ART - not just pretty pics

[sminicooper]

Just had a look at Ikea. Better than I expected. Here is a pretty poster of Audrey Hepburn at £25. I prefer the one below for free.

Ah! Audrey Hepburn .......... I love this CGI choccy-bar advert featuring her (and it looks like it was Renee Artois wot upset his applecart in front of the bus)

 

[sminicooper]

I can tell from the passion in your words that you trully enjoy art.

Festive greetings and happy cheers to you with a bottle of Heineken. :drunk:

Thanks - and the same to you

Art is very much like Heineken when you think about it: it also refreshes the parts that other things can't reach.

 

[Atilla]

Thanks - and the same to you

Art is very much like Heineken when you think about it: it also refreshes the parts that other things can't reach.

That's so true.

Moment's reflection that echos eternity!

 

[Mr. Charts]

Which parts?

The ones I agree with, obviously !

 

[Pat494]

Still gorgeous

 

[Pat494]

Pretty damn ugly but still with us

 

[timsk]

Hi Pat,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not clear what the images of Ms. Monroe and Yoda - lovely as they are in their respective ways - have to do with art? Is it that the original posters of the actress and the Jedi master are now collectors items? If so, may I offer this broad rule of thumb as to what is and isn't art . . .

It's fair to say that a work of art is nearly always a one-off bespoke item, of which painting or sculpture are the most obvious examples. The raison d'être is restricted to the work itself; it exists in its own right, independently of anything else and for no other purpose than to be what it is. It doesn't do anything - it has no function - so it's not a utilitarian object such as a bowl or teapot. And it doesn't sell anything - other than itself.

The notable exception that proves the one-off rule are limited edition photographs, lithographs, etchings, screen prints and, to a lesser extent, cast sculptures. The point to note about all of these is in the description; the edition is limited in size and each print or sculpture is numbered in order to identify it as part of the edition. None of the above applies to mass produced marketing material, such as the London Transport posters mentioned earlier or the two images you've attached above. Sure, all of these can be 'artistic', visually striking and contactable in the eyes of many people. But their appeal is merely a by-product of what they were originally produced for and intended to do. Namely, to put bums on seats in trains and cinemas. If you accept the definition I've provided here, that means they are not art.
Tim.

 

[sminicooper]

Hi Pat,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not clear what the images of Ms. Monroe and Yoda - lovely as they are in their respective ways - have to do with art? Is it that the original posters of the actress and the Jedi master are now collectors items? If so, may I offer this broad rule of thumb as to what is and isn't art . . .

It's fair to say that a work of art is nearly always a one-off bespoke item, of which painting or sculpture are the most obvious examples. The raison d'être is restricted to the work itself; it exists in its own right, independently of anything else and for no other purpose than to be what it is. It doesn't do anything - it has no function - so it's not a utilitarian object such as a bowl or teapot. And it doesn't sell anything - other than itself.

The notable exception that proves the one-off rule are limited edition photographs, lithographs, etchings, screen prints and, to a lesser extent, cast sculptures. The point to note about all of these is in the description; the edition is limited in size and each print or sculpture is numbered in order to identify it as part of the edition. None of the above applies to mass produced marketing material, such as the London Transport posters mentioned earlier or the two images you've attached above. Sure, all of these can be 'artistic', visually striking and contactable in the eyes of many people. But their appeal is merely a by-product of what they were originally produced for and intended to do. Namely, to put bums on seats in trains and cinemas. If you accept the definition I've provided here, that means they are not art.
Tim.

That sounds like the "establishment" definition of art and for all I know it's probably right. For me, anything that is artistic that I like, is art!

The Oxford dictionary defines art thus: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: 'the art of the Renaissance'

 

[Atilla]

I would like to be very selfish here and determine what is art and what not, for my self. Leaving meaning of art to amateur wannabees just doesn't give me any joy at all. :cheesy:

Rich pickings...

 

[dermotobrien]

Art is very much like Heineken when you think about it: it also refreshes the parts that other things can't reach.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Pat494]

That sounds like the "establishment" definition of art and for all I know it's probably right. For me, anything that is artistic that I like, is art!

The Oxford dictionary defines art thus: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: 'the art of the Renaissance'

Have to agree with you here. Tim is being a bit pompous in my view. That is his right but I agree anything that is pleasing to the senses visually IS in my view good art.
As for dear lost Marilyn a " t " in front might also do.
The great advantage dying young is they still look young and fresh olay !

 

[Atilla]

Why is the person who draws up the original poster called an artist?

Hi Pat,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not clear what the images of Ms. Monroe and Yoda - lovely as they are in their respective ways - have to do with art? Is it that the original posters of the actress and the Jedi master are now collectors items? If so, may I offer this broad rule of thumb as to what is and isn't art . . .

It's fair to say that a work of art is nearly always a one-off bespoke item, of which painting or sculpture are the most obvious examples.

Says who? The artist who does the poster for copy, magazines, brochures and including cars and bikes and anything else that is mass produced does it with the intent of making it artistic, stylish, elegant and beautiful.

The raison d'être is restricted to the work itself; it exists in its own right, independently of anything else and for no other purpose than to be what it is. It doesn't do anything - it has no function - so it's not a utilitarian object such as a bowl or teapot. And it doesn't sell anything - other than itself. Does have a function. To be looked at. Otherwise what is the purpose of the creation... Function of art is to be looked at and admired. Your definitions so very narrow.

The notable exception Many more exceptions to that I reckon. Handbags, shoes, suits, hats. Jimi Hendrix's guitar no doubt mass produced. that proves the one-off rule are limited edition photographs, lithographs, etchings, screen prints and, to a lesser extent, cast sculptures. The point to note about all of these is in the description; the edition is limited in size and each print or sculpture is numbered in order to identify it as part of the edition. None of the above applies to mass produced marketing material, such as the London Transport posters mentioned earlier or the two images you've attached above. Sure, all of these can be 'artistic', visually striking and contactable in the eyes of many people. But their appeal is merely a by-product of what they were originally produced for and intended to do. Namely, to put bums on seats in trains and cinemas. If you accept the definition I've provided here, that means they are not art.
Tim.

I'd say posters are more of a communicative art. How one communicates a message in self lend it self to artistic creation.

 

[timsk]

. . . Tim is being a bit pompous in my view.

Apologies Pat, you're probably right but, as Atilla has noted, I'm judge, jury and executioner when it comes to art!

That is his right but I agree anything that is pleasing to the senses visually IS in my view good art.

Of course, it's absolutely fine to have your own definition with which you're comfortable. However, given that the thread title is 'ART - not just pretty pics' - this suggests to me that you think there is - or at least that you think there may be - a difference between the two. Therefore, providing a simple and easy to apply definition to enable anyone who chooses to distinguish between them struck me as useful. Okay, it is an 'establishment' view and perhaps I expressed it pompously - but at least it offers a benchmark of sorts that attempts to address the (implied) topic in the thread's title.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

Why is the person who draws up the original poster called an artist?

They aren't.
They're illustrators (sometimes known as 'commercial artists') and designers which are different disciplines. Highly correlated, yes. But different nonetheless.

 

[Atilla]

Apologies Pat, you're probably right but, as Atilla has noted, I'm judge, jury and executioner when it comes to art!



Tim.

Oh know your knot!

 

[Mr. Charts]

Though I agree with timsk's definitions, and pomposity and timsk have no place in the same sentence, there is much fuzziness in "art".

Art or not?

 

[Pat494]

OK so as not to ruin Tim ( the executioner's ) day this old girl may please him.
Very plain in my view but it takes all types I suppose.

 

[tomorton]

OK so as not to ruin Tim ( the executioner's ) day this old girl may please him.
Very plain in my view but it takes all types I suppose.

Well its certainly an unambitious composition but the techniques used were radical in its time - so paintings before and paintings after are divided by this work.

It is also more than representational - it says more than just "this is what she looks like". Her ambiguous expression suggests a particular line of thought, which would presumably be specific to her, so the painting succeeds in also saying something more like "this is what she thinks like".

On top of this, as this is not just representational as would be a photograph of the same pose, there is the artist's perception and interpretation of what she thought like and how she was as a person. This would be individual to him and coloured by the relationship between him alone and the model. This might be different to others' perceptions and cannot claim to be fully "truthful", it has to be subjective.

So, way more than just a picture of a plain young lady.

(whether its worth such a lot of money is also a subjective matter and takes in much more than just artistic merit)

 

[Pat494]

The ridiculously high prices paid for these old paintings may turn out to be an investment bubble. Wouldn't get space on my wall.

 

[timsk]

Hi sminicooper,

That sounds like the "establishment" definition of art and for all I know it's probably right. For me, anything that is artistic that I like, is art!

My view is probably 'establishment' in that I'm a product (for better or for worse) of the art school system. You can stick to your definition of art if it suits you - and I have no issue with it - but I'd say that if you or anyone wants to understand what art is and move beyond the 'my five year old could have done that blindfolded' type observation - then a good place to start would be to understand that 'art' and 'artistic' are two very different things. All the things Atilla mentioned in his reply to my post are artistic (in his view) - but that doesn't make them art. By the same token, pretty cloud formations can be artistic - but they're not art.

The Oxford dictionary defines art thus: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: 'the art of the Renaissance'

This definition is woefully inadequate and horribly outdated. Dictionary definitions are great and have many uses, but this one doesn't tell anyone anything remotely useful about art. The compilers clearly didn't consult anyone from the art world 'establishment' when they came up with this!

Tim.