I'm reading a novel where the mc does ink painting. I know practically nothing about it. And then, there is this character who doesn't know much about art as well and just wanted to buy the painting to gift it *cough* bribe *cough* to some official. Then, he managed to acquire the mc's contact details and tried gushing about the art, how majestic it is, how it resembles a certain emperor from the previous dynasty. He didn't even understand the poetic script written with the artwork. MC find that character ridiculous. Though, they have bad relations, the character just didn't know that the mc is the ink painting master. That said, do you need to know art to appreciate it? Being in the modern world, art is not as rare as before. Many people are exploring their artistic selves and sharing their works. I dunno about others but most visual art I encounter this days are more straightforward. It's more about aesthetics than meaning. So I feel like I don't really need to know art to appreciate. While some paintings do need a little knowledge of historical contexts to find that deeper meaning, I just don't consume such art much. Another thing is music. There are so many music pieces these days. Even if I encounter song lyrics with deeper meanings, I won't necessarily catch it. More often than not, I listen more to the melody and the voice themselves. Even if I do catch interesting stuff, it doesn't add up much value to how much I like the piece. Personally, I don't feel like you need to know art to appreciate it. Though, finding things the artist left hidden is interesting. Thoughts?
I think that as long as something can bring you joy, then you can appreciate it just fine, there is no need for some deeper knowledge. If anything, some modern artists make really incomprehensible stuff that you need some detailed description to decipher... Otherwise you'll just look at it and be like... "Why are those 2 bottle lids next to one another art?"
I guess I can be considered an artist (a hobbyist at most though), but most personality tests think I'm more on the "logical" side than the "creative" side, so I guess that's why I don't understand a lot of the profound art appreciation stuff. Like all the art movements or whatever. In terms of my personal art appreciation, I'm a simple person. If it looks/sounds good, I like it. Interesting elements can make it a lot cooler (visual puzzles, etc), but in the end I'm not the type to look too deep. Maybe the art has deeper elements that I don't see, so I can't appreciate, but everyone's view is different.
Mmm I think everyone can appreciate art. Because art is made for everyone, not just artists. But someone who knows art might judge in a completely different way than someone who does not know art. Like they both might think the art is nice looking, but the artist knows the technique is really simple so they well judge less highly than the non-artist would. Neither opinion is better, just different
I think knowing art can add to your appreciation, but that anyone is capable of appreciating art. While taking an art history class in high school, I learned a lot at the time that made me appreciate art more (although I’ve admittedly forgotten most of it), but I always had an appreciation before.
If I may, I suggest reading "Blue period". There are some quite good quotes over this subject in that manga~
Uhhhh I would just say it's not that deep. Whether or not you appreciate art it doesn't matter. In fact even as someone who can draw you can't really appreciate art at all unless you go trained to think like that. I mean who decided red is hot and blue is cold? The only way to "appreciate" it is to go to art school with rigorous training on interpretations just like how teachers say Shakespeare said red door to mean anger. I think it's very superficial and cringe personally. Or when one is a psychologist trying to understand someone through their art. Personally I don't like when people overanalyse my work, if it was an alien from future doing it trying to understand this day's human culture then I would have no problem. It's all for money laundering anyway. So meh.
I can see from both side. Not knowing art. It can still move you. In ways you never thought. From an artist perspective. You know the blood and sweat that went into every stroke of the brush. The same goes for music. Music has a way to make you realize what your feeling. Even better than you could. As a musician. You know time and effort it took to just make a single song. At least that’s what I think
I don't think so. Art is for asethetics. Looks pretty, great to listen too depending on the mood is what everyone already does. If it has deeper meaning like some some lyrics you can connect too, then yeah maybe one might appreciate it more. Hence some favorite art styles or music. Then there's those who are artist themsleves and really admire how the others create their work, especially if they know how difficult it is. So different levels of appreciation and awe. But on a simpler level, one doesn't have to know the full details of how art comes to be to appreciate/admire/enjoy it.
I think art is more like individual preference... You dont need to understand it to enjoy it. Because people basically has different preference. For example, I found some picture weird and I didnt like the colour, but it doesnt mean that it is a bad art. Someone might think it is a beautiful art/ think they enjoy it because it represent their mood. The wrong thing is, to judge the art without understanding it. It is okay to have preference, but don't demeaning it. People tends to judge something based on their knowledge, so if you judge something... it will reflect back on your personality and value. As for myself... if I like it, I will enjoy it, otherwise I just appreciate the author/ artist. In my opinion, it is because of his impure intention that make the mc ridicule him (in the novel you read)
Yeah, I only like it if it fits my aesthetics... even it has a ton of meaning, etc, I'd still prefer a drawing thar just looks good.
the point of art is not knowing it. but feeling it. it was so from the neolithic era, art was used to represent a story, simple as that. as humanity developed, art developed, but the point never changed. ony the people who enjoyed it changed. (wealthy). and with that, art started going the bullshit path that we have now. minimalism and whatever the fuck is popular now. making you understand rather than feel. which shouldn't be the point of art.
I am a simple man, if something pleases me then I like it, yet my criteria for what pleases me can be quite complicated sometimes if not alot of times, nevethelss, I am quite aware that there are people out there who perceive the world differently, got their own goals and reasons so their views to things can be quite peculiar if not weird XD Spoiler: Here is a clip that can give a better understanding
Art can be enjoyed however one wants. The artist's intention is one thing, but the beholder perceives it in his own way. Just like we imagine the books we read. But it's fun to check on the meaning of the painting to compare with how it made you feel. And there are sometimes different "official" meanings. It's always up to one's personnal interpretation. And also to read about the composition of the art and the drawing style... that stuff makes you realize how good the artist is. And how new ideas are created. Recently, I read a bit about Berthe Morisot and this painting, the craddle, Is described like this: Spoiler: https://mieux-se-connaitre.com/2011/12/le-berceau-de-berthe-morisot/ Tenderness and transparency: "Nothing is truer or more tender at the same time than the young mother, rather frumpy it is true, who leans towards a cradle where a pink child is sleeping, gently visible through the pale cloud of muslins", frumpy, what a critical mind this Jean Prouvaire. She lifts the sails one by one. Without touching anything, just with his eyes, so as not to wake him up. Delicacy of pastels, freshness of the moment, lightness of curtains, intimacy between mother and child. Suspended moment of serene contemplation where they seem to be one in the diaphanous continuity of the cradle. Composition: The composition here is particularly successful, built on two groups of different lines: three large curves in the foreground, and two diagonals; one in the foreground and the other in the background. The character of the mother is inscribed in a triangle, it finds its opposite in the shape of the cradle, whose veil reminds by its shape of a bird's wing. This cradle is built on three curves, one horizontal which makes the entire width of the painting, it is the horizon of this woman, a second that of the veil, and a third made by the rod which holds the said veil. We can add the counter curve of the cradle which creates a depth, the only one that has an optical character. And then two large diagonals that of the curtain of the cradle, and that of the veil of the alcove of the bed at the back of the room, parallel to the latter. Color, light: Two color ranges preside over the board: a range of whites, and a range of browns, blacks and grays. Some notes of bright colors are introduced in the curtain: orange, pink and red. The curtains are treated with great lightness, both those of the cradle and those of the bed from tinted or even pure whites, for the cradle on light yellow ocher, and for the bed curtain, on the cooler light blues. which therefore move away a little more and return this large clear surface to the bottom of the painting. The rest of the painting, Edma's armchair, the back wall are treated in radically different, very dark shades: the wall is dark brown, with a small burnt sienna part so a reddish brown and the mother's armchair is him, completely black, just a few accents give it shape (the wood of the backrest and a light note at the bottom left). The light of this painting is very soft, very feminine in any case ; it is a universe of sheer curtains that she crosses; it does not come from the back of the painting but on our side, the large veil of the back which undoubtedly surrounds the bed designates the place as the mother's room and, it is therefore the most intimate place there is and it is this intimacy that Berthe Morisot wants to bring out. Material, shape: Berthe Morisot had a very particular trait which differentiates her from all the other impressionists, it is light and sharp, it perfectly accompanies her style of painting, she has been criticized for this speed of execution which was nevertheless in the ambitions of that time and that Manet defended. She gave her brushstroke an agility and a freedom that few painters of her time have achieved. She will push this search for style to join Claude Monet in this screening of brushstrokes, which will give her pictorial material a vibration and a transparent lightness unique in painting. In "the cradle" she is still halfway there, but this silky shimmer which characterizes her is already there in the admirable work of the whites, whose gesture of the mother's hand holding the edge of the cradle curtain perhaps expresses be the desired quality: that of touch, touch through the eyes. Diaphanous touches and transparencies give this canvas a very intimate character. And like this: Spoiler: https://www.panoramadelart.com/morisot-le-berceau How does Berthe Morisot manage to assert herself as a woman painter through Le Berceau, a painting daringly presented at the first exhibition of the group of Independents in 1874? A singular observation of a female world Encouraged by their family, the sisters Berthe and Edma Morisot began to learn painting together. The copy sessions at the Louvre are the occasion for encounters, in particular with the painter Édouard Manet. While Edma married and left Paris for Lorient, abandoning all artistic activity, Berthe continued to paint and chose to present her works on the occasion of the first joint exhibition of independent artists, which took place in 1874 in the former workshops. by photographer Nadar. This exhibition begins the beginnings of so-called impressionist painting, a word invented by journalist Louis Leroy who is ironic about Impression, soleil levant by Claude Monet. Among the nine canvases presented by Berthe Morisot is Le Berceau whose models are Edma, now Madame Pontillon, and her daughter Blanche, born December 23, 1871. Berthe takes advantage of the presence of her sister and her niece at their parents in Passy to observe this moment of intimacy. A look that touches There is an invisible link between mother and child: the gaze that attentively touches the little girl, asleep in the protective cocoon of the cradle. Blanche is protected by the maternal presence, but also by the veil of the cradle, delicately raised by Edma's right hand. This simple and silent composition is however skilfully structured. Diagonals are present: curtains, veils, mother's gaze towards the child, folded arms of the two protagonists. Contrasting values respond to each other: Edma, who wears a jacket with blue gray stripes and a black ribbon around the neck, stands out against a bluish white background, while on the right, the cradle and the transparent gauze emerge thanks to the use of light tones on a brown background. Berthe manages to translate a suspended time, a moment of concentration and gentleness. Edma's head resting on her left hand reinforces her serious thoughtfulness. A mother / child representation between tradition and modernity If the models are identifiable, can we qualify this canvas as a portrait? The relationship of mother and child is part of a long tradition of Western art, where representations of the Virgin and Child abound. The Italian Renaissance painter Raphaël is very representative of these gentle and attentive Madonnas. Berthe Morisot is also sensitive to 18th century French art, notably that of Jean-Siméon Chardin whose Le Bénédicité ideals with an intimate scene between a mother and her children; as in Le Berceau, the woman's gaze guides us towards the child, who must here pronounce the prayer before the meal. Like Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun in the previous century, Berthe painted more particularly a feminine world and established herself as an artist at a time when the path was strewn with pitfalls and prejudices; for example, the École des beaux-arts will not welcome women until 1897. In addition, Berthe Morisot courageously decides not to satisfy an official salon audience and prefers to approach the most avant-garde artists such as Manet, Renoir and Degas. Like them, she is sensitive to the scenes of modern life and, with a spontaneous and rapid touch, translates the changing effects of light. She was noticed by the critic Albert Wolff, who wrote in Le Figaro of April 3, 1876: “[…] There is also a woman in the group, as in all the famous bands elsewhere, her name is Berthe Morisot and is curious to observe. With her, feminine grace is maintained in the midst of the overflows of a delirious mind. " In December 1874, four years after her marriage to Eugène Manet, brother of the painter Édouard, Julie was born. She will in turn become one of Berthe's privileged models, very attentive to painting the different stages of her daughter's childhood. Grace and gravity of a "magician" according to the poet Mallarmé If Mary Cassatt, American impressionist, favors the theme of motherhood in many paintings and pastels, if Auguste Renoir paints his wife Aline breastfeeding their son Pierre with soft colors and sensual curves, Berthe Morisot takes a different approach. Indeed, in Le Berceau, she does not seek to show a fusion of bodies and a sensuality of flesh. A modesty and a distance are established between the mother and her daughter: the attentive gaze, perhaps anxious, suggests a reflection on the future of this child on the edge of her existence. Behind grace and delicacy, Berthe manages to express a seriousness and a solitude that only her brother-in-law Édouard Manet allowed to surface in the portraits he painted of her; thus, in Berthe Morisot au bouquet de violettes, produced the same year as Le Berceau, the singular beauty of Berthe, who was also called "the beautiful painter", blossoms in a harmony of white and black. After the 1874 exhibition, Le Berceau will remain in the family of models before being acquired by the Louvre in 1930. This acquisition marks the recognition of an artist whose death certificate bore the mention “without profession”! Christine Kastner-Tardy And in the article I originally read about it and that made me curious, they wrote: Spoiler: Article from Hippocampe magazine but no clue who they are citing Canvasses imbued with ambiguities From her apprenticeship at Corot's atelier, Morisot retained a pronounced taste for the painting of the XVIIIe century, adopting pinks, opaline whites and azur blues, caracteristics of François Boucher's paintings or Jean-Honoré Fragonard's paintings, associated in their time to a feminine art, wholly surrenderred to the senses. Yet, far from merely being charming and benevolent motherhoods, Berthe Morisot's paintings are imbued with ambiguities. <<The Craddle plays on opposition of blacks, whites and transparancy effects to establish a certain distance between the mother and her child. The mood is serene no less than mysterious with the veil of the craddle concealing the gaze of the young woman>>. Beset by daydreaming, she seems both attentive and absent, absorbed and distant. <<Enough to thwart all common ground about Berthe Morisot and motherhood>>. I find this painting really cool. It looks good and it's so interesting to unravel! Spoiler: t The mom's and the child's elbows are facing each other and the mother's gaze seems to reach her child's face. The baby is all soft, wrapped in fluffy white, against a black background while the mother is dressed darkly, on a a dark chair, we only see half her face and she holds the edge of the veil with her fingertips. The veil is a diagonale that separates the two. They really are so far yet so close. The mom does seem serious and I find her gaze loaded with expectations. But other times, I find her meditative and a bit bored. Maybe because of the white background. Her face could be bored, lonely, reminiscent depending on my mood when I look at it. The baby doesn't have a care in the world. Hidden with the veil, half-seen, it seems like they don't even exist in reality. TL;DR: Tender, protective of the newborn, seriousness and solitude, or simultaneously distant and caring: the critics view diverge. And I love that.
oo, I think there's a certain group of high-class art connoisseurs who study how different art pieces are created and appreciate art for how the artists used specific brushes, or specific strength in their strokes, or specific pigments to create different effects. That sort of art appreciation is a little off from our day to day art we see. Nowadays, I think most artists, when they create art, don't think about these sort of things. It's more about how good it looks, or if it has the effect you were trying to convey, so I think it's fine to just see if we like the art without knowing art. I think music would be a good example here. For those who studied music, when they hear other musicians, they can pinpoint and say, oo that riff is hard to do, that was really sick, but for those who didn't, they don't know that the riff was hard to do because they never learnt it. I seen many youtube videos where people compare scores that sounds difficult to play but is actually very easy for a seasoned professional and those that sound easy to play, but it's very difficult because the technique is difficult. Like a Piano score that requires you to move your hands up and down the keyboard really quickly in succession, or a guitar riff where the notes you have to play are far apart. Same for music, I think it's fine without knowing music. If it sounds good to you, then listen
No, you don't need to know art to appreciate art but you won't totally be able to fully appreciate it and understand its meaning if you don't know art.
You're born with no taste. Then you get your parents/caretakers' taste. And after 13-14, you start developing your own and it evolves all the time. If you grow up rich and surrounded by works of art, it'll be easier for you to tell apart tacky from elegant. But you'll still learn eventually just by seeing more art. But when it comes to modern art - the type where you wrap up objects or draw dots on black canvas, or leave a chair under a lamp at a certain angle, and so on, you'll need some theory to understand what's going on... I can't say I enjoy those cause I never bothered to read up on them. I'll stick to my realism, romanticism, impressionism. and surrealism and be a boring square in my corner.