# Art > Art & Art History >  Is art decorative?

## cacian

if so where does the gory non appealing ie, not easy on the eye art, stand?

----------


## PeterL

Art is a funny word. Most people usually use it only in regard to fine arts, but the fundamental meaning is something that was produced by deliberate, human activity, as opposed to nature. Art, in the broad sense, includes everything from painting to buildings to firearms to spaceships to industrial machinery. I don't like using that word without a modifier, even though most people take unmodified art to refer to fine arts, I know that it also means the mechanical arts, and so forth. If you want to duscuss decorative arts, then use the modifier.

----------


## Danik 2016

I think these are two different concepts. I see art or the fine arts as the best of the multiple cultural expressions representative in a deeper more general sense of a certain period (Romanticism, Realism, Parnasianism, Modernism, etc) and a certain enviroment. Art and with it the very concept of what is art changes acompany the other cultural changes. It may be beautiful or/and grotesc, harmonious or jarring, translate fullness as well as emptiness of feelings...
Decoration IMO may be artistical or not. There are different styles of decoration. Decoration is strongly related to space and to those that own and/or inhabit this space. I may enjoy a famous painting in a museum or an art catalogue, but that doesn´t always mean that I want to have that picture hanging in my drawing room.

Thanks for putting my ideas in motion at the end of a cold and rainy day, Cacian.

----------


## cacian

> I think these are two different concepts. I see art or the fine arts as the best of the multiple cultural expressions representative in a deeper sense of a certain time and a certain enviroment.


deeper sense??

----------


## stlukesguild

Art... "Fine Art"... the "Visual Arts"... painting, drawing, print, sculpture, etc... CAN be decorative... and sometimes works that were created without any decorative intention can be seen as decorative by others:

----------


## Danik 2016

> deeper sense??


I mean that good art is never superficial: it my be a delight to the senses or a punch in the stomach. But one get´s the feeling that it always hits the nail.
(I don´t know why the quote isn´t showing as quote)

----------


## cacian

> Art... "Fine Art"... the "Visual Arts"... painting, drawing, print, sculpture, etc... CAN be decorative... and sometimes works that were created without any decorative intention can be seen as decorative by others:


I do not understand these images.
there painting and then there is a person posing in front of it,
is that art?

----------


## cacian

> I think t*hese are two different concepts.* I see art or the fine arts as the best of the multiple cultural expressions representative in a deeper more general sense of a certain period (Romanticism, Realism, Parnasianism, Modernism, etc) and a certain enviroment. Art and with it the very concept of what is art changes acompany the other cultural changes. It may be beautiful or/and grotesc, harmonious or jarring, translate fullness as well as emptiness of feelings...
> Decoration IMO may be artistical or not. There are different styles of decoration. Decoration is strongly related to space and to those that own and/or inhabit this space. I may enjoy a famous painting in a museum or an art catalogue, but that doesn´t always mean that I want to have that picture hanging in my drawing room.


is there a difference between art and the nee to embellish?
colours interject beauty and sophistication intense and light and art relies on it.
any battle portrayed instantanly loses the gruesome rattle because colours soften and settle at the same time. 
is one missing the point?




> Thanks for putting my ideas in motion at the end of a cold and rainy day, Cacian.


not at all and thank you to you for taking time to reflect and post  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> Art is a funny word. Most people usually use it only in regard to fine arts, but the fundamental meaning is something that was produced by deliberate, human activity, as opposed to nature. Art, in the broad sense, includes everything from painting to buildings to firearms to spaceships to industrial machinery. I don't like using that word without a modifier, even though most people take unmodified art to refer to fine arts, I know that it also means the mechanical arts, and so forth. If you want to duscuss decorative arts, then use the modifier.


a modifier. what is that?

----------


## PeterL

> a modifier. what is that?


An adjective, something to describe the thing more. For example, in fine arts *fine* modifies art by restricting the mean from all arts to just fine arts.

----------


## PeterL

[QUOTE=Danik 2016;1318397]


> deeper sense??[/QUOTE
> 
> (I don´t know why the quote isn´t showing as quote)


You didn't close the quote with "]".

----------


## Danik 2016

Thanks, Peter! Now it is ok.  :Smile:

----------


## Danik 2016

> is there a difference between art and the nee to embellish?
> colours interject beauty and sophistication intense and light and art relies on it.
> any battle portrayed instantanly loses the gruesome rattle because colours soften and settle at the same time. 
> is one missing the point?
> 
> 
> not at all and thank you to you for taking time to reflect and post


Yes, Cacian, I think there is a difference. Art, specially modern art is often grotesc, ugly and sometimes even cruel. But you feel it hits the mark. I have a book by Umberto Eco I like very much called _On Ugliness_ a sort of sequel to his_ History of Beauty._ which focuses on the "negative" features of art and their changes in the perspective of art history.
If any one is interested, here are some of his lectures on the subject:
http://videolectures.net/cd07_eco_thu/
I haven´t reflected much on decoration, but to me it is more fashion bound, while good art leaves a more lasting impression. It also aimes to be the expression of the inhabitants of the spaces, whose tastes are not necessarily always highly artistic. In fact they usually are not. For example, someone might want to fill his/her rooms with pictures of flowers because he/she loves flowers without much concern if the pictures are artistic or not.

----------


## Danik 2016

.....

----------


## stlukesguild

I do not understand these images.
there painting and then there is a person posing in front of it,
is that art?

The paintings seen here are by Jackson Pollock. Among the Abstract Expressionists (of whom Pollock was a leading figure) the term "decorative" was almost as much of an anathema as "illustrative" or "literary"/"narrative". Art, it was argued, was to convey deep internal feelings through the use of purely abstract elements such as line, shape, color, gesture, texture, etc... without relying upon "non-Art" elements such as the illusion of visual "reality" or the use of narrative. In this manner it was to become akin to music... inspiring an emotional response without any thought of "meaning". 

These photographs, taken by Cecil Beaton for Vogue Magazine took all the serious intentions of Pollock's paintings and reduced them to a decorative backdrop for a fashion shoot. My intention was to point out that regardless of the artist's intentions, art is often reduced to something decorative. The whole of abstraction... regardless of how high-minded the original intentions of the artists... has become the decorative art _de rigueur_ of modern corporations. Such art suggests that the corporation in question is modern... progressive-thinking, while at the same time, the absence of any subject matter allows the corporate collector to avoid the potential of offending anyone.

----------


## stlukesguild

Art, specially modern art is often grotesque, ugly and sometimes even cruel...

The art of the old masters could be just as brutal at times:


-Pieter Breughel- The Triumph of Death


-Dirk Bouts- Disembowling of St. Erasmus


-Fra Angelico- St. Francis and the Vision of the Crucifixion


-Matthias Grunwald- The Isenheim Crucifixion


-Hendrick Goltzius- Dragon Devouring its's Victims


-Peter Paul Rubens- Le Coup de Lance


-Peter Paul Rubens- Saturn Devouring his Children


-Rembrandt- The Blinding of Samson


-Caravaggio- Judith Beheading Holofernes


-Rapist Murdering his Victim


-Gericault- The Raft of the Medusa


-Gericault- Limbs from the Victims of the Guillotine 

But you feel it hits the mark. 

Sometimes. Quite often contemporary artists employ grotesque imagery as an easy way to grab the attention of jaded wealthy collectors. It often goes by the term, "Shock Art".

I have a book by Umberto Eco I like very much called On Ugliness a sort of sequel to his History of Beauty. which focuses on the "negative" features of art and their changes in the perspective of art history.

There is "Shock Art" and then there is the "Sublime" as defined by Edmund Burke in his essay, _A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful_. The "sublime" is that which inspires "negative" emotional responses: horror, fear, sadness, etc... but ultimately leads to pleasure as transformed by Art. 

I haven´t reflected much on decoration, but to me it is more fashion bound, while good art leaves a more lasting impression. 

How so?

This is decorative:


-Botticelli- Primavera

as is this...


-Michelangelo- The Creation of Adam from the Sistine

and this...


-illuminated manuscript

and this...


-Matisse- Red Interior Still Life

It also aims to be the expression of the inhabitants of the spaces, whose tastes are not necessarily always highly artistic. In fact they usually are not. For example, someone might want to fill his/her rooms with pictures of flowers because he/she loves flowers without much concern if the pictures are artistic or not.

Decorative works of art may aim to please patrons. The same is true of illustrative and commercial works of art. But is it any different... in many cases... of works of "fine art"? The "fine artist" is theoretically free to create whatever he or she wishes... but then the audience/patrons are free not to buy art that doesn't meet their desires. While the patron/artist relationship may not be as obvious as it is when a Pope commissions a fresco cycle telling of the life of this or that saint, or when the wealthy aristocrat commissions a portrait of his daughter, or when a manufacturer commissions a poster promoting his product... there still is a realization that the artist must please the gallery directors and the collectors if he/she is going to make any money. I don't think any of the contemporary patrons have inherently better taste than many older patrons. In many instances, their taste is far worse... and far less educated.

----------


## Danik 2016

Yes,these images are terrible, but I think the tendency to shock in art is specially strong today.
"I don't think any of the contemporary patrons have inherently better taste than many older patrons. In many instances, their taste is far worse... and far less educated." I do agree with you there too. But I think taste is something that is very bound to time and space. For example today we combine pieces of vestuary 
to compound a look, which might me considered awful 20 years ago.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/fashions.html
http://www.today.com/style/fashion-t...ew-year-t64126
(Sorry for not pasting the images. I don´t know how to do that here.)

----------


## stlukesguild

I think the tendency to shock in art is specially strong today.

This is likely true. In many ways I suspect it is related to the modern/contemporary obsession with being identified as the victim. If we consider the fact that for all the violence of WWI, WWII, Stalin, Mao, etc... violence in the 20th century is but a fraction of what it was in the past...

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pin...ce?language=en

... while a majority of us have access to improved health care, nutrition, etc... one has to wonder about the fixation upon the ugly and the horrible. One need only consider the world that the Renaissance or baroque artist lived in and was witness to... and yet beauty far outweighed ugliness in their art.

----------


## Danik 2016

"In many ways I suspect it is related to the modern/contemporary obsession with being identified as the victim."
Or a certain cult of the executioners, which might be almost the same.
Sorry, stluke, this man must be living on the moon.Maybe it is like this in US.
But in my country:
improved health care-In my city the public health care system is breaking down because of financial mismanagments.And people are abandoning massively the private health insurances because they are becoming to expensive.
nutrition-in the last two weeks students occupied the public schools and the council in my city in demand of their school meal after it became public that the money was deviated. You are probably asking yourself why they don´t eat at home.
Many of their families are very poor and one main aim od their sending their kids to school is to warrant that they become at least one decent meal per day.
Back to decorative art. In some cities in Brazil we have a tradition of making street carpets for Corpus Cristy. It´s a Brzilian link but just click on the pictures to enlarge them.
http://viajeaqui.abril.com.br/materi...hristi-fotos#1

----------


## Danik 2016

.....

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> But in my country:
> improved health care-In my city the public health care system is breaking down because of financial mismanagments.And people are abandoning massively the private health insurances because they are becoming to expensive.
> nutrition-in the last two weeks students occupied the public schools and the council in my city in demand of their school meal after it became public that the money was deviated. You are probably asking yourself why they don´t eat at home.
> Many of their families are very poor and one main aim of their sending their kids to school is to warrant that they become at least one decent meal per day.


Why are they having children they can't afford to feed or take care of properly?

What country do you live in?.. is it one of those countries that treat women like livestock, where birth control or aborting a pregnancy are unthinkable?

----------


## North Star

> I think the tendency to shock in art is specially strong today.
> 
> This is likely true. In many ways I suspect it is related to the modern/contemporary obsession with being identified as the victim. If we consider the fact that for all the violence of WWI, WWII, Stalin, Mao, etc... violence in the 20th century is but a fraction of what it was in the past...
> 
> https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pin...ce?language=en
> 
> ... while a majority of us have access to improved health care, nutrition, etc... one has to wonder about the fixation upon the ugly and the horrible. One need only consider the world that the Renaissance or baroque artist lived in and was witness to... and yet beauty far outweighed ugliness in their art.


It's all the Romantics' fault, making the sublime and terrifying a popular subject in art, from uninhabitable landscapes to Goya's prints of violence and war. And they had the Napoleonic wars to look back to, of course.

----------

