I think you'll find that Van Gogh is head and shoulders above Cezanne and Gaugan amongst connoisseurs of art. I can explain why tomorrow. More importantly and in line with this discussion, you know how it is not so easy to define art, or establish its meaning as we have found in this thread. Well it is equally so when it comes to establishing who is better an artist than someone else. The best we can do is say who we prefer. 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. Cezanne, would be in the following group, which is hotly debated. Personally Degas, Dali, Toulouse Lautrec, are ahead of Cezanne for me, having established that Van Gogh and Picasso are way out in the lead.

I have to agree with you about Van Gogh, unparalleled, except possibly by Picasso.

Can you explain why you prefer Picasso over Van Gogh?

I don't prefer Picasso over Van Gogh, although I see him as a close second. I was talking of who was preferred by the public, or art world. Personally, I am not a big fan of Cubism, although I do like Picasso's interpretation of Cubism and some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful. For me Van Gogh equals this, with an unparalleled vibrancy and immediacy as well. I think he achieves something which many artists struggle with, imparting the vibrancy and depth of light and intensity of colour which we all experience in the world. I struggle with this in my work and it is devilishly difficult to achieve. He literally invented his own method of painting, which is unique and achieved this without falling into the various traps in which artists fail, or over compensate for this in paintings.

Here is one of my favourites, I haven't seen another painting of a sunset with so much depth.

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

So, if I recall correctly, he suggested that anyone who actually found the first half of his novel titillating was just exposing a corruption already existent in their own psyche's. His book was meant to make the horror of pedophilia more apparent by the juxtaposition of beauty and immorality--which is supported by the fact that the protagonist is a sniveling, whining, unsympathetic dude even without the molestation part. I think the fascinating thing to see culturally is that the book is known for the pedophilia parts, at which we are horrified, but the whole "he's also a murderer" aspect is just kinda forgotten.

What would aesthetics transcending beauty look like? Are you saying there can be disgustingly ugly art too? — TheMadFool

Yes.

Do I like it? Not really. But some people like punk rock too, and I'm not sure why anyone would subject themselves to that screaming either.

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

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....

There has been a lot of discussion about aesthetics and beauty in art. Concern with these concepts are still prevalent in the visual arts. Artists are a diverse lot with the freedom to be concerned with whatever they wish. I cant speak for everybody, but I think it would be fair to say that the penultimate focus of art today and over the past 30 years has been creativity. Creativity is used loosely amongst the general public.
In contemporary art it has a strict meaning.

It goes something like this: In all fields of human endeavor, there are leaders at the cutting edge of their field. They are the only ones with the opportunity to be creative. They do this by grasping beyond the edge of human achievement and clasping onto something, and then bringing the rest of the field with them.

Its two important steps

1: Finding something beyond current understanding - beyond current endeavor / achievement

2: Bringing the rest of the field with them

The second step is the Hard Problem of Creativity - it is necessary to convince others that you are right to bring the discovery into reality, to bring it into the collective consciousness.

Although they have made a discovery, the world is blind to it until they understand it.

What is the difference between an art work that is hidden, and and art work in plain sight that nobody understands? Nothing

People who are successful in this are the only creatives - they are the true leaders of the world.
They are the ones who expand our consciousness.

Relate this to Van Gogh, or Galileo , or Copernicus or whoever discovered the world was round.

Most artists achieve this to a very minimal degree by creating an art work that varies in form or content from previous art. you would be familiar with artists doing weird shit.

So few achieve a sizable shift in the understanding of art.- Duchamp is unparalleled in this.


You have a new idea in this thread, but only a few can see it, and most just ignore it. And this is very much a part of what is art.

How do you edit posts?

The last line in previous post should read :

You have a new idea in this thread, but only a few can see it, and most just ignore it. And this is very much a part of 'what is art'

I was looking for a frame the other day and noticed a framed Van Gogh print. I think it was a placeholder to show off the frame. 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. Don’t get me wrong, 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).

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).@praxis

Exactly its all about understanding, or one consciousness looking at another consciousness

I think you'll find that Van Gogh is head and shoulders above Cezanne and Gaugan amongst connoisseurs of art. — Punshhh

I’d love to get into this but I’m not sure if it’s the right place and maybe futile anyway, in that it won’t contribute much.

some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful. — Punshhh

What exactly does this mean?

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’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?

I think the fascinating thing to see culturally is that the book is known for the pedophilia parts, — Artemis

But not by serious readers. So if that’s the cultural perception then culture has become shallow and ignorant of art. Which is no surprise. So what is culture today?

he was actually erotically displaying underage girls — Artemis

What does that mean: “erotically”?

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

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.

Think about all the masterpieces that were produced in classical painting. There was not an enormous development in style between the Renaissance and the 19th century compared to what has happened since then, but each one of the old masters showed an incredible creative power in their works while still staying well within the frames of what was acceptable art.
The “Madonna and child” was painted again and again, but although the motive was the same, the best performers could prove an impressive creative energy. The sublime ideas they expressed were not found in the motive as such, but in the unique message of each painting.

Sure, creativity is the opposite of copying, but as long as the essential idea of a work of art is unique and not copied, it is real art.

What does that mean: “erotically”? — Brett

Your private parts start to feel funny.

Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. — Congau

Of course not, and that was not quite what I meant. What I meant was having found a new way of looking at a subject artists then explore that approach, or style for the sake of simplicity, and apply it to the subject of their interest. All art movements are challenged by an original, or new, approach, otherwise every painting would look like the “Madonna and Child”.

It’s probably worth considering why there was “no enormous development in style between the Renaissance and the 19th century”, and what purpose art served, what it was that constrained the breaking of any rules.

Your private parts start to feel funny. — praxis

And if they don’t?

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

What do you mean by genre? Do you mean it in terms of subject, or technique, or style?

I was talking of who was preferred by the public, or art world. — Punshhh

For me, these two categories are almost entirely exclusive...one prefers Shakespeare, and the other would rather watch Transformers. Aren't they both "right"?

I am sure there is someone out there who doesn't particularly like anything by Van Gogh...are they wrong?

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]

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.

some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful.
— Punshhh

Brett
What exactly does this mean?

You know your favourite piece of music, an emotionally evocative piece. Well it's like that in relation to a painting.

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?

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.

You say his work is "pedestrian, everything is literal, so clumsy and flat footed". These aspects of his work are irrelevant for those who appreciate his work. Have you not taken on board the hard won freedoms in artistic expression won by the modernists and post modernists? The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago.

the world of art appreciation — Punshhh

Which is?

The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago. — Punshhh

What's naive about it?

'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....

It probably says more about the level of sensure in the country in which the gallery considering this is to be found. In the UK, I think the repulsion of sensure would not allow someone like Gauguin to be sensured. Whereas artists clearly breaking the law in this way at home in the recent past are vilified, for example Garry Glitter, Michael Jackson, Jimmy Saville.

The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago.
— Punshhh

Brett,
What's naive about it?

The developments in art during the 20th Century broke the critical perspectives in art in which art could not be appreciated unless the artist was displaying traditionally accepted artist prowess. This allowed naive artists to be appreciated and artists exploring other and novel approaches.

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.

Which is?

I did write this in reply to you yesterday.

"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"

I'm so happy to see a thread about art at 12 pages.

But now I'm realizing we don't even need a philosophy of art. Or at least I don't. As an artist, the more I read this thread, the less I'm interested in contributing.

I think I've gotten to the point where I don't think art can be defined or fully described philosophically.

I agree, the immersion in the art world as an artist and a viewer is what is fulfilling for me.

Are you put off by the level of debate, or is it the lack of discussion of music?

Brett,
What's naive about it?

You didn’t really explain that.

Your own painting that you put up on this OP works successfully using the elements of art and principles of design. That and your technical ability is all it has, and all it needs, and though your technical ability is rudimentary and pleases people the painting could not be called flat-footed or clumsy. You know that yourself otherwise you would not have displayed it. So why can’t you apply the same to Van Gogh?

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

I don’t mind people pointing out things. But you seem to be suggesting that I’m not in a position to point things out to you.

"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

This is the basis for your judgement of art?