Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Art of Art Criticism
Post contents to be reposted.
Comments
-
Could art that is ugly and vile be considered beautiful?
Please clarify for the philistines in the peanut gallery over here. I don’t understand this, nor the examples you use.
You give four examples of art which all have the same subject(the beheading of John) Each in it’s own way could be considered beautiful- for it’s technique, it’s realism, it’s portrayal of the subject matter, the emotions the artwork conjures. I would not consider a single one of the pieces of artwork “vile”. The subject matter, perhaps. Not the artwork. So I’m apparently not looking in the correct direction; can you redirect my vision?
og | 11/8/2007 11:27 AM CDT -
That’s the point. Is the subject the cause of the revulsion, the artist, or the materials the artist used?
YOU have to qualify in your criticisms.
Michaelangelo, for example, used to have his apprentices piss on his statues. It was done to cause a patina on the works.
If you found out that Michaelangelo pissed on Christ, would that make you think he was anti-Christian? The intention was not to show disrespect or to engage in blasphemous behavior, but to enhance the work.
Vile both as a subject AND the method to make it have a glorious patina could ALL be beauty.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 11:39 AM CDT -
Let me state this another way… are the Dixie chicks bad musicians because of their remarks about Bush? Is Johnny Depp a lousy actor because of his quote about Paris?
NO!
The art and the artist, the criteria used, are different.
None of that has anything to do with the art itself. You can judge the person, but don’t insist that Johnny Depp is a bad actor because he made an unfortunate comment about why he chose to live in Paris.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 11:50 AM CDT -
So what you’re saying, if I get ths correctly, that if a friend of mine made a cake, and it was gloriously made, and impeccably cooked and decorated, but the batter was mixed wiht her feet, and the cake was decorated to look like a turd, would I eat it? You betcha I would. If the cake was MADE out ofturds, no. No matter how appetizing it might be. So appearance is something but substance is another thing altogether.
Or have I missed the point entirely?
I kinda like the light in the piss christ thing. If urine was used to create that effect it was done well. If urine was used to make a statement about Christianity it makes me dislike the artist- but has no effect on my appreciation of the piece.
Sir Arthur C Clarke has been accused of kiddy-diddling. I don’t know if he has done so or not. If he has, to hell wihtn him, it’s where he belongs. But it does not affect my enjoyment of his work.
No, I’m not sure I get the point, but I promise I’m trying hard.
og | 11/8/2007 11:58 AM CDT -
You GOT the point in the debate about the Piss Christ. You got it perfectly. To which are you objecting, the piece or the artist? THAT’s the point. Keep it focused and don’t conflate your opinion of the artist as a person with your criticism of the work.
Now look at the debate about Piss Christ. What were people complaining about?
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 12:03 PM CDT -
Okay, now I’m just gonna assume I’m a total moron.
People judge the artwork based on the artist? What moron can look at a Blake painting and dislike it because blake was a nut? This is the intellectual equivalent of disliking pate because it’s french and ducks have to be overfed to make it. (and not how it tastes).
og | 11/8/2007 12:18 PM CDT -
My personal take on it:
The piece is titled with the intent to inform (and probably offend) Christians. There are many alternatives for titles that could be used, none of which inform the viewer of the juxtaposition of a sacred image with the profoundly profane. The statements of the artist at the time of the initial exhibition were dissembling, denying responsibility for the juxtaposition. If we were to take the statements at face value, we would have no explanation for why the artist chose to use urine (and to highlight his choice!) rather than any other medium. So I discount what the artist says.
Furthermore, the choice to use urine was a deliberate choice of the artist, not recording or analyzing anything that already existed - if the intent was to juxtapose sacred and profane, there were many other subjects that could be used. The choice seems to be either deliberately cruel or profoundly naive regarding the feelings of those that revere the image of Christ - and either way, contemptuous of the viewer’s beliefs. I choose not to reward that. And the artwork displayed doesn’t really “speak” to me either, aside from his juvenile desire to shock and offend. With the knowledge that the intent of the piece is to offend (an “ugly” outcome rather than a “beautiful” outcome), I can judge it bad art, and the process that funds bad art is therefore called into question.
Michael Burris | 11/8/2007 12:26 PM CDT -
But, Michael, it was a PLASTIC, mass produced Jesus doll.
Which is MORE revolting?
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 12:43 PM CDT -
Jesus doll
This cracked me up.
og | 11/8/2007 01:25 PM CDT -
People judge the artwork based on the artist?
Yes. That is the problem in this case, but a different set of issues in others. People are NOT arguing about art with art criticism’s rules. They deny they exist. Deny their importance. Deny the importance of art. Argue that art is not meaningful to civilization. Argue about what civilization is. Insist that anything they like or find pretty IS art, because they say so… And on and on.
DEFINE the debate lest we look like morons to the ideological, but art appreciating, left.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 01:40 PM CDT -
Now is art judged like a dog show, with specific criteria? If so, I, and I assume many others have no clue as to what that criteria might be.
Cobar | 11/8/2007 01:42 PM CDT -
Your comment came in as I was posting mine. WHO denies the existence of art criticism rules? More importantly, what are the rules?
Cobar | 11/8/2007 01:44 PM CDT -
Now is art judged like a dog show, with specific criteria? If so, I, and I assume many others have no clue as to what that criteria might be.
Those that think they are smarter than you will be happy to tell you what to like.
BTW I would much rather judge an art show than a dog show no need of checking the “packages” of a painting.
dbltap | 11/8/2007 02:11 PM CDT -
There are all sorts of sources. It would be like asking “Who defines what bullet is most effective.” Effective for what? Under which circumstances? There is no SINGLE source or list.
I assume we’re talking (at the moment) strictly about Fine Art? Oil or water color? Sculpture or painting? Brass or bronze? Marble or granite? Modern or classical? Bronze age or Roman?
Just like there are different standards for judging dog breeds at a dog show, there are different types of dog judging. There are sledding competitions, Frisbee events, hunting competitions, etc., all having different rules and criteria. There are also novice competitions.
If we’re talking about art as it pertains to literary criticism, that would be entirely different set, also broken down into the various categories, styles, and time periods. If we’re talking film, are we debating popular culture, film noir, or the various film crafts?
As Kim said in one of his posts that launched this discussion, there isn’t an X for Dummies book as a single source of Western Civilization. It takes YEARS of study just to form an appreciation… and you’re never done. You could read all there was about effective cartridges and then discover something that caused you to rethink everything you thought you understood, but you only saw it as a revelation AFTER knowing what you knew.
Keep in mind that this was ENTIRELY the focus of a liberal arts education… in the classical sense. It was EIGHT YEARS of studying nothing but this and one would not expect to be worldly in all areas, but have a general knowledge of all the arts and sciences, focusing on a specialty in something like language, literature (of a particular type) or fine arts (with specialty). Not one minute was spent on ANY practical applications.
Now a liberal arts education is 6 credits (two courses) and everything else is practical training.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 02:15 PM CDT -
As an aside, I love everything Caravaggio ever did. And Titian- his “Flaying of Marsyas” is incredible. But I am not a critic, nor do I play one on TV.
og | 11/8/2007 02:55 PM CDT -
Could art that is ugly and vile be considered beautiful?
Depends on which definition of beauty you use. But I’d certainly say that art which is ugly and vile is not, therefore, necessarily excluded from legitimacy.
Sometimes _truth_ is ugly and vile. Important messages often can be.
Perhaps one useful criterion would be to ask whether the ugliness is being put to use in service of a larger message about greater truths. “Is this work of alleged ‘art’ saying something significant about anything that is or ought to be meaningful to the audience?”
I wouldn’t say that a work of alleged “art” whose sole purpose is to offend the audience qualifies.
This is true regardless of the work’s other qualities or the religious or philosophical views of the artist, and a work can easily pass the test even if the message conveyed is one that many in the audience disagree with.
If a work is capable of starting arguments over anything more meaningful than the question of whether producing or funding it was a good idea, it’d have a good claim.
“The Last Temptation of Christ” (a film many people, including myself, consider to be a feature-length blasphemy) qualifies under this standard, just to offer one example of a controversial work I’d never personally support but nevertheless define as legitimate art.
“Piss Christ” doesn’t. Neither do a lot of things many people find aesthetically pleasing.
Matt | 11/8/2007 03:03 PM CDT -
I can’t disagree with that… and that is, BTW, exactly how those types of expressions can be made, without risk. You stated CLEARLY that you “love” it and are qualifying that you may not know why. If you did not qualify it or when on to try to assert that your opinion was (therefore) just as valid as someone who has made it their life’s work to understand and critique art, you’d get a frownie face from me… but no more than a face.
People CAN certainly state what they like and dislike, but that is not to be confused with critique.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 03:05 PM CDT -
But, Michael, it was a PLASTIC, mass produced Jesus doll.
Which is MORE revolting?
To me, personally? The “art”, but… it’s a near thing. The part that disqualifies this as good art is the intent of the artist - to offend. Even though I personally do not revere statues or cheesy plastic reproductions thereof, I can recognize that his intent was more to offend than to produce beauty. And I think he succeeded - he produced more offense than beauty. Hence, not good art. He made just enough beauty to cover his ass when he set out to piss people off.
(shrug) It seems pretty obvious to me, but YMMV.
Michael Burris | 11/8/2007 03:36 PM CDT -
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
long as I got a plastic jesus
Sitting in some urine in a jar.OK, you can kick my ass now.
I had to say it.
og | 11/8/2007 04:07 PM CDT -
Purely personal bias, I was brought up in the “no graven images” school of Christianity so any image like that was contrary to the Christianity I practiced. It even said, “no graven images.” Therefore, the fact that someone would manufacture it (especially as a commercial thing) would be of more disgust to me.
Also in the personal sphere, I dislike things that are intentionally affronting (sp?). I objected strongly to the Mohammed cartoons on that basis, but gave no opinion on what I thought of the cartoons as art--different thing completely.
Art can be offensive (and often is). My manners would trump in that case. But should bad manners trump the NEA?
Mrs. du Toit | 11/8/2007 04:09 PM CDT -
Not too long ago, I was reading in the Chronicle of Higher Education an article by a an art professor chafing at the requirement of his administration (and the accrediting body) that he write objectives. His argument is that art is not objective and does not fall within a structure that can be assessed objectively. Please feel free to disagree by posting an established, objective standard. Just one will do. You will make millions.
The third painting you posted illustrates my case that there is no established, objective measure of beauty. She would have been considered beautiful by the standards of Titian’s day, but in today’s world, she’s more than a bit porky. If there were an established, objective standard of beauty, fashion would never change. We’d still be wearing bell-bottoms, as would Titian’s model.
officeronin | 11/8/2007 04:52 PM CDT -
officeronin, I think that was illustrated best by Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. If that professor has ever awarded grades lower than an A, then any dissatisfied student now has the grounds to sue that prof for harassment.
Michael Burris | 11/8/2007 05:54 PM CDT -
I was brought up in the “no graven images” school of Christianity
Okay, on this I am uniquely qualified to comment, for I have heard this discussion a zillion times.
The proscription against worshipping graven images is exactly that: Do not worship a graven image.
Catholics, whose baroque churches had more sculpture than carter had little liver pills, are very clear on the matter: We no more believe that plaster statue is actually Mary, than we belive the picture on my drivers license is me. Photographs and statuary serve as reminders, and memoria. No Catholic ever worshipped a statue, but we do like them in our churches. Yes, we often lay wreaths at their feet or symbolically carry crucifixes etc, and those things are, indeed, symbolic. And no Catholic ever looks at a crucifix carved out of wood and thinks of it as anything more than a crucifix carved from wood. it is a graphic and somewhat gruesome reminder of a price someone paid for us.
I have no issue with people preferring nothing over something cheap and tawdry, but I have also seen statues made in plastic that are accurate replicas of beautiful statuary I could never afford. If I can afford to have a plastic (or spelter) replica of a Remington bronze, and it sits on my desk, and gives me pleasure, then what is the harm in a plastic replica of a beautifully executed Crucifix? To me, none.
og | 11/8/2007 05:59 PM CDT -
Aha! Art and the modern world. What the art community has passed off as art for the last century is a huge scam.
Art schools over the last 60 to 80 years have pandered to artists desires for fast results with little effort, not unlike the rest of the education establishment. This low standard has allowed “personal” and experimental art to ascend to the heights without severe and deserved criticism. The old principles of hard work to learn the craft of art are discarded so as not to “harsh the mellow” of the young artist. Since we cannot criticize, as we are judging the artists soul, the critics, gallery owners and then the museum curators raised in this environment, give currency and legitimacy to the artist’s work no matter how obscure or lackadaisical the work is. In fact the more obscure the better.
Dealers in their need to push product will beguile the collector into thinking they are getting another Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko, not the very real drivel such as “Piss Christ” and other works so notably promoted by the Tate Modern in Britain and other dens of art iniquity, that is being handed to them on a expensive platter.
The fragile ego of the artist, unschooled to demanding criticism, buys into this scheme wholeheartledly; it’s easier to make a living churning out crap and getting lavish praise and money than it is to compel the ego to do the work needed to create real beauty and meaning.Thus all four works above show incredible craft and art ability, the subject is perhaps vile, but each of the works is informed with the full talent of an artist, dare I say a real artist? Not the casual slap of paint on canvas or dropping a crucifix into ones urine for the SOLE reason of generating controversy and thus reputation building in an art world that has become so jaded to hype that only the most extreme and violent acts have any hope of getting the attention the fragile artists’ ego demands to keep his self esteem floating on high.
Just one struggling painters opinion of course.
jfedv | 11/8/2007 06:42 PM CDT -
Percieved intent. I think that this is what drives much of it.
In most of the images, I couldn’t get past the clothing. It just seems wrong for my perception of the period.
There is that perception thing again.
We all percieve through various filters.
Knowing your filters is a good start.
Regarding the NEA. I am wholly opposed to “public funding” of art. Because we cannot agree on what “art” is, let us leave it alone.
All this said, I have almost no use whatsoever for any form of static art. Some sculpture, some illustration, perhaps, but “fine art” leaves me cold. Writing, music, these I grok. Visual art other than Kim’s Weekend Women? eh… no thanks.
This same exercise can be followed in other areas such as the aformentioned writing and music. I like the writing of George MacDonald - many find his work to be wordy, sentimental slop. I cannot stand the music of Boy George. I like my high falutin’ stereo system and you don’t. Fine, it’s my stereo system.
Underneath this is a sub-text of “you have to like what I like!” Why? “Because I have to validated.”
What nonsense! Challenging another’s opinion is a dangerous pursuit. It is rather like trying to dig a hole in a pond.
The bard wrote: “To each his own...”
Rob | 11/8/2007 08:17 PM CDT -
Futhermore:
”Your own abitrarily derived conclusion is of simliar quality to that of my own.”
Translation:
”Your guess is as good as mine.”Rob | 11/8/2007 08:21 PM CDT -
Going back to read the previous post, the post by American Farmer, and, Kim’s post/comments there, I certainly see at least one point. With the industrial revolution we have, as a whole, made the choice of quantity of quality. We have put function before form.
In the firearms world we have the M-16. In my no so humble opinion it is butt-ugly, but, it functions. In the art (speaking broadly here, writing/paiting/architecture/etc.)world I have no specific example, but, it boils down to having no standard instead of a subjective standard. Anymore it is just “churn out the “art” to make some statement with no effort to actually reach some level of quality.
I suppose that is why so many, like me (I?), are turned off by the art world.
Cobar | 11/8/2007 08:56 PM CDT -
Michael Burris:
“And the artwork displayed doesn’t really ‘speak’ to me either, aside from his juvenile desire to shock and offend. With the knowledge that the intent of the piece is to offend (an ‘ugly’ outcome rather than a ‘beautiful’ outcome), I can judge it bad art, and the process that funds bad art is therefore called into question.”So you’re judging just based on the intent of the artist, not what might have sneaked into the piece in spite of what he was consciously putting in? Or not even sneaked in, I suppose--you can do the Leni Riefenstahl thing and use good compositional skills to get repugnant messages across.
Sean Kinsell | 11/8/2007 09:02 PM CDT -
To Sean’s point…
Many (MANY!) years ago, back before fire, when I ran stacks at UCLA, in the display cases outside the biomedical library that had a series of “art” pieces.
I use the scare quotes because I was not sure if it was intended to be art or science… in one of those rare, wonderful moments when they come together.
A scientist had used a high power microscope (of the electron variety) to take photographs of bodily fluids that had been stained for examination. They were breathtaking in how beautiful they were. They were akin to the way you always want a kaleidescope image to look, but seldom does.
You’d see people looking at the images and when they’d read the little cards beneath that said things like “urine” or “feces” they would have a reaction… often not a positive one.
Now more recently there has been the exhibit of dead bodies on display. Personally? I think it is an atrocity, but I vote with my feet on the matter.
I was not at all offended by the photographs of urine and feces at the biomed library, but the exhibition of dead bodies goes too far. Why? It is in the nature of the work… the intent of the artist.
While I don’t subscribe to the shock and awe of many artistic trends these days, I won’t go so far as not label it something not art. Once we have established that it IS art, then we can rip it apart, AS art.
If the artist is ALSO sending a message, then it is ALSO appropriate to critique how well they accomplished it.
Piss Christ was juvenile in its attempts. The lighting was interesting, but little else about the work was interesting. The brouhaha it created, however, was what the artist wanted… and he got it, so from that standpoint he was successful.
I would prefer that we had not given him that success.
It was to art what “Boys from the Hall” are to comedy, ie, equivalent to teenage bathroom humor with little redeeming or artistic value.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/9/2007 08:48 AM CDT -
officeronin, I think that was illustrated best by Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. If that professor has ever awarded grades lower than an A, then any dissatisfied student now has the grounds to sue that prof for harassment.
Michael: While I have to admit that I have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (and was heavily influenced by it!), his arguments of the classical and romantic definition of quality (in this case beauty) are both firmly rooted in the dialectic of Western Civilization. In short and overly-simplified, he assumes a Kantian a priori of quality and assumes the two different paths to approach it.
By the way, if you are interested in the historical development of that dialectic, might I recommend “The Birth of the Modern”, by Paul Johnson? An excellent read, as well!
I would argue that we can never have complete confidence in the a pretori (did I spell that right? I mean the ability to accurately perceive the real), and the perception of a quality, beauty, worth, etc., are largely conventions of the civilization and society. As such, quality, beauty, worth, etc., are fashions that differ over time and across cultures.
Since (unlike many in the academy) I actually do believe in an a priori truth, I believe that such fashions are imperfect representatives of that truth. Beauty in women, according to evolutionary biology, is closely related to childbirth eligibility (young, fertile (wide hips, lack of scars from childhood diseases, etc.), and either not yet pregnant (flat stomach) or currently demonstrating fertility, depending...) As such, fashions emphasize these according to the needs of the society—such as the high importance for flat stomachs during the sexual revolution as opposed to Victorian society. Fashion tells a lot more about the society that developed it and popularized it than any universal truth!
So, what does “Piss Christ” tell us about our society? Well, considering that it is widely rejected by our society, it means that it tells us a lot more about the artistic sub-society that created it—namely that it doesn’t have the stones to spell out in arabic “Alla’hu Akbar” in dog turds on the National Mall, so it targets the more tolerant religions in an effort to make itself seem relevant.
I have gone far afield, but I wanted to close with something one of my religion professors told me. “The job of a minister is to point to the cross behind him.” Beauty, quality, and all the other fashions have value only to the degree to which they point to a larger truth.
officeronin | 11/9/2007 09:37 AM CDT -
You objected to the Mohammed cartoons because you considered it an affront… on what basis? That Islam forbids drawings of his face or that he was caricatured with the deliberate intent of offending Muslims?
If the latter, then I find it particularly interesting that you consider Piss Christ more “juvenile” than an “affront”.
EvansMike | 11/9/2007 10:30 AM CDT -
If the latter, then I find it particularly interesting that you consider Piss Christ more “juvenile” than an “affront”.
What?
Please read what I write and draw your conclusions only from that.
Also in the personal sphere, I dislike things that are intentionally affronting
My remarks were not exclusive to the Mohamed Cartoons. They were germane to the issue of Piss Christ. The point there was that “art as an affront” is a matter of manners, having nothing to do with art criticism.
Both are examples of BAD MANNERS, but that has nothing to do with art criticism.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/9/2007 11:08 AM CDT -
My critique of the second Titian would be on the basis of poor technique—nothing to do with aesthetics. I find the execution lacking. In fact—based solely on the detail fragments you post, I would argue that the two couldn’t be from the same hand. Obviously, an over-broad conclusion to draw from such slight evidence, but the second example is that bad to my eye.
I think my point on the Serrano is about the same as Og’s—interesting lighting. The effect seems transcendent. In fact, accepting the art as a standalone, free of context (as you are “supposed” to do), the piece seems transcendant. Nearly numinous. And if the intent was to offend, the joke is on the miscreant responsible.
Your point about old Mike and his finishing technique is apposite, I think. I imagine stranger substances have been mixed into vehicles as pigments over the years or slopped over sculptures, or objects used as tools. To some extent, the creativity to use what’s at-hand to achieve the artistic vision is admirable.
And to hell with the bluenoses.
HOWEVER… we don’t swim in splendid isolation. The ocean of our humanity teems with life and we are wise to take consideration for those around us. Perhaps a sketch might be done using urine if nothing else was to-hand. But I think the finished work could have been made with more… more artfulness. Or exposited with greater discretion.
Crudeness isn’t cute. It’s barbaric.
M
Mark Alger | 11/9/2007 11:54 AM CDT -
Art is subjective. It is subject to the whims and opinions of the individual beholder. So my opinion on whether the “Piss Christ” or the “Dixie Chicks” are good or bad art is somewhat irrelevant.
What most folks object to is having to *pay* for art that displeases them - even if indirectly. And with Robert Maplethorp and the “Piss Christ”, that is exactly what was happening when the display was even partially paid for by government funding through the NEA.
In the case of the Dixie Chicks, no one that I knew ever claimed that their music was *bad* - another subjective opinion in any case. But a lot of folks were so offended by their political remarks that they decided to stop paying for their music - good or bad.
Roy Greenwell | 11/9/2007 02:22 PM CDT
