Let's Talk Art: Ref 4 Art Lingo and Tequila

Art Lingo and Tequila

If you are, like me, under the impression that “fine art” is an activity necessitating excessive talent or achievement like in "the fine art of drinking tequila", you are welcome to join me in my attempt to improve my own Art vocabulary.

Introduction

I have a compelling notion that I am not a complete exception and that there are perhaps more friends of artists out there - and maybe even artists themselves - that are equally confused by the Art lingo that are spontaneously vocalised by our learned friends and colleagues at the galleries, exhibitions, arty gatherings, social events and even more liberally in the media. 

I never had any art education for the past five decades and what I had before was either inadequate or I am not able to recollect anything that could save me from public humiliation. This was then the motivation do some very superficial, non-exhausting! research to at best get a vague comprehension of what those people are talking about.

Disclaimer: I hope that this article will at least have some value to myself and therefore I would like to state that it is not intended as an academic paper on art or for entering for a prize for literature. Neither would I like to defend a lawsuit for plagiarism or find myself being accused of misrepresentation or distortion of published material. But I will do my very best to make sense of the overwhelming amount of perplexing and inconsistent information on the web and to summarise it in a way that even I can more or less comprehend. I will, therefore, except for one or two quotations, not cite any references. Please feel free to leave any comments at the bottom of this article.

Well, let us now look at my understanding of some of the most frequently used art terminology. 

Aesthetics

It was a huge surprise to me to learn that aesthetics is actually a branch of philosophy! Aesthetics apparently explores the nature of art and art-associated concepts and there is an array of principles with regard to the appreciation of beauty and artistic taste.

How to use the term in practice (I traced a few but please also check for yourself):

1) “Aesthetics is important because it helps us understand and judge the various qualities one will find in art. Aesthetics helps painters judge their paintings by themselves”

2) “Most of the sculptures on display were not made to become subject to aesthetic contemplation in western art museums”

3) “It was spectacularly built and was very aesthetically pleasing to the eye.”

4) “The dog has aesthetic appeal", "The dog adheres to its breed's aesthetic", are both correct, but "The dog is aesthetic", it is not idiomatically correct”

Note: I believe it will it be acceptable for me to say: “I find your painting aesthetically pleasing” and I should never say: “Your painting is very aesthetic”. I should work on this one!

Art

It was extremely difficult to find a generic definition for Art as people all have unique ideas of what it constitutes. If we delve deep there are many age-old descriptions as well as countless contemporary deliberations mentioning art. 

The most concise description I could find was that “art refers to creativity found in humans to produce objects, environments and experiences through skills and imagination”.

Some other ideas to ponder are: 

"Art is a diverse range of human activities creating visual, auditory or performing artworks"

"Art is expressing the creator’s imaginative, conceptual ideas or technical skill"

"Art is intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power"

It seems somewhat clear how the concept of Art should be understood, but I believe the following breakdown of Art into elements, segments and fundamental fragments is slightly more than challenging.

Art Elements (or Art Forms)

According to my research material, the major elements of the Arts are:

• Visual Arts (architecture, ceramics, drawing, filmmaking, painting, photography and sculpting)

Note: Some sources also mention that it is believed that Applied Arts such as industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, interior design and decorative art should also be acknowledged as Visual Arts.

• Literature (fiction, drama, poetry, and prose)
• Performing arts (dance, music, and theatre)
• Culinary arts (cooking, chocolate making and winemaking).

The above art elements may also be combined as in the following examples:

• Visual Art and Performance Art (e.g. cinematography)
• Visual Art and Literature (e.g. comics).

Note: 

I still have a few concerns:

• Food was not mentioned in the Visual Art category – what is more lovely and visually appealing than a chocolate bonbon outside its wrapper or some wine in a glass?
• What shall we call Culinary Arts combined with Visual Arts?
• I have a friend “painting” with food, is that then Visual Art combined with Culinary Art or is it plainly Visual Art using mixed media?
• Are food stylists Visual Artists?
• I am getting hungry now.

Before we leave this subject, I need to report that there was lately yet another addition to the existing Art Elements or Art Forms and this is, believe it or not, Social Sculpting! It took a lot of my time to understand this new Element and I will try to summarise it as clearly as possible.

Social Sculpting was invented around 1980 by the artist Joseph Beuys who believed that art has the potential to transform society. These Social Sculptures can be created by applying anything - language, thoughts, actions and objects by anyone - artist or non-artist. (Just my own thoughts – “anything” sounds like mixed media, but “anyone” troubles me - can it then still be defined as Art as such?) According to Beuys however, the only prerequisite for the “sculpture” to be classified as Art, is that it has to be the result of a deliberate act (full stop).

To demonstrate his concept, he orchestrated the creation of a Social Sculpture. Firstly, he initiated the arranging of a huge pile of stones in the form of a large arrow in an open field. The arrow pointed in the direction of a tree that he had planted. He then specified that the stones may not be moved unless a tree was planted in the place of each stone - at the end, 7000 trees were planted. 

This venture confirmed (to Beuys, at least?) that a Social Sculpture can deliberately be created by involving a mixture of artistic, academic or scientific disciplines (not only art) and that anyone, not only artists, can participate in creating it. 

Note: The explanation of the concept goes much further and deeper into how social transformation can be achieved through creating a Social Sculpture, but I am confident that I now have a fairly good idea of what it represents, so please add it to your list of Art Elements.

Visual Art

As reported above, I found that Visual Art is one of the Elements of Art and learned that it constitutes drawing, painting, sculpting, ceramics, architecture, photography and filmmaking.

For the rest of this article, I am going to explore Visual Art only.

Note: Lately it has been acknowledged that artistic disciplines like conceptual art, textile art and performing arts also “involve aspects of visual arts” as well as “arts of other types”. Sorry for my ignorance, but seeing that filmmaking is included as a proper form of Visual Art, I am questioning why theatre is then excluded? If one films a theatre production, does the film then qualify as Visual Art?

Fine art

Fine Art is a term that is extensively used and I questioned what it actually encompasses and where it should fit into the intricate maze of art terminology. Lazy by nature, I have a nasty habit of taking extremely brief shortcuts and this time was no exception. This is what I found around the first corner of this "alternate route":

“Fine art is:

1. creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic or intellectual content.
2. an activity requiring great skill or accomplishment: ‘the fine art of drinking tequila’”   https://www.lexico.com/definition/fine_art

Yes, you are correct, the second definition suits me better. But I guess I should rather focus on the first one and that one is the one that really bothers me. Are we now sitting with fine art being creative art and then visual art as an apparent subdivision of creative art? 

• What is creative art then?
• An even more baffling implication of the term “creative art” is that there is “art” that is not creative?

I had to dig much deeper into cyberspace this time and found another definition that sort of presented a tiny measure of comfort: “Arts is a general term for any craft that requires a level of creativity to master. Fine Arts refer specifically to crafts, generally visual, that focus on aesthetic appeal rather than practical use.” 

Note: 

Is this then stating that:

• Artisans generally falls into the first part of the definition where they create primarily for practical use while Artists may apply the same creativity and skills to, at all times, create for aesthetic appeal?
• A distinction between creative art and non-creative art cannot be made, as artisans also create, and the term creative art is therefore meaningless?

We started off exploring the concept of Fine Art, but only found confirmation that things are rarely straightforward in art. I was thus immensely comforted when I found that someone remarked that: “In my opinion, the distinction between fine art and visual art is an artificial one, and there is no hard line between the two”.

Note: In my own belief, Fine Art is synonymous to Visual Art and Visual Art is created solely for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and is judged for its imaginativeness, meaningfulness, beauty, aesthetic value and intellectual content.

Genre

As far as I understand, the term “Genre” is used to group together, understand and appreciate art. Traditionally, until the early 1800s, paintings were divided into five categories or Genres. The genres were ordered in sequence from most important to least significant. This ranking was based on the display value of the paintings in the genre. Artworks in the history genre were most appropriate for public display, followed by portraits, genre paintings (a confusing category name) and landscapes. Still life paintings, the lowest genre, were produced for home use only. 

1. History paintings deal with historical, symbolic, mythical, and religious events and communicated stories about people.
2. Portraits include paintings of heroes, private people and self-portraits.
3. Genre paintings are scenes that depict everyday life and include one or more people doing things
4. Landscapes did not traditionally involve people and sub-types are cityscapes, seascapes, and waterscapes.
5.  Animal painting - horse paintings were popular traditionally
6. Still life paintings depict flowers, fruits, food, drinks, cutlery and eating, drinking and cooking utensils.

Since their initiation, the main genres have regularly been reorganized and the latest change is the addition of a Genre named Progressive Concepts / Abstraction. The art term “progressive” means that the artist is free and that everything and anything can be admitted into the world of art. Abstract art is about form, colour, line, texture, pattern, composition and process and the artworks do not attempt to depict actual things or objects.

Style

Note: “Style” to me was one of the most difficult terms to understand and clearly describe as there are so many different views of what style actually is. Secondly, the words “style”, “genre” and “movement” are used extremely interchangeably and undifferentiated by people putting their hand on computer keyboard. I am, however, by nature very “boxy” as far as language is concerned and tried my best to clearly distinguish between the terms and to their original meaning. 

Style can be divided into general style and individual style. 

Individual Style

“Individual style” refers to the work of a specific artist. Artists have individual “ways of doing” as there are certain elements that each artist constantly applies in a distinctive way throughout when creating. Individual styles are developed throughout artists’ lifetime and an artist's style can adapt as the artist grows as an artist and as a person. An artist's personal style usually progresses as the artist gains more confidence through experience, expands their knowledge and acquires more skill. 

In critic’s terms, an artist’s style is manifested in the way in which the artist’s subject matter is represented and how the artist’s vision is expressed. The style is then described by characteristics or stylistic elements such as 1) the way form, colour and composition, etcetera is applied, 2) the way the artist handles the medium, 3) the method or technique that the artist uses as well as 4) the philosophy or driving force behind the artwork. Individual styles are understood as characteristic expressions of the mind and personality of the artist.

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art” Susan Sontag

Artists can also work in many different styles, but, according to the academics, it is better for an artist to focus on one specific style that allows them to express their inner vision as well as to fully develop potential within that style so that they can flourish as an artist.

General Style

Artworks that have certain features in common are considered to have the same style and can then be grouped in terms of a “general” style. 

General style can be subdivided into: 

• Universal style (common  styles that may change over time as a result of technological innovation and transformation in the art world),
• Historical or period style (art with characteristics of a specific historical period) and
• School style (art by artists who shared the same teachers and followed the style they were taught)

Art Movements

A number of artists in the same timeframe who share the same artistic ideals, style, technical approach, etcetera is usually classified together in an “art movement”. Art movements are generally titled after they already started. As many of their names use an -ism suffix, such movements are also referred to as “isms”. 

Artworks that have the same style may sometimes be part of the same art movement, but there are also artists today who paint in a style that was defined as a movement some time ago. They are however contemporary artists who are inspired by the particular movements and they are not part of the relevant movements.

General art movements:

1. Abstract Expressionism: Vigorous, sweeping brushstrokes, dripping and spilling paint.
2. Art Nouveau: Sinuous, asymmetrical lines based on organic forms.
3. Avant-garde: Innovative, experimental. (“Avant-garde is French for bullshit” John Lennon)
4. Baroque: Dramatic motion and detail for drama, tension, exuberance, opulence.
5. Classicism: Traditional forms, focus on elegance and symmetry.
6. Conceptual Art: Ideas, theoretical practices, no need for finished product
7. Constructivism: Abstract, mathematical, not attempting to be art, for social purposes.
8. Cubism: Geometric planes, fragmented compositions, Picasso.
9. Dadaism: Negative response on traditions, shocking people into self-awareness.
10. Expressionism: Distortion, exaggeration, fantasy, violent colour, inner feelings.
11. Fauvism: Strong, vibrant colour, bold brushstrokes, realistic.
12. Futurism: Dynamism, speed and energy of modern mechanical world.
13. Impressionism: Visual ‘impressions’, emphasize movement and changing light qualities.
14. Installation art: Large-scale, mixed-media constructions
15. Land Art: Directly in the landscape, sculpting land with rocks or twigs.
16. Minimalism: Simple, geometric shapes no representational content.
17. Neo-Impressionism: Measured, systematic technique, based on science and optics.
18. Neoclassicism: Subsequent take on classical Greek and Italian art.
19. Performance art: Created through live or recorded performances, spontaneous or scripted.
20. Pointillism: Countless tiny dots of pure colour in patterns to form an image.
21. Pop Art: Popular imagery emphasizing banal or kitschy elements of everyday life.
22. Post-Impressionism: Emotional responses, bold colour, expressive or symbolic images.
23. Rococo: Elaborate ornamentation, light and sensuous style.
24. Surrealism: Liberating, promoting the irrational, the poetic and the revolutionary.
25. Suprematism: Abstract, expressed in simplest geometric forms and dynamic compositions.

New Art Movements:

1. Kitsch: Cheap, vulgar, and mass-produced, low-brow.
2. Neo-Futurism: Characteristically post-post modern
3. Thinkism: Questions environment change, influence of geo-political and man-made forces.
4. Mass-Surrealism: Uses mass media, video, graphic production to make artistic statements.
5. Altermodern: Against cultural standardization, massification, nationalisms, cultural relativism.
6. Abject Art: Transgressive, offensive, focuses on crap. 

“Modern paintings are like women; you'll never enjoy them if you try to understand them.” Freddie Mercury

Conclusion

Well, dear readers, I have attempted to explore some of the key art terms to get a better understanding of them and to allow me to use them with a fair measure of confidence. My initial realisation at take-off was, being confronted by the tons of information before me, that I really knew very little about the subject. Then, even more scary, it came to mind that I first had to be very careful not to make a fool of myself, but secondly, and more importantly, not to misinform readers of this forum. 

In my own view, my exercise to provide an overview of vital art terminology to myself was successful. I can now confidently mention terms like Art Elements, Visual Art, Style, Genre and Movement and even make (very) small talk about Art Movements!

I, however, realise that, although it was most enjoyable and valuable, I have only scraped the tip of the “artberg” and need to read much more on the subject of art.

Lastly, I leave you with a remark delivering a sound and clear motive for my quest for art knowledge: 

“Whenever I listen to an artist or an art historian, I'm struck by how much they see and how much they know--and how much I don't. Good art writing should therefore do at least two things. It should teach us how to look at art, architecture, sculpture, photography and all the other visual components of our daily landscape. And it should give us the information we need to understand what we're looking at.” William Knowlton Zinsser

Lets Talk Art: Ref 3 Art or Ornament? 23 May 2020

Art or Ornament?

The other day I was astonished by a statement by one of my friends who, after his retirement as lawyer, became a full-time fine artist creating brilliant acrylic paintings. You have actually already met him as "Philistine" in our very first Let's Talk Art article.Well, this troublesome remark by my friend was sparked by the following incident. I have namely emailed him some pictures of amazing art pottery made by another very gifted friend of mine. The lawyer’s wife immediately fell in love with one of the pottery masterpieces and I, in my true nature as serious advocate of art sales, then swiftly took up the opportunity to suggest that the lawyer acquire the piece. To my horror, this fellow remarked that his spouse has plenty of “ornaments” already. Of course, he was just making fun at me. He has always been very articulate and true to his profession thoroughly recognize the significance of expressive terms in a court of law. Therefore, when this well-spoken law-man presented to “court” this true piece of art as just another specimen of a variety of decorative objects, it forced the “jury” to question their frame of reference and to reconsider their longstanding beliefs. It left the bench with the aenigma that all ornaments in the general sense of the word cannot easily be defined as art but that ALL art may well be classified as ornamental.

Still in awe, I then countered another friend of mine. This serious artist likewise has the gift of the gap and a way with words, spoken as well as written and she is fiery by nature. You know me, I like to stir…… As expected, this lady totally lost it when I suggested that she assist me in exploring the possibility that art may only be decorating our homes.

This was her response.

There is a vast difference between decorative and academic art. In previous centuries, original art were honored items in households and homes were never jam-packed with wooden crosses, baskets or welded geckos. Art was admired, original items that could only be afforded by stink-wealthy folks. The exception was less well-off art lovers that saved money and made down payments on original assignments for the reason that they simply could not live without it. I tend to have more admiration for the latter, because it is an indication that the buyer recognized the artist's soul in that workpiece.

Decorative items, on the other hand, is a fairly new trend. The stuff are usually the product of crafts and mass production and unfortunately also include replicas, prints and copies of real artwork. This commercially driven industry made it affordable for people to embellish their homes, floor to ceiling, with items very often reflecting the brand MADE IN CHINA. Décor fads and whims are sheepishly trailed by people with money and whose knowledge of art is diminutive. Decorative items can thus easily end up on the garbage heap amongst other rubbish, because people soon get tired of it, or it goes out of fashion and they then seek another trend or decor tendency to waste money on.

One tiny step up from the above, there is furthermore undeniably a trend of so-called artists, who in sausage-machine-style, one after the other, turn out paintings of flowerpots, bicycles or scrubbing megapode hens under a washing line. Emotion and thoughtful topics and abstraction play no role in the childlike version of topics which the masses adore. Ignorant buyers will then pay astronomical amounts for an “original” piece signed by an artist with a household name, only a) because the neighbor and everyone else owns one b) the item is decorative and c) the buyer look at it and they "understand" the subject. These “artists” are especially successful when they have a marketing strategy that attracts particularly feminine "groupies". "Art" then becomes a ridiculous method to catch the herd animal. These are the types of artists that make art banal and insignificant. Like DEFY, it becomes public ownership.

Yes, nowadays "kitsch" is high fashion, but can one really compare a Fabergé egg to an ostrich egg featuring a painted image of an ostrich or put a Lalique glassware item next to a Consol glass item? So, by the way, I also despise poor art being mounted in most expensive frames that are worth ten times the artwork. Another thing - true art is not a style or subject which repeats itself on every tomdickanharry’s walls and therefore mass-produced copies and prints can easily degenerate true art into a Tretchikoff-like decorative item. 

True art, on the other hand, is a reflection of the soul. It is original work created by man's hand, inspired by emotion and passion. This process involves visions, color, detail, texture and even odor. Influences and several aspects and facets of an artist's life journey and their emotional life space at the time of the creation are notable in the outcome. It then takes a real fine artist, a serious art collector or an art expert to recognize the subtle nuances of genuine art, to interpret the technique, subject and soul meaning thereof and to occasionally make their own observations. If this can be done, only then can we call it real art.

.

People who buy real art are in two distinctive categories - some buy to make an investment; others acquire artwork for the intrinsic value thereof. I personally believe a lover of fine art will always have an original piece, even if it is very small, has been made by an unknown artist or has no sales value at all.  Yes, and it is sadly true, many real fine artists with excellent training and sometimes genial talent are never recognized. Luckily true artists are not dependent on approval of others, neither is money the driving force behind the creation of real art. Most excellent artists can only make a reasonable living as only a very small number of them get a lucky break and become famous. But this never kills the inspiration to create.

Therefore, it all depends on taste, culture, environment, training and viewpoint, whether you see a real artwork as a decorative item or as an ornament.

What I referred to above is an based on 45 years of being a professional artist

Regards

Dorothy Laguerenne Wannenburgh Mathews

My notes:

1.    How do you describe ornaments? (Make your pick…)
Here are some adjectives for ornaments: noncommittal and ostentatious (showy), wonderfully beautiful and complex, single meretricious, fragile native, exterior and adventitious, false or unseasonable, fragile and priceless, deformed but indispensable, gaudy and technical, flexible, circular, slender and charming, chief and ...https://describingwords.io/for/ornaments

2.   I am still not sure if a fine piece of art may really fall into the classification of "ornament"….

Ps. You can view Dorothy’s art on Facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/dorothylaguerennewannenburgh.mathews

https://www.facebook.com/dorothylaguerenne.wannenburghmathews.9

Kind regards

Steph

Let's Talk Art: Ref 2 Investing in Art, Me? 10 May 2020

Date: 1o May 2020  Administrator: Steph Krynauw Ref: 2

"Investing in art, me?" 

The Challenge

I have recently asked a friend of mine to tell whether he reckons that art is a good investment in the current economic climate. I specifically selected him for the following reasons:

• He is a senior citizen who retired from a job in the public services sector a few years ago
• He is conservative and plans money and investments carefully
• He receives a monthly income from his pension investment
• During his career he managed to save and buy a second property to provide extra income
• He is honest, serious and straightforward

This was his response:

You are asking me whether the acquisition of art in this economic time is a good investment or not? Then please note that my response is from the point of view of a layman, I am not an art expert nor a financial consultant.

I will base my reply on a painting I bought for R7000 from Chris Tugwell at his small gallery in Brooklyn Shopping Centre in the year 2000. The size of the painting without the frame is 90 x 60cm.

                           

The ponderings

To compare and discuss the potential investment value of my transaction, I am going to use the USD dollar value as well as the interest rate linked to a normal savings account. However, before I proceed, there are a few points I need to share about my decision to buy the painting:

• I read that art industry experts suggest that people with no specialized knowledge should buy a piece of art because they like it, not because they want to get rich. If the piece of art goes up in value, that should be just an added bonus. It was also mentioned that it does not provide, like other investments, a monthly income (ya well?).

• I was told that art is not easy to re-sell and based on this, as well as the above points, I founded my purchase decision firstly on my requirement to own something nice and secondly on a plan to sell the artwork after my retirement to fund a holiday in America. I am an ardent Western reader and it has always been a dream to travel and to get first-hand experience of the dirt roads, the outback little towns and bullet-ridden bars of the Southwest.

• I therefore decided to carefully select an artist that could deliver something for the eye as well as a good measure of promise on something for the pocket in future.

• Paintings as artform was an attractive investment option because it was something physical and I would be able see what I was buying opposed to shares or other outlays where I would only receive a piece of paper and hoped it would still be there or would be delivering sufficient revenue when I needed it.

• I observe the hazards of the financial markets on a daily basis and, seeing that art has no correlation to the stock market, to me it meant that the value of the painting could increase even if the stock market crashes.

• However, I am a very conservative investor and realised that I also had to invest a good amount of time on research like reading about artists, visiting art galleries and even talking to knowledgeable people. At the end…well about that I will tell you later.

• I then read about painting themes and learned that the following was most popular.

• Traditional landscapes (I was glad this one is first, it’s my personal favourite).

• Modern or semi-abstract landscapes

• Impressionistic landscapes

• Local scenes

• Abstracts

• Figure studies (excluding nudes)

• Seascapes, harbours, and beach scenes

• Wildlife

• I also learned that if one has an investment objective, one should seek out renowned artists and avoid buying small and subtle paintings – this was not good news for my budget….

But let us get down to business

At the time of my transaction in 2000, the US dollar (USD) against the Rand was R 6.72.

This means that:

• Should I have paid in dollar, it would amount to USD 1041.66 at that stage.

• If I bought USD1041 in 2000 and kept it to this day and now, I would, at the current rate of R18.50, have received (if I traded the Dollars back to Rand), an amount of R19 258

• If I had put the money into a savings account and gained an average interest rate of 7% and re-invest the monthly interest into the account, I would have had R28 271

• I have not requested a formal valuation, but if I compare my Chris Tugwell painting with some of his current paintings at the gallery in Brooklyn Shopping Centre, the painting can easily be sold for between R40 000 and R50 000, well - minus the commission….

From the above it is clear that the investment in the painting totally outstripped the other options.
Please note that I haven't added to the painting's ownership costs any other investment cost such as insurance (I did not specify and insure it separately) and storage costs (I kept it on my living room wall for free!).

On the other hand, I also did not take into account the current low buying power of the Rand and that the prices in the gallery was still based on a stronger Rand. Production costs for artists will definitely increase in the near future and selling prices of artwork will also have to be revised accordingly.

The verdict:

The day I saw the painting in the gallery, it caught my attention and "talked" to me. The traditional highveld scene with cattle in the foreground stirred something in me that totally wiped out any common sense. I just about ran out of the gallery to get rid of the feeling and went for a coffee but the image of the painting didn't want to leave me. Within a few minutes I was back at gallery and did not take long in paying for it.

To this day the painting gives me enjoyment that I cannot express in monetary terms.
As a careful investor and a layman in investments and art, I have always been someone who does not take chances, but I can now say that buying a painting by a good artist is an excellent long-term investment – well for me, maybe forever? 

Regards

Freddie.

My own remarks:

• “There are no rules about investment. Sharks can be good. Artist’s dung can be good. Oil canvas can be good.” (Charles Saatchi)

• “Investors have very short memories” (Roman Abramovich)

• “I'd like to live as a poor man with lots of money (Pablo Picasso)

                                    

Regards
Steph

Let's Talk Art: Ref 1 Arty Farty 31 Apr 2020

                                                           

     Let’s Talk Art

               Date: 31 Apr 2020  Administrator: Steph Krynauw Ref: 1

Just to “stir” and get your opinion, I have requested an artist friend of mine to give us a piece of his mind on art. Here it comes from the pen of “Phillistine”……

                   

     Arty Farty

When I was requested to open this column, I clearly pointed out that I am not properly qualified nor knowledgeable to pontificate with any authority about a complex subject such as fine art.

Steph tried to mollify me by saying that I could write about anything at all. It might have been easier if there was a particular topic, not that I necessarily have an informed opinion on any aspect or question of what "art" or "artist" is.

I cannot even provide a vague definition of one of the two. Articles available on the internet that appear to have been written by experts on what art is, is so extremely metaphysical and nebulous that I am not able determine the criteria – how does one then write meaningful about a thing you don't understand?

I have always felt that "Art" must have an element of extraordinary talent and skill, a technical ability that only extraordinarily gifted people have, something that distinguishes their work from what almost every jackass can do.

But then I despise Tretchikoff and Klee. Consequently, my discernment is not valid because any school child can copy Klee, but one must admit that you will have to be good to be able to replicate a Tretchikoff, even though you may be of the opinion that his paintings are kitsch trash.

So, is it the human emotion evoked by an artwork that elevates it to something special? With whom? Tretchikoff’s 'Lost Orchid' does it, though it’s soppy sweet. If I paint a tombstone, is it then art because of the hidden skeleton under the stone? If this is true, the Tate Gallery would be filled with pictures of starving children instead of sawed-up slices of cattle in formalin.

So, what is art? What makes it good and special? How can Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais' and Michelangelo's 'Pieta', both of which required incredible skill and effort from the sculptors, be mentioned in the same breath as Henry Moore's stylized images?

Who determines which work of art is worth thousands of Rands or which is worth less than the frame it is in?

 How can there be fashions or trends in art? Had Keith Alexander sold his paintings on Sundays under a beach umbrella at the roadside, how much would someone have been prepared to pay for it? If a primitive still life that was painted by a housewife on her kitchen table is offered in an auction by Stephan Welz, it would probably achieve a higher price than the Keith Alexander painting that was purchased on a Sunday at the roadside.

If you argue that 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' then art is to every person what he personally considers special, even though it may be something that had been painted by a chimpanzee. If this is true, every effort to make anything visual or auditory is then just another thing until someone identifies it as art?

Mount a brick on a stand and call it 'building block' and if your name is Willem Boshoff, then it is art?

This is my dilemma and the reason why I’m reluctant to pretend that my opinion has value, the odds are good that I just don't understand art that much and that I am too much of a linear thinker without the necessary Insight.

This reminds me of the cheese shop sketch by Monty Python where the owner says to the customer: “I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.”
I apologize for wasting your time, but the blame should fall on Steph.

Philistine.

My own remarks:

• “Art is art. Everything else is everything else.” (Ad Reinhardt, 1913-1967)
• “Art is anything you can get away with.” (Andy Warhol, 1928-1987)

Regards
Steph