h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oooo juicy conversation, which I shall muddle up to the best of my ability. Well now well now, why would we represent the world to ourselves, when the world is right there in all it's worldly glory? Ooo, and what of non-representational art, that may not represent anything from the "outside" world, but harkens back to some inner source? Hmm. Art, aesthetikos, summat about perceiving the beautiful. IMHO, art is partly playing, it is an extra, a luxury, an unnecessary (ah aha ah, don't freak out yet, I mean is not bare necessity)flourish. It nourishes because is fun, and is a participation in beauty. Irrespective of aalll the different definitions of beauty, it is a try at having/being/seeing/believing beauty.

As such it is an outpouring from the human consciousness, and changes the world, someone's mind, the bare wall, (or bear cave heh eh heh).
P.S. "The beautiful" does not always "look pretty". Whether the art is plastic, visual, aural, or written/spoken/braille, is made in an attempt to express (as in milking) an overflow of inspiration, and playing.
P.P.S. I have donned by beret, and fake Italian accent, in an attempt to bring forward the ridiculousness of anyone telling you how or if you should appreciate art, unless you want to take an art class on purpose and eat whatever you are given to eat.
Tout alors!
Andmymare

*an ant with tortoise eyes blinks over the edge of a kleenex box* I think it's an allergic reaction rather than a cold. Thanks for all the kind wishes .

I think it's desirable to be taught how to 'read' art, just as we're taught how to read words. But that isn't to say that you can't teach yourself or reach any level of proficiency without undertaking a long course of study. Just as people teach themselves to read words - even if the only available book is a bible - so it's possible to learn to look at art. Although I would imagine there has to be at least one work of art available and some sort of 'teacher' even if that person is not aware of their role. You need to know that understanding art is something people can do, then you need to figure out how to do it. I don't think it's genetic. I think it's learnable.

I have a junior school teacher to thank for my awareness of art. He wasn't even my teacher - he taught in the room next door - but he'd enthused his class about drawing and one lunchtime I wandered in and eavesdropped as he talked to a couple of his pupils about a van Gogh self-portrait. I realised then that there was a whole new 'code' for me to learn although it was years before I had the resources at my disposal to make a good job of it. and I'm still learning.

When I exhibit work, or attend other people's exhibitions, I'm generally disappointed with the reaction of the public at large. Like the lady in Liverpool who didn't know how to look at a Bridget Riley and could only say that she'd coloured it in neatly (although like most of Riley's work it was screen-printed, but hey). Like the couple who wanted to buy a friend's painting of an old blue door because they thought it was a door in Spain but changed their minds when they found out the door was Italian! And the number of times I've heard "It would go nicely with the curtains in the dining room." or, worst of all "I like the frame."

I have infront of me at the moment a postcard of David Hockey's 'Salts Mill.' The painting (which, incidentally, is 10ft wide) can be appreciated as representational art - it is recognisably the place I walked through every day until last week - but it does so much more than a photograph. Comparing the painting with a photograph of the mill, as you can on http://www.saltsmill.org.uk/ , the first thing that strikes me is that I don't get the same emotions from the photo. I don't get that sense of pride and hope in what the building has become or the tinge of sadness and distaste that underlies it's past. The relative importance of the mill, the back-to-back workers' housing, the cobbled streets, the church and the railway are conveyed in the painting in the context of the past, but also of the present, in a way that no photo can because a series of perspectives can be presented in a painting whereas a photo has one point of view. The essence of the story being told is in the distortion.

And then the picture can be appreciated as an abstract design - the colours, the interconnected curves, the beautiful negative space. In a painting these things can be managed, with a photo you just have to be lucky. The photo of Salts Mill is attractive but it gets it's beauty from the design of the mill - a sculpural work of art in it's own right - it isn't beautiful in it's own right. Of the two images, I'd much rather own the painting because it says what I feel about Saltaire.

More anon, no doubt.

Sorry about your ankle, Z.

Ooooh, amen to your last post, kelli! There's this performance artist in town who comes to every art show, musical performance, film festival, video shop, grocery store, clothing boutique, restaurant and public restroom and expounds at mind-numbing length how his artistic taste is better because he is an aaaaaar-teeeest. The college-age gels fall for it. They think he's a tortured soul. Everyone else thinks he's a prat. He's best described by the catty saying: "He'd go to the opening of an envelope."

MR! You'll do fine.

[GDZ]

A moving symphony....a beautiful still life....a perfectly turned phrase....a garden in full bloom.....art nourishes the soul.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, Amy - and by that I mean both art and Salts Mill, a very familiar buiding to me too as its near both my birthplace and my parents' current home. I don't pretend to know much about art theory, but I go to the exhibitions at the University of Bradford and just try to have an honest, open-minded emotional reaction to the exhibits. I'm not sure how much I understand the artists' intentions, but at least I don't judge them on their choice of frames. I'm sorry you're still feeling rough, by the way.

Speaking of postmodernism, as we were a while back: a on the subject that I can warmly recommend is 'Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction' by Christopher Butler, one of the Oxford University Press' excellent series of pocket-sized books giving lay person's guides to the fundamental concepts involved in a wide range of subjects. It gives lots of intstructive examples of postmodern art criticism and artistic production, and I think it helped me get the general idea of the theory. There's another in the series called 'Modern Art - A Very Short Introduction', which I haven't read yet but intend to get around to soon.

For a recent fanzine article, I coined the concept of crossbar-modernism. It's postmodernism as applied to football: for instance, deconstructing the discourse involved in watching games in something called 'Coca-Cola League One'. I wasn't being completely flippant - you could start the deconstruction by pointing out that Coca-Cola League One is actually Division Three, and asking what sweet brown fizzy water has to do with .

(Returns to watching England struggling to overcome Azerbaijan at .)

>> In a painting these things can be managed, with a photo you just have to be lucky.

Not true. Composition of a photograph is the hardest part of artistic photography. While happy accidents (to borrow a phrase from Bob Ross) do happen, the best artistic photography is done with tons of planning. I worked on the composition of one picture for weeks, took may rolls of film, used three different development techniques, enlarged 20 or so different shots using all the darkroom tricks I know. That picture was more work than any other single photo that I ever took, and the result was making it in to a juried art show where just being there was an honour.

Mom and Pop out with their new-fangled intarweb camera will not likely get the picture that is a study in colour. They likely will not find something that is a study in light and reflectivity. Anything that they do turn out of any quality will be an accident. 99% of the snapshots that I take are just that... Snapshots. If I am going to try to tell a story, explore colours, show light in an interesting way, I am going to plan the shot out carefully. I will take care in the shot's compisition.

I don't really do much photography for the purpose of art any more. But I did take a few snapshots that were more playing with features of my camera that will have be back out shooting so I can try to find the photographic spark that I used to have. I've never really taken digital photography seriously, but I think that I am going to get in to it with a real camera, by which I mean a SLR camera with exchangable lenses. Just outside my apartment there is a tangle of vines and trees that I want to record. I just don't have the kit together to do it justice yet.

What I mean by 'lucky' is that the picture has to be there to be taken. If the essence of the picture doesn't exist, no amount of planning or dark room expertise can make something worthwhile appear.

[Mol]

*hopes all UK Salonistas will at least turn up to vote after the monumental effort we electoral adminstrators are putting in right now*

*wonders if post will now get modded for mentioning elections*

*wishes she could stay in present job forever but reluctantly reaches for next job application form*

I thought that mentioning the elections was only prohibited during the actual election cycle? I could be completely off base.

I have never failed to vote in my 27 years of being eligible, Mol, and I don't intend to start doing so now. Well done and thank you for all you and your colleagues are doing.

I do, however, intend to get myself over to Leeds North-West on Saturday to try to help persuade a few more people to vote for Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat candidate there.

Have you seen much evidence of the postal vote fraud that's been in the news?

Aren't you allkowed to discuss the election in general as long as you don't canvass, harangue, needle or spit bile on behalf of any given party... But then, is that humanely possible?

Many many humble apologies for appalling typo in previous post. Highly embarrassed. Where can I put my face. Ooh, how about into this glass of wine... You see the problem. After S and I had finished getting married, we had crates and crates of Bacchus' favourite fruit-juice lying about, plus all the Bordeaux my Dad had given us as a wedding present 'which needs to be drunk this year mind'. So... am nobly and single-handedly doing my best (hey, I'm still on honeymoon, aren't I? It hasn't been a month yet) as S keeps looking lofty and saying he has work in the morning. I feel like a Desperate Housewife. Must kick rest of wine under cupboard and ignore.

Just back from Roswell and very interested in the art discussion but I have a bunch of chores I must complete first!

The election process *has* started! Not the general election ... but notices of election for all local elections (ie county councils) were posted today. Or rather, yesterday. It's late.

*waves to everybody, especially the people she hasn't met before, and sends appropriate good wishes to those Salonistas that need them*

Another application form finished, hurrah! I am following all the conversation ... just not contributing very much ... but 2,000 posts sounds fine, Lil, otherwise you'll be getting through the First to the Forum mugs by the crateload at this rate.

Mol

Picked up a new flick, Closer, today. Have never seen it, aside from previews, but it has Natalie Portman in it and as Marv can attest I have a thing for Natalie. Now I just have to wait until the kids are in bed to watch it.

You have a thing for Natalie? Well, I'm sure whatever it is, Natalie wouldn't want to see it. I'd have it removed surgically...

I've never heard of Closer. Let me know how it is!

> To me a camera is the best visual artistic medium. It records fact. You can't creat things out of nothing with a camera, you have to record what is there. The creativity comes from the work in a darkroom.

The creativity (as you mentioned in your second post) isn't just in the darkroom - it's the framing and composition of the photograph, and having the eye to see a good photograph.

But a painting isn't there to record fact. Like Amy was saying, a painting records emotions. Photorealism is all well and good, but really, that's what a camera is for. If you're going to paint a picture, why not use interesting brush strokes and textures to make the painting come alive?

This is why I like H.R. Giger. He paints these images that can't be real - but they look real.

> Hmm, I wonder if there is an Art gene that I am missing. Pictures is pictures. The only artists that I "like" are Dali and Escher. Everything else is just something to break up the monotony of the walls.

You like photosurrealism. Both Dali and Escher are photorealists, but they take that talent and create surreal images. You'd probably like Rene Magritte. http://bertc.com/magritte_menu.htm

Um, what Amy and Lentilla said. Yup. I was gonna say the *exact* same thing. Only not as well.

I view painting and photography the same way that I view fiction and nonfiction in writing. Compared to each other fiction merely messes up the facts, but that misses the point. Moby Dick is not "a book about whales". Nonfiction can be compelling, emotional, good reading (and even untruthful or inaccurate), but it's purpose is descriptive. And even though Moby Dick describes whales, some say in far too much detail, the description is not the purpose of the novel. Likewise a photograph is always a representation (sometimes misleading) of reality, but the point of painting is the expression more than the portrayal.

Well i dont think photography can be dismisssed as not art or that ,tricks aailable in the processing cannot be used to enhance a photo,

several black and white photos or sepia are more than a match for any artist painting, yes the camera holder has to envisage the finished product just as the artist does be fore he paint the picture, and just as much knowledge re light and shadows needs to be understood by both.

My best artistic work was achieved when i worked in a pet shop setting up fish tanks, which if more people looked at as underwater gardens with the fish added for pleasure ,they would have heathier fish , but thats another matter or "irk" that is in the past but so annoyed me when customers would come in complaining fish had died ,when you talked a littlewhile find all plastic plants ,sick building syndrome 20 years before it became trendy.

[]-woefully poor at expressing anything in words about art, but hoping that Z is happy with who I'm staying with in Seattle now he's finally found out