next »

[michaelplzno]

Hey all, I think we've talked a lot about art and I run into a lot of common ideas that seem to stink up the art world without much justification.

1) Emotion is the highest ideal of art. FALSE.

Art can portray meaning and other aesthetic experiences besides evoking emotion. Furthermore, for example, art that makes you cry, can be total garbage, and poorly made tripe that exploits the audience in a manipulative way.

2) Children are bad artists. FALSE.

You may not like a child's art, but so many artists have aspired to make art in the style of children. Also, a lot of people who think this seem to not have much experience working with children who draw. I recommend you look at children's art before you dismiss it. It can be quite impactful and powerful.

3) All art is political. FALSE.

I've seen many threads where people challenge the world to give them a piece of art and explain why it's political. This includes an oil painting of a pop tart rendered in great detail, which the political artist says "well oil paintings are an invention of Western artists, so this poptart image is displaying the dominance Western culture." Another one I liked was that someone stabbed a Rothko painting so it must be political because it enraged someone so. I know politics makes people angry but semantically this ain't politics.

4) All art is subjective. FALSE.

There is a good deal of art that is about subjectivity, and to say art is entirely objective would be folly. But it is also folly to say art is 100% subjective. For example, this Rothko (if it is one of his.)

We can say a lot about it, though I find it to be a bit of a boring piece, but objectively it is red. That's that. There can be no debate about its redness. Furthermore, objective bits of art are meaningful to talk to as it gives the audience a common framework to talk about a piece. If art were truly 100% subjective then it would be the tower of babble, that is, no one would be able to agree on anything and it would all just be arbitrary arguing. So, a good artist will want at least some objective eyes on their piece.

I may come back and add more to this list but I'm off to take care of errands.

Here is one from today:

[J-Snake]

Art can portray meaning and other aesthetic experiences besides evoking emotion.

If art does not evoke emotion, it is just an arbitrary piece of information. It's hard to sell that to somebody. People want to get inspired and feel something when they look at art. An aesthetic experience is an emotional experience because it cannot be neutral.

Furthermore, for example, art that makes you cry, can be total garbage, and poorly made tripe that exploits the audience in a manipulative way.

You have to be pretty good at art to ignite this level of emotion.   

[J-Snake]

Judging from your recent drawing and similar works, you seem to use space in a multi-purpose way, combining different, often random and innocent elements within the same composition. However, the blend feels incomplete and somewhat chaotic, giving an impression of disorder. If this reflects the aesthetic you're aiming for, that's your choice—but I wanted to share how it might be perceived by others. At worst, your drawings might be interpreted as reflecting a sense of unrest or childlike turmoil.

[michaelplzno]

If art does not evoke emotion, it is just an arbitrary piece of information.    

I agree with you here. I'm simply stating that just because a piece is emotional doesn't make it quality. I think of the Electrical Life of Louis Wain





I cried for a good 10 minutes after watching this movie. I tear up just watching the trailer at this point.

I mean this without any hate, grudge, or anger, I would rather watch "Hundreds of Beavers" a million times than the life of Wain.





Which is in its own way deranged and twisted, but also light and fun, with absurdity and clashing rules, and a crippling addiction to a structure that it makes fun of the entire film.

I'm not saying my art is as good as Beavers, but if I had the genie to wish my art magically "better," I would rather it be like that one than Wain.

Wain is a great movie, and truly art, but it's not my thing when it comes to what I want to do.

[michaelplzno]

unrest or childlike turmoil.

You may be right, but it seems like such art is appreciated by some:

People were lining up to see this example of "unrest and childlike turmoil" so described as such by the artist.