Why is "fancy" art almost always bizzare looking?(an honest question)

[JoshL]

Well actually thats the ONLY thing that determines it. And your liking or dislike is determined by a bunch of other factors.

I think I disagree with this. Quality does not equal taste. You can like something that you recognize as technically bad, and you can NOT like something that you think is technically good.

Now, where I do agree with this is the idea that "art" is something that makes you think, or feel. What is art to me might not be art to you. We can both understand it equally well, but it might not move you in the same way it moves me. Thinking that quality=taste leads to stupid "I am right you are wrong" arguments. If you learn to assess taste separated from quality, divergent discussions can be a lot more productive all around.

Case in point, my favorite painting ever: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/rene...glass-key-1959 Again, images are not the same as seeing it in real life, but I can't describe how hard this hit me when I first saw it. I don't expect anyone to have the emotional reactions that I have to this, but we can discuss technical merits, composition, etc even if it's an image that you don't like.

[Scowling Dragon]

Technicaly everything related to art is subjective. I guess you can analyze quality as in the expensiveness of the materials but that has never changed the quality of the artistic piece itself.

[JCarter426]

Realism is not a defining characteristic of art. For the same reason the abstract can be considered art, realistic pieces are not always art.

Let's look at two pieces more towards the realistic end of the scale.

Exhibit A: "The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich" by Adolf Hitler
What does it say to you? The first thing it says to me is "this is a courtyard". I also keep hearing "not much fun in Stalingrad" but I don't believe that was the creator's intent.

And since Normal Rockwell was mentioned...

Exhibit B: "Triple Self Portrait" by Normal Rockwell

This piece, on the other hand, says quite a lot. The realism is a means to convey ideas; the ideas are the focus, not the realism.

Yes, it takes considerable talent to paint something realistically. An accurate portrayal of a courtyard, for example, requires knowledge of perspective, lighting, architecture, lots of complicated things that would take considerable time and effort for the average person to learn. But it's jut a means of expression; art is the expression.

So, "fancy" art is not inherently "bizarre looking" but it also isn't inherently realistic. So why is abstract art pervasive? I'd say the development of other realistic media such as film and photography are largely responsible.

So I guess I have nothing to add, really. I'm not an artist.

[Kindablue]

This is my favorite painting.

Spoiler

Show

[Jayngfet]

I guess what I am saying is artists suck at business, and for the reasons I listed above but you told me I was wrong and that it upset you.

This is really the core of the issue for me, mainly because a whole lot of people suck at buisness. What always gets me though is that because some of them happen to paint, this suddenly becomes acceptable and almost expected instead of a deficiency of skill to be circumvented as necessary.

[Togath]

When it was originally painted, it was actually quite colourful. The painting has become faded over time. Perhaps the reason it is so famous is the level of detail that was put into it, and that nobody is quite sure who it is supposed to depict.

Aye, I noticed the restored version that were posted earlier in the thread. I actually really like those ones, as they don't seem as grim due to the restored colour.
Also; what would be good genres of art to look into for someone who doesn't like abstract-art, or red/orange/brown colour schemes, and prefers scenery to people or creatures?

[Avilan the Grey]

"I don't like it" is utterly irrelevant when determining whether or not something is good. You might not like, say, horror films, or British comedy, but that doesn't make them bad. Same goes for art.

I agree with the dragon. "I don't like it" IS the only thing that determines if something is bad or good. You can go into details ("I don't like it BECAUSE...") but it is the only factor.

Realism is not a defining characteristic of art. For the same reason the abstract can be considered art, realistic pieces are not always art.

Let's look at two pieces more towards the realistic end of the scale.

Exhibit A: "The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich" by Adolf Hitler
What does it say to you? The first thing it says to me is "this is a courtyard". I also keep hearing "not much fun in Stalingrad" but I don't believe that was the creator's intent.

And since Normal Rockwell was mentioned...

Exhibit B: "Triple Self Portrait" by Normal Rockwell

This piece, on the other hand, says quite a lot. The realism is a means to convey ideas; the ideas are the focus, not the realism.

Yes, it takes considerable talent to paint something realistically. An accurate portrayal of a courtyard, for example, requires knowledge of perspective, lighting, architecture, lots of complicated things that would take considerable time and effort for the average person to learn. But it's jut a means of expression; art is the expression.

So, "fancy" art is not inherently "bizarre looking" but it also isn't inherently realistic. So why is abstract art pervasive? I'd say the development of other realistic media such as film and photography are largely responsible.

So I guess I have nothing to add, really. I'm not an artist.

Oh I agree, the second one speaks much more to me. It says: "Talented artist paints a funny thing" while the former says: "reasonably skilled artist paints a study of a courtyard".

However I don't consider the second one "Fancy"; it is a gimmick painting, and extremely realistic at that (this is exactly what a person would look like while painting a self-portrait using a mirror).

[Anarion]

Also; what would be good genres of art to look into for someone who doesn't like abstract-art, or red/orange/brown colour schemes, and prefers scenery to people or creatures?

I would humbly suggest the Hudson River School of landscape painting and Dutch Maritime art.


On the more general question, the big reason fancy art is bizarre is that several major movements were people rejecting realism. You get Renaissance artists and later Northern Europeans getting portrait and scenery art just about as close to real as it was possible to get without actually having a camera. So the people that came in recent centuries, rather than trying for an even more insane level of realistic perfection, instead rejected their forebears and focused on emotion and feeling. That's the impressionist movement.

The impressionists were followed by all the various modern and postmodern movements, which not only focused on feelings and emotions, but also irony and extremism. This is, arguably, a reflection of the upheavals of the 20th century and the alienation present in modern society. On the other hand, what I just typed could be utter and complete BS, so feel free to just assume that modern painters were crazy and move on.

[Kindablue]

Also; what would be good genres of art to look into for someone who doesn't like abstract-art, or red/orange/brown colour schemes, and prefers scenery to people or creatures?

I don't know about genres, but Nicholas Roerich fits that to a Ц.

Spoiler

Show

(Overseas Guests; Saint Genevieve; and Milarepa, the One Who Harkened from http://www.roerich.ee/galnew/gallery.php?l=eng&g=NR)

[Togath]

I would humbly suggest the Hudson River School of landscape painting and Dutch Maritime art.

both of those styles look very interesting, even just from the ones shown in the main article.

I don't know about genres, but Nicholas Roerich fits that to a Ц.

Spoiler

Show

(Overseas Guests; Saint Genevieve; and Milarepa, the One Who Harkened from http://www.roerich.ee/galnew/gallery.php?l=eng&g=NR)

I'll look into some of his as well

[Flickerdart]

I agree with the dragon. "I don't like it" IS the only thing that determines if something is bad or good. You can go into details ("I don't like it BECAUSE...") but it is the only factor.

The concept of "guilty pleasure" proves you wrong.

[Avilan the Grey]

The concept of "guilty pleasure" proves you wrong.

No it does not. It is just an excuse so you don't have to admit to people what you really like.

[Elderand]

Personaly I think that for some of the abstract work there is an "emperor new clothes" thing going on. When a mentaly chalenged 3 year old can produce something ressembling what some people consider to be good art, to me it seem that there is an issue of people not wanting to say it's bad because they risk looking like idiots.

Note that I said some abstract art, not all of it. It's quite possible to produce something abstract that is art.

Edit : to be clearer, some art is considered art merely because it's labelled as such and few peoples are willing to disagree for fear of being treated like an ignorant fool. And there are things that I'd consider art, that is not considered art because it was not marketed as art.

Never underestimate the power (but not the rightness) of labels and marketing.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personaly I think that for some of the abstract work there is an "emperor new clothes" thing going on. When a mentaly chalenged 3 year old can produce something ressembling what some people consider to be good art, to me it seem that there is an issue of people not wanting to say it's bad because they risk looking like idiots.

Definitely. And in several occasions this exact thing has indeed happened (artists pushing drawings by their own children as art and sold them for thousands of dollars).

[Flickerdart]

No it does not. It is just an excuse so you don't have to admit to people what you really like.

But why would you be ashamed of admitting it, if all that matters is whether or not you like it? Because what you like is, objectively, awful, even if subjectively you might enjoy it. Or it could just be intended for another audience, I suppose, but something like Twilight might be a guilty pleasure despite being terrible for any audience.

[JCarter426]

Oh I agree, the second one speaks much more to me. It says: "Talented artist paints a funny thing" while the former says: "reasonably skilled artist paints a study of a courtyard".

However I don't consider the second one "Fancy"; it is a gimmick painting, and extremely realistic at that (this is exactly what a person would look like while painting a self-portrait using a mirror).

Well,"fancy" wasn't my word choice. But Norman Rockwell's works are in museums all over - I had the fortune of seeing "Triple Self Portrait" in person, many moons ago - as are many other realistic works. If it belongs in a museum, it's "fancy". Perhaps I have lower standards of "fancy".

[MLai]

The fact that he makes better abstract art than a lot of what I see hanging in museums, may tell you a lot about "fine/fancy art" in contemporary human society...

Spoiler

Show

Here's a Bakhari...

Spoiler

Show

This is a Congo...

Spoiler

Show

A Tapioca/Ursula joint endeavor...

Spoiler

Show

[Flickerdart]

The fact that he makes better abstract art than a lot of what I see hanging in museums, may tell you a lot about "fine/fancy art" in contemporary human society...

Once, in the 20s, a series of abstract paintings were displayed by an utterly unknown artist. The attending critics were impressed and lauded the artist's work. At the end of the show, it was revealed that they had all been painted by a monkey. One critic still maintained that the monkey art was more fresh and original than that of the human artists.

So, you know. Maybe you're right.

[Winter_Wolf]

The chimp's painting is beautiful, and makes me a little sad. I wonder if he was born into captivity, or if he's painting what he used to see before he got drugged and shipped to his new home at what appears to be a zoo. Must be one of those chimpanzee impressionists.

Yes, I find that the chimp's work registers significantly higher on my "that's art" bar than any of the other things shown in that post.

[Eldan]

Yup, sorry. That's more art than half of what's been shown in the thread. For me, it earns plus points just from being made by a chimp, too.

If art is about showing different perspectives and emotional states, that's more different than any human will ever achieve.

I did once consider buying an elephant painting in Thailand, until I noticed that hte shop had two dozen copies of every painting and that the elephants were clearly making the same shapes over and over again, most likely by training.