I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Apart from sounding a bit annoying in a back-to-basics kind of way, what is fundamentally wrong with this statement, if anything?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 09:42 (twenty-three years ago)

I ask because it occurs to me every time I go to an art gallery and I see some art that I like. And I know that the statement is the ultimate faux pas. But I've never understood why.

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 09:44 (twenty-three years ago)

it implies an unwillingness to give substantial attention to art that does not grab the viewer on the most basic of aesthetic levels (ie 'that isn't a picture of pretty flowers, thus i hate it').

― Dave M. (rotten03), Monday, 3 March 2003 09:49 (twenty-three years ago)

personally, i don't know what i like, but i do know art when i see it...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 3 March 2003 09:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes Dave I see that's what it implies, and I'd even go so far as to say that the kind of person who'd say it is probably the kind of person who'd have that sort of basic aesthetic response, but that's not fundamentally what it means. "What I like" might be snuff movies, for instance.

It's just occurred to me that when people say "I know what I like" they mean that they know what they like before they see it, which I can see is a fairly blinkered attitude. But if you just mean that you can tell whether you like something, it's not the same thing.

Is it because it's annoying when people say that they don't know much about art because they seem proud of their incuriosity?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I went to the Tate Modern yesterday and I was absolutely bowled over by the big red Anish Kapoor thing. I went upstairs and saw a photo of a girl holding a raw chicken in front of her knickers. I liked the first one because it was daring and beautiful and showed the kind of vision which should be envied. I thought the second one was exactly the sort of thing which makes art-students so often reviled - self-indulgent wank which thinks it's clever but actually is as boring and pedestrian as me - the ignorant non-artist.

So I know nothing about art (which I'm not proud of, but it's true), but I liked the first one and not the second one. Why is that a problem?

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Is it because it's annoying when people say that they don't know much about art because they seem proud of their incuriosity?

i don't think it's about a lack of curiosity as much as disdain for the idea that 'knowing about art' enhances your critical faculties. if a person says this phrase, i take it to mean that their ignorance of art does not noticeably hinder their experience of it (whether that means enjoying a painting or hating it).

― Dave M. (rotten03), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:16 (twenty-three years ago)

personally, i have a rough equation i use to judge art:

My Initial Impression
+ What I've Heard About It From Sources I Respect (aka The Odds That I May Be Missing Something Which I Will Enjoy If I Try A Little Harder)

= How Much Time & Effort I Will Expend In Attempts To Understand And/Or Enjoy It

― Dave M. (rotten03), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I see. But maybe you're being too hard on them. If someone says to me that they don't know anything about programming, but they know a well-designed application when they see one, then my thoughts would be "how nice that this person, who has no interest or time for learning to program, nevertheless can spot the clever bits of design - and realise how important they are." And I would probably tell them that design is the hardest part, and that they know more about programming than they think they do.

Possibly a crap analogy. But I still think that you're putting words in their mouths. "Knowing about art" enhances your enjoyment, I'm sure, but this kind of statement doesn't deny that.

(whoops cross-posting)

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:27 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know it just seems as though there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that statement. But the argt is all bound up with the various defensive attitudes which seem to go with this kind of inside-the-loop vs. outside-the-loop conflict. It seems that that statement is lumped together with other classics of the genre like "Call this art? Why, a child could have done it!". I think that's unfair.

(Maybe it's that defensive "but" in the middle that gives it this tone.)

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:34 (twenty-three years ago)

I like brightly coloured abstract expressionism, but I don't know that much about art.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 3 March 2003 10:58 (twenty-three years ago)

i know everything about art but i like to think that i don't know what i like

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 3 March 2003 12:46 (twenty-three years ago)

(ps clause one is untrue, and when i try clause two on my friends they larf non-stop)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 3 March 2003 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)

It is almost always said by people who mean "...and I know what I DON'T like", and this is almost always anything that looks as if it could have been painted in the last 100 years. Also, "don't know much" covers a wide range. Some people mean "bugger all and proud of it", some mean they can't remember which is Monet and which Manet, some that they occasionally confuse Corot and Courbet, or whatever. I don't have a problem with the phrase at all in itself, but it does statistically raise the suspicion that I'm talking to someone with a very closed mind.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know much about art suggests that there is something worth knowing. All I know is that people frown on me when I laugh in art galleries.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Ha ha yes Pete. Ppl in black clothing and artgeek glasses, possibly with asymmetric haircuts, frowning to show how seriously they're THINKING. Whereas I like a bit of a giggle at things that are funny.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Artist are often very funny people - why on earth would they not do jokes?

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I approach art from a purely aesthetic POV. This does not mean that I am blinkered to sticking with art that I already like. I am aware that my tastes change, but ultimately I'll always like a piece of art because of visual impact, not a message or an idea. I'll look at different artistic styles, but if I don't dig it, I don't dig it, but at the same time, I wouldn't say that I dislike all the art in a certain genre nor would I avoid that genre. I feel the same about music.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:53 (twenty-three years ago)

and if a picture makes someone laugh, then that's cool isn't it? I always thought you were supposed to giggle at the naked dancing dude at the Tate Modern.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 3 March 2003 13:55 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.