-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tell me what you feel looking at this painting.
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Entertainment
To me this one feels like it's totally reliant on context. You can look at plenty of art pieces without proper context and still feel something. Hell, you can go through some of the post here that said they didn't feel something until looking at the context.
Actually seeing the paintings in person was an eye-opener. In person you can see the layers of paint, almost feel them. This painting by Rembrandt was one of the first I saw:
The craftmanship behind the painting, the artistic skill, is immediately apparent. But it also looks a bit flat, at least compared to the real life version. The most impressive part was the man's jewelry which looks like a mere detail in the picture above yet stole the show in real life because it actually glimmered in the gallery spotlights. I had no idea paint could do that.
There were other interesting paintings as well. I remember one that didn't look all that interesting at first glance; just one of the dozens of paintings depicting Mary Magdalene. But when you looked closer, you could see the entire work was painted on different levels. Mary was literally depicted closer to the viewer than the hills in the background. It had such surprising depth to it.
When it's safe again I'd love to visit a modern art gallery and experience what it does to me in person. I honestly have no idea what to expect.
I had a similar experience with this piece
it looks so flat on a screen, but in real life the lighting is so amazing and as a life size work it is so impressive.
representations of forms in abstract art:
Also, this is also dadaism:
These words are also representational. Of a feeling, of an action. Is that not art? I can feel this poem in my bones.
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well and I misunderstood what you meant by context.
I was just saying that, even without the plaque describing the intent/concept behind the piece, the work exists in a context of some kind: this thread, the gallery, the history of art, the viewer's experience of art, etc. It can't be devoid of context but, like I said, I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry!
Here's the thing: what you are saying is, broadly speaking, true.
The art world is hypercapitalistic, and the ways that it interlocks with finance is gross in a way that is hard to put into words. As such, the vectors of power that are at work in society at large, along lines such as gender, race or class, are very much in operation in the art world. Almost to a hyper-exaggerated degree in fact. There is a lot to be said about how, for example, the concept of "artistic genius" is applied, and on whom - or rather, on whom it isn't.
The thing I would not agree with is the "average person" argument, since that is affected by those same vectors of power as well. Who is the vox populi, and what would the vox populi say about a lot of, say, queer outsider art for example? There is a lot of marginalized abstract art.
The other thing is that this argument is disproportionally applied when it comes to works such as the one in the OP, when it actually applies to the entire art world. Would you make this same argument in a thread about, say, the Dutch masters? Who decides the value of a Vermeer?
I did watch the video, and I do know that there is a history of suppressing any kind of outsider art in totalitarian states, particularly fascist ones. That's an important point, and I certainly don't want to contribute to it.
After having to work through several responses, I think I will clarify my statement from "This is not art" to "This is conceptual art, not visual art". That may have been the sticking point all along.
I have respect for conceptual art, conceptual art can be very interesting. However, I think that a lot of pieces like White Canvas have been lumped together with less conceptual work. The way you would discuss and interpret Night Watch or Swans Reflecting Elephants is completely different from how you would interpret White Canvas, and yet they all get presented under the same broad umbrella of "paintings". IMO, this stymies interpretation of White Canvas on its own merits, because it funnels people into evaluating it based on the same criteria they would use to interpret a traditional painting. And if you do that, it's just a white canvas, and nothing more. You need to consider it as a prop supporting a broader idea.
So, to sum up: yes, White Canvas is "art". It's a completely different kind of art than, say, Starry Night, and cannot be discussed using the same framework, but it is still a creative exploration of an idea, so it is "art".
So, you've actually lead me to an epiphany here with the word "conceptual", which I have not been applying to this piece until now.
Pieces like White Canvas are indeed "art", I've just been railroading myself into interpreting them as a certain kind of art. As others have pointed out to me, it's not just about what's painted on the canvas, it's about the context in which we are being presented with the canvas and the way the environment interacts with it. This explanation has never satisfied me, because I'm trying to evaluate the painting and find meaning in it, in and of itself.
The actual painting isn't the point, though. The painting is a prop in a larger installation, in a broader conceptual framework. I ask, "What's the difference between White Canvas and any white wall?" and the answer is...nothing. Not structurally, not in terms of execution. The difference is that White Canvas is asking you to look at it, in the way you likely wouldn't look at your walls. White Canvas isn't a painting per se, it's part of a physical expression of a thought experiment. It's art. It's just not the same kind of art as The Gleaners, or The Son of Man, or Guernica, and trying to evaluate it by the same metrics completely misses the point and renders it into nothing more than a white canvas.
I've seen your recent post in the thread and am in complete agreement. I wanted to respond to this though as you did take the time, and I don't think there's really much I disagree with on the whole. It's more just a different perspective on the same view. I don't think it accomplishes the goal of visualising the concept better than you could were it presented as a wall, nor do I think it's any worse. I think that the form of three canvases was chosen as a means to present that idea as one had to be chosen, but that the concept itself could have been explored in a number of ways. I see the canvases as just that; a presentation. A means to give you a platform to explore the idea that was being investigated by the artist. We can't go back and urge Rauschenberg to use a single canvas, or a wall instead, this is just the one that was chosen - so to that end it is what is displayed. I'm sure had he chosen to explore through a different form, that would have been presented, because its value is, to me at least, also in understanding how styles and concepts have been explored. It is as much a historic item as it is a current curiosity.
So to the point of the wall and the canvas, I think had he chosen a wall you could have equally looked at it and suggested "why not a canvas painted white instead?", you know? Ultimately it just presents a frame for him to look into what he was interested in finding out; how elements outside of his control interact with a piece. It being white might seem the lowest effort, but then I think it's a reasonable way to get a full sense of any shadows, temperature, lighting or otherwise affecting it. I think a wall could work well in a similar exploration, but at the same time a canvas (or three) presents a particular surface and focal point to draw that attention to and around. So it's just down to choice, as opposed to one being 'more art' than the other.
It totally is about the concept, and the idea too. I don't disagree with that at all, nor am I going to contest that the end result could be seen as super boring. I even think that a lot of it is lost without seeing it in a few different places, so you can get a sense of how these elements in play affect the piece. So it very much isn't a visual masterpiece or grand design for me, but instead both an interesting look at how creative exploration can manifest within art, and a reason to consider that exploration itself. The concept being explored with it is interesting, and the piece provokes that if not directly, then through the understanding of why it exists. Which I think it just as valid, even if wildly different from why a Monet might be hung up in the room across from it.
I wholeheartedly agree wi—-
GODDAMMIT
You posted this as I was writing my response above, but this is absolutely it.
I would like to profusely thank all three of you for this delightful conversation. I have been having this argument with people for 20 years, and nobody has ever been able to drag me into enlightenment about it until now.
Great post. I love that this thread resulted in an honest, interesting and constructive discussion about art. It's not something you usually see on era.
I genuinely apologize for accusing you of trolling earlier in the thread. This has been a fun thread, and it's obvious that I was both wrong and a bit rude in that statement.
As someone who recently had to do some minor housework / diy, it looks like three of those pre-cut double-sided adhesive strips.
Yeah, it's been good! 👍🏽
It's honestly been my favourite discussion on here in a long time. Thank you for continuing with it past my earlier frustration, and apologies for thinking you weren't serious in intent off the back of that yesterday. I really have appreciated the chance to go into it in depth, and to also explore my own feelings around it and pieces like it.
You're painting fine art with a pretty broad brush there
he he he
All good points, I legit don't know dude! I just know there's some interesting discussion there but I'm not at all well versed enough to have it, I would just like to see a long-ass Medium article or a book talking about the relationship between class, privilege, and art
I am very aware that I have an...aggressive rhetorical style, so please don't worry about thinking I was trolling. I appreciate that you stayed in it with me.
This topic has always gotten me pretty heated, so I appreciate your patience with me as well.
Your description of monochrome art was very much an eye-opener.
I think I would like the presentation of this like a million times more if set against a colored wall. White on white just does nothing for it given it's stated goal.
I don't need to canvas for opinions; that's an absolute winner of a pun.
I think that'd distract from the incidentals it wants the viewer to consider.
OP
OP
This is populist bullshit.
Please do not reduce contemporary art to a financial construct to get tax reduction.
i had to graphite myself to keep from laughing
quite the opposite. the point of the piece is to accentuate the concept of cleanliness and being untouched. a colored wall would help that stand out all the more and bring the point to the fore. The contrast of something pure and untouched resting on something very much the opposite makes the messaging even easier to see than on a plain white wall.
If anything, I think a contrasting coloured wall would highlight their artificiality and 'something-ness'. Each to their own, i guess 🙂
Yeah, all good mate. The questions were legitimately meant as food for thought, not as some kind of gotcha. I figured you might be open for that. :)
Fwiw academia generally deals with this kind of stuff a lot. There is probably a ton of research into this topic, but that staff can be difficult to access from the "outside."
This looks fucking amazing.Art during this time was about the context of the art and free speech.
The point of these type of movements (or any art movement) is to push new ways to express art form in a different way and to say fuck you to the last movement.
This piece help create Minimalist work and help push the art we have today.
Not only that, this work was like 70 years ago and it's still being talk about to this day.
It succeed in it's goal as an art piece.
My personal favorite of Rauschenberg work is his monogram work.
