What is art? (Part 2) the time I read a little about the art history of the 19th Century.
So again (part 1 you'll find here ) something fundamental to my art views, which conflict with today's prevailing standard views completely.
What is art? The only test is whether something is considered art, is the broadcasting of the work ability.
can, in my view a purely technical issue.
If a work can be copied to a similar quality of an amateur painter with the same tools, it's not art.
Adolf Holzel - Adoration (1912) oil on canvas (85 × 67 cm) Simple, is too simple for many, but this is for me the only true test calibration. Therefore, in general object of art or abstract art not art. Decorative or pleasing perhaps, but not art. Such matters have not lost in a museum and are usually simple and just plain amateurish garbage.
Kasimir Malevich - Supremus No.. 58 (1916) As an example, two recent award of prizes were presented. First, the Kassel Art Prize 2009
(one could blindly choose almost any other art prize in Germany, but Kassel is due to its documenta exhibition, the Queen of the art show without art, a seductive city for this purpose) and secondly the ARC talent competition 2009
. Three times may be advised to those who have something to do with art and who does not like the state of the art in the respective countries ...
What if I do not know how the work was created? 
Carl Friedrich Lessing - returning home Crusaders (1835) corporate oil on canvas (66 x 64 cm) Let's say it hangs in a museum is an expressive, artistic drawing, which obviously differs from the trials of a layman. It is a work of art that deserves its place there.
-
Now suppose that the copier devices generate results of later generations, can no longer drawing and painting different from the original works. It is now known that the drawing is a hard copy at the museum and do not as previously thought, a man-made craft. Then got the picture, which was until recently regarded as great art, lost its value. Natural and trivial.
-
Another simplified case. The original is a masterpiece in the museum related drawings, however, with projection and simple tracing created copy (which is high quality with real drawings, since they have more to offer than just outlines, of course, is not possible), then this may result just as beautiful as the role model, but has lost its artistic value.
-
sculptures can now be produced by computer-controlled manufacturing to perfection. If an identical image has been created by man, it's art. The same factory machine-made, its artistic value, however, completely lost.
But the technical can not be everything? From the perspective of whether it is art or not, already!
This is no hierarchy meant in the way: the more perfect the work, the more elaborate it is.
Carl Friedrich Lessing
or Anton von Werner
are two of my favorite painters. Both are known for their perfect implementation. But John William Waterhouse
, often imagines sections of his paintings less fine (not just on the painting shown below, this is one of my favorite paintings and I just had to show ...), is one of my favorites.
John William Waterhouse - The Lady of Shallot (1888) Francis of Lenbach puts his whole weight picturesque often only the eyes of the sitter, everything else is blurred, painted indicated. Is it therefore an inferior artist? No, he is a master of the brush and his portraits is a fascinating exercise, which is missing many classically perfect, but stiff portraits.
Francis of Lenbach - Clara Schumann (1878-79) pastel What is the content of the of the image, the intention of the artist? The content plays as a criterion of whether something can be considered art is irrelevant. Will not deny that subjective appeals to a theme more or better implemented than the other. Large and small art differs in the subject, composition and successful implementation. Of course. But concerning the distinction between art and non art, and that's what this report does it not matter.
By the middle of the 19th Century it was taken for granted that a work of art must have meaning. Bible stories, ancient legends and contemporary history were the most viewed topics.
gave primacy to fight against that content, there are several movements, different than the other. Thus came
L'art pour l'art or
Ästhetizimusbewegung
in the 19th Century (a typical representative Albert Joseph Moore
, whose paintings, mythological or without reasonable heavy 'ballast', beautiful women show in robes), whose painting 'only' should work fine. Literary and historical knowledge was not relevant for the full enjoyment of the image from.
Albert Joseph Moore - Midsummer (1887) A similar goal (among others) also had the Impressionism, the first impression (this phrase can be disputed nice) to hold, would have. Or the realism
who has raised the daily grind on the throne of the depicted.
you all had in common that they extended the range of content.
But how far the spectrum is, of course, there are always directions, like the one more than others. I look with enthusiasm historical paintings of the academic painters of the 19th Century. Their paintings are often full of details, interesting places and people alive. As descriptive painting by Anton von Werner's historical events 19th Century. Faster and better insight and a feel for this time you can hardly win. If the whole is implemented on a high technical level, this is great art and not, as now claimed, a simple time history without artistic value.
Anton von Werner - Kaiser Friedrich as Crown Prince at the Court Ball (1878) oil on canvas (118 x 95 cm) 
Paul Cezanne - Still life with open drawer observed (1877-1879) oil on canvas (33 x 41 cm) way: The lack of depth of the Impressionism Painting led before the outbreak of World War II to an abated Impressionist hype, in the years before was often the only salvation art direction considered. It was now the senseless sensual paintings tired and wanted to see meaningful message and content. My problem would not have been, my criticism of the classical impressionism is purely formal in nature, that half-baked studies are praised as finished pictures. This is often for the long-running Pissarro, Sisley , Monet and Co.,
Alfred Sisley - The Seine at Bougival (1876) oil on canvas (45 x 61 cm) but less severe for the caliber of academic Impressionism (Krøyer , Sorolla, Boldini and Co), but unfortunately not nearly so well known.
Giovanni Boldini - Landstrase in Combes-la-Ville (1873) oil on canvas (69 x 101 cm) Who is scratching at the surface gets, do not know the contents, or? true already. But that this content is subject to the zeitgeist and personal taste as a criterion for art and has nothing lost. The content is the broad spectrum, which separates the interesting and high quality from the less interesting and inferior. BUT. What I like, like you far.
-
A portrait, which has for a draft and shows the character of the person is, for others just a face. could
-
A landscape lies for the one full of poetry, for others there are just a few trees that tolerate a bit more color.
- The Silesian Weavers by Carl Wilhelm Hübner
provided in his time for social-critical sensation, would now be such a representation can not pulsate more social vein.
Carl Wilhelm Hübner: The Silesian Weavers (1844) oil on canvas - 119 x 158 cm
-
and so on and so forth ...
boundary 
Peder Kroyer Sverin - Hipp, Hipp, Hurra (1884-1888) oil on canvas (134.5 x165, 5 cm) This kind of art appreciation is not established hierarchy, but drew a line. A technical frontier. And above this limit will remain a large part of the estimated scrap art of our time are because of their intake is denied because of their amateurish quality.
Umberto Boccioni - The City rises (1910) (200 x 301 cm) Or, as a wise doorman once said
You come here ned purely
There
