Tim,
From an academic point of view I agree with all you say. However, Philistine me is only interested in art from an emotional viewpoint and , thus, sound reasoning is difficult to come by - it either turns you on or it doesn't. From that perspective it seems ok that I can say i think it's rubbish without any reasoning other than that it fails to stir me in any way.
Hi Jon,
We're more on the same page than you might think - or I might have lead you to think - for which I apologize. Further to my previous comments about accepting that others are entitled to their opinions, I also accept that others won't have had the formal art education that I've had and won't necessarily know much about it from an academic perspective - to use your term. And that's fine too - of course it is. I've forgotten most of what I learnt about art anyway, so I couldn't care two hoots about the academic stuff. It's not needed.
What I'd hoped for - which Pat doesn't want to provide (his prerogative) - is some sort of rationale behind his thinking. It matters not a jot if it's backed up with any academic understanding about art. In your case, if it 'turns you on' - why? What is it that elicits that response from you? Is it the shapes, the colours or textures etc? Perhaps it's just the skill on display and the recognition that the artist has created something you could never achieve in your wildest dreams? These are rhetorical questions; I'm just offering simple - non academic examples - of how you might engage with whatever you're looking at.
One of the common reasons why people who don't have an arts background struggle with some modern art - especially abstract work - is because they think a 5 year old could have created it. Now, I think their logic is often flawed for reasons I won't go into here, but at least they've thought about it and come up with a reason as to
why the work in question is rubbish. That's all I'm trying (and failing dismally) to get Pat, you and others to do. Forget academic understanding about art - that's not required. Just look within and question your own feelings.
Having an emotional response to art is great and, indeed, is all that most (but not all) artists are trying to elicit from people who view their work. Some will even be delighted by the seemingly extreme response of 'decadent rubbish'. There's no right or wrong, all responses are valid, but they are only meaningful and helpful in a discussion like this if the response is given context by explaining
why it's rubbish and, by contrast,
why a Turner painting is wonderful to behold. The more you question what you look at, along with your responses to it - the more engaged with the work you become. This in turn will feed your understanding and appreciation of it. By way of example, look no further than Richard's last post and his response to Maggi Hambling's work. He did three key things:
1. He kept an open mind and gave her a second / third chance after a none too favorable impression of her show at the National.
2. He looked at her work in a careful and considered manner.
3. He noted his emotional response to what he saw.
Rinse and repeat. In so doing, his appreciation and understanding of her work changed. The key point to note here is that
the work didn't change: Richard changed. In Richard's own words:
"Part of "art" is how it makes you feel and see differently; your interaction with it, almost a two way thing." It's only a two way thing if you allow it to be.
Hope that makes (some) sense?
Tim.
