Pythagoras wasn't crazy after all!!!!

by Sunnygal41 26 Replies latest social current

• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  De Facto it is the audience which enables art to BE or not to be.

  Willie the Shake would be proud......I think, and Pythagoras always had the right angle imho.

  Tell, me, does it follow that an audience that is trained in the medium of art, music, poetry etc. actually understands the art better than the non-trained eye, ear, or soul?If art is a language, surely the more versed in it you become the more discriminating your taste?

  I once started a maelstrom on this Board by suggesting that what seems quite an obvious logic to me was so.

  HS
• 

  jgnat

  If art is a language, surely the more versed in it you become the more discriminating your taste?

  Reminds me of an interview with Picasso about one of his early (realistic) painting of the Holy Family. The interviewer asked about a dark jumble in the upper left corner, and if it might be a fore-runner of his later work? "They are dates" growled Picasso, "Mary and Joseph had to eat something on the way to Bethlehem."
• 

  Satanus

  *Sigh* Here is a site w some recordings of these eletronic frequencies http://www.spaceweathersounds.com/sndbites.htm There are a lot more to be found on the net, even some of frequencies of electromagnetic fields on the sun. They are speeded up quite a lot, though. This subject was discussed here several yrs ago. Gawd, i'm such a relic.

  S
• 

  jgnat

  The first time I saw a speeded up video of the cloud patterns over earth, it seemed to me that she was breathing. At that moment, the earth looked vitally alive.
• 

  Terry

  I started out as a portrait artist. I discovered at the ripe old age of 18 that I could do a photorealistic portrait without any training.

  When I moved to California to "be" an artist, I ended up eventually in an etching studio producing __other___people's art.

  I've not done anything in years.
• 

  Terry

  Tell, me, does it follow that an audience that is trained in the medium of art, music, poetry etc. actually understands the art better than the non-trained eye, ear, or soul?If art is a language, surely the more versed in it you become the more discriminating your taste?

  That is an interesting question!

  When it comes to music it definitely adds layers of "kinds" of comprehension when you know music technically. For example, because of my autodidactic immersion in all things orchestral I now know "why" I adore certain music as far as what is actually happening to create the mood I respond to.

  When it comes to art---it depends on several factors. I worked with a great many multi-faceted artists over the years and asked them many question. I found that seldom could they articulate what they were thinking. After a couple of years of listening to their crazy metaphor language I finally "got it". I started to see with different eyes what they were doing and it opened doors for me that had been closed before.

  Any human being can appreciate the arts just because of the humanity. But, there are more and more onion layers to be felt and understood. To me, the greatest art always offers yet ONE MORE layer to be discovered.

  I can listen to Rachmaninoff and never tire of it. Certain things by Bartok transport me to another dimension of feeling.

  In art, anything by Sorolla (Bastida) is enough to make me change my underwear!

  Poetry? I love Vachel Lindsey and Dylan Thomas or even old man Coleridge.

  There are worlds as yet unknown the artists transport us to if only we open ourselves to them.

  But, then again---75% of everything is pure horse shit.
• 

  jgnat

  My art teacher, also, a big fan of Sorolla. He did his best to teach us to be loose and free as he. I visited a large Sorolla exhibit in New York a few years ago, and brought this home (a print, of course). I hope you have a change of underwear handy.
• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  Any human being can appreciate the arts just because of the humanity. But, there are more and more onion layers to be felt and understood. To me, the greatest art always offers yet ONE MORE layer to be discovered.

  So is it possible to define good and bad art or should it only be defined by appreciation? Remember Duke Ellington and his famous statement regarding music, “There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.”

  If, as most people seem to believe, that artistic beauty is in the eye the artistic beholder, can good and bad art be defined? For example, is there such a thing as a 'good' Sunday painter?

  HS
• 

  Terry

  hillary_step wrote: So is it possible to define good and bad art or should it only be defined by appreciation? Remember Duke Ellington and his famous statement regarding music, “There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.” If, as most people seem to believe, that artistic beauty is in the eye the artistic beholder, can good and bad art be defined? For example, is there such a thing as a 'good' Sunday painter? I reply: Fine Art is really short for "FINished Art" in the sense it is complete in and of itself requiring no "utility" other than representing its own identity. The "goodness" or "badness" of art--in my opinion--lies in the intention of the creator of that art. Often, the dividing line is in the money it earns (or doesn't)but, I don't find that valid. An artist has an inherent right to be remunerated so that he/she can live to create more art. The dividing line for me is the "target" of the art itself. When I had the etching studio, we all quickly discovered we could only create income by responding to the art saleman's feedback. The feeback consisted of telling us the galleries (who purchased the art to sell to customers) wanted this color and that color and this size and that size. If we ignored the request of the ultimate customer we went out of business. Consequently, it became a practical matter of allowing the constraints become the FORM. We could still create whatever it was in our ethos to come up with---only this time with a narrowed resource of size and color. I can't image there can be art without obstacles of enforced form. Duke Ellington's opinon was informed by his lifetime spent with the greatest musicians alive. There were many a "battle of the bands" that left no doubt which was which. The players who have the mysterious quality "X-factor" stand head and shoulders above the merely competent ones. You can see such evident talent in athletics, chess, music, gymnastics, etc. People are born with a genetic predisposition to manipulate a form into a magnificence. The greatest movies ever made, in my opinion, were made under constraint of the Hays Office, black and white and limited budgets. Something about form requires a filtering out of "other" possible choices even when the filtering is done by censors.
• 

  Borgia

  He JGNAT,

  I've got that one hanging in my office. Nice view of the mediterraneo, is it not?

  Cheers

  Borgia