Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kit: >>>Too often they are ready to reject someone who "writes like an art historian" because they often feel that art historians don't know anything about art.<<< Most art historians that I've met and worked with know their trade. But too often, because so many of them are not creative, they lay down rules to help themselves make sense of art and which artists find laughable. >>>I can speak from both sides of the fence. You might not like what I have to say, but I can still say it! <<< And conversely, you might not like what I have to write... etceteras, etceteras. :-) >>>Art is a complex problem, if nothing else.<<< Nope, can't agree with you, it isn't a problem... it's an exceedingly satisfying activity... well, it is for me... maybe not to art historians who seem to have to analyze, rather than simply enjoy it. :-) >>>Just stand next to someone in a museum sometime who is looking at a Mondrian and see how many people say "gosh, that'd make great wallpaper." <<< Yes, but so what? That's their understanding of it, let 'em say anything that they want. Who cares? My most delightful experience in this area was in the 60s with a new-to-the-arts then girlfriend at the Los Angeles County Art Museum. We had been viewing a number of oil paintings which had little placards on their frames stating that they had been donated by one of the Simons, maybe it was Norton Simon. Anyway, in the crowd of people rotating through the galleries were three elderly women, one of whom stated quite loudly that she really liked the work of this artist "Simon". My friend couldn't believe her ears and said: "Oh God, I hope I never get old." A number of members of the crowd began laughing including me... the best part was that the LOLs had no idea why, no hurt feelings, and merrily continued on their way. I know that as an art historian, you might not see the humor in it, but it made my afternoon. Jim, "don't be too serious" Hemenway Kit McChesney wrote: > Jim-- > > With all due respect to you, I did not say that art had nothing to do with > emotion; I said that it had to do with more than just emotion. Of course > great art is suffused with feeling. If it weren't, it would not be what it > is. But there is plenty of stuff out there that ain't art that is also full > of feeling, too. There is much more to it than emotion and technique--which > of course I know you know and you know that I know as well--and that was > what I tried to say. > > Art is too all-encompassing an idea to be encapsulated in a pat phrase. > > As for the use of the word "artifice," it does indeed affect how we view > what we call "art" today. That is when the concept was born. Prior to that > time, "artists" as we understand them did not exist as we understand them > today. The idea of the artist as a solo operator, expressing himself, began > during the Renaissance. The Neoplatonists at Lorenzo de Medici's court > helped to bring this idea to the fore. > > Yes, I write like an art historian because I am an art historian. My > specialty is the Italian Renaissance, namely Michelangelo. I have also > written on Van Gogh as well. I am also an artist, which came before and > after learning and writing about the history of art. Too many artists do not > know the history of art and about the long tradition of which they are a > part. Too often they are ready to reject someone who "writes like an art > historian" because they often feel that art historians don't know anything > about art. I can speak from both sides of the fence. You might not like what > I have to say, but I can still say it! > > We are probably saying the same thing in the end. Art is a complex problem, > if nothing else. And not easily defined. And not often understood. Just > stand next to someone in a museum sometime who is looking at a Mondrian and > see how many people say "gosh, that'd make great wallpaper." It takes some > education to understand what an artist is doing, how his or her work fits in > an historical and social context. It's not just about pretty pictures. > > Kit > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jim Hemenway > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 1:29 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] On making Art - was #$@%$^ art photographers > > Kit: > > >>> The word "art" came from a word that was used and understood widely > during the Renaissance. Artifice. <<< > > You have introduced a red herring. Where the word comes from is not the > point. It is what the word means now that is the partial subject of this > thread. > > > The idea that art is an expression of emotions through technique is a > bit simplistic. < > > It has to be simple, that is, of the lowest common denominator if it is > to cover all or most of art. > > >>> Artists are not just bubbling pots of emotion looking for a way to > channel those feeling through a medium. <<< > > Where did I write "bubbling pots of emotion"? I'm an artist and I > certainly don't fit that appellation. I used the word emotion instead of > feelings as I think it's more apropos. > > >>> This is an idea that took root among folks who could not understand > what artists were doing when the work did not "look like something." <<< > > Are you not being a bit elitist and/or patronizing? > > >>> The audience figured the images they were seeing were the > outpourings of people gripped by emotional instability. <<< > > This is pure conjecture on your part and is too broad a generalization. > > I've seen too much junk art where the "artists" couldn't express > themselves through any reasonable technique, artists who had no training > even in how to draw. And, I've seen a lot of soulless "art" wherein the > technique was great but where the artist didn't have anything to "say". > > On a basic level, and that's all that I was conveying, you need both > emotion and technique to make art. > > You write like an art historian rather than as an artist. > > Jim - http://www.hemenway.com > > > > Kit McChesney wrote: > > >>The word "art" came from a word that was used and understood widely during >>the Renaissance. Artifice. >> >>The idea that art is an expression of emotions through technique is a bit >>simplistic. Artists are not just bubbling pots of emotion looking for a > > way > >>to channel those feeling through a medium. This is an idea that took root >>among folks who could not understand what artists were doing when the work >>did not "look like something." The audience figured the images they were >>seeing were the outpourings of people gripped by emotional instability. >>Sure, we have feelings when we make images, but that is only a small part > > of > >>the actual process. >> >>Kit >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jim Hemenway >>Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:16 AM >>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: [Leica] On making Art >> >>Hi Phong: >> >> > Art is an expression of our feelings, among other things. < >> >>Okay so far as it goes, but consider this definition: >> >>Art is the expression of an emotion through a technique. >> >>Most would say, -through a valid technique. But what is valid to one >>person may not be to another. The oil coloring described in Tina's post >>must have been valid to the instructor but surely wasn't to Tina. >> >>The technique can be drawing and painting, sculpture, photography, etc., >>but it can also be things such as dance, poetry, weaving and in some >>cases being silly... as in a "live" installation. >> >>What makes any of it great art is acceptance as such, by a broad range >>of people. >> >>Art is really "a la carte", pick what you like, try something new, >>and/or complain about everything else... which is what we've been doing. >> >>Jim - http://www.hemenway.com >> >> >> >>Phong wrote: >> >> >>>Art is an expression of our feelings, among other things. The only >>>thing I ask is that such expression be genuine (Nan Goldin, e.g.). >>>If such feelings is about our libido, ego, self-indulgence, etc. >>>should there be no place for them in art ? Should art be only >>>about "good", acceptable feelings ? And I expect much of art, >>>genuine art, to be incoherent, sometimes even incomprehensible. >>> >>>There is art, and there is the business of art. If the public is >>>stupid enough to pay for the art, don't blame only the artist. >>>And I don't think artists would treat you as ignorant Philistine >>>just because you don't like their art. Just don't put down something >>>you don't understand. You put them down, or they think you might put >>>them down, and they'll treat you as ignorant Philistine. >>> >>>In any case, I am always suspect of successful professional artists, >>>going back to da Vinci. I can respect and admire their talent, >>>but their art, as an genuine expression, is suspect. Whose art >>>is it anyway ? But hey, one has to make a living, a good one if >>>possible. >>> >>>Just my narrow view on art, >>> >>>- Phong >>> >>>Whose art is it anyway ? Of course, at some point, the viewer >>>assumes the work of art as an expression of his or her feelings too. >>> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- Jim - http://www.hemenway.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html