chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Great Art?Great art can never and should never be understood by the masses. Great art should be obscure, controversial, beyond the ordinary man's reach, understood only by an artistic elite. Anyone disagree? |
||
|
Art How can we know it is great just because "no one" understand it? |
||
|
Hi antinephilehi :) I do not mean social, economic or intellectual elite (other than artistic intellect, if there is such a thing), although it is arguable that they are likely to come from a reasonably affluent background. "How can we know it is great just because "no one" understand it?" I didn't mean it is great because no-one understands it, I mean no-one understands (but for the elite few) it because it is great. The fact that Joe public doesn't understand it is a consequence of Great Art, not the cause. The vast majority of us only know it is great art after a lot of time has passed, and probably also only after we've been told it is great art. We can also tell it is Great Art because it costs a lot and we have school trips to see it displayed somewhere important. For a working definition of Great Art, I would like to go with something along the lines of- "art which has changed (or is likely to change) societies". Perhaps we could argue the toss about that definition on another thread, if there are any serious disagreements about it. My main point here is that Great Art is beyond the reach of Mary Bloggs. She will say, "My 3 year old niece could do better than that" Why else did Van Gogh die a pauper? Steve |
||
|
Art After the Russian Revolution; the state created the art should serve mankind. Great artist emerged in that period of time, such as Malevich. Nietzsche claimed that his books are made for a few; because the masses will not understand his message. So on Nietzsche's point of view; I would like to say "Great Art" are not understood by the masses. We can appreciate it and love it; but not understand completely the artist's message. |
||
|
Duchamp imo it was a pivotal piece of art, but it was thrown out (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) shortly after the exhibition as rubbish! en.wikipedia.org) Now if that's not a proof that the average joe (and indeed the art exhibitors) wouldn't know art if it hit them in the face, I don't know what is! Steve |
||
|
nf7mate 23-Jun-09, 10:04 |
Great Art is objectively beautiful I think it is possible for Great Art to be recognized by 'the masses'. I think when the Sistine Chapel was finished, everyone who saw it knew it was a Great Work. At the same time, the value of a work of art is contained within the work itself, and it is possible for Great Art to be overlooked or even shunned by society. I don't think a work of art must change society in order to be considered great. Imagine if the Mona Lisa was lost soon after being painted and no record of its existence remained. It had no impact on society at all. Does that make it less great? |
||
|
Hi nf7mate And I'm not just talking about pretty stuff. I mean you wouldn't say Duchamp's Urinal was that pretty would you? What Duchamp was trying to achieve was so ahead of his time that nobody even thought to keep the artwork. The fact that it was destroyed doesn't make it subjectively rubbish, but at the same time you could hardly argue that the toilet or any of his other "objets trouves" were objectively beautiful, or would you? I don't think aesthetics are the issue here. What matters is that the piece was a revolutionary art work which was thrown away because no-one understood it, because it was so far ahead of its time. Had the majority of people understood it, it would also not have been groundbreaking enough to cause that revolution. The artist leads the way, and the rest of the world slowly catches up. Regarding the Sistine Chapel, I think that people are more capable of admiring great craftsmanship than understanding great art. The effects achieved by Michelangelo are awesome and the anatomical accuracy must have been mindblowing to Giovanni Publici. Duchamp on chess: “The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem... I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists.” Steve |
||
|
repost, duchamp's fountain en.wikipedia.org |
||
|
James Joyce He said that the viewer while watching this beautiful painting; his senses and his emotions are moving around the painting. Joyce called it a"pornographic art." However when the viewer is watching a painting and suddenly nothing is moving; and it is just merge of the viewer and painting; this manifestation he called "Great Art." For a man who was not a painter; I believe Joyce has a valid point. |
||
|
nf7mate 24-Jun-09, 12:36 |
Howdy Steve Would you consider the Sistine Chapel to be Great Art? Great quote from Duchamp on chess, by the way. |
||
|
Hi rilke, hi nf7, True, but is that not the case with all art? Art is very much of its time and great art, which in its time has changed the course of mankind, would not have had the same impact had it been made in a different era. Too early, and the artist would have been considered a madman. Too late, and they would have been considered imitators. The artist must occupy (in their conceptual processes at least) the fringes of society, and be constantly pushing back the boundaries. How else could it have gone unnoticed for 2 months in the Museum of Modern Art, that 'Le Batteau' by Matisse was hung upsidedown? Yes, I do consider the Sistine Chapel to be great art. But here's a question: if someone recreated the "Fountain" or Sistine Chapel in 2009, exact in every detail, would you consider the replica great art? Steve |
||
|
Hi Obsteve |
||
|
nf7mate 25-Jun-09, 12:42 |
Replicas I would compare this with a beautiful new move in an opening line that a GM plays over the board and stuns the chess world as opposed to another player subsequently playing that same move in the same position by memory. Both moves are identical in every way, but we give recognition to the GM for finding the move, perhaps even naming the move after him/her, and we give little recognition (if any) to others who learn it afterwards. Wow. Chess is a lot like art. |
||
|
Chess is a lot like art... I like this analogy. I think it fits with great art changing the path of society, inasmuch as a Beautiful New Move changes the path of chess. Drawing it round to my initial claim- IMO the chess world is stunned precisely because it has never contemplated the move- the very nature of the BNM means that it is (initially at least) beyond the reach of the ordinary chess player- for whom, luckily, there will be probably a book on the BNM out some time after the event. Furthermore, the world outside the chess community will probably never get to hear about it, nor give two hoots if they do. <<...another player subsequently playing that same move in the same position by memory>> How would you feel if a computer program made the move as part of its programming? Or indeed, how would you feel if a computer were to replicate the Cistine? Still any artistic merit? Steve |
||
|
computers programs are only the manifestation of the programer's art directly by a person playing over the board, or by a programer who is playing the game indirectly and using the computer as a tool. Note that I think the programer[s] gets the credit, not the computer user. |
||
|
original question artists of the past who created work that now appeals to the masses are somehow lesser artists. They created great art. Copyists create copies of art, but the copies do not diminish the original in my mind. It's also worth noting that some copies are better than others. For example, before seeing the original of Andrew Wyeth's painting "Christina's World", en.wikipedia.org I had seen many photographs of it and never thought highly of it. Seeing the original at MOMA changed my view and understanding completely. |
||
|
Dutch Masters No, you are right, they are not lesser artists on account of their contemporary appeal. However, their contemporary appeal to the masses is largely on account of them being recognised masters. You want the Canaletto print on your wall to show how classy you are (beside the fact that only the 'recognised' artists' reproductions are sold in the shops anyway). I don't imagine there are that many who could distinguish a Franz Hals (of Laughing Cavalier fame) from any of his lesser known and lesser sought after contemporaries. Hals died a pauper too... Artists (like Shakespeare's plays) go in and out of fashion. The Chess Players, by Lucas van Leyden- www.art-wallpaper.com Steve |
Log in 
