Sort of.... but I am arguing that the Beholder's untrained eye or lack of experience doesn't reflect poorly on the thing beheld.C-Mag wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:32 amRight On.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:25 amThat is sort of the crux of it. Any artist is trying to create certain qualia for the consumer - and the more skilled you are, the easier that gets. But, sometimes there is shit you just can't fix.C-Mag wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:21 am
Art should make you feel something............... No ?
I'm personally more moved by Lascaux Cave Paintings than I am the Mona Lisa. I have nothing in common with her, I have no reference, but I'm a hunter, and I can put myself into the scene of that bison Auroch hunt 10,000 years ago, and how the meat was processed, appreciated and the stories that were told around that campfire.
I am not moved by reading Tolstoy in Russian because I do not understand Russian. Can't really blame Tolstoy's craft for that.
Eye of the beholder.
And that circles right back to Marty's OP. There is a difference between good art and famous art.
Here's one of the greatest images ever created, it's clearly famous, and I'd definitely call it great art.
Love it or hate it, you know what it is and it likely stirs feelings in you, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know what it is.
Leonardo da Vinci probably would have about the same reaction to the U.S. flag as you have to the Mona Lisa. It just can't mean very much to a renaissance Italian.