Appreciation

[A. G. Maisey]

G'day Kai Wee.

Well mate, you've just given a very easily understood proof that we do indeed always buy the story.

You've said that you don't think its purely "the story", but most especially in the Josh Bell comment you have demonstrated admirably that it is.

When I'm talking about the "the story", I'm thinking of it in the broadest possible terms, and most often that story has been composed by ourselves, and the material that has been drawn upon for its composition is all of our previous experience.

Diamonds.

Wonderful as a store of wealth, inseparable from the idea of romantic love, indestructible, uncorrupted by time, the ultimate prestige signal.

Was it always so?

Nope.

The relative value and popularity of diamonds has increased along with increased supply. The reverse of what we might expect.

It is really only since the late 19th century that diamonds have moved into the prestigious position they now occupy, and this has been due almost solely to the magnificent management of the diamond trade by De Beers.

De Beers have managed to invent and manage the entire diamond mystique and its associated values.

In fact, they have sold a story to the world.

So, if we consider a diamond, any diamond, we cannot but consider it against our lifetime exposure to the position of the diamond in our modern culture.

We simply cannot escape our past, and it is our past that creates for us the measure against which we appreciate anything.

When we get down to the level where we are actually engaged in the appreciation of something, what we know about that something undoubtedly influences our feelings of appreciation. As Laowang has said:-


"Anything meant to be appreciated for its aesthetic content is received subjectively; we've been socialized since birth in the ways in which we respond to things."


We see an unknown painting in Salvation Army Store. Its unsigned. A childlike representation of badly proportioned sunflowers. Is it maybe OK for the guestroom? No, I don't think so. A bit on the crude side.

Headline in the following week's Sydney Morning Herald:-

"Lost Van Gogh Discovered in Suburban Salvation Army Store"

Well --- you win some, you lose some.

Maybe if we'd been exposed to the right story at some time in our past, we would have recognized it as Van Gogh too.

That story, or if you wish, experience, and the knowledge or opinion that it generates influences everything in our lives that follows.

[Jussi M.]

Greetings,

I´ll be adding something at a later time

Jussi

[BluErf]

G'day Alan,

I agree that aesthetics is received subjectively, but if we go far back enough, I always believe that there is a reason behind why that aesthetics is appreciated more than others. A bad violin player will never be able to sell his 'story' for a sustained period of time. A deeply flawed diamond cannot be sold as top of class. Just like a cheap Madurese Muda keris can never pass off to be a top class keris.

In as much as we choose to appreciate something subjectively, it cannot be just the story. It must be accompanied by a quality that makes it relatively hard to acquire/achieve.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

We see an unknown painting in Salvation Army Store. Its unsigned. A childlike representation of badly proportioned sunflowers. Is it maybe OK for the guestroom? No, I don't think so. A bit on the crude side.

Headline in the following week's Sydney Morning Herald:-

"Lost Van Gogh Discovered in Suburban Salvation Army Store"

Well --- you win some, you lose some.

Maybe if we'd been exposed to the right story at some time in our past, we would have recognized it as Van Gogh too.

That story, or if you wish, experience, and the knowledge or opinion that it generates influences everything in our lives that follows.

I do think that we can take this theory too far. Van Gogh is Van Gogh for many reasons. I do not enjoy a Van Gogh painting simply because the established art world has determined he was one of the greatest painters that ever lived. If this were the case i would also enjoy Pollock and Albers and a great number of other artists that the establishment deems worthy and collectable artists. In fact i find those artists not at all to my liking and i don't know what the hype about them is all about. But if i were to see an unsigned Van Gogh in a junk store i would probably buy it on it's own merits because i like Van Gogh's style and i would therefore probably like the unsigned painting. I would buy it because i like it, not because i know it is a Van Gogh. I will admit though that if i were to then find out it was indeed Van Gogh i would consider it of greater value to me. But it probably would change were i decided to hang it.
In the case of Joshua Bell, personally i do not associate buskers necessarily with mediocre talent. But there is a great difference between taking your act to the streets and having an audience come to a specific venue. The people on the street didn't ask for the performance, they may not have the time for it, they may not like the particular genre of music, they may not be particularly well off financially, etc. Those who chose to go to the theatre event, on the other hand, know what they want and what they expect. The acoustics will be perfect, there will be orchestra accompaniment, the seats will be comfortable, the social environment will be high, etc.
If i were a fan and caught the performance on the street i would be just as appreciative, maybe more so because i don't necessarily have the money for the expensive theatre tickets.
This isn't to say that my tastes aren't purely subjective, because they are. I just don't think that for me personally that they are driven by the same standards of establishment acceptance as they are for some.
An excellent film that addresses some of these issues might be Orson Welles last film "F is for Fake". It deals a lot with the ideas of forgeries and fakes and how differently people relate to an object when the forgery is discovered. Famous art forger Elmyr de Hory is featured in the film, a man who forged his way into many of the world's greatest art galleries. Frankly i would love to own a de Hory (or any forgers work) if it were a beautiful and well painted image, though i would also like to know that it isn't "the real thing" as well. I appreciate art not based upon the name attached to it, but whether or not it appeals to my subjective eye.

[BluErf]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

That story, or if you wish, experience, and the knowledge or opinion that it generates influences everything in our lives that follows.

I just read this sentence a second time, and I'm wondering if "the story" is equivalent to experience and knowledge, then everything in this world revolves around 'a story'. If that is the definition, then it would seem that by definition, the question in discussion can have no other answer.

[Rick]

Alan wrote:
"When I'm talking about the "the story", I'm thinking of it in the broadest possible terms, and most often that story has been composed by ourselves, and the material that has been drawn upon for its composition is all of our previous experience."

Originally Posted by BluErf

I just read this sentence a second time, and I'm wondering if "the story" is equivalent to experience and knowledge, then everything in this world revolves around 'a story'. If that is the definition, then it would seem that by definition, the question in discussion can have no other answer.

I think The Story is universal and is being quickly forgotten in our brave new techno - world ; the council fire and spear have disappeared .

So, maybe I'm going too far afield in posting this link; I couldn't get all the way through the book back in '69 as it is a challenging read .

http://edj.net/mc2012/mill1.htm

[David]

Well, i don't know if i am going too far afield either, but i have discovered that you can watch "F is for Fake" on youtube in 10 minute at a time segments and suggest that it may well inform this conversation on the appreciation of art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai Wee, you have precisely identified the point I have been trying to make.

I have not been trying to establish how or why we appreciate the various arts, but rather, the factors that are at play in our own minds when we involve ourselves in some way in one form of art or another, and the effects upon us of that involvement.

I am using the word "involvement", because it could be purchase, or viewing, or listening or anything at all that requires us to become involved in the art work.

The "story" is always present, and it has been composed from all our previous experience.

Thus, we never, ever can appreciate a work of art in the absence of that story, because it is our experience that provides the tools (mental) by which we measure the work.

The fellow who rejected the "lost van Gogh" for his guest room lacked a story. He had not been exposed to van Gogh, could not recognise the style, had nothing by which to measure it, and labeled it as just a bit too primitive for his taste.

David has outlined for us his own position in respect of van Gogh, and this style. David is a mature, perceptive and educated man with a broad appreciation of art. It is simply not possible that he could reach his age with no exposure to van Gogh. That exposure has created David's "story". His experience, and this experience has resulted in the generation of a liking for the work of van Gogh. Thus, if he sees something in a similar style he will still like it, whether it is by van Gogh or not.

David's return to the Josh Bell example is, I feel, precisely accurate as a demonstration of the way in which the "story" affects the perception. In the right place at the right time we have one expectation and a matching perception. In a different place at a different time the expectation differs as does the perception.

Each of us has our own story, and that story is what directs our expectation, perception, and ultimately our appreciation.


Incidentally, I'm very partial to van Gogh's work; when I raise my eyes above the top of my computer monitor I see "Starry Night" hanging on the wall.

However, my taste has not always been thus. Forty years ago I had a very great dislike of all post impressionists, it is only as I have become older that my tastes have changed and I now can see things that I could not see when I was younger. I now have a different story to the one I had some years back.


I do not believe there is any "right" answer, or equally any "wrong" answer to this subject under discussion. What interests me is the perhaps different ways in which each of us may consider this question.

[David]

Just curious if anyone bothered to check out the film "F is for Fake" that i linked to and if they thought it informed this conversation any?

[Gustav]

I admire Orson Welles abowe all, this particular film is in my collection. I know it for four years now, the problematic was very clear and familiar to me (in my level of understanding) as I saw it for the first time.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i don't know if i am going too far afield either, but i have discovered that you can watch "F is for Fake" on youtube in 10 minute at a time segments and suggest that it may well inform this conversation on the appreciation of art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA

David, et al,

The film is also available from Netflix in it's entirety as a streaming video that can be watched on TV screen if you have streaming capabilities.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/F_for_F...9?trkid=191776

Sounds quite interesting. Anne and I plan to watch it tomorrow night. Will get back to this thread after we watch it.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

David, et al,

The film is also available from Netflix in it's entirety as a streaming video that can be watched on TV screen if you have streaming capabilities.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/F_for_F...9?trkid=191776

Sounds quite interesting. Anne and I plan to watch it tomorrow night. Will get back to this thread after we watch it.

Did not enjoy the film. Meandering monologues. Mostly about Clifford Irving and Elmyr de Hory, possibly one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century. Fortunately "fast forward" skips over boring parts.

Somewhat germane to this discussion as to how much and how often art is more a matter of an "expert's" opinion, whether that opinion is intentionally duplicitous, erroneous or accurate -- but I think the film adds little to the discussion about how great art deeply affects us and gives joy in a visceral sense. To me, this is much more important than an "expert's" opinion.

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Did not enjoy the film. Meandering monologues. Mostly about Clifford Irving and Elmyr de Hory, possibly one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century. Fortunately "fast forward" skips over boring parts.

Somewhat germane to this discussion as to how much and how often art is more a matter of an "expert's" opinion, whether that opinion is intentionally duplicitous, erroneous or accurate -- but I think the film adds little to the discussion about how great art deeply affects us and gives joy in a visceral sense. To me, this is much more important than an "expert's" opinion.

Sorry you didn't like the film Bill. Personally i find no boring parts to skip over, but to each their own, eh?
People both appreciate and acquire art for a multitude of reasons. Often enough, for some (though i like to think i am at least somewhat immune to it), the gateway to what they believe to be good art is greatly influenced by the stories spun by the "experts". But i believe it is probably impossible to determine just how much sway the opinions of the experts actual has on our own appreciation of art. What gives us "joy in a visceral sense" does not develop in a vacuum. Certain much of the art and music we enjoy so much would be virtually unknown to us if it were not brought to light and touted by the "experts". For me the questions raised in the film over how much the "experts" nod to an piece of art effects it's valuation by society is in fact very germane to this topic.