1 of 36

Slide Notes

Welcome! In this class, we will study art throughout history. We will learn the basics of composition and color, and we will also paint our own works of art. We will begin today with a lecture, and next week we will paint a picture, so be sure to pack paint clothes. If you have no paint clothes, just pack and old skirt, or an old pair of pants, and an old tee shirt.

What is art?

Published on Jun 28, 2016

We discuss the question, "What is Art?"

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Art in History, Theory, and Practice

with Valerie Marcum
Welcome! In this class, we will study art throughout history. We will learn the basics of composition and color, and we will also paint our own works of art. We will begin today with a lecture, and next week we will paint a picture, so be sure to pack paint clothes. If you have no paint clothes, just pack and old skirt, or an old pair of pants, and an old tee shirt.

what is art?



What is art?

  • Something beautiful?
  • Something in a museum?
  • Painting?
  • Sculpture?
  • Sketches?
  • Design?
Let me hear your opinion. What do you think of when I say "art?"
Photo by Nick Cueva

What is art?

  • Could a building be art?
  • Could a box of cereal be art?
  • A video game?
  • Stained glass?
  • A Lego sculpture?
  • A toilet?
Can everyday items be art? What is the difference between art and design?
Photo by chrismar

To some, art may be a beautiful object that they can use, or a compelling scene that sparks their interest.

Maybe a painting of a sunset over the ocean is your idea of art.

To others, art may only be a springboard for another idea: a starting point for discussion.

Maybe something has to be unique and interesting for you to consider it art.

Questions to consider: does art need to have a message? If art has a message, is it still art? At what point does art merge with "advertising?"

Does art have to be handmade? Can computer generated images be art?

Are prints still works of art, even though they're mass-produced?

Some people have a taste for art that is ambiguous: something that they can babble on about and use big words to impress their intellectual buddies.
Photo by sta.helena

Art snobs like to say things like . . .

“…A GROUP OF SCULPTURAL WORKS THAT AIMS AT A VOID THAT SIGNIFIES PRECISELY THE NON-BEING OF WHAT IT REPRESENTS…”

“…THIS SUGGESTION OF PERFORMANCE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INVOLVES THE VIEWER WITH THE MAKING PROCESS, PROVOKING INSTINCTIVE RESPONSES TO HER PRECARIOUS ASSEMBLAGES”

“MY PRACTICE EXAMINES HESITATION AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING, WHERE THE OBJECT IS NEITHER THE OBJECT OF OBJECTHOOD NOR THE ART-OBJECT. IT IS RATHER THE OBLIQUE OBJECT OF MY INTENTIONS. …”

"Art is a discovery and development of elementary principles of nature into beautiful forms suitable for human use."
- FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT 1957

Let's look at some varied (and at times opposite) points of view on art.
Photo by push 1

Wright's art is:

  • orderly
  • useful
  • beautiful
Being an architect, Frank Lloyd Wright was interested in beauty on a mathematical level. Symmetry and balance create beauty. Wright also took inspiration from nature and natural forms. He often incorporated stone and warm woods into his works. To Wright, useful is beautiful. He considered himself an artist.

Kaufmann House, or "Fallingwater" designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1935.

Fallingwater is orderly; its shapes relate to each other. All of the horizontal elements have a smooth, clean surface, but they are not boring. They cantilever over the water in an exciting and unexpected way. The vertical elements have natural finishes, such as the stone to contrast with the sleek glass, and the grey of the stone mimics the grey bark of the trees that reach upwards. And people can live in it! How fun! Orderly, (but not boring), useful, and beautiful. Good job, Frank! You made art that people can live in!
Photo by orangejack

Can art be:

  • unnatural?
  • disorderly?
  • useless?
  • ugly?
So, if our definition of art is "orderly, useful, and beautiful," can art be the opposite: unnatural? Disorderly? Useless? Ugly?

The art in the background is the beloved Mexican artist, Frida Kahlo de Rivera, famous for her self-portraits and her unibrow.
Photo by libbyrosof

"Convergence" by Jackson Pollock, 1952.

This is Jackson Pollock's "Convergence," a very famous painting.

What do you think of it? I think of ketchup and mustard.

Why do some people consider "Convergence" art? It breaks rules. It starts conversations. Pollock's paintings have sold for prices as high as $140 million, so obviously, people take him seriously. Good job, Jackson! Your splatters are making a killing! Postmortem kudos to you!

Pollock painting (1950)

Here is a video with Pollock explaining his thoughts about his drip paintings.

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s

"Art is . . . a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity."
- LEO TOLSTOY 1897

Let's look at another white guy's opinion of art.

Tolstoy's art is:

  • unifying
  • infectious
  • influential
  • beneficial
Tolstoy in his essay, "What is Art," explained that the test of art was its “infectiousness.”

Let's look at one of the most recognized, or "infectious" paintings ever.

(By the way, I have no idea what this sculpture is, but it looked like Tolstoy's idea of unifying propagandistic art. It's probably some Nazi statue, so apologies in advance.)
Photo by Matt. Create.

Untitled Slide

Can someone tell me what this painting is called?

Yes. "The Starry Night." Who painted it?

Yes. Vincent Van Gogh.

No doubt Van Gogh’s Starry Night is an “infectious” painting with copies of it plastered on posters, coffee mugs, etc. People like it. If you are an art collector, a Van Gogh painting is the holy grail. In 1990 his "Portrait of Dr. Gachet" sold for a world-record price of $82 million. However, his work was not always so "infectious." Van Gogh only sold one (maybe two?) paintings that we know of in his lifetime. Does this mean that his art was not art until people started liking it?

Riddle me that, Tolstoy.

Can art be:

  • divisive?
  • misunderstood?
  • marginalized?
So, if art is (according to Tolstoy) unifying, infectious, and beneficial, can art be the opposite: divisive? Misunderstood? Marginalized.

Yes.
Photo by williamcromar

Salon des Refuses: the exhibition of rejected art (1863)

Behold! The Salon des Refusés, of 1863, roughly translated, "Exhibition of the Rejects." Paul Cézanne, Camille Pissarro, James Whistler, and Édouard Manet were among the famous disrespected.

James McNeill Whistler, "Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl" 1862

This is a detail of a painting exhibited in the Salon des Refuses of 1863. Whistler's portrait of his mistress and business manager Joanna Hiffernan was created as a study of the color white. It was rejected by the Academy but admired by Manet, Courbet and others.

So, is divisive, misunderstood, marginalized art still art? Yes, I think so.

"An essential element of any art is risk. If you don’t take a risk then how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn’t been seen before?"
- FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA (2011)

On to the next guy's opinion:

" . . . If you don't take a risk then how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn't been seen before?"

So, Coppola might not agree with the maxim: "Good artist borrow; great artists steal."

Coppola's art is:

  • unique
  • rebellious
  • groundbreaking
Coppola might advise artist to figure out what the rules are, and then break them. Like Picasso did.
Photo by hbp_pix

Pablo Picasso self portrait at 15 years, 1896

This is a detail of Picasso's self portrait that he did when he was 15 years old. He is obviously a genius, mastering the play of light and shadow. The assertive collar seems to conventionalize him, but the free brushstrokes and wispy hair say otherwise.

Picasso self portrait at 20 years, 1901

Here, Picasso has abandoned much of the detail he mastered at 15. His coat is a plane of flat blue outlined in black. The only shadowing is done on the face, and that sparingly. He has abandoned realism for emotions, and his works evoke the flat colors and decisive shapes of Cezanne.

Picasso self portrait at 25 years, 1907

Now we find something recognizably Picasso. The colors are warmer, the eyes enlarged. The nose is askew and disproportionally confident. He looks happy to have discovered this version of himself.

Picasso self portrait at 56 years, 1938

This is fun. His expression says, "Yes, both my eyeballs are on the same side of my face, and I'm loving it." He appears to have a bouquet of five thumbs and I think I can see his trachea through his throat. His ear looks like a very heavy doughnut sat on a pillow and he has a comb-over to end all comb-overs. Great job, Picasso. You are unique, rebellious, and groundbreaking.

But on the other hand . . .

Can art be:

  • unoriginal?
  • recycled?
  • mundane?
Can we turn Coppola's theory on its head and go the opposite way? What do you think?
Photo by ryand1975

"32 Campbell's Soup Cans" by Andy Warhol, 1962

Andy Warhol's pop art elevates the mundane. One of his soup can paintings sold for $11.8 million. Way to get the most out of your lunch, Andy!

Thomas Kinkade: most successful artist of our time in terms of sales

Thomas Kinkade doesn't give a rip that a Japanese maple's leaves don't turn at the same time that the azaleas are blooming. Your grandmother probably loves him and his dreamy garden wonderland. Kinkade didn't have to wait until he was dead to rake in enough money to swim in, Scrooge McDuck style. However, mention his name to any monochromatically dressed art critic and they may throw up a little bit in their mouth.

Is Kinkade an artist?

We report. You decide.
Photo by glen.dahlman

Untitled Slide

The art world has created a perpetual merry go round of the “new” and “groundbreaking?” Impressionists rebelled against salon art, expressionists rebelled against impressionism, cubists rejected expressionism; surrealism was the newest thing after cubism, and on an on. The rule was: be first to break a rule and this makes you a great artist. Now, what rule hasn't been broken? People are overstimulated and bored with the intellectualism. Art should be unafraid. Art should be fun!

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, ASK WEBSTER.
art: noun
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Here's my definition to add to the pile.

"The purpose of art is to
(A) be beautiful or pleasing, and/or
(B) to visually communicate an idea." - Sis. Val

Here's my definition to add to the pile.

We are a visual society.

Art is not dead. We are addicted to images. If you don't believe me, try to get someone to like your Facebook post if it has no picture. I dare you.

"And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus . . ."
- Colossians 3:17

So, let's get to it. Let's make something beautiful and/or compelling. Let's have fun, or wallow in misery, wherever you are right now. Let's make art and be excellent.
Photo by Werner Kunz

Valerie Marcum

Haiku Deck Pro User