High Art vs Low Art
Another binary. Boy,I know I said I was interested in the idea of opposites, but they keep popping up everywhere. Yesterday Rosy and I went to Rotterdam on an ESN trip. Rotterdam is the ‘New City’. It differs hugely to the rest of Holland. It is very americanised, a lot of tall sky scrapers and a lot of glass. It also seems to create a reputation of trying to be an ‘arty’ city.(emphasis on ‘trying’) Well that’s the impression I got. Rotterdam is chocka block with sculture in public places. Its honestly everywhere, very in your face. It ranges from really nice pieces of sculpture, to ‘things’ that make you want to throw up, that belong in the dumpyard, that make me question what the ‘!!@$#’ the artist was thinking.
It sprung up a conversation between Rosy and I about the whole High Art vs Low Art. Because a lot of the stuff we saw was definetly hideous, eyesoreish ’I belong in the trashbin’, ‘I contaminate the landscape’ LOW ART!thats if it could even be considered Art at all!!But can you define High Art and Low Art? Rosy had a go. In short, she seemed to think that high art was challenging and thought provoking, and low art was not.
I found her defintion very interesting. But wasnt so sure that my opinion is the same. Its similar, but different. In referring to my last blogs about Art vs Craft. Im not even sure that I even like the terms High Art vs Low art and don’t know if I believe in them. The following are my initial thoughts:
When I think of high art I think of Art from the ‘masters’. They make their home in Art Museums and in text books and in the homes of millionaires. High art is made of both imagination and superior skill. Really interesting to look at and its art that makes you think.
When I think of Low Art I think of the type of crap we saw yesterday. Not so pleasant to look at. Not the type of thing people would pay millions of dollars for, unless they were insane. Wack imagination maybe, but lack of skill to get any sort of message across. It’s the type of art in which the only question you get out of it is “what the ‘@%$#’ is that meant to be”.
Definitions of High Art and Low Art vary for inviduals. The following is an interesting forum.
Question about High Art and Low Art – Fine.Art.com
http://dart.fine-art.com/aqd-asp-im_1247-buy-m.htm
For some it is defined by social status of the artist. For others it is defined by how much money was spent to make the artwork. For others it is based around the idea of the original vs the copy. Original handmade work vs commercial mass produced art. This seems to be the general definition.
And that idea had an influence on Pop Art. Pop Art took the idea of mass production and screwed around with the definitions of what art should be. Pop Art is usually considered ‘Low Art’. Cheap, commercial, machinemade accessible. High art then is considered expensive, hand made, original, Rare. I do agree with this definition actually.
I tend to think that Rosy’s definition is more fitting to my idea of Art vs Craft. One makes you think, the other doesn’t. Art is meant to get you thinking, Craft does not.I came across this quote yesterday "skill without imagination is craft, imagination without skill is 'modern' art". I think it is very fitting. But who said i liked modern art?
So High Art or Low Art, Art is Art. It doesn’t matter how much money was spent on it, how many copies of an image there is. Personally, I tend to think that the hand of the artist is important, and favour skillful, handmade, original ‘high art” over commercial mass produced so called ‘Low Art’. But that does not mean that Low Art does not challenge my thinking. It definetly does. If it wasn’t for ‘Low Art’ I wouldn’t be dicussing this right now I don’t think. I think that its beneficial to try and distinguish high art from low art. But Art is Art, it all has the same general intention: to challenge viewers.
So in thinking about it again, I shall rephrase my earlier definitions. I think that I would prefer to use the terms ‘Good Art’ and “Bad Art’ instead for my earlier thoughts. But I think there are overlaps between these and the definition of high and low art.
Good Art – In my opinion Good Art displays both superior imagination and knowledge. It also shows superior skill in technique to get a message across. Knowledge of aesthetics –composition, form, colour are as important as the message being conveyed. Its exciting. Its inspiring. It captures your intention. You never get bored of it. It is thought provoking, It will always ‘speak’ to you in more ways than one. Good art has a certain beauty about it.
Bad Art – In my opinion Bad Art is that which I do not get anything out of. It is not pleasing to look at, so I have no desire to go back to it. It is boring and does not speak to me. The artist may have imagination and a concept, but does not convey it in a skillful way that is interesting. It is ugly and belongs in the trashbin. Like those sculptures I saw yesterday. It makes me angry.
It sprung up a conversation between Rosy and I about the whole High Art vs Low Art. Because a lot of the stuff we saw was definetly hideous, eyesoreish ’I belong in the trashbin’, ‘I contaminate the landscape’ LOW ART!thats if it could even be considered Art at all!!But can you define High Art and Low Art? Rosy had a go. In short, she seemed to think that high art was challenging and thought provoking, and low art was not.
I found her defintion very interesting. But wasnt so sure that my opinion is the same. Its similar, but different. In referring to my last blogs about Art vs Craft. Im not even sure that I even like the terms High Art vs Low art and don’t know if I believe in them. The following are my initial thoughts:
When I think of high art I think of Art from the ‘masters’. They make their home in Art Museums and in text books and in the homes of millionaires. High art is made of both imagination and superior skill. Really interesting to look at and its art that makes you think.
When I think of Low Art I think of the type of crap we saw yesterday. Not so pleasant to look at. Not the type of thing people would pay millions of dollars for, unless they were insane. Wack imagination maybe, but lack of skill to get any sort of message across. It’s the type of art in which the only question you get out of it is “what the ‘@%$#’ is that meant to be”.
Definitions of High Art and Low Art vary for inviduals. The following is an interesting forum.
Question about High Art and Low Art – Fine.Art.com
http://dart.fine-art.com/aqd-asp-im_1247-buy-m.htm
For some it is defined by social status of the artist. For others it is defined by how much money was spent to make the artwork. For others it is based around the idea of the original vs the copy. Original handmade work vs commercial mass produced art. This seems to be the general definition.
And that idea had an influence on Pop Art. Pop Art took the idea of mass production and screwed around with the definitions of what art should be. Pop Art is usually considered ‘Low Art’. Cheap, commercial, machinemade accessible. High art then is considered expensive, hand made, original, Rare. I do agree with this definition actually.
I tend to think that Rosy’s definition is more fitting to my idea of Art vs Craft. One makes you think, the other doesn’t. Art is meant to get you thinking, Craft does not.I came across this quote yesterday "skill without imagination is craft, imagination without skill is 'modern' art". I think it is very fitting. But who said i liked modern art?
So High Art or Low Art, Art is Art. It doesn’t matter how much money was spent on it, how many copies of an image there is. Personally, I tend to think that the hand of the artist is important, and favour skillful, handmade, original ‘high art” over commercial mass produced so called ‘Low Art’. But that does not mean that Low Art does not challenge my thinking. It definetly does. If it wasn’t for ‘Low Art’ I wouldn’t be dicussing this right now I don’t think. I think that its beneficial to try and distinguish high art from low art. But Art is Art, it all has the same general intention: to challenge viewers.
So in thinking about it again, I shall rephrase my earlier definitions. I think that I would prefer to use the terms ‘Good Art’ and “Bad Art’ instead for my earlier thoughts. But I think there are overlaps between these and the definition of high and low art.
Good Art – In my opinion Good Art displays both superior imagination and knowledge. It also shows superior skill in technique to get a message across. Knowledge of aesthetics –composition, form, colour are as important as the message being conveyed. Its exciting. Its inspiring. It captures your intention. You never get bored of it. It is thought provoking, It will always ‘speak’ to you in more ways than one. Good art has a certain beauty about it.
Bad Art – In my opinion Bad Art is that which I do not get anything out of. It is not pleasing to look at, so I have no desire to go back to it. It is boring and does not speak to me. The artist may have imagination and a concept, but does not convey it in a skillful way that is interesting. It is ugly and belongs in the trashbin. Like those sculptures I saw yesterday. It makes me angry.
posted by simone marie at 8:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home