Fine Art II

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by StreetShooter

this delightful little piece at first glance appears to be a mis-cued representation of the butt of someone in swimwear (presumably a lady's), but upon closer inspection, reveals the heart condition of the original author, of a conflict within the heart. The beauty of it is that it reveals not only one heart, but the hearts of many others in this world.

The playful splash of water on the right conveys the vitality and energies of a life bubbling with excitement and fullness of joy. However, the other half paints a totally different picture, a picture of sombriety, of a graveness of the heart. The deep wash of colours is as much as reflection of the worries and woes of his life as the playful splash a representation of happier times.

Light and playful, deep and sombre, a delightful play on the conflicts that go on within our hearts and subconsciousness, proving once again, that the heart of the matter is in the matters of the heart.

Well done!

 

[StreetShooter]

Yeah, you got it.

You can have the original limited edition jpg file for, oh, the cost of a 400mm DO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by mpenza

On Sept 11, when the world witnessed one of the greatest horrors this world has ever seen, few eyes were dry as images of the collapse of the twin towers kept replaying on TV. Is there ever going to be order in this world ever again?

This piece of work appears to bring hope. The colors convey a sense of peace and serenity. One is calmed and reassured by the smooth clean lines, and the interplay of the colors, and it seems that once again, everything is in order, and that everything is all right again.

However, do not miss the most important element of this masterpiece. The most striking touch to this picture is the slanted line at the bottom, dividing the picture into 3 portions. The slanted line breaks the picture, serving as a cruel reminder that things are not well at all, that things will never be the same again. The different hue used in the last segment of the picture is also different in tone and mood from the top 2 - a harsh mockery of our idealistic thinking? a scornful jab at our false sense of security?

This world is a changed place after Sept 11. And this picture, however peaceful it looks at first glance, is a sad reminder of that irrevocable fact.

A sad, yet honest depiction - well executed!

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by erwinx
Why is a blue canvas 'rubbish' whereas Piet Mondrians work (can also do Piet Mondrian's work in photoshop) is not? Is there objective criteria for determining rubbish or is it ultimately something 'subjective'?

I haven't said anything about Mondrian's work since I haven't seen it.

(1) If I can do it myself just as easily, its rubbish.

No, I didn't say that either. The point was I could have done it as easily, and no one would buy it. Why is there a distinction? I myself have debated your point ad nauseum on other threads when it's relevant... it doesn't matter whether it's a two second Photoshop filter or 20 painstaking steps... it's the final output that is important. Like I said, what's important about this shade of blue. Why pay for a shade of blue and not, say a shade of green? Or the other 16.5 million colours that the RGB colour space can define?

(2) If it (looks like - he may have taken 10 days to choose and mix a shade of blue ) took a minimum of effort to achieve, its rubbish

No, see above. It's rubbish because how do you rationally quantify that as art? If you want to make your point, then rationally qualify that as art for me and the other doubters.

After all, if one is scandalised by Klein's blue canvas costing 6.5k, then you should be equally scandalised by pictures of a series of lines (with colours filled in between - just use photoshop bucket command),waterlilies or sunflowers costing tens of millions.

To be honest, I am.

I'm sure you can reproduce Piet Mondrian's work in photoshop too (just line drawing and 'fill command'). Does that make it rubbish? Lets say we have a half-decent artist who can reproduce van gogh's sunflowers - would he have a right to be scandalised by the cost of van gogh's sunflowers? (He too can say '10 mil for that painting, thats rubbish - i can paint an identical one just as well as that).

No, exactly. If I can produce Mondrian's work exactly in Photoshop... then my piece should be worth as much as his. If that artist can reproduce van Gogh's sunflowers, it should be worth as much as the Dutch master's. Excepting the fact that there will be two copies in existence as opposed to the one.

As people with less money than the people that buy 6.5k blue blobs, we feel something is wrong. But the key thing is whether we have objective criteria to condemn people who buy 6.5k blue blobs or whether we are adopting subjective criteria.

Personally, I'm not condemning the people who buy those blobs. I'm condemning the people who pass those blobs off as something worth throwing ANY money at.

what makes our judgment superior to that of some rich person who buys a 6.5k blue blob, a Ferrari, rolex watch, Learjet etc?

As I said, there is a material quality to those items you mention. My issue is, where's the material quality is a blue canvas. Why is that worth what it was worth? How about my green canvas?
I'm debating where the art is in these things... not about the people that pay for them. But I do also lament the society that are sheep like in their following of what people say without really forming their own opinions, but that's another topic altogether.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Yeah, you got it.

You can have the original limited edition jpg file for, oh, the cost of a 400mm DO.

wat? u didn't shoot in RAW?

that will halve the value of this piece

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by ellery

I think you are all missing the picture here.

Actually, Ellery, this thread was spawned from a discussion Ian and myself had, and from his original thread... think about potential reasons why this thread might have started and you'll probably figure out what we're on about....

But yes I definitely agree with your points about pride and "trophies". Agree that's why the fine arts market goes around. But like I said, the main reason this thread was started is otherwise!

Good to see you around and contributing... how're things going?

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[erwinx]

To summarise your argument (I still wait for Jed )

Mondrian's work is not rubbish:
(1) even though it is easy to copy in photoshop
(2) even though the effort he put in cannot be discernibly said to be greater than Klein's effort (if i assume Klein took several days to mix the paint)


Mondrian's work is not rubbish BECAUSE:
(1) It has 'harmony' and balance between the colours, thickness of the lines.

There are 2 implications of this argument:
(1)(a) An argument from objective complexity. Klein's work is too simple. It is only 1 colour Therefore it is rubbish.

(1)(b) An argument from subjectivity. Mondrian's work is appealing. Klein's work is not.

If its an argument from subjectivity, what prevents a blue blob from being aesthetically appealing? Is it not subjective? After all, it may be shade of blue not seen before, and it may have a certain texture.

To illustrate my point, Anne Sophie Mutter's (http://www.anne-sophie-mutter.de/eindex.htm) (I have tickets to watch her perform in April.. Yay!) favourite artist is Gotthard Graubner (she even mentions him in an album liner) If anyone has taste (subjectively), it should be her. Yet one of his most famous artworks is a yellow wall.

Take a look at :http://www.lbb.bw.schule.de/~kalisch/musonline/kunsthalle/graubner/

So your argument has to be from objective standards. i.e. that a colour 1 artwork cannot be art (even say if it has texture, and it may not be monochromatic in the sense that an artist usually cannot lay paint in the same thickness throughout the canvas so there may be differing opacities [easy to do in photoshop as well]). The question is... why not? Because it fails to provoke an emotional response? That brings you back to subjectivity.

Originally posted by ckiang


Right. So, if I am famous enough, I can even leave an unpainted canvas as it is and title it "purity" for example, assuming I pick and choose from all the available canvases and pick one which I think is the purest?

Mondrian's work has colour and harmony, balance between the colours, the thickness of the lines, etc. But the blue thing is just a shade of blue. Unless of course you go by Red Dawn's witty analysis of that piece.

We might just as well call Kodak 18% gray cards art. Coz that exact reflectivity isn't that easy to obtain.

Regards
CK

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


wat? u didn't shoot in RAW?

that will halve the value of this piece

No it won't, it will double it. Remember the RAW is like a digital negative... and by not shooting in RAW, he's effectively destroyed his original, so it will be worth more. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by erwinx
The question is should whether the artistic work has an emotional impact.

Viewing such pieces, I would say yes.

And I'm still waiting for yours...

Like I said, where's this emotional impact to these pieces that you speak of? Breaking it down into bite sized chunks:

(1) Where's the emotional impact in the blue canvas?
(2) Where's the emotional impact in the lump of wood?
(3) Where's the emotional impact in the Warhol Polaroids?

You said there is, so let's see some of it. As I said, if you can find emotional impact in the unspecified Warhol Polaroids then I'd be very impressed, since I never said what's in them.

 

[erwinx]

I'm confining my argument to the blue canvas as though I don't recall seeing a Klein, I have seen Rothko's work at SFMOMA and thanks to Anne-Sophie Mutter, know about Gotthard Graubner.

I am not prepared to label Klein's work rubbish without seeing it. So my question to those who think it is rubbish when they view a scan of it. Reasons, please.

Originally posted by Jed


And I'm still waiting for yours...

Like I said, where's this emotional impact to these pieces that you speak of? Breaking it down into bite sized chunks:

(1) Where's the emotional impact in the blue canvas?
(2) Where's the emotional impact in the lump of wood?
(3) Where's the emotional impact in the Warhol Polaroids?

You said there is, so let's see some of it. As I said, if you can find emotional impact in the unspecified Warhol Polaroids then I'd be very impressed, since I never said what's in them.

 

[erwinx]

oops cross posts are flying about.

"No, see above. It's rubbish because how do you rationally quantify that as art? If you want to make your point, then rationally qualify that as art for me and the other doubters."

Since you are able to make the distinction yourself between art and rubbish, you are obviously applying some sort of criteria. What is your criteria?

I've indicated that for me, part of the criteria should be an emotional or psychological response from the viewer. We may also be proceeding from cross-purposes because i would say that most people consider Mondrian's easily photoshopped work as 'art', whereas you seem to disagree, implying that you have some other criteria.

anyway, heres a mondrian for you :

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by erwinx
I'm confining my argument to the blue canvas as though I don't recall seeing a Klein, I have seen Rothko's work at SFMOMA and thanks to Anne-Sophie Mutter, know about Gotthard Graubner.

I am not prepared to label Klein's work rubbish without seeing it. So my question to those who think it is rubbish when they view a scan of it. Reasons, please.

Don't answer my questions with more questions.

You know about Gotthard Graubner thanks to Anne-Sophie Mutter. But you haven't actually seen any of his work yet have you? So how can you say it's good without seeing it? Yet you are quite happy to label it so because Anne-Sophie Mutter says so. I know Klein's work (if it is indeed his work that is referred to) thanks to Steve Hynes as well...

Okay so you're confining yourself to the blue canvas. Very good. Well, you haven't seen it either, how come you're willing to find it has emotional impact as well then? Start looking at your own reasonings and rationale for having your views...

 

[erwinx]

I have seen the prints of Gotthard but not the originals. I wondered about the print. My experience, as indicated, has been from seeing Mark Rothko's similar work at SFMOMA. In the flesh, there is a different reaction, such that I would not discount Klein's work without seeing it in the flesh.

From what I understand, a person that labels something others call art 'rubbish' does not have to give reasons but a person who calls something art has to give a reason?

I have in fact ventured a criteria - psychological/emotional response of the viewer. Based on this criteria, if Anne Sophie Mutter views a Gotthard Grauber and has such a response and calls him her favourite artist. It qualifies.

If you disagree, then what criteria are you using to disagree? Certaintly not my criteria? If you are saying that it is 'rubbish' because you subjectively think it is rubbish. Fine. But does your opinion have universal applicability? Which I why I ask for your criteria for labelling something rubbish

Originally posted by Jed


Don't answer my questions with more questions.

You know about Gotthard Graubner thanks to Anne-Sophie Mutter. But you haven't actually seen any of his work yet have you? So how can you say it's good without seeing it? Yet you are quite happy to label it so because Anne-Sophie Mutter says so. I know Klein's work (if it is indeed his work that is referred to) thanks to Steve Hynes as well...

Okay so you're confining yourself to the blue canvas. Very good. Well, you haven't seen it either, how come you're willing to find it has emotional impact as well then? Start looking at your own reasonings and rationale for having your views...

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by erwinx
I have seen the prints of Gotthard but not the originals. I wondered about the print. My experience, as indicated, has been from seeing Mark Rothko's similar work at SFMOMA. In the flesh, there is a different reaction, such that I would not discount Klein's work without seeing it in the flesh.

Right, you make a big deal about seeing things in the flesh. You've seen Mark Rothko's work. But you haven't seen Anne Sophie Mutter's work in the flesh yet either, have you. Nor Gotthard Grauber. Please practice what you preach.

Following your trend of thought, then online photo critiques are a complete waste of time then aren't they? You haven't seen them in real life then have you? Maybe there's a pock mark on my media that makes it special, which isn't seen online?

From what I understand, a person that labels something others call art 'rubbish' does not have to give reasons but a person who calls something art has to give a reason?

No, my original post was all questions, I was asking someone to tell me where the art in them was. You said there was emotional impact (despite, as you say, doing so from only having seen it online), so I'm asking you where it is. Admittedly I said it was rubbish later, and for that I apologise... that was after all the flames had started. But let's see some justification for why you think it's good. I'm not saying it's rubbish, but things should, in this world anyway, but ordinary until proven extraordinary.

I have in fact ventured a criteria - psychological/emotional response of the viewer. Based on this criteria, if Anne Sophie Mutter views a Gotthard Grauber and has such a response and calls him her favourite artist. It qualifies.

So how did you apply this criteria to the blue canvas and claim it had emotional impact since you'd never seen it in real life either? Also, you accept Anne Sophie Mutter's views as your own? Let's say I accept Steve Hyne's views as my own since I respect him as a photorgapher as well.

If you disagree, then what criteria are you using to disagree? Certaintly not my criteria?

No but you've not shown why the blue canvas has got emotional impact like I was asking. I'm disagreeing because you have yet to show your case. Because, as I stated before, pieces aren't masterpieces until taken apart, they're ordinary until someone identifies them as special.

If you are saying that it is 'rubbish' because you subjectively think it is rubbish. Fine. But does your opinion have universal applicability? Which I why I ask for your criteria for labelling something rubbish

As above. Forget I said it's rubbish, that's a strong word after the flames started getting hot. But I'm asking for someone to show me why it's good and in the absence of that, then the assumption is that it's not good. And the question after that is, even if you do show this emotional impact of yours... does your opinion have universal applicability?

And as for your Mondrian, sorry I don't feel I can comment on it, having only seen a scan of it.

 

[erwinx]

"So how did you apply this criteria to the blue canvas and claim it had emotional impact since you'd never seen it in real life either? Also, you accept Anne Sophie Mutter's views as your own? Let's say I accept Steve Hyne's views as my own since I respect him as a photorgapher as well."

Like I've indicated in 2 seperate posts before, I have viewed similar works by Rothko and such that I am not prepared to discount the possibility that others have such a response. I think Rothko's similar works qualify as art, though they have 2 colours (sometimes even 3 or more!) which is twice as many as Klein.

But lets say, you actually see a Klein, and you think its not art. Someone else sees a Klein and says that it is art because he experiences a psychological/emotional reaction to it and declares that it is art.

In this situation A says its Art, B says its not art.

You imply in your posts that 'only one person is right'. The blue canvas is 'art' or 'not 'art'.

which brings us to:

"No but you've not shown why the blue canvas has got emotional impact like I was asking. I'm disagreeing because you have yet to show your case. Because, as I stated before, pieces aren't masterpieces until taken apart, they're ordinary until someone identifies them as special."

I suggest that the emotional reaction is a sufficient condition for declaring something art. In effect, it is a subjectivist standpoint. But it is not a purely individualistic subjectivism. In general, when enough people have similar reactions, it is recognised socially as art ("Human beings are poised between 2 domains... the personal and the social...")

The Klein going for 6.5k is suppose is implicit acceptance of the social recognition of his work as art (which starts from the basis of an initial individual psychological/emotional reaction)

On that basis, it is art.


"As above. Forget I said it's rubbish, that's a strong word after the flames started getting hot. But I'm asking for someone to show me why it's good and in the absence of that, then the assumption is that it's not good. And the question after that is, even if you do show this emotional impact of yours... does your opinion have universal applicability?"

Having discard the term 'rubbish', you're wavering between the term 'good' and 'art'.

You have made up your mind subjectively that the Klein is 'not art', 'not good' etc. Is it a requirement that I prove to every single person who thinks that the Klein is not art that it is art?

According to the criteria that I have set out, I do not need to do that.

Having said that, why do you resist telling us why you don't think the Klein is 'art'? Perhaps because the reasons are entirely subjective (and therefore no superior than those of people who think that the Klein is 'art'?) Which is why a social, contextual analysis is required - if society recognises it as art (i.e. not just 1 person, but several people having a reaction to it...)

And when I say an individual emotional reaction etc... this deals with the criticism that a person is being told it is art (the emperors new clothes phenomenon.. i require a reaction from the individual (it is not a purely social definition)

i am merely arguing for the right for others to call a blue canvas art. whether i agree it is art, is something that has to be decided by viewing the canvas.

over to you

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by erwinx
I suggest that the emotional reaction is a sufficient condition for declaring something art.

Yes it is but as I said, you've not shown why there is an emotional response in this piece. You said there was (without having seen it except a scan of it). Why do you say there is an emotional response? I agree that an emotional reaction is sufficient to establish art; that was never in contention.

over to you

I've not read most of the rest of that last post of yours... and I'm not intending to. I've said my piece, and this is going nowhere... so good luck to you and to me...

As the story goes... let's all live happily ever after.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by erwinx
"I suggest that the emotional reaction is a sufficient condition for declaring something art. In effect, it is a subjectivist standpoint. But it is not a purely individualistic subjectivism. In general, when enough people have similar reactions, it is recognised socially as art ("Human beings are poised between 2 domains... the personal and the social...")

Here we go, oh what fun this will be.

erwinx, firstly let's define art, by it's correct definition if you please!

I quote from Cambridge International Dictionary of English;

art: noun 
the making of what is expressive or beautiful, or things that are considered to be expressive or beautiful

Supplimental defiitions:

Art is sometimes used to refer particularly to painting, drawing and sculpture.

Art can also be used to refer to paintings, drawings and sculptures.

An art is an activity through which people express particular ideas.

An art is also a skill or special ability.

end of definition

Now you have stated above that if enough people recognise something as art then it is art, so how many people need to recognise it as art? Bearning in mind that there are some 6 billion people on this planet I'd suggest that in a social context if 3-4% of the worlds population recognise a work as having met the above definitions then it qualifies as art.

Now 3% of the worlds population is 180 million people unless my mathematical skills have deserted me. I doubt if 180 million people would call a piece of blue painted canvass a work of art, in fact I doubt if 3 million people would call it a work of art. Most would call it a piece of painted canvass and nothing less or more and hundreds of of millions would more than likely call it a waste of space if it was hanging in a gallery. Moreover, those people would laugh at any person stupid enough to shell out thousands of dollars for it.

Originally posted by erwinx
"The Klein going for 6.5k is suppose is implicit acceptance of the social recognition of his work as art (which starts from the basis of an initial individual sychological/emotional reaction)

On that basis, it is art."

A cynic like me would say that this is a classic example of a con job, where by the alleged artist places a large price tag on a work or dubious worth after more than likely producing some cock and bull story about it's hidden psychological and angst ridden meaning, a story which will thoroughly appeal to the artsty-fartsy set who sadly infest the arts world.

Originally posted by erwinx
"Having said that, why do you resist telling us why you don't think the Klein is 'art'? Perhaps because the reasons are entirely subjective (and therefore no superior than those of people who think that the Klein is 'art'?) Which is why a social, contextual analysis is required - if society recognises it as art (i.e. not just 1 person, but several people having a reaction to it...)"

Interesting but untennable concept when occams razor is applied.

Society as a whole knows what it likes and despite the 'education' and rhetoric of art critics, artists and the artsy-fartsy set about what is good and great in a given style of art society as a whole shows its contempt for such art as it doesn't like by not attending exhibitions of such work, a fact that is demonstrated by the poor attendance by the general public at most artists exhibitons.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all on the reasons for the follwing facts.

1) The most popular exhibitions in terms of attendance are of traditional 'grand master' type paintings and sculptures from the likes of Rembrant, Reubens, Van Dyke, Turner, Constable, Rodin and Monet, as well as the classical greek, roman, chinese and eqyptian art exhibitions.

2) The popular vote (where held) in the major portraiture compettions is almost always heavily in favour of a work in a "classic" painting style, despite the fact that the art panel usually pick something that is not to the public's liking.

3) Why the modern arts community (painting, sculpture and installation art)) is so far out of touch with what people appreciate and enjoy?

On a final note, the emotional response to a piece of art is indeed a personal reaction, however a good con artist knows that the way to sway a gullible mind is with a good story. Ever notice how these days the story behind a work is of paramount importance, which is something that a Rembrant or Turner doesn't require as the piece speaks for itself. Could this reliance on the spiel be because many of todays modern artists are nothing more than bullsh*t artists masquerading their trite crud as true art.

Have a nice day.

 

[erwinx]

"Society as a whole knows what it likes and despite the 'education' and rhetoric of art critics, artists and the artsy-fartsy set about what is good and great in a given style of art society as a whole shows its contempt for such art as it doesn't like by not attending exhibitions of such work, a fact that is demonstrated by the poor attendance by the general public at most artists exhibitons."

The question is 'whose society'. Similarly for the definition - whose definition of 'beauty'? Attendance at Western European Monet exhibition is probably higher than attendance at exhibitions of say traditional African tribal art, or traditional chinese art. Art is popularity?

As such, the dictionary definition implies but does not make clear that Art is in essence, a social construct. Like your examples seem to imply, the opinion of the masses count (as representatives of what you assume to be a homogenous society - since you have boldly proclaimed 'society knows')

The question is, how many people does it take to feel that a piece of artwork is art before it is 'art'? You seem to imply a fairly large amount, I am implying a smaller amount. Are we actually disagreeing in principle? It may well be that if theres a larger amount, then it suggests that this artwork is more popular and 'better'. So if there are fewer people, then perhaps its more questionable, or maybe its just 'not as good' 'art'. But is there a point in calling it 'not art'? Why not just say, I don't like this piece of 'art'?

But as long as there is a number of people who genuinely believe (i.e. not a case of emperor's new clothes), that it is art (in the sense that they experience some sort of psychological/emotional reaction - perhaps akin to what one refers to as 'considering something aesthetically pleasing), is it legitmate to deny that it is not art? Isn't this the slippery slope to cultural imperialism?

The assumption that seems to be implied in the argument is that a blue canvas 'CANNOT' be art. So all those people who think that it is are fooled. It is not possible that they can perceive the blue canvas as aesthetically pleasing. If that is so, then there must be objective criteria for determine what can or cannot amount to art. And perhaps explain why Mondrian's work is art but Klein's is not. Somehow, I think we're going to make a circle back to 'society's reaction'.

If you are upset at the high prices such artwork go at. I feel the same. I think the prices are silly. But Its more useful to engage with people who disagree on the basis that you think its not a good piece of art/overpriced etc as opposed to 'not art'.


[supplemental - not important to above]
I'm not a art historian, but would examples of artists whose artwork were not popular during his time, but are suddenly acclaimed by contemporary society as 'art' now, be a further counterexample to the assumption that there is an unchanging, homogenous 'society' that knows best? Or to turn it around, if you transported Monet's impressionistic paintings (especially the London in Fog series) back before Monet's time to a point where realism was king, wouldn't society say that Monet's work is not art?

 

[StreetShooter]

Good grief!

All this serious talk of art and emotional response. I'm sure there have been billions of (vain) words on this subject.

Let's face it. The ones who can afford to pay oodles for art most probably can't appreciate it. They're buying into a lifestyle, an image, prestige, whatever.

To quote Roald Dahl, in his short story, "Taste":

"Mike Schofield was an amiable, middle aged man. But he was a stockbroker. To be precise, he was a jobber in the stock market, and like a number of his kind, he seemed to be somewhat embarrassed, almost ashamed to find that he had made so much money with so slight a talent. In his heart he knew that he was not really much more than a bookmaker - and he knew that his friends knew it, too. So he was seeking now to become a man of culture, to cultivate a literary and aesthetic taste, to collect paintings, music, books and all the rest of it. His little sermon about Rhine wine and Moselle was a part of this thing, this culture that he sought."

Emotional response, like taste, varies from individual to individual, depending on life experiences, etc. Show any Singaporean male an army uniform, and see if there is an emotional response. The emotional response of a Malaysian will be different.

Take this picture (a deliberate example of bad photography):

It still evokes an emotional response from me because that is my son. I find it expressive and beautiful. To me, then, it is art (if art is to be defined that way). To the rest of the world it's a crappy picture.

'nuff said.

 

[ckiang]

Hi,

My point is exactly the same as Jed's - if I, or him, or you for that matter, took 10 days to mix a shade of blue, then painted a piece of canvas in that colour, it's probably worth as much as mounting board or construction paper. Why should Klein's blue canvas be worth that much?

Regards
CK

Originally posted by erwinx
To summarise your argument (I still wait for Jed )

Mondrian's work is not rubbish:
(1) even though it is easy to copy in photoshop
(2) even though the effort he put in cannot be discernibly said to be greater than Klein's effort (if i assume Klein took several days to mix the paint)


Mondrian's work is not rubbish BECAUSE:
(1) It has 'harmony' and balance between the colours, thickness of the lines.

There are 2 implications of this argument:
(1)(a) An argument from objective complexity. Klein's work is too simple. It is only 1 colour Therefore it is rubbish.

(1)(b) An argument from subjectivity. Mondrian's work is appealing. Klein's work is not.

If its an argument from subjectivity, what prevents a blue blob from being aesthetically appealing? Is it not subjective? After all, it may be shade of blue not seen before, and it may have a certain texture.

To illustrate my point, Anne Sophie Mutter's (http://www.anne-sophie-mutter.de/eindex.htm) (I have tickets to watch her perform in April.. Yay!) favourite artist is Gotthard Graubner (she even mentions him in an album liner) If anyone has taste (subjectively), it should be her. Yet one of his most famous artworks is a yellow wall.

Take a look at :http://www.lbb.bw.schule.de/~kalisch/musonline/kunsthalle/graubner/

So your argument has to be from objective standards. i.e. that a colour 1 artwork cannot be art (even say if it has texture, and it may not be monochromatic in the sense that an artist usually cannot lay paint in the same thickness throughout the canvas so there may be differing opacities [easy to do in photoshop as well]). The question is... why not? Because it fails to provoke an emotional response? That brings you back to subjectivity.