English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This is really a stupid question, maybe it doesn't even has an answer; but what are the criteria for telling..is it that most people admires it? ( like the gioconda for example) is it it's weirdness ( like , I don't know , guernica to say something) it's because the people who ¨know¨ says so... how can you tell?

2006-07-07 17:34:12 · 7 answers · asked by jueves 4 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Painting

I don't know, ¨just a matter of taste¨ doesn't tell me much , really; I mean why we admire so much, until our time, the works of Leonardo or da Vinci or , I don't know, Van Goh ..what makes them different?

2006-07-07 18:05:44 · update #1

7 answers

I think that bad art is just that, bad art. If you see something that is made poorly without any thought put into it, it doesn't bring nothing new or is not interesting. You just look at it and the composition and color scheme is bad.
I think that most people can see it intuitively and just don't find it interesting, the work don't speak to them.
Also, every person is different with different tastes and likes so different things are going to appeal to them. But things made badly and poorly are just that things that are poor in quality.

2006-07-07 17:51:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

well to be perfectly honest the answer to this question is exactly what you dont want to hear... it is simply a matter of tastes, and yes- majority wins. the reason we admire great artists like van gogh and da vinci is because they presented the world with an interesting way of viewing their surroundings. Although many artists may have used the same style, they presented themselves best. the same thing goes with abstraction- You can decide right away if a piece is good. just look at it and you will be immediately impacted either positively or negatively. You may think something is amazing and the next guy thinks its trash, but if the rest of the world agrees with you than the artist who created it is going to be viewed as a "good artist".

2006-07-08 15:54:44 · answer #2 · answered by josh h 2 · 0 0

If you look up the definition of art it is the physical manifestation of a creative impulse.It is not done for any other requirement eg gain,biological need etc.The only thing to be kept in mind is that it should not be frivolous.It is also an attempt at communication.The artist communicates through his artwork which tries to get an emotional /intellectual response from the viewer.Some viewers get a favourable response while some do not.The same artwork is thus good art for some and bad art for others.

2006-07-08 07:41:30 · answer #3 · answered by Amit C 1 · 0 0

Okay, first of all, let me ease your mind: This is NOT a stupid question by any measure - people have been debating the value and meaning of art for thousands of years, going back to the time of Aristotle and further.

The truth is there is simply no clear answer to the question. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as the saying goes. Marshall McLuhan once said "Art is anything you can get away with."

In Sarasota, FL, the City's Bayfront Park held a scuplture exhibit. One of the pieces displayed was a massive statue entitled "Unconditional Surrender," which depicted a sailor in a WWII era uniform kissing a woman in a white dress, in a pose similar to the iconic Life magazine photo we all know taken on VJ Day at war's end. Sarasota's arts community was beside itself about the statue - they called it kitsch and tacky, and said it looked like something that should be holding a massive hamburger and pointing at a roadside diner. Some described the statue as the antithesis of art.

The city's senior population - those who lived through the WWII era - loved the statue. To them, the feeling of nostalgia made the statue art. They said that it captured a moment in time that was truly representative of their generation. People would have pictures taken of themselves kissing below the giant statue. At times, those who enjoyed the statue would accuse its detractors of being unpatriotic and insensitive to those who lived through that time period.

The debate raged in the local newspaper for months, until the exhibit was dismantled (it was only temporary to begin with).

I guess the point is that art as a concept really doesn't have a definition. Some things move us, and some things don't. Just because one person doesn't like a work doesn't mean it isn't art, and just because one person likes a work doesn't mean that it is art. One comes to one's own conclusions.

2006-07-08 01:30:17 · answer #4 · answered by Bael 4 · 0 0

Art exisits to be seen.You don't have to like all of it. It's a matter of personal choice. I study Art History so I can employ the tools used by art historians to look at art, not just from a viewers point of view, but from a technical and historical perspective. I love Renaissance art and hate modern art and that's ok. All that a painting or work of art demands is to be understood. If you take a little time to look at the work and discover how it was created, you have done it justice. Then you can decide whether you like it or not.

La Gioconda for exaample is special for many reasons other than the way it looks. Have a look at what the Louvre have to say about her and her importance may become clearer to you.

Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo

This portrait was doubtless painted in Florence between 1503 and 1506. It is thought to be of Lisa Gherardini, wife of a Florentine cloth merchant named Francesco del Giocondo - hence the alternative title, La Gioconda. However, Leonardo seems to have taken the completed portrait to France rather than giving it to the person who commissioned it. It was eventually returned to Italy by Leonardo's student and heir Salai. It is not known how the painting came to be in François I's collection.



Description


Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco Giocondo

The history of the Mona Lisa is shrouded in mystery. Among the aspects which remain unclear are the exact identity of the sitter, who commissioned the portrait, how long Leonardo worked on the painting, how long he kept it, and how it came to be in the French royal collection.
The portrait may have been painted to mark one of two events - either when Francesco del Giocondo and his wife bought their own house in 1503, or when their second son, Andrea, was born in December 1502 after the death of a daughter in 1499. The delicate dark veil that covers Mona Lisa's hair is sometimes considered a mourning veil. In fact, such veils were commonly worn as a mark of virtue. Her clothing is unremarkable. Neither the yellow sleeves of her gown, nor her pleated gown, nor the scarf delicately draped round her shoulders are signs of aristocratic status.


A new artistic formula


The Mona Lisa is the earliest Italian portrait to focus so closely on the sitter in a half-length portrait. The painting is generous enough in its dimensions to include the arms and hands without them touching the frame. The portrait is painted to a realistic scale in the highly structured space where it has the fullness of volume of a sculpture in the round. The figure is shown in half-length, from the head to the waist, sitting in a chair whose arm is resting on balusters. She is resting her left arm on the arm of the chair, which is placed in front of a loggia, suggested by the parapet behind her and the two fragmentary columns framing the figure and forming a "window" looking out over the landscape. The perfection of this new artistic formula explains its immediate influence on Florentine and Lombard art of the early 16th century. Such aspects of the work as the three-quarter view of a figure against a landscape, the architectural setting, and the hands joined in the foreground were already extant in Flemish portraiture of the second half of the 15th century, particularly in the works of Hans Memling. However, the spacial coherence, the atmospheric illusionism, the monumentality, and the sheer equilibrium of the work were all new. In fact, these aspects were also new to Leonardo's work, as none of his earlier portraits display such controlled majesty.


An emblematic smile

The Mona Lisa's famous smile represents the sitter in the same way that the juniper branches represent Ginevra Benci and the ermine represents Cecilia Gallerani in their portraits, in Washington and Krakow respectively. It is a visual representation of the idea of happiness suggested by the word "gioconda" in Italian. Leonardo made this notion of happiness the central motif of the portrait: it is this notion which makes the work such an ideal. The nature of the landscape also plays a role. The middle distance, on the same level as the sitter's chest, is in warm colors. Men live in this space: there is a winding road and a bridge. This space represents the transition between the space of the sitter and the far distance, where the landscape becomes a wild and uninhabited space of rocks and water which stretches to the horizon, which Leonardo has cleverly drawn at the level of the sitter's eyes.

2006-07-09 11:11:46 · answer #5 · answered by samanthajanecaroline 6 · 0 1

No art is in the eye of the beholder and every body has different taste in art just like any thing else in life.

2006-07-08 00:57:44 · answer #6 · answered by olive h 1 · 0 0

Preference for various artists' works is a matter of taste. For instance, I do not relate or like the work of Picasso. What I like is realistic art...cartoons...caricatures...political cartoons. And, your question is not stupid.

2006-07-08 00:41:00 · answer #7 · answered by Kay_Zoo 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers