Which painting do you like?

[faulty_damper]

1.


2.

[faulty_damper]

Here's another question that can't be made into a poll:

What do you think the paintings are about?

[j_menz]

I vote 2.  Number one is overly sentimental Victorian twaddle. Number two is powerfully emotive.

They are, in a sense, though, "about" the same thing.

[faulty_damper]

The first painting isn't Victorian; it's French.  You still didn't answer the question about what each painting was about.

[j_menz]

You still didn't answer the question about what each painting was about.

Nor will I. The fact that you seem to think that is a simple question, and one capable of expression in any meaningful sense in words, merely highlights the superficiality of your approach to either.

Being French doesn't prevent it being Victorian, incidentally.

[faulty_damper]

Victorian is 19th century English, not French.

And isn't it obvious what the meaning of the paintings are?

In the first painting, the two young children are sitting out in the cold while it's snowing.  They are possibly homeless as they are carrying their belongings.  She doesn't have shoes and her brother's shoes are worn so they've probably been out for a very long time.  He's resting as if he hadn't got any in a long time, possibly tired from all the walking.  They are sitting by the steps of a doorway, possibly to receive shelter from the snow.

What's the meaning of the second painting?

[outin]

1.


2.

The second one. It's not a favorite of mine, but at least it's interesting.
What the painting is about should be something that I consider in my head and you do in yours. The title might give you some idea, but I am sure Mr. Pollock wouldn't mind if you think it's something completely different.

The first painting maybe had some higher purpose in it's time, the painter maybe trying to awaken some social consciousness in the priviledged people who would see it (or maybe he just thought it was a pretty scene), but it has little to offer for me today. It's just a well painted picture form the time when photographs were not available.

[j_menz]

In the first painting, the two young children are sitting out in the cold while it's snowing.  They are possibly homeless as they are carrying their belongings.  She doesn't have shoes and her brother's shoes are worn so they've probably been out for a very long time.  He's resting as if he hadn't got any in a long time, possibly tired from all the walking.  They are sitting by the steps of a doorway, possibly to receive shelter from the snow.

That is what it depicts. It is not what it means, or necessarily even what it is about.

I suppose you think Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" is about flowers.   

[thalbergmad]

No.2 is a plinker.

[faulty_damper]

That is what it depicts. It is not what it means, or necessarily even what it is about.

I suppose you think Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose" is about flowers.   

That's just an issue of semantics.  What it means is what it depicts. What does the abstract painting depict?

[faulty_damper]

Here's another question:

Which of these two paintings do you think you could paint yourself?

[theholygideons]

In the first painting, the two young children are sitting out in the cold while it's snowing.  They are possibly homeless as they are carrying their belongings.  She doesn't have shoes and her brother's shoes are worn so they've probably been out for a very long time.  He's resting as if he hadn't got any in a long time, possibly tired from all the walking.  They are sitting by the steps of a doorway, possibly to receive shelter from the snow.

There is no way to argue that that is true, they could very easily be happily admiring the snow. What a pointless exercise... just reminds me of highschool english comprehension, paper 1, module A, on belonging, what a load of rubbish. Although I do have to say that the angle which it is painted at and the girl's visage and stare is intended to evoke some sort of pity.

[faulty_damper]

The point is that it communicates very clearly what it is about.  Thus, it has universal appeal since the viewer needs not figure out what it is.  It's a very good image that was painted masterfully.

And no, they are not admiring the snow.  I doubt very many people would ever think that they are.

[theholygideons]

And no, they are not admiring the snow.  I doubt very many people would ever think that they are.

But why isn't she frowning? she is clearly mocking us with that half-smile of hers. She's like, 'look at how much swag I got, I'm so hipster I don't even need shoes'.

[thalbergmad]

Here's another question:

Which of these two paintings do you think you could paint yourself?

Or perhaps "which of these paintings could have been painted by a jellyfish"

Thal

[ted]

Here's another question:

Which of these two paintings do you think you could paint yourself?

I do not think I could paint pictures similar to either, but I hesitate to draw any conclusions from that about their quality. I used to apply that question as a criterion of quality in music but have long since abandoned it because I do not think my own ability or the lack of it has any bearing on how my brain perceives art.

This is particularly true with music, because all music is completely abstract anyway, without any concession to an external reality. Any meaning of music is imposed by my own mind when I hear or play it. This is not quite the case with painting and literature which can depict a common, external reality. Abstract painting and sculpture, and writing such as Joyce's "Finnegans Wake", largely render the observer or reader free to make his own meanings and associations. This is an immensely liberating experience.

I have a personal connection with this because my father was a very highly skilled traditional woodcarver. In the early sixties, the Auckland City Council bought Barbara Hepworth's "Torso II" for a considerable sum for the art gallery. There was a tremendous public stink about it, with local dignitaries saying it resembled everything from a discarded car part to a cow's backside. Applying the "I could do it" criterion, Dad commenced making abstract wood sculptures as a joke. After a few months and many carvings it wasn't a joke any longer. He declared he suddenly understood what Hepworth and others like her were getting at, and it gave him much pleasure for the rest of his life.

Therefore, whether abstract or realistic, the only essential for me is that the work of art has beauty, or more correctly what I consider beauty, in the broadest possible sense of that word.      

[outin]

Here's another question:

Which of these two paintings do you think you could paint yourself?

Neither.

[j_menz]

What it means is what it depicts.

You really don't "get" art, do you? 

[Bob]

I'm not a big fan of the color in the second one.  It looks like an alien from the movie series with spilled ketchup.  "Alien running through ketchup."

What they're about...
First one -- I'll go with something about starving children. The boy is dead or passed out.  They're in Russian or some place in Europe.  Maybe the girl is starving and delirious because she looks kind of happy.  Or accusing.  And that the girl is looking toward you, but really not at you.

Second one -- Who knows?  At the risk of sounding racist... It reminds me of a Nigerian Olympic marathon runner.  Because it's black and has long skinny limbs.  Some kind of text or maybe gibberish along the left side.  Ninja turtles near the bottom.  Or maybe that black thing is death and both are about death.



Which I could paint myself?  Neither.  More likely to make something like the second one though.



If we waited long enough both could be painted by jellyfish, but the second one would be painted first.  It's just a matter of time, but eventually it would happen.

[lelle]

The first one is about the tragic situation of some poor children.

The second one is about something which perhaps is not meant to be described. You have to look at it, think about the associations it evokes, if any, and make up your own meaning.

I think both are what the artist's intended, respectively.

[thalbergmad]

The 2nd one looks like a pavement pizza.

Thal

[faulty_damper]

I've come to this conclusion about modern abstract art: it's furniture art.  Just like Satie's own "furniture music", it isn't designed to capture your attention but instead to occupy space on a hallway.  If you look at the two paintings, you can very clearly see which one you'd rather look at.  Which one would you save from a burning building?  Perhaps the building was set on fire purposefully to burn the abstract one knowing that someone will indeed save the realist one.   

[faulty_damper]

[Bob]

I'm seeing this new image a little differently than the one in the first post.

[visitor]

[outin]

I've come to this conclusion about modern abstract art: it's furniture art.  Just like Satie's own "furniture music", it isn't designed to capture your attention but instead to occupy space on a hallway.  If you look at the two paintings, you can very clearly see which one you'd rather look at.  Which one would you save from a burning building?  Perhaps the building was set on fire purposefully to burn the abstract one knowing that someone will indeed save the realist one.   

Funny...I feel quite the opposite. The first one is just a pretty picture that I wouldn't even bother to look twice, so as such it's perfect furniture art. The second has become more interesting now that I've looked at it more. I guess without seeing the original it's hard to really judge.

Satie was cool

[faulty_damper]

I'm seeing this new image a little differently than the one in the first post.

That's because a jellyfish created it on my computer in two hours.  Which do you like?  The one worth millions or the one by a jellyfish?

[outin]

That's because a jellyfish created it on my computer in two hours.  Which do you like?  The one worth millions or the one by a jellyfish?

Am I right assuming that you are not the said jellyfish yourself? Anyway, I am impressed what jellyfish can do these days... Wonder if Pollock was reborn as jellyfish?

[faulty_damper]

The jellyfish did not use any photo editing for the creation.  It started out on blank, white background and was painted using the drawing program tools and brushes.  In the process of creating the piece, Jellyfish learned that Pollack had no skill as even an invertebrate can create something very similar.

[faulty_damper]

Also, something else I found curious.  I posted this same question on the local aquatic plant forum and the homeowners overwhelmingly picked the Pollack because they thought the question was about which of these paintings would look good on their wall.  It didn't even occur to them that this was simply a preference question.  This further reinforces the idea that this is "furniture art".

Here's an example of "refrigerator art":


And no, a child did not make that.  A grown man did. It's worth tens of thousands of dollars.

[j_menz]

Also.....

Haven't you displayed enough of your ignorance, bias, literalist blinkers and other failings in this thread yet? We do get it. Really. 

[faulty_damper]

Haven't you displayed enough of your ignorance, bias, literalist blinkers and other failings in this thread yet? We do get it. Really. 

Let me guess: you're a homeowner.

[j_menz]

Let me guess: you're a homeowner.

Your point, assuming you had one, has escaped me.

[Bob]

Ah, they are different.  I... can appreciate both "Alien running in Ketchup"'s, but I like the second one a little better.  Brighter colors.  The first one looked more aged/fatigued.  But also looks a little smeared up like it was done on a computer.  I'm wondering if the second one is a copy.  The first one looks more real.

I'd pass on the "Tick/Mosquito exploding from the front or behind"  I'd put that third in line.

I see the most different things each time I look at the "Alien in Ketchup" one.


Ah, I see.  Read the rest of the thread.  Looked up the pics.

First pic... I thought that was a scuffed up wall in the back.  Is that snow?  I'm seeing snow in a larger image of it.

[faulty_damper]

The first painting is by Leon Perrault, Out in the Cold, so it's snow.  It's an absolutely beautiful painting.  I've set it as my wallpaper so that whenever I want to relax, I hit "fn" on my keyboard (it's a Mac) and the windows part away letting the image show.  Some people assume it's a sad painting but they obviously didn't look at her expression.
  
The second painting is Jackson Pollack, Moon Woman.  To be honest, I had no idea what it was until I started the jellyfish painting on my computer.  It was only then that I noticed there's a face in the stick figure semi-circle head.  The red curvy lines in the center may be her breasts and she may be smoking a cigarette with her left hand.  Why she's on one knee and the other raised... I thought she might be touching herself or shaving her pubes.  It just occurred to me that the thing to the right of the head is a vase with flowers in it.  I thought it was alien hands when I made it.

[j_menz]

Ahh, faulty, you are like a man who, not reading Chinese, insists that it is not writing. 

[faulty_damper]

Ahh, faulty, you are like a man who, not reading Chinese, insists that it is not writing. 

You're obviously not an artist.  Like music, the visual arts is a language and it communicates ideas.  Gibberish is not understood, just like a cat composing atonal music on a keyboard is not music.

I assert that anyone who "appreciates" this kind of "art" is doing so for the intellectual exercise.  Another way of saying this is that it makes one feel intellectually superior since they think they know more about it than anyone else.  This kind of "art" must always be accompanied by some kind of intellectual rationalization.  Good art doesn't need that.  It communicates very clearly the ideas the composer/artist had in mind.

[awesom_o]

Can you tell the difference between modern art and toddler art?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art



 

[j_menz]

Gibberish is not understood

But do not assume that because you do not understand it, it is gibberish.

[faulty_damper]

But do not assume that because you do not understand it, it is gibberish.

You're still trying to rationalize this with words.  Good art speaks clearly and is understood immediately.

[faulty_damper]

Can you tell the difference between modern art and toddler art?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art



 

I got 6 out of 11 right!  That's ~50% chance which is the exact same chance had a computer made the guesses at random!

[j_menz]

You're still trying to rationalize this with words.

And you're still trying to justify your own taste as being universally valid.

Good art speaks clearly and is understood immediately.

Nonsense.   Good art speaks of the shaded, the ambiguous, the deep. It takes time.

[j_menz]

Can you tell the difference between modern art and toddler art?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art



 

It's rather compromised by the fact it uses excerpts, and often quite small ones.  I suspect an equally small chunk of the Sistine ceiling would look much the same.

[faulty_damper]

And you're still trying to justify your own taste as being universally valid.

It's not just my taste but that vast majority of people across various cultures.  The ones who prefer the abstract ones tend to be a very specific bunch.

Nonsense.   Good art speaks of the shaded, the ambiguous, the deep. It takes time.

It's not nonsense.  And I agree with the descriptions you used.  All of these descriptions can be used to describe Out in the Cold, which only become apparent the longer you look at it.

As for the Pollack, you spend your time trying to figure out what the image is.  It's gibberish.

[j_menz]

The ones who prefer the abstract ones tend to be a very specific bunch.

You haven't been to a "modern art" exhibition lately, have you? The crowd composition may surprise you.

trying to figure out what the image is.

No. And therein lies your problem. You are trying to fine the literal in the figurative, the concrete in the abstract. Of course you won't find it, it's not there. To use my analogy above, you have defined writing as that which uses the roman alphabet and point to chinese and say, behold, no roman alphabet, therefore not writing!

[Bob]

I got 6/11 too.  Looks like I don't have to spend much for art if I want some abstract paintings on the wall.  *Bob considers going even cheaper and doing the painting himself instead of buying from the local toddler art dealers.*

[outin]

It's rather compromised by the fact it uses excerpts, and often quite small ones.  I suspect an equally small chunk of the Sistine ceiling would look much the same.

Or playing two notes of a composition and asking whether it's a masterpiece 

[outin]

Good art speaks clearly and is understood immediately.

You mean good art must be boring? 

There are not many "literal" paintings I'd really like to have on my wall. I have a few but never even look at them. All of my favorite ones are quite abstract. I don't really do much art stuff or go to exhibitions much, just my personal preference.

[thalbergmad]

You haven't been to a "modern art" exhibition lately, have you? The crowd composition may surprise you.

The last exhibition I went to was in St Ives. I was amazed how many people didn't have beards and glasses.

Thal

[ahinton]

The last exhibition I went to was in St Ives. I was amazed how many people didn't have beards and glasses.

Why? Isn't the principal purpose of visiting an art exhibition to view the art being shown there rather than to assess statistical data about its other visitors in terms of the extent of their designer stubble (a personal choice) and spectacles (a necessity for those who sight is inadequate without them)?

Best,

Alistair