Discussion high art vs low art

[DarkRange55]

i think what picasso meant is that cheap artists will often be imitators, unable to conceive of anything original, and thus forced to obey their most immediate aesthetic impulses like pavlovian dogs. an artist who steals, however, tries to recreate that original impulse; he aims to use it to express his own character. once an artist has established their own characteristic world, they steal only from themselves

see bloom's anxiety of influence. it touches upon this in a far more in-depth way

Very interesting take! I think I'm much more analytical than artistic haha (I have some famous artists in the family but it's not my thing).

"Good artists copy, but great artists steal," is often interpreted to mean that true artistic greatness involves taking existing ideas and transforming them into something uniquely one's own.
When Picasso says "copy," he refers to merely replicating the surface details of another's work. This kind of imitation lacks depth and originality. However, when he talks about "stealing," he means absorbing and fully understanding the essence of the ideas, techniques, or styles of other artists and then reworking them in a way that integrates them into one's own creative vision.


In a general sense, however, our ability to copy is the single biggest predictor of success.

i think what picasso meant is that cheap artists will often be imitators, unable to conceive of anything original, and thus forced to obey their most immediate aesthetic impulses like pavlovian dogs. an artist who steals, however, tries to recreate that original impulse; he aims to use it to express his own character. once an artist has established their own characteristic world, they steal only from themselves

see bloom's anxiety of influence. it touches upon this in a far more in-depth way

See attached image below

Whats your take on this, my friend?

 

[DarkRange55]

i think what picasso meant is that cheap artists will often be imitators, unable to conceive of anything original, and thus forced to obey their most immediate aesthetic impulses like pavlovian dogs. an artist who steals, however, tries to recreate that original impulse; he aims to use it to express his own character. once an artist has established their own characteristic world, they steal only from themselves

see bloom's anxiety of influence. it touches upon this in a far more in-depth way

This perspective may well be true for some artists but not all. I think the profit motive motivates many, some of whom enjoy being a part of a trendy, oppositional, contrarian movement, making fun of traditional, classic values. Think French Impressionists, Dada, Abstract Expressionists, Pop, Conceptual, NFTs.

 

[pyx]

See attached image below
View attachment 145777
Whats your take on this, my friend?

i would consider many artists of the digital era to be hobbyists in a way. i can't even call it l'art pour l'art. but maybe my view on art is distorted. i value that which i can recognize in my own character, to some degree. i really know nothing of the digital era of creation, but i think that there must be a deeper impulse than simply saying that something is aesthetically pleasing. although that's perhaps why i find painting to be the weakest artform today

This perspective may well be true for some artists but not all. I think the profit motive motivates many, some of whom enjoy being a part of a trendy, oppositional, contrarian movement, making fun of traditional, classic values. Think French Impressionists, Dada, Abstract Expressionists, Pop, Conceptual, NFTs.

that's probably true, but i think it requires a great commitment to pursue something like art. all great artists are to some degree contrarians; they differ purely in degree.

but yes, i think the profit motive holds more currency now. call it its natural conclusion. my prediction is that elitism will itself become a contrarian movement, as opposed to those chic styles currently in vogue in the art world today

 

[DarkRange55]

i would consider many artists of the digital era to be hobbyists in a way. i can't even call it l'art pour l'art. but maybe my view on art is distorted. i value that which i can recognize in my own character, to some degree. i really know nothing of the digital era of creation, but i think that there must be a deeper impulse than simply saying that something is aesthetically pleasing. although that's perhaps why i find painting to be the weakest artform today

that's probably true, but i think it requires a great commitment to pursue something like art. all great artists are to some degree contrarians; they differ purely in degree.

but yes, i think the profit motive holds more currency now. call it its natural conclusion. my prediction is that elitism will itself become a contrarian movement, as opposed to those chic styles currently in vogue in the art world today

Not to get too abstract, but I would be curious as to what you would feel falls under the domain of art. I would say that many people today consider video games to be works of art because of all the music composition involved the character development the story and cinematography not to mention all of the environment, and just drawing. I would personally consider driving manual transmission ("stick shift") to be a dying art. a lot of electricians will tell you that the way the electrical conduit tubing is bent into place is actually an art form. I think tea can be a form of art. Landscape architecture like golf courses and public parks is another example. Dancing, movies, Just thinking about how broad and diverse different genres of music are. Cooking can be an art in many ways. Architecture is another example. A hand painted stop sign. Cave paintings. A child's scribbles on the fridge. Not everybody may agree that these are forms of art forms but perhaps art is simply something that is more than some of its parts.

 

[pyx]

Not to get too abstract, but I would be curious as to what you would feel falls under the domain of art. I would say that many people today consider video games to be works of art because of all the music composition involved the character development the story and cinematography not to mention all of the environment, and just drawing. I would personally consider driving manual transmission ("stick shift") to be a dying art. a lot of electricians will tell you that the way the electrical conduit tubing is bent into place is actually an art form. I think tea can be a form of art. Landscape architecture like golf courses and public parks is another example. Dancing, movies, Just thinking about how broad and diverse different genres of music are. Cooking can be an art in many ways. Architecture is another example. A hand painted stop sign. Cave paintings. A child's scribbles on the fridge. Not everybody may agree that these are forms of art forms but perhaps art is simply something that is more than some of its parts.

i don't think there is any clear criterion for what is and isn't art. i have friends that consider sport an art, for instance. a lot of it is what i call upholstery art, that which adorns the antimacassar in my living room and the surrounding furniture. in the past you have had people trying to undermine the value of an emerging artform in preference of another more established one. i think of roger ebert and his skepticism of videogames, for instance. yet in the earliest parts of the twentieth century, films certainly held no candle to the other traditional forms.
anything can be art, but i think that truly meaningful art must express something quite inarticulate, something which is impenetrable from the outside; we must distinguish between momentary satisfaction, as when food tastes pleasing, and when comprehends something quite remote from himself, as in situations where individuals pick up on things we may say that we don't even realize. it is very difficult to not become overly esoteric in speaking of aesthetics, but i think the primary aim of art should be to communicate the intricacies of the human condition.
it might seem like im bibliocentric in a way, but i think this applies generally to many artforms. it is necessary for us to reduce to complexity of sense experience to something palatable to our intellect; it is, i think, that very edification which serves as the foundation for most aesthetic apprehension, and hence why taxonomies crop up all the time in the art world

 

[DarkRange55]

Just an add on in the vein of changing art tastes -

Adolf Zukor of Paramount Pictures - Back then studios had exhibition divisions that went across the country to establish their name at the forefront - lease theaters or own out right. Paramount named their fanciest, grandest theaters in any town Paramount like the historic Seattle Paramount Theater.

In the 1920's you couldn't get financing for stand alone theaters. Theater's didn't make money, you needed a steady revenue stream, so mixed use - either apartments, hotel, retail or professional services. Theaters (not movie) now are the more steady income.

In 1928 - a 50 cent ticket would get you four hours of movies, the average factory worker was making $3-$4 a week, the average house was $3k house.

 

[DarkRange55]

Great works are produced by people with talent who get "lost" in their work.

I think drugs have influenced certain facets of media such as music genres of the time can be heavily influenced by the popular narcotics of that time.

 

[DarkRange55]

@lamargue I don't know if this would be in the same realm but I saw parallels my mind with this talk of sophistication and luxury - is driving a manual transmission classy? On the one hand, it shows the sophistication. On the other, automatic is more luxurious (connivence). (And yes the trick answer is a sexy chauffeuse).

I think at least for me this also conjures of thoughts of classical music and ambient traditional music, if people are just being almost overly analytical…

 

[pyx]

@lamargue I don't know if this would be in the same realm but I saw parallels my mind with this talk of sophistication and luxury - is driving a manual transmission classy? On the one hand, it shows the sophistication. On the other, automatic is more luxurious (connivence). (And yes the trick answer is a sexy chauffeuse).

I think at least for me this also conjures of thoughts of classical music and ambient traditional music, if people are just being almost overly analytical…

haha i never thought of driving a manual as being markedly sophisticated. here, the only people that drive manuals are oldies, larrikins and car buffs
i think luxury goes hand in hand with sophistication, at least in everyday practical utilities. maybe an aristocratic desire?

 

[DarkRange55]

i don't think that art needs to have commentary. l'art pour l'art. but to live as an artist -- and not a hobbyist -- they must believe themselves to be loci for divine value. all great artists to some degree have acute historical intuition. it just so happens that in the latter part of human history, this has consisted in presaging an incoming decadence, and thus committing to creations which do not avail the virtues of the age, but look upon them with indignity; the artist is assured in this, for his creation is simultaneously an act of destruction. the artist is by nature very selfish, and i think that's a wonderful thing. he creates to outdo his predecessors, whilst also leaving no room for imitators.

I don't think that art needs to have commentary. l'art pour l'art. but to live as an artist -- and not a hobbyist -- they must believe themselves to be loci for divine value. all great artists to some degree have acute historical intuition

Or maybe there were great one who didn't and were therefore forgotten...

. it just so happens that in the latter part of human history, this has consisted in presaging an incoming decadence, and thus committing to creations which do not avail the virtues of the age, but look upon them with indignity;

Perhaps these tend to be remembered.

 

[DarkRange55]

In George Orwell's essay Why I Write, he says that the artists and business people and stuff like that, they all can't confine to the steady laws of a regular life.

What is art, other than expressing fully your experience of reality? Whether you're a painter thats in turmoil like van Gogh or a musician at the heights of emotional pain like Beethoven from time to time. Literature. Even a mime is expressing the way they are perceiving reality, in the way that they do. But to me, that's a rather narrow definition. Arguably everybody that lives authentically and expresses their perceptions authentically is an artist.

Do you have to create something like software, create an idea and make that into reality or can you just be an artist who does nothing and just lives authentically? Every smile or frown is an expression of your reality. Clothing, word choices these are expressions. Even meditating alone is a cave is doing and anyone who wanders by and observes the stillness of your body is moved by that.

Before you create something, you must create yourself — strip away all of the veils of perception that you have about yourself. Most people don't know who they are.