Not Photoshopped, but then not photos...!

"The less you have studied, the more unbiased you can be..."

The thing is, when I went on study visits with other students and tutors, having the discussion with others about what they see in it, having a tutor explain the historical reference that you aren't aware of. Studying other photographers, art, even the historical links, suddenly gives you a greater depth of knowledge and to a certain extent, understanding. Whilst you may not like it, might not be your thing, there's a little more understanding of the intention.

So for me, that statement is the complete reverse.
 
Right. But would you go so far as to say if you hadn't studied art then you should not be involved in criticising it?
 
ianp5a said:
Right. But would you go so far as to say if you hadn't studied art then you should not be involved in criticising it?
Click to expand...
I would if you are not prepared to listen to arguments made by people who have studied art and to consider that they might have some validity.

Who is more likely to help you understand the game of cricket; someone who has only seen clips of test matches shown on the news or someone who has played and watched it for fifty years? The same applies to art. If all you know of it is the stuff that makes the headlines you really don't know much about it at all.
 
I think the important difference is that art is a very personal thing. If you don't like a piece of artwork, some might want to find out more about it. And maybe they will like it then. But that's not for everyone. I prefer to judge it on it's face value. Knowing that a famous artist splashed some paint around or a 5 year old child did it, is not going to change the result.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
I think the important difference is that art is a very personal thing. If you don't like a piece of artwork, some might want to find out more about it. And maybe they will like it then. But that's not for everyone. I prefer to judge it on it's face value. Knowing that a famous artist splashed some paint around or a 5 year old child did it, is not going to change the result.
Click to expand...
That's fine. But then you're not criticising it. You're just saying "I like it" or "I don't like it" and that kind of thing needs no further explanation. Buf if you say "it's not any good" then you should really try to show that you understand it. You don't need to "like" something to understand it. It's not a question of, as you said, "if you find out more about it you might like it then". Not all art is there to be enjoyed.
 
I do feel some people are duped into liking something because it is important, much like they may be impressed by a product just because of its brand name. Adding importance to an artwork can be criticised if the artwork itself does not merit it. I mean, I understand that artists need to get noticed and often have to do something to get attention. Or money. The Tate bricks for example.
 
Last edited:
What is strange about this.... is that Artist try to emulate photographs in this way, and Photographers try to emulate paintings.
I do not see much more than craft skills in either option.
 
ianp5a said:
I do feel some people are duped into liking something because it is important, much like they may be impressed by a product just because of its brand name. Adding importance to an artwork can be criticised if the artwork itself does not merit it. I mean, I understand that artists need to get noticed and often have to do something to get attention. Or money. The Tate bricks for example.
Click to expand...
Might be true. Might not be true. But how can you even have an opinion on who has been "duped" and how when you readily admit you have no interest in engaging with art beyond the immediate aesthetic appeal?
 
ianp5a said:
Right. But would you go so far as to say if you hadn't studied art then you should not be involved in criticising it?
Click to expand...

No not at all but I'd like it discussed as I have and still struggle to understand some art. Undertaking an Art degree through distance learning is a huge undertaking for me, new direction, new levels etc. So any insight whether good or bad is still insight.

Crap, pretentious crap and other simple negative words don't really convey why it's not liked or understood.

I've tried to give my feedback, both on the unmade bed and disturbed furniture.
 
ianp5a said:
I do feel some people are duped into liking something because it is important, much like they may be impressed by a product just because of its brand name. Adding importance to an artwork can be criticised if the artwork itself does not merit it. I mean, I understand that artists need to get noticed and often have to do something to get attention. Or money. The Tate bricks for example.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, I didn't like the cow or shark chopped in half, but I rather liked pharmacy
http://www.damienhirst.com/pharmacy
 
ghoti said:
Might be true. Might not be true. But how can you even have an opinion on who has been "duped"
Click to expand...
Some artwork is designed to be controversial which often stirs up a lot of talk disproportionate to the merit of the piece. However that is more criticism of the beholder and not of the artwork. I actually admire the artist who can sell a pile of refuse for a lot of money. But I might not have a high opinion of the the refuse or the person who bought it. Some people like all the talk that surrounds the artwork. Others not. Both are valid opinions. Why ask me "how I can have an opinion" because I don't go about it the same way as some others do?
 
Funnily enough, I don't buy find myself convinced by the intellectual interpretations of the cow and the shark works but I do quite like them in that reflexive aesthetic sense. They're striking objects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top