You might be thinking something like: "when it looks wrong," "when it doesn't look real," "when I don't get what I'm supposed to be looking at," "when it doesn't look like anything," etc.
Well, the truth is, none of these things necessarily make an artwork bad. The truth is actually a lot more complicated.
To get to the bottom of what makes a piece of art "bad," I actually want to look at what makes a piece of art good:
In this twitter post, the user makes the claim that the piece on the left is painted "more skillfully" than the piece on the right, and thus because the piece on the left is painted "more skillfully," that makes it superior in quality to the one on the right.
This user is clearly defining "skill" in this case as how realistic the painting looks. And in this instance, they are right. The painting on the left is indeed more realistic than Van Gogh's painting.
And let's be clear. If this user enjoys this realistic style more than the expressionism of Van Gogh, than that is perfectly valid.
It's perfectly fine to have your own taste.
But I believe that this person, and many people like them, actually have a fundamental misunderstanding of not only expressionism and Van Gogh, but what makes some art art better or worse than other art.
Let's look at the two paintings, starting with the one on the left by Haixia Liu.
It's not a bad painting per se. It is indeed drawn well and accurately, for the most part. It has a nice, comforting yellow lighting.
It would make for a good postcard or fridge magnet.
But what emotional response do you get from this painting? Look at it deeply. Do you really feel something?
It looks nice and warm, sure, but it doesn't have any power in it. It's a pretty facade, nothing more, nothing less.
If you are content with that, than fine.
But I think that most people will agree with me when I say that I wish there was more, something you would only find in a better painting. Such as...
..."Cafe Terrace at Night" by Van Gogh.
Now, if we're going by the presumption that realism=quality, this would be an objectively worse painting.
But we're not. It may be less realistic, but lets look at the art and not at the image. Let's be less shallow, and look deeper.
Look at that warm, yellow, inviting light from the cafe. It sucks you in. It makes you want to go inside that cafe.
Do you feel that soft disturbance, that if only you were there?
Look at it, but don't look. Think deeper. Feel deeper.
Look at the people, the waiter taking orders. The little brushstrokes that give the impression of vibrant cafe patrons, look at those on the street walking by.
My favorite part is the environment. The night sky is blue and cold, the buildings in the background dark and tall, standing vigilant.
Can't you almost hear the crickets chirping, feel the cold breeze on your skin, hear the chatter of conversation?
It's beautiful. It's a little captured moment of another world, another moment in time.
If you prefer the realism of works like the ones made by Haixia Liu, than fine. Be my guest.
But doesn't it get stale? Look at Van Gogh's use of color. None of the Haixia Liu's in the world will ever have that for you.
Haixia Liu's paintings would be comparable to one of those "ultra-realistic drawings" that you see on Instagram if they weren't as good. Those are detailed and impressive and demand a heap of technical skill, but don't give you anything.
They don't leave any kind of impression, and there's no emotional punch in it at all. You scroll to the next thing.
I have a pet peeve against those who dismiss abstract art.
Not dismissive towards Van Gogh because most people love Van Gogh, (for good reason), but against people like Mark Rothko.
This isn't anything new.
People have been dismissive or even hateful towards abstract art for who knows how long
Just look at Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue III.
A painting of only red, yellow, and blue, that got vandalized with a knife.
Dismissing a work of art before even trying to understand it is the worst crime you can do to art, in my opinion. At least make an attempt to understand it first.
There is some art worth dismissing, worth putting down, and there always will be, but put some thought into it.
Let's go back for a second. Let's look at Rothko.
Now, there's nothing wrong with disliking Rothko, but most pieces of "criticism" I see are claims that Rothko's works have no value, that they're just squares of color.
They are right. They are squares of color. But why is this a criticism?
Lets say there's a hypothetical viewer looking at this Rothko.
Joe Schmoe is thinking:
"I could have painted that"
Well, for one thing, you couldn't have unless you were as technically skilled as Rothko, and Rothko's paintings actually required extreme technical skill.
But even if you were able to, why didn't you?
Why would someone complain that their art would be in a museum, if only they had painted it?
Why turn this into dissatisfaction, and not motivation?
"It's only a few color blobs. It's nothing special."
This opinion makes me want to tear my hair out.
Look, I get that it might be hard to appreciate Rothko, especially when you're looking at it as a tiny reproduction on your phone or computer or something, but these paintings are actually pretty massive in person
Think about that.
Stare at this digital reproduction right here of No. 61 Rust and Blue for a bit and then close your eyes.
Think about it in front of you, and imagine it as tall and as wide as infinity.
That's as close as you can get to seeing it in person, anyway.
And I've seen Rothko's in person.
It's just color, until it isn't
When you have the opportunity, like I have had, to move up close, and just stare, see the brushstrokes, see the color, and take it all in, it becomes more than just a picture
It's color. And doesn't it make you feel something?
Doesn't Rust and Blue give you something?
It gives you an emotional punch. It's not a picture, it's not a depiction of anything, not of a cafe, or a city, or a sky, or a town, or anything in our world, but it has and contains soul.
It has feeling, a beating heart of feeling, and by looking at it, by taking it in, by reaching out and diving deeper into its wellspring, you are given something and you take something.
It's fine, perfectly fine, to not like Rothko. But none of the Haixia Liu's in the world will give you anything.
I have tons more thoughts on the matter and similar subjects, such as on AI "art" (bad) and Lynda Barry (good). I'll be sure to write them down soon. I had to stop somewhere!
I really enjoyed this piece! I love how passionately and imaginatively you respond to the art you are discussing. The question of what makes one piece of art competent (in the sense of representatively “accurate” in some minimal way) but trite, and another (less concerned with surface accuracy perhaps) profound is a really hard one, but I think you’re on to something here in the way the latter invites a more engaged response from the viewer. Van Gogh’s little scene asks us to see a little street scene under the aspect of eternity (those stars!); Rothko lets us gaze into the color as a kind of ritual object or cosmic field, a door into the depths of experience. And yet neither is “realistic” in the way some people ask their art to be.
ReplyDelete