Appreciation

[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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I did take note of the film.

Watching a full length movie on a computer screen is not an option for me, not even in 10 minute bites.

However I have read all that I can find about the film. Based upon what I have read, but not seen, and am probably unlikely to see, I do have some difficulty in trying to understand how the matters dealt with in this film could assist in aiding an understanding of what is happening in the mind of somebody when they become involved in the reception of artistic endeavour.

Actually, "artistic endeavour" narrows things too much. My original phrase was "---the appreciation of art and objects---", and this is precisely what I mean. The appreciation can be of anything at all that pushes the right button:- some form of fine art, matchbox cars, old woodworking tools, beach pebbles--- anything at all that strikes a chord in the soul and creates some sort of special feeling.

From the beginning of this thread I have been trying to understand how other people feel when they involve themselves the act of appreciation, and if possible, if they recognise what started them on this path of appreciation of a particular thing.

I know that the thread has wandered all over the place and has certainly not stayed anywhere near the path I might have liked it to take, but that's the nature of these sorts of discussions, they tend to create a life of their own.

But I think the important thing is this:- there is no right and no wrong in anything that anybody may care to post to this thread. Its not an exercise in finding a correct answer, because there is no correct answer. I see this an attempt to understand ourselves, not an attempt to understand the act of appreciation.

Although, having said that , I feel that an understanding of how and why we appreciate something may assist in a better understanding of ourselves.

Coming back to the film, could you precis what it is about this film that you think could assist with our discussion here?

I think that perhaps the comments posted to this thread have shown that the way in which we react to something is a product of our previous experience. That previous experience constitutes the "story" that we always carry with us. When we encounter something that fits the pleasure generating model we carry in our subconscious, we engage in the act of appreciation. Pretty much as Rick has put it:- "self- medication".

I think that's probably about the way I see it at the moment, but I'd welcome further comments that could throw a new or different light onto the subject.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes David, I did take note of the film.

Watching a full length movie on a computer screen is not an option for me, not even in 10 minute bites.

However I have read all that I can find about the film. Based upon what I have read, but not seen, and am probably unlikely to see, I do have some difficulty in trying to understand how the matters dealt with in this film could assist in aiding an understanding of what is happening in the mind of somebody when they become involved in the reception of artistic endeavour.

Actually, "artistic endeavour" narrows things too much. My original phrase was "---the appreciation of art and objects---", and this is precisely what I mean. The appreciation can be of anything at all that pushes the right button:- some form of fine art, matchbox cars, old woodworking tools, beach pebbles--- anything at all that strikes a chord in the soul and creates some sort of special feeling.

Well Alan, it is a bit difficult to explain why i find this film pertinent without you having actually seen any of it, but the film very much deals with what drives the appreciation of art and the concept of fakes vs. "the real thing" and how various people deal with this concept when appreciating art. Elymer de Hory claims that their are supposed "Matisse", "Modigliani" and "Renoir" in museum collections around the world that are actually his creations, that receive praise based upon their perceived authenticity. This seems to very much be something that is in line with this current conversation.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that response, David.

Yes, ideally I should watch this film, but I doubt that I'll find it in the local video stores --- however, I'll try.

The idea of forgeries drawing favourable critical comment certainly does give some indication of the way in which the human mind works in its relationship to art. I referred to this in my Han van Meegeren comment. The van Meegeren case is possibly the best documented of this type of case, and I personally find it very edifying.

This sort of thing, whether de Hory or van Meegeren, is I feel a good example of the "story" in action:-

our experience has told us that a Rembrandt, Matisse, Modigliani or whatever is great art, so of course, when we are in the presence of such great art, we would need to place ourselves outside the herd to look critically at that great art and decide for ourselves that it was not quite as great as the "big men" had declared it to be.

it is human nature to follow the opinions of the mob, and mob opinion is formed by mob leaders.

As I have already said:- we cannot escape the story; we always carry it with us.

This theme is certainly a part of this discussion, however, my original idea --- which I seem not to have been able to convey very clearly --- was more directed at the effect of things on our feelings.

A "thing" might be a work of art, but it might also be a shell, a pebble, a pair of sunglasses, in fact almost anything that functions as a key to unlock a part of our subconscious and generate an emotion.

This is perhaps where our appreciation of an object enters consideration. We might return again and again to appreciate that object because of its effect upon our emotions. To facilitate easy return to the object, we try to provide easy access to the object, so we collect it.

Possibly. Well, in any case this is about where my thoughts on the matter are at the moment.

To diverge a little from this central theme.

Not so long ago a book was published that uses as the major part of its content the keris in a collection that is generally acknowledged as being an important collection, and the proprietors of that collection as being knowledgeable in the field of keris. A large number of the keris pictured in that book are not correctly represented, in the case of one particular current era keris, authorship is absolutely incorrect. But 99.9% of the people who look at those images of keris do not know this, indeed, cannot possibly know it. So the deception stands. This same scenario occurs again and again in books published on keris, and only a very, very few people are able to detect the inaccuracies. Thus keris knowledge is irreparably corrupted. This is what happens in our own little field of interest. How much greater is the corruption in the broader field?

I have made this comment to try to illustrate that we are all subject to the opinions of others, and those opinions form a part of our individual stories, ie, experience.

[Rick]

Yes, the dreaded "Expert" .