT SHE QUOTES THEM AS SHE QUOTES ANECDOTES FROM HISTORY, AND IT´S NORMAL THAT (AGAIN) AS AN START, YOU STUDY THEM BUT, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? HOW DO YOU RELATE THAT TO A PARTICULAR WORK IN A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF THE CREATIVE CAREER OF A PARTICULAR ARTIST? HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE CARAVAGGISM OF CARAVAGGIO FROM THAT OF THE EARLY VELAZQUEZ OR RIBERA? WHY DO AUTHORITIES GIVE SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE EARLY WORK OF AN ARTIST WHEN HE WAS NOT THAT ARTIST HIMSELF? IMAGINE A VELZAQUEZ OR A REMBRANDT HAVING DIED AT 25: WHY JUDGING THEIR WHOLE WORK MORE ACCORDING TO THEIR LATER ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC DISCOURSE CREATED AROUND THEM THAN ABOUT EACH WORK? THAT´S HOW FROM ACADEMICAL SPECULATION CHREMATISTIC, ECONOMICAL SPECULATION MAY BE DERIVED.

Belamy, I have a simple question for you. Why do artists create?

MAYBE FOR THE SAME REASON THAT SICENTISTS MAKE RESEARCH AND THINKERS THINK: BECAUSE THEY CAN DEVOTE MOST OF THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES TO NON-VITAL MATTERS LIKE FEEDING AND CLOTHING, AND THUS PROVIDING STARTING POINTS TO NEW SOCIAL FORMS, NEW FORMS OF LIFE. BECAUSE THEY DON´T FEEL CONFORTED IN FINDING ALL THE ANSWERS IN A HOLY BOOK OR A SIMPLE LIFE, NEITHER FEELING DISCOURAGED BY ONE OF THE FEW CERTAINTIES IN LIFE, NAMELY, THAT AS A HUMAN YOU CAN´T ATTAIN PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. IT MAY SEEM PRETTY CERTAIN TO YOU, BUT THE WHOLE XIXTH CENTURY UPON WHICH EVEN OUR LATER HIGH-TECH ERA IS BUILT, IGNORED IT.
IN SHORT, ARTISTS CREATE BECAUSE THEY KEEP THEIR MINDS MOVING FAST AND WILD, AND NOT JUST FOLLOWING VITAL HABITS LIKE EATING, WORKING, PARTYING AND FUCKING.

 

[Croynan]

Beauty and warmth have nothing to do with experience. Look at Goya's Black Paintings; they are the exact opposite of beauty and warmth, yet they too are considered masterpieces.
And as I'm sure everyone agrees, creativity is subjective, whether one likes it or not.
Also, if you base "experience" solely on surface appearance, then you can claim nearly all movements in modern art are worthless, including: Dadaism, Fauvism, German Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Deconstructivism, De Stijl, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Conceptual Art, and Pop Art among others.
When it comes down to it, delicate, graceful, pretty rococo art has less to say than overly simplified, stark, chaotic, ugly modern art.

I'm not trying to attack you Croynan, just trying to make a point!

I in no way feel you are attacking me, so you need not worry about that. I think on my part a better choice of words might have been - feeling(s) perceived as either positive or negative and or neutral. But then here again we man continue to disagree in our views on art.

I do appreciate your comment, however. I think it was most thoughtful.

eM.

 

[belamy]

I forgot to include a couple more examples related to the "knowledge" shared by teachers and art authorities.

Many "experts" and authorities on classical (XVIth-XVIIIth century ) European painting believe that the basis of that art is drawing, because they inherited the mythical views made in the XIXth century about late gothic painting in Italy being part of a renaissance which founded modern society, while in fact that "renaissance" was the later part of a movement begun in the XIVth century which, it´s true, may be said to be a part of a continuum of thinking leading to our days, but they ignore the historical fact (mind you, here it would seem it´s me who did the homework of the "starting point") that modernity in painting, the modern technique of painting, is derived from the Venetian school, not from the Flemish or Florentine ones, however "great" their achievements. And the fact too that Rubens of Rembrandt were not that bad in their drawings can not hide the other fact that their building-up of one of their paintings is not related to the methods of Raphael or Michelangelo or Leonardo, who was the only one to get closer to the modern way. That´s why the exhibitions about the "hidden paintings" like the current one in the Prado museum are about gothic paintings, about the gothic tradition: Velazquez´s pentimenti are made of strokes, not drawing lines.

The second is about the "theorists" to whose academical study you made reference. The naturalist theories of XIXth century French novelists: every academic bug knows the disparity between their attempts to scientism and objectivism and their final literary result, like the disparity between the preaching of certain priests and their hidden sexual life.

 

[JSB_01]

Okay, I’m still having a difficult time understanding you; maybe that’s why this debate is so long winded! But here goes.

(Just to let everyone know, belamy is the bold print, and I included parts of our past debates.)

The fundamental information is in their actual techniques, not their vague principles and those of their society WHICH ARE STARTING POINTS, NOT THE FINAL WORK.

Without those starting points, where would the artist begin?

THEY ARE THE NECESSARY STARTING POINTS (BETTER WORDED LIKE THAT?) , LIKE YOU COULD SAY ENGLISH GRAMMAR IS THE STARTING POINT OF THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE, BUT TO SAY THAT THE ELIZABETHAN ERA CONTAINS ALL THE ANSWERS (OR, AT LEAST, IF YOU PLAY THE CARD THAT IT´S NOT THE ANWERS THAT INTEREST YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CERTITUDES CONCERNING ART -AND I WHOLLY AGREE, LIKE THERE IS NOT CERTAINTY IN SCIENCE-) TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORKS OF SHALESPEARE IS LIKE SAYING THAT THOSE PLAYS WERE ALREADY CONTAINED, WRITTEN IN THE ENGLISH GRAMMAR.

Okay….well, I was talking about social issues, not the actual “language” the artist uses in creating. Sure, the same painting materials have been around for hundreds of years, as has the English language. So, why is not all art and literature of the past hundred years the same? Because an artist/author is INFLUENCED BY SOCIETY to change the way art is viewed.

-----------

Even if you don´t knew about how the painting is made (preparation, building-up, finishing...) the work is still there.

Again, that is art appreciation, which takes no prior knowledge. Art history requires you to dig deeper.

HISTORY (CONTEXT), TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE ARE FUNDAMENTAL, BUT IT´S, AGAIN THE STARTING POINT, OTHERWISE, ALL ARTISTS USING THE SAME TECHNIQUES AND LIVING IN THE SAME ERA WOULD NOT DIFFER AND REMAIN IN THE SAME POINT. IT´S NOT EVEN THE PERSONAL HANDLING OF ALL THAT, BUT THE MERE CONTINUITY, THE EVOLUTION OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF CREATIVE WORK THAT ARE TO BE INVESTIGATED, BUT HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE THAT WITH AN ACADEMICAL TRADITION THAT BELIEVES IN THE HANDLING OF EVERY GRRRREAT WORK OF ART AS A PURE, PERFECT ESSENCE? A TRADITION WHO CAN´T HANDLE DIFFERENT GRRRREAT VERSIONS OF A MODEL MADE BY THE SAME ARTIST IN THE SAME EPOCH BECAUSE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THEIR METHOD OF PERFECT UNTOUCHABLE CANONS, NAMES AND HYERACHIES OF GRRRREATNESS?

I’m not sure what your saying. What causes this “evolution of the possibilities?” Why can you NOT reconcile it with “academical tradition?” Why are they incompatible? You say that it believes every great work to be “pure, perfect essence.” What makes it not “pure, perfect essence?” You say that the tradition can’t handle “different great versions of a model….because it would compromise their method of perfect, untouchable canons.” Examples?

----------

OF COURSE IT HAS, AND YOU DON´T NEED TO READ THE NATIONAL GALLERY TECHNICAL BULLETIN TO KNOW THAT. YOU MAY AGREE WITH ME, FROM WHAT YOU JUST WROTE AFTER THAT, THAT ART IS ANOTHER FORM OF INVESTIGATION, BUT I NEED A WHOLE THESIS TO ELABORATE ON THAT AND I CAN´T SHARE IT HERE (WHO WOULD CARE )

Art history IS a form of investigation, which is what I said before. You need to investigate the culture, society, philosophy, history, and personal aspects of the time.

----------

The last half I don’t really understand. You have to realize that really old works are often anonymous and it is blatantly stated so. Other works that we believe is by some artist is often stated too, but not as fact.

THAT´S WHY THE ULTIMATE COHERENCE WE MUST SEEK IN A WORK OF ART IS NOT A HISTORIC PERSONALITY, BUT THE AESTHETIC "PSHYCHE" OF THE WORK ITSELF, WHICH YOU MAY FIND RELEVANT TO RELATE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

The “aesthetic psyche” is important, as is the history. But you say that social aspects are “superficial” and I completely disagree.

----------

And so, since documents, whether primary sources or otherwise, are “unacceptable” in art history, what do you use when discussing world history? Or music history? Political history? ANY history?

AGAIN, I´M NOT SAYING THEY ARE "UNACCEPTABLE", "IRRELEVANT": I´M NOT AGAINST THEIR USE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE MIPORTANCE THEY ARE GIVEN BY A METHOD WHO INSISTS ON RELYING EXCLUSIVELY ON THEM WHILE, LIKE I SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE, THEY ARE JUST "STARTING MATERIAL".

So what is the problem with scholars using these documents? You said earlier: “I know about art history and art historians, and their analysis rely on the mere scholactic tradition of opinions of previous authorities” which I think is condescending towards these scholars. Yes, it is “starting material,” but what’s the problem with that? Are you suggesting that these scholarly documents shouldn’t get as much importance that they do get? If so, then where should that importance be relocated?

----------

That´s right. Philology, art history and virtually anything in the big ineffable sack of humanities is more about the teachers talking about themselves and their choir than about what they have right before their eyes.

What makes you say that? Do you have any examples? So all humanities teachers just talk about themselves and their beliefs? When my art history teacher teaches, she tells us about use of color, or brushstroke, or what influenced an artist to portray a certain subject, or what makes a painting real, or what other cultures had an influence on the artist. She often puts up another painting from another time period and tells us to compare and contrast them. In my architectural history class, we read theories from theorists dating back to the 19th century, and every Friday, there is a class discussion on what we thought about the readings.

RIGHT BUT SHE QUOTES THEM AS SHE QUOTES ANECDOTES FROM HISTORY, AND IT´S NORMAL THAT (AGAIN) AS AN START, YOU STUDY THEM BUT, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? HOW DO YOU RELATE THAT TO A PARTICULAR WORK IN A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF THE CREATIVE CAREER OF A PARTICULAR ARTIST?

That is the next step. Like I said, art history deals with the development of styles, but also how artists influence each other, as in people influencing other people, as in SOCIETY (past or present) influencing artists.

HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE CARAVAGGISM OF CARAVAGGIO FROM THAT OF THE EARLY VELAZQUEZ OR RIBERA?

Not sure what your point is here. You differentiate artistic styles VISUALLY.

----------

WHY DO AUTHORITIES GIVE SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE EARLY WORK OF AN ARTIST WHEN HE WAS NOT THAT ARTIST HIMSELF?

That is a generalization. Not all artists early works are deemed “important.” Importance itself is a difficult word to define. Is it important in how it differed from other art of its day? Important in how it influenced others? Important in terms of an artists personal development? We can tell what an artist is doing (sometimes) based on their theoretical writings, or personal correspondence, or how others around him wrote or spoke about him.

IMAGINE A VELZAQUEZ OR A REMBRANDT HAVING DIED AT 25: WHY JUDGING THEIR WHOLE WORK MORE ACCORDING TO THEIR LATER ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC DISCOURSE CREATED AROUND THEM THAN ABOUT EACH WORK? THAT´S HOW FROM ACADEMICAL SPECULATION CHREMATISTIC, ECONOMICAL SPECULATION MAY BE DERIVED.

I’m not sure what this means.

----------

Belamy, I have a simple question for you. Why do artists create?

MAYBE FOR THE SAME REASON THAT SICENTISTS MAKE RESEARCH AND THINKERS THINK: BECAUSE THEY CAN DEVOTE MOST OF THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES TO NON-VITAL MATTERS LIKE FEEDING AND CLOTHING, AND THUS PROVIDING STARTING POINTS TO NEW SOCIAL FORMS, NEW FORMS OF LIFE. BECAUSE THEY DON´T FEEL CONFORTED IN FINDING ALL THE ANSWERS IN A HOLY BOOK OR A SIMPLE LIFE, NEITHER FEELING DISCOURAGED BY ONE OF THE FEW CERTAINTIES IN LIFE, NAMELY, THAT AS A HUMAN YOU CAN´T ATTAIN PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. IT MAY SEEM PRETTY CERTAIN TO YOU, BUT THE WHOLE XIXTH CENTURY UPON WHICH EVEN OUR LATER HIGH-TECH ERA IS BUILT, IGNORED IT.
IN SHORT, ARTISTS CREATE BECAUSE THEY KEEP THEIR MINDS MOVING FAST AND WILD, AND NOT JUST FOLLOWING VITAL HABITS LIKE EATING, WORKING, PARTYING AND FUCKING.

So you say they are not just following vital habits. But what influences them to keep their minds busy? What influences what they depict and how they depict it, whether secular or sacred?

----------

I forgot to include a couple more examples related to the "knowledge" shared by teachers and art authorities....

Why did you write "knowledge" in quotations like that? What's the problem with the information you listed?

 

[JSB_01]

I do appreciate your comment, however. I think it was most thoughtful.

[/B]eM.

Thanks! No problem!

And just to let you know, too, belamy, I'm not trying to offend you either!