I finally got through it all. It is unfortunate so many of the links in the thread are not broken.
yovargas wrote:Aaaaanyways, the trip was worthwhile anyways because they had several works by some guy named Dale Chihuly
Love Chihuly! He's a pretty big deal these days.
Incidentally, Peter Max was the first artist I knew by name. He was quite influential when I was young. His artwork was on sheets and folders and shoes, all sorts of things.
Art, like many other things, can be experienced on so many different levels depending upon your experience.
Initially, there is the visceral, emotional reaction to a piece of art as one might have to a piece of music, a performance, a literary work, even science. medicine, or other 'arts', I would imagine. At this level we might say we like, love, or dislike a piece. Maybe we will have an aversion to it or find it distasteful. We notice the scene, the color, the shapes, the light.
Next might come the cerebral examination of the work..what was the artist, sculptor, playwright, musician, writer, etc.. trying to convey? What was their intention? I noticed this level in the discussion of Degas 'Interior' ('The Rape') At this level one might not 'like' the work, but they may 'appreciate' it for the statement the artist is trying to make. There is a great deal of art that falls into this category for me. I once detested the folk art of Grandma Moses. It is not the type of art I would have in my home.. it's just not my style. However, the more I learned about her the more my appreciation grew. Now, I enjoy her work, although it's still not the type of art I would likely have in my home. There is a lot to explore at this level.. the history of the particular artistic movement and what influenced it. Social commentary, politics, etc..
Last would be a technical level. This would likely require one to have at least a cursory ability/knowledge of the medium. For example, I enjoy music very much. I definitely have a emotional reaction to music. I would probably be able to have a discussion about what the musician was going for .. relaxing, classical, haunting, modern, influences, etc.. but since I do not read music or play an instrument, there is a level that I'm not likely to experience in the same way a musician would. When they listen to music they may be thinking of signatures and bars and instruments and movements. And so it is with painting and sculpture. How did the artist create that.. what did they use to achieve that effect? What mediums did they use?
I'll have to give some thoughts to my favorite artists. I have sooo many. Contrary to my avatar, Botticelli is not one of them! It is why I intentionally tried to 'breathe life' into Venus as I painted her.
**edited to add. Favorite artists. I'll begin with a local favorite of mine, Dan Gerhartz. I took a class from him, maybe 20 years ago, but he's quite well known now and his classes are rare, given around the world, and expensive. His work is in the vein of Bouguereau, Sargent, and a local inspiration, Carl Von Marr whose work he grew up admiring in the local museum. Dan is a very religious person (I am not) so some of his subject matter is too maudlin (?) for my taste, but the light! the color! the movement! OH! it's what I aspire to achieve in my own work. At one time I worked for an insurance company & they had several of his works in the building, in particular in the dining area. Dan is a very kind and genuine person.