Posted on 05/04/2005 3:37:15 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 14 -- One of the nation's richest troves of impressionist and post-impressionist art is moving to downtown Philadelphia now that its trustees have won court permission to leave their hard-to-visit suburban gallery, a legacy of the collection's eccentric founder.
Trustees of the Barnes Foundation had argued for two years that they should be allowed to move the collection of Renoirs, Cezannes, Matisses and Picassos because decades of limited attendance and high costs in Lower Merion Township have nearly bankrupted the foundation
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And how is this a trap. If I like black velvet paintings better than rembrandts how is that bad? I save lots and lots of money on art. Or perhaps I prefer old movie posters. Or maybe photographs of roadkill.
Art is no more and no less than what you like to look at. It is worth no more than what you are willing to pay for.
Most 'art' is the worthless visual mutterings of self-absorbed elitists who call themselves 'artists' rather than painters or welders. No matter how much piss you put a crucifix in it will never be art. No matter how much material you drap over central park it will never be art. Just because something is called art does not mean it is art. And just because something is not called art doesn't mean it's not art.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and only the one willing to pay for it can judge whether it's good art or not.
If you do...you might as well call Finnaren and Haley and Sherwin Williams popular American artists.
Don't know about the first two guys but I'm pretty sure that SW only sells paint. didn't know they did any painting
We are arguing two different things here...Im asking what is the definition of art itself...and you are asking what is GOOD art.
Theres a subtle difference.
Heres a question for you. Some construction workers are doing some remodeling in a museum. They cut a rectangular hole in the outside wall to install a window...but never put in the window...maybe they ran out of windows or something.
Is it art?
Now some enterprising artist comes along and puts a picture frame around the hole in the wall...and a titles it "View of the City"
Is it art?
(Assume its a beautiful view of the city BTW)
Is it art?
depends. Is someone willing to buy it? if so - it's art. if not it's just a hole in the wall
Now some enterprising artist comes along and puts a picture frame around the hole in the wall...and a titles it "View of the City"
Is it art?
depends. Is someone willing to buy it? if so - it's art. if not it's just a hole in the wall
Note that it could be art to one person, poor construction to another person, poor design to a third person and avante garde architecture to a fourth person. The buyer determines what it really is
The distinction between good art and bad art is a fair one to make. But art isn't necessarily what you can buy nor is good art necessarily what looks pretty.
My simple definition of (good) art has to do with form and content. That is, what it looks like and what the artist is trying to say. "Good" art will have something to say that relates to how it looks. Often the better art will be unique in both these areas.
My parents loved New England landscape painting: i.e. the pretty white house and the red barn and mountains behind it. Usually, this is schlocky stuff because the meaning in always the same (it's a pretty New England landscape) and the form is always the same. When done by a master, even such local "masters" as Luigi Lucioni or Andrew Wyeth, the works take on a depth and poignancy that is different from what you'd buy at an art fair. That's what makes these works better works.
I wrote a while back about why Christo's Gates were great art. Look for my postings and you'll find my longer essay about it. But, in short, it is definitely art (and terrific art at that) because it is saying something new and making us see that in a new way. Much of his art has to do with perception and experience. And walking through those gates and seeing the light fall on that warm saffron color and seeing them continue in a royal procession ahead of me was one of the best experiences in this year, and perhaps one of my best experiences in art in my life (and I've seen a lot of great works in person).
Here's where we will always diagree. The artist's message is totally irrelevant to the question of "will that look good above my sofa or out in my garden"
If it doesn't look good it isn't art
I don't give a flying leap about what the artist wants to say. I care no more for his opinions and ideas than I'd care for the opinions and ideas of the neighborhood kid who mows my lawn. I am paying him to provide a product and the value of the product is determined solely by whether it looks good to me.
... That's what makes these works better works.
And why are they really better works? because they look better to the buyer.
I wrote a while back about why Christo's Gates were great art.
And here we'd definately disagree. Gates was pollution. no more visually attractive than democrat protest signs during the million(?) man march.
And walking through those gates and seeing the light fall on that warm saffron color and seeing them continue in a royal procession ahead of me was one of the best experiences in this year,...
Walking through the changing leaves during the fall is a far better experience than walking through some guy's cast off drapes.
So here we run into the basic problem with the art world. One man's art is another man's garbage. Only the buyer can determine what is art and what is garbage because only the buyer is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
One other point. Anything funded by tax dollars (no matter how pretty) is not art. It is theft and waste of resources. Art is always funded privately and takes nothing by force from anyone.
I'm also on the Salacious Ping List, so I won't be offended by anything you present. :^) Just don't try to get me to buy John Cage's assertion that any auditory experience, including total silence (if you can find it), is music. I'm not THAT broadminded.
They could be. Depends on whose doing the viewing. I'll stand corrected on the hole in the wall. Unless the buyer has the means to purchase the building I wouldn't call it art in eitehr event
The point I am trying to get across is the realization that if everything around us is 'art'...then nothing is art...because the term "art" itself loses any descriptive purpose.
I agree entirely. "art" is a pretentious, self-important term used mostly by people trying to inflate their own self worth or increase the value of their product. ("art" sells for much more than paintings do. Sculpture sells for much more than statues do etc)
A random collection of discarded boxes could be art to one person and merely refuse to another. One man could take a picture of it and frame it as art (and it would be much better than some of the stuff I've seen) while another could take the whole pile and recycle it or burn it. One man's art is another man's garbage. The only one who can determine which is which is the buyer (or viewer for those things which cannot be bought).
The best 'work of art' I ever saw (excpet for the Rodin's The Kiss) was in the national museum of art in DC. There is a fountain between the two buildings that consists of a series of small steps that the water flows down. The whole thing is about 20 feet or more wide and about 12-15 feet high. It ios best seen from the basement looking out the window at the steps going up. On the day I was there there was a pepsi can placed about 1/2 way up the steps against one wall with the logo clearly seen from the viewing area below. Could've been trash to some. But to me it was one of the best pictures I took that day. To me it was art becuase it was visually appealing. I'm sure that to the janitor it was just garbage.
I said..."The point I am trying to get across is the realization that if everything around us is 'art'...then nothing is art...because the term "art" itself loses any descriptive purpose."
You said..."I agree entirely. "art" is a pretentious, self-important term used mostly by people trying to inflate their own self worth or increase the value of their product."
You say you reject the notion of art...yet I can take your responses and arrive at a formal philosphical definition of art.
Lets start with your assertion... "But to me it was one of the best pictures I took that day. To me it was art becuase it was visually appealing."
What have you done...you have taken something you found interesting...and took a picture of it...a human action. You produced a representative object unique to yourself using your own skills and actions. Your criteria for creation was that the subject be visually appealing or interesting. Other artists may have other criteria...such as emotional impact..or pure beauty.
Presumably...if there is someone out there who shares your enthusiasm for the subject...they will purchase your picture from you.
You created art...it may be bad art...or something Ansel Adams would be proud of....but its yours. You needed an aesthetic appreciation and knowledge of photography to carry it off. Consider yourself an artist. Dont be surprised if somebody on the lower East Side of NY wants to give you top dollar for it.
susan estrich has got to HATE that this is out there. it is hideous.
More than just nudes. It depicts a guy with his head between his legs, and an obvious thought leaps to mind as to why. I don't care what year it was painted. In fact, the thought that he was trend setting and 'ahead of his time' makes me that much more ticked off at him.
What's that guy doing with his head between his legs? It looks to me that the man painted is perhaps part dog. What a sick artist that was to debaucherize people back in 1905!
I have trouble with John Cage too. He's experimental, and that's okay. But he's given way too much credence. Again, I don't see a great deal of deep meaning in his work.
But I do enjoy performing 4' 33" (or an excerpt thereof) for my classes. It's the only piece I can play.
I don't see any content in "a random collection of discarded boxes;" however, someone might see something striking and make a great photograph of it.
Your description of the can of coke at the National Gallery is intriguing. While I wouldn't say that the coke can there would be art alone (again, because I don't see meaning in it), your photo of it could be seen as art, because you are contrasting a beautiful place with a commercial product suggesting tourism, etc., in that place. Now that could be an interesting photo. Whether it was "great" art might depend on how technical you want to be about the quality of the photo. (Some of my professor colleagues are really picky about technique in photography.)
It is abstract, so it gives you a fresh and different take on a kiss.
I'm mainly talking about 'Dog Man' on the lower left.
Here's a better picture.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/matisse/matisse.bonheur-vivre.jpg
Well my apologies on that score. It's such good art I couldn't see it properly. You are correct that the kiss on the lower right is beautiful, that is if they weren't in a nudist colony.
I saw much of the Barnes Collection (including "The Card Players" in the upper right hand corner of your post) when they had a special exhibit at the Philadelphia Museam of Art. Attendence at the event was very high, which may explain why they are moving the collection to Philadelphia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.