[Florya]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

on the other hand we should not discount the fact that some people have a natural flair for reading into and interpreting a work of art, and if they combine this with extensive learning of art history it is often interesting to hear their insights into a piece of work.

No they don't. All they have is their own personal opinion based on their individual perception. That's all anyone has. The only people that think they have this 'natural flair' are themselves, and that's an ego thing.

[Florya]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Well, Florya, you didn't meditate with
the paintings. "Meditate" was the operative word.

A room full of Rothko's is the last place that I would choose to meditate.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Florya

No they don't. All they have is their own personal opinion based on their individual perception. That's all anyone has. The only people that think they have this 'natural flair' are themselves, and that's an ego thing.

That's simply not true. A person who has studied the history of art is likely to have more to say about the value of a piece of art than someone who isn't aware of the traditions, influences and various other contexts that have helped make the artwork what it is. Equally, a practitioner might have a greater (and thus more valuable) insight into the processes passed in achieving the work. Knowledge can fuel the ego, but they aren't the same thing.

[Florya]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's simply not true. A person who has studied the history of art is likely to have more to say about the value of a piece of art than someone who isn't aware of the traditions, influences and various other contexts that have helped make the artwork what it is.

That's bollocks.
The history of art is irrelevant. An art historian knows no more about how 'good' or 'bad' an artwork is than you or I.
The only person that knows the traditions, influences and contexts that went into a work of art is the artist. Any thing else is just supposition and guesswork.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Florya

No they don't. All they have is their own personal opinion based on their individual perception. That's all anyone has. The only people that think they have this 'natural flair' are themselves, and that's an ego thing.

actually that is completely wrong. during my foundation year at art school i did a project that involved me giving my camera to friends from outside college for a day and having them take pictures with it of whatever they wanted (i don't think anyone took a picture of themself) i then showed the pictures each individual had taken to my classmates and asked them to describe what they imagined the photographer to be like, there were 3 people in my class of 40 who were consistently able to read into the pictures and give uncannily accurate and indepth estimation of the photographer's personality and life, there were other individuals who were completely incapable of making any kind of guesses as to what that person might be like. none of my classmates had met any of my friends outside of school at that point so there was no chance of them "cheating".

my own ability to interprate the work of others is a product of attending art school and not something i can do very well anyway, i don't have this natural ability to read art, others do, end of story.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Florya

That's bollocks.
The history of art is irrelevant.

Because of the difficulty in judging quality on a purely formal basis (and i don't agree with the idea of a universally great piece of art anyway), the strongest method is to judge work in relation to its place within the history of art. If an artist in 2007 comes out of their studio with a bunch of silkscreens of Marilyn Monroe, and everyone's telling him or her how great they are, then an art historian is gonna be very relevant when they say, 'yeah, sure, but...'

[Tokolosh]

A good read for anyone thinking about making a living as an artist.

Good Art = Business Art

Originally Posted by Florya

I accept that this is your opinion, but disagree with it in the strongest possible terms.

Sorry, but you are talking loads of nonsense.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

tokolosh, noone would ever suggest that artist should make art depending on audience's acceptance. thats manipulating and people more or less can realise this.

As far as I'm concerned, an artist should isolate him/herself in their studio and concentrate purely on their work. Nothing else.
Speculating about what the audience might/might not think of it afterwards, shouldn't even cross their minds.
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. You might be a brilliant painter, whatever-- If you can't promote yourself as an artist, your work will never see the light of day. Stop dreaming. If you don't at least have some sort of reputation, respect or close friends in the art world, you're doomed. End of story.

Getting back to Emin. She might be a crap artist to some, but she obviously knows how the art world operates and who she should and shouldn't mingle with. Her work lands up in important galleries, and gets sold.

[Florya]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

As far as I'm concerned, an artist should isolate him/herself in their studio and concentrate purely on their work. Nothing else.
Speculating about what the audience might/might not think of it afterwards, shouldn't even cross their minds.

At last!! Something I can agree with!

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. You might be a brilliant painter, whatever-- If you can't promote yourself as an artist, your work will never see the light of day. Stop dreaming. If you don't at least have some sort of reputation, respect or close friends in the art world, you're doomed. End of story.

Doomed? Surely that depends on the motivation of the artist?

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by Florya

[/b]Doomed? Surely that depends on the motivation of the artist?

Sure.

[Florya]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

actually that is completely wrong. during my foundation year at art school i did a project that involved me giving my camera to friends from outside college for a day and having them take pictures with it of whatever they wanted (i don't think anyone took a picture of themself) i then showed the pictures each individual had taken to my classmates and asked them to describe what they imagined the photographer to be like, there were 3 people in my class of 40 who were consistently able to read into the pictures and give uncannily accurate and indepth estimation of the photographer's personality and life, there were other individuals who were completely incapable of making any kind of guesses as to what that person might be like. none of my classmates had met any of my friends outside of school at that point so there was no chance of them "cheating".

my own ability to interprate the work of others is a product of attending art school and not something i can do very well anyway, i don't have this natural ability to read art, others do, end of story.

Oooh! Spooky! Could they also bend spoons with the power of their brains?

Why do you feel the need to interprate the work of others? What purpose does it serve? What makes you think that it's any of your business?

If you want to know the 'meaning' behind a work of art, ask the artist, not Brian Sewell.
"Ah, but what if the artist is dead?" I hear you cry.
Well in that case, you're stuffed. Unless the artist took the time to write down his motivation, emotions and life experiences relevant to each and every work he produced, you should accept that you will never know what they were.

And anyone who purports to know, for certain, the reasons why an artist produces a specific artwork without that information is a charlatan.

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

As far as I'm concerned, an artist should isolate him/herself in their studio and concentrate purely on their work. Nothing else.
Speculating about what the audience might/might not think of it afterwards, shouldn't even cross their minds.
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. You might be a brilliant painter, whatever-- If you can't promote yourself as an artist, your work will never see the light of day. Stop dreaming. If you don't at least have some sort of reputation, respect or close friends in the art world, you're doomed. End of story.

So I assume that you have never read any books about 'outsider art', or have you?

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

So I assume that you have never read any books about 'outsider art', or have you?

Yes. That's exactly what I was refering to. And?

[Florya]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

So I assume that you have never read any books about 'outsider art', or have you?

What the Hell are you talking about?!
And yes, I do know what outsider art is!

Outsider artists still manage to make a living without playing the conventional gallery game. There you go. And?

Originally Posted by Florya

What the Hell are you talking about?!
And yes, I do know what outsider art is!

Eh?

A little anedocte porky-style to explain why thinking that everything can be considered art is damaging to both the artist,the public and the student:


When I did volunteering as a music therapist, I used to also occasionally help out the patients with the artwork that was assigned by the person who was in charge of the visual side of things. Said person would make these human beings produce the worst artwork that you could possibly imagine, in the patronizing belief that they weren't capable of producing better things that would also boost their morale and confidence. Said person lacked in both technique, ideas and simple experience in improving the artistic skills of the patients whenever it was possible, which generally resulted in some of the worst drawings and sculpture that I have ever seen. Said person had also had very high opinion of themselves, which meant that they couldn't objectively judge the potential of a patient for producing some interesting work. Said person generally thought that a few scribbles on paper were the highest artistic achievement that they could get out of a potentially talented patient because, you know, everything is 'art'.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

i dont think anyone understand what i was trying to say, but its ok.
like i said, an artist should be able to create freely, as i see it, regardless if the choice is in an isolated enviroment or in the middle of the street.
however, the above paragraph, from a different point of view (not acceptance/opinion of audience) rises question: you believe that there havent been great artists who created with in mind how their work will stimulate the audience, visually, aesthetically, spiritually, politically or any other way? like a duel effect coming from a person's creation.

Sure there are artists who focus on what their public will think, and use that to their advantage. I just don't think it's nessessary to always approach it in that way. I'd also like to add that you'll need some recognition for that to work.

Originally Posted by Nefeli

the second part of your post, tokolosh is sort of contradictive? since an artist shouldnt care of anyone's opinion, there is no problem in being "doomed".
seriously, being "doomed" is part of the game, i want to believe that sooner or later real talents and their work will always surface.

That second bit of my post has nothing to do with the first part. What I meant to say is that there's no point in counting your chickens before they hatch. To get respect in the art world, you have to first work very hard and befriend the right people. Part of being a good artist is having the ability to convince an art collector to purchase the work. Let the buyer(gallery) decide who views it.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Outsider artists still manage to make a living without playing the conventional gallery game. There you go. And?

Same difference actually.