When you look at a wonderful masterpiece, a great beautiful work of art do you enjoy the beauty and talent?

Question

Or do you only critique the brush strokes, the paints chosen, and the techniques used? Do you feel the need to break everything in this life down to scientific and cold descriptions? Do you see the beauty or just the science behind it?

I can handle the "Truth" quite well but whose truth? Belief is a personal thing.

Answer 1

I like your analogy. Yes I do think a lot of people are incapable of experiencing the beauty, the wonder and the sheer joy of life. It must be analyzed, quantified and reduced to the lowest common denominator. I am glad we are not like that. I look at a painting and feel what the artist was trying to convey. And am awed with the beauty of the image. That's all I care about.

Answer 2

I am of the opinion that all art is garbage... once it's finished. Despite this, I am myself an artist. For me, the art is about the journey, the exploration of the medium and the self. Once the piece is finished, the journey is over. So for me, the end result is meaningless, it is little more than a photograph I took at the end of a journey. I don't keep photographs of events, I keep ideas and feelings in my heart, so to keep the art to me is meaningless.
Whenever I finish a piece of art, I throw it away, and begin anew, and enjoy the new journey before me.

Just because I can give you a detailed scientific description of the nature of clay, of the firing process, or of pigment and color theory, does not mean I can't step back and tilt my head and say, "This piece moves me."

Anyone who views art in progress or a finished product purely as beautiful or purely something to critique misses out on the whole picture.

Leonardo Di Vinci explored pigments no one had ever explored before, and in doing so, was able to come up with colors and effects no one had before. His pieces are beautiful, but how much more can you appreciate them when you understand that he was using entirely new techniques, and appreciate the science that went into the design of his paints, the mathematics he incorporated into his content, etc... Then you have this majestic blend of history, science, emotion, and art all in one, and it can only be appreciated by viewing the painting as it literally is and as it affects you and in the context of its creation.

-----------

And Debra, you have always been so kind, warm and sincere. Please understand that those who judge you are only soured by the venom floating around the forum and do not understand the deep honestly in which you ask your question. May your strength bear you through their venom. You will be in my thoughts.

Answer 3

I went to a movie once with a director of film. He absolutely ruined the movie for me. All he did was criticize everything; they used the wrong period props, the lighting was wrong, the direction was bad, etc. etc.

When I look at art, it affects me. I either like it or I don't. But I am not an artist, so I don't look inside things as much as perhaps an artist would. I just appreciate it (a movie, a painting, etc.) for the effect it has on my heart and emotions, I don't tear it to pieces. I'm rather glad I'm not like that director, quite honestly.

Answer 4

I think if you think that's what critics do, you are seriously mistaken. That sounds like some kind of forensic analysis, not art criticism.

An art critic responds first with her heart. She will then ask, "Why does this art make me feel this way? What is it about simple old paint on canvas that can excite me like this?"

She may want to know something about what the artist set out to achieve when he painted his image. Did he, like Breugel, have satirical targets? Was he, like the pre-Raphaelites, very moralizing in his intentions? Did he, like Rothko, simply want to present us with abstractions that represent nothing in particular but stir in us some undefined passion - a love for purple, perhaps?

She might then ask whether there is anything suspicious in a moralizing artist's aims, or dubious in one who portrays nudity, or pretentious in one who creates abstractions. She should offer sound arguments for her criticisms, not merely state a point of view. She may also exercise the same skills on art she particularly dislikes - we all have some - but the method is the same.

Occasionally an art critic may include some detail about the technical composition, the type of brush, whether (like Michaelangelo) the artist had helpers who painted the simple stuff for him to fill in with the idiosyncratic detail. But no critic reduces a painting to "science".

Here, for instance, is a snippet of historical art crit you may appreciate. Do you know (and I accept that you might) why Mary is traditionally painted wearing deep blue robes? Is she mentioned in the Bible as wearing blue? I think not. The answer is because paint was difficult and expensive to manufacture in medieval Europe, and the most expensive colour of all was blue - using the rare mineral lapis lazuli. Mary, these artists, judged, should be dressed in the most expensive thing they could bestow on her. So they painted her in brilliant blue; the tradition stuck. It took the care of an art critic with an interest in the historical background to the art to find that out for us. It's even a little bit scientific - but has it lessened your appreciation of iconic art?

And the same goes for other uses of criticism. Criticism does not destroy. It reveals. It enables us to begin to understand. And it's hard work.

Answer 5

What a great question!

I tend to love the beauty and appreciate the talent that goes into the masterpiece ---

---but it's wonderful that we have both kinds of people in the world --those that analyze and see the fine distinctions and component parts.

Answer 6

Why are some of you baggin the asker? It's a good question.

I can enjoy art on a purely aesthetic level and from a technique and method aspect.

And - it intrigues me that Pollock's work is full of fractals as opposed to random splashes of paint.

Answer 7

As an artist (photographer) I take a different approach.

I look at the overall image, see its beauty and appreciate the talent that it took, then I look at it and see what I would have done differently.

Sorry, but it must be the artist in me that always does this.

Answer 8

Are you referring to the original beauty present in every single person on this planet? Sadly, many Christians find it impossible to see the beauty. They see only that which they feel is ugly about their brothers and sisters and feel they are commanded by God to change it. They spend so much of their lives focused on what they think is ugliness and sin in the world that they miss many of the beautiful things they are supposed to believe their God bestowed upon, specifically the gift of love.

Answer 9

I have broken things down to a cold science and found a warm loving God. It is wonderful to accept God by faith. There is also another way to come to God though, You can study science and realize that the bible and science fit together. You just have to take your mind out of the box that public school science classes put it into

Answer 10

I have never seen the science behind it, I only see the beauty and talent of it.