Does art take away from life?

IONUS, heres a link to the "marine Art" thread I started last year. Several of the paintings I posted had timed out but you can find them by just clipping and posting the clip into Google
http://able2know.org/topic/137484-1

That is a very moving painting- my first reaction is to respond favorably aesthetically because the gentleness of the tones is soothing and appealing to me. Then I make the connection between war and blindness - war IS a sort of blindness.
Wonderful , moving painting.

The 1,000 mile stare doesn't do as much for me. I appreciate what he's trying to communicate, but the style makes me think of comic book art. I don't know if that's what his intent was but the style of that painting takes away from the gravity of the situation (for me).

I really like Antony Gormley's work - but only in certain light. And since most of his installations are outside surrounded by nature, the differing weather conditions and light play a huge role in how someone might experience his art.

His most famous piece, Angel of the North- is much more affecting at twilight or dusk when it's seen in silhouette than during the full light of day. I love it in low light and I don't like it at all when it's daylight:





This one - Another Place- is my favorite by him - in whatever light - but especially at sunset.

Structures like that Gormley sxculpture need to have some good engineering. Ive seen articles about public art that suffers from "Creep" where the material sags over a long period of time.

Hmm, I should go look at that. Sadly, I've not walked the campus..
I used to like Derain, but haven't looked at his work in years now.

I guess I'm lucky I got to see them before they sagged - or maybe Gormley is a good engineer and they won't.
I don't think art takes away from life, but I think unfounded technical pessimism can take away from enjoyment of art.
Fortunately - I don't have to analyze what might go wrong in the future as I'm viewing it in the present - so that's not a problem for me.

I'm just one of those people who know what I like when I see it.
I wouldn't want to be any other way.

I think that youve just answered the question of this thread. No sense overthinking a lot of art, just let it seep in like a piece of fine key lime pie.

I think art can tell a lot about a person. It is a pleasure, yet according to everyone here it can not be overdone. Why not ? Sex and food are pleasures, so is sleep, these can be overdone...when is art overdone ? I would argue where it is not enjoyed by the majority of people.

The majority of people do not enjoy eating luxurious foods to the point of being fat, or having sex involving whips and chains, or sleeping whenever they can....applying self discipline to pleasure, most people avoid excess. To me, there is a whole group of art that is excessive....modern art....born in easy times when people thought more of themselves, it is enjoyed mainly by those who have become gluttons on man made art and need to stop and appreciate true beauty, true art, thats not in an airconditioned sterile room.

Thank you. Some enjoyable art there.

We agree to disagree mightily on this point.

Most abstract art was born in a time of political turmoil and was often used as a means of quiet rebellion. When Picasso painted Guernica, he could have been impprisoned had he not been a dearly loved artist of the world by that time.

TAke a close look at some of the work you think is bad art and look at the time line of its creation. There are many sources on the web, one of which I use is ASK art dot com.
Looking at work by artists of the Bauhus or pre Hitlerian Germany was work that didnt celebrate idolatry and gluttony. No it was politically engaging.

Sometimes look at the work of Kathe Kollwitz and tell me youre not affected by this modern artists view of the world of Imperial Germany and Russia .

I see your point on its creation, but my argument has always been who enjoys it..artists will always be like you suggested, a bit radical in politics and pushing mediums to the limit, but who enjoys the work ? Upper class types. Why is it never popular with the working class ? I think it is because it is a luxury that requires someone to have had excess art in their lives and has become bored with normal art before they can move on to it. I always advocate the middle of the road in everything (except walking) and I see modern art as extreme.

In the US, there was a recent story in the NYT about this old couple who were educated only through high school. The husband, I believe, was a mail carrier. They were art collectors for almost 60 years and they ammassed a collection of some of the more important artists of the mid 20th cntury. These were ALL modern, (as abstract or minimalist or futurist , colorist etc , styles) Without any training other than becoming passioantely interested in art and reading and visiting museums, they amassed a collection thatwas valued in the millions . They collected only what moved them and they had everything from oils , watercolors, to collages and monoprints and scultures.

The man started off with a reservation much like yours and, over the years , as he met the artists whose works they collected, his views changed so that today (hes still alive hes in his mid 80's) hes apparently a passionate appreciator of the modern.

He stated that it took some work to understand that most of these pieces of modern art follow a progression of works made by the artist as the artist seeks newer and simpler ways to satisfy his (her) needs in the creativity process.

AS I said up above, we agree to disagree and Lets just keep it thus, (you wouldnt keep this discussion up unless you werent curious about why people like or follow and appreciate abstractions in art.

You are quite right of course, I am curious. Sometimes I think of it as a muscle I am not using, that if only somehow I could "get" it I would be the better for it. But naah, nothing happens so I remain committed to the theory that it is a luxury taste like caviar, best reserved for those that are sick of the normal.

You gave it a good try, but perhaps I will remain always the pleb.

Yes I agree ... he did, didn't he, Ionus?

Farmer, you asked earlier in this thread: which artworks really move you?
I was hoping you'd start a thread on that topic (as I said), but as that doesn't look like it's going to happen, I'll respond now.

(Amongst other genres) I love portraits, particularly self portraits where the artist is communicating all sorts of information about him/her self.
About who she/he is.

Rembrandt's portraits I find extremely moving. Particularly the later ones, where all the difficulties, loss & grief he experienced in his life show in his face. Take a look at this one (very late in the piece). What he has lived through & where he finds himself at this stage of his life is all there. Nothing is hidden, no ego concerns have gotten in the way. I find this self portrait incredibly humbling in its honesty. I feel I know so much more about who Rembrandt was from looking at it.:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_-_Self_Portrait111.jpg

... but I forgot to state the bleeding obvious: Rembrandt certainly knew how to paint!

If you're interested in seeing more: various Rembrandt self portraits at different stages of his adult life.:

Msolga-That site is really neat. I love to see how RvR painted himself as either the subject , or an interested observer within his body of work over the years. AS his financial problems grew(He was apparently unable to handle the financial success and then the early adulation followed by rejection later in life). His self portraits show this kinda "Burgher" looking dude of which he wasnt shy in portraying, warts and all. Vermeer also did a few in which they say that he included himself asthe asubject (the ARtist in His Studio and The Geographer are two such works)

Picassos self portraits transcend the need to show ones face in a dramatic "academic" style. His were always being influenced by artists who were still alive or had recently passed (He did a self portrait in the style of MANET).


My pwrsonal favcorite artists are Edward Hopper, Frank Frazetta (who died just last week), F E Church, Carl Evers, Chris MAgyers, and A whole host of the Impressionists work(I like a lot of , but not all, of C Pisarros stuff ) Monet was a real good eyeball wasnt he.?
Of the moderns , its always Picasso, Picabbia,DuChamp, Gramma Moses, Nevelson, Brancusi, Rothko, and Kollwitz.

I tried painting like almost every one of the above and have settled on a style thats been called "Industrial".

Im sorry I didnt recall seeing a request to start a thread on art favs. Usually those become just mass lists in which we recite. ALso, I think osso started such a thread several years ago. I like to ressurect old threads whenever we get some new interest. It gives a continuity of a subject. Why not send osso a PM and aske her to dredge up her old thread . I think I posted on it but I have so many subjects of posts in my queue that I cant get beyond 3 pages without getting confused.

I do have a thread called "Any New Art Projects Going ON' I ve been using that like a journal of my work just like my old boat thread.



I guess I could go on

It is nothing if not honest. I wish we could see it in the colours he painted it.

My style of oil painting has been called "very determined".

I'll look, but I've something like 26 pages of threads - it'll take me a while.