Appreciation

[David]

Well, i don't know if i am going too far afield either, but i have discovered that you can watch "F is for Fake" on youtube in 10 minute at a time segments and suggest that it may well inform this conversation on the appreciation of art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai Wee, you have precisely identified the point I have been trying to make.

I have not been trying to establish how or why we appreciate the various arts, but rather, the factors that are at play in our own minds when we involve ourselves in some way in one form of art or another, and the effects upon us of that involvement.

I am using the word "involvement", because it could be purchase, or viewing, or listening or anything at all that requires us to become involved in the art work.

The "story" is always present, and it has been composed from all our previous experience.

Thus, we never, ever can appreciate a work of art in the absence of that story, because it is our experience that provides the tools (mental) by which we measure the work.

The fellow who rejected the "lost van Gogh" for his guest room lacked a story. He had not been exposed to van Gogh, could not recognise the style, had nothing by which to measure it, and labeled it as just a bit too primitive for his taste.

David has outlined for us his own position in respect of van Gogh, and this style. David is a mature, perceptive and educated man with a broad appreciation of art. It is simply not possible that he could reach his age with no exposure to van Gogh. That exposure has created David's "story". His experience, and this experience has resulted in the generation of a liking for the work of van Gogh. Thus, if he sees something in a similar style he will still like it, whether it is by van Gogh or not.

David's return to the Josh Bell example is, I feel, precisely accurate as a demonstration of the way in which the "story" affects the perception. In the right place at the right time we have one expectation and a matching perception. In a different place at a different time the expectation differs as does the perception.

Each of us has our own story, and that story is what directs our expectation, perception, and ultimately our appreciation.


Incidentally, I'm very partial to van Gogh's work; when I raise my eyes above the top of my computer monitor I see "Starry Night" hanging on the wall.

However, my taste has not always been thus. Forty years ago I had a very great dislike of all post impressionists, it is only as I have become older that my tastes have changed and I now can see things that I could not see when I was younger. I now have a different story to the one I had some years back.


I do not believe there is any "right" answer, or equally any "wrong" answer to this subject under discussion. What interests me is the perhaps different ways in which each of us may consider this question.

[David]

Just curious if anyone bothered to check out the film "F is for Fake" that i linked to and if they thought it informed this conversation any?

[Gustav]

I admire Orson Welles abowe all, this particular film is in my collection. I know it for four years now, the problematic was very clear and familiar to me (in my level of understanding) as I saw it for the first time.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I did take note of the film.

Watching a full length movie on a computer screen is not an option for me, not even in 10 minute bites.

However I have read all that I can find about the film. Based upon what I have read, but not seen, and am probably unlikely to see, I do have some difficulty in trying to understand how the matters dealt with in this film could assist in aiding an understanding of what is happening in the mind of somebody when they become involved in the reception of artistic endeavour.

Actually, "artistic endeavour" narrows things too much. My original phrase was "---the appreciation of art and objects---", and this is precisely what I mean. The appreciation can be of anything at all that pushes the right button:- some form of fine art, matchbox cars, old woodworking tools, beach pebbles--- anything at all that strikes a chord in the soul and creates some sort of special feeling.

From the beginning of this thread I have been trying to understand how other people feel when they involve themselves the act of appreciation, and if possible, if they recognise what started them on this path of appreciation of a particular thing.

I know that the thread has wandered all over the place and has certainly not stayed anywhere near the path I might have liked it to take, but that's the nature of these sorts of discussions, they tend to create a life of their own.

But I think the important thing is this:- there is no right and no wrong in anything that anybody may care to post to this thread. Its not an exercise in finding a correct answer, because there is no correct answer. I see this an attempt to understand ourselves, not an attempt to understand the act of appreciation.

Although, having said that , I feel that an understanding of how and why we appreciate something may assist in a better understanding of ourselves.

Coming back to the film, could you precis what it is about this film that you think could assist with our discussion here?

I think that perhaps the comments posted to this thread have shown that the way in which we react to something is a product of our previous experience. That previous experience constitutes the "story" that we always carry with us. When we encounter something that fits the pleasure generating model we carry in our subconscious, we engage in the act of appreciation. Pretty much as Rick has put it:- "self- medication".

I think that's probably about the way I see it at the moment, but I'd welcome further comments that could throw a new or different light onto the subject.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes David, I did take note of the film.

Watching a full length movie on a computer screen is not an option for me, not even in 10 minute bites.

However I have read all that I can find about the film. Based upon what I have read, but not seen, and am probably unlikely to see, I do have some difficulty in trying to understand how the matters dealt with in this film could assist in aiding an understanding of what is happening in the mind of somebody when they become involved in the reception of artistic endeavour.

Actually, "artistic endeavour" narrows things too much. My original phrase was "---the appreciation of art and objects---", and this is precisely what I mean. The appreciation can be of anything at all that pushes the right button:- some form of fine art, matchbox cars, old woodworking tools, beach pebbles--- anything at all that strikes a chord in the soul and creates some sort of special feeling.

Well Alan, it is a bit difficult to explain why i find this film pertinent without you having actually seen any of it, but the film very much deals with what drives the appreciation of art and the concept of fakes vs. "the real thing" and how various people deal with this concept when appreciating art. Elymer de Hory claims that their are supposed "Matisse", "Modigliani" and "Renoir" in museum collections around the world that are actually his creations, that receive praise based upon their perceived authenticity. This seems to very much be something that is in line with this current conversation.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that response, David.

Yes, ideally I should watch this film, but I doubt that I'll find it in the local video stores --- however, I'll try.

The idea of forgeries drawing favourable critical comment certainly does give some indication of the way in which the human mind works in its relationship to art. I referred to this in my Han van Meegeren comment. The van Meegeren case is possibly the best documented of this type of case, and I personally find it very edifying.

This sort of thing, whether de Hory or van Meegeren, is I feel a good example of the "story" in action:-

our experience has told us that a Rembrandt, Matisse, Modigliani or whatever is great art, so of course, when we are in the presence of such great art, we would need to place ourselves outside the herd to look critically at that great art and decide for ourselves that it was not quite as great as the "big men" had declared it to be.

it is human nature to follow the opinions of the mob, and mob opinion is formed by mob leaders.

As I have already said:- we cannot escape the story; we always carry it with us.

This theme is certainly a part of this discussion, however, my original idea --- which I seem not to have been able to convey very clearly --- was more directed at the effect of things on our feelings.

A "thing" might be a work of art, but it might also be a shell, a pebble, a pair of sunglasses, in fact almost anything that functions as a key to unlock a part of our subconscious and generate an emotion.

This is perhaps where our appreciation of an object enters consideration. We might return again and again to appreciate that object because of its effect upon our emotions. To facilitate easy return to the object, we try to provide easy access to the object, so we collect it.

Possibly. Well, in any case this is about where my thoughts on the matter are at the moment.

To diverge a little from this central theme.

Not so long ago a book was published that uses as the major part of its content the keris in a collection that is generally acknowledged as being an important collection, and the proprietors of that collection as being knowledgeable in the field of keris. A large number of the keris pictured in that book are not correctly represented, in the case of one particular current era keris, authorship is absolutely incorrect. But 99.9% of the people who look at those images of keris do not know this, indeed, cannot possibly know it. So the deception stands. This same scenario occurs again and again in books published on keris, and only a very, very few people are able to detect the inaccuracies. Thus keris knowledge is irreparably corrupted. This is what happens in our own little field of interest. How much greater is the corruption in the broader field?

I have made this comment to try to illustrate that we are all subject to the opinions of others, and those opinions form a part of our individual stories, ie, experience.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i don't know if i am going too far afield either, but i have discovered that you can watch "F is for Fake" on youtube in 10 minute at a time segments and suggest that it may well inform this conversation on the appreciation of art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA

David, et al,

The film is also available from Netflix in it's entirety as a streaming video that can be watched on TV screen if you have streaming capabilities.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/F_for_F...9?trkid=191776

Sounds quite interesting. Anne and I plan to watch it tomorrow night. Will get back to this thread after we watch it.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

David, et al,

The film is also available from Netflix in it's entirety as a streaming video that can be watched on TV screen if you have streaming capabilities.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/F_for_F...9?trkid=191776

Sounds quite interesting. Anne and I plan to watch it tomorrow night. Will get back to this thread after we watch it.

Did not enjoy the film. Meandering monologues. Mostly about Clifford Irving and Elmyr de Hory, possibly one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century. Fortunately "fast forward" skips over boring parts.

Somewhat germane to this discussion as to how much and how often art is more a matter of an "expert's" opinion, whether that opinion is intentionally duplicitous, erroneous or accurate -- but I think the film adds little to the discussion about how great art deeply affects us and gives joy in a visceral sense. To me, this is much more important than an "expert's" opinion.

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Did not enjoy the film. Meandering monologues. Mostly about Clifford Irving and Elmyr de Hory, possibly one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century. Fortunately "fast forward" skips over boring parts.

Somewhat germane to this discussion as to how much and how often art is more a matter of an "expert's" opinion, whether that opinion is intentionally duplicitous, erroneous or accurate -- but I think the film adds little to the discussion about how great art deeply affects us and gives joy in a visceral sense. To me, this is much more important than an "expert's" opinion.

Sorry you didn't like the film Bill. Personally i find no boring parts to skip over, but to each their own, eh?
People both appreciate and acquire art for a multitude of reasons. Often enough, for some (though i like to think i am at least somewhat immune to it), the gateway to what they believe to be good art is greatly influenced by the stories spun by the "experts". But i believe it is probably impossible to determine just how much sway the opinions of the experts actual has on our own appreciation of art. What gives us "joy in a visceral sense" does not develop in a vacuum. Certain much of the art and music we enjoy so much would be virtually unknown to us if it were not brought to light and touted by the "experts". For me the questions raised in the film over how much the "experts" nod to an piece of art effects it's valuation by society is in fact very germane to this topic.

[Bill M]

Glad that you liked the film, David. I think that I was just looking for something else. I did like the woman in the short dress.

Certainly we do not develop in a vacuum, and certainly we are influenced by experts. A big question is who are the experts? Is the supposed expert in his arena?

The artist has the inspiration and the expert/critic tries to describe it.

Agreed, that the artist needs to have a degree of technical skill. How to hold the brush, how to mix the paint, - or how to put notes on a staff for a particular instrument, etc, but then it is the artist who brings the inspiration to life, who manifests the inspiration here for the rest of us to experience. Not necessarily the expert.

The point I am trying to make is that I feel great art has roots in something beyond what we normally see. Great Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder and it can be a pebble, or a leaf, or a sunset. But something that transports me.

Primitive cultures often have no written language. Their language is in their art. Their history is in their art. But make no mistake, in many, if not most, if not all, primitive cultures, the pieces we consider "art" were not considered "art" by the so-called primitive people who made them. Not at all. Not something to hang on the wall and "decorate" their homes or caves!

These pieces were working tools. Tools that protected them from malevolent spirits. Gave them fertility for crops, animals and themselves. Helped them understand and maintain their place in their cosmos. Pieces that dug deep into the roots of consciousness.

And they still dig deep, when we are quiet enough to let them influence us. Then we may see a man in a keris. We may feel -- though we do not have the slightest understanding of the thoughts of the people who made and used these objects -- we may feel that common wordless bond of understanding that we interpret as "Great Art."

Wordless and visceral.

I suggest that experts can certainly open a door, but it is us who decide to go through it, us who decide to spend money and time on old bits of wood, metal, ivory, etc, because these pieces give us joy. They transport us beyond the mundane.

Perhaps this is the difference in an "someone who acquires" and a "connoisseur."

Ultimately as a friend once said, it is us who have to live with the piece.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Certainly we do not develop in a vacuum .

The point I am trying to make is that I feel great art (X) has roots in something beyond what we normally see. Great Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder and it can be a pebble, or a leaf, or a sunset. But something that transports me (Y).

I suggest that experts can certainly open a door, but it is us who decide to go through it, us who decide to spend money and time on old bits of wood, metal, ivory, etc, because these pieces give us joy (Z). They transport us beyond the mundane (Q).

X+Y=Z and Z > Q (we prefer Z to Q)

Where

Q: state of existence "devoid" of enjoyment (here "Z")
X: something we associate as a "bearer" of enjoyment
Y: a ritual act of "connecting" (I. acquisition, listening)

Z = self-medication with enjoyment.

The hippies knew...! Anyone recognize Mr. Maisey?







Thanks,

J.

[Rick]

Ahem, I attended Woodstock .