Facts and Opinions

rutledge

Yes, I know how this title may sound, but please know that I’m not trying to stir up anything. I’m just going to try and provide some context to help clear up a couple of issues for some who may have questions about what is artistic “fact” and what is subjective opinion about art. I’ve placed this topic in the “Students” section on this forum, as one has to really be interested in this sort of thing or it falls flat and serves no purpose.

We first have to understand that all artistry is based on a few simple formulae. These are the fundamentals of balance, proportion and composition that apply to all arts; visual, aural, static, dynamic, 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional, etc… These fundamentals are based not on arbitrary ideas, but on basic human psychology, perception and understanding.

Some of these fundamentals are constant – having a basis in ordinary human traits. Others are transient or ephemeral – based on specific cultures, environments, contemporary trends, or even vary with the specific elements involved in the work of art.

Some, when trying to discuss these fundamental conventions, refer to them as “rules.” This is a mistake, as rules are arbitrary and set down after a consensus of choice. Artistic fundamentals are not arbitrary, but rather more closely akin to natural law. We do not obey these laws of perception and understanding because we choose to, but because it is natural for us to.

Certain specific artistic formulae, artistic fundamentals, are what can be called artistic fact. They’re constant and inescapable, either because of our humanness or because of certain situational considerations in specific cases. They define what is most communicative and what constitutes the best sort of composition to facilitate artistic communication.

But while these fundamentals define the basis for artistic composition, they do not define the fullness of artistry. Dozens or perhaps thousands of individual choices above and beyond fundamentals go into producing a work of art. These choices cannot be governed by “facts” or laws, but rather are what set one artist apart from another. But by the same token any work that is fundamentally unsound because it ignores the basis of artistic composition will be deficient or simply fail no matter the flair and creativity otherwise involved.

And this issue is likely the most common point of contention among those not fully acquainted with fundamental artistry. Flair and creativity is often not difficult to recognize. Elements that make this work of art different from that work of art are easy to perceive. Such differences can make an impression – a surface impression – that scores high opinion points among many viewers/listeners. But the thing to keep in mind is how the work functions at its base; how fundamentally sound it is.

As I said before, some fundamentals are transient and ephemeral. They change according to certain factors determined by the specifics of the work. Often, the creativity and flair in the work will have appropriately compensated for divergences from fundamentals – yes, divergence is possible. This is, in fact, quite essential in artistry. There must be variation and creativity, or all art would be too similar and quite boring.

Sometimes, but not always, it takes a significant grasp of fundamental artistry to recognize just how well a work has accomplished the task of being clever or innovative when toying with fundamentals. Sometimes the level of success is obvious, but usually there are varying opinions about artistic success in these cases. Artists can tell if it is the fundamentals or the creativity that is most responsible for the varying opinions. Laymen will usually focus only on the flair and creativity. Thus arises artistic debate that involves some citing artistic fact and others citing opinion as the chief issue of contention.

This sort of debate is usually irreconcilable and the only remedy is for all involved to have similar levels of artistic understanding. Since this is not likely to happen in forums like this, we’re left where we are. Some say the only thing to do is to ensure that there is discussion segregation, where artists discuss artistry and non-artist enthusiasts discuss other matters. My guess is that we’re going to continue to have irreconcilable debase on bonsai artistry. But I hope that those not well acquainted with art’s fundamentals can give some benefit of the doubt when an artist starts citing things like “facts” and “laws.” ;-) When in doubt, asking a question is far more productive than leveling an accusation.

Kind regards,
Andy

Advertisement

Will_Heath

Well written Andy, I linked to it from another thread, I hope you do not mind.

Thanks for the clear concise explanation.



Will

zube

I think that a key concept, and one that very many people either do not realize, or worse yet, want to ignore, is that "Artistic fundamentals are not arbitrary,".
Great post,
zube

__________________
Sorry doesn't put thumbs back on the hand, Marge.
H. Simpson

bonsaikc

Well said, Andy, and glad you are back!

__________________
Chris Johnston
"She was a critic, and lots fo critics who aren't called to do what they write about grow jealous and mean and small in their disappointment." - Stephen King, Duma Key
Sashi-no-eda.blogspot.com

TreeBay

I'm having difficulty with the use of "conventions" and "fundamentals" above

Conventions - are something I see that is based more on established practice than natural law. Consider paintings for instance. 99.99% of them are rectangular, flat and single sided. Until recently most of them were framed and hung on the wall. Those are conventions, but not always so. The first paintings were probably on animal hides; the longest surviving ones, as murals on cave walls, etc.

Now we see modern paintings that are more frequently unframed, sometimes painted on things that are not flat, or not rectangular. So that to me seems to be based on exploring conventions and has very little to do with artistic fundamentals.

We might wonder why paintings tend to be nearly always rectangular - if it's based on golden means or something: We have other forms like circles and triangles that are artistically "perfect" forms, yet these are rarely, if ever seen, as the shapes of paintings**. I think it may go back to another "convention" - that of a window, a shape we are very familiar and comfortable with. Conventions for creation and display of paintings support the presentation of a painting as a window into another world. When the painting is not rectangular, it bucks this convention and becomes less effective. Just a stab at an explanation, really, but the point is I see a profound difference between convention and fundamental

Some Painting conventions
-flat
-single sided
-rectangular

Some Painting display conventions
-framed
-displayed indoors
-hung on the wall
-hung parallel to the floor
-hung just below eye level

I believe the above illustrates some conventions that have little to do with fundamentals.

Regards,

Matt

**Just thought of Tibetan sand paintings or Mandala, which are round, and not displayed on the wall, by virtue of their construction!

__________________

Want to be a seller on bonsaiAUCTIONS? Get authorized today!

bonsaiTALK: Over 100,005.36 Megabytes Served this Month!

rutledge

Matt,

Surely you can understand that it can be conventional to hold with fundamentals. Not holding with fundamentals is outside of sound artiststic convention - for reasons that relate to artistic success. Not so hard to fathom is it?

Kind regards,
Andy

BrianBay9

I hope that I, too, can comment here without stirring things up. I have avoided quoting you in total to try to focus on a few points. I hope I have not altered your message by selective quotes.

Part of the misunderstanding between a trained artist and untrained people like me, may be simply the definition of the word "fact" (I know, it sounds like I'm off on a language thread again...). You've spoken of "artistic facts", and I must admit I wasn't aware that there might be different kinds of facts. I work off of a dictionary definition of "fact" as: something that is undisputably, and demonstrably true.

If we agree on that definition (and I'm not completely sure that we do), then I must ask if the fundamentals to which you refer, are also what you consider to be "artisitc facts". If so I'm having trouble understanding why some are constant and more akin to natural law, while others are ephemoral and cultural? I'm expecting that a fact (2+2 =4) is not ephemoral or cultural, but demonstrably true across cultures and throughout time. Perhaps some fundamentals are facts, and some are not?

I promise I'm making a sincere effort to understand your position, and I will not debate this point endlessly. However, I would hope that the concept of artisitc fact could be explained to a reasonably intelligent person untrained in the arts. (Of course, I may not qualify....admit it, you all were thinking it already...lol)

Brian

__________________
There's a difference between taking your art seriously, and taking yourself too seriously.

TreeBay

For me, artistic conventions as applied to bonsai might be things like using perspective to suggest distance or height, a leaf to represent a bough, or texture to suggest age, or an accent planting to suggest a particular season. This would be the language through which a design might communicate.

Artistic fundamentals on the other hand, I would see as the application of design elements (like color, texture, negative space, line, form and whatnot often applied toward the goal of of creating of balanced, unified designs. These are the formulae you mentioned. I would agree they are a result of human perception but I am not sure what they have to do with human traits, or cultural influences. Things like patterns and harmony just are - they simply exist.

I don't mean to give short shrift to the influence of culture and experience on art, but to my mind those come from the convention side, not the fundamental side.

I think really good art should communicate effectively, even to a person who is not well trained in art theory. In the same vein, I would not expect to need a degree in culinary appreciation to know whether a chef's food is yummy. The education might help me to appreciate the how and why. It would certainly add depth to the understanding, but it's really unlikely to make bad food taste good.

Regards,

Matt

__________________

Want to be a seller on bonsaiAUCTIONS? Get authorized today!

bonsaiTALK: Over 100,005.36 Megabytes Served this Month!

rutledge

Brian,

Sure, let’s stay on the (somewhat) familiar ground of 3-point bonsai display. First we can acknowledge the very concrete fact that 3 is the most powerful number in art. Three works; three most easily conveys meaning in complex composition.

In our 3-point display, we’re going to use a tree, hanging scroll and a mountain suiseki. A transient fact in our 3-point display is the fact that the tree/stand goes closest to the hanging scroll and the suiseki goes farther away. This creates an isosceles triangle. This form is the most effective and “beautiful” sort of triangle in artistry (another solid fact). Furthermore, as the suiseki is the element that has the least visual weight and sits lowest, placing it furthest from the central element helps to “ground” the composition.

In this case, the commonly seen 3-point composition is obeying artistic fact – that these elements work best in this configuration. No one decided that this was so, it is so because of natural law as it relates to human perception. Using these specific elements in a different arrangement would destroy the basis of the display’s artistry.

BUT
What if the tree in question is a meadow-growing species and the suiseki is in a suiban with sand? How about, for a more natural effect, the artist decides to place the mountain suiseki and suiban on a high stand and puts the tree on a wooden plaque resting on the display floor. This changes things and the composition must change accordingly.

In this case, the suiseki/suiban/stand goes closest to the central element (the scroll) and the tree goes further away. Now, still, the tree has the most mass, but it is not the heaviest visual element because the stand lends the mountain suiseki a much higher center of gravity and it grabs the eye before the tree does. Thus, to obey the artistic facts described by the principle of the steelyard, the tree/scroll/suiseki arrangement must be altered to fit the transient facts introduced by the tree species and companion placement.

In these two cases we have examples of artistic compositional fact that seem to be contradictory. But they’re not - if we account for the transient circumstances involved. Note also that there could be many more important factors brought to bear by the subject of the scroll image, the size of the tree, the configuration of the pot, the type of stands used, the source of the light into the composition, the style of tree used, …and the list goes on and on.

But fundamentals of artistry determine the basis of the playing field. The players on the field shape the choices for which facts are relevant. Some facts are always relevant (triangular composition), but others are made relevant by the specific circumstances.

I hope this was to too convoluted and helped to shed more light on these issues.