I was a little dissapointed at some of them. They were painted in such broad colors and huge strokes. Not at all what I expected.
Really? Most of the 18th century work I've seen in museums is rather "tight" and detailed. Now I grew up reading books about Impressionist art in the 19th century and most of it in museums is something of a disappointment to me in real life. (I used to adore Renoir, now I have no idea why.)
But you're right about "eye of the beholder" definitely. My tastes have changed as I've gotten more educated and simply seen more work. When my sweetie went back to art school at a classical academy over ten years ago I "didn't understand" abstract art. After looking at enough mediocre to middling realist art, I started to learn to appreciate good abstract and modernist art. There's certain things - form, surface, color, composition - that always apply.
I don't think there is any right or wrong unless you are a scholar and then of course there must be right and wrong and technique. :D
Right, because you have a thesis to defend *lol* The fact that no two scholars can agree on anything is very telling.
When my sweetie was in art school and learning technique she was suddenly "correcting" me, that I didn't see paintings with an artist's eye. Well, true - I wasn't trying to figure out HOW something was painted, most of the time. But I have nearly 40 years experience reading about and looking at art so I don't take kindly to being dismissed. *lol* (She hasn't done that in forever btw - mostly she asks me to critique her paintings. So apparently I do know my stuff.)
The icons I made for that round are about my faves I've ever deliberately made. I wanted to win with them and was a little dissapointed not to have
YOu are just making me feel less and less guilty about everything, hon! Because I said "oh I don't care if I win in this challenge I just want to share my icons" and then I didn't and I was like, "oh maybe I did want to win." *sniffle* And that's ok - it's normal to feel that way about something we've put a lot of ourselves into!
Did you post the entire series for that challenge on your journal btw?
You've now made me go make some for the current round. I rather like them too. :DI know that art is supposed to be left to the viewer to interpret but as a viewer I've always wondered what the hell the artist was trying to get at.
Something I learned when my sweetie was in art school was that people who are interested in art are also interested in the artists and the process, not just the final product. They're curious about it. And that makes sense - I love antiques, and I've bought very few but spent a lot of time learning about the subject.
I think "ART" has been shrouded in mystery for so long, almost like a PR campaign. It's something that "only the very talented have access to" (when it's mostly about practice and hard work in reality); it's special, it's magical, blah blah bitty blah. People want to be creative but don't see themselves as such because they don't fit the stereotypes.
And as artists, it's nice to know what other people do and have done. My sweetie spent hours at museums studying the works there. That is how we learn - from others. Talking, studying the work etc
And I'm chatty anyway (pretend to be shocked) so, yeah, I like it when people share the process. Even the stuff that doesn't "work" - why doesn't it work? How did you get around that? What did you learn from it?
I love when someone sees something in one of my works that I put there and no-one has seen it.
Or when someone sees something in my works that I didn't even see because they have a different interpretation. It can lead to fascinating discussions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2014-02-20 11:37 pm (UTC)Really? Most of the 18th century work I've seen in museums is rather "tight" and detailed. Now I grew up reading books about Impressionist art in the 19th century and most of it in museums is something of a disappointment to me in real life. (I used to adore Renoir, now I have no idea why.)
But you're right about "eye of the beholder" definitely. My tastes have changed as I've gotten more educated and simply seen more work. When my sweetie went back to art school at a classical academy over ten years ago I "didn't understand" abstract art. After looking at enough mediocre to middling realist art, I started to learn to appreciate good abstract and modernist art. There's certain things - form, surface, color, composition - that always apply.
I don't think there is any right or wrong unless you are a scholar and then of course there must be right and wrong and technique. :D
Right, because you have a thesis to defend *lol* The fact that no two scholars can agree on anything is very telling.
When my sweetie was in art school and learning technique she was suddenly "correcting" me, that I didn't see paintings with an artist's eye. Well, true - I wasn't trying to figure out HOW something was painted, most of the time. But I have nearly 40 years experience reading about and looking at art so I don't take kindly to being dismissed. *lol* (She hasn't done that in forever btw - mostly she asks me to critique her paintings. So apparently I do know my stuff.)
The icons I made for that round are about my faves I've ever deliberately made. I wanted to win with them and was a little dissapointed not to have
YOu are just making me feel less and less guilty about everything, hon! Because I said "oh I don't care if I win in this challenge I just want to share my icons" and then I didn't and I was like, "oh maybe I did want to win." *sniffle* And that's ok - it's normal to feel that way about something we've put a lot of ourselves into!
Did you post the entire series for that challenge on your journal btw?
You've now made me go make some for the current round. I rather like them too. :DI know that art is supposed to be left to the viewer to interpret but as a viewer I've always wondered what the hell the artist was trying to get at.
Something I learned when my sweetie was in art school was that people who are interested in art are also interested in the artists and the process, not just the final product. They're curious about it. And that makes sense - I love antiques, and I've bought very few but spent a lot of time learning about the subject.
I think "ART" has been shrouded in mystery for so long, almost like a PR campaign. It's something that "only the very talented have access to" (when it's mostly about practice and hard work in reality); it's special, it's magical, blah blah bitty blah. People want to be creative but don't see themselves as such because they don't fit the stereotypes.
And as artists, it's nice to know what other people do and have done. My sweetie spent hours at museums studying the works there. That is how we learn - from others. Talking, studying the work etc
And I'm chatty anyway (pretend to be shocked) so, yeah, I like it when people share the process. Even the stuff that doesn't "work" - why doesn't it work? How did you get around that? What did you learn from it?
I love when someone sees something in one of my works that I put there and no-one has seen it.
Or when someone sees something in my works that I didn't even see because they have a different interpretation. It can lead to fascinating discussions.