Quote:
Quote by: DEEJ85  There is an Art Program at the college I attend, So I assume there is at least some theory or practicum to teach.
Often I will walk into the foyer and there will be art projects on display. These projects range in types, shapes and sizes. Sometimes one will consist of a bunch of things adhered to other things in a particular shape or pattern. In almost every piece of art I've seen the art has yet to provoke any emotion or feelings of beauty in me. To me they are just things stuck to other things. I do not see art in it.
I have also been to art museums where I've looked at famous paintings and have not noticed much beauty or any amazing insight inside. The prominence and value of the Mona Lisa I only know or recognize because it is practically the most valued piece of art in the world. If I were to gaze at it out of that context I don't think I'd notice anything special.
is there some sort of objective value placed on the content and expertise of these paintings? Or is it entirely subjective, based on the culture and people who make the judgments? |
The expertise of the paintings can indeed be objectively critiqued; it takes just as much brush control and color sense (et cetera et cetera) to make a Jackson Pollock painting (similar to #2, if you don't knwo Pollock's work -- actually, is that a Pollock?) as it does to do something like the Mona Lisa, at least in terms of a sort of tier of artist. Top-tier artists really do all have a great amount of ability; Picasso was a far better draftsman, in terms of his abiltiy to draw from life, than the vast majority of artists who try to paint in his style. That was one reason why he was more successful, and can be seen as "better," even by someone who hates cubism and abstract art.
Now, can the meaning of the paintings be objectively rated and valued? I would say no, but as you mention with your Mona Lisa reference, it's hard to place an objective value on ANY work of art in terms of its emotional impact or its importance as a cultural or artistic artifact, or what have you. I wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for some piece of Star Trek memorabilia, but you know there are plenty of people who would; are they wrong? Are they stupid? Of course not, they just have different tastes and different values. I WOULD pay thousands (millions if I had it) for certain literary artifacts -- a Gutenberg book, for instance, or an illuminated Chaucer, or an original copy of
Tamerlane and Other Poems by Poe.
To each their own, I says. I embarrassed the hell out of my wife (she's an artist) when we went to see a Willem de Kooning (famous abstract artist) exhibit at the MOMA in Boston. I stood in front of one of de Kooning's drawings and loudly criticized it as a worthless scribble that he vomited onto the page, and then squinted one eye at and said, "Yeah, that kind of looks like I drew something. Stick a price tag on it!" We got a few dirty looks for that one. But you know what? I was right. That thing was crap.