What do you think lifts it above an average rendition of a hare by an amateur? — Punshhh

I don’t think I can answer that.

It is the way I made parts of the picture appear to be out of focus. This was actually very easy to do, but it required a creative vision when conceiving the piece before making it.

So the merit of a work is not necessarily determined by how well it is depicted, but often subtle qualities of the composition, novel techniques, even approaches which seem counterintuitive. Van Gogh has achieved this in a number of ways, which give his work merit. His skill as a painter is irrelevant to this, also as an impressionist, he was not trying to give an accomplished rendition, but rather an impression experienced personally by himself.

I couldn’t answer the question because there’s nothing that lifts it above the work of an amateur. It’s actually the background that lets it down. You should be able to see that.

That word “beautifully” is so open to misinterpretation. — Brett

I feel that I don't quite fit into the crowd so my working definitions may be idiosyncratic at best or inane at worst. I would like to hear what you think art and beauty is.

I've seen and heard of art but always in a second-hand, hearsay kind of way; so you might want to change my views on it.

I asked you what lifted it above an amateur in the eyes of the people who had seen it and liked it. They told me that it was the background which made it and particularly the willow twigs which are partially in focus.The ambiguity here gave the immediate sense of depth of view. As such it had merit in the eye of these people. At a guess, about 50 people, so you are outnumber 50 to 1.

Somehow I feel your criticism doesn't take into consideration the artists intent and the culture in which the artist is immersed. Likewise with Van Gogh.

Now it's your turn, can you provide a work and identify what in the work gives it merit?

aesthetic manner i.e. the process of art must contain some element of beauty. For instance there may be an ugly idea, say racism, that can be a subject of art but it must be expressed aesthetically if it is ever to be a work of art. We can't have an ugly subject of art expressed non-aesthetically (in an ugly way) — TheMadFool

Aesthetics encompasses more than just beauty. It also covers ugly even repulsive things. It describes the entire spectrum of these kinds of.... I guess another descriptive term could be "perceptual emotions."

I couldn’t answer the question because there’s nothing that lifts it above the work of an amateur. It’s actually the background that lets it down. You should be able to see that. — Brett

I have to agree with this. The aspect of painting technique typically referred to as ‘edge’ (skill in controlling the sharpness/softness of a compositions edges) is remarkably clumsy is the bunny painting.

On a positive note, in the foreground the photorealism is impressive. :up:

Imagine a racist doing the monkey chant where clearly both the subject, racism, and the method of expression, the monkey chant, are ugly; nobody will every say that the racist was in the act of creating art. — TheMadFool

True. On the other hand, if this scenario were framed as art in some way it could be aesthetically perceived. You might ask what value could this possibly have and the answer would be transcendence.

On a positive note, in the foreground the photorealism is impressive. :up:

I take it your response here is for me. Thanks for your praise, however the "clumsy" effect was meant to be like that. I use a technique in which I purposefully work in a slapdash way as part of the effect. Also, the hare ( bunny) is done quickly and slightly slapdash. I can work to a higher degree of photo realism, but I am not interested in that kind of precision, it is rather dull.

You see I am working within a genre local to me in which there is a lot of plein air painting done of landscapes and a tradition of painting hares for example. This work is done quickly with the overall decorative effect being primary.

You see I am working within a genre local to me in which there is a lot of plein air painting done of landscapes and a tradition of painting hares for example. This work is done quickly with the overall decorative effect being primary. — Punshhh

Other than the ‘California Impressionists’ I don’t know how plein-air painting could be considered a local genre, at least not since the time of the California Impressionists. I imagine painting bunnies could be, although a bunny would be an odd choice of subject matter for plein-air painting.

In regard to plein-air painting, of which I done a good amount, I would say that an impressionistic effect is primary rather than a decorative one.

I imagine painting bunnies could be, although a bunny would be an odd choice of subject matter for plein-air painting.

The genre is of local landscapes and scenery, including wildlife and pastoral subjects. The fact that it includes a lot of plein air painting is incidental. Yes, if there is a bunny it is usually a composition, as they run quite fast.

In regard to plein-air painting, of which I done a good amount, I would say that an impressionistic effect is primary rather than a decorative one.

Yes, when it's bunny's it's usually a decorative composition. When I say decorative, that does include decorative impressionist themes and techniques.

Interesting, people who are not immersed in the art world, or who have not followed the developments closely over the last 40 or 50 years, dictating what art is, or what isn't art, this is a laymans definition of art and is not comprehensive enough to be regarded as philosophy of art. Really without understanding the development of art culturally, these questions cannot be answered because art in culture is an evolution and what does, or doesn't constitute art changes with the culture. — Punshhh

Why so defeatist Punshhh.
I believe anybody can make great art. It is not necessary to have knowledge of, or be active in the art world. One can look inwards - explore the darkest depths of one's consciousness. Who would dare sink to ones soft middle and confront all the nitty gritty that might lurk there? Who has the courage for such exploration?

Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud come to mind, They did exhibit, but i doubt they were much concerned with anything external to them.

Art allows one to make their own rules, an artist has only one constraint - that is the knowledge that whatever they might produce will always be information about their consciousness and subconsciousness.

So who dares to reveal that to the world?

Thanks for the info re edit.

I feel that I don't quite fit into the crowd so my working definitions may be idiosyncratic at best or inane at worst. I would like to hear what you think art and beauty is. — TheMadFool

I think, buried among this OP, there are a few statements worth holding onto.

In a way philosophy is the only was to approach art otherwise it spins off into personal subjective points of view. Bartrick made a statement (if I’ve interpreted it correctly) that we have a concept of art. I think that’s true and a beginning. It doesn’t matter why we have it, we do.

The history of art has a big part to play in this. At some point in some cultures circumstances: time, materials, social mores, changed such that anyone who chose to paint, as one example, could to do so.
That gave a point of view to an entirely different group of people from the past: the church, the academies and the upper classes. until finally we had The Sex Pistols or naive art. Then everyone had an opinion and every opinion was valid. But somehow there is still a difference between Ravel’s “ Gaspard de la nuit” and The Sex Pistol’s “God Save the Queen”. Some people will argue against that but philosophy, given the time, will explain the difference.

When someone talks about aesthetics people generally mean how things look. When you look it up under philosophy you get; “a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste”, not just how things look but how they’re perceived through ideas of beauty. So then it becomes; what is beauty? What is beautiful? So now it’s about language.

I don’t think that helps or works.

Artemis posted something about the perception by some about the erotic nature of Gauguin’s work. So now it’s about language again. So there has to be some other way of addressing art that steps outside of culture.

We know that all cultures produce art. And we know that that art differs enormously. So too the language used by each culture. So in some way I feel that we have to look at art as anthropology.

I believe:

anthropology explores human life. Human life's only constraint is consciousness, and art explores human consciousness and subconsciousness.

All art work is information. Information about what? - all number of things - beauty aesthetics, creativity, life, death, etc, etc, Allof these are subsets of consciousness. The only way to encapsulate what art is , and allow it the freedom to be what it chooses to be is to encapsulate it within consciousness.

In the end you look to art as information about human consciousness.

Somehow I feel your criticism doesn't take into consideration the artists intent and the culture in which the artist is immersed. Likewise with Van Gogh. — Punshhh

You placed Van Gogh among the naive artists ( I think you meant that). That’s an interesting field. It’s an aspect of art respected for its freedom from rules and cant. As I said in my post changes in materials, social mores and time enabled people like Van Gogh to use art to express themselves. A lot of interesting things came out of it, not necessarily about art but what happened when people were able to freely express themselves. Another example would be Henri Rousseau. This is more about psychology than art. Art is just the consequences of their condition, which does give us insight into the subject of the artist. Van Gogh is good among the naive artists, but outside of that genre he does not match the abilities and perceptions of Gauguin and Cezanne. So in some ways intentions is no measure of art because anyone who picks up a paintbrush has intentions.

art explores human consciousness and subconsciousness. — Pop

As if it’s something outside of consciousness or subconsciousness. Is that what you mean, that art looks into man’s mind?

Yes Brett, I've made an edit above.

I'm not being critical of artists, or looking to restrict their freedom in any way. In my comment which you referenced I was commenting on criticism of art and that if one were to criticise it, one ought to know how the recent movements of modernism and post modernism broke apart the critique of art purely on artistic prowess.

Punshhh I wasn't meaning to say you were. This form of communication is fraught with peril. there is so much misunderstanding. I enjoy your thoughtful and insightful commentary.

There is an issue with critical interpretation of art in which art is reduced or compartmentalised by commentators, perhaps lecturers through an academic intellectualisation, which I pointed out in my first post in the thread.

I am surprised that you appear to have removed Gauguin from the naive art bracket, his work is clearly naive. Indeed the only way in which Cezanne makes it out of that bracket is by more clearly falling into the impressionist bracket. Once in that bracket the world is your oyster.

I agree that naive art is interesting, indeed is in the ascendant, hence Van Gogh is regarded by many as the greatest painter for quite a while.

In the end you look to art as information about human consciousness. — Pop

Yes, I would think that’s quite a solid point, if you want art to be about psychology? It does expose something about being human. But I still don’t know what that is and art varies so much within a culture and between cultures and between epochs that it explains nothing. If it’s a visual language then what is it saying, that we’re insane? And why all the different art forms, doesn’t language express things well enough?

Indeed the only way in which Cezanne makes it out of that bracket is by more clearly falling into the impressionist bracket. — Punshhh

Cezanne is not an Impressionist he’s a Post Impressionist, as is Gauguin.

What consciousness is, is perhaps moot. I posted a long explanation of what I believe it to be.But whatever humanity can be is resolved in the mind - a mental construction is made, and from that it is obvious humanity is constrained to mental constructions. Whatever you decide humanity will be - will be a mental construction in your head - and that is all that it will ever be, and can possibly be.

So humanity is constrained by consciousness. How odd then that that is what art has always looked at - for all of cultures, and for all of time?

Art can be anything that you can think of, but it cant be anything that you cant think of

Art can be anything that you can think of, but it cant be anything that you cant think of — Pop

So that would rule out the subconsciousness. Is the subconsciousness in or out in our search for art?

How can we grasp something that is out of reach? Once we grasp it it is in reach - we become conscious of it.

The same for the viewer. Are they operating on a subconscious level or not?

The artist and the viewer are peers. They are equal.
It is one consciousness interpreting another consciousness

The artist and the viewer are peers. They are equal.
It is one consciousness interpreting another consciousness — Pop

Okay, that’s not much help. I’m including the subconscious for the artist. The viewer I’m not sure of.

“In the strict psychological sense, the adjective is defined as "operating or existing outside of consciousness".[1]

Locke and Kristof write that there is a limit to what can be held in conscious focal awareness, an alternative storehouse of one's knowledge and prior experience is needed, which they label the subconscious”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious).

One flawed personality ( consciousness) looking at another flawed personality ( consciousness )

why are they doing it?

Consiousness is a personal construct that we make ourselves - we are not certain of it -- it needs validation.

The best form of validation is for another consciousness to agree with it, better still for many, if it proliferates it becomes part of universal consciousness.

Thats how we make reality.


I am very slow at this sorry