What IS "Real Art" ? Honestly?

Thanks Meltemi for drawing our attention to the article by Roger Scruton. I'm interested in any article which draws my attention to a point of view if it is based on this kind of reasoning. You don't have to agree with all points that are made to appreciate the points you do agree with. I cannot agree with you Dermot however, I don't believe that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder. I am often asked to give a critical analysis of the paintings submitted by the members of an art club or society. In doing so I usually talk about the ways in which a painting could be bettered or improved usually finishing each crit with stressing what I consider are the good points. It is not difficult to be constructive and helpful when one's opinion is sought. Naturally one has ones personal opinions of the worth or otherwise of the art one sees but outright condemnation does nothing to improve the self-esteem of the artist. Nothing can be achieved by the blank acceptance or rejection of any particular painting or any other work of art and I find that the artists that I respect most of all do not indulge in this. What are generally considered to be standards and therefore good and bad points in painting are more generally accepted among professional painters than the general public usually appreciates. John

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't mean that just because a piece doesn't appeal it isn't good. We all have our opinions on beauty and it's just as well it differs from person to person. I also do crits at art clubs but put personal preferences aside when it comes to giving advice on how to improve a painting and commenting on what is good about it though it doesn't appeal to me personally (like portraits of animals and so-called celebs for example). When it comes to individual artists I love the work of Van Gogh, quite like Cezanne but, horror of horrors, I really have no feelings at all for Turner. Seditious talk I know and I recognise how much his work was ground breaking in his time but, in the 21st century and despite studying his work at length, I'm afraid it does little, if anything, for me. The eye of the beholder eh... !

Tastes change, in painting, writing, music, architecture - there are no completely hard and fast standards. And yet .... switch subjects a minute, and think about literature. Think, if you can stand it, about Jeffrey Archer - you might take one of his books on holiday for a bit of light reading (you might: I wouldn't); but you're never in a thousand years going to make the mistake of thinking he's a good writer or a master of prose, because he patently isn't. Archer may be a bad example, because although he's made millions from his books, they're still utterly God-awful, so try a writer who isn't quite so dire, sells well, but is still just bad: whoever wrote Fifty Shades of Grey, for example; or Dan Brown, he of the Da Vinci code; or Frederick Forsythe - all the way downhill from Day of the Jackal. If you were to tell me that the above were great writers, or even good writers, I would try to remain polite but I would be thinking of you extremely rudely. I'd think you the sort of person who can't tell a short story from a shopping-list or seed catalogue. I'd think you - I'm afraid - an idiot. This has nothing to do with eye of the beholder: Archer, the Fifty Shades person, and Brown are hacks - rotten writers. Forsythe is marginally better. I don't believe this has much to do with personal preference or taste - it's just that these people produce a quick and easy effect, and their readers aren't looking for anything any deeper; they're reading to pass the time, to lose themselves for a while in plots which may be (are!) clunkily contrived, but they're prepared to suspend their critical faculties for the duration, which some of us seem to find it more difficult to do than others. Painting - obviously - isn't literature (perceptive of me, that, innit?) and perhaps it's harder to discriminate: apart from anything else, while we all use language, we don't all paint - so what appeals to painters might make no sense to (some) others; and anyway, painters have as many prejudices as the next person. For instance, Dermot doesn't like van Gogh or Cézanne; Michael can't manage Turner (Turner does vary a lot, incidentally - but that's another subject); I've yet to find anyone here who appreciates Pollock!; and I don't like Frida Kahlo, Sean Scully, Matisse,or Howard Hodgkin. But "liking" or not isn't the point, is it? Unless you really do have problems with eyesight and judgement combined, you're not going to deny that those you dislike were competent artists: it's just that you and I don't understand, or anyway share, their appeal. That doesn't mean, surely to God, that we can't tell the difference in quality and ability between Bob Ross (unfair example, because he was a demonstrator rather than a serious painter), Thomas Kinkade, Vladimir Tretchikoff, Beryl Cooke, Jack Vettriano - all of whom we might either like, or at least be able to understand why others do - and Rembrandt. (And there are those who don't like Rembrandt: "all dark and gloomy!" someone said, whom I generously forbore from drowning in a handy canal.) It doesn't matter whom you like or don't like - what matters is that you can discriminate between something that's easy on the eye but not intrinsically very interesting and something that's interesting but might not be beautiful, certainly isn't likely to be pretty, but says something to you whether you like what it says or don't; that's the difference between Jack Vettriano and Peter Howson (it's my day for getting names wrong, but I think that's who I mean). I can quite see why anyone would be happier living with the former than the latter, but one's a disturbing and interesting artist, the other an illustrator - take a look at the two and you'll be able to tell which is which. Or if you can't, you're beyond human help. http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk

PS = that Ruth Dolan! She don't half stir things up! http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk

As for Conceptual Art, give me a rest! I have to say what is it all about having watched the prog on BBC4 last night.

Sorry Ellen but it just shows how our tastes vary. When I hear it said that Turner is all about light and I then see his often rather muddy abstract-like swirlings (although I must admit I do have a very small soft spot for some of his watercolours) I realise I must be missing out on something - perhaps I am but I can't just see it. Sorry. I much prefer the more contemporary abstract work of people like Wayne Roberts and Pol Ledent and also Tay Lay Lent

Just seen the programme on the Tate's Pile of Bricks by Carl Andre and must admit I'm warming to it.

Beware Syd - he'll probably try to sell it to you If he's art-ful and wants to cement a deal. But knowing you he'll have his back against the wall.

honesty in art....what a statement and one for the artist or as a viewer to give an opinion or point of view that will probably change and sometimes revert back to one notion...it's a brilliant question but one i think has to realise the answer is so subjective and open to change over time that it may just be a notion then and now but maybe not tomorrow..in a way the honesty is fleeting for many and a conviction for others.

Does it matter whether or not something is art? Art is an ill-defined human category. Are we really asking is it worth good money? Will someone pay more fore it in a few years time? Is it unique?