My compliments, Mr. Yoder. I've just discovered your site through the ARC and am impressed to have such a beautiful work greet me on my first visit. I've seen a number of paintings with the pious, heavenward gaze and it always proves to be a fascinating facial expression. The thing I love best about art is the emotion I feel when I look upon faces. My favorite is Bouguereau, but there are so many others. I hope to learn to paint with oils someday as well as my art heroes, but for now I've done well with pencil. Thank you for another beacon of colorful excellence in this modern dull-gray sea.
well, I'm both with you and against you. I certainly agree that we should be able to judge art either good or bad. I also agree that we should be able to form an opinion on these matters through the application of our reason, as you've stated elsewhere on your site. I also think we should be able to define art as art by its purpose and content. BUT - while there's certainly an awful lot of very bad art out there right now, and quite a bit of it from last century, there's also a lot of art I define as good using your criteria which doesn't look anything like what you think good art should look like. And, while you have included some fine works on your site, there's also quite a lot of work that doesn't even vaguely fit your own criteria of what good art is. For example - the Francesco Hayes "Venus playing with two doves" is, while technically very accomplished, by no means good art - in my judgement OR by your own definition. I have a challenge for you - using your own criteria, argue for the Hayes Venus as a good work of art. Art isn't only good art because it displays a certain style. Despite your providing a definition of what good art is, you haven't really applied that definition to all the works on your site - otherwise quite a few of them wouldn't be there! You obviously are passionate about art, which I respect - I am too. But I would encourage you to consider more clearly whether you are simply bending your "rational definition" to your own aesthetic preferences. I'm interested to hear your response.
3 Comments:
My compliments, Mr. Yoder. I've just discovered your site through the ARC and am impressed to have such a beautiful work greet me on my first visit. I've seen a number of paintings with the pious, heavenward gaze and it always proves to be a fascinating facial expression. The thing I love best about art is the emotion I feel when I look upon faces. My favorite is Bouguereau, but there are so many others. I hope to learn to paint with oils someday as well as my art heroes, but for now I've done well with pencil. Thank you for another beacon of colorful excellence in this modern dull-gray sea.
By Prospero, at 8:49 PM
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
--Brian
By Brian Yoder, at 3:00 PM
Hi Brian,
well, I'm both with you and against you. I certainly agree that we should be able to judge art either good or bad. I also agree that we should be able to form an opinion on these matters through the application of our reason, as you've stated elsewhere on your site. I also think we should be able to define art as art by its purpose and content. BUT - while there's certainly an awful lot of very bad art out there right now, and quite a bit of it from last century, there's also a lot of art I define as good using your criteria which doesn't look anything like what you think good art should look like. And, while you have included some fine works on your site, there's also quite a lot of work that doesn't even vaguely fit your own criteria of what good art is. For example - the Francesco Hayes "Venus playing with two doves" is, while technically very accomplished, by no means good art - in my judgement OR by your own definition. I have a challenge for you - using your own criteria, argue for the Hayes Venus as a good work of art.
Art isn't only good art because it displays a certain style. Despite your providing a definition of what good art is, you haven't really applied that definition to all the works on your site - otherwise quite a few of them wouldn't be there!
You obviously are passionate about art, which I respect - I am too. But I would encourage you to consider more clearly whether you are simply bending your "rational definition" to your own aesthetic preferences.
I'm interested to hear your response.
By Anonymous, at 4:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home