Favorite artists - contribute!

[yovargas]

Whoa. Fascinating, vison. Thanks for sharing that.

Theory:

- from what I gather, books - words - are your favorite artform, the artform that most deeply "speaks" to you
- the artform that most deeply "speaks" to me is music - sound

Reading your post, it looks like you'll take a painting and sort of transform it into words, in some sense. I, on the other hand, sort of transform it into a melody, a song, a sound, somehow. I don't mean that 100% literally, but still I think that somehow it's the music part of my brain that grabs on to my very fav paintings. The actual content - be it person, tree, ocean, or blob - barely registers with me because the quality of the melody is not dependent on the content of the lyrics.
If that makes sense.

[Whistler]

Very Whistlerian.

[vison]

yovargas, it makes perfect sense. And yes, I am definitely a person who sees things with "The Word".

God said , "Let there be light: and there was light". Lo, the power of The Word.

I find it hard to "look" at anything without turning it into words. The more profound the scene, the more difficult it is.

Yesterday, as an example, I saw three magical things. I am still trying to turn those sights into words. When I do, I'll post them in the "Nature in Our Own Words" thread.

Yet, in another thread I think we spoke about song lyrics. I basically seldom hear the "words", I hear "sounds" and the human voice is only another instrument to me. Most of the time, anyway. There are songs I eventually learn the lyrics to, but sometimes I get them wrong, like with CCR's anthem "There's a Bathroom on the Right!"

Odd, if you ask me.

What sets "us" apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is the power of The Word.

IMHO, of course. And when we turned our speech into symbols, we became gods.

[nerdanel]

My gut interpretation of yov's painting was as a comment on the emptiness of female objectification. Our faces seem to be one key to our human identity, and the artist has deprived the woman of that identity entirely. She has a small, petite waist, perfectly proportioned arms and hands, and is wearing a low-cut dress that covers what seem likely to be nicely proportioned breasts. The people watching her all seem to be men (or extremely butch-appearing women), and seem engaged, interested, or captivated. They seem indifferent to the fact that they can't see any substance - the intelligence, emotion, or even just THOUGHTS that would issue if she had a face and a mouth.

This impression probably does not make sense at all in light of the time period. Take how much a naive and impressionable 5 year old child knows about art, subtract 99%, and that's how much I know about art, which is why I have not posted in this thread before now.

[Rodia]

Funny...I glance at a picture to know whether I like it or not. No studying of the meaning can change my first impression-it's either appealing or horrible. I saw the painting in Yova's b77 avatar, and I thought it was novel. That was the extent...but when I think about it, were it painted in Dali's manner, I'd hate it. Were it a photograph, I'd hate it. As it is, I like it, might use a sticker with it, or a postcard.

See, it's okay for me because it shows nice things...a drum is neat, so is the sea, the clothes are okay, there is nothing really ugly in there. Dali puts me off because of all those nasty things thrown in with pretty things. Or maybe it's because I really don't like watches. Can't say why, I just hate them, don't want to touch,look, even write about them. This post feels foul because the word is used in it.

(never said I was sane.)

One such detail can spoil a painting for me.

But I don't mind the drum lady. A while back you all were discussing a painting with a big...no, wait, that was on WetCanvas, d'oh...anyway...a painting was being discussed, and at first glance I thought it was really neat- a huge wild crazy bouquet of flowers taking up more than half the canvas, and two people eating breakfast under it. It was pretty!

And then people started with the observations. Why has the man got more food than the woman? Why are they so deathly thin if there is so much food? Why is the bouquet so huge and oppressive? Are the three apples suggesting the husband is unfaithful?

I could have cried...I thought they were thin because...well because they were! It was a style...the bouquet was huge because it was fantastical and pretty...the food was just food.

Sometimes I hate having to think.

And when I read Vison's post...she's right. How does the woman see? Why is she different? Who will love her if she looks like that?The drum is alien, even though I didn't mind it at first.

Now excuse me while I go off into a corner to sulk.

[truehobbit]

ARGH - once in a dozen posts I forget to hit "copy" before I hit "submit" and that's when it gets eaten!

I had written a post saying that for me there's some truth in what everybody here says: there's the pure effect of light, colour and shape on the one hand, and there's asking myself what the artist's ideas behind his or her choices were. They both go together, somehow.

I had said it at more length before, but that was about the gist of it.

[yovargas]

Really interesting reactions to that painting. I'm wondering, would people's reaction to it be any different if I told you that the painting was made for a rock album cover?

[Whistler]

Does the band play tambourines?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

would people's reaction to it be any different if I told you that the painting was made for a rock album cover?

No. At least not my reaction. But then, I haven't described any reaction, so that's probably not fair.

[Impenitent]

My response to what I see is much like Rodia's, except that I prefer to ponder.

Not to think, so much, as to...just look at it. Close up - to see the texture; back away to get the composition, the overall feel; I don't analyze it so much, as feel it.

Yes, that's it. I feel it. (Makes me laugh to say that, because...d'uh! I live on emotion; drip it, leak it. I'm very emotional. Makes complete sense, now that I see it)

Some things feel dreadful, some things feel...interesting, or evocative, or peaceful, or intense.

Sometimes the work feels devastating, but I still value it - like Guernica, for example.

The analytical mind - developed through all those classes in art, the books read, the museums trawled through - that part engages second. First comes the feeling.

[Primula Baggins]

Really interesting reactions to that painting. I'm wondering, would people's reaction to it be any different if I told you that the painting was made for a rock album cover?

Am I shallow for admitting that that does make a difference to me—that the painting having some reason to exist makes it less ugly to me, and in fact makes me see its clumsy weirdness as an ironic joke?

Oh, probably.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

How (or why) would that make you shallow?

[Primula Baggins]

I just know very little about the visual arts, is all. I'm one of those "I like what I like" people. Whereas when it comes to music or writing, I'm not like that at all--I'm reasonably confident that I have some basis for my judgment.

Which is why I hang around in threads like this—it may annoy people, but I learn things.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's deep.

[Whistler]

What I think you're asking, Yov, is this: Does it matter that this is not really "fine" art (meaning gallery/museum art) but a work of commercial illustration?

To many, it probably does. That's because in modern times we have drawn a line between fine art and illustration, regarding the first as "pure" art and the second as somehow second-rate, unworthy of serious consideration.

However, I remind everyone that almost every artist dating from the beginning of time to the mid-19th Century was actually an illustrator. The notion of art as something detached from illustration is a modern concept.

The art is the same, wherever it appears.

[Impenitent]

Yes.

I recall a conversation elsewhere on 'What is art?' - some taking the view that art is whatever the artist says is art (which is presumptuously allows the self-definition of artist) and others disputing this.

It is not a question to which there can be a concrete answer.

[Whistler]

It went like this:

What is art?

Art is what artists make.

Who is an artist?

Anyone who says he's an artist.

That's today's art world, folks.

[yovargas]

What I think you're asking, Yov, is this: Does it matter that this is not really "fine" art (meaning gallery/museum art) but a work of commercial illustration?

Not what I was asking at all but a good question nonetheless.

And I'm sure they have a tamborine somewhere on the album.


And Impy, how come no reaction from you?

[Whistler]

Not what you were asking? Then what was the question, exactly? The commercial use of the art is the only thing that distinguishes it from something intended for a gallery.

[Impenitent]

Yov, I didn't have time to give a response with the attention it deserves. I hope to have some time over the weekend - but now I've got to go shop for dinner for 10!

Who is an artist?

Anyone who says he's an artist.

Whistler, I take issue with that, but it's a whole new subject and worthy of its own thread.

However, I won't be starting it. Not that I'm hinting or anything.