Does anyone else not "get" fine art?

I "get" modern art, but don't like it. It's deliberately nonrepresentative, and art SHOULD represent something.

"Fine art" is a pretty broad thing to not "get." That's kind of like saying that you don't "get" music. And I'm not sure what failure to grasp the abstract has to do with it. Fine art isn't necessarily abstract.

Also, at my school, the abbreviation for "fine art" was FArt. That was always pretty cool.

I think I understand what you mean. I'm probably just a simpleton. Art is a nice forest, with a bridge and a mountain in view. A turd smeared on a canvas is not art to me. To each their own, of course!

Brief art history lesson: in the Middle Ages artists struggled with the craft of making paintings look realistic. By the renaissance (1500s) they perfected it. This was the beginning of the end for representative art and the beginning of expressionistic art.

With the advent of photography in the 19th century the need for realistic documentations was gone. Art is about interpreting reality not replicating reality.

There are many different styles of art. A lot of non-artists dislike abstract art... Don't see it as something to understand. Most abstract art is not really meant to be understood. Likewise, a lot of paintings aren't meant to be of any recognizable object. It doesn't mean they're bad. It's just a different style of art.

As for the great historical works, eh, you'll find works from the big name artists throughout history are worth a ton due simply to the name they're attached to. You see this a lot with guys like Rembrandt. A painting will sell for $30,000 only to later be shown to be a fraud, making it worthless. If the painting itself was great, the artist wouldn't matter.

I'm a science guy who used to have no understanding of art, did not "get" it, etc, and then I took an art history class. I would by no means say I'm an expert of any sort, but that class really gave me an appreciation for art and its different styles. Abstract art actually became my favorite, and I think that class kind of unlocked my right hemisphere. Ever since that class I seem to have come to appreciate a lot of different things I didn't use to, and my whole way of thinking has changed too, like I'm less of a robot than I used to be. ...it's kind of hard to explain. Anyway, my point is to try not to judge, and don't assume there's really any "meaning" to a lot of art. A lot of paintings are just meant to be looked at. However it makes you feel is fine.

Like someone said, art is diverse as music. You might like certain forms, and if you don't, that's fine too.

First Thursday wrote:

Brief art history lesson: in the Middle Ages artists struggled with the craft of making paintings look realistic. By the renaissance (1500s) they perfected it. This was the beginning of the end for representative art and the beginning of expressionistic art.

With the advent of photography in the 19th century the need for realistic documentations was gone. Art is about interpreting reality not replicating reality.

You're pretty much spot on here.

As well, wowadays "Art" is just a circle jerk between "Radical" artists (the kind who crap in buckets and say it represents racial inequality) and obscenely wealthy gallery owners who give the artists millions of dollars to crap in buckets so those galleries can be on the cutting edge. In the old days, regular people would go to galleries sometimes, now its just the groupies (who are trying to seem radical) of the artists (who are trying to seem radical) who are paid by the gallery owners (who are trying to seem radical).

Guppy wrote:

As for the great historical works, eh, you'll find works from the big name artists throughout history are worth a ton due simply to the name they're attached to. You see this a lot with guys like Rembrandt. A painting will sell for $30,000 only to later be shown to be a fraud, making it worthless. If the painting itself was great, the artist wouldn't matter.

This, of course, is also true. And partly goes in with what I said above about "radical" artists. If the right person (Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst) craps in a bucket, its worth a cool ten grand, but if one of us did it, it would be a bucket full of feces. See also the painting "Sir Nicolas Serota makes an Acquisitions Decision."

There are some art students/lovers/connoisseurs/whatevers who say the big point of modern art is that these artists are actually the greatest geniuses of all time for convincing people that they should receive millions of dollars for crapping in buckets. And naturally, anyone who feels this way is part of the problem.

I'm not sure the OP specified 'modern art'. Fine art was the term used.

I'm not sure what that encompasses. All I know is that the world would be a pretty sad place if all art were eliminated. I picture cities like 1970's Bulgaria or N. Korea, drab cities of drab people and big square ugly concrete block buildings.

I'm more a fan of architecture and public art and landscape art - but I know I feel good when I walk or run around Paris, and a lot has to do with art.

Even a beautiful piece of technology, like an iPhone, makes people happy. Or Steve Jobs famous discussion of how his calligraphy class opened up the whole world of computer fonts. In a way, these are all part of art. Jobs wasn't a science or tech guy.

A world whose only goal is science and the extension of human life span is a sad world. Art has its place, at least for me.

First Thursday wrote:

Brief art history lesson: in the Middle Ages artists struggled with the craft of making paintings look realistic. By the renaissance (1500s) they perfected it. This was the beginning of the end for representative art and the beginning of expressionistic art.

With the advent of photography in the 19th century the need for realistic documentations was gone. Art is about interpreting reality not replicating reality.

I would also like to say how true this is and how this is exactly why there's so little demand for super realistic art in modern times. Honestly, I find super realistic art kind of boring. I can deeply admire the skill required to produce it, and it does still get some attention (I see it now and then on Colossal.com), but to me, it's much more interesting and aesthetically pleasing to see the same scene/portrait painted using a more impressionist or fauvist style. That's just my taste though.

I would also like to echo the person who said the world would be very dull without art. Definitely. Art influences and encompasses so many things... Don't think of art just as Picasso and da Vinci. Art is nearly synonymous with creativity.

I dated the docent coordinator for the Ringling art museum and had to get it after 8 yrs.

We would go to University exhibits and one student "literally" put a dot in the middle of an index card and showed it for the public.

as for not 'getting' art - think about something you absolutely understand and can make valid judgments about. Usually pop music, or movies or female beauty can work here.

Then imagine some people have the ability to make distinctions in the quality of visual art -through education, instinct or whatever.

The point is that you might just not be very good at judging quality in fine art.

The other thing is that, like nascar, it is only really interesting if you know the players. If you know art history, the art comes alive and isn't just pictures on a wall.

I am an artist.