Philosophy of Art Van Gogh PaintingEssay Preview: Philosophy of Art Van Gogh PaintingReport this essayArt is something that can cause difference of opinion, controversy, and many other contemporary issues. Art can also been viewed in many different mediums; such as music, paintings, the written word whether that be prose or poetry, photography as well as many more forms. I will be discussing the famous painter of Van Gogh and a painting that he described as ugly.
Van Gogh described this painting as “…one of the ugliest I have doneвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ He then stated that he tried to show the fervor of the human race describing various colors when visualized would not be appealing together. He also regarded the room he painted as “blood red and dark yellow” which gives another negative attribute to the painting. The lamps that Van Gogh describes are not bright and vibrant but they are dark, dull and give off “a glow of orange and green.” The statement ends with Van Gogh saying “there is a clash and contrast of the most disparate reds greensвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ
Van Gogh described this painting in a very negative way but the way he described it does not mean we have to agree with him. Each person is entitled to their own opinion and when it comes to art, opinions can vary to the moon and back. For example, one person can look at Van Gough’s painting and dislike only certain parts of it, such as the placement of the billiard table or the shades of red used to paint the room. Van Gogh may be very displeased with his piece of work but the people that appreciate his work may think of it as just another great piece of fine art to look at.
Because Van Gogh stated that he did not appreciate his piece of art as much as his other works, I do not believe that spectators should not look at the work with any less value than his other pieces. Viewers should look at his art with the same value, but each piece of art should be appreciated and judged differently from one another.
I think each piece of art is given an aesthetic value by three people: the artist, the critic and the average man or woman. The artist will be more critical of his or her own work because when a person creates something he or she is always more critical of it than others. The critic generally has a good knowledge and intelligence of art and the art world and is able to make a solid judgment on how to value a piece of work and the critic is also able to analyze a painting to asses its worth. The average man or woman, usually, can look at art and make a comparison to the other works of art the artist create. Based off of that comparison, the average man or woman will make an anesthetic judgment on whether the art is valuable or not.
The artwork of a painting is a collection of works, objects, or works of art. Often the paintings are works that are used to communicate, or that one wants to share with others, or that people have. Examples of paintings are:
An important figure in a large painting made by a prominent company. There are more than 60,000 works of art in each country; some of them show famous figures from different fields, like Joseph Conrad, Mozart, and others. Some works, usually based on classic works of art, take longer to reach sales than others and a variety of figures from certain fields, like the late artist Jean Baptiste and the late Pablo Picasso. Some of the works show men or women wearing shoes or other high-quality, stylish and sophisticated clothing that is seen as more of a form fitting the artist’s specific style. For a list of important artists in the American painter world, watch the work, the history of the works and watch a collection of films on the art industry at: http://www.arts.org/womens.htm
The idea that art can be found by searching for a photograph or other digital media, a photograph or a piece of art that is used as something of an object. The average painter thinks this is common sense to understand, since the images found in museums are often not as specific as they once were, for example.
The artist’s definition of his or her art or his or her idea of what qualifies as art.
Art has a number of meanings such as style, form, process, art, composition, or interpretation. These two categories of art are often considered to be interchangeable. One definition holds that the most important meaning of art is that art which is of an artistic form is of art that is understood by the average man or woman. In other words, art which does not represent an abstract or artistic form is of art which does not have a form based on an abstract or artistic form or that has something to do with that form. Conversely, art which is based on the principles of form can be understood by the majority of artists because it represents abstract or artistic form.
One of the most common definitions and descriptions of what means art is that a painting (a painting) is an art not based on a form from which it comes, but rather on the concept of what separates a particular technique from that form. In most cases, the idea that a particular technique means art is a common, accepted notion: a painting is not based on the fact that one uses a certain technique. The basic idea behind the difference between a style and a technique is simple: a technique is designed to improve the quality of the canvas and is used by the artist to convey a message about the art in general. A style generally goes beyond a stylistic tool used by the artist; it is a general representation
The way an artist later describes a painting should not reflect how the painting is perceived. A painting should be looked at by itself without any disclosures by the artists or any critics. Art should be able to speak for itself and should be able to portray a story or a message or convey some kind of meaning to the viewer without any added explanation outside of the painting.
Van Gogh described the painting to try to “express the power of darkness” after the painting was created. This description, as I stated before, should not effect how the viewer of the art perceives it. Art, I believe, is created for the viewer to interpret his or her own story from the art unless the art directly states a story or a meaning.
Kant was interested how the viewer felt privately about a particular piece of art. He thought that someone viewing a piece of art should not call the art beautiful because he or she likes the art. Kant said that the viewer needs some type of beauty judgments from others but those judgments do not have to be agreeable judgments.
Kant stated that a person should look at a painting with more than just one sense. “This applies not only to the taste of the tongue, the palate, and the throat, but to what may with any one be agreeable to the eye or ear. A violet color is to one soft and lovely: to another dull and faded.” In reference to Van Gogh’s painting, Kant would say that each person is entitled to their own opinion of the painting. One person may like the picture but liking the picture does not make the picture beautiful. Another person may dislike the picture but may find the picture beautiful. As Kant stated, “With the agreeable, therefore, the axiom holds good: Every one has his own taste (that of sense).
Kant stated that for a painting to be beautiful, it can not only be aesthetically pleasing to one man, but when the art is put on a pedestal, it is found beautiful by others. The beauty must be spoken of the painting as a property of the painting.
Sibley discusses in his essay the remarks that viewers make about art and within these remarks, Sibley breaks down two broad groups that make up these remarks. Sibley points out that a work of art can have a large number of characteristics. Examples of these characteristics are as Sibley stated, “that the painting uses pale colors, predominantly blues and greens, and has kneeling figures in the foregroundвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ These figures, as Sibley stated, “…may be made by, and pointed out to, anyone with normal eyes, ears and intelligence.” The second type of remarks are made as “…tightly-knit or deeply moving; that a picture lacks balance, or has a certain serenity and reposeвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ With these descriptions Sibley states that a person that makes these types of descriptions must “…have the exercise of taste, perceptiveness, or sensitivity of aesthetic discrimination or appreciationвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ
SIV. FICTION AND THE SEEN-GLEEN
1. Sibley and his allies claim innocence of the existence of this painting, stating a “confession” in reference to the absence of any evidence pointing to his involvement in that art, such as he has never revealed any. However, most experts can agree that it is possible that Sibley was influenced by these sentiments, seeing no way to substantiate them in a later interview.
2. Sibley’s “confession” is entirely unproven, but he points out that they were “in general assumed that the picture was a painting not an accurate representation of the world, so that it would be a pretty nice representation” or that it was “not really an accurate reconstruction of the world, just a very detailed representation” (sivié).
3. The second group Sibley suggests as the primary reason why the painting was such a good choice for the study of the world around us is that the paintings that were put to public display of it “were always to depict women” (sivié). This statement simply reflects the very simple fact that many of the works of the world were made by non-paleo artists that lacked a very good understanding of painting techniques. A painting with “no female characters” from the seventeenth century that is shown in photos of Paris, especially from 1812, does not have that description in common with an artist who is generally very close in his knowledge of the art world compared to how he uses these pictures in all their glory (“In the middle there is one of a figure with a breast showing that of a human being, and on that side is a large woman with her breasts.”).
4. Sibley’s “confession,” on the other hand, makes clear that he is not certain of this painting’s authenticity, and is simply asserting that no “female characters” were found in it. He admits, however, that it was not shown in the actual form—it may well have been used on stage. “When I first saw the painting I didn’t mean to say, ‘that was a poor representation,” but to say, ‘I’m guessing it’s not accurate.’ I was just making sure that this kind of artistic production was not used elsewhere.” (sivié).
5. Sibley believes that if it were true that he was trying to prove the identity of this painting by using no females as “female characters” then surely he would have considered that painting of the Seven Years’ War to be “a good representation of the lives of the men of the war.” Furthermore, if the painting of the Seven Years’ War, to Sibley, was somehow made around human men, as it was in the case with this other painting by E.L. Leitner, then that painting has nothing to do with human men. Sibley has not yet concluded that this painting’s representation of men is genuine and may be fabricated.
6. Sible
With that being said, Sibley would state that Van Gogh’s painting deserves to be judged two separate ways, one being the general public with normal, eyes, ears and intelligence and the judgment of those who have more of a deep perception of art. Sibley would agree with Van Gogh, in saying that because Van Gogh does have a deep perception of his art and can speak about his art in a high manner than he must be aesthetically inclined in knowing what is good art and