Acquired Taste Is More Refined

I never understood the fuss and fury over abstract art, Robert. It can be appreciated for its beauty alone without needing an explanation. The colors, the shapes, the forms, the composition, are just as valid in an abstract work as they are in a representational work.

When I was a teenager, I really didn't like any abstract art, but now that I understand the history a bit, there are tons of abstract images I would hang on my wall. I love the color field painters, for example, even though a lot of people say "my dog could paint that" when they look at the art....

I work both representational and abstract and I would say it's harder to do a mature abstract work without being cliche than it is to paint a good landscape.

Generally I abhor explanation, I'm not really looking to be told or instructed by visual art, I look at diagrams or read instructions for that. I want I see art that bring something other than the narrative or symbolism that inspired or caused its creation. Being initiated into some arcane symbolic idiom may hold eclectic appeal for those of an esoteric bent and I see no problem with artists exploiting that but they need to keep a certain distance from it, if they're successfully to exploit their talents in a way that appeals to my taste.

@ RJ - I think you're right. When I was painting, I could paint a really nice still life or interesting interior, or a portrait (wasn't into landscape painting) but the few abstracts I attempted were kind of, well, thrown out years ago ;-).

exploiting arcane symbolism? Mick your words are a force field to protect your ideas or lack of " getting it"

How good can something be if you have to acquire a taste for it?

I never had to acquire a taste for steak or lobster or sweet tea! It was good the very first time I tried it.

So John you would not venture into the world of stinky cheese or durian because it doesn't appeal to you" at first"?

No Robert. I may try something new...once. But if it didn't appeal to me I wouldn't try it again. That makes no sense to me.

If I want to "Acquire" or learn something, explore, it makes total sense to me.. Sweet tea, steak and lobster can be enjoyed by children before most anything

Do you think you could acquire a taste for rotting road kill?

I don't expect to get it about 80% of the time, it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone who is confident in their own agenda. That's not to say you should go around Blythely dismissing stuff you don't understand but if you have difficulty in admitting to yourself that your comprehension has limitations then you're never successfully expand it or exploit it.

thats not a refined delicacy now is it John? , thats a very loose association ...

When I was a child, I was taught to do Chinese calligraphy with brush and ink. There are much similarly with the brush strokes in Chinese ink painting/ calligraphy and abstract painting. Later when I study abstract painting in art college it was an easy transition.

Mick, I find exploiting to be cynical ...

exactly Alfred, it's all there like a good swordsmen

I "acquired" a taste for raw oysters after gingerly downing one the first Christmas Eve I spent with my in-laws. The fact that I actually forced myself to eat more than one at the next Christmas Eve lead to a greater appreciation of raw oysters in general, and now I love them.

I would not hang a Pollock drip painting in my home (not my style), but I've learned to appreciate his role in art history and do kind of like some of his work now. I used to hate it.

Excellent thoughts Robert. Although I still don't like stinky cheese or any cigars.

One of my favorite musical artists is Tangerine Dream. I liken much of their (well, really Edgar Froese's) music to abstract painting. Not everyone "gets" it. But those of us that do probably appreciate it far more than we do more obvious art.

I was once told that to ask what the best whiskey is, well, it's a silly question. The answer is easy. It's the one you enjoy the most.

Mary , I found with Pollock you really need to stand before the real thing and absorb it to get it...prints don't cut it...

That's probably very true, RJ. I've seen artwork in person that is spectacular but doesn't translate to print very well. I like "learning" to like art I didn't appreciate previously, because it feels good to expand what you are comfortable with and appreciate.

Robert I think that's true of many works of art. I didn't really care for Monet until I saw his work in an art museum.

"thats not a refined delicacy now is it John? , thats a very loose association ..."

There are a lot of foods in the world that are considered a delicacy Robert that have to be an acquired taste. Ever watch "bizarre Foods"? There are fish dishes that are buried in the earth for a month or two before being consumed. Cheese with maggots in it. I am sure I could list many dishes some call a delicacy that you would think is stretching it.

But if someone doesn't "get" you calling stinky cheese a delicacy why can't the same be said about you and the rotting fish dish?

Again, it all comes down to perception. You perceive stinky cheese as a delicacy that you need to acquire a taste for. I guess the same could be said for modern art. To some it is an acquired taste to "get" it. To others it is just rotting fish buried in the ground.

Surströmming (pronounced [sʉ̌ːʂtrœmːɪŋ], Swedish "soured (Baltic sea) herring" is fermented Baltic herring and is a staple of traditional northern Swedish cuisine. The Baltic herring, known as strömming in Swedish, is smaller than the Atlantic herring, found in the North Sea, and traditionally the definition of strömming (Baltic herring) is herring fished in the brackish waters of the Baltic north of the Kalmar Strait[1] The herring used for surströmming are caught just prior to spawning. The fermentation starts from a lactic acid enzyme in the spine of the fish, and so the fermentation is by autolysis; together with bacteria, pungent smelling acids are formed in the fish such as propionic acid, butyric acid and acetic acid. Hydrogen sulphide is also produced.

The salt raises the osmotic pressure of the brine above the zone where bacteria responsible for rotting (decomposition of proteins) can thrive and prevents decomposition of fish proteins into oligopeptides and amino acids. Instead the osmotic conditions enable Haloanaerobium bacteria to prosper and decompose the fish glycogen into organic acids, making it sour (acidic). Fermented fish is an old staple in European cuisines; for example the ancient Greeks and Romans made a famous sauce from fermented fish called garum[2] and Worcestershire Sauce also has a fermented fish ingredient.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming

John, you do realize what even "good smelling" cheese is, right?

Robert, I really (I mean, really really) can't grasp how anyone can equate the successful exploiting of an opportunity or resource as cynical, especially an artist, someone who should excel at exploiting their talents, materials, medium to their desired ends, I suppose that's where my comprehension finishes.

Yes John there are probably limits in certain cultures foods that would not appeal to me, BUT, I have been many places and tried many exotic food, from rotten beef, shrimp, Cobra blood, durian, snails, baby birds swallowed whole, raw meat, ... .I grew up in old world families, there was no pickiness allowed, no one catering to a bland diet, you had to try everything more than once because they knew you would learn to love it... I find it hard to believe that grown men never acquired the taste for stinky cheese...come on try it, wash it down with a heavy red and some stale crusty bread, have a GOOD cigar... you'll love it

exploit..
1to treat someone unfairly in order to get some benefit for yourself

2 to use a situation so that you get benefit from it, even if it is wrong or unfair to do this
We need to exploit every opportunity for media coverage.
A lot of advertisements just exploit our insecurities.
an investment designed to exploit a tax loophole

3.to use natural resources such as trees, water, or oil so that you gain as much as possible


Mick, giving you the benefit of the doubt, an "Expoit" is a heroic act

exploit:

1. make full use of and derive benefit from

Yes Mick it's a word with a couple of connotations, perhaps it has to do with which side of the pond you're on...

Clapping for your post Robert, but you won't convince the vox populi of much of anything, except maybe to have another Macwork of "art." I grew up a poor boy on a tiny farm in a very rural part of America. It is still rural by any standards. The list of "things" I eschewed at an early age would be long indeed. Foods, music, art, fashion. In short I was a rube of the first order. I dare say my penchant for "acquiring" new things has not abated since I went off to college, married my wife, and shook the sh__, er, dirt off of my work boots. Many an excellent work of art gets rejected out of hand by those who do not to see "what the fuss is." Still guilty myself some days, I am afraid. Yet my mind is open to looking and considering. I think that is half the battle. If nothing else TRYING to understand, learning about the art and artist at the very least gives one an educated platform from which to reject the art/artist.

Bravo Robert.

Thanks Kevin, I think when I was young there were elders I greatly respected who knew things and been places I hadn't, I wanted to understand what it was they knew.. I wanted to be a man of experience like them. I wanted to have tried things most middle class white boys would cringe at...Even as an adult when meeting someone more educated than myself I feel this desire to learn from them, I would be ashamed of myself to not be curious, to not have the honor of being taught... Can someone really discredit something without having indulged in it open minded? Who's bullshitting who then?

What it takes, to have an acquired taste, as in::"One that is unpleasant on immediate experience or is likeable only after being experienced repeatedly. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English ...", is ......... imagination......the spark that creates a taste for things mis-understood or unknown..........unless one is inquisitive as a natural bent, one can't go and refine their taste by experience............sometimes life puts a barrier up against experiencing things outside ones ken..........closed minds suffer nothing - they don't know what they're missing..............shaking the mud off is such a good analogy, Kevin...........but then, you've got the mind and talent to approach things new to you, same as Robert............'all's I know" is ... without innate curiosity plus without outside stimulation - the mind stagnates.
I'm still imagining, loving the 'new', refining my experiences, maybe even improving my 'taste'.
We're all violently agreeing with each other !
My John's father used to say, "you can't put out what you haven't got''...........

Yep, on the nose. I knew I was getting somewhere when my mother in law joked I was becoming a snob.

Well, there are those that are beyond explaining to RJ. I was so thrilled to see Michelangelo's "Dying slave" in the Louvre that I took several photos of it.

I came back and showed my mom the photos and her comment was "Boy, they don't cover up anything over there, do they" (of course referring to his private parts). I mean she was probably 75 at the time, which is certainly not too old to learn something, but how do you respond to something like that? I mean, I loved my mother, but as far as art is concerned, she was a totally lost cause.....

Thanks for that Vivian... Imagination! says it all...gives me goose bumps...

Yes Mary but I thought in this context perhaps it would wiggle some out of the mud... I wonder if those who so strongly reject modern art reject exotic foods and experiences ?
Kevin I make Penny nervous too when I start dissing TV and Hollywood as mostly crap..

Being a hardcore abstractionist, I don't find it to be an acquired taste...you either get it or you don't. People who don't like abstract art usually do not continue to expose themselves to it with an opened mind. I personally believe it is a more sophisticated sensibility....and when I discover one who truly appreciates, I am sure to let them know!

I disagree, Marlene. I hated abstract art when I was young (I mean through maybe my 20s), but I love most of it now. As I grew and was exposed to it, I grew to love a lot of it (not all, of course).

I don't find it an "either/or" proposition. Tastes change in everything over time if you're open to the experience.

Marlene in your own words
so·phis·ti·cat·ed [suh-fis-ti-key-tid]
adjective
1.(of a person, ideas, tastes, manners, etc.) altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise

sounds acquired if not just in art but "Sensibility"

just speaking from my experience of seeing people react to my art in public is all...and then the bizarre conversations they attempt to have with me about it! lol

Now, when it comes to food and you are exposed to it regularly, you either eat it or starve as a kid!

RJ, I wouldn't go with that definition...but that's just me. I think sophistication can be innate. One of my favorite clients was an uneducated southern farm iril...she came from a very small town and was never exposed to anything..she couldn't even speak proper english...but oh man, was her taste sophisticated! she could envision and create with the best interior designers I know!

Re:..AQUIRING TASTE

RJ, I think "acquired" is the operative word, don't you? Through exposure (excuse pun/photographers,lol) to the 'new', one can become sensitised, comfortable, like Mary says, with what was unintelligible initially. I'm experiencing new sensitivity to high key photography, at the moment.....based knowingly on my own (sophisticated,learn-ed) exposure to and choice of style through education,about Edward Weston, a pioneer. The combination of initial fear of my own shortcomings,and then finding his work, gives me affirmation, not to copy, to just 'do it'......another avenue of experience through an acquired taste.

When I was young and first exposed to Abstract Art I felt a gut reaction that left a huge gap in my perception to let the subconscious dance, I sensed everything from danger to total exposure..I didn't fully understand it but I so knew there was something there, something very mysterious, like if you could crack that nut you would discover the secret to the universe ..... I had already been exposed to everything from impressionism, french and american to Fauve to Ashcan so experiencing "Paint" as opposed to "The Picture" was not new... It still fascinates me, I wish I had the strength and confidence to really work in it..

Yes Vivian, Acquired does cover most of the bases but of course there are those like Marlene experience who are quicker studies than others... When I worked in Vineyards and we had countless acres of vines to prune each year, we were always training people to prune, we had a saying among the more experienced teaching pruning that goes," If they don't get it in the first 20 minutes, they'll never get"
you keeping learning Vivian , you're an inspiration and a joy to read

Thank you, R J, very much. And, without your threads, I'd be talking to myself only, lol........and 'thinking', of course....

RE: Aquired Aesthetic Tastes.

It is my belief, that our cultures have forced us in aquiring tastes in and for, Only that culture...If left alone, we would have all been more receptive to all the wonderful,amazing, beautiful and tasty stuff out there.

Roger, Yes there are those who would like to impose those restraints or doctrine and those who cling to them out of some tribal loyalties, but there will always be the individualist who rejects and is skeptical of the program, who is not left bitter and alone unable to enjoy in the popular but rather able to experience the more expanded joys of creation, to become so high and elated by good food, wine, coffee, art, literature,you name it, to be free to reject for discernment ..

I disagree with some of the points here. Like this one...." from Wiki
An acquired taste often refers to an appreciation for a food or beverage that is unlikely to be enjoyed by a person who has not had substantial exposure to it, usually because of some unfamiliar aspect of the food or beverage, including a strong or strange odor , or appearance.

You will never get me to acquire a taste for alot of foods with strong odors or tastes. I will not eat raw onions, too strong and overpowering for example. In fact, I won't eat a salad that has been prepped with the same knife that cut a raw onion and I can tell. I will eat cooked onions. I can't stand the smell and would never agree to taste strong cheeses but love milder ones. I wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a "Fear Factor" show!

""On a less serious note, as a supertaster, you'd have a tougher time winning "Fear Factor" and other shows involving "Eat this and win"-type challenges than non-tasters. "When I see a person win, I am confidant that they are not a supertaster," said Bartoshuk.""

http://www.livestrong.com/article/549953-are-your-taste-buds-superior/


Reading this article, I fit supertaster to a tee....does that make me more superior, should I view others as "less refined" who have a different set of taste buds? Maybe, but that seems rude somehow and I would suggest the same for opinions on different types of artwork. Not everyone likes the same thing. Not liking something should not define a person as being "less refined" in their aesthetics just because what you think they should appreciate....they don't.

I don't think that's what RJ is saying here, Melissa. I will never "acquire" a taste for liver, nor will I ever enjoy it, but I have acquired a taste for other things. Sure, there will always be things you don't like, but if you acquire a taste in food or art for something you didn't care for previously, it can give you a greater appreciation for that thing, than things you always liked without having to acquire the taste for it in the first place.

That was probably clear as mud.....

Melissa I didn't know you could disagree with a definition ... I am aloud to make value judgements,I'm not a people pleaser, also I said more refined not less refined

funny Mary!! clear as mud! No, liver will never be on my list either. Continually exposing a "supertaster" to certain foods is not going to make them "acquire any personal appreciation to "that" food. I think that same analogy could be used for art styles.

My point in reference to the article is I don't think it is always possible to "acquire" a taste for something just because you are exposed to it. That's seems to be a line of logic that I don't find logic in.........another clear as mud example.....

But I got it, Mary!!


and Melissa...and I love liver..it was the only thing I knew how to cook when I got married...long story.

Well, I agree with that, the more you expose me to liver the more I'm going to hate it. HOWEVER I used to hate brussels sprouts, but I've learned to enjoy them through different methods of cooking, etc.

Same thing with abstract art in general. There are several forms of it I didn't like previously, but after being exposed to it over and over and reading about it, I began to really enjoy a lot of it. I "acquired" a taste for it from exposure.

EDIT - Marlene you submitted while I was typing - you can have my share of liver LOL.

Mary, from your description, it wasn't just exposure to abstract art...it was making a commitment to find out more about it....always back to educating onself it seems.....
that said, with food, i could learn everything under the sun about okra and will never acquire a taste for it, slimy stuff that it is. lol

EDIT: I grew up on organ meats...liver, was just one of the many...can't bear to tell you the others....it was an ethnic thing and crazy unhealthy.

Ok, well, I'm with you on that one LOL....

I've read the posts, and have been thinking of a suitable response, and then I just read Melissa's (I read newest to oldest posts), and agree with her statement of "...Not liking something should not define a person as being "less refined" in their aesthetics just because what you think they should appreciate....they don't."


btw, my mother tried to get me to like liver (on several occasions) when I was a child, and now that I'm 60....I still don't like liver, and she's quit asking me to "acquire" a taste for it. ;)

HOLD ON HERE FOLKS!
liver is getting a bad rap....apologize right this minute or I'm serving it up!

sure, I can disagree with a definition from wiki if I want to!

Nothing like baby caves liver from from grass fed old fashion farms...mmmmm good..but. I acquired a taste for only plant based diet, not because I liked it but because it makes me feel good..
I think many are focussing on their limitations in this discussion as if that is what defines them as less refined...the one thing about arguing for your limitations is that you get to keep them...
How can one not say that with more knowledge of a subject matter, lets say cars for instance , that ones taste doesn't become more refined..

I think you are missing that my point is a person should not be considered either more refined or less refined because they don't quote "appreciate" the same art or the same food or the same literature or etc, etc as the next person. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't care how many brussel sprouts or onions you want to eat, I will not think less of you, lol.

I'm sorry the reader who devours romance novels and popular fiction taste is not as refined as the person who reads and is educated in classic poetry and literature...it's just the way it is...we are not all equal ..

Sometimes it's not what it is ,but how it's prepared:

I create digital art with CG. Can people consider my art as abstract art in general?

Philip, your work is kind of abstract to me. I can see them well through my lens. I mean they are very good to me. Great work. I think all I can create is something I want to see and something I can enjoy emotionally. All comes down to abstract art in my head. I don't have much thought about how people see my work when I create something.

"I'm sorry the reader who devours romance novels and popular fiction taste is not as refined as the person who reads and is educated in classic poetry and literature...it's just the way it is...we are not all equal .."



Geez, where in the hell did I leave that comic book I didn't finish? :)

Jason, I kinda suspect you're posing as at art snob for an ironic purpose, your response to Melissa was quite amusing, actually it was so amusing I nearly fell off the chair and consequently my typing might suffer more than its usually quota of aberration. In case I'm mistaken I'll try to allude to a point with an anecdote: I once knew a guy who tried to explain a Japanese poem to me, it took him nearly two days to explain three lines, after which time he gave up, telling I'll just have to learn the learn the language and spend two decades using it. I saw him later, he told that he'd had better luck with other people, I asked if his -success- at spreading enlightenment made him happy, he looked at me with a newly acquired sardonic expression and said, "Not really, now the fools think they can write them"

Acquired Taste is More Refined

Robert - I skimmed over posts when it came to "roadkill" and went straight to posting my own message...

When I read the thread title my first thoughts were of my grandfather's homemade wine. As a child, I helped him stomp grapes in the cellar. He had this unbelievable homemade press in that cellar with the only entrance being a trap door on the floor...but it was a lot of fun. I acquired a taste for it and drank it with him up till the day he went into the hospital and passed. In my adult days his wine was more like vinegar and I was the only grandkid willing to drink it... but, I had acquired a taste for it and the more we drank, the more refined it was!

Stinky cheese - love it. I remember being very young and eating my first raw oyster... never looked back and I can easily eat a couple dozen today. Same with escargot... fishing in a huge lake and eating raw salmon in the boat... now that's refined taste. ;)

I'll leave the rest to discuss "art" in all of it's various tastes and refinery...

Edit - Ohhh, did someone say baby calf liver? Yum.

Robert I believe this comes under the heading of: "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him like liver"

Or something like that. (I love liver, but I have "acquired" a taste for brussel sprouts)

Yes elitism belongs in art, always has, get use to it. If you'll read back to Vivian's post her source attributes imagination to those who are willing to acquire taste and I can't imagine that not transferring over to creative

Being "elite" or "more refined" doesn't make you RIGHT! (why is it people seem to use those definitions to describe what THEY like?)

What is the difference between acquiring a taste and talking yourself into liking something? Especially if by talking yourself into liking something you can then pretend to be "better" then the people that never talked them into liking it.

Again, I hold there is something to be said about the object you have to acquire a taste for. One does not have to acquire a taste for something that STARTS good.

Compare liver to a nice steak. Which of those two do most people have to acquire a taste for? Not to say that those that like liver don't like it once they acquire the taste. Just saying they had to make a conscious effort to like it. You rarely hear a kid say "Oh Boy! Liver for dinner tonight".

Modern art seems to be the liver and "traditional" paintings or landscape photographs seem to be the steak. People don't have to "get" the landscape. They see it, they connect with it, they like it. Modern art needs to be explained, needs to be understood, needs to be acquired. That doesn't mean modern art is better. That doesn't mean traditional art is less refined. It's just liver and steaks. Some people will NEVER like liver.

well I like escargot as well.....

It's like anything else. The more you learn, the more you know, the more you appreciate. Of course you still may not like things. I work in the translation industry. You have no idea how many really bad translations I've gotten from people who think because they are fluent in more than one language, they can be a good translator. It's the same with abstract art. I can appreciate it and enjoy it because I've studied it and gotten familiar with it, but I would never pretend I could be good at it myself, which makes me appreciate it even more....

Mary,

If I may use you as an example...

" I can appreciate it and enjoy it because I've studied it and gotten familiar with it"

Can you appreciate it now because you have taken the TIME to study it? By doing that, you became invested in it. Being invested in something makes it harder to admit "I still don't get it" because it could make you sound like you did something wrong? Nobody likes to admit we don't "get" something, especially after we have spent time trying to "get" it.

How much time is enough time to "get" something? Like the Japanese poem story from Mick above. Is not "getting" something the result of not enough time spent trying to understand or could it be there really is nothing there TO get?

If I say "I don't "get" modern art". What will some of the responses to that statement?

I am not sophisticated enough.
I haven't studied it enough.
I am clueless.
I don't have the depth to get it.


But maybe, just maybe, there is really nothing there TO get. Does anyone ever think that is a possibility?

i too agree that; " elitism belongs in art, always has, and we should get use to it."

In the late 20th century there was a reaction against the idea of "taste" as though it was no longer a relevant concept…
"Taste" is often associated with elitism and elitism is sometimes criticized for being undemocratic, or just ELITISM with a negative connotation...
But it is possible to distinguish between good and bad forms of elitism… surely there is nothing wrong with saying that there is an elite group called mathematicians who understand math far better than anyone else in our civilization… and similarly, there are people who understand Abstract Expressionism better than others because they have studied and/or work within the genre.

Although the word "elite" to some, does have that negative connotation, all it really means is a small group of specialists, and no one denies that there are such things… Elitism is only a problem only when certain groups are told that they cannot belong to the elite because of some innate or cultural characteristics, or are excluded for other reasons that are irrelevant to the skills required to belong to a true elite.

John, et al, ignorance doesn't make one "right" either, it merely means you are comfortable with your head in the sand.

@John, no, there are other forms of art I have studied that I now understand and I STILL don't like it. And I'm not saying I understand all forms of abstraction. There are forms of abstract art I have no clue about but I still like it. And there are forms of abstract are I formerly hated that I now really like because of exposure and study.

I'm secure in myself to say out loud to someone else "I don't like that particular artist's work, maybe I just don't understand it". But I like a lot of abstract art NOT because I'm afraid someone will think me unsophisticated if I say I still don't like it after studying it. I don't give one hoot what someone thinks of what I like and what I don't like. If they look down their noses at me, that their problem, not mine.

"John, et al, ignorance doesn't make one "right" either, it merely means you are comfortable with your head in the sand."

Should I add "my head is in the sand" to my list above?

Mary, what about work like "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano or "Fountain" by Duchamp or works by Eggleston.

Where you hear things like

" The photographs he produces sanctify the mundane while honoring and holding forever the inconsequential moment. This large, word-free collection contains some of his best old (1970s) and new photography. The idea that life, land, cars, small buildings, and clusters of people are assembled in bunches at random, in the accidental reality of a time and place, seen and framed and preserved by a photographer, helps all of us grasp the value of looking and trying to understand the world's visual chaos. When Eggleston photographs a '65 Buick that inexplicably ran up a concrete drainage wall only to be partially crushed and wedged under a highway overpass, we think, "That's amazing." But his expanded photo of the wreck through a wide-angle lens shows nearby bell-bottomed onlookers placed in no order with no apparent purpose but detached from the wreck by the onset of the immediate boredom common to the ordinary moment."

That is "liver" talk. Sounds like trying to convince someone there is something to "get" about a picture of a light fixture on a red ceiling.

It is art. No doubt.

The art of MARKETING!

Great stuff, thanks Ed for that explanation and everyone else here for their input...... To John and perhaps Mick I would say you are resistant .... It takes a lot of confidence to break out of our intimidation or feelings of incompetence when exploring the esoteric of modern art........Doubt becomes a brick wall... I for one love the high I get when overcoming intimidation

I wonder if anyone here (including me) really "Gets" why the Mona Lisa is considered so far superior to all the other portraits created at that time.

I understand it's something about the smile.

John the works (artists) you mentioned, I will refrain from labeling them "great works of art" I will leave that to the art history experts. And they have spoken by the way. But I will say after much study of Duchamp and Serrano I came to appreciate their work as artists. Serrano is much maligned mostly because of the title of his work Piss Christ where the ultra religious and the righties jumped on the band wagon to name him irreligious. One could say the same about Chris Ofili and his Virgin Mary, which I find quite inspiring.

I am sure you are very right in your rightness but it seems to me your arguments just bolster Roberts original points.

John, I stepped out to work on a day-job document that is driving me crazy, so I'm back briefly before going back to it. The "blurb" you posted, to me, is just utter nonsense. It verges on "art speak". I derive my enjoyment and appreciation of all art, including abstract art based on style, line, composition, color, balance, emotional reaction etc. - you know, the traditional stuff. And if there is an interesting story or history behind the art or a stated purpose by the artist, that just adds to the enjoyment. I DO NOT, however, read art critic "art speak". It's usually total crap.

And there's certainly a huge range of art between piss Christ (which really isn't abstract), and other art that is non representational that can be appreciated without "liking" all, or or even most of it.

Roger, I do recall Vasari's enthusiasm for the work while it was still intact, today what remains of La Gioconda (Mona Lisa) is no more than a relic of that painting but it's an important relic, it's value is more a product of the cultural significance it's accrued, that's no bad thing as long you're not witless enough to forget that. If someone is unfortunate to be afflicted with the notion that the extant work is of the most supreme aesthetic value then they're labouring under acquired expectations, which i think is the prevalent theme in this discussion.

Those who have brought up the importance of "elitism" in art, is it in reference to the work itself being "elite" or more the attitude of some of those in the art scene?

Good points everyone, and I tend to align myself with John's statements more so than the other ones. However, I think it does it a disservice to label people as elite, non-elite, refined, or unrefined just because they do not care for what others may. Maybe, they're just people who like what they like, and dislike what they dislike, and don't need labels to "belong".

By the way, what is not an acquired taste in art? I think that art is nothing but acquired taste. If it is not, it is not art to me.

Right on Mick, I surely do have high expectations, always did, acquired? sure as in cultivated and purposely developed , absolutely ... is there a problem with that?

Tiny, elite as in any field or sport, the ones at the top... their attitudes is our own perception

Greg, discernment fortunately requires you to make value judgements, with your personal taste on the sidelines..

"John, I stepped out to work on a day-job document that is driving me crazy, so I'm back briefly before going back to it. The "blurb" you posted, to me, is just utter nonsense. It verges on "art speak". I derive my enjoyment and appreciation of all art, including abstract art based on style, line, composition, color, balance, emotional reaction etc. - you know, the traditional stuff."

Have fun with work!

What you said Mary makes sense to me. If someone were to say "I like this abstract work because of the pretty colors" then they are SAYING something. They don't try to explain why I should like it. When someone uses the "art speak" it makes me think THEY think they are a member of the art elite. That they "get" it and I don't. They spew nonsense either to hope people agree with them or, perhaps, to confuse them and make themselves feel superior because they can use bi words instead of saying "I like the pretty colors".

But what is WRONG with liking the pretty colors. If that is the ONLY reason someone likes, say, a Pollock work. Not because he is famous. Not because of the raw emotion in his work. Not because of the blah, blah, blah. Just the pretty colors!

I guess it is hard to look down your nose at others if everyone likes the pretty colors.

John, forgive me getting personal but a recurring theme in your "inner speak'' that I keep hearing is that there is this world of artistic literary snobs who are full of shit and their soul purpose is to make you feel incompetent by looking down their noses at you... I understand exactly how you feel, there definitely is that haughtiness to it...but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

I love pretty colours

LOL, Abbie.

I'm still working. I want to get done with this dreadful document and look at pretty colors......

Philip,

You wrote..."The Mona Lisa is an example of exactly not acquired taste and is more an example of popular taste."

I ask,.."How did that popular taste come about?"

If we here, had no clue of the "Mona Lisa" and "Ginevra de' Benci", and the 2 paintings were presented to us, which one do you think most of us would choose as their favorite?

I imagine ,if we were asked which one we felt was the most significant, most would choose the Mona Lisa and then go find the reasons why.

Abbie,
You spelled color wrong!


Robert,
Yes, it seems I am throwing the baby out but I do not like the nose in the air art crowd. That has been most of what I have written was directed at. Unfortunately, they are out there.



Good question Roger, where does popular taste come from? Along those lines one could ask, why are sunsets considered pretty? I think it gets back to what I said way up there. Some things you don't have to acquire a taste for, like steak. I would say then that popular taste is the steak of the art world.

"SUBSTANTIAL EXPOSURE",

That is all that is required to acquire a taste or distaste for anything....And if one keeps one's mouth shut or has blinders on , acquisition is impossible.

John my point is there is more to it, take small steps don't run right to Piss Christ and say "See! it's ALL bull shit.... Say before you get to Picasso try Modigliani or before abstract expressionism try Ashcan.. That is if you want to learn, read Tom Wolfs The Painted Word.. He explains and exposes the bullshit in 20th Century Modern Art, his wit is so sharp it makes learning the history of who's who and what was their schtick a hilarious read..

Please enough with the food analogy, we all don't eat steak/meat and still can appreciate the variety of edible things available that physically nourish us and give pleasure to the senses…
Art on the other hand, that like "Piss Christ", unlike edibles can be poison to one viewer and still give intellectual nourishment to another…

"Piss Christ" is described as being a plastic Crucifix in a jar/bottle of the artist's urine and, by some, as being "the most deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity produced by an American artist".
Serrano may have intended only to create a sensational piece to infuriate/Piss Off Christians, and rather successfully so since 1987, but looked at and examined from another perspective/context the piece may just contain a message for Christians which they could tune into, and, instead of being controversial, Piss Christ could become instructional...

Ok, RJ, I'm a book hoarder and I just went and ordered that book. That means I have to get rid of at least three more....the piles are deep here.

It's not very thick Mary, it won't take up that much room..

Robert, I would agree that to be "elite", is to be amongst the best of your craft, whatever that may be. Even the Army has it's "elite" squads in the Seals.

I would say however, that the word "elitist", as used earlier in the thread, carries a very different connotation and meaning.

No?

Robert, "...is there a problem..." dunno really, I don't have those kind of answers. I've think I've already highlighted where the potential hazards lie: esoteric and parochial fixation. My concern is that your comments make you appear un self aware, which is I why I though briefly, you might be joking. You're not alone, I see a lack of ability to draw -quite important- distinctions amongst other comments, acquired becomes confused with eclectic, in turn exclusive is confused with refined. That inability would seem to me to be crippling for an artist with ambition for meaningful expression but not necessarily pose a problem if you're happy that way, I'll resist the temptation to slip into proverb. I suppose we have own notions in mind when consider what "refined" means, for me in this context it means the ability to discriminate reliably with a positive outcome, while I understand the allure of the notion that arbitrary evaluations based on exclusivity hold for an elitist outlook, for me it represents the absolute antithesis of refinement. I regard it in the same manner I would things like: a wealthy teenager buying Ferrari he can't drive, a drug dealer buying a really big gold chain or a cannibal putting a rare bone through his nose.

RJ,Philip,et al...........I just read this very interesting treatise about Tom Wolf's book The Painted Word...........can't wait to order the book, me,too,Mary..........the article I highlight here is extremely interesting - it touches on that very elitism generated by collectors whose choices literally influence the peoples' choices....etc etc...........a great read. Especially for those unfamiliar with history of art, abstraction,erudition vs "my kid could paint that"..........and more............tell me what you think when you've read it, if you read it,lol, Cheers,V. To read it, google "The Painted Word" and scroll down to this Review ........am so stupid about sharing links...sorry.

PDF]
A Review of The Painted Word - Mathis, Miles Williams

mileswmathis.com/wolfe.pdf‎

It only took me about 20 years to figure it out, but I think I have finally penetrated what Tom Wolfe was up to in writing The Painted Word in 1975. Like most other ...

Mick, a lot of what I'm saying is a joke in a way..and in a way it's not...My communication style on these threads has always been to provoke and bait to flush out belief systems and put them on the table..I don't believe anyone has proposed that we should make in your words" arbitrary evaluations based on exclusivity"..

Tiny, I think there is too much emphasis on personal perception of elitist disregard and haughtiness, you get that in any Image related field..it just is..my point is so what...don't let it restrict you...

TBN,

The SEALs (all caps) are in the U.S. Navy. ;)

So Greg, you're perfectly comfortable with the Military elite? You never noticed how arrogant they can be with their status? how exclusive ?

Give it a rest, Robert. I was just telling TBN about which branch of the military the SEALs are in.

I think there is a difference between acquired taste and acquired appreciation. But either way I find it puzzling how angry people get over different opinions in art. People are fine with the non-stinky cheese and cigar difference, but in art everyone always feels there has to be a right and wrong opinion.

Each side always points out the offenders in the other sides artists; The cliches. Neither side can defend the worst of the cases in their ranks, so the dismissing out of hand continues.
--mary ellen anderson

Why Greg? I think it's a good question

Mary I don't get that anyone is angry here..It's just juicy conversation as far as I can tell

Edit: upon rereading, it occurred to me that some don't get a New York sense of humor

maybe you should type a smiley face

lol @ Melissa

;o)

It's 5:00 AM.
RE: Acquiring taste


Waking up to the realization that:

There is a distinct difference between WHY & HOW

All the "Book Learn'n" will explain Why a work of art has the status it has...

The only way How to truly acquire a Taste is to live and breath that work.

One must sit in front of a Rothko, Matisse, Monet. to know how tasty they are.. With All of one's senses alive and receptive to let it all sink in.

One must be there looking up at David to have any inkling as to it's magnificence, or any other adjective one decides to ascribe.

One has to stand, along side Vela'squez, to be transported back to the 17th century Spain.

One has to go through a one man show of Toulouse-Lautrec at MOMA, to see everyone on 52nd st. as characters from the Molin Rouge, upon leaving that show.

One has to be surrounded by the slashing paintings of Franz Kline, to have one's body ache, as Kline's certainly did.

And if one does not have the honor to personally, live, breath, smell and taste, Mr. Hacunda's paintings, as I was fortunate to do, one does not truly know RJ and the sensitive beauty of the work he creates.

Edit: upon rereading, it occurred to me that some don't get a New York sense of humor

and there, in a nutshell is the reason why you have to be respectful to each other when typing in an international forum. Also why not everyone agrees on what art is, if we need art history lessons, and if modern art is more understood after acquiring said lessons.

We all have different attitudes, many based on where, and how, we were brought up. Thankfully we are all different and, thankfully, do not all know everything. Only what our own existence has taught us.

Is art as a whole an acquired taste.... I personally believe a strong yes. But, I may well be wrong

Good morning or good evening to some of our international artists. What I am about to say may seem off point but it is not.

I once had a relative who wanted to drop out of high school, citing that education was not for him. I related a story of a friend from college. My friend's father insisted each of his children finish college. My friend told me all he ever wanted to do was build houses. He finished his degree at a top notch university then went on to become a very good... home builder. See? sez my relative, your friend did not need college to do what he wanted. No, I responded, he is a good home builder BUT he is AN EDUCATED home builder.

New York Humor… stop me if you heard this one;

Two @zz#*$% artists walk into this ^#%$!&# bar…

Ed, about 15 years ago I was walking around the Quarter in New Orleans. I spied a bar, The Painters Palette and thought to my self, well that is the place for an early morning pick me up. It turns out the Palette was a strip joint and it was full of Russian sailors and no stripper (on break). It goes to show that just because you call yourself an artist doesn't mean you won't have to get naked for money.

ED! Ha!
Youse guys %&*#@ slay me!

RJ, congratulations on one of the only threads in recent years that have been exciting to read.
If only we could figure out how to manage a few more.....

"John my point is there is more to it, take small steps don't run right to Piss Christ and say "See! it's ALL bull shit.... Say before you get to Picasso try Modigliani or before abstract expressionism try Ashcan.. That is if you want to learn, read Tom Wolfs The Painted Word.. He explains and exposes the bullshit in 20th Century Modern Art, his wit is so sharp it makes learning the history of who's who and what was their schtick a hilarious read.. "

Why Robert? Why should I make an effort? Really. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things I COULD learn more about. Motorcycles, cat breeding, stamp collecting, knitting, gardening, classical music, cooking, etc. Why isn't anyone saying "you should learn about these things"? Do artist have to study and "get" ALL art? Why? Who says? Art history was one of the most boring classes I had in college.

I never said it was ALL bullshit, only the things I think are bullshit I think are bullshit. I am not going to "get" Eggleston because I don't think there is anything to get. The only thing I will see in abstract art is the pretty colors (which is enough to me). I will never "get" Picasso and I have no desire to. I also have no desire to learn how to sew. What is the difference? Is it OK for me to have no desire to sew but something is wrong because I don't want to "study" Picasso?

I admit when I look at some art my bullshit radar goes off. In a way I admire the way the artist was able to convince people it is valuable work. That art of marketing is more impressive then the art itself. But I am not buying what they are selling.

I maintain that if you have to study and listen to "get" art there isn't really anything there to get. Especially not for me. I know what I like. Again, nobody told had to teach me to like steak.

Thanks Greg! I should have know that about the Navy having the SEALS.

-------------------------------------------

which means that nobody else has to make an effort either to take you seriously when you're talking about art and what you think is "bullshit" or not, and instead simply see your opinion for what it is: willful ignorance disguised as "having a bullshit radar".


WOW! At it again Philip? Good to know it is not just me you feel that way about. :)

We have these "What is ART", "ART Elite" threads on the forum about once every few months for so and it is the same members who start them and/or join in.

I am starting to get the impression that a certain portion of the FAA membership wants to keep reminding us peons, where we fit in the grand scheme.

Philip you do understand that your opinion about my opinion is just your opinion. You can like any art you want to. I would not say nobody has to make an effort to take you seriously because you like a certain artist. Why would you think that because I don't like somebody?

How much "effort" would be enough effort for you to take me seriously then? Is any effort that results in me not liking an artist not enough effort in your opinion? If I spend two weeks studying an artist and still decide I don't like it does that mean I didn't put in enough effort? Can I just look at a work and know it is crap (to me)?

See, you don't know how much effort I put into Eggleston or Picasso do you? You are assuming, I presume, that I have put little into it simply because I said it was bullshit (especially Eggleston). You seem to think if someone doesn't like it, they just haven't studied it enough. never thinking for a moment that it COULD be just bullshit and the artist was playing with the "art speak" idiots.

as i watch the beginning of the end of this thread i just want to thank Marlene for putting the jinx on this one:... lol

"RJ, congratulations on one of the only threads in recent years that have been exciting to read. If only we could figure out how to manage a few more..... RJ, congratulations on one of the only threads in recent years that have been exciting to read. If only we could figure out how to manage a few more....."

Ahem...

in·cor·ri·gi·ble
inˈkôrijəbəl,-ˈkär-/
adjective
adjective: incorrigible

1.
(of a person or their tendencies) not able to be corrected, improved, or reformed.
"she's an incorrigible flirt"
synonyms: inveterate, habitual, confirmed, hardened, dyed-in-the-wool, incurable, chronic, irredeemable, hopeless, beyond hope; More
impenitent, unrepentant, unapologetic, unashamed;
bad, naughty, terrible
"an incorrigible flirt"
antonyms: repentant

noun
noun: incorrigible; plural noun: incorrigibles

1.
an incorrigible person.

"Piss Christ" is described as being a plastic Crucifix in a jar/bottle of the artist's urine and, by some, as being "the most deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity produced by an American artist".
Serrano may have intended only to create a sensational piece to infuriate/Piss Off Christians, and rather successfully so since 1987, but looked at and examined from another perspective/context the piece may just contain a message for Christians which they could tune into, and, instead of being controversial, Piss Christ could become instructional...

Ed, Are you serious? Instructional? Come on. How does this sort of thing keep getting included in posts on FAA forum?

"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." — Anon (repeated over and over)

" if you actually had made an effort in understanding and learning more about Eggleston you would know that your issue with Eggleston ( "I am not going to "get" Eggleston because I don't think there is anything to get" ) is exactly what characterizes Eggleston's work and intention, because it's mainly formal and not conceptual ( even though the subject of Eggleston's body work is the American South ) and Eggleston himself implied that there's nothing more behind his work other than the act of observation and perception itself, through the use of color etc.. "


Blah, blah, blah Philip.

You just don't seem to get it. You can't TALK something into being art. Art is subjective. That is hard to deny. Just because YOU think there is something there, that doesn't make it so.


Let me try to use an example to explain.

How much talking would I need to do for you to "get" why a juicy medium-rare steak is a work of art?

How much talking would I need to do for you to "get" why a juicy medium-rare steak is a work of art?

@ John,

And tastes oh so good too!! :)

You guys are great, all of you, even those who are resistant I applaud you for being brave enough to stick your necks out..
I'm not the most knowledgable on Modern Art here but I've found the more I put my personal taste aside the more I am open to learning.
Only on cell phone right now but will try and add more later

If this is the "Eggleston" you are talking about, then no, "I" would not consider it good art.

http://www.artnet.com/artists/william-eggleston/near-jackson-mississippi-RviVF_uwtyuOGXxZZiPGYA2

http://www.artnet.com/artists/william-eggleston/untitled-hot-springs-arkansas-o8iV7KRaM342_UuiARbzIQ2

http://www.artnet.com/artists/william-eggleston/untitled-greenwood-mississippi-jBQs40-7W5wmSQv3zBpy6Q2

John as stated in opening and restated by Roger "substantial exposure" . Can you guys see that the very topic triggers resistance ? How can you learn if not open to it and how can you be open when resistant ?

Robert,

No amount of exposure or less resistance is going to change my mind when it comes to that lightbulb on the ceiling. In some persons minds that may be art, so in that case it is art. That does not mean I am going to appreciate it for anything more than a horribly shot image of a lightbulb on a ceiling.

I do not need an art degree in order to appreciate or not appreciate a piece of work.

Learn what? How to change my point of view to reflect the views of others, who consider themselves "better educated"?

"Ed, Are you serious? Instructional? Come on. How does this sort of thing keep getting included in posts on FAA forum? "

Here you go again... your last few post are typical of your attempts to sabotage a thread that seems to be having some intellectual stimulus...


Tiny, art is an interpretive exercise… so yes, instructional because once an artwork is finished by the artist… the viewer picks up the mantel of defining the work… here is an example as expressed by a devout practicing Catholic who looked at the work and came away with this...

"The purpose of the Cross, and Christ's Suffering, was to redeem us from our sins, to pay the price that we could not. What is it that transforms the Wood of the Cross (invoking the wood of Noah's Ark which saved the righteous from the flood waters of the world) into the cheap plastic cross of today's culture? When we ourselvescheapen the price Christ paid for our sins, because we, as Christians, know what that price was and, instead of worshipping the Cross, we steep Our Savior in the filth of our sins, again and again. Whereas we have been cleansed of sin through Baptism, "urine"--as an anti-thesis to the symbol of spiritual cleansing--is the willingness we have to wallow in the ways of the world instead of following the narrow path which we profess to believe and hold as True. Piss Christ isn't a work about Jesus, rather, it's a work about Jesus' followers, me and you, and Serrano calls to our mind an important lesson we tend to (easily) forget.

If I chose sin over Christ, then I have "pissed on Christ," and I have transformed the wood of the Cross into the throw-away, cheap plastic of a world condemned by its own appetites and I have knowingly rejected the Path of Salvation and chosen the path of damnation, hell over heaven. Piss Christ is my doing, no one else's, and I have to take responsibility before God every second of my life and at the Hour of Judgement, however, therein is the irony of the piece and the inherent victory it contains!"

Abby, to me this is art related and i promise not to continue any kind of religious debate,,, thanks for your indulgence, Ed

LOL Philip.

That is a pretty broad statement you make there.

I would consider myself quite intellectual when it comes to literature and mathematics. (not so much science, but then I do not find all "science" to be that intellectual).

I would not consider myself to be intellectual when it comes to art, but then I don't think one needs to be in order to personally appreciate or not appreciate a piece of work.

I would not deride education, but I would suggest that one does not need a degree in art in order to decide what they like or do not like when it comes to art.

@ ED,

Thank you for posting that (although I would remove it and send it to me privately, or Abbie may not like that too much)

I had no idea that was ever written about that piece. Is that from the artist, or from a 3rd party interpretation?

I am not trying to sabotage any thread Ed. My comments have been directly related to others here.

EDIT - thing is Ed, you have brought "Piss Christ" into quite a few threads in the forum over the past year or more and one might conclude that you are trying to push buttons by continuing to bring up that example. I apologize if it was misinterpreted this time around.

I agree with you there Philip, although you did not see me write any of those comments.

Discussing a piece of art "technically" and being able to understand it, is very different to "liking" it. I can also see where understanding a piece technically, may lead one to "like" or "appreciate" something that someone who did not understand may brush off.

Tiny that was not written by the artist but by a third party and as i say, a member of the Catholic Church...

Sorry Ed,

Missed the Catholic Priest part.

It is amazing that a piece of art, which may have been originally meant as offensive, could be taken in such a way by the very person who should have been offended.

There is a good lesson in that.

Thanks Ed.

Yes it is anti intellectualism Philip a plague I see way to much of in America, a plague that is being fostered and pandered to

dealt with :)

Tiny I have edited that out since I see the tone had drastically change, my apologize and thank you for participating, honestly

Robert,

I will admit when I misread something or am wrong about something.

I mistook Ed's original post of "Piss Christ" based on past experience (which I should not do). I am actually quite grateful now for Ed's second post.

Tiny, that willingness to understand another point of view is what a good discussion is about, thanks again

Robert,

I have learned over time that "understanding" another persons point of view, does not equate to "accepting" and/or "applying" that point of view personally.

There are many things I can "understand", as this simply requires listening.. However, "acceptance" of a point of view is based on so many different variables. (upbringing, religious belief or unbelief, culture, etc....)

Where it crosses the line for me is when people try to force another individual to "accept" and "apply" THEIR point of view.

"Understanding" each other and discussing differences is what debate/discussion is for me. It ceases to be a debate when we force "acceptance".


EDIT - I have also learned that someone can be very forceful in their opinions and arguments presented in a discussion. However when this happens, others can tend to take that as the individual with the strong opinion trying to "force" them to change or accept. This is not always the case at all and that interpretation becomes the fault of the reader/listener who has not understood what debate is.

Re....Resistance

First, I wonder how many here are resistant to a good joke.( this is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.)

If I upset anyone in what I've said...In the vernacular I'm accustomed to:



Now seriously:

"Resistance" is a Good thing. Especially in Art

The constant Action and Reaction..

We wouldn't have that , Going into the fire, Coming out of the Fire, Hammering out, Dumping in cold water, Going back into the Fire, repeating that process over and over again..That's how steel and viability of Great Art is made..

Yes Roger I would call that tension and tension is the juice , I use the word resistance in a different context, that of close minded

Let's introduce the concept of -mystery-, no I'm not referring to the exploits of Ellery Queen, rather the subject of mysticism for example: "That wafer you just ate is the flesh of your saviour".

"What!"

"Yeah it literally turns into flesh in your belly".

"How is that possible?".

"Ah well you see--it's a mystery and you need have faith to understand".

Right, that's the ban inducing material over now I'll explain: mystery in this context alludes to the concept of ideas, precepts or creed that conform to two criteria:

1. They are the subject of artifice, meaning they are contrived.

2. They are deliberately conceived to be arcane, subject exclusively to the induction of received knowledge.

Mysticism is not intrinsically harmful, however to the uninitiated there is a unfortunate hazard, because mysteries are deliberately arcane it's possible to mistakenly regard the knowledge needed to understand them as wisdom. Mystics who exploit this hazard, those who pose as -intellectuals- are people we can regard as charlatans and hypocrites. Now just because there are lot of hypocrites around doesn't mean to say that all mystics are worthless, indeed, this concept of mystery plays an important role in cultural life. It's further complicated by the fact it's not easy to distinguish an intellectual endeavour from a mystical one, that's the reason we call 'em intellectuals, because they're smarter than us, they know things we know things we don't understand, things that seem to be a -mystery- to us.

stephen, first and foremost we must accept a person's right to have an opinion other than your own...it's not about accepting the specifics of said opinion.
from that first acceptance, good discussion and debate can grow.
that said,
when a person comes in with their version of truth (their opinion) as THE only way, they are;
1. wrong
2. not looking for discussion, but for admiration for their brilliance
3. garnering well deserved negative reactions.

Mick, we must have had different catechisms. As there is a huge difference between literally and metaphorically. If your priest taught you "literal" you should look up the good father and give him a great bash in the catechism.

@ Marlene,

I think that is what I said, only in a LOT more words (I have never learned the art of point-form) unless I am missing something?

I agree with you.

Interesting idea Mick other than one fatal flaw... Modern Art and is not contrived, there is structure, history, theory and so on just like modern literature, music, theatre, dance and film

Do we have to use "religious" examples? This is not meant to be whining at all, so do not take it so.

When the word "contrived" is used like that in conjunction with ones religious rites and/or rituals, it IS offensive. (not just taken as offensive - and I am not Catholic). And I truly believe that words like that used in relation to any religious belief, would garner the same reaction. (rightly so)

On a forum like this, where religious discussion is not allowed, it does not seem right to use words, along with examples of a religious nature, when discussion about it can't ensue?

Just a thought.

Tiny I think we will work past this, my reaction to the word contrived in conjunction with intellectual was also offensive but the point is made as an example to illustrate mysticism

I am past it Robert.... was never really not past it actually.

I just think in a forum where religion and politics are banned for discussion, the use of religious or political "examples" (as you say), do not help to keep a conversation on topic, unheated, or away from banned discussion.

There must be other examples we can all use to argue our points.

That is all I will say on it. :)

That's interesting Kevin, however I think I've pushed the boundaries of the rules as far as I care in this instance.

Mick would say you are anti intellectual?

For me, art is not intellectual because I have never been formally trained in art. That being said, I think that my experience in art over the past several years has brought me to a level of understanding, higher than one who walks into a gallery for the first time. I have learned to appreciate some technical aspects to a piece of art, even if it is something one would say is ugly and walk away.

-----------------------------------------------

That is not true. I am not against "intellectualism". I am for fairness in a forum where there are very strict rules regarding what can / can't be discussed.

I am also for being "realistic". There is no point in using examples that can't be fully discussed, without earning a vacation from the forum

I think he got it Tiny, he may be new to this, I asked Mick if he was anti intellectual not you

oh. :)

sorry.

EDIT - i wish the FAA threads had quote buttons.

yes, Stephen, I recapped for the sake of the listening audience and then went on.....

Thank you, gentlemen. Nicely surprised how that went.

No more religion

@ Marlene,

There are times when I need to be "recapped". I tend to use far too many words to explain a point.

Robert,

Based on the posts I have read from Mick in other threads, I would say he is far from anti-intellectual. (just my opinion on what I have read, I will let Mick answer on his own behalf though)

There are times when I wonder if he has a thesaurus handy at all times, as I have to go to the dictionary/thesaurus whenever I want to fully understand one of his posts.

Robert, depends how you define -anti-intellectual-, it's not that I don't revere smart people, it's just that most people are um...

The other thing is that even people who aren't um... are evidently more capable when they're in touch with their intuitive skills, that especially true with a artistic endeavour and by that I mean any thing involves a material outcome, not just decorative art, so I'm including:engineers, architects, builders, plumbers, and tree surgeons. Since I don't place any value self assessment in regard to such labels, I'm happy to live with your assessment.

stephen: think succinct

"You wouldn't have to do any talking at all, since your example has absolutely nothing to do with art and the definition of art and isn't relevant to any discussion about art."

Art doesn't matter Philip, it is about TASTE and that applies to art as well as food.


I will just answer the question for you since you want to seem to dodge it.


NO amount of talking on my part will make you "get" why a juicy steak is so good. In fact, you may think me pushy and arrogant and pretentious for trying to convince you that you should like what I like.

Replace the word "steak" with someone like Eggleston and the word tasty for art.

What if I were to contend that I was somehow better than you, or more intelligent, because I enjoy steak. That you don't "get" the reality of a juicy steak because you haven't spent enough time eating steaks or you are uneducated and anti-intellectual because you don't eat steak.


You may not like this analogy but I maintain it is accurate as, like I said before, food or art...it all gets down to taste. I didn't need a bunch of exposure to steak to know I liked it. In fact, I imagine I liked it from my very first bite. I don't need a lot of exposure to know that a light bulb on a ceiling is not art to me. Just like no amount of exposure to steak is likely to change your mind or help you "get" it.

I don't need a lot of exposure to know that a light bulb on a ceiling is not art to me

John, I understood your entire point, until this line.

If you are talking about taste, then we need to stick to taste. Saying that the photo of the bulb on the ceiling is not "art" is not the same as saying you do not appreciate it or like it. (which is taste).

Saying that the photo of the bulb on the ceiling is not "art", because you do not prefer it to another form of art, is like saying that a flank cut is not "steak", because you prefer strip-loin.

EDIT - "taste" does not determine what it is or isn't.

EDIT - i tried to be "succinct" but may have failed again :(

stephen you did fine.
good analogy

Mick I understand your point,I agree there is more to creation than the intellect, particularly in it's inception, execution phase...especially when you desire a tangible result... the intellectual part usually reserved for after the fact or for others, great works run deeper than the intellect, heart and gut most often takes the helm ... Rather than have a draining dialog on semantics which seems to be the pattern I fall into with you. You are obviously highly intelligent but so are many people out there yet you yourself seem to focus how "um" they are...you remind me of the guy who always has to let you know they think they're the smartest guy in the room.. Your writing contains a insular almost paranoid perspective .. Anyone or anything looking down their nose at you you identify as a fraud while you yourself look down on others that don't fit your particular revered status labels, then point at others you feel are being " un-selfaware "... my point is deep down you're just as much of a snob as the rest of us

From Philip..."So in that way formalism can be seen as more anti-intellectual, as it doesn't want to go beyond the surface of a work of art to get to its possible deeper significance. The best way is perhaps a moderate formalism which doesn't deny or ignore a work's bigger context in determining its artistic and cultural value."

I used to come on the forums and argue vociferously for Art with a capitol A. I use(d) art history and world history to bolster my points. Often, as is the case here, some would simply reject out of hand ALL history and learning, saying something along the lines of "I just don't like it and you can't make me." Fair enough, your opinion on ANY work of art is as valid as mine TO YOU. You don't like liver, steak, Serrano or whatever that is fine. But if I say the world is round and you flat out deny that, well you are still entitled, but you are wrong.

Kevin,

I hardly think someone denying the earth being round, equivalent to anything discussing in this thread regarding art.

Even the way someone judges art, who has an art education, is only judging based the opinions of others who wrote the text books. There are no scientific facts involved.

The "fact" that the earth is round, can't be debated.

lets not hide behind this mindset...

Robert, I confess I'm a little baffled and more than a little disillusioned by your conclusions, skimming through the material above, it's hard for me to reconcile your observations. If I've not made my conviction in human fallibility and my place amongst the fallible clear, then a short coming I should address now. The need to consider fallibility in regard to one's own comprehension is one subject I've attempted to address repeatedly, will little effect it seems, yet I see more than one example of -infallible- insight catalogued above. If by 'paranoid' you mean gripped by groundless notions of superiority, then indeed my entire contribution to the discussion has been a failure, for it's been my main purpose to contest such delusions implicit in statements like, "Acquired taste is more refined".

acquired tastes are no more 'refined' than the ones you were born with or raised with. Having 'acquired' a taste for Opossum baked in clay - doesn't make it "refined" taste.

"If you are talking about taste, then we need to stick to taste. Saying that the photo of the bulb on the ceiling is not "art" is not the same as saying you do not appreciate it or like it. (which is taste). "

Tiny, I did say it was not art TO ME. I never said it flat-out wasn't art because anyone can call anything art and if that is how they feel, that is how they feel.

Mick you can't get a good discussion going around here without a good teaser...Acquired Taste is more Refined .. was intentionally crafted with 4 trigger words...also "gripped by groundless notions of superiority" is grandiose, "insular almost paranoid perspective" is what I wrote..

Opossum baked in clay, sounds tasty to me, crubeens anyone?

"I used to come on the forums and argue vociferously for Art with a capitol A. I use(d) art history and world history to bolster my points. Often, as is the case here, some would simply reject out of hand ALL history and learning, saying something along the lines of "I just don't like it and you can't make me." Fair enough, your opinion on ANY work of art is as valid as mine TO YOU. You don't like liver, steak, Serrano or whatever that is fine. But if I say the world is round and you flat out deny that, well you are still entitled, but you are wrong."

Kevin, who put the capitalization on the Art? You? Me? The art "community"? The buyers?

That is, to me, the problem with this acquired taste stuff. When one tries to categorize something that can't be. Art is subjective. Always has been, always will be. None is better or worse than the other in the grand scheme. It just is what it is and it is entirely up to the viewer to decide.

So what were you arguing for? Were you arguing for people to see things your way? Why would it bother you if I said a work was crap to me just because you liked it? Why are you so invested in work created by someone else (sometimes hundreds of years ago).

What do those here that are defending art and acquired taste hoping to "prove"? Why do you care? What does it matter? Why get so worked up over the "uneducated" not "getting" a work?

John art is not as subjective as you think it is...

It absolutely is Robert. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

@ John,

Would you say that a flank cut was not steak TO YOU, because you may not like it as much as strip-loin?

My point is that steak is steak, no matter how much you like the different cuts of meat.

Art is still art, no matter whether you like one over the other.

I don't understand how you can say that something is not art TO YOU, simply because you do not like it. You may not like it, but it is still art.

Art can't be defined by how much we like or don't like it. I would like to think that ART has a much deeper meaning than that.

For a smile: when I was a young lad on the menu at our house was the requisite beef, chicken, pork, turkey, sometimes lamb. Also on the menu depending on time of year it could be (and often was) possum, muskrat, squirrel, wild rabbit, pheasant, quail, creek and pond caught fish. BTW the beef and pork often included brains, tongue, heart, liver, and the aptly named Rocky Mountain oysters (hint: they come from the nether regions of a male animal)

One can become refined beyond their upbringing. Just sayin'

Robert, would you argue with someone that their work was not ART, simply because it does not fit some sort of pre-determined rules set out in the text books?

The rules of art are all based on opinion. Some opinions are more strongly held than others, which is why they have been put in the text books.

Taste is subjective but there is structure to Art, it has it's pedigree and performances and it takes a poet to put into words what many of see and experience ..

Art is extremely complex, it takes more than a life time to understand,,,The word opinion gets way too much billing around here..

"Would you say that a flank cut was not steak TO YOU, because you may not like it as much as strip-loin?
My point is that steak is steak, no matter how much you like the different cuts of meat. "

That is true tiny. Steak is steak and art is art.

But we all define what our "version" of art is don't we? All we really care about is OUR definition isn't it?

But I will try to remember to say "that work of art is crap and not for me" from now on! :)

"Art is extremely complex, it takes more than a life time to understand,,,The word opinion gets way too much billing around here.."

Who says it is complex? Art books? Art critics?

A child can tell you what they think is art. It takes, what, 1/2 a second to determine if you like a work?

It is as complex as you WANT it to be. Often a picture of a sunset is just a picture of a sunset and a painting of a woman is just a painting of a woman and a sculpture of a horse is just a sculpture of a horse. You can read anything you want into them of course but that doesn't make it complex.

Robert,

You say the word opinion is overused here, but what "facts" are the art text books based on? If not "facts", then they are "opinions".

A group of people how many years ago, decided what made a particular kind of art "good". In my mind all of that "structure" as you call it, is based solely on the "opinion" of those people?

What "facts" make up the "structure" of art?

There are facts in mathematics and science (most of it), but I don't see it in art? There are facts in engineering when designing a bridge. In architectural design there are facts with regards to the structural integrity of a building, but not in the aesthetic design.


Even the technical structure of art is based on opinion and not fact. If the structure of art was based on hard facts, why have so many artists changed those ideals over history? How many artists were shunned in their time, because they went against the current ideals of what art was, only to have them accepted later.

Really John if Art was so simple why do the most prestigious schools in the world focus so much attention and money on it's cultivation..? Why has it been probably the most covered topic of conversation amongst students, intellectuals, anti intellectuals and artists alike? If we could drop the concept of opinions are equal and taste equals art we might start thinking out of this box...

If we could drop the concept of opinions are equal

Of course opinions are not equal, why should they be? But how does that change anything? Unless there are facts involved to judge something, both opinions although not equal are perfectly valid.

simply put, imho, to acquire a taste for something, means overcoming negativity about it, then finding out more about it, thereby acquiring a taste for it through intelligent experience of it - or not acquiring a taste for it...art or otherwise....by choice based on personal taste.........

refinement - does not absolutely follow if one acquires a taste for something........refinement more relates to an elegance in one's choices...........or.......a refinement of one's sensibilities through experience and again,personal taste/acceptance/choice that reflects refinement...........does one refine their taste in wines by the usual tastings? Probably - same with Art.......the more one experiences Art, the more one , who is already refined/experienced enough, can be considered having refinement in taste....

Can't make myself clearer........hope this 'computes'............

An educated opinion is not really opinion, if it is backed up by fact.

I might look at a concrete abutment and make a comment that in my "educated opinion" it is not stable. However I could not call my opinion "truth" until I had tested the structure against mathematical and structural facts. Until I test it against proven fact, it is simply an opinion.

What proven facts are there in art?

Tiny without going too deep into, yes there is a huge amount of grey area in defining art, But if you look into certain periods of art you will see it wasn't as simple as the elite saying, I like this I deem it ART, there were things that led to it and things it spawned ..You're right Math is the ultimate truth, or as ultimate as it gets anyway yes, but it lacks humanity, Humanity, human behavior all can be mapped and connections and conclusions made beyond opinion .. Art has humanity ...

Vivian, after you spend time finding out more about it, you may come to acquire a taste for it, then again you may not. Intelligence would not matter in that instance.

What some seem to be suggesting here is that if you spend enough time learning about something, you WILL learn to acquire a taste and appreciation for it.

I do not agree. I may spend time learning about a certain style of art and may still never acquire a taste for it or consider it good art. (light bulb on ceiling would be an example here.)

Am I somehow anti-intellectual because I never learn to like a certain style or piece of art?

EDIT - by studying that "kind" of photography, I may learn more about "why" the photographer took it or "what" his thought process was, but that does not mean it is somehow incumbent upon me now to like it as art, simply because I have learned more about it and taken some time to experience it.

Just so you all know the only reason I've had so much time to be in here is that I'm not feeling well and spending my days in and out of bed... I would much rather be working and not so much in my head...

Sorry you are not well Robert. I hope that my questions / comments have not worsened it. ;)

Well I have not yet had time to catch up with all that has been said here, but being an RJ thread it already has the one ingredient required to make it nice and tasty :-)

Nice to see you active RJ :-)!!!

Since I have not read it all, for my comments I'll revert to the initial statement...Curiously, I have just used the following quote as part of my latest instagram mobile phone photographic series:

"Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love "
(Calude Monet).

Oh, BTW, I agree Robert, not all is opinion, not all is relative, there is the absolute. As we know, the relative can not contain nor recognise the absolute but by its very nature the relative is only a part of the absolute...And sorry Philip but yes, there is an ultimate Truth...all within the absolute of course!!!

* Edit to add: Oops, Just read you are not feeling great RJ, sorry to hear, hope you recover soon!

thanks guys, this is a great way to spend time when not feeling well, I've noticed that when my body is not well my head likes to play...

I very much appreciate abstract art. But I also appreciate the irony of an incident that occurred several years ago at the Canadian National Art Museum. The museum purchased an American's art, which consisted of three large canvases painted in slightly different shades of red. On display for many years, the canvases were in need of retouching. One night, one of the maintenance persons repainted the canvases with a can of red paint. You can only imagine the controversy that ensued, not so much over the man using a can of paint to "repair" the canvases, but rather over the meaning of spending millions on "plain" red canvases. And a little bit over the question of what is a Canadian museum doing spending that much on an American artist instead of supporting Canadians.

I very much appreciate abstract art. But I also appreciate the irony of an incident that occurred several years ago at the Canadian National Art Museum. The museum purchased an American's art, which consisted of three large canvases painted in slightly different shades of red. On display for many years, the canvases were in need of retouching. One night, one of the maintenance persons repainted the canvases with a can of red paint. You can only imagine the controversy that ensued, not so much over the man using a can of paint to "repair" the canvases, but rather over the meaning of spending millions on "plain" red canvases. And a little bit over the question of what is a Canadian museum doing spending that much on an American artist instead of supporting Canadians. Gotta love it!

That may be so Philip, but then I am not arguing what is art and what is not art. (go back to my steak analogy that you agreed with).

I applaud him for working outside the box and not limiting himself to the confines of the opinions (rules) of others.

That said, not matter how much I might immerse myself and take time to experience his work, it will not lead to an acquired taste or liking of it.

I simply do not like it. (but that does not mean it is not art)

Kim, is it in the National Museums mission statement to promote Canadian artists, I tend to doubt it.../ There are color field painters I make fun of and some I admire.. It does seem unfair but the art World has never been about being fair ..

Kim I do recall an incident with the repair of Who's afraid of red... (the full title escapes me for the moment) I can't remember the exact details, for example I'm not sure if the canvas was damaged but the repair bill topped something like £250,000. After the painting was returned it was subject to microscopic analysis when a rumour surfaced that the restorers used a paint roller, which was confirmed when polyester fibres were discovered in the paint film. After that the repair was to subject to a threat of legal proceedings, I'm not sure what happened after that.

Yes, Philip, I live my life in Art , full of wonder, finding more through gaining knowledge outside my comfort zone/preferences....and doing so always leads me to broader views of Art itself......an open mind is essential, and a taste for and willingness to observe.....and thus to grow.........and then, only then, to ascribe or deny a preference............the world is wonderful for me.......endless discovery and then refinement of my tastes.........all very positive.

Hope you're feeling better soon, RJ........I'm battling too, have blurred vision, it's so disconcerting,uncomfortable.....!

Tiny,

You just wrote..."That said, not matter how much I might immerse myself and take time to experience his work, it will not lead to an acquired taste or liking of it."

As I see it, one must have to want to, or at least be opened to the possibities of acquiring a positive taste for whatever one might find oneself immersed in...It ain't gonna come like a bolt of lightening .

The one word that I'm having trouble with in this thread is:..."REFINED"

Well Roger there is a reason for that. ... Bait

"More refined", is not only a judgement but also a comparative term (and therefore a relative one)...in either words...An Opinions Feast!!!

My abstract works are not intended to be a representation of anything that they are not. We perceive them as unique visual experiences and as such their content becomes as individual as ones own experience of life!

To me, each piece in its real existence (essence) contains the absolute but their meaning or interpretation is often, if not always, relative and subjective.

Just like "Life" in my explanation above could be considered (in its metaphorical sense) the absolute and the individual experience of it as the relative.

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=485
an interesting article on this subject

good article Chaline, I'm only halfway through it at this point

.....I'll have to catch the article later....after I finish my latest romance novel......;o)

I loved Pride and Prejudice but that may have been an acquired taste..first I had to read it

lol! @ Robert

On a more serious note about literature....sometimes ( not ALL the time) reading is simply for non - intellectual pleasure. I don't always want to "think" about something when I read, I'm usually doing it to "go away" to another place away from reality. A little yin....a little yang....

You mean to veg? I never suffered from that affliction, my mind always seems to be hungry..it actually can get stressful

Everybody is different, I have more stress when I'm not able to "escape" and let my mind be still. I need everything to go "Ssshhh" for a bit. Okay, I'm part way through that article, so far it seems both sides of this original debate are being given equal time and consideration and that there is truth to be found on both sides of the coin....so to speak. However, I haven't finished the article yet, so I reserve the right to change my opinion at that point if necessary :o)

Interesting article, Chaline. I cut it out and threw it in a word file so I can finish it later.

RJ - I used to be like you - always looking for the intellectual stimulation, but after 33 years of managing an office and proofreading and editing technical material in three languages, my brain is tired. I'm with Melissa - I need the occasional murder mystery just to unplug from all the learning. Call it age. Call it fatigue in general.

I still do read a lot of art related material, books on geology and linguistics, but I do that a lot less frequently these days. Maybe when I retire.....

I read for the opposite reasons, Melissa....to be mindful...'course I'm not a fiction lover...philosophy is my choice.
I have 3 books I dig into nightly for thoughts to ponder.
When I do need to 'get away', it's Stephen King because of his character development..keeps me from being lonely in my alone time. I just set aside the scary stuff and enjoy how he gets inside each character's psyche.... I really wish he'd write faster!!

Philip - I don't own an electronic reader for that very reason. The smell of the ink and the feel of the dust jacket - the cover illustration and the look of the binding.

Sorry, RJ - a bit off topic.

There comes a point in learning, where you are just plain tired and suffering from overload. As much as I love art history and learning new things, I've had to step out for a while.

My real life all to often reminds me of a King novel. For enjoyment I like to read out loud in character

I'm going to check out of this bourgeois motel, push myself from the dinner table and say, "No more Jell-o for me, mom!" — from Peggy Sue Got Married