Good and Bad art ... how about Dali?

[Armat]

Surrealism as “style” rather died quickly since reality is much greater then our subconscious.

I was never fan of Dali. Most people get awe struck on his visual images but he lacks real content. For me any Art form, which is based solely on intellectual plain, dies. Think about this. Minimalism-dead. Surrealism-dead. Dadaism-dead. Futurism-dead and so on. What all these ism have in common are manifestations of intellectual expressions.

What does Van Gogh, Gorky, Rembrandt, and Velasquez just of few have in common? I will let you figure that.

 

---

Note: This thread was split from another thread so Armat is not the initiator. --Sip

Edited December 24, 2003 by Seapahn

[Dan]

Dali lacks real content? Dude.... that pic just makes you think, unlike any landscape by Van Gogh... You don't like Dali, that's fine, but don't just slam the guy down saying that he lacked real content... maybe for you he does lack content, but not for me and many others...

[gamavor]

I don't like Dali either. His elitism is just expression of his immense egoism. No doubt he continues to be one of the greatest in his genre.

[Dan]

For me any Art form, which is based solely on intellectual plain, dies.

If you believe that Dali's paintings are based only on the intellectual plain, then I have nothing more to say to you, as it'd be pointless to argue with you... a painting is considered a work of art because it represents something beautiful.

 

art, n. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

 

If in the process, it makes people think to varying degrees, that's another issue.... I don't think Dali's paintings are not classified as art...

 

Surrealism is not dead. There are a lot of surrealist painters...

 

refrain refering me as dude!

ok.. Jesus Christ, relax. i apologize if I offended you in any way by calling you "dude"..

Edited December 7, 2003 by Dan

[Dan]

His Art appeals novices

Are you telling me I'm a novice? And you were calling ME pretentious? ...

 

Wow... so, ok, all those who like Dali's paintings are novices. your next pointless point? I'm waiting.

Edited December 7, 2003 by Dan

[Dan]

My points are between great Art and lesser Art. You seem to skip reading adjectives. Do I think you are novice? Yes!

Do I think you are using the argumentum ad hominem fallacy? Yes!

 

Do I think you have no clue what you are talking about? Yes!

 

Do I think you are turning your viewpoints about what constitutes great Art and lesser Art into facts? Absolutely!

 

So do I think you're a novice? No. I think you're just clueless. That's what happens when you argue about something you don't know about - you make your cluelessness prone to discovery.

 

Nice try anyway.

[Dan]

Edit note: A person who is qualified to comment on art would not dismiss any artist as a bad one, or imply that those who admire that artist's works are novices. Dali may be overrated, but that still doesn't mean he is right in dismissing his admirers as clueless.

 

this thread should tell you that he is more than qualified to have an opinion on art

He may be qualified to have an opinion on art, but that doesn't mean that his opinions are facts, and that people who do not hold his opinion are wrong... there is no right or wrong in looking at a work of art and criticising/critiquing it...

Edited December 10, 2003 by Seapahn

[Dan]

Yes, I am saying that in art, there is no absolute truth as to whether it's good or bad.... are you telling me that art is like science, that you can tell if something is good or bad, right or wrong, 0.01, or 0.02, etc.?

 

I am talking about the meaning of words, not the words themselves......... i'm talking about you calling those who think Dali is a good/great artist novices. It's not up to you to say which artist is factually good or bad. you can criticise it, and that's that - criticism, nothing more, nothing less. your opinion, NOT facts. So stop treating your views as God-given truths.

 

Edit note: And just because you started this thread doesn't make you THE authority on art... It simply means that you posted it before anyone else did.

 

Edit note note: And for Christ's sake, stop picking fights with me. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine with me. Attack my views if you will, but don't attack ME. That's just low and nasty.

Edited December 7, 2003 by Dan

[Sip]

Edit note: And just because you started this thread doesn't make you THE authority on art... It simply means that you posted it before anyone else did.

FYI I think it was Azat who asked Armat if he could share some of his own paintings with us for which we have been very grateful.

[Dan]

Your point is, Sip? Yeah, I make sketches... Just because I don't show them doesn't mean I don't know about art. And just because I might draw/paint doesn't mean that I'm always right in debating about the factuality of beauty..

 

He may know a lot about Surrealism and other artistic movements, but I don't think that qualifies him to tell me that Dali's art is admired only by novices, not by those who know what REAL art is... at least that's what he implied... unless he tells me he meant otherwise.

[Dan]

This is why you are a novice!!!

You are still attacking me. Ankleren ches hasgenar?

 

Someone scratching or badly playing on the Violin is absolutely categorically less then a concert piano player.

Your comparison is flawed. How is playing the violin comparable to playing the piano, and how are those two comparable to painting? Moreover, you said nothing about the quality of the brush touches on the canvas. Your comparison can apply to that, and ONLY that. What we're talking about (I'm getting the impression that I'm talking to a wall, as you keep telling me the same thing over and over again...) is the artistic quality, i.e. beauty and creativity. What we're talking about is intellectualism vs. beauty in itself. We were NOT talking about how bad Dali's canvas or paint was. Maybe we're in different worlds and different spheres. Or maybe, just maybe, you are so confused about what we ARE talking about, really... you mentioned everything, but you still haven't replied to my questions, or provided a defence to your position of assuming that your opinions are God-given truths.

 

Your inability to see this is why you are such an amateur.

Yes, I suppose I'm an amateur, because I don't agree with YOU, the ultimate authority on painting... Let me tell you something - if you hadn't called foul play just cos I disagreed with you, or just cos my taste in art does not coincide with yours, this argument wouldn't have ensued. And if people didn't abuse those words so frequently (amateur, racist, homophobe, sexist, anti-Semite), the world wouldn't have been numb to them at this point, and it would've saved everyone the trouble of fighting with one another.

 

There is an absolute deference between Bach and his lesser contemporaries.

How do you know? That is what the majority believes, but that's not an absolute truth. Bach is highly overrated. His circumstances and surroundings might have accounted for his success, but his success and fame do not mean that he was better than his contemporaries or current composers for that matter..

 

There is a quantities measure about bad and great Art. Your

OK, mr./mrs know-it-all, whichever you may be. so enlighten me - how do you measure the quality of art quantitatively?

 

Your comparison to science is irrelevant.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that "There is a quantities measure about bad and great Art." If quantitative measurement is not scientific, I don't know what IS...

[Dan]

Any reasonably intelegent person can understand what in essesnce I am saying.

Ok, now I am dumb. Great. Your next insult?

 

Hmm they are both musical instruments!

Yes, they are. That I KNOW. But each requires a different kind of skill. A "good" violin player (as you want to call them) might not be able to be play the piano (note: by that I mean the technical part, not the creative/beauty part), and vice versa. They are not comparable.

 

They both are Artistic mediums of expression.

Yes, but someone who plays a musical instrument might not be able to paint (note: talking about technical things, not creativity).

 

(lesson one to novices)

Opps, here comes another one of your "insults."

 

The above utterances clearly demonstrates you lack of understanding even the basics.

Oh, here comes another one.

 

So your final point was? You clearly are trying to avoid answering the question, and I am going to assume that you don't know how to judge the quality of a work of art quantitatively. I don't think anyone who has a good argument and knows he/she is right would back away just cos the other person is a "novice."

 

I'm going to bed, after having wasted my time in proving that your arguments are fallacious/unbased and your attacks only serve to prove that.

[vava]

He may know a lot about Surrealism and other artistic movements, but I don't think that qualifies him to tell me that Dali's art is admired only by novices, not by those who know what REAL art is... at least that's what he implied... unless he tells me he meant otherwise.

Dan, I really think you should re-read Armat first few posts on Dali, Surrealism etc.

He never said that Dali was a poor artist, he never said that ONLY novices like his art. You are jumping to conclusions (and yes, you are making an ass of yourself.)

 

What Armat said was that Daii's work frequently appeals to novices (and not exclusively!) Which is perhaps quite true - some of the first art I enjoyed was Dali, Escher and so on... as my tastes have developed (and I'm still a novice BTW) I have grown to enjoy other styles whose qualities are much more subtle....

[nairi]

Ah, who mentioned Vincent??? I love Vincent!!! More than Rembrandt, even though we were born in the same city

 

I'm a novice btw I only judge by the feeling a painting gives me. Vincent rules from that perspective

[Dan]

Vava, he makes no sense in saying that there are bad artists and good artists w.r.t beauty of art. Who's the ultimate authority on art? Fact is, beauty depends on taste, and taste is not universal or right or wrong. It is just personal. He claimed that Dali was a lesser artist by virtue of fact -

Now I am forced to elaborate why Dali or any other surrealist, minimalist etc. rates lower in Art history. What Dali lacks is real feeling, expression, or soulful criteria, which makes truly great Art.

<<< that is just HIS opinion, don't you think? I don't think it's a fact. I think there are many scholars of art who believe that Dali was a great artist, and who see real feelings in his paintings...

His Art appeals novices since it dazzles the mind but like Hollywood special effect movies it is short on substance.

OK, so he's ruling out the fact that I may know as much as he does about art by saying that I may be among the ranks of novices who like Dali for his superb technical painting... And believe it or not, he does not even know me... Talk about generalization and pretentiousness. Just take a look at the "New Armenians in U.S." thread in the Diaspora forum.

 

Moreover, he could NOT prove his point to me about the quantitative measurement of the quality of a work of art. Like I said, his claims are only that - claims - his personal beliefs, and if he can't prove that there is a universal truth of beauty, then I have proven that he is wrong in saying that there are good and BAD artists. The good and bad of an artist is determined by how many tastes it appeals to. Taste is not a measure of beauty in REALITY, because it is variable. There is no connection between the majority of taste and the correctness of the critique of the artwork. I respect his views about Dali. He's free to dislike his art and to rule it out as a higher form of art or whatever, but when he accuses me of generalization and pretentiousness in another forum and practices the same, then that becomes a problem...

 

If he is a professional in art appreciation, then by all means, he can go ahead and prove me wrong in my arguments against his claims.

 

(and yes, you are making an ass of yourself.)

That is your opinion - that does not make you right. You are making it sound like it's a fact.

Edited December 7, 2003 by Dan

[Anileve]

How did this thread turn into a ground for personal attacks? I am all for good bashing sardonic humor, as long as two people know that it’s all fun and games, but when it turns into personal insults that’s already crossing the line.

 

The beauty of having a variety of different art styles is that each one appeals to every individual differently. Each work of art or style evokes a different feeling open to an interpretation of the viewer and each one relates to it in a different fashion. Art should not be argued, but rather appreciated since it is visual poetry with no exact definition.

 

I am a huge fan of Dali, and his paintings have almost enigmatic effect on me, but I understand why some wouldn’t like his style and apparently that doesn’t shatter my word. But I don’t agree with bashing someone for not having experience with certain craft or having a different perspective. Sorry Armat. And Dan no sweat if Dali is what you admire, than no one can take that away from you, just like some might disagree and you shouldn’t attempt to change that. I say live and let live. And guys lets have a group hug and forget about it, it’s all just opinions.

[gamavor]

Yes, I am saying that in art, there is no absolute truth as to whether it's good or bad.... are you telling me that art is like science, that you can tell if something is good or bad, right or wrong, 0.01, or 0.02, etc.?

Dan, this is a very interesting observation which was fathered my Oscar Wilde. He gave as an example the famous London fog. If you see early in the morning London fog it is reality and worth nothing. But if you see a painted version of what you see, or have seen it is art that costs a lot. Wilde believed that any form of art is kind of a lie. Well, he was well known cynic and not surprisingly avoided to explain what is art. Imagination, vision, expression, emotion, movement, thought, futurism, etc. etc.

Edited December 8, 2003 by gamavor

[Anileve]

Nice post gamavor.

 

Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.

Oscar Wilde

 

And how about this one, now this one just strikes me in the heart it just speaks to me...

 

They'll talk about me showing cleavage and my belly, but they don't say anything about the artists who accept an award and can't even talk because they're so drugged out. After the awards show, I go home, drink my tea and go to bed.

--Britney Spears on the media

 

 

speaks to me so that I feel this intense bowel movements while I read these "moving" words. The girl is a prodigy...

[gamavor]

Britney...who???

 

 

Evelina, did I tell you that I like you!

[Anileve]

Gamavor jan, this is the third time you are publically blowing my cover, no I will never have a future as a secret agent for the KGB!

 

And I have to say I like you too, let's elope..

[Dan]

Dan, this is a very interesting observation which was fathered my Oscar Wilde. He gave as an example the famous London fog. If you see early in the morning London fog it is reality and worth nothing. But if you see a painted version of what you see, or have seen it is art that costs a lot. Wilde believed that any form of art is kind of a lie. Well, he was well known cynic and not surprisingly avoided to explain what is art. Imagination, vision, expression, emotion, movement, thought, futurism, etc. etc.

Oh, I'm a big fan of Wilde, but that didn't cross my mind.

 

Wilde believed that any form of art is kind of a lie.

I agree. lol... if there was a painting that represented total reality, it would be pointless - well for us now anyhow, due to the invention of the camera... Of course, photography can be considered an art too... so I don't know about that... I guess Wilde's view does not apply to that. Hmm, or maybe he just didn't consider photography an art, as it wasn't as developed as it is today.

 

But a good post anyway. Thanks for reminding me of Wilde. He's great. lol

[Armat]

I would like to state my views regarding last several posts just so some people here don’t twist and misunderstand.

1. Do I think there are bad Art and Good Art? Absolutely yes! Otherwise all the junk would end up in museums. This is so obvious that it is not even worth expanding. The whole concept of what we consider great Art or quality Art depends on this distinction.

2. I think all admires of Dali are novices. Incorrect, my initial statement was Dali appeals mostly to novices but not exclusively.

3. Do I think I am God and have an absolutely right to know what is great Art or not. I never said anything even remotely close. This is just absurd!

4. Have I attacked anyone? No! Calling a novice a novice is not attack but an accurate assessment. Nothing wrong with that. I consider myself novice in many areas of life.

5. Finally did I learn anything! Yes never argue with someone whose motivations are insincere.

[Dan]

OK Thanks for clarifying all that, Armat.. Now can we stop re-opening this argument every time we try to close it?

[bellthecat]

if there was a painting that represented total reality, it would be pointless - well for us now anyhow, due to the invention of the camera...

Surrealism, abstract Expressionism, Cubism, and so on, all evoved precisely because photography was able to depict total reality. And depict it in an almost supernatural detail - extending the visible into the realms of the previously invisible.

 

Previously, a measure of good art was the ability of the artist to depict things naturally. All that ended with the invention of photography.

[bellthecat]

....and artists were free to pursue other things beyond accurate figurative depictions.

 

IMHO, artists in the first half of the 20th century were (legitimately) engaged in exploring the nature of what art actually was - and those in the second half were (inadvertantly) engaged in merely proving that it, and they, were all were all nothing more than a pile of meaningless s**t.