I wonder what Nabokov would've thought of his work - Lolita - if it had a hand in a surge of pedophilia in its audience? — TheMadFool
What would aesthetics transcending beauty look like? Are you saying there can be disgustingly ugly art too? — TheMadFool
I doubt people will be willing to grant such liberty to artists to make a display of abject immorality; in other words, art must maintain some moral dimension and that would mean, by my account of how the highest beauty is morality, that art has to be about beauty. — TheMadFool
Anyway, it occurred to me to try looking at the picture as though I didn’t know who painted it. It did look much more pedestrian when viewing it this way, I must say. — praxis
That was not quite what I meant. Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. It’s a modern misconception that new forms of art have to be perpetually invented. That puts the emphasis on invention rather than performance; on whims rather than quality.It cannot be a copy of anything that existed previously, and it cannot be a physical object that is just a combination of other physical objects without an idea behind it.
— Congau
Interesting point. Original and consequently unrecognisable as art. What then happens? — Brett
Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. — Congau
Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. — Congau
I was talking of who was preferred by the public, or art world. — Punshhh
Yes, I agree, Van Gogh is popular at the moment, that will change. In my reply to Brett, I qualified my comments about Van Gogh, by saying that in the end it comes down to personal likes and dislikes. It took me a long time to get Van Gogh's work, like many other artists. But my approach is that I am on a journey and at no point do I dismiss any work and always go back and reassess artists and their work. I adopt a position of humility and give the artist the benefit of the doubt. I have always struggled with Matisse, I continually fail to see any merit in his work, but perhaps one day I will see the light.I’ve always loved his work and think it’s brilliant. It’s just that we should probably acknowledge that the value we place on art is often fictional, like money or rare gems (that aren’t actually so rare]
You know your favourite piece of music, an emotionally evocative piece. Well it's like that in relation to a painting.
some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful.
— Punshhh
Brett
What exactly does this mean?
Of course you're allowed to not like his work, but if you claim he's no good and say why on a Philosophy of art forum, you are going to get shot down. Principally because you are implying that either the world of art appreciation (which I described a couple of posts back) is wrong, or that their position is in line with your personal opinion.That’s because it is pedestrian. Mid year high school kids paint like that, which is Van Gogh’s level, everything so literal, so clumsy and flat footed.
Edit: just an interesting note. Are we allowed to say Van Gogh’s no good?
'It's currently under debate whether Gauguin should be celebrated/displayed anywhere, because (contrary to the Lolita example) he was actually erotically displaying underage girls that he apparently molested/raped in real life....
The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago.
— Punshhh
Brett,
What's naive about it?
I did write this in reply to you yesterday.Which is?
I agree, the immersion in the art world as an artist and a viewer is what is fulfilling for me.I think I've gotten to the point where I don't think art can be defined or fully described philosophically.
Brett,
What's naive about it?
Presumably you would be educated in such developments before criticising Van Gogh on a platform like this. I don't wish to sensure you, but you should expect commentators who have many years of understanding and contemplation on all these issues to be found here and it will be pointed out. — Punshhh
"There is within the world of the critic and the connoisseur of art a narrative about this, which does include the international art market. Which does rate artists to a degree and in terms of 19th and 20th Century art Van Gogh is possibly in the lead currently, or perhaps head to head with Picasso" — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.