After watching the documentary of Horton's struggle to have the artworld validate her painting as "true" Pollack, I have come to despise this elitist world even more. However, at the same time, I have come to appreciate Pollack more after learning about his technique and seeing more of his work.
Pollack's painting, which are very abstract, seem to represent the thoughts of someone who also despised this so-called "artworld." He painted to paint - - it does not seem that he was focused on having an intentional meaning as many others before and after him did. His life was somewhat of a disappointment as alcoholism and womanzing took over his world, but he still found a way to create something that was largely unique and very difficult to replicate. His work looks like a mess of paints and splatterings, but as you watch his process in the video, it is easy to see that Pollack was methodical with his process. Maybe it was one area of his life that he actually had "control" over; as the rest of his life went haywire, he could still continue to control the "random" lines of paint and the overall product while using his particular process. For that I applaud him as he was able to control one aspect of his life and use that as a catharsis - - a release from the mess that was his life. I do not think that Pollack would have supported the elitist viewpoint of the artworld, or even liked the idea that his paintings fall in that category today.
Tolstoy rated the quality of art based on the degree of sincerity and infectiousness; these characteristics do not lend themselves well to accepting Pollack's work as quality pieces of art. Although Pollack is very methodical about his process, I do not believe that he was ever trying to demonstrate a deeper meaning or relay a certain feeling. He painted as a release, but his paintings do not infect the viewer with what he was feeling. It might relay the chaos that was his life, but no one can really understand the reason that he painted these works. I think that the sincerity was also there, but again, it is hard to see how that is translated in his works. It appears that he put effort into it and perfected the process, but it was just that - - a process. Tolstoy would not have accepted painting as a mere process and would not have appreciated that Pollack's work now falls into a more elitist category either.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Nietzsche vs. Tolstoy
After reading both excerpts, I believe that both Nietzsche and Tolstoy are trying to get the same point across, provided my interpretation of the difficult NIetzsche text is not completely off base.
NIetzsche speaks of the "collapse of the principium individuationis" in art as that which marks "quality" art. He feels that the individuating qualities that are associated with this principal and Apollonian thought are not the only forces behind a true piece of art. Instead, he feels that the conflict between the Apollonian forces and the Dionysian forces within a work of art create a "quality" piece. Dionysian forces are those which dilute the individualizing qualities of the Apollonian forces; Dionysian represents the feelings of pleasure and emotion that humans are better able to identify with. Pieces that have purely individually qualities are not in touch with human emotions, and because of this, they are often hard to identify with and understand. By diluting these ideas, people are better able to understand the intent behind the idea of the artist; this realization enables them to take in the emotion that the artist might have felt as he created the work of art. This transfer of emotional qualities ensures that the piece of art is authentic, and not so individual in thought that it is beyond understanding.
Tolstoy's work relays the idea that "the stronger the infection the better the art" - - which I believe is also indicating the role emotion plays in the authenticity of a piece of work. Tolstoy provides three criteria which help us to determine the degree of infectiousness of a piece: individuality, clearness, and sincerity. The artist must move away from just an individual thought as there must be a feeling that the individual thought brings about in others, a clarity with which this feeling is felt, and the sincerity with which the feeling is transmitted from artist to viewer. An artist cannot sit down to work with simply an individual thought if he wants this piece to be considered a work of art; instead, he must have feelings about this thought that motivate him to work. In this way, the emotions are passed on to the onlooker, and once again, the individual thought has been diluted with emotion just as Nietzsche felt it should be.
Nietzsche and Tolstoy had the same basic idea on art. Both believed that the human condition and emotion played a role in the effectiveness of a piece of art to relay a message or evoke a feeling. Individual thought is not enough because it does not ensure that every person will understand that same thought.
NIetzsche speaks of the "collapse of the principium individuationis" in art as that which marks "quality" art. He feels that the individuating qualities that are associated with this principal and Apollonian thought are not the only forces behind a true piece of art. Instead, he feels that the conflict between the Apollonian forces and the Dionysian forces within a work of art create a "quality" piece. Dionysian forces are those which dilute the individualizing qualities of the Apollonian forces; Dionysian represents the feelings of pleasure and emotion that humans are better able to identify with. Pieces that have purely individually qualities are not in touch with human emotions, and because of this, they are often hard to identify with and understand. By diluting these ideas, people are better able to understand the intent behind the idea of the artist; this realization enables them to take in the emotion that the artist might have felt as he created the work of art. This transfer of emotional qualities ensures that the piece of art is authentic, and not so individual in thought that it is beyond understanding.
Tolstoy's work relays the idea that "the stronger the infection the better the art" - - which I believe is also indicating the role emotion plays in the authenticity of a piece of work. Tolstoy provides three criteria which help us to determine the degree of infectiousness of a piece: individuality, clearness, and sincerity. The artist must move away from just an individual thought as there must be a feeling that the individual thought brings about in others, a clarity with which this feeling is felt, and the sincerity with which the feeling is transmitted from artist to viewer. An artist cannot sit down to work with simply an individual thought if he wants this piece to be considered a work of art; instead, he must have feelings about this thought that motivate him to work. In this way, the emotions are passed on to the onlooker, and once again, the individual thought has been diluted with emotion just as Nietzsche felt it should be.
Nietzsche and Tolstoy had the same basic idea on art. Both believed that the human condition and emotion played a role in the effectiveness of a piece of art to relay a message or evoke a feeling. Individual thought is not enough because it does not ensure that every person will understand that same thought.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The premise behind "Faking It" was pretty unique and I'm surprised that the American public has not really jumped on the bandwagon - - we all know how important reality TV is in the States!! It was interesting that they were able to use a goal as "deep" as passing as a "real" artist instead of the usual and mundane beauty paegeant queen or rock superstart. However, as I watched the show, I began to wonder why they used the term "real artist". Why is his work with paint in rooms and on houses not "real"? If it is not real, is it then superficial or made up? In painting these rooms, he has created something new and refreshing in the sense that he has provided the room with a new look. And if anyone has tried painting a room, there is a certain art associated with making it look aesthetically pleasing. But cause this room cannot be analyzed in terms of a meaning behind it, paint on a house does not seem to be "real" art. Is that a criteria we must have to define art as "real" - - a deeper meaning with a hidden agenda? I do not know if that would be the only criteria, but I do feel as if it has come to a point where it is definitely one the main criteria in today's art world.
As far as my prediction as to the outcome of the show, I feel as if he will pass the test as a real and true artist that belongs in a gallery. His background as a painter gives him a basis for working with paints and other such mediums, and from what we have seen so far, he seems to have picked up new techniques well. I think that there is a lot of room in today's art world as to what actually makes and defines an artist, and this variation leaves room for newcomers. Although I think that he will pass the test and successfully fool people into believing he was made for galleries and exhibitions, I do not think that his success will bring us any closer to the definition of a real artist and what is real artwork.
As far as my prediction as to the outcome of the show, I feel as if he will pass the test as a real and true artist that belongs in a gallery. His background as a painter gives him a basis for working with paints and other such mediums, and from what we have seen so far, he seems to have picked up new techniques well. I think that there is a lot of room in today's art world as to what actually makes and defines an artist, and this variation leaves room for newcomers. Although I think that he will pass the test and successfully fool people into believing he was made for galleries and exhibitions, I do not think that his success will bring us any closer to the definition of a real artist and what is real artwork.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
What has this world come to? Art and status in America
The article, "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop", sparked my interest as I had no idea that such a transaction was possible. The whole process of pawning off art as collateral for debts, mortgages and other financial troubles seems absolutely ridiculous to me. First, in the idea that art could possibly be worth that amount of money, and second, in that people consistently find themselves in that amount of financial trouble. Time and time again, people find themselves spending beyond their means to maintain a certain "status". As of late, it seems that art has worked its way into the commercial empire - - many are starting to view the type of art that hangs in a home to speak about the status of the home's owner just as square footage, cars, and electronics have for decades. But why? Why is it necessary to classify certain types of art as more expensive than others? I understand that some have taken more time and effort, but the end result is ultimately the same - - a piece of art that another person, or group of people, are able to enjoy. However, as time as gone on, art and its creation, has slowly taken on a commercial aspect as has many other aspects of our society.
The article itself speaks of the trouble that people have gotten themselves into as they have bitten off more than they can chew. Take for example this quote from the article, "At a time when stock portfolios are plunging and many homes, even grand ones, have no equity left to borrow against, an increasing number of art owners are realizing that an Old Master or a prime photograph, when used as collateral, can bring in much needed cash." But how have people gotten to this point? It's simple -- status, status, status! Grand houses are not a necessity nor are the excessive amount of stock options that are always somewhat risky. These gambles have not provided the necessary pay-offs as of late, and with that art has become a bargaining tool as society struggles to stay afloat. But is that fair? These pieces of art, created by artists in a time that did not know such decadence and greed, were not meant to be pawns in the "money" game. These works are works of passion with little thought, for the most part, as to their selling price or the amount of money they would make as collateral. We are doing these pieces and the artists a disservice as we attempt to pull ourselves out of the hole that commercial America has helped us dig over the past 50 years.
Thomas Kinkade seems to have pushed the envelope of the definition of "artist" as he attempts to mass produce his rather quaint cottages. After researching Kinkade, since I missed out on the video this past week, I have found that his words drip of the deception that must have been apparent as he spoke in his time on "60 Minutes". His interview with CBS News in 2004 is a bald-faced lie at best. He speaks of his original works of art and the fact that he hand creates each one of these to be sold. Yet in the next breath, there is talk of assembly lines and fork lifts that help "push his vision" into galleries across the nation. Knowing absolutely nothing about the man before my search, I find it hard to believe that one man has enough time to produce so many paintings on his own while still having time for his precious family. He has sold himself to the Olympics and received an award from the California Board of Tourism - - what artist counts that among his accomplishments? I'm sorry, but it was not ever something that I felt an accomplished artist should be proud to admit. Kinkade works under the pretense that his work has these charitable benefits and helps people enjoy art again because there is little to understand. However, I believe that Kinkade is an expert at manipulation, and has learned that Americans will jump on anything that they believe will improve "their status" in society. This is how he has made his millions - - and earned his "status" just like those buying his artwork aspire to.
The article itself speaks of the trouble that people have gotten themselves into as they have bitten off more than they can chew. Take for example this quote from the article, "At a time when stock portfolios are plunging and many homes, even grand ones, have no equity left to borrow against, an increasing number of art owners are realizing that an Old Master or a prime photograph, when used as collateral, can bring in much needed cash." But how have people gotten to this point? It's simple -- status, status, status! Grand houses are not a necessity nor are the excessive amount of stock options that are always somewhat risky. These gambles have not provided the necessary pay-offs as of late, and with that art has become a bargaining tool as society struggles to stay afloat. But is that fair? These pieces of art, created by artists in a time that did not know such decadence and greed, were not meant to be pawns in the "money" game. These works are works of passion with little thought, for the most part, as to their selling price or the amount of money they would make as collateral. We are doing these pieces and the artists a disservice as we attempt to pull ourselves out of the hole that commercial America has helped us dig over the past 50 years.
Thomas Kinkade seems to have pushed the envelope of the definition of "artist" as he attempts to mass produce his rather quaint cottages. After researching Kinkade, since I missed out on the video this past week, I have found that his words drip of the deception that must have been apparent as he spoke in his time on "60 Minutes". His interview with CBS News in 2004 is a bald-faced lie at best. He speaks of his original works of art and the fact that he hand creates each one of these to be sold. Yet in the next breath, there is talk of assembly lines and fork lifts that help "push his vision" into galleries across the nation. Knowing absolutely nothing about the man before my search, I find it hard to believe that one man has enough time to produce so many paintings on his own while still having time for his precious family. He has sold himself to the Olympics and received an award from the California Board of Tourism - - what artist counts that among his accomplishments? I'm sorry, but it was not ever something that I felt an accomplished artist should be proud to admit. Kinkade works under the pretense that his work has these charitable benefits and helps people enjoy art again because there is little to understand. However, I believe that Kinkade is an expert at manipulation, and has learned that Americans will jump on anything that they believe will improve "their status" in society. This is how he has made his millions - - and earned his "status" just like those buying his artwork aspire to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
