I'm not one for subtle critique.
So when I was invited to an art opening, I thought: "shit, that's gonna be long and drawn".
I like art when its hard. Like Turner. Or Da Vinci. Actually, I don't know that much about art. But when I see something that looks like it was hard to do, like the Sistine Chapel, respect to de artist.
I went to the MOMA in midtown and saw some Picasso mixed up with Bacon, mixed up with Warhol and whatever else they had lying around. Luckily, my entrance was free (I was with someone who had access to these frenetics for free). Everyone else had to pay a $20.00 entrance fee! SUCKAS!
A lot of the stuff I saw wasn't that hard to do.
I really don't understand art. And to a much lesser degree, modern art. I don't know how to react to it.
I'll try harder to get into it but if anyone's got some nice suggestions or techniques on the matter, you know where to post baby.
Deep Thoughts From Ken
#17 April 2005
Comments...
Art appreciation is all about context. You appreciate the street art you see everyday, because you're aware of the context - you're living in it.
If you want to appreciate "old art", know something about the historical context that produced it. For example, these days Monet's style (Impressionism) is the epitome of middle-of-the-road "good taste": pretty-pretty, safe, almost "chocolate box" (but also a "work of genius").
But in the 1880's, his pictures were seen as vulgar, offensive, poorly executed, even immoral and dangerous. The Impressionists hung out on the bad side of town, got high, talked themselves up, and drew inspiration from the new urban lifestyles exploding all around them - work, leisure, the lowlifes and the characters, the buildings and new technology. The more you learn about this period, the closer it feels to our lives today. Impressionism offers an insight into the birth of the modern city - that's where the appreciation begins for me.
My favourite picture from this period is Manet's A Bar at the Folies-Bergeres. Manet places the viewer as a participant in the scene - we're occupying the position of the man reflected in the mirror, top right. But the perspective is skewed, and the bartender stares at us with a blank, anonymous look. The Folies-Bergeres was an infamous music hall, with seedy acts and plenty of absinthe. To me, the alienation of modern city life is instantly recognisable in this picture.
Anyway, I guess there's not so much Impressionism at MOMA? But Abstraction has been subject to a similar shift in perspective. With the benefit of hindsight "anyone can do it", but to be the first, the originator - that's different.
Anyway, I hear they have good audio tours at MOMA, maybe you should check one out!
(Yes, I do have an Art History degree, and no, it has not helped me to get a job.)
Posted by: Alan de Beauville | 5:33pm 18 April 2005
Alan.
Thanks for your persepctive, not condescending at all.
Some great suggestions. I will try the MOMA monaural experience when I go back, most definitely. They might have impressionism there but I wouldn't know how to spot it if I saw it.
BTW, is that a Bass Ale bottle in the bottom right corner of "Bar at the Folies Bergeres?
Posted by: Ken | 8:17pm 18 April 2005
one of my favrit painters is john currin. i like painting with lots of details, strong odd images where things dont quite sit right, and paintings that make me laugh.
check the image gallery. my fave is 'the pink tree'
Posted by: nancy | 1:14pm 20 April 2005
Wow.
Currin's work looks pretty hard to do. But is it still impressionism if the models are made to look distorted?
Either way, I can consider this art without a doubt.
Thanks Nancy!
Posted by: Ken | 5:56pm 23 April 2005
No, stuff like this isn't Impressionism, more like Expressionism - "any art that emphasizes the artist's feelings or state of mind more than his objective observations. Expressionist works often show exaggerations such as distorted shapes and unnatural colors."
Impressionism tries to depict a fleeting moment, a blink of the eye - visual and objective.
Expressionisim tries to depict the artists' feelings about their subject (and about themselves) - psychological and subjective.
So I guess this guy Currin thinks the people he depicts are pretty obsence, but he kind of like that too?
Posted by: alan | 3:55pm 26 April 2005
Whilst we're at it, I'd like to give props to my favourite artist Magritte, he was well hard. His pictures properly trip you out when you're a 16 year old on acid (or so I'm told).
Posted by: alan | 4:06pm 26 April 2005
Well, if that's the case,
Then that guy Turner isn't impressionistic after all. His shit looks hard to do but its tinged with his own perspective... Skewed beyond recognition... I guess clusters of colour that make up a whole blurry picture are cool, but they hardly belong to the impressionistic movement and tend to lend themselves to the "expressionism" you're alluding to.
Having said that Canaletto and Guardi are two artists I've come across since this thread began whose works look exteremelio difficulto yet are picture perfect representations of scenes of Venice.
Posted by: Ken | 1:04pm 29 April 2005