Innovation for the art & entertainment worlds
This is going to be a contentious posting and its a bit arbitrary but I am going to attempt to tell you what I look for when I tweet or blog about a piece of art for you. I usually pontificate in obscure ways so I’ll do my best to bring it on down and be plain on a very transcendental subject.
When you appreciate something created I believe that you are acknowledging a universal-ness and timeless quality that the item represents. The more you sit and look at art and try to get your head around it the more you improve your own artwork. Frankly, that is what I am doing. I never quite understood what books or teachers were explaining to me about art appreciation. I want to be a better artist and in order to achieve that I must look at artists that I admire.
Ultimately I look at art as an act of giving or serving. I believe when artist attempt to make art for themselves or selfishly it becomes evident in their work and retards it in some way. Sure, I believe artist can push themselves, challenge notions, explore methods, or somehow express ideas they feel personally but the world or the art form is usually benefited in those exercises. The more a piece demonstrates this manner of generosity the more it appeals to me.
If you haven’t already guessed my worldview is odd and I form my opinions in places the art world hardly looks. That’s ok with me.
I look toward things such as this:The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way (there is no good asking first whether the work before you deserves such a surrender, for until you have surrendered you cannot possible find out.”
So in respect, there must be a generosity given by the participant as well. Give your time, give your thoughts and introspection, surrender your inquisitiveness.
I look for truth in art. Look at this painting by Pablo Picasso.He painted Guarnica. It is, in all sense of the word, a true depiction of the horrors of war.
Under cover of darkness, on April 26, 1937, Nazi planes decimated the Spanish city of Guarnica. It was the first time that devastation on that scale had been delivered from the air, and that new development allowed the pilots to be completely disconnected from their victims. This encouraged the planes not just to bomb military targets but every building in the city, and to circle back again and again to gun down every person they could find. This was Picasso’s response.
If a work of art takes some sort of mastery, dedication, perfection I think it needs to be appreciated. If it’s commendable or just undeniably excellent then I see it as art.
Computational math art to me is art Einstein, Tesla, Marconi, or Fibonacci would dream. To me that is amazing and a feet that makes me honor it. It shows mastery of a science I do not know or yet fully understand. I respect it.
If it is novel and shows the purveyor’s aptitude then it deserves note. But if it surpasses anything that has been made or that can be compared it is excellent.
I often think of Gaetano Zummo. He was a sculptor who made amazing wax sculptures that were anatomical milestones that can be dated back to 1656-1701. His mastery over his medium and the subject matter had never been before achieved. Therefore, his works I consider as true art even though his subject matter was off putting. Talk about 3d art!
Henri Matisse said:
What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity devoid of troubling or depressing subject matter – a soothing, calming influence on the mind, rather like a good armchair which provides relaxation from physical fatigue.
Quite frankly this sums up one aspect of what I look for when it comes to purity in art. I look for an innocence of intent.
I believe there is a difference that I cannot quite explain adequately about pornography and an art piece that conveys lust. I think pornography is not art but the latter is. Why? I am not completely sure and I feel it is something guttural and intrinsic but i think it boils down to the intent of the artist.
I look for an un-adulteration of subject or medium as well.
There is a basic human instinct, an internal appreciation, for harmony, balance, and rhythm; this can be defined as beauty.
Back to the equation displayed in the beginning.
There was a study in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience that suggested there may be a neuro-biological basis to beauty.
It is a personal favorite of Prof David Percy from the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications.
He told the BBC: “It is a real classic and you can do no better than that.“It is simple to look at and yet incredibly profound, it comprises the five most important mathematical constants – zero (additive identity), one (multiplicative identity), e and pi (the two most common transcendental numbers) and i (fundamental imaginary number). “It also comprises the three most basic arithmetic operations – addition, multiplication and exponentiation. “Given that e, pi and i are incredibly complicated and seemingly unrelated numbers, it is amazing that they are linked by this concise formula. “At first you don’t realize the implications it’s a gradual impact, perhaps as you would with a piece of music and then suddenly it becomes amazing as you realize its full potential.” He said beauty was a source of “inspiration and gives you the enthusiasm to find out about things”.
I read about the top 10 things people view as beauty in works of art but I believe that deserves its own post.
Did I miss anything? What are the things you look for when appreciating art?