Sucks that people have been made to feel like art is a puzzle they aren't smart enough to appreciate. When you go to a gallery the only questions that really matter are what does it make you think of and how does it make you feel
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
In literature the value of this (totally valid) view of art interpretation has been debated for a long while//new criticism, the affective fallacy, etc. is there a term for this in visual arts?
Like being made to feel you can't go to a sports game and cheer your team or enjoy the atmosphere because you don't know the intricate rules of the sport. Yeah, knowing how an "offside" works will give you a different way to experience it, but my god, that's not what the sport is *about*.
Rothko chapel is genuinely one of the only places I am really keen to visit as a tourist and that's 90% based on vibes, it's not an attempt to get one over twitterati and redditors
Funny, I was just thinking earlier about the reaction I had standing in front of a Rothko at the Whitney about 10 years ago. I was almost overcome by waves of grief and despair, never felt anything like it and probably never will again. That's what art is.
for all the hysteria about museum patrons only viewing the works for six seconds each, museums and galleries do SO little to actually enable people to look at works for extended periods of time.
I like knowing what the artist intended as well because being able to, for a moment, appreciate their manifested point of view is just inherently neat to me.
Me too, but that's just an extra layer that we can enjoy. It doesn't have to be core to the experience. People get put off because they feel they're expected to know that stuff though, and they miss even experiencing just the art itself because of it.
I enjoyed seeing two paintings from the same time and city next to each other. At the Getty. One by a well known painter, the other not, with a card that discussed the trends in pigment and subject matter. I'm interested in context!
The art created by Félix González-Torres may appear to be completely mundane until you learn the context of its creation. Once you know, then it is absolutely tear-jerking.
My masterbrewer friend says something similar about wine. "Is this a good wine?" I ask.
"Do you enjoy drinking it?" he replies.
"Yes?"
"Well then, it's a good wine."
It’s also been shown over and over that if you put cheap wine in an expensive bottle, people can’t tell. They believe it’s good because of the bottle. That’s it.
I’m an exhibiting painter and whenever i get asked about my art, I just start asking them what they get out of it. The conversations end up being 1000 more interesting
It absolutely sucks, because art is for everyone. I think we don’t teach ppl that it’s ok if you don’t like a piece of art, or really understand it - there will be something you will like or connect with. And, that any feelings about art are valid. That it made you feel anything at all is the goal!
I can't remember who said this, but years ago I'd once heard the phrase 'Art should provoke', and that's how I've approached it. Do you hate it? Okay! Do you like it? Alright! But it should make the observer feel SOMETHING, even if they don't (think that they) understand the piece.
“How will I decide when I’m satisfied?” is ingrained in a lot of folks, maybe because of classism? If you’re uncharitable you can call it anti intellectualism but I dunno, it feels more nurture than nature to me, like we’re forced to only consider things in how “productively” we consume them.
I always find those I don't understand art comments stupid because they clearly make the person feel something, even if it's frustration.
And my favorite is when someone says well I done that abstract art. And the answer is no they couldn't because they would not know when to stop. That's the key
Ironically, in a class of 28 students it was directed towards the one guy who would go on to make millions before he was 25 and probably still doesn't understand art.
Sometimes that's all the artist was going for. I end up thinking about what exactly in a piece strikes a chord with me and compare it to the pieces around me. Like I like the red painting because of its color and brightness. And I loved the cloud painting because it took me back to a time in my life
i felt this big when people talk about The Boy and the Heron. Like oh... a reflection on a 60-year-long career isn't just wrapped up with a bow... damn, must not be good then.
I went to the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver earlier this year and I sobbed. If there weren't people in the adjacent room, I would have loud ugly cried. Just feelings of loss and how large the world felt and how alone everybody must feel and I'm looking at this:
I was in central PA for work and went over to the Philly Art Museum one time, and was surprised that Mutt's 'The Fountain' actually kinda made me mad. "You didn't make that." I muttered to myself. "The fine people at the urinal factory made that. This is stolen valor"
Another way to think about it is that the urinal isn’t the art, it’s the material. It may not be raw, but neither is paint or canvas. The Fountain makes lots of people mad, but we’re still talking about it. Of all the pieces in that museum, it’s the one you brought up here. That’s the art.
Current research seems to suggest the Fountain was actually created by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Duchamp not only didn’t ’make’ it he may have falsely taken credit for it.
My one and only trip to the Getty while at USC resulted in me not making it out of the first building because I just stood there looking at each picture, enjoying them.
I got exposed to colour field art at an impressionable age before anyone could tell me it was 'stupid'. I remember walking into a government building with my patents and seeing a painting a good 10 feet tall of just a couple colours. It floored me with how much FEELINGS it produced in me. The awe!
I really don't like the idea of art in galleries anymore. Everyone is creating all the time, and the idea of experts putting frames around some people's experiences, or giving some people a privileged role of Artist, seems like calcifying a dynamic part of being human.
Related: the idea that apprehending art means catharsis and satisfaction, and that if you arent experiencing these things then the art is bad or you haven’t understood it
I’ll never forget the time I had an art assignment that the teacher liked so much she themed the gallery around my piece and I had to give a little speech on what inspired me to make it, all of which was entirely false because the inspiration was “this is an easy and fast way to do the assignment”
that’s still two questions too many, just go in there, look at stuff, go “huuhh, cool” once or twice and then optionally go talk to someone about it, make shit up and have fun
I like looking at the art and thinking about the person that did it, and who it was, and what they were seeing at the time. To me, getting into the artist's mind is the most useful skill to become artists ourselves.👍
Most art just makes me surly cuz I don't understand what I'm looking at. Like, why did someone make giant light switches out of sackcloth, and why is that art? I don't get it, so I must be an idiot. I go ta museums anyway though, cuz I still remember seein "Wing-ed Victory", and bawling like a baby.
That's fair stuff to ask when looking at art. And I'd tell you making stuff out of unexpected material would cause some to look at items in different ways, LEGO does that pretty effectively on a commercial scale.
When an artist makes something they might want you to feel a certain way, but they can only act as a catalyst. In the end it's your mind that gives it any real meaning from the elements the artist used.
If you look and don't get anything from it, that's not a failure for you or the artist.
Yeah people don't realize that how we interact with art is personal. A painting is just canvas and paint, raw matter, until an observing mind wanders along to see it and give it meaning. A song is just vibrations in the air. A sculpture is just matter.
May I have your permission ta create something with your thoughts on this matter? Yer words're beautiful, and really speak ta me, and they make me wunna make....sumthing....
Went to a museum the other day and there was a lady working there walking around giving people like pop quizzes about the art, and I got so mad. Don't tell me what to look at or how to enjoy this painting of a big boat, please ma'am
Seeing a Dan Flavin exhibit years ago and I remember walking into a room and just feeling the literal warmth of a hundred fluorescent bulbs and I couldn’t stop smiling at how brilliant and lovely and obvious it was. The art gave me an actual feeling of warmth
I love a good piece of art that makes me feel a depth of emotions, but I also love things just cuz its pretty art can be extremely deap, but it doesn't have to be.
This is me. It’s very rare a piece of art evokes anything in me stronger than “oh ok, that’s interesting”.
Possibly a neurodivergent thing in my case - although some of my neurodivergent friends have strong emotional responses to art, so I guess we’re all different.
There's a great podcast called The Lonely Palette which takes one piece of art each episode and gives you insight into it. It's great and a very easy listen. It's purpose is to allow us all to 'get' the art.
talked to a guy once who LOVED mondrian but was embarassed because "i just like the colors" and it's like, dude, that is far and away the best reason to like mondrian or any art
One of the most interesting things about visiting the Louvre is that a big part is chronological, and you can see the exact moment when they developed cheap blue pigment because all of a sudden all the paintings have brilliant blue skies and clothes.
I took a color theory class that unexpectedly spent a lot of time discussing the history of color and moments just like that. When the artists would get a new toy and everyone wanted to try.
it doesn't help that there's basically no art education in schools anymore and the wall text in museums is either unhelpful or condescending (went to an art museum today; had a frustrating experience; majored in art history; wish i could do art education)
Yeah, this, 100%. There may be complexities at play, and those may really heighten or change your reaction, but in the end: did you feel something? Did you think something? Was it, in short, an encounter that mattered to you?
Comments
I like the paintings because they look neat to me. Even online.
Funny, I was just thinking earlier about the reaction I had standing in front of a Rothko at the Whitney about 10 years ago. I was almost overcome by waves of grief and despair, never felt anything like it and probably never will again. That's what art is.
Also see: Patterns of Intention by Baxandall.
"Do you enjoy drinking it?" he replies.
"Yes?"
"Well then, it's a good wine."
-a super fun person you'd totally love to hang out with
And my favorite is when someone says well I done that abstract art. And the answer is no they couldn't because they would not know when to stop. That's the key
Honestly it was not said to me I enjoyed trip.
If you look and don't get anything from it, that's not a failure for you or the artist.
*You* create the art when it makes you feel.
Possibly a neurodivergent thing in my case - although some of my neurodivergent friends have strong emotional responses to art, so I guess we’re all different.