Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata

[apropos]

Journeyman, if I may:

You kind of have answered your own questions. But have also conflated liking and appreciating - you can instinctively like something, but you need to work on understanding to appreciate something. Different beasts. IMO.

To parse your analogy - you certainly can enjoy wine as an accompaniment to a meal. Or you can understand the wine better - understand the choices that went into its making, and leave with a little more knowledge. Hell, you could dislike the wine but still understand it - but at least then your disgreement is now an informed one.

To take this topic off on a slight tangent, I think that extends to why most people are lukewarm to contemporary art. They never get past the "instinctively liking" stage to the message that follows.

 

[double00]

impulse is as fine a starting point of inquiry as any, and far more preferable to dogma imo. in fact i believe culturally we're at a tipping point where shared meaning has gone out the window and we will be wallowing in uncertainty until some viable consensus emerges. i think it's pretty healthy but who knows how long the process will take or what it will look like (until the next cultural panic anyways). so these rules are not very useful any longer. you can see it anywhere you choose to look.

it's funny but i get the sense that some feel that *good* art is an end unto itself - and it's simply not. it's a dismal, oddly lazy, oddly conspicuous pursuit to foreclose dialogical possibilities by fiat.

 

[Bounder]

I strongly object to buying art for purposes of decorating a space. Dictionary definition of bad taste.

No, you don't. Or if you do, your definition of "art" is incredibly idiosyncratic. To take one example, Persian carpets are art by anyone's definition. Silk ones are often treated as tapestries rather than carpets. But there's nothing even vaguely wrong about matching a new Persian carpet to your existing decor. Having said that, it's also common to use such a carpet -- especially one you've already got -- as a centerpiece that you build the rest of your decor around. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Better to learn about art and figure out what you like. Then, if you do buy something, your furniture/objects should be made to suit the art, not the other way around. We changed the upholstery for our sofa based on the art we put it under.

I think you are taking "art" much too seriously. As for myself, I think art -- as opposed to decoration -- should be primarily a conversation piece. Consequently, and within broad limits, I pay very little attention to how it goes with the rest of the decor. It also means that I like to change it up. For example, here is a picture of one of my favorite pieces. God knows, it goes with absolutely nothing, anywhere.

Funny, because people who say things like that tend to like ****** art.

I'm sure you've heard the old joke about modern art. Everybody agrees that 99% of modern art is crap. But nobody can agree which 99%.

You don't reupholster your furniture every time you change art? Do you at least change rugs, tables and paint?

lefty

That's the real reason you were so mad at your wife for opening that crate, isn't it?

 

[lefty]

The art has grown on me. It really sets off the sofa's eyes.

The chairs have been banished to the cabin until such time as they can be auctioned off.

lefty

 

[ethanm]

To take this topic off on a slight tangent, I think that extends to why most people are lukewarm to contemporary art. They never get past the "instinctively liking" stage to the message that follows.

Most people are lukewarm on contemporary art because so much of it is garbage with dipshits telling other people 'you just don't get it'. Like Barnett Newman... that's not art that's pure fuckery and nonsense. Also, Rothko is a scam and I don't give a **** about the dread he felt at seeing his paintings used as decoration. You painted ******* rectangles guy it's not that profound.

 

[TheFoo]

No, you don't. Or if you do, your definition of "art" is incredibly idiosyncratic. To take one example, Persian carpets are art by anyone's definition. Silk ones are often treated as tapestries rather than carpets. But there's nothing even vaguely wrong about matching a new Persian carpet to your existing decor. Having said that, it's also common to use such a carpet -- especially one you've already got -- as a centerpiece that you build the rest of your decor around. Nothing wrong with that, either.

No, I don't consider Persian rugs to be art. As beautiful and finely crafted as they can be, they are meant to be used and walked on. They serve a practical function. "Art," if the term is to mean anything, does not. That is hardly an idiosyncratic view.

One can dismiss the distinction between pretty objects and art if he likes, but it's his own life that would be poorer for it.

I think you are taking "art" much too seriously. As for myself, I think art -- as opposed to decoration -- should be primarily a conversation piece. Consequently, and within broad limits, I pay very little attention to how it goes with the rest of the decor.

A "conversation piece" can be any peculiar or exceptional thing. It could be an old typewriter or a fancy car or a kitchen gadget. That is a low bar for qualification as art.

It doesn't matter to me if the art we hang starts any conversations. It improves my life by visually provoking thought. If others get some satisfaction out of it, great. But really, I couldn't care less.

I'm sure you've heard the old joke about modern art. Everybody agrees that 99% of modern art is crap. But nobody can agree which 99%.

Ninety-nine percent of everything is crap. Not just modern art, but art in general. Also food, movies, architecture, books, etc. That's why it pays to learn and refine one's own taste--i.e. to take things seriously. Life is so much more enjoyable when you can distinguish between the rare good and the common bad than when you can't tell the difference.

Most people are lukewarm on contemporary art because so much of it is garbage with dipshits telling other people 'you just don't get it'. Like Barnett Newman... that's not art that's pure fuckery and nonsense. Also, Rothko is a scam and I don't give a **** about the dread he felt at seeing his paintings used as decoration. You painted ******* rectangles guy it's not that profound.

Right on! Stupid fancy people with all their fancy good-for-nothin' book-learnin' . . .

 

[TheFoo]

@mafoofan Curious: what's the sideboard/credenza/whatever you call it beneath the TV? I've been on the hunt for something low and long like that.

It's the Magic Box, designed by Pierre Lissoni for Glas Italia. It is 100% glass. Be forewarned: it weighs a ton. Took four giant dudes to move it into place, and they were barely able.

However, while I understand that studying/considering art before purchase may help you to appreciate the artist and his/her motivations more and so on, I still think that there is nothing wrong with buying something simply because you like it, simply because it speaks to you.

At the end of the day, we each have to make our own decisions about what we enjoy and what enriches our lives. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am simply suggesting that learning about things and refining our understanding of them can only make such choices more rewarding.

You mentioned winemakers and, to me, wine can be similar. If you're at a restaurant and someone brings along a bottle and you like it, is it necessary for you to research the wine or the vintner in order to "properly" enjoy the wine? Isn't it enough to simply enjoy the way it tastes and the way it pairs with the food? You can enjoy that without knowing anything about the actual wine itself, or where it was from or how it was made.

Last Christmas, my father brought out a bottle of 1997 Montrachet Romanee-Conti. Some say it is the greatest white wine in existence, but inarguably it is at least legendary, and certainly a privilege to drink. I enjoy wine but I don't know it and love it like my dad, who's spent many decades refining his taste in it. Needless to say, the wine was delicious. As my siblings and I were talking about it, he reminded: "You don't judge a wine like this. You savor its memory so you know how to judge other wines."

The problem with the view you're expressing is that it undermines the possibility that taste and understanding require development to truly appreciate an experience. So many people here want to believe they are "naturally" able to intuit what is good from what is bad. I'm the one being called a snob in this discussion, but that conceit is profoundly arrogant.

 

[Mujib]

I know, was curious if you did. I've never seen Muslim calligraphy in a non Muslim household. Would be very strange in the Middle East.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm Muslim.

You read Arabic?

 

[Mujib]

No, I don't consider Persian rugs to be art. As beautiful and finely crafted as they can be, they are meant to be used and walked on. They serve a practical function. "Art," if the term is to mean anything, does not. That is hardly an idiosyncratic view.

You're saying that nothing that serves a practical function can be considered art? Whose intention must be considered in designating the purpose? The maker, the consumer, the public? If I purchase a painting and use it to cover a hole in my wall, does it cease to be art? Or do you suggest that it's not possible that the rug maker can "put into" a rug what a painter can "put into" a painting?

If "beautiful and finely crafted" mean something else when it comes to rugs, and those qualities are definitive, then some of those primitively decorated and crudely crafted rugs posted here should automatically be disqualified. And if you respond that "beautiful" does not have to mean symmetrical and vibrant, then you are arguing for the rug as a work of art.

Right on! Stupid fancy people with all their fancy good-for-nothin' book-learnin' . . .

Book-learnin' is not a requirement for appreciating art. Nor is art that obscures itself under layers and layers of book-learnin' necessarily better art. It might force one to gain more information about the life of a particular artist, but it doesn't necessarily make the art better art, nor does it make the artist or the consumer more intelligent.

 

[apropos]

Book-learnin' is not a requirement for appreciating art. Nor is art that obscures itself under layers and layers of book-learnin' necessarily better art. It might force one to gain more information about the life of a particular artist, but it doesn't necessarily make the art better art, nor does it make the artist or the consumer more intelligent.

I think this is a strawman argument.

It certainly is not required to appreciate art, but it can (and will) enhance the appreciation of art.

It certainly doesn't make one more "intelligent" in the typically received sense, but literally it will make one more intelligent.

Anyway, certainly that's preferable to the defiantly ignorant sentiment expressed above by ethanm.

 

[ethanm]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm Muslim.

You read Arabic?

Aha! Yes, I speak and read. Now I'm realizing I should have none from your name

 

[TheFoo]

You're saying that nothing that serves a practical function can be considered art? Whose intention must be considered in designating the purpose? The maker, the consumer, the public? If I purchase a painting and use it to cover a hole in my wall, does it cease to be art? Or do you suggest that it's not possible that the rug maker can "put into" a rug what a painter can "put into" a painting?

At its best, art expresses stirring, even disruptive, ideas. New ideas are often responses to other ideas. Unless you invest time, effort, and intellect into understanding and studying art, these ideas are more likely to go right past you. Refusing to distinguish art from craft/design is even worse--it's self-imposed ignorance that denies any such ideas could be there to begin with.

Questions around "what is art?", such as you've posed, are important to think about. But the difficulty coming up with clear answers doesn't mean there aren't any worth exploring.

If "beautiful and finely crafted" mean something else when it comes to rugs, and those qualities are definitive, then some of those primitively decorated and crudely crafted rugs posted here should automatically be disqualified. And if you respond that "beautiful" does not have to mean symmetrical and vibrant, then you are arguing for the rug as a work of art.

I didn't say beauty and craftsmanship "mean something else" when it comes to art versus rugs. I am saying that art is not purely about beauty and craftsmanship. See above.

Book-learnin' is not a requirement for appreciating art. Nor is art that obscures itself under layers and layers of book-learnin' necessarily better art. It might force one to gain more information about the life of a particular artist, but it doesn't necessarily make the art better art, nor does it make the artist or the consumer more intelligent.

This sort of view strikes me as shockingly and willfully anti-intellectual.

Show me a genius who doesn't study and absorb himself in the ideas of others. Of course study doesn't make art better or worse. The art is what it is. It's the student who changes and can see more than he could before.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that people, through blunt intuition, can be equally sharp and refined in taste without the benefit of education and intellectual investment. Not sure how one can honestly believe such a thing, as comforting as it can be to believe.

 

[otc]

You probably just assumed he was a fan of Muji

 

[js4design]

Most people are lukewarm on contemporary art because so much of it is garbage with dipshits telling other people 'you just don't get it'. Like Barnett Newman... that's not art that's pure fuckery and nonsense. Also, Rothko is a scam and I don't give a **** about the dread he felt at seeing his paintings used as decoration. You painted ******* rectangles guy it's not that profound.

Visiting the Rothko Chapel in Houston gave me a greater appreciation for his work. The filtered light through the baffled skylight and the way it changes the light quality as clouds pass overhead reveals the depth of the painting, transforming them from black rectangles into deep varied hues that seem to come alive. If you're ever in the area I'd check it out.

 

[double00]

This sort of view strikes me as shockingly and willfully anti-intellectual.

Show me a genius who doesn't study and absorb himself in the ideas of others. Of course study doesn't make art better or worse. The art is what it is. It's the student who changes and can see more than he could before.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that people, through blunt intuition, can be equally sharp and refined in taste without the benefit of education and intellectual investment. Not sure how one can honestly believe such a thing, as comforting as it can be to believe.

well it's entirely possible that insisting on an intellectual reading pre-empts visceral or ecstatic experience. those levels of understanding (and they do exist and even have value!) are no more or less sharp or refined than the lettered docent - but it is certainly harder to communicate since that reading really doesn't rely on reducing a physical object to text. (and i'd guess it is thus harder to impress one's guests... )