Michael Kimmelman on Art: Part 1 of 2

This interview is found in the special features of the DVD "My Kid Could Paint That," a documentary film by Amir Bar-Lev. It is an interview with NY Times art critic Michael Kimmelman on modern art. For more information on Bar-Lev's film, please see http://www.sonyclassics.com/mykidcouldpaintthat/. For Kimmelman's articles for the Times, see http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/michael_kimmelma...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kimmelman
• modern
• art

[skipper2379]

That's not entirely true. Jackson Pollock was a lousy draftsman, entirely lacking in traditional artistic skill. But, in William Rubin's phrase, he invented the manner in which he was the virtuoso. Picasso, to be sure, was an excellent draftsman; this is why his cubism is more powerful than Braque's. But he did not begin as a portrait artist nor is the blue period particularly experimental. Maybe you should know something before you make confident declarations.

[redmrlove13]

The idea that you can just become an experimental anything is the fraud. Picasso didn't just go into his blue period...he mastered the basics first. He was a portrait artist to start. James Joyce didn't just produce Ulysess or Finnegan's Wake...first he wrote the Dubliners a non experimental book of short stories. What you have here, in my humble opinion, is a lot of people who think they can just jump into the deep end of the pool without really knowing how to swim.

[hermitcrabbot]

The point that seems to be missed here is that a work of art should be judged within it's own type. That is, for example, a Jackson Pollack abstract piece cannot be directly compared with a Rembrandt as to it's relative worth. In music, that would be like trying to decide if John Coltrane ( the best improvistional Jazz artist ), was better than Artur Rubenstein ( perhaps the best classical pianist ).

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti ...a work seems, the higher they hold it in regard. But on a technical note, this opens its own can of worms, as their are many ways to create "realistic" work, some being more difficult than others.

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti What you're doing ultimately is confusing technique with narrative. the "point" of most contemporary/modern art is usually pretty straightforward. whats "hard" for people to get is how simple or otherwise unorthodox the technique was in creating the work. if it looks "too easy" to make, many people immediately put up a mental firewall and refuse to consider the work of art any further. The average person grades art by whether or not its representational, and the more realistic...

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti is of hostility and suspicion, and if you dare to actually look at art, you're label an elitist snob, which you yourself have proven with your boring ad hominems directed at me. Also, your description of contemporary art is embarrassingly inaccurate. Contemporary art is merely the continued exploration of the holistic range of the human experience that modern art set forth, the only real difference being the inclusiveness of non-traditional materials found in the Duchampian tradition.

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti What I'm referring to about music is simply statistical. There is an entire industry for music, and most people will passionately defend or debate what they love or dislike. On the other hand, most people can name a few famous painters, but few can extrapolate beyond knowing Van Gogh or Monet. The average person's understanding of modern art is that "some fraud named Pollock made a a big shit stain on canvas and now that shit is real 'spensive". Their whole perception of art...

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti I'm referring to the common understanding that "visual arts" is generally used in reference to inanimate 2d media, ie, drawing and painting, which is the topic here. Sculpture and film are technically visual arts, but they are usually specified as sculpture, or 3d media, or film, for the sake of expediency and clarity. This is something most people who have an understanding of art beyond Boris Vallejo and Bob Ross can usually grasp.

[Djnti]

@NotNamedJones And yet what you refer to is still not clear. "my theory is that most people respond to music, but very few respond to art, therefore have no emotional connection to it." The connection is all about the immediacy. Once again, while complex (old masters paintings) message is denotative, complicated (modern art) messages are connotative, requiring further 'explaination' (what you surely call, sensitivity), hence, we 'common' folks cain't relate to.

You have yet a lot to learn, dear.

[Djnti]

@NotNamedJones for the sake of my own enlightenment and of our online acquaintances, may you illuminate us with the true unadulterated meaning of your words and expand on it? I shall offer you an apology for my crass mistake.

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti now, you know damn good and well I'm referring to technically complicated work (ie, old master's paintings). trying to twist obvious meanings around makes you look Dorfy dumb. but anyways, have fun being toothless in your molly hatchet hell.

[NotNamedJones]

@Djnti your assumption is incorrect. thats not what I'm talking about at all, so, once again, you have no topics of merit to debate on the subject.