# Art - Beauty in the eye of the beholder?



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Is beauty really in the eye of the person looking at the art or does some art just not look good?

I for example can't appreciate abstract art. It just looks like a bunch of blobs and paint.
I love realistic looking art. The better detail, the more impressed I get.

Opinions people?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

It's all just different arrangements of shapes and colors. Maybe you just like arrangements of shapes and colors that resemble something more intricate, or familiar to you.

The main difference between a bunch of blobs and a painting of a seagull is that one of them resembles a seagull.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's something, by the way:









It really is just blobs of colors. In the end the blobs end up resembling an Io moth. This took me quite a long time to make, finding where to put all the blobs layer by layer.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Yeah that started with blobs but eventually actually ended up as something. I was thinking more in the lines of this:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

@Crafter79

That's still something, though. It's just not something that occurs in nature, to my knowledge. But if it did occur in nature, you'd be saying that it looks like a homupmumudgin or whatever it is. Personally, I'm a fan of colors and textures in general, so that looks pretty good to me.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> @_Crafter79_
> 
> That's still something, though. It's just not something that occurs in nature, to my knowledge. But if it did occur in nature, you'd be saying that it looks like a homupmumudgin or whatever it is. Personally, I'm a fan of colors and textures in general, so that looks pretty good to me.


 Lol, yeah I guess it looks like "homupmumudgin" to me. Don't know why I don't like it. I appreciate stuff like this though, because to me that artist seems more talented:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Crafter79 said:


> Lol, yeah I guess it looks like "homupmumudgin" to me. Don't know why I don't like it. I appreciate stuff like this though, because to me that artist seems more talented:


Can't say I can argue with that. 

Though, I can say that color picking is a talent as well. In the picture I showed you earlier, picking the colors was almost as difficult as making the picture itself, and that image doesn't really show all the layers, only about every 3 layers. There were times that I actually spent hours just trying to get one color. 

Or like with this:









I spent all day just trying to get that subtle leaf green with a hint of yellow and brown texturing (and I still don't think it is as good as I could have done) and I also spent a lot of time getting just the right kind of ladybug red/orange and blending it.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Talent can be subjective, often a person will go the abstract way because realism can be boring, realism is 'safe' and the artist may try to challenge themselves to express beyond such a boundary. You can look at art in two ways: What is Aesthetically pleasing and what is symbolically pleasing. Abstract art or the contemporary art that is often famous now, is what you can say is substance/purpose driven, often without the Aesthetically appealing aspect that you will find in art that is based in realism. But realism is aesthetically pleasing completely without substance often. Everything lingers between these two, like surrealism, which is in the middle. Realism was big long ago back when there was no such thing as photography, it meant more then. 

Regardless, all art is a form of transmission, even if it is realism, even though it is a diminished formed. Art is where language originated.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

LookingGlass said:


> ...because realism can be boring, realism is 'safe' and the artist may try to challenge themselves to express beyond such a boundary.


I would say that art can be VERY personal, spiritual even. My kids and I just visited 6 art museums in 4 days over spring break. Different works within each "spoke" to each of us in very different ways. What art that I produce is equally personal.

Oh, and nothing wrong with liking realism; it speaks to you. For me, realism lacks creativity - is copying of a sort. Abstracts or other styles fascinate me. I could lose myself in an abstract much as you posted earlier - many interesting things happening colorwise, texturewise, light/dark wise, etc...

That said. I had to wonder who exactly gets to decide what art ends up in an esteemed museum vs many that do not. We saw what seemed to be a canvas bearing one uniform color. Why was _that_ in the National Museum of Art? I looked at that thing every way, including sideways. I never "got" it. I figured I must have been missing something. Perhaps it was placed there as some psychological test...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Zster said:


> I would say that art can be VERY personal, spiritual even. My kids and I just visited 6 art museums in 4 days over spring break. Different works within each "spoke" to each of us in very different ways. What art that I produce is equally personal.
> 
> Oh, and nothing wrong with liking realism; it speaks to you. For me, realism lacks creativity - is copying of a sort. Abstracts or other styles fascinate me. I could lose myself in an abstract much as you posted earlier - many interesting things happening colorwise, texturewise, light/dark wise, etc...
> 
> That said. I had to wonder who exactly gets to decide what art ends up in an esteemed museum vs many that do not. We saw what seemed to be a canvas bearing one uniform color. Why was _that_ in the National Museum of Art? I looked at that thing every way, including sideways. I never "got" it. I figured I must have been missing something. Perhaps it was placed there as some psychological test...


Usually stuff like that has a story behind it like the IKB painting - the one that is solid blue - is a special color using a technique that the artist discovered and decided to focus on that color for everything.

Some other things are anti-art, like the Dadaist movement. It might seem hipster-ish but these things arose for good reasons out of social and even political climates.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Zster said:


> I would say that art can be VERY personal, spiritual even. My kids and I just visited 6 art museums in 4 days over spring break. Different works within each "spoke" to each of us in very different ways. What art that I produce is equally personal.
> 
> Oh, and nothing wrong with liking realism; it speaks to you. For me, realism lacks creativity - is copying of a sort. Abstracts or other styles fascinate me. I could lose myself in an abstract much as you posted earlier - many interesting things happening colorwise, texturewise, light/dark wise, etc...
> 
> That said. I had to wonder who exactly gets to decide what art ends up in an esteemed museum vs many that do not. We saw what seemed to be a canvas bearing one uniform color. Why was _that_ in the National Museum of Art? I looked at that thing every way, including sideways. I never "got" it. I figured I must have been missing something. Perhaps it was placed there as some psychological test...


O nothing wrong with Realism. I like some realism, only because of its aesthetically pleasing aspect -- the perfection of the shape of the human body, the preciseness of a figure/object, and the success of the coloring in making it to appear exact. This does create a bit of amazement, especially ultra-realism. I can do realism, parts of my art do have realism (the figures for the most part) ultra-realism would take time, as you have to be really precise and know the tricks. It's just that, as you say, it lacks creativity -- to me it translates as lacking substance -- lacking the capacity to make people think. And if it does make people think, then a photo of whatever figure/scene would suffice just as much. 

One of the problems about art is that most of the time people haven't been given enough time to form that creative part about to themselves, to truly have their art BE about something. Creativity is found when one has yet to be molded, yet to be "taught", as creativity to me is childlike. Once the ditch is filled, it is difficult to dig it up completely. 

Honestly, a lot of the time, the art that ends up in Museums is for superficial reasons. If the artist has popularity, he can do whatever he wants, and it will end up somewhere, or will be sold somewhere for lots of money. Really at that point it isn't so much about the art, then it is hype behind the person -- once the name is built, it becomes a brand and after this they can just throw paint on a canvas and it will be a work of art to some. A lot of art that should get in, often don't.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

I'm not sure I agree on the part about realism lacking creativity. Why does creativity have to be abstract?
Why does art have to make you think? Why can't art be something you look at and just feel content with?

In my office I have a big painting of an african sunset with elephants walking. You can only see the silhouettes of the elephants and trees. Whenever I look at it I get a feeling of relaxation. That is the type of art I like putting up. I don't wanna walk into that room looking at something that makes me think "What the hell was the artist tripping on when he made that?".

I don't know if it has to do with my mbti type, but I appreciate skills and talents in an artist/photographer. If I can see the detail and precision (or being able to capture the perfect moment) the person put into it then that is something I admire.

I totally agree with some of the art is just too hyped because of the artist.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls (Feb 2, 2012)

Oh, absolutely. It's just differences in opinions, and different perceptions of the world. Everyone sees things differently.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Crafter79 said:


> I'm not sure I agree on the part about realism lacking creativity. Why does creativity have to be abstract?
> Why does art have to make you think? Why can't art be something you look at and just feel content with?
> 
> In my office I have a big painting of an african sunset with elephants walking. You can only see the silhouettes of the elephants and trees. Whenever I look at it I get a feeling of relaxation. That is the type of art I like putting up. I don't wanna walk into that room looking at something that makes me think "What the hell was the artist tripping on when he made that?".
> ...


It depends on what your perspective is. It appears that you like landscapes, paintings from observation (just the realistic stuff, photograph art), and it is enough for you. Again, art is a form of transmission, any artist who is doing art is attempting to transmit to someone something, perhaps an emotion, perhaps an desire (which is a type of emotion), perhaps their own struggle with the art, perhaps a philosophy, etc. The realism I like is not when one is drawing from life, realism can have substance if for instance one is being clever with it (it has a symbolic value to it), it doesn't always have to be abstract or surreal. But then this wouldn't be realism you are referring too, more visionary. I like things with meaning and purpose, I don't get too excited about seeing a nice painting of a scenery/landscape art, basically because I can just look at a photograph of it, perhaps the same one they used to paint that scenery. But if it is painted differently, not so precise, it leaves a bigger impression with me. This is not to diminish the art of this kind, it can be really nice and it does have some significance, but I would rather be in front of the beach watching the sunset then seeing it. I want to see something that is going to take me out of normal state, wake me up, make me consider things, and help me to further piece things together. 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I abstract art is the best or anything. I don't do abstract art, I do visionary-surrealism/realism-visionary. But sometimes abstract are is just accidental, people getting into the zone and just letting it flow, and they create out of that state. So I wouldn't know how much of this art would be an expression of creativity, if I think about it. I guess it brings up the question can creativity be accidental? Guess its all perspective.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Do you think there's a difference on how people look at art depending on if one is a feeler or thinker?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Crafter79 said:


> Do you think there's a difference on how people look at art depending on if one is a feeler or thinker?


Maybe. But I think there's a bigger difference between people who look at the art and people who look at the artist.


----------



## rycbar (Aug 2, 2011)

I think there is, scientifically, a criterion, but once it moves beyond proper judgement the rest is yes, with the beholder.


----------

