Comments on: Is Ambiguity ‘Better’ Than Clarity in Art? http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/ Musings on the Nature of Art from An Artist in Nature Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:28:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Tania http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-639 Tania Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:01:57 +0000 http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-639 I've read this post, and the comments, with a good deal of interest, and thought I would weigh in with my two 'bits: I have degrees in Fine Art and Art History (not that this makes my opinion any more valid - I'm just trying to provide a bit of context for my take on this conversation) and I think that many of the non-artist art collectors I've met have been drawn to abstract and non-objective art because it is valued by the "art experts" i.e. art critics and art historians. If art criticism is the “description, analysis and interpretation of art” http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/artsed/visart102030/vaglos.html then I honestly believe that anyone who can see and think is eminently well qualified to tell you what s/he sees when looking at art and what thoughts/feelings it raises for him/her. However, the preconception (or, perhaps, misconception?) many people have with abstract and non-representational art is that while anyone can tell you how a work of art makes him/her feel, only an art critic/historian will be able to make an intelligent commentary on what a work of art “means”. And as long as people continue to believe this, I think there be a large population of art collectors who will allow art experts to convince them that abstract and non-representational art is valuable because it is the very art form that “requires” expert interpretation. I’ve read this post, and the comments, with a good deal of interest, and thought I would weigh in with my two ‘bits:
I have degrees in Fine Art and Art History (not that this makes my opinion any more valid - I’m just trying to provide a bit of context for my take on this conversation) and I think that many of the non-artist art collectors I’ve met have been drawn to abstract and non-objective art because it is valued by the “art experts” i.e. art critics and art historians.
If art criticism is the “description, analysis and interpretation of art” http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/artsed/visart102030/vaglos.html then I honestly believe that anyone who can see and think is eminently well qualified to tell you what s/he sees when looking at art and what thoughts/feelings it raises for him/her. However, the preconception (or, perhaps, misconception?) many people have with abstract and non-representational art is that while anyone can tell you how a work of art makes him/her feel, only an art critic/historian will be able to make an intelligent commentary on what a work of art “means”.
And as long as people continue to believe this, I think there be a large population of art collectors who will allow art experts to convince them that abstract and non-representational art is valuable because it is the very art form that “requires” expert interpretation.

]]> By: Julie Chapman http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-633 Julie Chapman Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:14:32 +0000 http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-633 I enjoyed reading the various viewpoints here - Don, I had to laugh at the 'controlled substance' thought! I'm pretty sure the author of the book in question is actually a nun... Larry, I wonder if there isn't some truth to what you're saying; sports-men and -women know big game pretty well, but that's about it. Considering how some very poorly-drawn wildlife art still sells, ya have to believe that ignorance could be part of it. And Rosemary, I do believe that some mystery makes a work more intriguing or compelling. I'm moving away from the straight representationalism I used to paint, and doing more with abstract or interpretive elements. I'm also messing around with really wild interpretations. (See next blog post). Probably your more conservative art buyer likes straight representation, but the next generation of art collectors seems to be moving more contemporary...a subject for another time, worth exploring in its own right. I enjoyed reading the various viewpoints here - Don, I had to laugh at the ‘controlled substance’ thought! I’m pretty sure the author of the book in question is actually a nun…

Larry, I wonder if there isn’t some truth to what you’re saying; sports-men and -women know big game pretty well, but that’s about it. Considering how some very poorly-drawn wildlife art still sells, ya have to believe that ignorance could be part of it.

And Rosemary, I do believe that some mystery makes a work more intriguing or compelling. I’m moving away from the straight representationalism I used to paint, and doing more with abstract or interpretive elements. I’m also messing around with really wild interpretations. (See next blog post). Probably your more conservative art buyer likes straight representation, but the next generation of art collectors seems to be moving more contemporary…a subject for another time, worth exploring in its own right.

]]> By: larry jewett http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-627 larry jewett Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:24:56 +0000 http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-627 I think one reason why some people like modern art is that everyone can feel like an expert when they view it. They can feel like "hey, my viewpoint is worth just as much as that smarty-pants art critic's viewpoint" ( because there is no <i>right</i> answer) Realistic stuff is a whole other ball of wax. I think that's why you get the typical "It looks just like a photograph" comment. Most people have never seen an elk and they are quite honestly afraid to say <i>anything</i> other than "it looks just like a photo" (even though they have never seen a photo of an elk) for fear of showing their ignorance: "That's a very nice <i>dear</i> painting" . (Oops!) People love to feel like they are as smart as (or smarter than) the next guy/gal (why so many people voted for George Bush, I believe)-- and they certainly don't like to appear as bumbling idiots. So, there you have it. A psychoanalysis of art criticism (from someone who believes that most psychobabble is utter nonsense) . I think one reason why some people like modern art is that everyone can feel like an expert when they view it.

They can feel like “hey, my viewpoint is worth just as much as that smarty-pants art critic’s viewpoint” ( because there is no right answer)

Realistic stuff is a whole other ball of wax.

I think that’s why you get the typical “It looks just like a photograph” comment. Most people have never seen an elk and they are quite honestly afraid to say anything other than “it looks just like a photo” (even though they have never seen a photo of an elk) for fear of showing their ignorance: “That’s a very nice dear painting” . (Oops!)

People love to feel like they are as smart as (or smarter than) the next guy/gal (why so many people voted for George Bush, I believe)– and they certainly don’t like to appear as bumbling idiots.

So, there you have it. A psychoanalysis of art criticism (from someone who believes that most psychobabble is utter nonsense) .

]]> By: Don Barnes http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-602 Don Barnes Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:18:43 +0000 http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-602 The very first thing that comes to my mind is that we dont know how "enhanced" this critic might have been at the time of this viewing. In my younger days, I worked in a cultured marble plant. At one point I took some of the uncured stuff and put it into a 1 pint paper container. Once it had cured, I peeled away the paper to expose all the swirling black and white. At that time, friends were apt to use a controlled substance recreationally. Now and then someone would pick up the fake stone and begin to pick out different shapes - a horse's head, a woman's face, etc. Some could spend half an hour just turning the thing in their hands, looking for new things. It was kind of a "hidden pictures for dummies". A few people in the art community have been known to imbibe now and again, I think. The very first thing that comes to my mind is that we dont know how “enhanced” this critic might have been at the time of this viewing. In my younger days, I worked in a cultured marble plant. At one point I took some of the uncured stuff and put it into a 1 pint paper container. Once it had cured, I peeled away the paper to expose all the swirling black and white.

At that time, friends were apt to use a controlled substance recreationally. Now and then someone would pick up the fake stone and begin to pick out different shapes - a horse’s head, a woman’s face, etc. Some could spend half an hour just turning the thing in their hands, looking for new things. It was kind of a “hidden pictures for dummies”.

A few people in the art community have been known to imbibe now and again, I think.

]]> By: Rosemary Conroy http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-601 Rosemary Conroy Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:31:50 +0000 http://julietchapman.com/blog/2008/08/12/is-ambiguity-better-than-clarity-in-art/#comment-601 Hey Julie, This is something I wonder about a lot too. It's all so subjective. I am trying to incorporate a bit more mystery in my work but without losing the subject. People seem to like it, but then again there's plenty of folks who like my older, more straight up stuff too. Bruce Baker had a great line when confronted with people who didn't respond favorably to his work (at shows): "Yes, well, my work isn't for everyone." I love that. And it's true. You can't please all of the people all of the time and why would you even want to anyway? You have to please yourself first! Rosemary Hey Julie,

This is something I wonder about a lot too. It’s all so subjective. I am trying to incorporate a bit more mystery in my work but without losing the subject. People seem to like it, but then again there’s plenty of folks who like my older, more straight up stuff too.

Bruce Baker had a great line when confronted with people who didn’t respond favorably to his work (at shows): “Yes, well, my work isn’t for everyone.” I love that. And it’s true. You can’t please all of the people all of the time and why would you even want to anyway? You have to please yourself first!

Rosemary

]]>