art is cool ... discuss..

[adorefaith]

infuriate you...i'm curious....why?..
please elaborate masquerade...

 

[masquerade]

^I am not too familiar with the subject matter, but from what I have heard her father is basically holding her hand as she paints. it seems exploitative.

as for the art, I do think intention and concept matter, even if your intention is just to make a beautiful composition. I don't want to insult 7 year olds, but can she really do that?

 

[adorefaith]

I don't want to insult 7 year olds, but can she really do that?

well thats the big question...is she doing this alone..
without outside help, pressure, etc..
and if so, does she truly want to be doing it?..and should a little girl be put into that situation?..

nobody knows really...there are some videos on her website..
they supposedly document her painting process...
although its hard to tell if someone is stepping in and coaching her..
or even working on the paintings somewhere between the beginning and the end..

what concerns me is that her parents are the art world's equivalent of pushy showbiz parents..
she may have started painting as many little kids do...but whether she keeps painting because she loves it and just feels like it is another question altogether..
in any case..i'm fascinated...and curious to see what happens as she gets older..
i wonder if she'll turn out like the hollywood child stars we see....when 15 yrs down the track they finally reveal how pushy and manipulative their parents and 'teams' were...

 

[MissMagAddict]

did anyone see the documentary "my kid could paint that?"..ive been meaning to...it looks fascinating...

I saw it & thought it was very well done...it allows you draw your own conclusions...is the daughter a genius of abstract expressionism or a pawn in the latest art world joke...it also scrutinizes society's obsession with child prodigies & questions how the media creates & destroys people. It even takes on the ethics of making documentary films. I would highly recommend it.

 

[adorefaith]

awesome..thanks for the review mma..
i heard that it leaves you to draw your own conclusions..which i appreciate..
i think that's very hard to do as a filmmaker..

i'm particularly interested in the issue of child prodigies / stars that you mentioned..
and the role that the media plays in all of this...with all the hype..
what does it say about us that we're all looking for the next 'star'..the next novelty...even if that means potentially exploiting a young child...
why are we so fascinated by that....
it brings up so many interesting questions...

 

[BerlinRocks]

Honestly I'm tired of a lot of modern art, I feel like I'm in the emperor's new clothes. Someone vomits on a canvas and everyone ooh's and aah's. I know art is what you make of it but some really abuse this. I see some strange blob with a deep meaning and I just think... lighten up.

don't you like modern art? or contemporary art?
Were you talking about J.Pollock when you said "Someone vomits on a canvas and everyone ooh's and aah's"...???
Because honestly Pollock is just as important as Picasso is for a lot of people...
And maybe because he "killed" tableau de chevalet...
see C.Greenberg....

and to gius, whenever someone looks at a piece and says "a child could do that" or "thats not art, i could do it" i always answer with "well you didn't" Anyone could do what Jackson Pollock did in theory, but they didn't, he did. Anyone could do what Barbara Kruger does in theory, but she did, they didn't. I think skill goes beyond technique.

I hate that, too...and I say so...
are you art historian?? Do every professor say so??

 

[masquerade]

well thats the big question...is she doing this alone..
without outside help, pressure, etc..
and if so, does she truly want to be doing it?..and should a little girl be put into that situation?..

nobody knows really...there are some videos on her website..
they supposedly document her painting process...
although its hard to tell if someone is stepping in and coaching her..
or even working on the paintings somewhere between the beginning and the end..

what concerns me is that her parents are the art world's equivalent of pushy showbiz parents..
she may have started painting as many little kids do...but whether she keeps painting because she loves it and just feels like it is another question altogether..
in any case..i'm fascinated...and curious to see what happens as she gets older..
i wonder if she'll turn out like the hollywood child stars we see....when 15 yrs down the track they finally reveal how pushy and manipulative their parents and 'teams' were...

yeah, i definitely get the vibe as well. considering her father is an "art enthusiast" he seems like one of those parents who wanted to be actors and never did, so they live vicariously through their children. As for the future, its a good question. I seem to remember another girl similar to the subject of the documentary. She was popular in the 90's. It would be interesting to see her now. If only i could remember her name...

 

[papa_levante]

Fun thread.

Uhhhh... I love John William Waterhouse's paintings.
That's art.

 

[Multitudes]

One thing that nobody can explain is why the
way one person puts the paint on has got fifty
times more sensitivity than another person's
application of paint. Why some people's paint
seems to have all sorts of implications in it and
others' doesn't, one does not know ...

 

[adorefaith]

do you think though, multi, that that is actually the case?..
or is that you as the individual you are see implications and sensitivity and meaning more in one than the other?..
...

 

[Multitudes]

Yes, adorefaith, I do think so and
no it has nothing to do with the "individual" ...
Yes, we can talk about works of art that aesthetically
touches us in different degrees, but we can't get
around that certain artist's application of paint has
higher intensities and sensitivity than other artist's
which goes beyond individual preferences ...
Some might explain it with talent or technical abilities
But these are exactly what inspiration requires renunciation
of, because the artist has to become weak to receive and
therefor can no longer support him/her self to these
resources ...

 

[softgrey]

i agree with you 100% multi...

this goes back to the idea of 'language' in my previous post...
it is the sensitivity (sometimes the very soul ) of the artist that you can see....
sometimes it is aggressive..sometimes it is delicate...
but there is always that 'finesse'

i think that is what separates talented artists from just some random person slapping together something and calling it 'art'...

i am completely ANTI calling everything and anything that one makes or creates ART...

that is far too simplistic imo...and somehow degrades the whole thing.

so in a way- i agree with GG...
a lot of 'art' is really not deserving of that name imho...
just because something is hanging in a gallery..doesn't mean it's actually any good....

...

 

[adorefaith]

i respect your opinion (soft, multi, gg)...i just find this problematic..

how do you separate "good" art from "some random person slapping together something"?..
who has the authority or the final say on what is deserving of the name "art"?..
or does everyone decide for him or herself?...i guess that's one solution..
and what really qualifies something as art, or as good art?...you know?....which qualities do you pick as important to define something as "Art"?...

i'm not saying that just because its hard to define all things are suddenly "art"..
but at the same time, i think it's really tricky to establish some kind of standard or set of criteria that something has to fulfill in order to qualify..
and i really think it is such a subjective experience..i dont know if there can be some kind of external, objective measure..

 

[Multitudes]

What makes something a "work of art" is
a question of wether a cultural product expresses
a constant or a becoming. Constant "territories"
have nothing more that they can do; they can
only be conjugated for extrinsic purposes, lending
themselves to the operation of an economic base.
Cultural products that expresses becomings work
directly upon desire, and can therefore cut across
social boundaries. They effect a deterritorialization,
a dynamisms of intensive difference, the work of
desire upon desire. This also brings in our favorite
discussion around here, can fashion become art or
is it possible for fashion and popular culture to overlap
the immanent plane of aesthetic composition?
I don't think we can use subject discourses to distinguish
the "work of art" from "products" because the "subject"
expresses "a matter of taste" ...

 

[gius]

i guess it's when you can tell someone's put thought into a piece of work that they've made that it becomes something

but you have to be the sort of person who can be sensitive to that
some people don't have the time, don't want to have the time to spend to try and understand or feel a drawing, a painting
they're just not interested in doing that kind of thing
and for them, i suppose it's all about the surface, something that's obvious and can be seen easily, which is that skill that i'm talking about, that some people judge a work of art on

 

[Guessgirl96]

soft, you said it a lot better than I did and I agree with everything.

Mult, you are way over my head I wish I understood what you are saying!!

 

[gius]

and to gius, whenever someone looks at a piece and says "a child could do that" or "thats not art, i could do it" i always answer with "well you didn't" Anyone could do what Jackson Pollock did in theory, but they didn't, he did. Anyone could do what Barbara Kruger does in theory, but she did, they didn't. I think skill goes beyond technique.

i see what you mean
like if a person had never seen a work by Pollock
would he/she be able to come up with an idea like that... to use brushstrokes in that way, to be able to think up a pleasing colour palette, to create that arrangement of strokes
and more, to do a piece of work like that and consider it art --i mean lots of paintings we consider art now were looked at with disgust in a different time period. for example, the Fauves (Matisse, Derain, et al) created works that were looked down on in their times. i mean Fauves in French really just means 'beasts'

sure, a person can copy a work of art
but to invent it is something else

 

[softgrey]

i guess it's when you can tell someone's put thought into a piece of work that they've made that it becomes something

that thought is what i call 'intent'...that there is some reason(in every sense of the word) or purpose behind the piece...

but you have to be the sort of person who can be sensitive to that

to answer adorefaith's question- maybe these are the people who should be judging the work and determining if it is art or not...

some people don't have the time, don't want to have the time to spend to try and understand or feel a drawing, a painting
they're just not interested in doing that kind of thing
and for them, i suppose it's all about the surface, something that's obvious and can be seen easily, which is that skill that i'm talking about, that some people judge a work of art on

and for SURE- these people should NOT be judging it......
*they should just go buy some mass produced pictures in a frame from ikea and hang them on their walls......

 

[softgrey]

What makes something a "work of art" is
a question of wether a cultural product expresses
a constant or a becoming. Constant "territories"
have nothing more that they can do; they can
only be conjugated for extrinsic purposes, lending
themselves to the operation of an economic base.
Cultural products that expresses becomings work
directly upon desire, and can therefore cut across
social boundaries. They effect a deterritorialization,
a dynamisms of intensive difference, the work of
desire upon desire. This also brings in our favorite
discussion around here, can fashion become art or
is it possible for fashion and popular culture to overlap
the immanent plane of aesthetic composition?
I don't think we can use subject discourses to distinguish
the "work of art" from "products" because the "subject"
expresses "a matter of taste" ...

...
for those of us not fluent in 'multi'speak...
would you mind translating this into english sir???...


...

 

[gius]

oh this makes me think of some of the work I've seen by the Bauhaus
is anyone familiar ?
There are paintings, murals, and also cups and plates and saucers

They all have thought put into it
There's care in the design, the way things are put together

It does leave me feeling flat though

I'd like to know what Multitudes was talking about too