/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1913511
you'll know art is brilliant if you employ the same techniques in your paintings and have profound results... whether it be spiritually mentally or physically.

If you paint a campbells soup can and nothing happens don't go thinking there's something wrong with you. It's the art that isn't doing it's job.

The same goes for any art movement. They are all just experiments. The fact that they all produce the same response in the painter doesn't discredit the efforts made by the artist to make changes manifest in themselves.

Have you ever heard that quote about history that we study it to learn from our mistakes so we don't make the same ones in the future. It's the same with studying art. Impressionism is never coming back because it didn't work the first time around. Just move on. Appreciate the efforts, but move on.

>>1913530
You answer is getting at what if people aren't understanding something I put out. And I feel like people put more or less thought into a piece based on artist reputation.

I'd also like to know how do I know what I'm getting from a piece is intended. Like if I see red and think love when the artist actually had conflict in mind.

Lastly, for a piece like Warhol's Soup Cans, I don't understand the full meaning without first researching artist and time period. No one would give that level of effort for a no name artist. If I saw these paintings at a street side display, would I put as much thought into them? Or this piece be famous if someone else had produced them?

>>1913542
Context and subjective opinion are equally valid. That you have both an interest in the time period and life of an artist is equally as important as coming up with your own interpretation of a piece.

Worrying about the fame of another person is a silly thing to do though. Fame happens. To be upset about it is to assume the artist's who were successful had a say in their own fate. They just painted what they had to paint and the rest followed.

Here's a painting I did a few years ago. Do you appreciate it any less because I'm not famous?

Also don't think everything you do has to be a masterpiece. Equally important is what paintings came before and after by an artist.

>>1913542
Context and subjective opinion are equally valid. That you have both an interest in the time period and life of an artist is equally as important as coming up with your own interpretation of a piece.

Worrying about the fame of another person is a silly thing to do though. Fame happens. To be upset about it is to assume the artist's who were successful had a say in their own fate. They just painted what they had to paint and the rest followed.

Here's a painting I did a few years ago. Do you appreciate it any less because I'm not famous?

Also don't think everything you do has to be a masterpiece. Equally important is what paintings came before and after by an artist.

>>1913511
The artist's intent doesn't matter. If a piece made you feel nostalgic or melancholy or in awe then that's a correct reading of it. If you don't feel anything from it then that's a correct reading too. When you research into an artist then you're approaching the piece withe new knowledge and you might feel differently about it. To get a profound reaction out of people and to do it consistently takes a brilliant artist though.

>>1913643
heard you niggas were talking about me

>>1913511
That's a good question. I just finished an art history 1 class. I asked this question a lot to myself especially in regards to prehistoric art and early eastern art. "How do you know this was really the message?" "How do we know for sure this art piece was inspired by x artpiece from the past?"

Even in my own art people have read into my work farther than I have. What can you do, really. Art was for quite a while propaganda, Egypt, Rome, etc. Tell an art critic to find something good in x work and they probably will be able to.

There is also the context of the time. The meaning of the modern art works, iirc, were constructed at the time they were made. If you take one of them away from that time and have it created now, will that really have the same message? Probably not.

People's experiences and prejudices affect how they interpret what they see, especially in regard to abstract art. When there's no innate story to a piece like a religious or figurative painting there's not much you can expect but for critics to try to read into it a message, otherwise they'd be unemployed because all you would need to put on an ambiguous artwork is "it's an interesting configuration of several different subjects or colors. It could mean a lot of different things, but it's up for you to decide."

I forget the psychology term, but the more effort someone spends on a task, the more important they perceive the task to justify the effort, or something like that.

It isn't the intent or attribute that matters, it's profitability. Thousands of people did what Warhol did, the only difference is that Warhol sold his for millions. Nothing else.

Attention to detail, anatomy, shading and shape are meaningless, if you can create what the wealthy desire.

Art teacher here.

First: forget about this intention for a second. Not that it doesn't have an intention, or that you may not talk about it with the artist. But the artwork speaks for itself.

Second: the moment I say "the artwork speaks for itself" we seem to get a sense that you either get it right or wrong, either you unveil it or you don't get it. What you get from an art piece is what it is. How do you know it is what the artist is thinking? You don't. And to better understand this, ask yourself how do you know exactly what you intend when you are doing something? People are more complicated than that.

Respect the artist, respect the piece, but allow yourself to interpret in your own way. To learn more about its context is a way for you to get to know the piece and find out new things to like about it. But you can never read too much into something, absolutely never. A man may be hired to write the wall text for an exposition and just say whatever, but that's not in question here. When you have a sensation, when you think, when you honestly build an interpretation on something. That's exactly, precisely what the art is about.

A message is not just about what the emitter wants it to be. It involves the medium, it involves the receptor. They are just as important. The message IS exactly all of that things working together. A piece is never the same. Move it from its place and you have a different piece, show it to different eyes and you have a different piece, show it in different times and it's all different. Lose this idea that there is an original, central, core idea that is behind a piece. Behind it, there is only paint, canvas, whatever. The message is always in front.