To not understand art?

[PourMeAnotherOne]

I read a novel recently, which was partly about the haggling of an expensive painting.

I started reading / googling about the most expensive paintings in the world just out of interest. They are literally hundreds of millions of pounds. Pablo Picasso for example. The thing is most of the paintings don't even make sense to me, they are complete nonsense to someone who hasn't studied art. Even portraits or whole body paintings, they just look... odd. Three eyes, or one leg or whatever. I know they are obviously very gifted people as they wouldn't be worth so much otherwise but I find it so odd.

What makes art so expensive?! How do people work out what it means without an explanation? Like a goat playing a violin or something...

(Light hearted BTW!)

It's not a conspiracy theory, OP. If you're not interested in conceptual or abstract art, that's fine there's no obligation to. It's OK to like realist paintings or sculptures that look like what they represent. But an art education isn't required for any art there's no arcane knowledge I've never studied art, didn't grow up going to galleries, and I love some contemporary art. No one will like all of it, just as they won't like all novels.

I think you would very much enjoy the episode of fine Art from Adam Ruins Everything:

The problem with a lot of modern art is that it has not yet stood the test of time to see what is genuinely good long term rather than the fad of the moment, there was an article this week that said Damien Hirst's art had lost a colossal amount of notional value,
some of it is fashion, Victorian art is not always highly rated just now but I think come another 100+ years the best of Victorian art will be highly rated but it takes time to see how art styles influence long term. For every "Bloomsbury" type group there are dozens and dozens of other groups which simply fade into oblivion

There is a lot of snobbery in art, I remember being at an history of art course and someone said to the tutor the jargon puts people off visiting art galleries etc as with no explanation to the masses ie it's just called untitled 8 and it looks like a yellow square and they feel stupid not understanding as the artist refuses to explain. The tutor replied oh you won't expect to understand dentistry without a dental degree etc, which was an unfortunate choice as I'm a dentist and I agreed at a dental conference with other dentists I would indeed speak of periodontal ligaments and the microflora of a periodontal pocket but to a patient I would speak of bleeding gums, plaque and debris on teeth and need for flossing better, if I refused to use common terms so my patients could understand or only treated patients that understood degree level dentistry I could risk being struck off,

the art elite behave like 1960's doctors in refusing to engage with the patient choosing whether or not to tell them the diagnosis refusing to discuss art in plain English they sometimes thing they are ahead of the times but in reality with the snotty attitudes and contempt for those that do not understand their concepts they are more akin to old fashioned doctors and lawyers from a bygone era baffling folks with latin legalese medical terms, they think they are somehow demeaned by explaining their art and full of self importance with diva type attitudes but if they really what proper diversity they need to engage with ordinary people, rather than thinking diversity is just other arty types with different colours of skin or sexuality

ok ! descend from Hobby horse, but I totally get you OP it just seems so much easier to access art as a viewer if you go and see a painting by Constable Holbein, Rembrandt or da Vinci , ok more information will probably get you a deeper understanding of something like the ambassadors by Holbein but you don't feel like an idiot looking at it as it is, but you can be made to feel inadequate when the "untitled 8" has no explanation and as you say it may not look on the surface much different to a child's painting

I don't the anyone or the OP is rubbishing art, as it were. It's sort of like my niece whom is obsessed with trains. She knows all the makes and models and loves reading about trains and frankly would rather spend her birthday on a cross-country train than at disneyland, for example. I personally just like the view and a comfortable seat. There we go. Each to their own.

I find a lot of modern art quite challenging tbh. I’ve spent quite a lot of time in the last few years learning about primarily European art from circa 1300 onwards and have learned a vast amount about how to read a painting. The more you see and understand the more you appreciate the skill, technique and intelligence of a piece.

Understanding the historical context, biblical or social references etc all add to this. And naturally everyone has preferences. Many pieces I could swoon over in a gallery but would choose something very different for my home ( budget being no object!)

Picasso was a genius. Many more modern pieces and installations I’ve just not understood or appreciated ( pile of rusty chairs, anyone?) just once in a blue moon I feel quite overcome. However I managed to suppress my screams in the Sistene Chapel.

Keep looking and if you are interested in learning more most galleries do free guided tours which are excellent.

DW is a trained artist.

I, meanwhile, take 5 seconds to look at a painting - and think one of two things:

That's nice - or
That's not nice.

Can you tell I have no imagination whatsoever.

Am similarly non plussed with English literature.

I think it helps understand that 'modern' art, so Duchamp onwards is fundamentally introspective, ie art looking inwards on itself and questioning what art is, and what makes art 'art'.

Installations of random objects and/or abstract marks on a canvas are put in the arena of art as they play off the concept that an idea can overtake the physical object and become the art, and seeks to test the boundaries of what art 'is'.

Art before this time in the loosest terms was all about referencing the outside world and trying to portray it with accuracy. A lot of art was commissioned by the church and used as a reverential tool to illustrate religious ideas, or paid for by rich and powerful families to portray their social status.

OP, I love art from all different periods and a couple of years ago I graduated with a degree in Art History from the Open University. It's really difficult getting your head around modern art, but once you read about what the artists were trying to do (against previous art practices) and what was happening in the historical times around them (for example faster travel in cars and trains) you begin to understand why they saw the world around them differently and were creating art the way they did.

The OU has some fantastic free courses you can do so if you want to pursue it I would have a look at this for starters www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/art-and-visual-culture-medieval-modern/content-section-0?active-tab=description-tab

the art elite behave like 1960's doctors in refusing to engage with the patient choosing whether or not to tell them the diagnosis refusing to discuss art in plain English they sometimes thing they are ahead of the times but in reality with the snotty attitudes and contempt for those that do not understand their concepts they are more akin to old fashioned doctors and lawyers from a bygone era baffling folks with latin legalese medical terms, they think they are somehow demeaned by explaining their art and full of self importance with diva type attitudes but if they really what proper diversity they need to engage with ordinary people, rather than thinking diversity is just other arty types with different colours of skin or sexuality

I think you're confusing art criticism/catalogue essays with the actual art. The artist makes art. It's not his or her job to 'explain' it or to worry about what the viewer makes of it, or to explain 'concepts' in art history.

I went to a Dan Flavin show at the Hayward years ago now. I knew nothing about him at all I think DH wanted to see it, so I went along, even though it didn't sound like my kind of thing. He works purely in ordinary commercial fluorescent light strips in different colours, either by arranging them into sort of 'sculptures' or by making and partitioning rooms you walk through. Which sounds banal these are just fluorescent lights of the kind we all see every day -- but was unexpectedly wonderful. It didn't 'mean' anything at all to me, and I don't remember reading a catalogue or accompanying texts. it was just very beautiful to move around in, and I remember it with pleasure.

I once heard someone complain about a piece of modern art "anyone could have done that!" The art expert replied: "but they didn't!"

This kind of sums up the creative point for me. I'm not sure it will help though!

It's very subjective, and as pp said, you don't have to understand it.

There are some things which make me think things, of feel a certain way. I like those pieces. I can't really scansion why I like them. I also don't feel the need to own them, I'm quite happy looking at them in a gallery.

If I was a multi billionaire and a piece was for sale, I suppose I might think "why not" if I had the chance to purchase one of my favourite paintings.

Scansion?! Explain.

I’m a bit like this with music so I do understand what you mean. I love lots of modern art though and would rather spend an afternoon in a gallery than almost anywhere else. Likewise with cinema I like lots of films people often deem pretentious. I’m just quite a visual person. Although zero talent in that direction - I draw like a 10 year old.

I love going for a mooch around an art gallery. I don’t claim to know much about art but I love seeing what people have created and sometimes you see something that provokes a real reaction.