When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the impact of historical art events, such as the theft of the Mona Lisa, which drew more visitors to the empty space than the painting itself. Participants express differing opinions on the evolution of art, with some arguing that it declined when artists shifted focus from sensory pleasure to conveying deeper philosophical truths. The conversation touches on modern art's accessibility and meaning, questioning whether art must be pleasurable or comprehensible to everyone. There is a debate about the value of modern art, with some defending its merit despite its abstract nature, while others criticize it for lacking substance. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a broader discourse on the criteria that define art and its appreciation.
  • #91
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
 
  • #93
arildno said:
I agree; this is utter nonsense!
Designs, as Evo have put it, certainly can qualify as art; after all the adornments, lines and colours and patterns used within architecture throughout the ages are more often abstract or not.
Just transferring abstract design onto a new medium, the canvas, does not as such dequalify it from being art, IMO.
I happen to love sketches, sometimes more than the finished piece. They have a thought-in-action kind of quality. Though I think they would look out of place framed on a wall. Part of their appeal for me is that they are 'unfinished'.
 
  • #94
honestrosewater said:
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job.
 
  • #95
wolram said:
May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job.
:biggrin: The same has been said of writers:
"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
- Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)

[and here's more]

"Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers."
- T. S. Eliot (1888-1965)

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

- http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/quotes.html
He has a great collection.

Your images are still awaiting approval. :frown:
 
  • #96
honestrosewater said:
Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached...
Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,

The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.
 
  • #97
zoobyshoe said:
Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,
I was going to bring this up eventually if no one else did - seriously. There is new technology, new life forms or natural phenomena or such being discovered, new jobs, new cities, new philosophies and paradigms. The individual arts also feed each other in more seemingly mundane but potentially useful ways: new clothing fashions for portraits, new architecture for streetscapes, new dishware for still lifes, and so on.
The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.
Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone. :redface:
 
  • #98
wolram said:
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.
I agree....
 
  • #99
http://carboninside.com/55186809_l.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
By Rose Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone.
The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.
 
  • #101
Evo said:
I agree....
Wey hey, we will soon have an army :biggrin:
 
  • #102
wolram said:
The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.
Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? :biggrin: Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.
 
  • #103
honestrosewater said:
Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? :biggrin: Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.

I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster :smile: Do i detect
some wee wee takeing :-p I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world :confused:
 
  • #104
wolram said:
I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster :smile: Do i detect
some wee wee takeing :-p I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world :confused:
:smile: Gordon Bennett, what the ecky thump is wee wee takeing?!?
 
  • #105
honestrosewater said:
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
I think artists should worry less about getting their work original, than endeavouring it to be authentic.
The one who tries to be original must always refer to, and distance himself from what has gone before, i.e, his works will basically be limited to being comments on, or breaks with earlier artistic traditions.

Trying to make your art authentic however, by not feeling satisfied until you feel some strong form of connection or identification with your own work, that it becomes an expression of your individuality is the way to go, in my opinion.
Besides, since we're all unique individuals, originality in the work will be an effect of the search for authenticity.

Take a look at the following photograph called "Embrace" by Robert Mapplethorpe (it's one of my favourites, along with the self portrait I linked to earlier):
http://www.iol.ie/~webfoto/maple2j.htm
Although in many ways a "classic" embrace, it is not derivative because it has a ring of authenticity and passion in it.
It doesn't matter how many earlier works of art it is reminiscent of (and an art historian could probably come up with dozens of such references); it has the strength to speak to the viewer on its own.

While the motif is evidently "gay", and hence will speak to gays somewhat differently than to straights, I wouldn't think that straights are barred from deriving some aesthetic experience from it.

It seems to me also original the way light and darkness are used here.

As for analyzing it:
Is it a home-coming? A farewell?
Or is it simply two strangers who accidentally met, and connects for a brief moment of intimacy?

Does it really matter, in the end, what we end up thinking about it?

As far as I see, it is art because it first and foremost is visually striking, not because it contains some sort of coded message the viewer must decipher.
 
Last edited:
  • #106
wolram said:
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.
 
  • #107
arildno said:
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.

Ay up, i am starting to feel all sophisticated :smile:
 
  • #108
honestrosewater said:
Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new?
Here's a new one:

Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botero/botero_watermelon.jpg.html

Each still life, or portrait, or landscape, is "new" by virtue of the fact each artist has his or her own specific aesthetic approach. A Dali still life, is vastly different than a Frieda Kahlo, or a Jeanne DuVal. Each artist has a very different idea about what should be observed and emphasized about the pitcher, or the fruit. We don't look at a still life to find out about pitchers and fruit, but to find out about the artist's take on them.

If you think of still life as a subject, then there hasn't been an original subject since cave paintings. Every "subject" has been done over and over a bazillion times: still life, portrait, allegory, religious illustration, landscape, marine pictures, whatever you want to categrize as a subject. Originality lies, and has always laid, in the individual artist's approach.
 
  • #109
arildno said:
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.
I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.

Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?
 
  • #110
zoobyshoe said:
I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.

Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?

Artist, Antoine de Villiers.
http://www.antoineart.com/abastract-oil-paintings.htm

I like this artist, have fun Zooby. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
By Zooby Here's a new one:

Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/...rmelon.jpg.html

That is a great painting, but my eye is drawn to the hotch potch houses,
which to my mind spoils it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112
My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesn't have Dali's classical clocks.http://sophia.smith.edu/~egraf/dali1944.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
LENIN said:
My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesn't have Dali's classical clocks.

Is there some meaning in this painting?
 
  • #114
wolram said:
Is there some meaning in this painting?

There definatelly is.
 
  • #115
LENIN said:
There definatelly is.

Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc
 
  • #116
wolram said:
Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc

It's not actually in her arm. It's just pointed at her (the picture isn't really of the highest quolity). But appart from that it's a dream image. I just choose this one becouse it conteins most of the concepts of Dalis painting if you want to know more about him I would sugest Google.
 
  • #117
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.
 
  • #118
honestrosewater said:
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.
My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.
 
  • #119
arildno said:
My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.
Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.
 
  • #120
honestrosewater said:
Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.
1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.

2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.
If, by some unhappy chance that is a painting identical to a previous one, it simply means that an outsider won't be impressed by it.
It might well be called art, though, even if it remains unsellable..