What Is "remarkable" Art?

I think the artist needs to be seen as remarkable.
They need to stand out from the pack as an individual.

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

http://www.MikeSavad.com


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

see above...

you'll know it when you see it, art that seems to stand out above the rest. something from art class won't compare against a painting from the Renaissance. a photo from a pro, can't compare to a guy with a phone cam shooting at random. it stands out. you'll know it when you see it. remarkable on the net is a bit difficult, they have to find you first. if an image some how goes viral and they connect it with you, then its a good thing. but usually you'll know when its good or better than the rest.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Agree with Joe, easier said than done however but that is why it is "Remarkable".

Well, Joe, Ron, you took this in a direction I didn't expect. Now you're going to have to explain what you think a "remarkable" artist is. All the artists I know seem like pretty normal folk to me.

Is their art remarkable?
I'm sure it's good, but will it stand the test of time?

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

Conceptual and Formal considerations must mesh and support one another.

Remarkable art must be timeless.
It does not follow trends or pop culture.
It is universally applicable.

More than that, the artist has a story or world view that differs from the norm.
They're attempting to communicate something that is incommunicable.

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

If art is "outside the norm" how can you say if it will stand the test of time?

Only time will tell...

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

i think remarkable is really only a comparison against the rest. the best thing may sell to the right person looking for that thing they wanted. but if the best isn't there, then whatever is on the next level, that will have to do, because the buyer never knew about the best one since they never existed.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Edited.

Worthy of attention. Striking. Memorable.

exactly, Frank "worthy of attention"
It's impossible to define ahead of time since it depends on the context and is largely subjective. "One person's remarkable art is another's junk"

When I say an art piece is remarkable, for me it usually means in one or more aspects: Remarkable concept, remarkable composition, remarkable technique/execution, remarkable use of color, light, lines, perspective, etc... and so on, and so on. In other words, distinctive or unique mastery. The elderly, disabled man who creates art with an old typewriter... I find that remarkable. The lady who has no arms and paints with a brush between her teeth, I find that remarkable. I think defining "remarkable" as it pertains to art is just too "broad brush"!

Constructs

What is your medium
what is your subject matter
What are your tools
How have you used design elements

How have you furthered fine art
how have you furthered western culture

These are in question form, but they are statements on what is needed to make
remarkable art.

My mother saw this and said it is better than the original. Other people have said that as well.

"Remarkable" is what we strive for.

I asked my mother, a very good oil painter, what she desired from her art and strives for. She said it was the "pursuit of that one masterpiece".

She's still pursuing at 86 years old.

Glenn, Claudio Bravo said essentially what your mother said... that he was striving for the ultimate perfect signature work. He is now deceased. That's great to hear your mother is still going strong!

Glenn,

My grandmother in her 90s began to paint. She had senile dementia and a failing cornea. Back of one eye?
Addition: NO Macular Degeneration. That's the ticket.

She saw things as a fairy world.

She made vases with flowers floating around. Some you might assume were in the vase, while others had a life onto
themselves. She was actually very good.

Those paintings were beautiful in many ways.

Dave

Whether it be leaders, music, art or design, "remarkable" is not initially recognized as such.
It is often viewed as being "disruptive".

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

Seeing things in a fairy world ain't all that bad when you're creating!

David, how can an image you took from Vermeer and pumped up with Photoshop or whatever be "better than the original"?

When you stop, almost dead in silence, and look
you might walk away but you wanna go back and look again, read again, listen to again, feel the moment again
it effects you, deeply, for the right reasons


edit: on reflection, this might be a delayed response too for an individual - maybe days, or years; and for a culture or civilisation - it might be decades or centuries perhaps

Marketable Art is different than true Art. Most often it means marketable remarkable.
True Art doesn't sell often. Remarkable to sell, tangible gain maybe?
In my mind, remarkable art should be the Art speaks Artist's mind. Unique mind.
True Art should come from within. It is an expression of a unique mind, so precious. That is remarkable Art.

I think "remarkable" wouldbe in the eyes of whoever is viewing something at any given moment. "Remarkable" is a perception.

Remarkable art elicits remarks. Unremarkable art elicits a yawn.

Most of the 'art' I see selling is less than "remarkable" - it is mostly good art - and art that people will hang on their wall for decoration. I think my art is remarkable - but no one ever looks at it except bots.

In a lot of cases "unremarkable" is just what is needed. Hotel rooms, lobbies, offices. Sometimes you don't want anything too remarkable.

I must say that I have seen so much truly "over-the-top remarkable" work on FAA... works that makes me say "wow" out loud.

I've seen young children produce beautiful things,
I've watched paraplegics paint detailed paintings.
I've seen the elderly paint masterpieces.

Thatz Remarkable Art!

I wouldn't call it a "fairy world".
I would call it a world beyond self.

It continues long after we do not.

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

Joe,

My grandmother was a very well read Irish/Catholic immigrant. She imaged fairies quite literally.

Her vision was problematic, so if she saw a flickering candle in a window at dinner time her
imagination would take off. She saw things as a fairy world.

I would drive her home to her apartment and then later to her nursing home. We would go through
Bishop's Corner West Hartford. She would see all the lights at night and say it was a magical world.

It was her way of living.

Dave

David, how can an image you took from Vermeer and pumped up with Photoshop or whatever be "better than the original"?

JL,

My only claim is that others have said that. You will have to ask them why. I am a bit a shamed at how little work I did.

A stroke of genius? Or a stroke of good natured fun? It is a very good stroke of some red into a blackened world.

addition: My shame was not very long lasting.

Dave

What Is "remarkable" Art?

"Remarkable" is NOT an isolated quality. Rather, it is a qualitative judgment based on the CONTEXT within which the art object is embedded.

"Remarkable" then is NOT static. It is NOT specific. It is NOT the same at all times.

The answer to the question, then, is either "EVERY piece of art is remarkable" or "NO piece of art is remarkable". It just depends on the social, economic, and historical context.

What is remarkable also is a personal judgment, specific to a person. One person's "remarkable" might be different from another person's "remarkable". It depends on personal values too.

"Remarkable" is a reported psychological state, in other words. It is NOT an inherent quality related to some immutable essence bound up inside some specific object.

Clearly, the concept of what art is "remarkable" is subjective.

But when you look at art that is just about universally considered remarkable; you see some shared factors: a clear message, a conveyance of emotion, and skill in execution.

Even then, if you take those three components you can still crank out an awful piece of work, because maybe the missing element is the unquantifiable chemistry of the moment in which the work was created. Something has to "click". Great artists don't always create great works, but sometimes they get that "click". I think if you take a person of skill (in their capacity, whatever that is), with a clear viewpoint and the ability to show that viewpoint in a way that reaches a majority of people, and then the "click" happens, you get remarkable work.

Following Cynthia D.'s lead, I could concede to the idea that a "remarkable" work might have to have consistent mass aesthetic appeal.

Since the color blue is a favorite color of many people, then, maybe a remarkable piece of art focuses on the color blue. But now what makes one blue piece of art among thousands of blue pieces of art remarkable? Well, ... since so many people like flowers, maybe a painting of a blue flower is the most remarkable blue painting. Nah, that's not it. Take a thousand paintings of blue flowers, ... now which one of THOSE is the most remarkable?

... and so on and so on.

Again, ... context, personal preference, timing, circumstances, and a myriad of unpredictable factors determine this qualitative judgment called "remarkable".

Suppose a thousand people have a clear viewpoint and an expert ability to show that viewpoint in a way that reaches a majority of people. Do we then have a thousand pieces of remarkable art? Okay, which one of THESE is the most remarkable.

... context, personal preference, timing, circumstances ........................

Oh, I left out marketing.

Replace fresh fruit with rotted fruit, clouds with cows, fields of green with garbage, mountains with wood blocks, etc....the possibilities are endless.

If you dare be different and noticed. Perhaps remarkable.

Which blue flower painting is the most remarkable?

The one painted by the most remarkable artist.
The one that has lore behind it.
The one that tells a story beyond itself.

Which landscape painting is the most remarkable?
Starry Night is beautiful.

The idea of a tortured soul is remarkable.
Cutting your ear off for love is remarkable.
The passion of a starving artist is remarkable.

Joe Burgess
J.B. Imagery

Was van Gogh or his art considered "remarkable" in his time? No.

Is he and his art considered "remarkable" now"?

Time changes many things including what is and isn't remarkable.

Bill Tomsa

http://billtomsa.blogspot.com/

Replace fresh fruit with rotted fruit, clouds with cows, fields of green with garbage, mountains with wood blocks, etc....the possibilities are endless

So, a remarkable painting would be a cracked gray bowl of rotted fruit on a cow's back in a field of garbage next to a backdrop of wood blocks.

... sounds about right to me, ... for today.