kuandohan In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 21:58:12 +0000 UTC]

Good points!

I don't mean to contradict your point of view, only bring up an idea that could have been missed.
Because there are many people who believe what they believe is what is amazing, but it's really the conclusion we all come to on our own.
I've also learned this through personal experience.
But yes.
I'm glad to hear that you're very open minded too!

Both of our point are very great points, no contest (Not indending one anyway. )!

Keep pursuing your dreams! ~ Wynn

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to kuandohan [2012-07-30 01:51:22 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for bringing up the point! And it really is to each their own opinion. In the end of the day, no one is "right" about what a piece will make someone feel except for the person who is feeling from that piece.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kuandohan In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-30 19:08:40 +0000 UTC]

I couldn't of said it better.
I hope many people will read these comments.

Keep up the great work!

Keep pursuing your dreams! ~ Wynn

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to kuandohan [2012-07-31 03:26:55 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, you too!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MasturbationProcess In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 19:37:24 +0000 UTC]

So I guess you can't enjoy conceptual art?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to MasturbationProcess [2012-07-29 20:19:06 +0000 UTC]

I do enjoy a lot of conceptual art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HeatherBlazeFineArt In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:53:27 +0000 UTC]

Well put!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to HeatherBlazeFineArt [2012-07-29 00:30:36 +0000 UTC]

thank you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HimitsuUK In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:53:42 +0000 UTC]

1) Whilst art should not just be political for politics sake, artists should also not be afraid of using politicisms in their art to provoke the viewer or support a cause (or vice versa).

2) Yes, there are various movements of visual art (just like there is music). Some of it good, some of it bad (in this writers opinion). The instant gratification of some trends (like the program Instagram for example) does not always bode well for an artist to learn their craft thoroughly and create original, unique pieces. On the contrary there are many artists out there who create the art they love and feel, despite whether it fits the current fashion or trends. Making art the artist knows will be popular is not usually the same experience as making art the artist is truly happy with themselves.

3) Absolutely, especially with less 'mainstream' art or art of a truly impressive nature (in a gallery, for example). With deeper understanding comes greater enjoyment (this can be applied to many things outside of art, too).

4) Messages can be lost in translation. Sometimes an artist can incorporate cryptic or somewhat obvious meaning into a piece, only for most viewers to focus on the aesthetics. Powerful art usually balances the three; message, technique and aesthetics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to HimitsuUK [2012-07-30 02:05:06 +0000 UTC]

In response to your #2.
I think there's constantly many movements happening in all dimentions of the art world and I agree with you that some of it can be good and some bad, the instant gratification trends especially.

You're dead on about the two objectives in making art having completely different outcomes and experiences (in my opinion at least). I've found that what people want is almost never in line with what the artist wants to create. If an artist wants to make a living at art, they must cater to the wider audience, even if it means sacrificing time creating what they love. Going back to what you love after creating so much for others is always rewarding and a moving, happy experience (for me at least).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 02:42:32 +0000 UTC]

Your point for No. 3: I always enjoy hearing those with similar sentiments. If there was one thing I hated during my education, it was being forced to find "meaning" in something that may or may not have intended any meaning at all in its creation. In today's academic world it seems that everything must have meaning, symbolism, political or social leanings, etc... It's not just enough to create for the pleasure of creating and viewing (or reading, as is the case with literature). Everything must be analysed, and often if there is not much to 'analyse' the piece is disregarded for lack of this "meaning". I mean, can it not be enough just to enjoy something for pleasure? Why must we analyse everything?

And is it just me or do you also find that a lot of recent art schools veer more and more towards teaching "artists" how to be philosophical rather than simply good artists in whatever medium they chose? I recently looked through several MFA final thesis projects and not a single one caught my eye as anything more than what my eight year old brother could do in an hour with a set of cheap water colours or a pen and paper (and my little brother is far from artistically inclined). Not to be insulting, but simply to illustrate the fact that you don't really need to be an artist per se to achieve the results of these projects, merely a visually-inclined philosopher or critic. Anyone is capable of draping coloured sheets throughout an abandoned attic and the declaring that it 'means' something. You don't need to know human anatomy or how to mix and dilute oil paints to do so. Honestly, the majority of the 'projects' struck me as being more about the "meaning" behind whatever nonsense they'd created rather than the art itself...

I'm not saying that it's not still art, or that they aren't allowed to work in this manner, I just want to point out what I see as being neglectful of what I'm going to call here 'technical' and 'aesthetic' art. As in, a landscape watercolour painting, perhaps, or an oil portrait on canvas, or a pencil or charcoal sketch. None of which need have any particular meaning beyond the aesthetically pleasing (which, before photography, was the only way to record images...), but it seems to me to be abandoned by these art schools...or have I just not found the right school? Anyway, it was just something I was looking into some weeks ago and ended up disappointed about because I couldn't seem to find anything I personally enjoyed. It was all 'meaning meaning meaning' and that was it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

agbduncan In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-08-01 23:15:22 +0000 UTC]

Well said!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lost-angle In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-07-28 05:24:46 +0000 UTC]

On the point of my number 3, I made a reply to someone (on their userpage, unfortunately), but the bulk of the reply will be included in the description of my "No lit essays" paper that I linked.

"It's understandable from a student's perspective as to why analyzing is frustrating and annoying.

However, from an instructor's perspective, there are a lot of good reasons for encouraging students to analyze written work (which I didn't understand entirely at the time I wrote the essay). Those reasons include: encouraging students to actually read (many students would not read, if given the choice), encouraging students to be critical of what they read (thinking critically is huge, if you learn that lesson in school, you may appear cynical, but you will likely have a stronger grasp on world affairs), and understanding what people really mean when they say certain things (there is often deeper meaning behind words, both written and spoken, both literary and casual, that gets lost on people who don't understand how to look for the it).

As a student who learned these things quite young and at home, and would read on their own, this was quite annoying for me, even understanding the reasoning."

While I generally dislike imposing meanings on other people's artwork, I can understand from an educational perspective why instructors would want to encourage students to do just that.

However, from a university standpoint, meaning isn't everything, and, in most things, it's very little. "What is the meaning behind this portrait?" "It's a portrait, someone commissioned it to remember what they/someone else looked like." Ascribing meaning where ther is none intended is pointless. Ascribing meaning as the main portion of the art, as opposed to focusing on techniques, theories, and other true skills (that will actually matter in the real world), is also pointless (beyond, apparently, a good grade). I can't speak to art schools myself, though, as I'm a writer at heart and only dabble in photography and other arts and have never sought higher education in arts.

I do understand, though, that not everyone is like me, not everyone is inspired to a specific image/set of words in a spur of the moment with no base reason/meaning. Some people work purely from meaning and reason and can't work without having that there. One size certainly does not fit all, especially in the arts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-29 20:59:22 +0000 UTC]

I agree with all of that, actually, but I guess my question here is: is it just me or does it seem that more and more people are focusing on 'meaning' and 'symbolism' over everything else? At least that's the impression I get. I took a course on contemporary japanese culture in university and I think that course really drove home to me how utterly BS a lot of what they have you write in university actually is. Basically, the more you could attribute 'subcultural social movements' to 'base desire' and all variations thereof the more points you got on your essays. The more you could analyse every tiny thing to death, despite the fact that there really probably was no other reason for most of it other than the political or economical factors (not subconscious sexual desires for pity's sake), the higher your mark. Then again, that could have just simply been my teacher's proclivity for certain...concepts.

The same went for my art class. As long as you could give a reason for your analysis and make it sound intelligent, they heaped praise on you. So maybe it was just my teachers, but I found that most of them were fond of ascribing meaning where there was none (to quote the above). And I agree, it's not a bad thing to analyse and learn how to, but I just feel like there is too much emphasis placed on the ability to do so. Especially with post-graduate fine arts it appears to me to be more of a 'meaning' thing and less of an 'art' thing. Like they're abandoning the simple and lauding the complex. And if there aren't enough symbolic layers to sink a battle ship then it's not worthy of being in a gallery show. If that made any sense. Excuse me, I've only had one cup of tea today.

But I still nevertheless agree with your above excerpt.

👍: 0 ⏩: 4

BloodyCoffee In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-08-02 12:02:57 +0000 UTC]

This comment really hits home with me. My teacher also gives praise only if I can give her an educated explanation. It's horrible.

I'm in highschool, so I'm taking AP art and that writing about the meaning and symbolism (whether it exists in the piece or not) is what's required at the end when you send your pieces.

So maybe she's just trying to prepare me for that? But I feel like that hurts my creativity having to search for a "problem" and various other things before I can even begin working.

What happened to making beautiful things with no meaning?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to BloodyCoffee [2012-08-02 17:49:28 +0000 UTC]

Good question! I mean, it's all very well and good making a piece of art that does comment on a current event, or hold some kind of symbolism, but we should also be able to simply be creative without the fuss of having to spoil it with in-depth meaningless analysis. But it's simply not acceptable to NOT analyse. You cannot simply say "This one has no meaning other than an exploration of the colour red" or something, but must say something like "This piece is an exploration of the feelings invoked by the various shades of the colour red, such as anger and passion..." despite that you probably weren't at all angry when you painted/drew it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sparx333 In reply to BloodyCoffee [2012-08-02 14:39:58 +0000 UTC]

Agreed. Some people think that ALL art has to come from experience or what someones learned.
Which is totally not true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WhispereDreams In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-08-01 10:28:35 +0000 UTC]

They really love those neo-freudian analyses in humanities classes, don't they? Someone from the psych department should really amble over and tell them Freud's been largely discredited.

As to academia's desire to analyze endlessly, it's the whole "publish or perish" thing, in my opinion. You can publish a lot of papers and rebuttals of papers if you keep analyzing the analysis.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

angiee45 In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-07-30 19:17:56 +0000 UTC]

I agree with some of what you said. I noticed that when I was in college we had to find meaning in things that struck me as meaningless. I got my degree in Cinema and Photography. My film classes could be torture. We mostly stayed away from Hollywood film and watch artsy independent stuff. We watched films that were just scratched up film shown through a projector. One was literally a piece of film that was left in a crab trap. When we watched it it was just white scratches on a black background.

We also watched a film called "Lemon" that was just a lemon on a table. The lights came up slowly and then went down again and that was it. It was so frustrating because this is what was valued. Independent, artsy, BS was valued over story or visuals. I love story so I hated a lot of them films we watched in class. But those films were supposed to have meaning and be true art. I couldn't tell you what the meaning was. It had something to do with form.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to angiee45 [2012-07-31 00:18:49 +0000 UTC]

Hence why I refuse to watch independent films. Ever. But yes, that's exactly what I mean about finding meaning and appreciation in something that's purely a mental exercise and less of a display of artistic talent. I honestly think they need to start separating the two into categories, one of which is more philosophical and the other which pays homage to technical talent. I'm just saying, for example, I doubt you'd need to practice for years and years and perfect your craft before shooting a shot of a lemon on a table. You just need to study the concepts of symbolism and history of art, analysis, form, shape, etc....but my point is that it's not so much a literal hands-on thing as it is a research/philosophical thing. They're making a commentary about something and simply using the medium of physical material rather than words on paper.

You know, if that made any sort of sense?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

angiee45 In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-08-11 03:48:10 +0000 UTC]

Totally makes sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lost-angle In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-07-29 21:37:44 +0000 UTC]

Again, I can't really comment on that at the university level specifically because I have not taken those courses. Even my one required university English class was "Can you write a story, a report, and a comparative piece? Good, alright, here's a passing mark."

From my experience in viewing arts in popular culture on TV and in other media forms, the popular focus does seem to be shifting towards an existensial type meaning and symbolism. Public art displays in particular are all about this deeper meaning. Though, on a certain level, I think that exhibitionist artists (the true meaning of the word, public displays and such, not gallery exhibitions) are, by nature, trying to prove something, some other meaning and other symbolism than the basic surface of what their artwork actually is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-31 00:09:10 +0000 UTC]

Mmm, yes, that's definitely true. Commercial art must always have a secondary purpose, some kind of symbolism, etc...but that's merely because of the type of art it is. And you're right, gallery art is exactly what I'm talking about. You try to get a degree in Fine Arts meant for display and galleries etc and if it's not existential and focused more on meaning than technique then it means nothing, and it frustrates me that there's entire genres of Fine Arts (history painting, portraiture, genre painting, still life, landscape, etc) which has basically lost all acclaim. They sell for little and you find absolutely amazing lanscape artists, or still life artists that paint just as well as the old masters but never get so much as a second look because all they're proving is that they can paint well. A still life is just a still life and unless it's a symbolic, meaningful, surreal still life no one cares. Or unless that landscape is actually of political or social importance for some reason, no one cares just how much work and talent went into it, because they'd rather be displaying a large white canvas someone painted white because it means something (not to disparage the white on white, but it was the first example that popped into my head).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-07-31 04:24:03 +0000 UTC]

I didn't mean commercial art (though that too) I meant what I'd observed through those mediums of public art, of what's in galleries and on display.

I'd like to see a comeback in classic gallery art, the landscapes and still lifes, the genre paintings and surreal. I see some of that coming back on dA, but I'd like to see it come back in the wider art world.

Separating the technical and philosophical arts would be nice. Especially so at the post secondary level. Separating out the two classes especially (even if they still require you to take some philosphical classes for a technical designation and vice versa).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to lost-angle [2012-08-02 06:26:51 +0000 UTC]

Oh, my bad! But the spirit of the argument remains, yes?

And yes. I agree most vigorously. Glad to know I'm not alone Unfortunately, art these days is so much about consumerism that I'm not sure that will be possible without a radical change in mainstream culture...

But there's still hope that someone high enough up there will realise that technical and philosophical art are NOT the same thing. They overlap, yes, but ultimately emphasis different perspectives and abilities and neither should be lauded any more than the other and modern art galleries ought not to snob technical art in lieu of philosophical art, else they should advertise themselves as a modern /philosophical/ art gallery and not simply a modern /art/ gallery.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to Hexe-Cobalt [2012-08-02 06:31:28 +0000 UTC]

Very much agreed and there's not really much more I can say on the subject

I'm glad we've had this discussion, very enlightening! Thanks for your perspective on it all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hexe-Cobalt In reply to lost-angle [2012-08-02 17:49:52 +0000 UTC]

Yup, anymore would be beating a dead horse! Ditto! Cheers!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ManicCubb In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:42:16 +0000 UTC]

Couldn't agree more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to ManicCubb [2012-07-27 23:49:18 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0