# Art > Art & Art History >  old versus new art

## cacian

art has evolved through time and undergone changes to suit the present time enclosure,
what significant changes has it occurred?
for example
has contemporary art benefited or moved away from classic art?

----------


## Iain Sparrow

I think one has to distinguish between Fine Art, and Commercial Art.
Artists are prisoners of their time, like writers they respond to, and interpret the world around them. Take Pablo Picasso; he was deeply inspired by the blossoming science of the day, Einstein's Theory of Relativity and how it relates to perspective and the observer. Cubism was his response to the added dimension of Time... instead of extending perspective, he flattened it. Really, that was simply genius. That said, Picasso was classically trained. There will always be a place for classical art and it will continue on as the foundation of Art.

----------


## Pike Bishop

Cacian,

I wrote a quick response poem about whether or not it's obvious whether artists get better or worse with age; you never responded. I'm curious to see what you think:

The obvious is like mist in the air
winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
the artist, its gallant and sometimes its foe.
The blessed move sweetly into evening's breath;
the cursed rage fitful into fickle death. 

Have at it.

----------


## YesNo

I think the major change has been technological and we haven't finished taking advantages of the things learned there.

----------


## stlukesguild

Cacian, your question has filled entire volumes of Art History. What happened? Modernism. 

In terms of the visual arts Modernism was/is a paradigm shift as big as that of the Renaissance. Western Art from the time of the Late Gothic/Renaissance through Impressionism was primarily concerned with the representation or illusion of visual reality. Art was based upon the direct observation of the visual world. This was even true of wholly fictive or fantastic narratives such as this painting by Rubens:



Although the scene as a whole was invented, the various elements (the landscape, the figures, etc...) were based upon studies from life, and the intention was to create an illusion of visual reality. Art... especially painting... was imagined as a window upon visual reality. 

Modernism slowly rejected this concept of what painting was. The Post-Impressionists (Van Gogh, Gauguin, etc...) built upon the heightened color of Impressionism... but rejected the idea of art as still based primarily upon the visual observation of nature and the illusion of the recreation of the same. Some artists, such as Van Gogh and the later German Expressionists largely looked upon art as a means of conveying emotion or feeling. They rejected the illusion of reality and embraced artificial color and distortions of form, space, and color.

The Post-Impressionist, Maurice Denis, famously defined the philosophy of Modernism: "Remember that a painting - before it is a battle horse, a nude model, or some anecdote - is essentially a flat surface covered with colours assembled in a certain order."

Modernism stressed the artifice of art and the idea that a painting was an object with its own internal logic and structure rather than an illusion of nature.

Modernism opened up the door to the appreciation of a great array of art long ignored or rejected as "primitive": the art of the Byzantine and Middle Ages, the art of Africa, Pre-Colombian America, and the Pacific Islands, the art of India, the Middle-East, and Asia, folk art, the art of the untrained and the mentally ill ("outsider art"), even the art of children. It also led to a blurring of the boundaries between "Fine Art" and commercial and/or popular art. 

The 20th century saw a continual development of Modernism. The Fauvists explored the extremes of artificial color. The Cubists explored distortions and dissections of time, space, and form. Futurism explored the element of motion. The Dutch and Russian Modernists took the logical jump to absolute abstraction. The American Abstract Expressionists took abstraction to the grandiose scale of European Baroque painting and attempted to convey feelings through little more than color and mark-making. Duchamp and his followers pushed for the negation of the work of art as an object (or image) reducing it the an idea or concept (Conceptual Art). 

By the 1960s the dominant strains of Modernism began to splinter. On one hand it became obvious that while Modernism opened up art in the West to a vast array of new possibilities, they often did so while rejecting the notion that the Post-Renaissance idea of art as an illusion of visual reality was still a viable option. The Pop Artists and new "Realists" (such as Chuck Close, Philip Pearlstein, Andrew Wyeth, etc... made it clear that "realism" in art was not dead. The Pop Artists also shattered the separation between "High" and "Low" art. While early Modernists such as Picasso, Beckmann, and the Abstract Expressionists were often fascinated with popular music (jazz) and popular imagery seen in photography, film, and advertising, the Pop Artists such as Andy Warhol, James Rosenquist, Tom Wesselmann, etc... had been weaned on popular culture: TV, Films, cartoons, comic books, jazz, rock music, illustrations, and advertising imagery. 

For several decades now we have been witness to an era devoid of any dominant artistic style or philosophy. The art world is incredibly diverse and pluralistic. Artists are essentially free to look at the whole of art history as a vast smorgasbord of styles and imagery from which to pick and choose. Some have attempted to define this era as "Post-Modern", but in reality Modernist ideas and forms remain as valid and influential as ever, while attempts to define just what "Post Modern" art is and how it clearly differs from Modernism have repeatedly fallen short. 

If there is any dominant voice, it is simply that of money. The so-called "high-end" market or "art world" largely consists of a handful of super-wealthy and powerful art dealers and a couple thousand mega-wealthy collectors (the 1%) and the artists they champion. There is often little or no common-thread in the work outside the fact that it is often rapidly fabricated (frequently with the help of numerous skilled craftsmen/assistants) in order to feed the market... in a manner not unlike that of the fashion industry (which the art market greatly embraces). 

But there are numerous artists turning out art of real merit outside of this market. It has been repeatedly suggested that there no longer is a single dominant monolithic "Art World" but rather dozens of smaller "art worlds" each with its own standards, values, and goals. There is a very vocal group of New Academics who champion realistic art painted from observation after the manner of the 19th century academicians. As art schools and art programs in universities increase in cost while offering very little in terms of marketable skills, many are turning to the system of apprenticeships and ateliers... studying under "masters" who make a real living from art. Pop Art remains influential as subsequent generations grow up under the pervasive influence of popular culture. Then there are artists known loosely as "New Old Masters" and of course there continue to be abstract artists and conceptual artists and Neo-Expressionists and Neo-Impressionists.

Has Art benefited from the developments of Modernism? That is an endless debate. Is there an alternative? We live in a world that looks incredibly different from that of our grandparents... let alone that of 100, 200, or 500 years ago. How can we imagine that art wouldn't change?

----------


## cacian

> Cacian,
> 
> I wrote a quick response poem about whether or not it's obvious whether artists get better or worse with age; you never responded. I'm curious to see what you think:
> 
> The obvious is like mist in the air
> winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
> Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
> languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
> A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
> ...


i think it quite impressive
i like the rhymes for sure

_A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;_

I am not sure what this mean??

Stlukes is it possible to say that modern art could eventually be for those who can afford it and therefore the reflection is on the money.
wealth influences art.
poverty does not??



> Although the scene as a whole was invented, the various elements (the landscape, the figures, etc...) were based upon studies from life, and the intention was to create an illusion of visual reality. Art... especially painting... was imagined as a window upon visual reality.


i do not understand
why imagined?
and
could the reverse be true?
in other words a different landscape setting but the scene is as real as it gets?
landscape reinvented but the characters to be a true reflection of us?


because whilst nudity is only plausible in certain situations 
ie specific to personal activities 
this visual reality in this Rubens painting could not be an illusion either because it is already present in real life.
the scene is not real either because it is not something people do on a daily basis gather in this way.
so what the other meaning of this painting?

what i am trying to say is that there is a context for everything even for a painting depicting a scene
in this nudity is out of context and therefore the visual does not make sense.

----------


## Pike Bishop

> i think it quite impressive
> i like the rhymes for sure
> 
> _A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;_
> 
> I am not sure what this mean??


A result of the truth of Obvious' nature is the wayward aspect of Time's flow.

A truth resulting from

----------


## cacian

> A result of the truth of Obvious' nature is the wayward aspect of Time's flow.
> 
> A truth resulting from


i am not aware of
Obvious nature
why capital O
and T in time?
is that in a religious reference?

the poem is rather mystical to me i am not sure i quite get it :0

----------


## Pike Bishop

Here's my poem again, where I address the nature of "obvious" in relation to artists getting better or worse with time. Read it again and be specific in what you don't get:

The obvious is like mist in the air
winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
the artist, its gallant and sometimes its foe.
The blessed move sweetly into evening's breath;
the cursed rage fitful into fickle death.


P.s. I'm glad it seemed "mystical" to you; that's kind of what I was going for.

----------


## stlukesguild

Stlukes is it possible to say that modern art could eventually be for those who can afford it and therefore the reflection is on the money.
wealth influences art.
poverty does not??

Art follows money. It is far easier to support the arts when a given culture has the luxury of excess wealth. Art education, the materials, etc... all cost money.

Certainly poverty can influence the art of a given culture... or an individual artist who is struggling to make enough to keep a roof over his/her head and enough to eat.



i do not understand
why imagined?

Obviously, the gathering of nude goddesses (The Judgment of Paris) is not something the artist actually saw... nor did he likely stage such a grouping of nudes outdoors and paint the entire scene from life.

and
could the reverse be true?
in other words a different landscape setting but the scene is as real as it gets?
landscape reinvented but the characters to be a true reflection of us?

Certainly an artist might paint the figures from life while wholly inventing the landscape or background. 



Gustav Klimt's famous Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer is an example of such. The artist clearly painted the sitter from life, while the decorative background is wholly invented. 

Rubens' approach is different. He begins with a narrative that he wishes to "illustrate". He constructs a believable scene building upon life drawings of figures, landscape, and other elements. 

In this painting, _Daniel in the Lion's Den_...



... the artist employs a model assuming a penitent/praying pose. 



The multitude of lions are based upon sketches made from life from a zoo or circus. In all likelihood there were but 2 lions (i male and one female). 







The artist pieces these various elements together like a collage or jigsaw puzzle... in a manner not unlike that of the modern film maker employing multiple computer generated images and other special effects. Rubens was a master of illusion, creating a scene that appears realistic but which never existed as such.

----------


## cacian

> Here's my poem again, where I address the nature of "obvious" in relation to artists getting better or worse with time. Read it again and be specific in what you don't get:
> 
> The obvious is like mist in the air
> winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
> Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
> languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
> A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
> the artist, its gallant and sometimes its foe.
> The blessed move sweetly into evening's breath;
> ...


hi Pike Bishop
what i do not get is the reference to the child 
in reference with time
then the last two lines are not very clear.  :Smile: 




> Stlukes is it possible to say that modern art could eventually be for those who can afford it and therefore the reflection is on the money.
> wealth influences art.
> poverty does not??
> 
> Art follows money. It is far easier to support the arts when a given culture has the luxury of excess wealth. Art education, the materials, etc... all cost money.
> 
> Certainly poverty can influence the art of a given culture... or an individual artist who is struggling to make enough to keep a roof over his/her head and enough to eat.
> 
> 
> ...


.. the artist employs a model assuming a penitent/praying pose. 

what is the meaning of this painting ie
a praying pose amongst a den of lions?
how does one interpret it for example/

I dont understand Rubens idea of illusion within reality what is the purpose of that?
if art that we see today in such paintings does not exist then how does one relate them?

----------


## Pike Bishop

> hi Pike Bishop
> what i do not get is the reference to the child 
> in reference with time
> then the last two lines are not very clear.


I already explained for you the child's relation to time:

"A result of the truth of Obvious' nature is the wayward aspect of Time's flow."

The last two lines were already clear; with this explanation, they should be very clear for you. Here is the poem again: 

The obvious is like mist in the air
winsome, elusive, and yet always there.
Marble and ether, it whispers and holds;
languid yet strident, its presence unfolds.
A child of its truth is time's wayward flow;
the artist, its gallant and sometimes its foe.
The blessed move sweetly into evening's breath;
the cursed rage fitful into fickle death.


So, please explain how exactly are the last two lines not clear from you. You are aware just saying something isn't clear doesn't make it so.

----------


## stlukesguild

what is the meaning of this painting ie
a praying pose amongst a den of lions?
how does one interpret it for example/

The narrative illustrated in this painting is that of the Biblical narrative of Daniel and the Lions' Den found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible.

Interpretation or "meaning" in art is constructed by the viewer and built upon prior knowledge, experience, etc... In other words, you cannot limit a painting (or any work of art for that matter) to a simple dictionary definition. Looking at Rubens' _Daniel in the Lion's Den_ my interpretation... or rather "experience" is constructed of my prior knowledge of the Biblical narrative, of Art History, of what I know of Rubens, of a visceral response to the abstract formal elements of color, scale, line, etc..., of a visceral response to the image of a nearly nude figure surrounded by lions, and much more. 

I dont understand Rubens idea of illusion within reality what is the purpose of that?
if art that we see today in such paintings does not exist then how does one relate them?

I would hope you understand the concept of "fiction" within literature. A work of fiction employs many elements (some drawn from the author's real experiences) that create the illusion of "reality"... even if the narrative is purely fictional or something never directly experienced by the author.

----------


## mortalterror

> While early Modernists such as Picasso, Beckmann, and the Abstract Expressionists were often fascinated with popular music (jazz) and popular imagery seen in photography, film, and advertising, the Pop Artists such as Andy Warhol, James Rosenquist, Tom Wesselmann, etc... had been weaned on popular culture: TV, Films, cartoons, comic books, jazz, rock music, illustrations, and advertising imagery.


I normally don't care for pop art, but something about Tom Wesselmann's painting speaks to me. I can't quite put my finger on it.

----------


## fajfall

Garbage finds sanctuary in modern art but not in classical art. Eg. You could literally put the garbage presently residing in your trash can on the floor of a modern art museum and some people will find that to be a real insightful work of art.

I once sardonically jested that I could just paint a canvas white and say it's a completed artwork that belongs in a modern art gallery. Later I actually saw it be done.

----------


## Danik 2016

I agree with you about the garbage on the floor. But here are some examples of an interesting use of garbage in art:
https://www.artsy.net/artist/vik-muniz

----------


## YesNo

> I once sardonically jested that I could just paint a canvas white and say it's a completed artwork that belongs in a modern art gallery. Later I actually saw it be done.


I think I saw something like this hanging at the Art Institute of Chicago some decades ago. I can't remember who did it. Probably someone famous.

I'm doing my own version in the basement of our town home, but it is an off-white and covering the entire cement wall.

----------


## stlukesguild

Kasmir Malevich, _White on White_, 1918:



Robert Rauschenberg, _White Painting_, 1951:



Robert Ryman, _Untitled_, 1965



The crap that flourishes in Modern/Contemporary Art is the price we pay for the increased freedom and experimentation that has also resulted in a body of art that is only rivaled by that of the Renaissance. The difference between our time and the Renaissance is that in opening up Art to endless possibilities long rejected, the result has been an elimination of any agreed-upon standards (for better and worse) and an opening up of Art to anyone and everyone. Anyone and Anything can be art, it is argued... and this leads to a lot of crap. But the Modern and Contemporary Arts are also laden with an incredible array of really brilliant Art.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> The crap that flourishes in Modern/Contemporary Art is the price we pay for the increased freedom and experimentation that has also resulted in a body of art that is only rivaled by that of the Renaissance. The difference between our time and the Renaissance is that in opening up Art to endless possibilities long rejected, the result has been an elimination of any agreed-upon standards (for better and worse) and an opening up of Art to anyone and everyone. Anyone and Anything can be art, it is argued... and this leads to a lot of crap. But the Modern and Contemporary Arts are also laden with an incredible array of really brilliant Art.


What?!
Most Renaissance Era art is uninspired crap. I don't care what national museums it hangs in, technically it's masterfully executed... crap. Most of the paintings, sculptures, furniture, and other artifacts we see in galleries and museums were works created out of patronage. That is artists and artisans working for wealthy people, creating what those wealthy people deemed proper and acceptable.
I'll take a pleasant Sunday stroll through a modern art museum any old day, rather than another slog through a history museum full of Renaissance portraits of the wealthy and noble, whom never seem to even have the slightest hint of a smile in those paintings.

----------


## stlukesguild

Oh please! Before you make comments dismissive of one art style or period it might be well to actually know something about Art and what inspiration looks like. This is true whether speaking of the Renaissance, the Baroque, Modernism, or Contemporary art. 

The artists of the Renaissance were creating for wealthy patrons?! Gasp! I never knew!  :Rolleyes:  And who exactly are the artists working today creating Art for... the gang at the local pub?  :Cheers2:  The traditional visual art forms are costly and time-consuming to create. In economic terms they are one of the ultimate luxury items. Historically, music and literature were no less indebted to wealthy patronage. Literature escaped from the dominance of such patronage with the spread of the printing press and mass-production of books combined with the increase in literacy. Music... at least popular/populist music was freed from the dominance of the wealthy patrons with the invention of sound recording and the mass production of recorded music as well as broadcast music. The traditional visual arts remain dependent upon wealthy patronage, for better or worse. Perhaps the contemporary artist isn't as dependent upon commissions as the "old masters"... but he or she must still adhere to the expectations of these patrons if the artist wishes to make a living from the art. 

This also raises the question as to why art created for a given patron or on commission is deemed somehow inferior. Many of the illustrators of the last 100+ years are every bit as good... or better than many of the "fine artists" of the same period... in spite of creating under requirements of commercial patrons. The reality is that creating a work of art of real merit while meeting the expectations of a patron can be quite challenging. The artists of the past worked for patrons who were not only extremely wealthy, but were also among the most educated and cultured. I don't see art created for wealthy patrons as being inherently any better or worse than art created for the public. Both have resulted in good and bad art. Music, literature, film, and art marketed at a broad commercial/popular/populist audience can be quite good... but it can also result in Justin Bieber, Hollywood schlock films, etc...

You prefer Modern art. Fine. Perhaps I have broader tastes. I like works of ancient art, the "old masters", non-Western art, as well as Modern and Contemporary art. How does your personal preference for Modern art lead to the assumption that the art of the past is all crap? "I don't like something" = "It's crap"?

----------


## Ecurb

> This also raises the question as to why art created for a given patron or on commission is deemed somehow inferior. Many of the illustrators of the last 100+ years are every bit as good... or better than many of the "fine artists" of the same period... in spite of creating under requirements of commercial patrons. The reality is that creating a work of art of real merit while meeting the expectations of a patron can be quite challenging. The artists of the past worked for patrons who were not only extremely wealthy, but were also among the most educated and cultured. I don't see art created for wealthy patrons as being inherently any better or worse than art created for the public. Both have resulted in good and bad art. Music, literature, film, and art marketed at a broad commercial/popular/populist audience can be quite good... but it can also result in Justin Bieber, Hollywood schlock films, etc...
> ?


Well, as a member of "the gang at the local pub", perhaps I might prefer art that appeals to me. 

Let's compare painting to photography. If a talented photographer was commissioned to document someone's wedding, isn't it likely that his snapshots would bore anyone who doesn't know the lucky couple? Isn't it likely that his photos designed to please the general public would have more appeal to the general public?

No doubt creating a well-done set of wedding photos can be "quite challenging" -- but why should we viewers care whether it is challenging or not? Let's face it: most snap shots of people we don't know don't hold our interest.

Of course portraits by Karsh or Brian Lanker (http://www.brianlanker.com/portfolio.html) may have emotional resonance even if the viewer doesn't know the person being portrayed. Same with portraits by Rembrandt or Leonardo. But that doesn't hold true for snap shots by lesser photographers, or portraits by lesser painters. Pictures that depict some beloved family member whom we don't know and about whom we couldn't care less had better be awfully good to hold our attention. 

So I don't think Iain is all THAT far off base. Of course not all modern artists are trying to appeal to the general public, either. They are painting for a small, elite group they think will understand their work. Their work might not appeal to me any more than mediocre portraits of some family scion would. One test of genius is that it transcends genre -- some great film directors can imprint their personal artistry on banal studio assignments (i.e. commissions).

----------


## Jackson Richardson

it wasn't just Renaissance artists who worked for the politicallly and socially powerful.

All commissions will be from people with spare cash even now, which put them in the same category as patrons in the past - those with undue social and political influence.

When Mark Rothko was commissioned in 1959 to paint pictures for the dining room of the New York offices of Seagrams (now here in London at Tate Modern) he told a friend "I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a ***** who ever eats there".

I expect a lot of Renaissance artists had just the same attitude towards their patrons..

----------


## Ecurb

Indeed, Jonathan. There are commissions and commissions. It seems to me that many of the portraits one sees in old houses or government buildings are like snapshots. They aren't very artistic; they're designed to depict the sitter. On the other hand, paintings commissioned by the church often tell an emotionally resonant story (or try to). Centuries ago, when many people were illiterate, religious paintings were often a way to tell bible stories to church members. The great masters, of course, can turn any subject into art.

----------


## stlukesguild

Well, as a member of "the gang at the local pub", perhaps I might prefer art that appeals to me.

As do we all... but that doesn't mean that the art which doesn't appeal to you is crap. I doubt the "gang at the local pub" have much use for Kafka, Borges, Philip Roth (or nearly any other Modern of Contemporary writer) any more than they do for Dante or Shakespeare. Is the "gang at the pub" to be taken as the last word in aesthetic judgment?

Let's compare painting to photography. If a talented photographer was commissioned to document someone's wedding, isn't it likely that his snapshots would bore anyone who doesn't know the lucky couple? Isn't it likely that his photos designed to please the general public would have more appeal to the general public?

If all that the work of art has going for it... whether it is a painting or a photograph... is a well rendered documentation of a person, place, or event... then no, it wouldn't have much aesthetic merit. 

But what of these portraits?





Certainly I recognize the sitters... but this recognition isn't what makes these photographs memorable. There are hundreds of thousands... perhaps millions of photographs of celebrities. Those that continue to resonate have something more... artistic merit.

These two portraits speak to me in spite of the fact that I have no idea who the sitters are:





I will point out that Ian is not alone in dismissing older art; there are a good many who fail to recognize the aesthetic merit of art due to a dislike of the subject matter. I'm not overly fond of contemplating the nude male body... but I have no problem in recognizing that these are magnificent works of art:





No doubt creating a well-done set of wedding photos can be "quite challenging" -- but why should we viewers care whether it is challenging or not? Let's face it: most snap shots of people we don't know don't hold our interest.

The "difficulty" in creating a work of art has nothing to do with its aesthetic merit. Fragonard reportedly painted this marvelous painting in an hour:



Again, I have no idea who the sitter was... or if she even even really existed or was but a product of the artist's imagination. But it doesn't matter. The painting remains quite delicious. 

Of course portraits by Karsh or Brian Lanker (http://www.brianlanker.com/portfolio.html) may have emotional resonance even if the viewer doesn't know the person being portrayed. Same with portraits by Rembrandt or Leonardo. But that doesn't hold true for snap shots by lesser photographers, or portraits by lesser painters. Pictures that depict some beloved family member whom we don't know and about whom we couldn't care less had better be awfully good to hold our attention. 

OK... now we are getting somewhere. Portraits by Leonardo and Rembrandt continue to resonate. So do paintings by hundreds of other artists... to a greater or lesser extent. I agree that the majority of the art of the past was mediocre at best... but then the majority of the art of the present is no better. The past has the advantage of having been cherry-picked: critics, historians, collectors, well-informed art lovers, and subsequent generations of artists have picked things over where when looking at the art of the present we have to dig through the huge wealth of crap to find the real gems.

----------


## Ecurb

Actually, Stluke, from what I've read, the "gang at the local pub" used to troop down to the Globe Theater to catch the new Shakespeare play. I don't know much about the popularity of Kafka or Borges, but Philip Roth has written dozens of novels, hundreds of short stories, and a variety of non-fiction. It has all been popular, some of it very popular (I tried to google how many Roth novels have been sold, but couldn't find out. It's surely multi-millions). 

Tolstoy thought "interestingness" was a form of "false art". In other words, historical novels may "fake it" by "interesting" their readers with the history parts, while failing with the actual artistic parts. That may be a reasonable critique, but (since you mention Dante) I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of. 

The same is true of mediocre portraits. I (at least, but probably others as well) am more interested in a picture of what Napoleon looked like, or Catherine the Great, than what Joe Blow looked like. Of course we needn't care about Mona Lisa to like the picture. 

Surely the purpose of art might have SOME bearing on whether it appeals to a particular audience (like me). Snapshots that commemorate a family Christmas had better be quite good before they appeal to me, unless I know the family involved. I'm sure plenty of painted portraits that don't appeal to me resonated with the family of the now deceased sitter. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just a fact, for most of us. 

By the way, aren't the Einstein and Hepburn portraits your posted taken by Yousuf Karsh? I did mention being a fan. Did he take the two other photos you posted, as well?

The gang at the local pub does not have the last word on artistic merit; neither does the gang at the New Yorker, or at Academia, or at MOMA. Indeed, it is reasonable for someone (me, for example) to find the sections of "Inferno" that deal with minor Florentine potentates a bit dull, despite Dante's luminous reputation. We need not conform to the tastes of the "gang at the pub"; we need not conform to the tastes of the elite. However, liking art (I'll grant) gives more pleasure than disliking it, so we should all try to broaden our tastes, whether by reading Dante or J.K. Rowling.

----------


## New Secret

> art has evolved through time and undergone changes to suit the present time enclosure,
> what significant changes has it occurred?
> for example
> has contemporary art benefited or moved away from classic art?


Uh, the way I see it art has de-evolved in what is required of artists to make their creations. In the 1800s before photography was in vogue painting on canvas had reached it's all time high. The detail and vibrance in many paintings of the 19th century rivaled what photography couldn't become until the late 1970s! The fine skill and craft required to paint with such accuracy and detail is possessed by far fewer folks today than then. These days high art is usually in the hands of corporate execs who use it to further their business pursuits. Few independent artists can. And of those that can they have little incentive to actually do it because those who demand it can get it cheap and quick with computer modeling programs that have become so refined you can invent fake people from scratch and put them on a magazine cover and nobody will ever know any different.

With the digital age the wonder and achievement of art has been sidelined.

----------


## JCamilo

> Tolstoy thought "interestingness" was a form of "false art". In other words, historical novels may "fake it" by "interesting" their readers with the history parts, while failing with the actual artistic parts. That may be a reasonable critique, but (since you mention Dante) I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of.


You, you, you. Too much of what you would do, which is a bit strange to say when you argue we should broaden our horizon instead of limiting our perception... 

And no, while many people only find some bits of Dante interesting because they reckongnize the classic references, there is people of People who find passages about less known figures as Paollo and Francesca of the Count Ungolino more interesting. I had no idea who was even Virgil when I first read Dante and I liked the whole story and would feel all the classical background false without the precese of the casual joe. Would make hell less universal and evil a matter of fame.

----------


## Ecurb

You complain that my critique of Dante is overly personal, JCamilo, and then embark on an incoherent diatribe about what YOU YOU YOU like about him. For those who have never heard of Virgil (like JCamilo) probably ALL of the sinners in "Inferno" are "less known figures".

----------


## stlukesguild

Actually, Stluke, from what I've read, the "gang at the local pub" used to troop down to the Globe Theater to catch the new Shakespeare play. I don't know much about the popularity of Kafka or Borges, but Philip Roth has written dozens of novels, hundreds of short stories, and a variety of non-fiction. It has all been popular, some of it very popular (I tried to google how many Roth novels have been sold, but couldn't find out. It's surely multi-millions).

Shakespeare wrote for the theater. The theater was among the most popular forms of entertainment of the time... although not as popular as bear baiting... not unlike the movies or TV today. One of the lasting strengths of Shakespeare's plays is that they work on multiple levels. They can entertain the audience with little literary experience as well as the well-read. There are certainly exceptions... artists of great merit that were/are also very popular: Dickens, Dumas, Poe... arguably Tolkein (sorry Loka :Devil: ). Philip Roth may have sold a couple million novels total. The only statistic I could find online suggests that his best selling novel sold 400,000+... but this is quite good considering a sale of 5,000-10,000 is considered great for most books... and 1,000-1,500 for poetry.

I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of. 

Personally, I also find the narratives dealing with the lovers, Francesca da Rimini & Paolo Malatesta and that of Ugolino (among others) to be among the most powerful... in spite of the fact that upon my initial readings I had no idea who they were. 

The same is true of mediocre portraits. I (at least, but probably others as well) am more interested in a picture of what Napoleon looked like, or Catherine the Great, than what Joe Blow looked like.





Personally, I don't find any portraits of Napoleon or Catherine the Great as marvelous as these portraits of largely unknown sitters... or sitters known only because of the artist:


-Rogier van der Weyden


-Raphael


-Pontormo


-Bronzino


-Rubens


-Van Dyck


-Rembrandt


-Pompeo Batoni


-Ingres


-John Singer Sargent


-Renoir


-Lucian Freud

Ultimately it is the art that matters, not the subject matter.

By the way, aren't the Einstein and Hepburn portraits your posted taken by Yousuf Karsh? I did mention being a fan. Did he take the two other photos you posted, as well?

Yes, the first two are Karsh, the third is Sally Mann and the fourth is Dorothea Lange.

The gang at the local pub does not have the last word on artistic merit; neither does the gang at the New Yorker, or at Academia, or at MOMA. 

Of course. If there is anything close to an objective "opinion" in art, it is a collective opinion taking into consideration the opinions of "experts" (academics, critics, historians, etc...), subsequent generations of artists, and the well-informed art lovers.

Indeed, it is reasonable for someone (me, for example) to find the sections of "Inferno" that deal with minor Florentine potentates a bit dull, despite Dante's luminous reputation. We need not conform to the tastes of the "gang at the pub"; we need not conform to the tastes of the elite. However, liking art (I'll grant) gives more pleasure than disliking it, so we should all try to broaden our tastes, whether by reading Dante or J.K. Rowling.

Of course, the "opinions" of others... even the collective opinions... should not replace our own personal opinions based upon what gives us pleasure... although, perhaps, they will open us up to a broader perspective than our immediate uninformed taste.

----------


## JCamilo

> You complain that my critique of Dante is overly personal,


The only thing "personal" about my critic to your argument is just that I reckon it is your argument. Other than this there is no reference to your persona (Which would be ridiculous, we do not not know each other at all). 




> JCamilo, and then embark on an incoherent diatribe about what YOU YOU YOU like about him.


Sorry, if it is hard for you to understand that some people, unlike your claim, enjoy the "tales" of less famous characters in Dante, I will be satisfied with the fact that Stlukes can just after me to exemplify my claim. 

You are missing that I didnt went on what I like about Dante. First I mentioned about what "People", other people, not me liked about him. I have to mention that at no moment I suggest that your experience shouldnt be shared. My problem is how you use your experience to justify a broader experience with art, as you did to justify Tolstoys claims (Tolstoy failure on accepting Shakespeare is due to this same mistake, thinking his personal experience is universal), while my experience was posted just to show you there is more perspectives than yours. A complete different use of you, you, you. 





> For those who have never heard of Virgil (like JCamilo) probably ALL of the sinners in "Inferno" are "less known figures".


Well, i was aware of a handful of mythological greek figures, biblical characters and more famous philosophers (not exactly suffering in Hell, but well), the point is that Dante certainly did invest a a lot of art to some minor figures, specially considering several individuals were well know to him and other readers albeit not famoust historical wise.

----------


## Ecurb

Obviously, stluke, some portraits of famous people are not as moving as other (better one's) of strangers. My point was that just as a snapshot of one's own great grandfather might be more interesting than a snapshot of someone else's great grandfather, the same might be true of paintings. Mediocre paintings, like mediocre snapshots, might still interest us for non-artistic reasons. 

Among my favorite Rembrandt portraits are his self-portraits, because in addition to the artistic merits they share with his other portraits, I'm interested in Rembrandt and in how a great painter sees himself. I certainly do not insist that others share this preference. 

Think of Karsh's famous portrait of Einstein, which you posted above. It's clearly a great photograph in terms of composition and technical quality, but it further intrigues me (and probably others) because we know Einstein was a great genius. We look at his eyes and wonder what and how they see. If you think of other famous Karsh portraits, I think the same could be said: he captures Churchill's pride and bellicosity; he captures G.B. Shaw's puckish wit; his famous portrait of Hemingway captures not only the glorious black and white texture of his beard, but the author's considered masculinity. 

All of these photos would be excellent even if their subjects weren't famous. But would they be quite AS interesting? I think Karsh plays with both the personality of the person being portrayed, and the public perception of that personality. His "Churchill" is a depiction of both -- and that's one reason it's beloved.

----------


## Ecurb

> You are missing that I didnt went on what I like about Dante. First I mentioned about what "People", other people, not me liked about him. I have to mention that at no moment I suggest that your experience shouldnt be shared. My problem is how you use your experience to justify a broader experience with art, as you did to justify Tolstoys claims (Tolstoy failure on accepting Shakespeare is due to this same mistake, thinking his personal experience is universal), while my experience was posted just to show you there is more perspectives than yours. A complete different use of you, you, you. 
> 
> .


Neither Tolstoy nor I made any such mistake. Of course there are other perspectives, but it's a little ironic that in this case you are agreeing with Tolstoy, and I am disagreeing with him. I like art (portraits, for example) about "interesting" subjects; I like the sections in "Inferno" about "interesting" people. You (agreeing with Tolstoy) think this perspective somehow lacks a more objective vision of what art is or what art should be. Fair enough. You're in good company, agreeing with ol' Leo.

Shakespeare, perhaps, was on my side, since he wrote dozens of plays pandering to the "interests" of his audience, plays about Julius, Anthony, Cleopatra, Henry V, etc. (Of course Tolstoy wrote "War and Peace", too.)

----------


## Ecurb

One more point about "Inferno". When Dante wrote about the eternal fate of those 13th century Florentine potentates whose fame has been lost in the mists of time, they WERE famous. Probably Dante's original readers were just as "interested" in them as I am of those whose fame has lasted these 8 centuries. So, from Dante's perspective, the 'interest' of his readers was a given.

----------


## YesNo

> Think of Karsh's famous portrait of Einstein, which you posted above. It's clearly a great photograph in terms of composition and technical quality, but it further intrigues me (and probably others) because we know Einstein was a great genius. We look at his eyes and wonder what and how they see.


This is just a side note on the discussion, which I don't completely understand. 

I just want to ask: _How do we know that Einstein was a great genius?_ I'm not saying he was stupid or anything like that, but based on Jimena Canales' _The Physicist and the Philosopher_ much of our attention to Einstein and our remembrance of him, rather than, say, Bohr or Bergson, may have been his own successful self-promotion. 

It is not just the quality of the art, but the subject's intention to project an image that artists materialized that stays with us.

----------


## JCamilo

> Neither Tolstoy nor I made any such mistake. Of course there are other perspectives, but it's a little ironic that in this case you are agreeing with Tolstoy, and I am disagreeing with him. I like art (portraits, for example) about "interesting" subjects; I like the sections in "Inferno" about "interesting" people. You (agreeing with Tolstoy) think this perspective somehow lacks a more objective vision of what art is or what art should be. Fair enough. You're in good company, agreeing with ol' Leo.


This argument is sily. Tolstoy distate on Shakespeare is based on what he thinks art should be, it is down to his failure to enjoy King Lear or to understand it. He is pretty much saying "I will never write like this", so yes, Tolstoy did the mistake to define what is art based on his own experience. And you, when you bring Tolstoy argument about the inclusion of history part to interest the writer, gave your own example as a proof. So, if this is not using your experience as example to proof something is universal, then I have no idea what would it be.

And the only irony is that you fail to understand that Tolstoy attempt to define objectivelly art was filled with his bias. Neither I, you or Stlukes are proposing anything different, an objective view of art. The difference is that Stlukes, despite his classical taste, (or not classical, that is Mortal, but I guess it can be understood) is dismissing modern art because it has different vallues than other time periods. His focus is the aesthetic merit. And you objectively reduce it to your experience. 




> One more point about "Inferno". When Dante wrote about the eternal fate of those 13th century Florentine potentates whose fame has been lost in the mists of time, they WERE famous. Probably Dante's original readers were just as "interested" in them as I am of those whose fame has lasted these 8 centuries. So, from Dante's perspective, the 'interest' of his readers was a given.
> 
> Shakespeare, perhaps, was on my side, since he wrote dozens of plays pandering to the "interests" of his audience, plays about Julius, Anthony, Cleopatra, Henry V, etc. (Of course Tolstoy wrote "War and Peace", too.)


Yes, I pretty much said that several minor, obscure character in the Comedy were well know at the time. Now, there is a considerable misunderstanding. Tolstoy is not just claimming you add certain characters (or historical character, events) to use the familiarity of the reader to fetch his interest. He is saying this is done as a separated part of the artistic work. Of course, Tolstoy is pretty much talking about himself and how he did War and Peace. The point, which is pretty much a motive why we still moved by characters Dante used and we only know about them because Dante wrote about them, because the "fanservice" is not a part split from the general "work". Dante does not fail or is fake as Tolstoy claim when he uses Ugolino. There is no better evidence than the fact that the third more relevant character of the Comedy is Beatrice, a virtual uknown which is easily the character dante dedicated more of his artistic talent. 

And you still dont understand. Shakespeare did it. Tolstoy did it. Dumas did it. Marvel Comic movies do it all the time (the whole easter eggs thing). It is something possible, but it is not something universal. Several artists prefer to cause repulse, strangeness, to baffle his audience and not make him confortable.And several, as Dante which work has an integrity that makes Tolstoy claim not true. Just like your experience does not prove it about Dante or every artwork, Shakespeare does not.

----------


## Danik 2016

I also don´t quite understand the discussion, I suppose it is still about the best criterion to evaluate art.
Just some ideas on this subject:
Jorge Luís Borges established the ironical criterion that a good work of art had to survive at least 50 years. It seems quite a good criterion to me.
The idea of someone been famous or at least known seems to be typical of our post post modern times where celebrities are often mediatic creations and Dick, Tom and Harry and their products get their 15 minutes of fame.
I also believe that some artists and authors start by being popular and then become canonical.
Why do some artists/authors hated by the critics sell like hot cakes?
And why do some works of art despised during the lifetime of their artist/authors get famous postumously?
And I like to think that together with more famous people Dante bundled all his political enemies into the "Inferno" as an act of poetical vengeance.

----------


## Ecurb

JCamilo is correct that I don't understand most of what he writes. Whether this is because of my incapacity for understanding, or his incapacity for writing clear English is debatable. Tolstoy, on the other hand, is easy to understand. His famous essay on King Lear is a great critique, whether one agrees or disagrees with it's conclusions. It is made more poignant by Tolstoy's own struggles with his family as he grew old. Perhaps Lear hit too close to home for Leo. For anyone interested, here's a link: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726...-h/27726-h.htm

As far as Jcamilo claim that stluke focuses on "aesthetic merit" while I "objectively reduce (art) to (my) own experience", that's a distinction without a difference. What is "aesthetic merit" except someone's experience? In Tolstoy's famous book "What is Art" he spend the first half of the book shredding the "aesthetic merit" approach to the philosophy of art. Beauty and "aesthetic merit" are by their nature subjective. They are not intrinsic to any object or work, but describe our responses to that object.

Here's a link to "What is Art", for anyone who cares: https://archive.org/stream/whatisart...suoft_djvu.txt

Here's Tolstoy on the "false art" of "interesting-ness" (read chapter 11 in the above text, p. 109... to find the other "false art methods".)




> The fourth method is that of interesting (that is, absorbing 
> the mind) in connection with works of art. The interest 
> may lie in an intricate plot a method till quite recently 
> much employed in English novels and French plays, but 
> now going out of fashion and being replaced by authenticity, 
> i.e. by detailed description of some historical period or some 
> branch of contemporary life. For example, in a novel, 
> interesting-ness may consist in a description of Egyptian or 
> Eoman life, the life of miners, or that of the clerks in a 
> ...


Tolstoy is not descrying the "interesting". Instead, he is differentiating it from the "artistic" or what Jcamilo and stluke might call the "aesthetic". I disagree with Tolstoy. I think the artistic or aesthetic merit of Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Einstein (or Churchill, or Shaw) is insuperable from the viewer's background knowledge of these public figures. Without our knowledge of Churchill's pugnacious nature, and his role in Britain's "finest hour", the famous portrait of Churchill would be less "aesthetically pleasing". Our prejudices inform our aesthetics. When stluke wrote, the opinions of others "will open us up to a broader perspective than our immediate uninformed taste" he is saying the same thing. Informed tastes are by their nature prejudiced tastes (not in a bad way, but nonetheless "informed" by "prior knowledge and judgement"). 

If we see some grimy factory belching red fire and black smoke from its chimneys, we might think, "How ugly". But the child, who has not learned our prejudices, might say, "How beautiful! Just like a flower, bursting into bloom." Aesthetics cannot escape prejudices. We learn to like certain things, and dislike other things. Children dislike the taste of Bleu Cheese, or wine, delicious as they are to us. Only when we "inform" our tastes do we like fine wine, and dislike factory chimneys. 

Tolstoy thought the simplest, least prejudiced art was the best art. It is certainly the most universal art. But all art is dependent on "prior knowledge". Literature is worthless to those who cannot read.

----------


## Ecurb

To Yesno: Einstein's genius was that he saw that we need not take for granted what seems to be obviously true (that time is a constant). He was able to see beyond what seemed an obvious truism.

However, the public perception of Einstein as a genius need not be accurate for Karsh's photo to resonate. Since stluke and I were discussing Phillip Roth, have you ever read his brilliant short story "On the Air"? It's a series of letters written by a Jewish talent agent to Albert Einstein. The agent wants to sign Einstein up for a weekly radio show to compete with "The Answer Man" and "show the goyim what smart really means".

----------


## Danik 2016

To me Aesthetics is by no means a fixed concept. It changes according to the dominant world view(what the German called _Weltanschauung_). For example in his at its time revolutionary preface to the play _Cromwell_, Vitor Hugo discusses the relation beautiful x grotesque in romantic art:
"Let us resume, therefore, and try to prove that it is of the fruitful union of the grotesque and the sublime types that modern genius is bornso complex, so diverse in its forms, so inexhaustible in its creations; and therein directly opposed to the uniform simplicity of the genius of the ancients; let us show that that is the point from which we must set out to establish the real and radical difference between the two forms of literature."
http://www.bartleby.com/39/41.html

----------


## JCamilo

> I also don´t quite understand the discussion, I suppose it is still about the best criterion to evaluate art.
> Just some ideas on this subject:
> Jorge Luís Borges established the ironical criterion that a good work of art had to survive at least 50 years. It seems quite a good criterion to me.
> The idea of someone been famous or at least known seems to be typical of our post post modern times where celebrities are often mediatic creations and Dick, Tom and Harry and their products get their 15 minutes of fame.
> I also believe that some artists and authors start by being popular and then become canonical.
> Why do some artists/authors hated by the critics sell like hot cakes?
> And why do some works of art despised during the lifetime of their artist/authors get famous postumously?
> And I like to think that together with more famous people Dante bundled all his political enemies into the "Inferno" as an act of poetical vengeance.


Well, you have to consider that Borges lived in a time that was harder to preserve some artworks, but, well, the man is famous for smiling with the corner of his lips while talking. I suppose the critery of 50 years pleased him because it was enough to dismiss himself from the equation. In more serious note, Borges doubted even the survival of Shakespeare once or while. 

As for the critery of evaluation of art, depends what you exactly you are aiming. Is this art is a different question from Is this good art, some approaches are not going to work for one or another and I am for one not open to dismiss any approach, even those who go after the social function of art. They are all acceptable and maybe the great artworks last more time because the longer their persist, more they are exposed to all sort of criteries and approaches.

----------


## JCamilo

> JCamilo is correct that I don't understand most of what he writes. Whether this is because of my incapacity for understanding, or his incapacity for writing clear English is debatable. Tolstoy, on the other hand, is easy to understand. His famous essay on King Lear is a great critique, whether one agrees or disagrees with it's conclusions. It is made more poignant by Tolstoy's own struggles with his family as he grew old. Perhaps Lear hit too close to home for Leo. For anyone interested, here's a link: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726...-h/27726-h.htm


You really sound bitter, Ecurb. Let's just not pretend that we are here in this board for years and for some reason you are often very defensive about me and even some of the members who are in the "snobs"group. 




> As far as Jcamilo claim that stluke focuses on "aesthetic merit" while I "objectively reduce (art) to (my) own experience", that's a distinction without a difference. What is "aesthetic merit" except someone's experience?


Aesthetic merit is not the same as using your experience to avail an artwork. The experience (and even the part you quoted about Tolstoy is explaining this, so there is no excuse to not understand well the difference. Tolstoy is easy) is more or less: When I first dated a woman, which was the most intense relationship I had, we went to a bar and when we first kissed, when we were drunk enough, the radio was playing Britney Spears's Toxic. So, everytime we were in a place where the music was played, we recalled the first kiss and joked about. After we broke out, listening to it, also came with memories. Sad, bittersweet and now they are even good. 

That is using experience to approach art. The artwork touches me, moves me, but there is nothing to do with the aesthetic merit. I hope, for most people, that the first kiss experience happened while listening Beethooven so you can have both at sametime, but that is not true for most people. My personal experience is not enough for me to say Toxic is a superior artwork to Bob Dylan The Watchtower, my aesthetic experience will. 




> In Tolstoy's famous book "What is Art" he spend the first half of the book shredding the "aesthetic merit" approach to the philosophy of art. Beauty and "aesthetic merit" are by their nature subjective. They are not intrinsic to any object or work, but describe our responses to that object.
> 
> Here's a link to "What is Art", for anyone who cares: https://archive.org/stream/whatisart...suoft_djvu.txt


When someone mentions art is subjective, it is about the perception. Of course, someone like Stlukes perception to Picasso is different from lets say, Jack, the newspaper dude who never studied art or object proportion, color use, etc. It is subjective, or at least not scientifically objective, yes, but when Stlukes does he s guided by aesthetic merit, not just the fact he liked the paiting or Picasso was the painter that made him realise his artistic ideal when he was 13 years old. (Stlukes is a random example, I actually have no idea if at 13 years old he got mesmerized by Guernica and decided to became an artist, just like the Britney Spears story, it is just a story). Tolstoy text is extremely biased, he seems to have a lot of problem to reckon any art that is not similar to his one, that is why his text is not usually a big reference on academic studies of Aesthetics and rather great to understand Tolstoy. 




> Tolstoy is not descrying the "interesting". Instead, he is differentiating it from the "artistic" or what Jcamilo and stluke might call the "aesthetic". I disagree with Tolstoy. I think the artistic or aesthetic merit of Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Einstein (or Churchill, or Shaw) is insuperable from the viewer's background knowledge of these public figures. Without our knowledge of Churchill's pugnacious nature, and his role in Britain's "finest hour", the famous portrait of Churchill would be less "aesthetically pleasing". Our prejudices inform our aesthetics. When stluke wrote, the opinions of others "will open us up to a broader perspective than our immediate uninformed taste" he is saying the same thing. Informed tastes are by their nature prejudiced tastes (not in a bad way, but nonetheless "informed" by "prior knowledge and judgement").


Do you mean decrying or descrying? I suppose it is decrying, which he is doing (he is saying this is false art and the oppposite is great art), because descrying does not make much sense here. Anyways, lets compare to your previous post: "Tolstoy thought "interestingness" was a form of "false art". In other words, historical novels may "fake it" by "interesting" their readers with the history parts, while failing with the actual artistic parts. That may be a reasonable critique, but (since you mention Dante) I always found the hellish torments of the famous sinners more interesting than those of the Florentine potentates about whom I had never heard before reading "Inferno". I would skim the parts about people I'd never heard of. "

You pretty much agree with Tolstoy (or what you say tolstoy describe as the interesting). You pretty says you prefer the parts of Inferno which you had a previous information. You jump the part with people which you have no reference. If you changed your opinion (and now, pictures of random people can be interesting, be them the paiting of a random XVI century noble or wedding pictures) and you agree with me or Stlukes, then it is fine. 




> If we see some grimy factory belching red fire and black smoke from its chimneys, we might think, "How ugly". But the child, who has not learned our prejudices, might say, "How beautiful! Just like a flower, bursting into bloom." Aesthetics cannot escape prejudices. We learn to like certain things, and dislike other things. Children dislike the taste of Bleu Cheese, or wine, delicious as they are to us. Only when we "inform" our tastes do we like fine wine, and dislike factory chimneys.


Yeah, but which prejudices are you talking about? Tolstoy for example, cannot and his definition of art is wonderfully applied to him, badly to Shakespeare or Fausts Goethe. 

And we have music. Aesthetic pleasure coming from music does not demand any previous information or developed taste. There is experiements where people played Beethoveen to african tribes and they, without any knowlede of european music, reacted favorably to him. It is not the only one. 




> Tolstoy thought the simplest, least prejudiced art was the best art. It is certainly the most universal art. But all art is dependent on "prior knowledge". Literature is worthless to those who cannot read.


tsc. That is like saying music is worthless to deaf people. That is not prior knowledge" is capacity to access art. A closed museum will not impress anyone.

And Tolstoy is simple, then you should have understood Tolstoy is anything but simple and not biased. 

here is his description of what literature as art should be: 

"In order to write poems a man of literary talent needs only these qualifications : to acquire the knack, conformably with the requirements of rhyme and rhythm, of using, instead of the one really suitable word, ten others meaning approximately the same; to learn how to take any phrase which, to be clear, has but one natural order of words, and despite all possible dislocations still to retain some sense in it; and lastly, to be able, guided by the words required for the rhymes, to devise some semblance of thoughts, feelings, or descriptions to suit these words. Having acquired these qualifications, he may unceasingly produce poems short or long, religious, amatory or patriotic, accord ing to the demand. 

If a man of literary talent wishes to write a story or novel, he need only form his style i.e. learn how to describe all that he sees and accustom himself to remember or note down details. When he has accustomed himself to this, he can, according to his inclination or the demand, unceasingly produce novels or stories historical, naturalistic, social, erotic, psychological, or even religious, for which latter kind a demand and fashion begins to show itself. He can take subjects from books or from the events 
of life, and can copy the characters of the people in his book from his acquaintances. 

And such novels and stories, if only they are decked out with well observed and carefully rioted details, preferably erotic ones, will be considered works of art, even though 
they may not contain a spark of feeling experienced. 

To produce art in dramatic form, a talented man, in addition to all that is required for novels and stories, must also learn to furnish his characters with as many smart 
and witty sentences as possible, must know how to utilise theatrical effects, and how to entwine the action of his characters so that there should not be any long conversa 
tions, but as much bustle and movement on the stage as possible. If the writer is able to do this, he may produce dramatic works one after another without stopping, selecting his subjects from the reports of the law courts, or from the latest society topic, such as hypnotism, heredity, etc., or from deep antiquity, or even from the realms of fancy."

That is anything but simple - he is not describing for example, Red Hiding Hood, in drama people who talk too much (a bit like Shakespeare) are out. We are talking about the man who wasnt exactly a great admirer of Dostoievisky (or was, certainly dislike the text) to go calling him simple or unbiased. He may have aimed at that, longed for that, but lets read Tolstoy as he was doing: approving Tolstoy.

----------


## stlukesguild

One more point about "Inferno". When Dante wrote about the eternal fate of those 13th century Florentine potentates whose fame has been lost in the mists of time, they WERE famous. Probably Dante's original readers were just as "interested" in them as I am of those whose fame has lasted these 8 centuries. So, from Dante's perspective, the 'interest' of his readers was a given.

I was thinking along these lines with regard to your post on Karsh's Einstein and Hemingway. A good many of the characters that populate Dante's _Comedia_ were well-known at the time... enough so that Dante could often allude to them without naming them outright. But the same was true of many of the sitters painted by the old masters. The historical figures of Lisa Gherardini and Baldasar Castiglione are certainly far less well-known today than the paintings of them by Leonardo and Raphael:

----------


## stlukesguild

Why do some artists/authors hated by the critics sell like hot cakes?
And why do some works of art despised during the lifetime of their artist/authors get famous postumously?

Some works of are are deemed to have breached the expectations as to what art is and as such they are initially rejected... even despised. Some of these works of art are recognized, over the passage of time... as the culture as a whole absorbs to innovations and visual language... to have been important, key works of the period. They are even admired... liked... loved. A painting like this was thought of as quite hideous... garish... shocking at the time:



Today it is generally recognized by art lovers as being stunningly beautiful.

At the same time... not all art that shocks is great. But many collectors and critics fear missing out on the discovery of the next great genius. As such, they often presume that if a work strikes them as vulgar or shocking... or just blatantly bad... then it MUST be great.

----------


## JCamilo

Well, collections are a matter of market. If the piece of paper where the first sonnet was written was found, would be worth a fortune, perhaps more than the piece of paper where Elizabeth Barrett wrote How do I love thee and yet, that wouldn't reflect the aesthetic vallue of both works (most likely).

----------


## Ecurb

I have no idea what it means "to avail an artwork", jcamilo. Nor do I know what you mean when you say stluke is "guided by aesthetic merit." Aesthetic merit is not an intrinsic quality of a painting or any work of art. It involves, by the nature of the words "aesthetic" or "beauty" a RESPONSE on the part of someone. My dictionary defines "beauty" as "that quality of objects, sounds, ideas, attitudes,etc. that pleases and gratifies as by their harmony, pattern, excellence or truth." 

Criticizing art without reference to the "pattern, harmony or truth" of its performance is overly personal. However, if the harmony, pattern, etc. doesn't "please or gratify" someone, it is not beautiful, and therefore has no aesthetic merit. The circle is endless.

As far as Tolstoy is concerned, he thinks "interestingness" may be meritorious -- but it's not artistic. He just wants to define "artistry" as something separate from "interestingness". I (on the other hand) think the artistic merit of Karsh's photos is inseparable (in part, at least) from our knowledge of Churchill or Einstein. I don't understand why you think I agree with Tolstoy (when I don't) or why you think you disagree with him (when, in this instance, you don't). 

Nor do I understand why you quote Tolstoy's bit about what it takes to be a novelist or a poet. In that section, Tolstoy is decrying (not, I'll grant, "descrying") the modern idea of what it takes to be a novelist or poet. He is mocking these modern ideals of how to produce art. He would prefer Little Red Riding Hood. Why are you quoting that section?

As usual, jcamilo, I have a hard time discussing things with you because I can't understand your position. As far as why I seem hostile toward you, it is because you seem to misunderstand and misrepresent my position -- constantly -- which I find annoying.

----------


## JCamilo

> I have no idea what it means "to avail an artwork", jcamilo. Nor do I know what you mean when you say stluke is "guided by aesthetic merit." Aesthetic merit is not an intrinsic quality of a painting or any work of art. It involves, by the nature of the words "aesthetic" or "beauty" a RESPONSE on the part of someone.


Really? That must be the motive why I meantion Stlukes or myself always when I mention the aesthetic approach to art. Right? You cannot even claim you couldn't understand this, as you mention in your answer above that i stabilish a relation between Someone (the fictional Stluke and the fictional artwork). I mean you hardly could miss that in the Picasso story there is such character (Stlukes) and in the Britney Spears there was me. 





> My dictionary defines "beauty" as "that quality of objects, sounds, ideas, attitudes,etc. that pleases and gratifies as by their harmony, pattern, excellence or truth." 
> 
> Criticizing art without reference to the "pattern, harmony or truth" of its performance is overly personal. However, if the harmony, pattern, etc. doesn't "please or gratify" someone, it is not beautiful, and therefore has no aesthetic merit. The circle is endless.


I do not care about your dictionary, but there must be an entry for pattern which will tell you that a pattern of a artwork is often an intrinsic trait of an artwork, objective and not subjective. Unless you believe that different readers will change the number of verses and chapters of the Divine Comedy and made the terza rima turn into free verse. Seriously, you must at least understand your own dictionary. 




> As far as Tolstoy is concerned, he thinks "interestingness" may be meritorious -- but it's not artistic. He just wants to define "artistry" as something separate from "interestingness".


You are calling merit when he calls it false, lacking excellence, not good? He obviously is talking and passing an analyse about art, if he pics traits that he wants to show as false, he not bringing any merit at all to those traits. It would be like someone passing a judgment if either eating a book is nutritive or not then saying "it was well written, but lacked proteines". 




> I (on the other hand) think the artistic merit of Karsh's photos is inseparable (in part, at least) from our knowledge of Churchill or Einstein. I don't understand why you think I agree with Tolstoy (when I don't) or why you think you disagree with him (when, in this instance, you don't).


Because you claimed to have only interest on Dante's characters that were know to him, which is the interest Tolstoy mentions and that you have no interest for those you do not know. It does not matter if Karsh Pictures are or not related to their famous models (which does not disprove that having no knowledge whatsoever about their fame would cause someone to not be moved by such pictures), what matter is what you claimed and what I answered about. (And I obviously disagree with Tolstoy, his whole point is how Interest is used as a fanservise and not artistic, the use of Virgil and Beatrice clearly show the integrity of Dante work. Of course, Tolstoy is not exactly a Dante super fan, which, curiously, also reflects your position here). 




> Nor do I understand why you quote Tolstoy's bit about what it takes to be a novelist or a poet. In that section, Tolstoy is decrying (not, I'll grant, "descrying") the modern idea of what it takes to be a novelist or poet. He is mocking these modern ideals of how to produce art. He would prefer Little Red Riding Hood. Why are you quoting that section?


You claimed he was not biased (the should in the line about the quote, should be shoudnt). You have a huge set of rules that excluded several authors or artworks based on theme or pure formalism. That is not an unbiased opinion, that is Count Tolstoy from the top of power, an elite author also an elite member of society, preaching. He is not aiming Red Hiding Hood at all, the pure art he proposes is not simple, but a moralism. What he demands from the writers or artist is geniality. Even his "false art" is a clear attack on burgousie art and art consumism, he does not accept professional writers at all. How is this unbiased or simple?

He would love you for trying to turn him in a saint, an ascetic, but he was not. 




> As usual, jcamilo, I have a hard time discussing things with you because I can't understand your position. As far as why I seem hostile toward you, it is because you seem to misunderstand and misrepresent my position -- constantly -- which I find annoying.


cool man, I am fine with that.

----------


## Ecurb

At least I'm in good company. Jcamilo doesn't understand me, and he doesn't understand Tolstoy.

----------


## Ecurb

> I was thinking along these lines with regard to your post on Karsh's Einstein and Hemingway. A good many of the characters that populate Dante's Comedia were well-known at the time... enough so that Dante could often allude to them without naming them outright. But the same was true of many of the sitters painted by the old masters. The historical figures of Lisa Gherardini and Baldasar Castiglione are certainly far less well-known today than the paintings of them by Leonardo and Raphael:


That's interesting, stluke. I love both paintings, but what we don't know is if they might have resonated for the Florentines who knew about the subjects even more than they do for us. 

By the way, I always read and like your posts, despite Jcamilos suggestions to the contrary.

----------

