400 replies to this topic

[RFS]

That's the thing. Until the "modern" period (c. second quarter of the 19^th century) most European art was made in the service of the Church or the State. "Art for art's sake", as we know it today, was pretty much a foreign concept before then.

made this for you

Attached Images

• 

[Rob Randall]

Well first, to say "art for the sake of art" was a mostly foreign concept until our current era is patently ridiculous.

 

Why ridiculous? What NParker is saying is that art was influenced by whatever dude was actually paying the bills--the pope, the king (and I would add) starting around 1500 the local merchant. If you have an alternate theory I'd love to hear it.

[RFS]

Why ridiculous? What NParker is saying is that art was influenced by whatever dude was actually paying the bills--the pope, the king (and I would add) starting around 1500 the local merchant. If you have an alternate theory I'd love to hear it.

Sure, just like the extremely ideological city of victoria pays for our post modern junk piles today, (except those popes and kings and merchants had some concept of the divine and aesthetics) but there were still many paintings, drawings, sculptures, statues, cave drawings, etc made for no reason other than to make art

[Rob Randall]

^Just about every piece of prehistoric art I've ever seen had some sort of spiritual component. The rest was narrative (Grog hunted three buffalo singlehanded) but even these likely were some sort of appeal to the gods.

 

The point we are making (successfully) is that the subject matter of most art was to satisfy the desires of a patron. I would go further and change "most" to "virtually all". Again, I would be intrigued to see examples showing otherwise as I am sure there are some.

[Nparker]

Perhaps the CoV should explore more options like this when approving public art installations.

 

https://www.cnn.com/...ndon/index.html

 

[RFS]

^Just about every piece of prehistoric art I've ever seen had some sort of spiritual component. The rest was narrative (Grog hunted three buffalo singlehanded) but even these likely were some sort of appeal to the gods.

The point we are making (successfully) is that the subject matter of most art was to satisfy the desires of a patron. I would go further and change "most" to "virtually all". Again, I would be intrigued to see examples showing otherwise as I am sure there are some.

Having a spiritual component doesn't mean its not art for the sake of art.
But if that ticks some box in your definition of real art, maybe Roman frescos? Still life? Self portraits? Are you saying before our enlightened time all art was bought and paid for to advance some agenda? The artist wasnt truly set free until secular city councils in the 20th century could pay for some true creative masterpieces?

[Mattjvd]

Perhaps the CoV should explore more options like this when approving public art installations.
goldblum.jpg

https://www.cnn.com/...ndon/index.html

That's awesome haha

[Rob Randall]

Having a spiritual component doesn't mean its not art for the sake of art

 

See, it's not black or white. Michelangelo was working for the pope but he also got off on painting muscular men (and women that were built like men). So artists throughout the ages incorporated their own personal interests into their commissions. But they were almost always commissions.

[Rob Randall]

 Are you saying before our enlightened time all art was bought and paid for to advance some agenda?

 

"Agenda" makes it sound sinister. It was more like, "Hey artist, make me a painting to show how devout I am" (or how brave I am, or how beautiful my wife/son is, or how strong our navy is etc.)

 

 The artist wasnt truly set free until secular city councils in the 20th century could pay for some true creative masterpieces?

 

 

Yeah, pretty much but it was long before the 20th century. Early in the 1800s, artists like Courbet started painting pictures of people doing ordinary things; doing the laundry, taking a bath.

 

A painting of a naked woman might have looked similar to one done during the 1700s but that would have likely been referencing a parable, or religious or poetic idea. When the first "modern" paintings showed up depicting the ordinary woman next door taking a bath, well, all hell broke loose. It was obscene to show a naked woman that wasn't some sort of metaphoric goddess-like nymph.

 

Basically, it was those 19th century modernists that discovered they could make a living outside the patronage system by making artwork that reflected actual modern life instead of musty old Shakespearean and classical imagery, church decoration or portraits of old rich people.

[RFS]

See, it's not black or white. Michelangelo was working for the pope but he also got off on painting muscular men (and women that were built like men). So artists throughout the ages incorporated their own personal interests into their commissions. But they were almost always commissions.

I think that we as a society lost the thread a while ago when it comes to art and aesthetics in general, and it has to do with larger over arching forces at work, but its basically that the uglier, the more meaningless, and the least a piece of art has in common with what you could call traditional Western art, the better, and they wear all of those things as a badge of honour. And it is more than just paintings or public art, it extends into cars, homes, architecture in general. Today the people we sort of dismissively call 'illustrators' or animators are often way more talented and make way better art than the actual "artists" of the day. Video games have more in common with traditional standards of art and aesthetics than what you find in galleries

[RFS]

"Agenda" makes it sound sinister. It was more like, "Hey artist, make me a painting to show how devout I am" (or how brave I am, or how beautiful my wife/son is, or how strong our navy is etc.)


Yeah, pretty much but it was long before the 20th century. Early in the 1800s, artists like Courbet started painting pictures of people doing ordinary things; doing the laundry, taking a bath.

There is lots of greek and roman art showing daily life

[Nparker]

Mike K., on Jul 19 2018 -  02:59 PM, said:

The stuff at the arena. The mattresses on Douglas and Blanshard. The Ku Klux Klan thing outside of Upper Harbour Place. The colourful cylinder at The Reef. The globe water feature teenagers pee in at the CRD HQ. Our modern public art is small town podunk filler.

Of course there's also this piece of schmaltz with a side order of fromage.

and the slightly scary, just-over-human-scale Emily Carr statue

 

I am not sure we fare much better in the realism category.

[Mike K.]

At least those pieces don't force you to pretend you understand something. You either hate them or you love them, and you know why you hate them or you love them.

 

The statue on the harbour also captures a human emotion that every passerby can sympathize with. It represents Victoria's past, present and future as the port of call for the navy. It doesn't represent some lost soul's warped view of the world or personal inner struggle that the artist wants to project onto society, but because of that the statue is schmaltz. And I consider that unfortunate.

[Nparker]

At least those pieces don't force you to pretend you understand something...

What's wrong with art that makes you think rather than telling you how to feel?

I'd like to think there is a place for both realism and abstraction in public art and that one isn't necessarily better than the other.

[Mike K.]

Because it doesn’t make you think. That’s the rub.

[aastra]

Recent opinion piece about this subject:

http://www.yammagazi...ias-public-art/

[Nparker]

Recent opinion piece about this subject:

This: "Public art civilizes its surroundings and makes being alive in the world worthwhile, but it always, always creates controversy if it’s doing its job" - Moira Dann

[Mike K.]

That’s a cliche and the only tool in the toolbox.

It’s bad? No, it’s controversial! Everyone gets a star that way.

Anyways, I haven’t formed an opinion on the Douglas House installation as it’s far from finished, and not that my opinion matters anyways. But we keep pumping out art in this city that I, at least, can’t make any sense of. And this is coming from someone who’s favourite piece of public art is at the Jack Davis Building.

[Bob Fugger]

This: "Public art civilizes its surroundings and makes being alive in the world worthwhile, but it always, always creates controversy if it’s doing its job" - Moira Dann

GIANT EYEROLL. I honestly can’t think of a single piece of public art in this town that makes me think, “Wow, what a time to be alive!” What is civilizing about the heap of rubble and metal in front of the arena? And just because something is the source of near universal derision doesn’t make something controversial: it just makes it stupid.

Call me a philistine if you will (#sorrynotsorry), but “artists” like Gallant and Bowden she be forced to subsist on a steady diet of private funding and banned from public patronages.

[Brantastic]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but there's a new mural going up on the side of the Swift House Apartments on Store Street.



Kind of unrelated, but Swans just down the block is also getting a paint job. They're painting all the trim and finishings black and it's looking good!