ALL artists (I mean visual artists, painters and sculptors and such) make “things to look at.” You “look at” a Warhol or a Duchamp or a Pollack work, the same as you’d look at a Raphael or a Rembrandt or a Renoir. I think what Bub means is “Why aren’t paintings pretty anymore?”
Aesthetic value is its own justification, of course, but if all you want is a piece that looks nice and doesn’t clash with the sofa, there are plenty of people capable of giving you just that. That’s decoration, not art. And with the advent of photography, the quality of “looking like what it’s supposed to look like” was undermined because no painter can compete with a $5 disposable camera in that regard.
What’s left is expression and communication. What the artist is attempting to express may be an abstract concept or a concrete “message”, but it’s intended to provoke a response whether that response is emotional or intellectual.
Insisting that all paintings should be “pretty” is like insisting that all books should have happy endings. The reverse, insisting that NO paintings should be “pretty” (and I’ve heard some people claim that, or near enough) is like insisting that NO books should have happy endings.
fritzoid Premium Member about 13 years ago
ALL artists (I mean visual artists, painters and sculptors and such) make “things to look at.” You “look at” a Warhol or a Duchamp or a Pollack work, the same as you’d look at a Raphael or a Rembrandt or a Renoir. I think what Bub means is “Why aren’t paintings pretty anymore?”
Aesthetic value is its own justification, of course, but if all you want is a piece that looks nice and doesn’t clash with the sofa, there are plenty of people capable of giving you just that. That’s decoration, not art. And with the advent of photography, the quality of “looking like what it’s supposed to look like” was undermined because no painter can compete with a $5 disposable camera in that regard.
What’s left is expression and communication. What the artist is attempting to express may be an abstract concept or a concrete “message”, but it’s intended to provoke a response whether that response is emotional or intellectual.
Insisting that all paintings should be “pretty” is like insisting that all books should have happy endings. The reverse, insisting that NO paintings should be “pretty” (and I’ve heard some people claim that, or near enough) is like insisting that NO books should have happy endings.
Hunter7 about 13 years ago
That reminds me – our local art gallery has been showing the Surrealists Dali and such. I should go see it.