5 ms·

Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450

by fiblye 6y ago

Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-c... [2] https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2] will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great. But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail. A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do that"--but it was a revolutionary style at the time because people didn't do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good" painting than [2]. And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional progression for his work. These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest. There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.

rbecker 6y ago
> Both kinds of art can coexist. But do they? In your typical museum, what kind of art do you find in the post-WWII section? I've been to a few, and to say it doesn't compare to what came before doesn't even begin to describe it. As for the "mind-blowing" quality - you can only turn a urinal on its side so many times before the trick gets old. Where do you go after that, after you've heroically broken with all the accumulated knowledge of past artists in whatever is the opposite of "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
- fiblye 6y ago
  It depends on the museum. The curators decide what they want. I've been to museums full of nothing but plain black swabs across a canvas. I've also been to ones with nothing but realistic scenery paintings made within the past 20 years. Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    >Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today. I fervently hope so. Call me uncultured, but I prefer art that has aesthetic value.
- goto11 6y ago
  The realist painting style basically disappeared after photography was invented. Because what is the point of emulating a camera with paint? If you want realist imagery we have photography, tv, movies etc. The natural succession to the classic "Academic" style is not cubism, its Hollywood.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    Take a look at the following artists: Zdzislaw Beksinski: https://culture.pl/en/gallery/selected-paintings-by-zdzislaw-beksinski-image-gallery https://culture.pl/en/gallery/selected-paintings-by-zdzislaw... Frederic Edwin Church: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=421 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=421 H. R. Giger: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-nightmarish-works-hr-giger-artist-alien https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-nightmarish-wo... Frank Frazetta: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=693 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=693 Hokusai: https://www.wikiart.org/en/katsushika-hokusai/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/katsushika-hokusai/ Would you say photography has replaced any of them? Have you ever seen photographs that look like their work? I have not. There is more to art than a binary choice between photorealism and modern art (or whatever that collection of styles could be called). An artist, even a realist one, does far more than emulate a camera.
tgv 6y ago
It's a form of art, no doubt. And you can consider it better or worse art. I think the problem is forcing the label "poem" onto these utterances, probably because of the historically acquired status that it brings along. As such, I say: it requires a lot of goodwill from the reader.

by fiblye 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago

> Both kinds of art can coexist. But do they? In your typical museum, what kind of art do you find in the post-WWII section? I've been to a few, and to say it doesn't compare to what came before doesn't even begin to describe it. As for the "mind-blowing" quality - you can only turn a urinal on its side so many times before the trick gets old. Where do you go after that, after you've heroically broken with all the accumulated knowledge of past artists in whatever is the opposite of "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

fiblye 6y ago
It depends on the museum. The curators decide what they want. I've been to museums full of nothing but plain black swabs across a canvas. I've also been to ones with nothing but realistic scenery paintings made within the past 20 years. Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  >Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today. I fervently hope so. Call me uncultured, but I prefer art that has aesthetic value.
goto11 6y ago
The realist painting style basically disappeared after photography was invented. Because what is the point of emulating a camera with paint? If you want realist imagery we have photography, tv, movies etc. The natural succession to the classic "Academic" style is not cubism, its Hollywood.
- rbecker 6y ago
  Take a look at the following artists: Zdzislaw Beksinski: https://culture.pl/en/gallery/selected-paintings-by-zdzislaw-beksinski-image-gallery https://culture.pl/en/gallery/selected-paintings-by-zdzislaw... Frederic Edwin Church: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=421 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=421 H. R. Giger: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-nightmarish-works-hr-giger-artist-alien https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-nightmarish-wo... Frank Frazetta: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=693 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=693 Hokusai: https://www.wikiart.org/en/katsushika-hokusai/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/katsushika-hokusai/ Would you say photography has replaced any of them? Have you ever seen photographs that look like their work? I have not. There is more to art than a binary choice between photorealism and modern art (or whatever that collection of styles could be called). An artist, even a realist one, does far more than emulate a camera.

tgv 6y ago

It's a form of art, no doubt. And you can consider it better or worse art. I think the problem is forcing the label "poem" onto these utterances, probably because of the historically acquired status that it brings along. As such, I say: it requires a lot of goodwill from the reader.