Comments on: Vonnegut Talks About Art

By: matt

matt — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:39:38 +0000

Sorry Jon, didn’t see your comment come in to my email. It’s up now, and it’s a good one. I would say that implicit in what Vonnegut is saying about what people like to look at is a little bit of the test of time – what people *continue* to like to look at (and think about). That will generally rule out any specific lolcat, though perhaps not the the lolcat phenomenon. Which I think is roughly the right thing to do. Your second point is dead on, i think. But to be fair, Vonnegut does bring it up after he brings up a few other things, so maybe its a secondary point. But I think you raise a good one. There are DEFINITELY some pieces of art that just KNOCK YOU FLAT without knowing anything about the artist. As soon as I saw Winged Victory of Samothrace, I almost passed out. Look it up – it’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. In that case, nobody even knows the specific individual that made the thing. Even if we didn’t know the *civilization* that crafted the darn thing, it would still knock me flat. Every time. EVERY. TIME. I’m getting a little teary-eyed just thinking about it. Point conceded.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:06 +0000

While I don’t disagree, it just feels like it’s not entirely encompassing of what I have experienced of art. If art was merely what people liked to look at, then would you classify cheesy, kitschy paintings of kittens as art? Lots of people like to look at the most cliche, unchallenging, and superficial things. What about pieces intended to evoke disgust or a general negative reaction from the viewer intentionally as part of its message? Is that not art?

Also, I’ve seen tons of photos and pieces of art that really interest me and move me on a very deep level, and yet I know nothing of the person who created it. While yes, I could agree that if I DID know about them or knew them personally, it would likely increase my appreciation, and it certainly always interests me to understand who the artist is, where they come from, and what they want to say. But knowing these things aren’t required for me to connect with their art. It generally only enhances the connection the art has already made.

By: Chase

Chase — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:35:05 +0000

I agree with some of that. & definitely feel that paintings and such, that which I’ll define as stagnant art as opposed to film or music which has movement, I know very little about the mechanics and how one criticizes it and, at least for me, think real meaning is derived from the knowledge of the artist & what the work is intended to mean. Otherwise, yes, it can be boiled down to being a picture one either likes to look at or doesn’t.

But I disagree that one can dismiss a piece of art outright or even like something without being able to convey why or that, with more time and knowledge, one couldn’t also come to like something more than they did at first.

But once a piece of art, and in particular music and film (which are things i feel like I know a little about), is contextualized I think it can be judged.

And not to belabor, that’s my opinion and I’d like to discuss it more in person with anyone