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

[arildno]

Is there some meaning in this painting?

Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?

 

[wolram]

Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?

I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?

 

[arildno]

I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?

Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..

 

[wolram]

Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

 

[Evo]

I like Salvador Dali. This one is titled "Design for the Interior Decoration of a Stable-Library, 1942"

 

[arildno]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.

In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes a lot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.

Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist pursues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.

 

[arildno]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.

This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.

 

[Lisa!]

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.

Like me!

 

[wolram]

well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?

So if one meets the artist and tells him, That is tragic scene, and he replies,
oh no it is supposed to be light hearted and whimsical, is that not insulting ?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.

 

[honestrosewater]

[tone=nice&serious]

1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.

Does a situation being unlikely stop you from being able to imagine how you would react if it did occur? Don't people gain useful information from hypothetical questions all the time? That's all I'm asking: If every painting produced was exactly the same, what would the field or craft of painting be like, what function would it serve in society, would anyone even pay any attention to it, etc.?

2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.

Sure, I agree completely. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the only main goal. By an artist not caring whether their work is original, they miss the whole social aspect of art.

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..

If no one other than the artist is impressed the work, I don't see how art as a field could survive. How would it if it collectively only produced one piece of art over and over again? What if every mathematician suddenly decided, "I'm going to choose a theorem that I happen to like, and whether it's already been proven or not, I'm going to spend as long as it takes in order to prove it myself."
[/tone]

 

[wolram]

I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.

Thank you Zooby, and to some other person

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.

This is absolutely, absolutely correct! Artists work by "feel". There is, of course, always a great deal of conscious attention to technique and skill, but the general drive behind a work takes place on the level of "feel".

This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.

Except in some obvious cases where an artist becomes enamored of a prior artist or style or movement and borrows from it. Van Gogh did a lot of improvisation around Japanese prints for a while, for example, and looking at how he approached them, it's not too hard to see why he was drawn to them, and what he kept from the experience in later works. There are lots of other examples of this with other artists.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thank you Zooby, and to some other person

"...and to some other person." ?

 

[honestrosewater]

This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?

In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes a lot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.

Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.

Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist pursues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.

Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

 

[wolram]

I can see what Rose means, some thing akin to films, same plot different actors,
It must be difficult to be origonal, Are there differing degrees of originality, ie
Alice in wonder land in 2005.

 

[arildno]

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?
Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.
Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

You could rather say that the great artists are great because by being true to themselves, they ALSO show themselves to be original. Those who were true to themselves, but whose art became unoriginal nonetheless, belongs in the realm of mediocrity.
For example:
If I were true to myself artistically, I've no guarantee that the individuality I thereby express would in any manner be original enough to pique the interest of someone else.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?

From doing it myself, and watching others do it: it's clear that everyone has their own "take" on what is important and interesting about the model, just like everyone in this thread has their own "take" on what makes good art.

Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect.

You are talking about ideas here, and not art. Ideas aren't art. Michelangelo had a fantastic idea about David from the biblical story of David slaying the giant, Goliath, which was, to present David himself as a giant figure, which, by virtue of him having done a remarkable thing, he was, in a metaphorical sense.

That is a very neat idea, but it only worked because Michelangelo presented it so beautifully. Once we get used to the cleverness of making a larger-than-life David, that idea fades to the background and it is the beauty of the sculpture in and of itself that continues to make it so admirable.

Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.

In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.

Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.

I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.

 

[wolram]

So what is your next painting going to be, do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.

 

[honestrosewater]

You are talking about ideas here, and not art.

Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example. And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.

In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.

My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.

No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.

So that's a clear no? You think originality should not be a goal? You seem to imply that it should be a goal but that people just don't need to consciously try to achieve it, so I'm still a bit confused. Is originality good or not?
And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work? I don't think they can. It is leaving it to chance, which, in my personal opinion, is irresponsible.

I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.

I'm not suggesting that people should copy each other - I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what is your next painting going to be,

I draw, not paint and I use regular pencil, or colored pencils.

do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.

All of the above. I suffer from binges. I may draw straight for four months, doing little else, and then drop it for several months in favor of some other binge, like reading or movie watching. Sometimes I'll rent three or four movies a day for weeks straight. At other times I'll spend eight hours a day reading for weeks straight.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example.

So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.

And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.

Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.

My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.

This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.

And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work?

This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.

Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.

Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.

When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.

If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm trying to find an article on it and can't but not that long ago I read an article about a new "Art Movement" based around plagiarism. The guy heading it up is a professor who apparently really considers it a new artistic expression. Reading his rationale it's really just a bunch of bologna.

On a subject close to plagiarism there is a famous painter by the name of Elmyr de Hory who is actually famous for being a forger of master pieces. It is very possible that several of his paintings are currently in galleries and museums today being displayed as the work of Monet or Picasso.
There was a book written about him called Fake! (a title that Lisa! would love) by an author named Clifford Irving who himself is notorious for having written a fake Howard Hughes autobiography. Orson Welles made a film called "F for Fake" based on both stories, considered a brilliant piece of film making art in itself. I really need to see it.

Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. I bought a print of that painting once but gave it to a lovely lady that I had a crush on as a gift.
http://bertc.com/subthree/images/dali2c.jpg

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is a strange and interesting book (true story) called The Three Christs of Ipsilanti which is about three mental patients at the same intitution who all thought they were Jesus.

One of them, later in the book, developed a peculiar new delusion: he began going to the library and copying all the great works of literature over in his own hand, thereby becoming their "author", in his own mind. Apparently being Jesus wasn't enough for him, he wanted to be the author of the world's great literature as well.

The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger.

 

[arildno]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

 

[wolram]

Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. ]

Ah, enlightenment, It sort of makes sense to me now, Thanks

 

[honestrosewater]

zooby,
My examples and explanations have been trying to clarify your answer to this:

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.

IOW, no artist ever needs to think about being original. That is obviously false to me, so when you said that you thought it was true, I wanted to be sure that you understood what I was asking. But your responses suggest that this isn't what you really think.

So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.

Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.

This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.

This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.

Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.

Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.

When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.

If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.

As I already said, I don't think "originality above all" should be a goal either.

I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.

You say 'authentic', I say 'genuine', I mean the same thing. Artists can have more than one goal. It's crystal clear to me that you think authenticity should be a goal. You say it should be the goal but give examples where originality is also a goal, so I still have two questions:

Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Yes, no, sometimes?
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Yes, no, sometimes?

If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.
To be clear, I am not asking what all of an artist's goals should be or how they should rank in importance or about the difference between an idea and its presentation, or what all makes an artist or piece of art successful.

 

[wolram]

HRW, it seems you need taghairm, but will the lady of the lake find it

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

To Zooby, yes I realize there's a differance. Thinking about plagiarism brought him to mind though. And thanks for bringing up that book by the way, I'll have to remember that.

Alrildno, de Hory's painting actually go for in the vicinity of twenty thousand dollars a piece from what I found while looking up that link. There are also apparently people who forge Elmyr de Hory forgeries lol. I originally read about him in one of the Cosmic Trigger series by R.A. Wilson. He was discussing the topic of art and what constitutes art, probably another reason why he came to mind.

I forgot earlier to relatea story that came to mind. A good friends brother went to art school. He apparently was quite busy and didn't get around to working on a project that he was supposed to have finished by the next day. So he went out to his car and cleaned out all the trash on the floor of it then brought it in and plastered it all to a canvas. He turned it in as his project the next day. When asked to explain it he said that it was a statement about society being constantly busy and the trash that they fill their lives with due to popular media and commercialization blah blah blah... he more or less pulled a line of garbage out of his rectum like he pulled the garbage on the canvas out of his car. He apparently received a good mark on the project.
I put something like this on par with Worhals soup can. I don't think it is really deserving of being called "art".