Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Culture vultures

Get tips on theatre and art from other Mumsnetters on our Culture forum.

When I look at a piece of art I don't know what I'm supposed to think

95 replies

spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 17:59

Is this normal?

I'm sure the thoughts I do have are banal.

Any guidance from art appreciating culture vultures?

OP posts:
Nightynight · 27/09/2005 18:40

I think you can safely just sit back and admire how well the artist has created an illusion with just a little bit of paint. There is always pleasure in watching a very skilled craftsman at work, and much to admire in most famous painters' work.

Then you can look at how well s/he has treated the subject. If it is a portrait, what is the painter trying to say about the sitter? How well has s/he used the pose, accessories and lighting to bring out the sitter's character? Has the painter chosen to emphasise aspects of the sitter that perhaps you wouldn't have first thought of?

If it is an illustration of a story, are the women powerful, or do they conform to some drippy stereotype? Is it just pornography masquerading as something superior? How much does it reflect the fashions of the day? How believable are the characters? How has the artist conveyed beauty of character? beauty of form? evil?

Or if it is a landscape, how is the artist portraying it? Is s/he trying to make it look romantic/classical/realistic? Has a landscape that you might see every day and not think twice about, been made magnificent, memorable or sinister? How well has the artist captured some structure or composition or light effect that cries out to be painted?

If you know the history of the piece, then you can judge how radical it would have been when it was painted. Is it a political painting, and do some of the objects symbolise other things (they usually do)?

I personally cant think of a single abstract painting that is more than just wall decoration, and mood invoking. Conveying universal truths is a complicated business, and difficult for any painter to pull off, and depriving oneself of the vocabulary of figurative art has not proved a winner. IMO.

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 18:42

I once heard it said that "there are only a handful of people in London who understand contemporary art, and they advise the people who buy it" Apparently said by one of the magic ones in the know.

I thought that was an incredibly silly and snobbish idea.

spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 18:42

Thank you for that post nn, those sorts of questions seem obvious when I see them written down, but don't tend to spring to mind when standing in front of a picture. Instead, my brain seizes up in panic at the thought that I should be thinking all sorts of erudite thoughts.

OP posts:
Nightynight · 27/09/2005 18:44

what is your favourite kind of paintings?

spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 18:44

I also feel intimidated by the thought that I might have dreadful taste.

Is it OK, for example, to like Tracey Emin? Her column in the Independent is dreadful, but I thoroughly enjoy looking at her artworks.

OP posts:
Nightynight · 27/09/2005 18:48

personally I cant stand Tracey Emin but I havent seen all her stuff.

BBC ran a hilarious column when her Tent got burned in the warehouse fire. The best line was "the intents flames did for it" Still makes me laugh!

the only one of that bunch worth the time of day is Marcus Quinn imo - he is very good. He is a real artist - his fingers cant help putting life and character into everything he does. So when he backs off being a craftsman and does conceptual stuff instead, he takes that lust for conveying his ideas with him. Hence memorable pieces like the frozen blood head.

spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 18:51

He's the bloke who did Alison Lapper Pregnant?

OP posts:
spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 18:52

So if I like Tracey Emin, does that make me a dolt?

OP posts:
marthamoo · 27/09/2005 18:57

Bad Art

Good Art

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 19:07

yes, he did Alison Lapper, and loads more.

No, my problem with Tracey Emin is that her stuff isnt that clever. I could think of a dozen ideas like anything Ive ever seen by her, any day of the week. It isnt beautiful or appealing to look at, and she doesn't really seem to have anything worth saying. It doesnt have that quality of "Im looking at something unique and special." She doesnt strike me as particularly well educated either.

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 19:08

but I am prepared to be persuaded. why do you like Tracey Emin?

spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 19:09

The thing about her stuff that appeals to me is its raw confessional quality. I can see that her ideas are obvious (even I can see what she's doing!), but is that necessarily a bad thing?

OP posts:
spacedonkey · 27/09/2005 19:12

And it seems to me she's out of the same mould as Frida Kahlo. It seems to me that their art is about revealing themselves rather than about art for art's sake. But does that make it banal and obvious? I don't understand how someone who is educated about art sets about making a judgement.

OP posts:
lilibet · 27/09/2005 19:25

It's interesting what you said about people's art revealing themselves. Have you ever read about The Seagram Murals by Mark Rothko? I really couldn't see what the fuss was about until I read about them, the man and his life, and after that I travelled from Wigan to London in a day just to sit there and look at them.

really good article

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 19:32

I agree with you that ideas should not be too obscure. Often the wrapping is just camouflage for the ideas being fairly paltry.

TE is certainly revealing herself. I just dont find her particularly interesting! Raphael was not just revealing himself when he painted the Sistine Madonna, Picasso was not just revealing himself when he painted Guernica, etc etc. (And when Marc Quinn revealed himself, he did it with a dramatic and incredibly beautiful head, and then moved on to other ideas.)

I dont think that a good artist would ever do art for arts sake. They always make a piece because they want to convey a particular idea to the viewer.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/09/2005 20:09

NN - I agree about tracey Emin, but I might change my mind (haven't seen any of her stuff in the flesh). I just find endless naval gazing irritating in an artist. But SD - you're quite entitled to like her - lots of people "in the know" do!

I do disagree about abstract though - I refer you to the link below (actually does that count as abstract? it's figurative-ish). I do think that they can be more than mood-invoking, but they are more prone than figurative art to alternative interpretations.

Medea · 27/09/2005 20:09

I think, like anything else, the more you see/read the more at ease you feel with a subject. You seem already to be pretty educated about art, spacedonkey, and your instincts seem totally sound. Do you have time to get some books by reliable art historians? The Oxford history of art series is a good one. . .probably available at your library. If you're interested in reading about how modern art departed from what came before it, read Clement Greenberg's essays for a start.

I sort of agree with senorapostrophe, but I also believe that the more you see, the better your eye becomes--and that reading/learning about art gives you, gradually, ways to view it/think about it that you're not as likely to have otherwise. People who haven't seen much art and go into a museum are having an experience that, to me, would feel like being given a newspaper before you've learned to read. I mean, the party line is that art is this great equalizer, this totally democratic, non-elitist thing, but I don't think that's actually the way it is in practice, though it'd be great if it were.

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 20:20

senorap - I hadnt seen that you cited Guernica, when I gave it as an example!

Picasso never went truly abstract. Never. His paintings always related back to the subject in some sort of figurative way, however much he twisted it around. now I bet someone will produce an abstract Picasso just to prove me wrong! but when I started studying art history, I thought of him as an abstract artist too, then I realised that he wasnt, and I started to look for an abstract painting by him, and I couldnt find one. I remember a particularly abstract looking cubist painting, and he had painted the nail on the wall figuratively, just to relate you back to the subject that he was painting.

so I stick by my comment on abstract art!

philippat · 27/09/2005 20:28

really interesting thread...

so, I'm an art curator, in theory it should be 'easy' for me. But it really isn't.

I would partly agree with medea that it really helps to practice that visual eye. Some people are naturally visual, some find reading or listening a much easier way in. I definitely can't agree that visiting a museum if you're not visual is like looking at a newspaper without being able to read, though... that's the point of good interpretation, it gives you a way in. If you feel that lost, the museum, not the art, is at fault.

Stories behind paintings, be it historical, political, narrative or good gossip about the artist can all give you an insight into a piece of art. But no one sees it like the artist does, even something as simple as colours appear differently to all eyes, you will always view art through the mist of your own personal experience and prejudices. That can make it more interesting to you, or less.

Sometimes it's something as simple as the frame decoration that gets you involved with an artwork, sometimes the way the light hits the wall behind. All these are perfectly good ways of interacting with art.

Yes, sometimes the artist has a point they want to put across. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes you can like the patterns they make but not the point. Or visa versa. Just because it's art, doesn't make it right.

There are craftsmenship skills that you can learn to appreciate - the difficulty of a wood cut tool for example, or a drawing that is clearly very well proportioned. Composition is mostly about good balance, colours and shapes that help your eye to engage rather than pass over the image. If it's good you probably won't notice the effect unless you teach yourself to look for it. But then you force yourself to stand back from the engagement, so you rather miss the experience.

Art from 100 years or more ago is much harder to truly understand, because it generally reflects a different way of looking. When you lived in a world where you could look at a sheep and say - that's a 5lb joint of mutton; or where you had never seen the way a photograph ir the TV cut scenes off at the edges, your visual skills were different. We can't ever hope to properly see paintings like that as they would have been seen. The best we can do is try and spot signposts, but again, does the act of looking FOR something consciously, detract from the pleasure of simply looking?

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2005 20:38

sd, i felt the same until i saw this painting by munch of the madonna which just felt like a blow to the chest in terms of it's effect on me.

i don't think it matters if you think most stuff is banal....i really believe art is in the eye of the beholder....art is what moves you really....

great discussion....makes me what to find more pictures that do it for me.

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 20:53

wonder what most Sun readers reaction would be if that Munch was on page 3 one day?

I agree its a beautiful celebration of the female form, also known as porn, very effective due to Munch's dramatic feeling for colour and composition.
neatly returns to spacedonkey's original question about the nature of the viewer's thoughts....

Medea · 27/09/2005 20:56

That's really interesting, philippatgreat that you turned up on this thread to give a curator's POV!. . .I completely admit I used an exaggerated analogy. . .most decent museums do give a way inyou're totally right. But speaking from personal experience, I used to have no eye at all, but thenafter years of looking at artsomething clicked and I started to "get" it. Whereas I remember going to my very first show with my parents when I was a child, and there was just no way in at all for me, even though it was the Metropolitan Museum in NY, with all its fine curators.

You make a really good point about craftsmanship skills being one way in. My ex-partner was an art critic who urged me to look at hands in Old Master paintings, claiming it was one way to judge the artist's skill. It's a generalization, but it often works! Anyway, thanks again for your input.

Nightynight · 27/09/2005 20:59

Another way in is to try some art yourself. You get a whole different perspective once you've been faced with solving the same sort of problems. And you can see immediately what mistakes theyve made when youve made the same ones yourself.

lilibet · 27/09/2005 21:09

Phillipat I'm at your job!

Where are you?

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2005 21:14

how is the munch porn? sorry, (am not rabidly anti porn btw) but i just don't get that...

to me it is a depiction of jesus' mother as a beautiful, tortured sexual woman....which if jesus exists she no doubt was....

it gives the lie to the widely accepted madonna/whore dicotomy and allows the most holy woman in the catholic/christian faith to be not only beautiful but whole: i.e. sexual as well as sacred.

it is also as you say a celebration of the female form...but porn as i understand it is designed to evoke a sexual response from predominantly altho not exclusively men....