The Philosophy Discussion Forum

I've always thought how ugly was Picasso's work. Not all of it, and not even all the late stuff, of which the second pic below is an example. But this example epitomises what I can only think of as taking the piss: pushing the boundaries of taste in deformation to see just what he could get away with. Some works of this period are beautifully balanced and have a rare aesthetic. But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity.

It's not that I hate cubism. This image has great balance in colour, tone, and composition.

I have to disagree. I love Picasso. His paintings are fascinating and, yes, pleasing to the eye. Besides, aren't you the one who said anything is art as long as whoever created it says it is?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I have to disagree. I love Picasso. His paintings are fascinating and, yes, pleasing to the eye. Besides, aren't you the one who said anything is art as long as whoever created it says it is?

I didn't say it was not art.
I said it was bad art.
Do you think all art is equally good? DO you have no taste whatever?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I have to disagree. I love Picasso. His paintings are fascinating and, yes, pleasing to the eye. Besides, aren't you the one who said anything is art as long as whoever created it says it is?

I didn't say it was not art.
I said it was bad art.
Do you think all art is equally good? DO you have no taste whatever?

Great art is not subjective, just as great music isn't. No one could ever dispute that Bach was a great composer. The subjective part is whether someone likes his music or not. Not liking Bach's music wouldn't cause him to cease to become great. There are certainly standards of excellence that are universally accepted. Picasso is universally accepted as being a great artist, whether or not you happen to like his work.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I have to disagree. I love Picasso. His paintings are fascinating and, yes, pleasing to the eye. Besides, aren't you the one who said anything is art as long as whoever created it says it is?

I didn't say it was not art.
I said it was bad art.
Do you think all art is equally good? DO you have no taste whatever?

Great art is not subjective, just as great music isn't. No one could ever dispute that Bach was a great composer. The subjective part is whether someone likes his music or not. Not liking Bach's music wouldn't cause him to cease to become great. There are certainly standards of excellence that are universally accepted. Picasso is universally accepted as being a great artist, whether or not you happen to like his work.

Jesus = you are just a bag of contradictions.
If you had the guts to answer my question then we might have had grounds for a discussion.
Some people hate Bach. Are you saying that there opinion is wrong?

The object/subject distinction has no value when assessing art, unless you offer strict criteria for assessment. If your criteria is danceability then Bach is poor. It all depends. Objectivity requires more. The Subject is all that matters in art.

On objective grounds, the woman in the hat is poor art, where the criteria is subtle use of colour and texture; likeness at mimesis. If your criteria for poor art is some shit that a child could do then this also puts to woman in the hat in the poor category.
Another one you might want to consider is potential for forgery. The woman in the hat is easily duplicated by a person with very little experience in art.

You really are a moron. I didn't say those people are WRONG, I said their OPINION doesn't alter the fact that Bach was a great composer. How can a subjective feeling like whether or not you enjoy a particular kind of music be right or wrong? Is that really too difficult for you to understand? And Picasso was an innovator. No one had painted like that before. You would have to view the painting from the perspective of the era in which it was painted. No one now could ever mistake it for anything but a Picasso. It has his 'soul' etched into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGcffXXZYEg

-Imp

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You really are a moron. I didn't say those people are WRONG, I said their OPINION doesn't alter the fact that Bach was a great composer. How can a subjective feeling like whether or not you enjoy a particular kind of music be right or wrong? Is that really too difficult for you to understand? And Picasso was an innovator. No one had painted like that before. You would have to view the painting from the perspective of the era in which it was painted. No one now could ever mistake it for anything but a Picasso. It has his 'soul' etched into it.

You still have not grasped the meaning of objective.

If you want to just swallow the shit from the establishment then you are doomed to think that what they say is true, that your opinion does not matter. Fine.
The art world says Tracy Emin is a great artist: you are doomed to agree. That's how you want to play it.
If you want to be a sponge of someone else's opinion then there is nothing I can do to save you from yourself.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You really are a moron. I didn't say those people are WRONG, I said their OPINION doesn't alter the fact that Bach was a great composer. How can a subjective feeling like whether or not you enjoy a particular kind of music be right or wrong? Is that really too difficult for you to understand? And Picasso was an innovator. No one had painted like that before. You would have to view the painting from the perspective of the era in which it was painted. No one now could ever mistake it for anything but a Picasso. It has his 'soul' etched into it.

You still have not grasped the meaning of objective.

If you want to just swallow the shit from the establishment then you are doomed to think that what they say is true, that your opinion does not matter. Fine.
The art world says Tracy Emin is a great artist: you are doomed to agree. That's how you want to play it.
If you want to be a sponge of someone else's opinion then there is nothing I can do to save you from yourself.

That's not what I said either. There is a reason why some people are considered geniuses, and it has nothing to do with the subjective opinion of a tiny minority. You really do need to learn to read, and show some humility and admit when you are wrong occasionally. Your poor bitch of a wife must be thankful for small mercies when you spend so much time in front of a computer.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity.

The first picture I far prefer myself but it's the more schizoid abstractions as presented here and especially as rendered in Guernica which made Picasso into Picasso.

I'm quickly out of my depth in any discussion of the visual arts but I'm sure the same subjective vs objective dichotomies must apply for all the arts. I've always had a passion for literature and yet there are some truly great writers who simply don't resonate with me. I can acknowledge their technical skill and compositional style and even declare it brilliant and yet to me they have the wrong "mood" to engage with me at an emotional level. Art to me is something which somehow must transcend the mere manipulation of its own symbols and tools and reach beyond a mere intellectual appreciation by me of its own intrinsic merits. To be really great art must bring a tear to my eye and force me to say "f*** I wish I could do that".

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm quickly out of my depth in any discussion of the visual arts but I'm sure the same subjective vs objective dichotomies must apply for all the arts. I've always had a passion for literature and yet there are some truly great writers who simply don't resonate with me. I can acknowledge their technical skill and compositional style and even declare it brilliant and yet to me they have the wrong "mood" to engage with me at an emotional level. Art to me is something which somehow must transcend the mere manipulation of its own symbols and tools and reach beyond a mere intellectual appreciation by me of its own intrinsic merits. To be really great art must bring a tear to my eye and force me to say "f*** I wish I could do that".

I think it's a lot deeper than that. Anyone could probably take a decent stab at copying the second Picasso. Many have. The point is that he was the FIRST to do it. He created a whole new style and way of looking at and perceiving artworks. Sometimes genius is only recognized through hindsight. Van Gogh was barely able to sell a painting, apparently only selling one in his lifetime.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You really are a moron. I didn't say those people are WRONG, I said their OPINION doesn't alter the fact that Bach was a great composer. How can a subjective feeling like whether or not you enjoy a particular kind of music be right or wrong? Is that really too difficult for you to understand? And Picasso was an innovator. No one had painted like that before. You would have to view the painting from the perspective of the era in which it was painted. No one now could ever mistake it for anything but a Picasso. It has his 'soul' etched into it.

You still have not grasped the meaning of objective.

If you want to just swallow the shit from the establishment then you are doomed to think that what they say is true, that your opinion does not matter. Fine.
The art world says Tracy Emin is a great artist: you are doomed to agree. That's how you want to play it.
If you want to be a sponge of someone else's opinion then there is nothing I can do to save you from yourself.

That's not what I said either. There is a reason why some people are considered geniuses, and it has nothing to do with the subjective opinion of a tiny minority. You really do need to learn to read, and show some humility and admit when you are wrong occasionally. Your poor bitch of a wife must be thankful for small mercies when you spend so much time in front of a computer.

Some people are considered geniuses for reasons. Unless you actually state those reasons than you can't make any objective claims. By claiming that Bach is objectively a good composer all you are doing is agreeing with a small minority that have set themselves up and the bearers of taste. That is why I think you are contradicting yourself. When I come to Picasso. Sure he was a genius , but most of his stuff is just shit. Worse - it is taking the piss.
Have you see Tracy Emin's last efforts? (see image)
What distinguishes her sketch from a high school student's. The difference is that the sketch handed in for a GCSE would get a D. But because it has Tracy EMin's name on the bottom it is worth £1000s

Genius does not always produce anything worthwhile.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm quickly out of my depth in any discussion of the visual arts but I'm sure the same subjective vs objective dichotomies must apply for all the arts. I've always had a passion for literature and yet there are some truly great writers who simply don't resonate with me. I can acknowledge their technical skill and compositional style and even declare it brilliant and yet to me they have the wrong "mood" to engage with me at an emotional level. Art to me is something which somehow must transcend the mere manipulation of its own symbols and tools and reach beyond a mere intellectual appreciation by me of its own intrinsic merits. To be really great art must bring a tear to my eye and force me to say "f*** I wish I could do that".

I think it's a lot deeper than that. Anyone could probably take a decent stab at copying the second Picasso. Many have. The point is that he was the FIRST to do it. He created a whole new style and way of looking at and perceiving artworks. Sometimes genius is only recognized through hindsight. Van Gogh was barely able to sell a painting, apparently only selling one in his lifetime.

Rubbish. He specifically copied children, by his own admission. So he was not the first to do it. He was the first to fool the art world that painting like a child was worth money.