Appreciation

[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.

[Bill M]

Glad that you liked the film, David. I think that I was just looking for something else. I did like the woman in the short dress.

Certainly we do not develop in a vacuum, and certainly we are influenced by experts. A big question is who are the experts? Is the supposed expert in his arena?

The artist has the inspiration and the expert/critic tries to describe it.

Agreed, that the artist needs to have a degree of technical skill. How to hold the brush, how to mix the paint, - or how to put notes on a staff for a particular instrument, etc, but then it is the artist who brings the inspiration to life, who manifests the inspiration here for the rest of us to experience. Not necessarily the expert.

The point I am trying to make is that I feel great art has roots in something beyond what we normally see. Great Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder and it can be a pebble, or a leaf, or a sunset. But something that transports me.

Primitive cultures often have no written language. Their language is in their art. Their history is in their art. But make no mistake, in many, if not most, if not all, primitive cultures, the pieces we consider "art" were not considered "art" by the so-called primitive people who made them. Not at all. Not something to hang on the wall and "decorate" their homes or caves!

These pieces were working tools. Tools that protected them from malevolent spirits. Gave them fertility for crops, animals and themselves. Helped them understand and maintain their place in their cosmos. Pieces that dug deep into the roots of consciousness.

And they still dig deep, when we are quiet enough to let them influence us. Then we may see a man in a keris. We may feel -- though we do not have the slightest understanding of the thoughts of the people who made and used these objects -- we may feel that common wordless bond of understanding that we interpret as "Great Art."

Wordless and visceral.

I suggest that experts can certainly open a door, but it is us who decide to go through it, us who decide to spend money and time on old bits of wood, metal, ivory, etc, because these pieces give us joy. They transport us beyond the mundane.

Perhaps this is the difference in an "someone who acquires" and a "connoisseur."

Ultimately as a friend once said, it is us who have to live with the piece.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Certainly we do not develop in a vacuum .

The point I am trying to make is that I feel great art (X) has roots in something beyond what we normally see. Great Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder and it can be a pebble, or a leaf, or a sunset. But something that transports me (Y).

I suggest that experts can certainly open a door, but it is us who decide to go through it, us who decide to spend money and time on old bits of wood, metal, ivory, etc, because these pieces give us joy (Z). They transport us beyond the mundane (Q).

X+Y=Z and Z > Q (we prefer Z to Q)

Where

Q: state of existence "devoid" of enjoyment (here "Z")
X: something we associate as a "bearer" of enjoyment
Y: a ritual act of "connecting" (I. acquisition, listening)

Z = self-medication with enjoyment.

The hippies knew...! Anyone recognize Mr. Maisey?







Thanks,

J.

[Rick]

Ahem, I attended Woodstock .

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Ahem, I attended Woodstock .

All the fun aside... Whaddya think about hte X+Y=Z?

Is it that simple?


Thanks,

J.