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

I remember going somewhere, could have been Windsor Castle, and looked at a giant painting, could easily have been 20 feet high as rooms are so tall and noted from only several inches away the fantastically fine, almost photographic, detail and it seemed as if a singled haired brush had been used to get such fine detail. Perhaps the artist worked for years on such a big oil painting. I can't remember the artist but the skill involved was high whoever it was.

One of the things that really annoys me about the (quite literally) blood-curdling plethora of singing talent shows on the tell-o-vision is their insistence on the singers being able to sing well, rather than have anything to sing about. This is, in essence, technique over art. It's IKEA over Chippendale.



Art is so much more than "I could've done that". The fact is, you didn't. And if you did it now, all you'd be doing is copying an original artist.

And frankly, it's quite easy to paint representational art. All you need to do is try.

RF

The problem is Roymondo if something requires no skill to produce it can be easily be reproduced by those with no talent to make a fast buck.
Throwing your dirty underwear on the floor and calling it 'Unmade bed' maybe trendy but surely you can't expect some not to snigger if people rave over it? If she had physically got some wood and actually even just made the bed, no pun intended, there woud be something there that people could say well yes there was some skill involved. Hey if you want to see an Unmade Bed I am an expert at it daily!

SS, have you seen Dali's 'Christ of St John of the Cross' in the, er flesh? It's one of the most staggeringly wonderful things I've ever seen in my life. Technically brilliant both in composition and realisation, but Dali was a very talented classical artist using his skills in a new way. There are artists who can pull of photorealistic paintings (or as near as possible, such as Canaletto's studio) which are stunnuing, but there are also artists who use ideas. There is room in this world for both.

I can't remember the name of the painting or the artist (hopefully someone can help me here) but there was a painting in Tate Modern a couple of years back, which I think is now in Tate Britain, that depicts soldiers on a merry-go-round. It is technically poor but emotionally powerful. Art can be about technique or soul: the best art probably hits a sweet spot between both.

My is that visual Art is at it's best when it is used to illustrate, very forcibly for preference, something about how we understand reality through our eyes in the only way that can be done. I don't find viewing paintings a particularly emotional experience compared to reading or listening to music but I find it often more interesting in a more diffuse way and I get kind of wistful feelings or strange feelings of scale from paintings. Something like Anish Kapoor's Adam or a Turrell however forces me to understand something very fundamental in that I'm not "looking" at anything real, it's constructed in my head and the possibilities in there are endless. That blows me away. You could say that it's art about art and it might well be but I know that my favourite music is music about music and my favourite books are about... well about spaceships but my second favourite books...

<>

This doesn't work because if it didn't take skill to make it why would you buy it? The kind of art you're against for not requiring skill isn't *about* skill: it's about ideas, which are free and you can take them home. I suggest you look into it, you could be missing out on something.

But it does work if you apply the Kings Clothes idea to it. A plain painted blue canvase doesn't really need any skill to paint it however if you talk it up into something it becomes it. When people slate modern art those involved in modern art often say 'Well you are ignorant and don't understand it!". It is the Kings Clothes principle.

Hmm. Have you tried to understand it, SS?

What does representational art tell you, that a photo does not? There is, after all, skill in taking a photo.

RF

I went to a Picasso exhibition at the Tate many years ago showing both his paintings and sculptures . I was undecided as to his genius or not until i came across a sculpture of a chicken made out of scrap metal , ie cutlery for legs etc. behind it was a cubist painting of the sculpture . It was a real moment of understanding seeing the sculpture and painting at the same time . He had painted a 3D image with just paint and canvas .
Has anybody seen the piece of film where he stands in front of a piece of glass with the camera facing him ? He paints [ if i remember correctly a bull and matador ] with just a few strokes of a broad brush . The power and drama he evoked with just a few strokes of the brush were dazelling .
He was almost certainly the greatest of the 20th century .
If ever you get the oppertunity to go to a major exhibition of his GO !

best fishes...tod

SS, you appear to be being willfully ignorant. I can't understand why you would choose that path but you seem unable to accept other peoples' appreciation of conceptual art, or even things that just look good (such as the blue square, which really does look beautiful) without recourse to insulting our taste by referencing 'The King's New Clothes'.

Fair enough, if it ain't your bag it ain't your bag, but please stop dismissing things just because you don't appreciate them.

Looks like I've created a monster! I'd better do some catching up...

Well...the first thing to forget about Picasso is any trite 'a child could do it' stuff. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of that). On the original thread I've quoted George Melly:
'Picasso always said that by the age of seven he could draw like Raphael. As often with Picasso, he was self-aggrandising. He couldn't do that until he was seventeen'.
By any standards, he was a remarkable draftsman - but that wasn't what interested him.

We have to start by looking at him in the context of the history of art (and this is related to the Hockney remarks that Dogster mentioned). One (misleading) view of art is that it is a progress towards more 'realistic' images. First there was cave scrawls, then pre-renaissance landscapes, then they learnt perspective...and onwards to Gainsborough. But in the mid 19thC, along came photography and that aspiration was closed for painting. The impressionists tried out some ideas about the optical aspects of visual perception. But then...BANG!...Picasso's first revolution (I'll get to some of his other revolutions another time )

Picasso painted not what we *see* but how we *perceive*. Take his 'analytical cubism':
http://pablo-picasso.paintings.name/
What he's painting is not objects...but the shapes we see and mentally transform into objects. (I'll leave how this relates to Renaissance geometric composition for another time).

At the same time he was playing with Relativity. To recap from the other thread...he used 2-D canvas not simply to represent 3-D objects, but 4-D timestreams. His paintings are of movement over time. (and there's influence from Muybridge and Cinema here). Even more than that...he's playing with the movement of the painter's perspective over time...which is why a portrait might show a nose from the side and an eye from the front. The crying woman (Dora Maar, presumably?) at the previous link is an excellent example of that.

Another thing that Hockney also mentions...and, again, related to Relativity...was that Picasso paints what's in the viewer's mind as much as the eyes. This is the first Picasso I ever laid eyes on in the flesh, and still one of my favourites:
http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/pages/animated/nude/picasso/nude.htm
Hockney said of this:
'The first thing you notice is her ****, followed by her .'
It's that subjective view that Picasso was trying to portray.

(To my mind he's much more astute and honest than the other psychologically-influenced painters of the post-Freudian era, such as the one-trick pony Dali or the *far* superior surrealist de Chirico - both of whom he influenced hugely, especially with his Blue and Rose periods.)

That's enough for now. I could go on about how he also worked with a constant, explicit passion. I could go on about his ceramic art,

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-51,GGLG:en&q=picasso+ceramics&um=1

his stunningly competent economy of brushstroke and line

http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/007-14571/
or
http://search3.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml?keywords=&artist=%70%69%63%61%73%73%6F&country=&period=&sort=&start=11&position=11&record=7901

his quintessentially Spanish character

http://search3.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml?keywords=&artist=%70%69%63%61%73%73%6F&country=&period=&sort=&start=31&position=35&record=172

...there's lots and lots I could go on.

Two more quick revolutions for now, though:
He was the first person to use sculpture to porrtay space rather than form:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/picasso/picasso.html

And the first to sculpt with found objects.*

http://www.museoreinasofia.es/0208/obras_sala_en.php?id_sala=3
(Scroll along - Bull's Head - third from the end. My goodness, there's some gorgeous stuff there. I'd not seen the Korean one at the end before. Cor!)

Now I reckon that if it was a case of Emperor's clothes...At very least he had obe hell of an extensive wardrobe.

Bore I leave off (for now) - I somewhat disagree with Effers that he was a Modernist...well, yes he was. *The* Modernist, even. But a Modernist who was well in touch with his Classical and Primitive heritages and who painted and sculpted with passion, emotion and political involvement. And that's why he's *the* towering genius of world art.

Does anyone know what Picasso had in common with Princess Diana?





*Hmm. Debatable. Obviously Duchamp got there first - but he exhibited his objects rather than sculpted with them.

SS:
>>I remember going somewhere, could have been Windsor Castle, and looked at a giant painting, could easily have been 20 feet high as rooms are so tall and noted from only several inches away the fantastically fine, almost photographic, detail and it seemed as if a singled haired brush had been used to get such fine detail

Sure. But why not just blow up a photograph to enormous size and be done with it? Not enough skill, maybe? Then send the photo to China and have it hand copied on a production line. They might even throw in a couple of Jack Vettrianos for free.

But if you want art...go to an artist who can think. Oh...and expect to have to think about it yourself.

SS...reading the backlog...you really do seem attached to this Emperor's Clothes/ No skill view.

Is there anyway that I can convince you that I'm honestly, sincerely not a dupe and follower of the herd? That I really *do* love this stuff.

On my very first visit to an art gallery, I chanced upon an Edvard Munch exhibition. (How lucky was *that*?). Is this kind of stuff good, or just skill-free, childish daubs?
http://www.munch.museum.no/exhibitions.aspx?id=147
Whatever. I promise you I loved it instantly - despite not even knowing whether or not he was supposd to be the Emperor.

Not too long afterwards I went down to London to the (old) Tate - mainly because some girls were going. Besides the Blake prints, I came across the most stunning thing I had ever seen:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/CollectionDisplays?roomid=3543
Is this the kind of skill-free thing you mean? I promise you, I didn't know he was meant to be the Emperor.

So you might not 'get' art, SS, other than the photo-realistic stuff. But please take my word for it...others are individually, of their own volition, getting more out of it than you are capable of doing.

this is a very pleasing thread, not the least because there are some knowledgable minds on display.

my 2 cents. if one asks what painting does that photography does not, the paths art took from the late 19th century becomes clearer. no coincidence that the arrival of one caused massive re appraisals of the other.

i do however think that over intellectualising of visual art isn't much different to wine whine. if it has to be explained....

>>if it has to be explained...

Up to a point. But take Renaisssance art. One way to look at it is to say 'There's some bloke nailed to a cross'. Another way involves knowing who the bloke is. Or who the people around him are, why they're adopting particular poses, why one of them is sloped off to one side and has a dead elder tree painted behind him, why there's a dove flying off in one corner...

And another way, which really, really unlocks Renaissance art (and also, by extension, Piet Mondriaan who quoted it in his work) is knowing what the the Fibonacci series has to do with it.

And once you know that, you can understand why the Van Goch et al became excited about the packing material for Japanese porcelain. Or you can think, 'That's quite a pretty cherry blossom tree.'

None of this is particularly difficult. I've just summarised an hour long slideshow from a Sixth Form General Studies lesson.

edward. i knew that would be misread even as i typed it. the word 'over' was operative. i have no objection to anyone explaining art, which is a perfectly reasonable and desirable thing to be doing. my objection is to people mystifying it all with waffle, as they often do with wine.

my point is that if, as a consumer of (participant in?) art, one persistently needs it explained, one either needs to open their mind or leave the gallery and read a little on the topic. and from the production end, if an artist spends 1000s of words explaining a piece, talking about it rather than allowing the work to 'speak for itself', then there is probably something wrong there too.

as for critics going to town with elaborate theories, i think that is all part of the culture wars and the maintenance of elites. art rendered inaccessible is art rendered void. and here i am not pointing the finger at artists themselves, but the industries that have grown up around them.

Sorry if I came over patronising. It was late.

I *sort* of know what you mean. On the other hand...there's a conceptual artist (I forget his name - the glass of water on a shelf guy) for whom the textual explanations are the whole point. One way of looking at this is that he's being over-intellectual and elitist. Another is that he's being playful with the idea of 'Art-W**k'.

But, yes, there's certainly a place for 'I know what I like', and the Emperor's New Clothes are to be resisted. If we don't like something, we should be able - and prepared - to say so. *But*...we should also have the working assumption that we might have missed something and should be prepared to listen to explanations. 'Why might I be wrong about this?'

My own personal revelation was over Tracy Emin. I used to share the 'that's rubbish' viewpoint. I also usd to say that all of her pieces should have the title 'I'm Tracy Emin. That's me - Tracy Emin. ME! Look at me!'. But then I realised that this is the whole point. She's the most brutally self-revealing artist going, and I'll happily defend (and explain) her unmade bed. Plus - she can draw like a bitch.

Thanks, Edward, for post 31:
>>
http://www.museoreinasofia.es/0208/obras_sala_en.php?id_sala=3
(Scroll along - Bull's Head - third from the end. My goodness, there's some gorgeous stuff there. I'd not seen the Korean one at the end before. Cor!)
<<

Well, sort of thanks... Twice (years apart) I took time out to 'search for Art'. The results were two images I carried around for decades. I then deliberately went to see the first again and was sadly disappointed. The second is...'Head of a Bull'. I'm disappointed this time but not so seriously.

I do have (a little) sympathy with SS's pov, with regard to unmade beds, scruffy tabletops, piles of bricks etc. Much of it pretty well must be try-ons (for which the 'artists' can't be blamed).

Overall, I conclude that my name must be Phil I Stein (except I really do appreciate skill - just that the thought process skills are only translucent to me.

The enduring opinion on what is Art that I carry from my quests is (loosely) along the lines of RG Collingwood's - 'There's more on that canvas forebye paint'. That feeling is elusive and usually dilute .

>I forget his name - the glass of water on a shelf guy)<

Michael Craig Martin.

He was our boss at Goldsmiths.

hmm, interesting stuff all.

One interesting thing that I am getting out of the convo so far is that the techniques involved, the innovation is as much a part of the appreciation of his works as the work itself. Which is pretty much the same argument for the photo-realistic art. We're impressed (that's a general 'we' representing whoever is appreciating whatever art is being viewed) by the skill of the artist.

I have to admit I've always been wary of the 'I could do that' argument (despite it being one of the first thoughts when viewing some of the stuff!) based purely on my appreciation of technological art. By which I mean the beauty and skill represented by an efficient but simple mechanical design (or a simple but efficient/powerful bit of code). Yes I could have done it. But a) I didn;t and b) you need the stroke of genius or flash of inspiration to cut through all the accumulated cr*p (such as The Way We Do Things) and see how to get from a to b much more simply. Not that I am equating Picasso with simplicity (my knowledge is not enough to even comment on such a comparison).

I must say I still don't 'get' the modernist/cubist stuff. I think I can perhaps begin to see where to start maybe. I mean, I prefer, in many ways, a really well executed painting that attempts photo realism to an actual photo. Yes I like all the golden section/compasses lying around/skull in the corner/ significant colours type thing (which I see as a puzzle and seperate to my enjoyment of the painting as a piece of art).
The reason I prefer it is that a photo can be too clinical, too defined, what actually is. Whereas the painting due to its inability to be a photo, allows the viewer and the artist a bit more mental space to play around in.

Is that part of it?

I can;t say I'm too keen on the idea of the artist painting what the viewer sees. That sounds a tad too arrogant of the artist to me. PLus it makes me feel like I am being manipulated. If that isn;t how I view the subject, then presumably that makes the painting meaningless to me?

Tell me Ed, (genuine question although it sounds like a criticism/challenge. It isn't!) can you still view such art in and of itself? Or do you need all the backstory and psychology to enjoy Picasso's work? I mean when I see something I like (and I agree on some of Edvard Munch's stuff) I don;t have all this background and explanation to go with it. I like a painting cos it looks good. Is it possible to appreciate Picasso's more experimental (is that the right word? Cubist/Modernist/whatever) in this manner?