Current Events > It's strange how so many great artists weren't recognised as great artists in...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...their lifetimes. It seems to often be painters, but other types of artists as well. Why is this? Are people just stupid with bad tastes? Is it a case of artists being ahead of their time, so it took a few decades for people to like their things?
---

Bump.
---

Interesting theory you can read on this, discerning the difference between high and low culture.

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/concepts/high-and-low-culture-0-5619/

In a nutshell, high culture is generally embraced by a minority of elite and intelligentsia types who reject social conventions and try to create new ones. Low culture is all the stuff that permeates into the mainstream and is a reaction or an extension of whatever high culture is.

You can look at fashion as an easy way to explain this cycle. Bespoke high level designer starts some kind of new design on the catwalk - for example, flared jeans. This might be embraced by some elite people in society, e.g. celebrities and icons (David Bowie, Debbie Harry, Lady Gaga etc) who are seen as fashion leaders. This then permeates into the cultural elite level, so all the fashionistas start wearing it. Then major clothing designers pick it up - Zara, HM, Topman, etc. At this point it's very much a regular every person item for people who dress well, and the cultural elite people aren't wearing it anymore (because it does not do for Lady Gaga to dress like everybody else). And eventually it becomes old fashioned even among the everyday mainstream culture. Rinse, lather, repeat.

But for every fad that takes off, there are 1000 more that never made it. And so you have a whole society of talented fashion designers who are every bit as good (if not better) as your Gucci, your Armani, your Hugo Boss etc. but for whatever reason it doesn't become a cultural norm.

Essentially, it has less to do with things being great and more to do with them being relevant and resonating with the culture of the time.

If someone came along and wrote things today that were every bit as complex and sophisticated as Beethoven's music, it just wouldn't take off. It's been done to death, and there's nothing new or interesting about it that adds to the artistic landscape. It was important back in 1700s because it was new ground.

So TL;DR - things aren't simply good or bad and people's tastes aren't necessarily good or bad. They just may or may not have permeated into the cultural landscape.
---

Art is subjective. And imho a lot of it as well as the art world is complete shit.

I got dragged to an art expo in LA where the stuff was on display/sale. I recognize the famous artists like most of us would. And even then each artist had a bio printed next to their art to fill you in. It was a huge thing so there was a ton of them. They had some of the super famous ones. There was a Picasso and a few Warhol ones.
Then there's one's that are landscapes, cities, people that are so damn life like it's amazing. Watercolors and other in oil. I mean the talent involved to paint something with that level of detail is staggering to me. And there they are with a few thousand as the asking price. Artist, some unknown schmuck and it's his first gallery.
Then there's garbage that a kindergartener could paint. Literally a solid primary yellow background with three solid black lines drawn on it vertically. Another (different artist) that was a very basic set of hills, all primary orange, with some solid blue trees. And in both these paintings there's no shadowing, no detail, no depth to it both literally and figuratively. Artist bios: Some unknown schmucks and it's their first gallery. Only these paintings had 300k and 350k price tags. And one had a sold notice while the other had mucky mucks milling around it questioning the worker about bidding.
W.T.F?

So even with having said art is subjective. And excluding the artists being someone. One is simpleton basic nothing that looks like refrigerator door art and about the same size . One is clearly, obviously, without a doubt a detailed piece that makes your mind melt when thinking about the time and talent it took to make it. And it's door sized and beautiful. Yet one is worth 3k and the other is more than a home.

So why are the great talents not recognized? My guess would be because the art world types that idk, "decide" those things have their heads up their asses and wouldn't know real greatness if it slapped them in their smug faces.
---

EternalDivide posted...

Art is subjective. And imho a lot of it as well as the art world is complete shit.

I got dragged to an art expo in LA where the stuff was on display/sale. I recognize the famous artists like most of us would. And even then each artist had a bio printed next to their art to fill you in. It was a huge thing so there was a ton of them. They had some of the super famous ones. There was a Picasso and a few Warhol ones.
Then there's one's that are landscapes, cities, people that are so damn life like it's amazing. Watercolors and other in oil. I mean the talent involved to paint something with that level of detail is staggering to me. And there they are with a few thousand as the asking price. Artist, some unknown schmuck and it's his first gallery.
Then there's garbage that a kindergartener could paint. Literally a solid primary yellow background with three solid black lines drawn on it vertically. Another (different artist) that was a very basic set of hills, all primary orange, with some solid blue trees. And in both these paintings there's no shadowing, no detail, no depth to it both literally and figuratively. Artist bios: Some unknown schmucks and it's their first gallery. Only these paintings had 300k and 350k price tags. And one had a sold notice while the other had mucky mucks milling around it questioning the worker about bidding.
W.T.F?

So even with having said art is subjective. And excluding the artists being someone. One is simpleton basic nothing that looks like refrigerator door art and about the same size . One is clearly, obviously, without a doubt a detailed piece that makes your mind melt when thinking about the time and talent it took to make it. And it's door sized and beautiful. Yet one is worth 3k and the other is more than a home.

So why are the great talents not recognized? My guess would be because the art world types that idk, "decide" those things have their heads up their asses and wouldn't know real greatness if it slapped them in their smug faces.

I've got a lot to say about this comment.

First of all, it's a really commonly held desire for a lot of artists to wish they could throw away their technical and learned skill in the pursuit of wanting to do something more pure (Picasso and Dali both said it, for example). The idea being that if you go to an art school and learn established techniques and essentially how to paint like everyone else ever did, are you really creating art? Art isn't about just crafting aesthetically pleasing things. It's also about conveying emotions and imagination, and if you learn a very rigid style of how to paint you're not necessarily doing that.

Picasso could paint like this:
http://www.mcguilmet.com/uploads/3/0/3/5/3035519/4217857_orig.jpg

But that was already done to death hundreds of years before his time, and not really what he wanted to do as an artist. And so he started this whole thing:
https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/00-pablo-picasso-guernica-1937.jpg

Which was something entirely new and different and challenging, and ultimately what he added to the art world.

The point is, picasso wasn't some hack who didn't know how to draw depth or shadow or detail. He had all the skill necessary for the cookie-cutter renaissance style of painting that you pointed out is "better". But he just didn't want to do it.

There's a world of difference between a master painter who eschews standard techniques in favour of creating something entirely new and provocative, and just some kid who doesn't know how to paint good. If you learn the rules and then decide to break them, that doesn't make you a bad painter. That makes you an artist.

Personally, I think it would be a very sad world if all art ever was was pretty paintings.
---