Artistic Process

Vivien, I AM saying that both means of artistic expression are equally valid. I also agree with BoGoWo. To me, many examples of
of intense recorded observation are indeed art.
The greats always transcend their material.
Vuillard may be considered decorative, but
what decoration!

art
Important and valid points made by all. I like Shepaints' differentiation between creators and transmitters. I suspect that most Great Art reflects aspects of both. Vivien's point about merely pretty decorative art is one we would all agree with. She also notes that "beauty" is not always a requirement for successful or "deep" art. I would argue that even a work that is ugly on the surface (e.g., some of Kollwitz's drawings or Goya's paintings and drawings) may be beautiful in the larger sense of moving us aesthetically, as opposed to pretty works that leave us unmoved. Emotion, BoGoWo, is surely a factor in successful art, but that may be at the level of unconscious unidentifiable feelings--as opposed to obvious culturally identified emotions such as sadness, anger, fear, etc.). I appreciate the emotional aspect of a painting for the emotions or feelings it evokes in me, not because of what it reveals of the emotional life of the painter. And I LOVE work that has "sustaining" power. My favorite works I come to love increasingly over the years, even as I change. Some I grow out of, as it were.

Kollowitz was an excellent example - i just love the powerfulness and intense emotion that is raw and never sentimental (as with Victorian moralistic art)

Not a decorative object but a powerful sustaining piece of art.

There again Vuillard, mentioned earlier - beautiful, intense colour and mood,

Different motivation behind the paintings but depth, intellect and intensity in both.

art
Vivien, the use of the term, "intellect" regarding art is a topic for much discussion and consideration. I do not think that analytical intelligence is all there is to that. I would like to hear comments from others on the kinds of intelligence most relevant to art making. Mechanical and spatial intelligence are clearly important for some kinds of very technically difficult methods/media. But what about poetic intelligence? What about the kind of "wisdom" one ACQUIRES through exposure to literature, philosophy, travel, interpersonal living, etc. I once reported on another thread that the violinist, Henryk Szeryng, said that to be a GREAT violinist one must develop good technique and learn the knowledge behind musicianship. But one must also read in areas like literature, poetry, history, and philosophy. That suggests a kind of intellect that is acquired, both geneticially and experientially.
Vivien, when I examine the works of Klee I detect a kind of "aesthetic intellligence" in it. I wonder if THAT is what you refer to.?

really I am using the word intellect with a very broad brush, encompassing poetic thoughts, consideration of visual vocabulary, political ideas, spiritual ideas, the desire to express a spirit of place, the particular weight and form of a body, isolation, weather, light and air, solidity and heaviness, whatever ..... anything that involves that extra something that lifts a painting into being fine art rather than a simple, if competent, picture.

Klee most certainly has this and his paintings are very beautiful too.

each artistic movement has had its own partucular concerns - they struggle to work out a visual language to express this. You all know the various art movements so i won't make lists

painting is a language, a dialogue with the artist and viewer.

art
Vivien, wonderful/helpful response.

Hello all missing you as always.

art
Vivien, a small addition to your "painting is a...dialog with the artist and viewer.": the dialog is also between the artist and himself as well as the artist and her medium.

Joanne: when are you coming back. You are missed too.

Well I am trying but it remains to be seen if I can do it.

Did you get my PM re the painting?

truth
Joanne, you are referring to the August 25 pm? Yes, thanks a lot. Please pm me to tell of your present situation. Do you have a computer of your own now? How are Charlotte and the Supreme Bean?

Portal; as for "I think it would be fair to say that good art strikes some emotional chord, but not that art has to be expression of emotion."

the important element that i am NOT including is that art "has" to be 'anything', but i will stick to my definition, and feel that it "is".

As for intelectual relavance, my feeling is that intelligence figures in artwork on an incidental basis; with a highly intelligent artist, it may show, and even dominate, but it is 'in service' of the art, not creating it.

Will do, PM you for sure. Things are the same re computer and all but today I am alone so I am spending some time computing.

Carlotta and the Supreme Bean are great. We plan to move soon and then things will be better re putering.

truth
JD, good news; thanks.

Re: art



yes definitely

JL, Vivian, I would add....."painting is a dialogue with the artist, and viewer, between the artist and himself as well as the artist and her medium and ........artists of the past and present (and possibly the future).

mmm I don't think it is incidental but definitely agree with the 'in service' bit - it is part of the whole, adding power to the visual ideas.

well put.

thanks

How is your degree going? what are you working on currently Portal? is the site working yet?

Hmm...I'm not a visual artist, just a humble caterer, but my father is an architect, and there are certain traits emotionally that I inherited from him. I agree with Bo on the sentiment that art, from the artist's perspective is emotional communication. It must be. However, I would say first that 'art' is a combination of training and inspiration. Picasso, in the early days, did straightforward portraits just fine. Then, he found his voice, and a good promotional twist. Second, for someone like me, as much as I put into creating a meal, a dinner experience, it eventually comes down to whether or not the client likes it. Thankfully, most people like what I do, but there are always hiccups along the way. I don't blame Picasso for being self-promoting. After all, what good is your art to you after you are dead?

..cav.....I believe artists are artists...whatever the medium ......

I really like your down to earth take on Picasso....
yes, what good is your art to you after you are
dead!