I think those examples would qualify as art.

They seem to have a bona-fide "style" to them -- that is to say, they have order and are portraying a mood or scene and doing it effectively.

Sure, I agree with you, but those paintings in their time, where somewhat a radical depart from classical painting.  

I would contrast this, again, with the red dot on a piece of paper. That conveys absolutely nothing, unless you count "I am not an artist" as a statement.

 

I understand you have an eagerness to distance yourself from that.  What would be interesting, is to gradually move the slider of weirdness to see where each individual gets off the train and why.  Certainly we all have different tolerance level to what we consider art.  It's more instructive to test and feel where the limit is, rather then showing something we hate right off the bat, thus giving the false impression we are all in agreement.

Bold was added in an edit.

The coming of photography may have contributed to artists finding different art forms that were not so realistic, but we have to be careful with subjectivity. It is possible to become so subjective that we end up not believing in anything objective anymore.

Which is the predominant 'school', right now, modernism and post-modernism. Perhaps this idea of value judgments, of schools, was too profound to immediately grasp. I don't know. It's really not. It's the most straightforward beginning of any critique or analysis of what is called, fine art.

This school wishes to flatter themselves not in 'understanding' the piece, but in proving that their value judgments are right. Speaking of profound, that smacks of a profound insecurity. And it suggests that they learn, very little. But it does seem to be the point of a black dot on a white field. What is it, they ask? A polar bear in a snowstorm? No, it is beautiful and harmonic symbolism of evolutionism. It is Thoreau at the pond. No it is this that they 'feel', or that. Or no, it is syncretism. See the beauty and harmony, the order and disorder, how all is lovingly brought together in beauty and harmony. And off they then proceed to explain their own cult of syncretism.

One might suggest that great art is always iconic and a placeholder for a narrative. If so, that would bring one back to consideration of 'schools'. Because this school, and these narratives, are profoundly boring, self-centered and moronic. But then such a school would accuse those didactic iconic medieval images of being boring, ignorant and smug.

And that is where one, being true to their school, says one is art, the other is not, and there can be no meeting of the minds.

I think the appropriate distinction, if it must be one or 'tother, once schools are established, within a school one may speak not of professional and amateur work, though one may, but would prefer instead to consider competent art, and masterpieces. Both would still be art, fine art, and agreeable to the school. But the masterpiece would be different.

And then, identifying ones school, here it would seem to be that of a particular sort of order and effort, and not at odds with a general Catholic 'sense', one might ask - what is a masterpiece? Rodin's massive sculpture of the torments of hell? The pieta under glass? Medieval inlay of a candle box for Extreme Unction? or the sculpture of an elaborate silver altar crucifix with relic, such as shown faded in the Prayer photo in another thread?

it is nice and decent art... isn't it? :rolleyes:

Art (of all kinds) reflects the philosophy of a man.  Once philosophy went of the track (beginning with the Nominalism of Occam), it was inevitable that art should do the same.

As much modern 'philosophy' is nonsense, so is the 'art' that is the reflection thereof.

Even as I suggested:

This school wishes to flatter themselves not in 'understanding' the piece, but in proving that their value judgments are right. Speaking of profound, that smacks of a profound insecurity. And it suggests that they learn, very little. But it does seem to be the point of a black dot on a white field. What is it, they ask? A polar bear in a snowstorm? No, it is beautiful and harmonic symbolism of evolutionism. It is Thoreau at the pond. No it is this that they 'feel', or that. Or no, it is syncretism. See the beauty and harmony, the order and disorder, how all is lovingly brought together in beauty and harmony. And off they then proceed to explain their own cult of syncretism.

It's a place-filler, an icon, a symbol. It could be anything. And then I went on to discuss that, a bit. The symbol ought to have a meaning in itself, and not be simply a place-holder. And that's our agreement. Because ultimately what is symbolized matters. If the black dot means nonsense, in a thousand forms, and a thousand speeches, then even the black dot is unnecessary. The 'art' could be an empty wall, which I'm sure has been done. It can be nothing at all, and the narrative would remain unchanged. But if the symbol is of something meaningful in itself, then that symbol is necessary, as the figures in a Fra Angelico piece. But it still refers to much more.

Art (of all kinds) reflects the philosophy of a man.  Once philosophy went of the track (beginning with the Nominalism of Occam), it was inevitable that art should do the same.

As much modern 'philosophy' is nonsense, so is the 'art' that is the reflection thereof.

 Yeah... this is more or less the conclusion I came to. What does modern man seem to be doing in just about everything? Throwing off God, and everything that reminds us of God. In art, that means throwing off everything that reminds one of the creator, or of His ordered and beautiful creation.

 ^.^ Sorry to repeat myself. I guess I do that a lot. Anyhow, I think you're on the money here. It seems like at some point, either those who couldn't make decent art decided to make lesser art and try to force the world to call it equal, or else someone was proud and wanted to 'reinvent' art... art that they could do, incidentally... and make quite a name for themselves.

The very idea that we can reinvent what God has instituted, has led man to ruin on more than one plane.

However,  Art, as we know it today, was formalized by the Greeks who pretty much systematized it in the way we know it today and they did this, within the parameters of Greek Mythology.

Furthermore, art also acts as a collective memory throughout the ages. This is why we can at a glance differentiate an Egyptians mural from an Aztec sculpture etc... Cultural identity and Art are very closely related.

 If I am interested in social issues, it would do me no good to look at the present day disaster of society, and defend earlier stages of that disaster under the pretext that what came before the very first stages of it were formulated by some Greek.

 If I read your statement correctly, you're basically saying that all of that realistic, beautiful and meaningful art is "nice" ... it's "pleasant" ... it's even "good art" ... but having only "good art" like that art, while it was all right for back then, is not all right for the enlightened, all encompassing styles that came after it. That the cave drawings of ancient barbarians are equal to The Last Supper or the Pieta because the stick figure men hunting stick figure animals are also historical representations...

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Let me cite you a parallel to this that I have found VERY relevant.

I submit to your consideration that these are the very same kinds of arguments which have poisoned and (all but) destroyed the church today from within.

The modern Catholic or theologian will tell you that St. Thomas and St. Peter, and Pope Leo are very "nice". They make sense. They're even what they would call "good theology." They would call the Canonized Mass, "good" and "beautiful" and "very dignified." But hard upon the heels of their praise will follow the exact same arguments which you use to dethrone true art. "St. Thomas was a very good man. He was very pious! He meant well! His Summa Theologica is wonderful!..." >honorary swinging of the thurible here< ... "BUT! That was THEN. That was so long ago! NOW things are different! NOW we're enlightened! Now we know better than that poor, old, ancient, backwards little man, pouring over all of those cold hard facts and worrying about all of his little details! I mean, you know... he was so NICE... but ... it just doesn't cut it for today! We're so much more progressive now! We're so much more enlightened than to be bound by cold, hard things like FACTS! I mean, let's face it, facts are ugly, because they hurt people's feelings who don't want to believe in them. It's so much nicer, so much better to believe that you can just believe whatever you want, and then everybody can join in and we'll all worship God together!" >end of incense, chucking of St. Thomas into the nearest trash can<

Or again, "The old Mass was so NICE! It was so lovely! Those old Catholics... they were really so pious! They all meant well!" >honorary swinging of the thurible< "But, you know... that was THEN! That was way back when people were so backwards and didn't know better! We're so much more enlightened now! So much more progressive! We've learned so much! We can't possibly go back to something as backwards as the OLD Mass! It was good for those backwards old Catholics, but not for us enlightened, modern men! I mean, imagine us modern, enlightened men, worrying so much about all of this symbolism and all of these outward signs... and, what's all this CHANTING business? It's so medieval! Now we've got the New Mass! And it's so much more inclusive! So much less offensive! So much more FREE! So much more enlightened than that old, prehistoric, antiquated  Mass!" >end of incense, chucking of the Old Mass into the nearest trash can<

What you are basically saying is, "well, of course the old art WAS art. It was good. It was nice. It was beautiful even. There's nothing wrong with the OLD art. Who could possibly say there's anything wrong with the old art?" >honorary swinging of the thurible< "But you know, OLD art was made by those old, backwards Greeks, who concerned themselves over petty details like truth and beauty and purpose and craft... and all that bothersome, cold business about what art is and how art should be and so forth... I mean, REALLY... what could those old, backwards, ancient greeks possibly know about ART? But we're MODERN men! We're so much more enlightened than those old greeks! We're so much more PROGRESSIVE! We're so much more FREE! We realize that EVERYTHING is art, and that EVERY man is an artist, and that's so much nicer! So much more progressive! So much more enlightened, than those backwards greeks with their truth and their philosophy and their petty little details. I mean, who wants art to be so SUPERIOR. So ELITE! We want an all-encompassing art, which will be so much freer, so much kinder to every man!" >end of incense, chucking of art into the nearest trash can<

This is the very attack that the devil has used to undermine the Bride of Christ. On the one hand, in order to be agreeable (or perhaps because they still have enough working brain cells that they realize they can't totally deny the propriety and beauty and truth of what came before), they get out the thurible and say all kinds of nice things about those old dinosaurs that lived way back when (pick your age), and what they did, and how it was so nice and so great, and how nobody is saying there is anything wrong with it, because how could anything be wrong with something (THAT REALLY WAS) so nice, so beautiful, so true?

But then they put down the thurible, and proceed to then trash (after all) what they just were praising, and say how it's so backwards, so constraining, so ancient, so, in short, nonsensical, that we modern, enlightened men couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. OR at the very least, we couldn't possibly ONLY have that ancient relic of the past. We need, they will say, at the very least IN ADDITION TO (but more likely in place of) what came before) something new, which they will profess to be so much better, so much more enlightened, so much more all-inclusive than what came before it.

But you know... some things simply ARE beautiful. Some things simply are true. Some things simply are exclusively correct, in whatever age we found them, and no matter how old they are now. Some ideas are correct, were correct thousands of years ago, and are still exclusively correct today, like the doctrine of the Trinity, or the fact of sin, or the truth about human nature. OR... art, which the greeks did not invent, but for all of their errors raised it to a higher plane because of their own natural talents given them by God... the gall and the guts and the nerve and... dare I say the humility... to look at a thing, contemplate what it is by nature and how it SHOULD be done (as they comprehended and esteemed a great deal the idea of a right and wrong way to do things), and then, once they figured that out, to proceed to do it that way, or hold that truth, without question.

The greeks weren't devils. St Thomas stood on the shoulders of Aristotle! They had gifts from God, regardless of who or what they choose to worship, and they used those gifts to incredible ends which we can still see today in the effect they had on art.  And like with theology or the Mass, it doesn't matter what comes after the discovery of the truth. (Though I dare say the greeks, whatever they knew of art, still were missing the last and highest piece of the puzzle.) The truth and the beauty cannot be denied because it's a new year now, and we all have big egos and want to be great artists.

St Thomas probably would have said the pictures you showed were all art. But he also would likely have said that they were only GOOD art inasmuch as they were ordered and so forth, so that to whatever degree they were fuzzy, vague, disordered, unrealistic, ugly and what have you, they were NOT good art. Just as a child's finger painting is art, but not good art.

You can't discount truth and beauty because of the age, nor change the nature of them because we want to do something "new and exciting, and all-inclusive" which will not offend the tender ego of the lesser artist. And we don't have to be great artists ourselves even, to recognize that just as God is unchanging, truth, and true beauty are unchanging, regardless of our frequently toxic egos. We can't deny timeless truth. And whoever finds or speaks the truth, is in the right, to whatever degree they have found it, even if they were old Pope St. Leo, even if they were "the dumb ox" St Thomas, and even if they were ancient, idol worshiping greeks!

The truth is all that matters. And our arts, of whatever field, are only "good" insomuch as they agree with what GOD made them, and with what IS real art, regardless of how much it hurts if we're not good enough ourselves to be good at them. And they are bad insomuch as they fail to be all that makes art good, regardless of how good we think or want to say they are. That's cold, hard, unmoving truth. God made art, not the greeks, and not Picasso. And it is now, and always will be what God meant it to be, egos or no egos.