Here is origional post: http://www.youngwriterssociety.com/viewtopic.php?p=163033#163033
My Grandparents had been keen painters for many years, my Grandmother favored water colours of flowers and Grandfather preferred to paint animals and landscapes in a variety of mediums (I think his favorite has always been oil paints). My Grandmother, June, was sent to collect me from playschool one afternoon as my Mother, a driving instructor, had a busy schedule and my Dad was a laborer who worked late into the night. I met my Grandmother at the school gates grasping my latest master piece, a finger painting.
As I write this I have the painting in eye shot, it is framed above our fireplace in a thick gold frame. It has landed the esteemed wall position because to me it raises some interesting questions about what makes good art.
The day my grandmother picked me up she took me back to her house as my dad had been on the night shift and was fast asleep. When we arrived at my Grandparents house my Grandfather was working on one of his painting in the style of the Dutch masters, I was eager to show him my painting so he put down his pallet and gently moved his painting of its easel and rested mine on instead. Conversation trailed and it was soon time for dinner so we left the studio and went into the kitchen. It soon got late and I was taken home.
Some time later my Grandparents came over with a bag of bits, from which they pulled my painting and asked me to write my name on it, when I was done the painting was framed and put on the wall where it hangs today.
In later years I asked why that painting got treated with such prestige and my Grandmother relayed to me what happened on the aforementioned evening when she picked me up from preschool. It turned out their painting society had a meeting that night, and it happened to be at their house this particular week. My painting had been left on my Grandfather’s easel and soon my confused Grandfather was getting compliments on his ‘new style’, the evening progressed and my Grandfather, to polite to mention he had not changed his style in any way, started to get concerned when some of the members of the art group started to offer him money for his latest work of art. He asked them to show him which particular painting they were referring to and to his amazement it was the finger painting I had done that day at pre-school still sitting on his easel.
_______________________________________________________________________
To me the people who mistook this finger painting for a work of art were foolish. I could imagine if my grandfather was say an influential figure in the local art scene then, said fools might have been trying to impress my grandfather in some sense, or at least 'kiss up'. It may sound a bit crude to say so but I think the artists identity can cloud the perception of the art.
For example, 50 cent; there is no way at this point in his career that 50 cent could produce a song that doesn't sell hundreds of thousands of records, even if it was a really bad song.
This is part of the reason I posted the finger painting, to see what a panel of young intellects would make of a finger painting when its origins are hidden and the picture is presented with the title of 'art'.
Phorcys' post dismissed the picture immediately on the grounds that I dismiss it on...
"Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. This is rubbish, no artistic talent has gone into this utter splatter."
Its just splattings of paint. Its people like you who win the turner prize and to be honest no effort is really needed to create a splatter, two year olds can do that. "
A little aggressive maybe and a year off but the point is clear, “this is rubbish” because the lack of “artistic talent”. This is a similar premise to that which I base my opinion of the painting on, but then I noticed Phorcys’ post which had some beautiful photography. Without knowing the details of the process that the artist went through- in the same way Phorcys didn’t know, in detail, the artistic process of the painting- I could quite easily assume that the pictures didn’t take a huge amount of technical ability or talent.
The responses to the photographs where a lot more accepting than that of the finger painting, and I think there is generally more tolerance with photography, but I wonder… what the response would be if I took a photo of one of Phorcys photos? I could argue it took the same amount of talent to do so, all there would be to argue is something along the lines of me not choosing my target, but considering there is a photographic technique called photo-montage which consist of taking a picture of another picture and also, as I stated earlier, no detailed knowledge of the artistic process is known then I could have quite easily spent a long time pondering exactly what angle to shoot at, exactly which picture to chose to take a picture of and exactly what distance I want between the lense and the original photo. This is all just speculation but I think the idea that art must take time, effort, talent etcetera. (The idea that I have always held of art, especially music) Is muddled when it comes to abstract art.
Of course the photographs where aesthetically pleasing and really quite beautiful and the finger painting looked like I perhaps had something else on my hands other than paint at the time so I can see why the photos are preferred because I preferred Phorcys wonderful photos.
But the complete opposite premise to the one that Phorcys and I might share is perhaps something to do with the art having nothing to do with the artist; once the artist creates the potential art (weather they are male, female, short, tall, 3 or 30) it is up to everyone but the artist to enjoy and appreciate the art for what it is, in its own right, not for the amount of time and effort put in by the artist. Would that mean that a comment like Myth’s -“I like the parts towards the middle, it reminds me of a random selection of flowers and herbs. - Is what makes this picture art? Maybe his would explain how so much crap can sell for so much money, for example a secondary school friend called Robert Setchall had a mum who was a ‘modern artist’ for 400.00 pound sterling she sold…
“A disused coke bottle, filled with useful colored paper clips of many sorts”
Three lines best portray my reaction to this, -_-. I think that “this is rubbish” because of the lack of “artistic talent”.
I found this so interesting because I seemed to have uncovered a contradiction of my own views within this finger painting, the finger painting is definitely art to me now because of the provocative effective it has on me when I see it, but I would defiantly state, if shown this picture, that it doesn’t disserve recognition as art because it looks like it is done by a three year old.
I’m still confused by this and how artists are able to argue that one item of art is better than another. But I thought you guys might want to know, especially The Art Guy, that this was in fact painted by me at three years old. Can I have some feedback on this now especially from Myth, I would like to know what you think of the painting now, were you just being polite before? And even though this doesn’t change the fact that to you the middle of the picture looks like herbs and bits, does this in some way discredit you perception of the painting?
Also if anyone can point me to some more detailed reading that might brush on similar subjects please tell me.
‘Gratz if you read this far, and thanks.
Dan
