What is art?

[Moxie]

P.S. What in the world took you so long to show up here, Moxie?

It seemed like a very big topic, and I wasn't sure how to approach the conversation. This seemed like a smaller bite. Though odd choice, since I don't much care to read criticism. I prefer to look.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

P.S. What in the world took you so long to show up here, Moxie?

I think Moxie came here because she was browsing through my posts, because she liked my posts on another thread, right Moxie? I also like Moxie on board here and hope she contributes more here.

 

[Moxie]

Looking at art and thinking about it is one of my favorite pastimes. I'll look over the conversation so as not to drop in without context. I'll comment more when I feel caught up. But I'm glad you have this thread.

 

[Horsa]

Looking at art and thinking about it is one of my favorite pastimes. I'll look over the conversation so as not to drop in without context. I'll comment more when I feel caught up. But I'm glad you have this thread.

Welcome to the conversation, Moxie. I hope you enjoy & look forward to hearing what you have to say. I'm glad you like my idea.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I'm going to be nice to you & share a link with information & a few pictures of Barbara Hepworth's work here as I know she was a lady who lived local to me but I'm not sure how familiar you are with her. http://barbarahepworth.org.uk/sculptures/ I could also share 1 about Henry Moore for the same reason if you'd like.

Browsing through Hepworth, the Pelagos piece caught my attention. Here's a good picture of it:

Nice proportions. I know it symbolises a wave. But what are the 7 strings attached to the "tip" of the wave? No "critic" seems to say any word about this detail.

 

[Horsa]

Browsing through Hepworth, the Pelagos piece caught my attention. Here's a good picture of it:

Nice proportions. I know it symbolises a wave. But what are the 7 strings attached to the "tip" of the wave? No "critic" seems to say any word about this detail.

Unless those strings characterise the lines that go through the wave when you're paddling in the sea & the wave hits you, I'm afraid I've got no idea. You know what I mean. You're paddling in the sea & you see a forward wave that hits you then you see small side lines like calm, mini waves.

I'm glad you like. I like her polished bronze & sculpted marble & granite pieces as well as her more realistic pieces.

 

[mrzz]

Browsing through Hepworth, the Pelagos piece caught my attention. Here's a good picture of it:

Nice proportions. I know it symbolises a wave. But what are the 7 strings attached to the "tip" of the wave? No "critic" seems to say any word about this detail.

I would guess it suggests strings of a musical instrument.

 

[Horsa]

I would guess it suggests strings of a musical instrument.

It does look similar to a wave-shaped harp unless it's meant to be a harp but because B.H. wanted to make the piece abstract made it look like that (wave-shaped to suggest sound-waves that resonate through the harp when it's played).

 

[Horsa]

I think Moxie came here because she was browsing through my posts, because she liked my posts on another thread, right Moxie? I also like Moxie on board here and hope she contributes more here.

I like your posts too, Chris, though you have reasoned with me once or twice. I find some of your posts fascinating though you have baffled me with science a few times. I understood most of what you said though, sometimes with a bit of thought. Sometimes I've had to think twice before answering you. You allow me to ask questions & you've answered my questions though so I understand now. I've learnt a lot from what you had to say & have enjoyed our conversations. Thank you. :0)

 

[Chris Koziarz]

It does look similar to a wave-shaped harp unless it's meant to be a harp but because B.H. wanted to make the piece abstract made it look like that (wave-shaped to suggest sound-waves that resonate through the harp when it's played).

Yes, and I like that interpretation.

 

[Moxie]

I would guess it suggests strings of a musical instrument.

Sorry, but I thought you didn't like critics telling us what these things "mean." I like that Horsa posted it. It's absolutely gorgeous. Even in a computer image, one can see how it "sings" as a sculpture. The heft and the grace of it. I don't think it needs to be turned into a prose version of itself. It's a sculpture, and, to me, it speaks for itself.

 

[Horsa]

Yes, and I like that interpretation.

Thank you very much. Thinking about it now I would say reverberates would be better than resonates in my response & thinking about it properly it looks like a C clef in musical notation.

 

[Horsa]

Sorry, but I thought you didn't like critics telling us what these things "mean." I like that Horsa posted it. It's absolutely gorgeous. Even in a computer image, one can see how it "sings" as a sculpture. The heft and the grace of it. I don't think it needs to be turned into a prose version of itself. It's a sculpture, and, to me, it speaks for itself.

Since you like sculpture, I've decided to post a link to the works of another artist who lived in an area local to myself, Henry Moore. http://catalogue.henry-moore.org/co...onid=7E39A33073EB20DAF8522BBEC79593B3/objects

 

[Horsa]

It seemed like a very big topic, and I wasn't sure how to approach the conversation. This seemed like a smaller bite. Though odd choice, since I don't much care to read criticism. I prefer to look.

I used an open question to try to encourage all views as I know a lot of people like art. I also knew that it could have been seen as a child's question or a more adult question as everyone knows what art is & are familiar with it but sometimes the fact that we all know what something is & are familiar with something & have been for ages makes it harder to define the subject we are talking about. The fact that there was both a simple & a more grown-up definition of art was shown in my original attempt to define art. I tried my best to include everything at all levels. It would have also been acceptable for someone to share links to their favourite pieces of art & say "this is art" & "that is art". It would have been true.

 

[mrzz]

Sorry, but I thought you didn't like critics telling us what these things "mean."

I don't. But I will take your spirited answer to expand on the topic, since it takes us back to the very point of the thread.

The common ground we get about "what is art" is that it is particular way to express oneself (we can discuss that, sure, but that is basically as far as we could get here). And one can express a lot of things, emotions included, and it is not a coincidence that some people say that art is a way to express oneself's emotions. Well, people say that, and it makes sense, because art in general triggers emotional reactions in the observer. This is the whole point, isn't it?

Why am I writing this? Because it explains (at least to me) why is it so pleasant and fun to talk about the specific pieces of art you like, because in general you are talking about how that made you feel. It is kind of a egoistic conversation. But it is fun, and by trading those experiences, people can get to know each other better.

So, when I say (here, on this board, among "friends") that it "suggests strings of a musical instrument", I am telling what this particular piece of art does to me. I am by no means telling what it means. This is the whole point: here we are all onlookers, exchanging opinions and impressions. This is very different from an "authorized" voice giving you the keys for reading an artwork "the proper way". This is my main quarrel with modern art critic (but, yes, I also think they suck in their interpretations).

You know I like to play with radical positions, but not here. The radical extension of the "I don't like criticism" position is that you are only allowed to say "I like it" or "I don't like it", which, as you know well, takes away all fun from it.

(and, just to emphasize, it is not that I don't like art critics in general, it is a particular breed that I really can't stand).

It's a sculpture, and, to me, it speaks for itself.

I could not agree more.

 

[Horsa]

I don't. But I will take your spirited answer to expand on the topic, since it takes us back to the very point of the thread.

The common ground we get about "what is art" is that it is particular way to express oneself (we can discuss that, sure, but that is basically as far as we could get here). And one can express a lot of things, emotions included, and it is not a coincidence that some people say that art is a way to express oneself's emotions. Well, people say that, and it makes sense, because art in general triggers emotional reactions in the observer. This is the whole point, isn't it?

Why am I writing this? Because it explains (at least to me) why is it so pleasant and fun to talk about the specific pieces of art you like, because in general you are talking about how that made you feel. It is kind of a egoistic conversation. But it is fun, and by trading those experiences, people can get to know each other better.

So, when I say (here, on this board, among "friends") that it "suggests strings of a musical instrument", I am telling what this particular piece of art does to me. I am by no means telling what it means. This is the whole point: here we are all onlookers, exchanging opinions and impressions. This is very different from an "authorized" voice giving you the keys for reading an artwork "the proper way". This is my main quarrel with modern art critic (but, yes, I also think they suck in their interpretations).

You know I like to play with radical positions, but not here. The radical extension of the "I don't like criticism" position is that you are only allowed to say "I like it" or "I don't like it", which, as you know well, takes away all fun from it.

(and, just to emphasize, it is not that I don't like art critics in general, it is a particular breed that I really can't stand).



I could not agree more.

I agree. We are all friends. None of us are art experts. There are all different types of art that all different people like. No one likes exactly the same pieces. It's just a matter of opinion. No one is judging anyone on their likes & dislikes. The sculpture in question is abstract so what it represents is due to interpretation & there are many different ways of seeing things. Poetry is also a way of expressing emotions as is writing a journal or your life-story. Mind you, Chris has poetry down as an art-form.

I don't think anyone likes criticism but we learn from constructive criticism. Lol. Seriously though, we all have different tastes & opinions & the right to have & air them.

Thank you very much for the quick sum-up of the definition of art. Unless Moxie has a definition of art to add I guess we can go onto what good art is. I think I recall your definition of art being something that artists do & your definition of good art being down to the beholder.

 

[Horsa]

I was reading in the book I've been keeping in my bag for when I'm waiting for buses & trains at the moment, "the age of horses" by Susanna Forest about Uccello. I'd never seen any of his works before & when I saw them I was impressed. I decided to share a link with information & a few of his works. What do you think?

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/paolo-uccello

 

[Horsa]

I found out yesterday that 1 of Henry Moore's paintings was sold to an art gallery in Berlin before Hitler got into power & was hidden by someone after Hitler started raiding galleries & destroying what he considered "degenerate art". It is now in a Swiss art gallery & with the provenance behind it, it's been valued at £70,000 today.

(Don't forget that there was a whole army of people commissioned to save art from destruction by Hitler & some of the art was very good as was shown in the film "Monuments Men" which was based on the true story of the army of people who saved art from destruction for future generations.)

 

[mrzz]

I was reading in the book I've been keeping in my bag for when I'm waiting for buses & trains at the moment, "the age of horses" by Susanna Forest about Uccello. I'd never seen any of his works before & when I saw them I was impressed. I decided to share a link with information & a few of his works. What do you think?

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/paolo-uccello

His battle scenes look like modern comic books images. It is just fantastic.

https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/u/uccello/index.html

 

[Horsa]

His battle scenes look like modern comic books images. It is just fantastic.

https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/u/uccello/index.html

I don't know anything about modern comic book images as I haven't read a comic since I was 9 & that was in '91. I'm glad you like them. I think his paintings are very good & his horses are very realistic though I'm not really 1 for distressing scenes. I have to admit his paintings are very good & realistic though distressing (which I don't normally go for) except his self-portrait which I also think is very good.