Home › Forums › The Town Center › Café Guerbois › Low-brow art
- This topic has 41 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by Robin.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 29, 2012 at 5:33 pm #989413
I asked this Q at the Ab/Con forum but got no response. How does low-brow art differ from surrealism?
February 29, 2012 at 7:15 pm #1156720Hi,
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Lowbrow+(art+movement)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Surrealism
Referring to Surrealism: “characterized by the evocative juxtaposition of incongruous images in order to include unconscious and dream elements”
I guess that this, although possible, is not the main characteristic of Lowbrow art.
I'm not lazy because I sleep until late. I just dream alot.
February 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm #1156708Old Hobbyist, If I had a clue what “Low Brow” art is I might try to give you an answer. I don’t even know what would make some art “High Brow”
I got a feeling there’s some snobbery needed for such a distinctionMarch 1, 2012 at 4:30 am #1156735I agree with Brian, ‘high brow’ and ‘low brow’ mean different things to different people, so I need to know more about your own thoughts, please, ‘old hobbyist’, in order to think about it.
March 1, 2012 at 10:48 am #1156725Highbrow and low brow (and middle brow to boot) were simply terms that came around in the Victorian age when the pseudoscience phrenology (study of human behavior and characteristics based on cranial and facial features) was in vogue. In the study of phrenology people with high brows (foreheads) were considered the intellectuals. Lowbrows were considered to be scumbags basically.
It was used for decades especially in the art world to denigrate anything or anyone (women and people of little means, art styles like impressionism, surrealism, etc) that did not adher to the classical standards of art or the societal expectations of the time.
It pretty much cut a wide swathe of bigotry and still retains the archaic notion that art (and artists) should have set limits.
The words themselves really have no place in the modern world.The Purple Dog Painting Blog
Find me on Instagram
Find me on FacebookMarch 1, 2012 at 12:12 pm #1156709March 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm #1156731It pretty much cut a wide swathe of bigotry and still retains the archaic notion that art (and artists) should have set limits.
The words themselves really have no place in the modern world.I’m sorry I raised a question that solicited so much antagonism re: Victorian pseudoscientific phrenology. The term ‘lowbrow’ was coined in 1994 by Robert Williams to describe art that relates to images that most of us have experienced – cars, TV, comics, and so on. I was asking whether the art that incorporates these images in fanciful ways can be considered surrealism.
Referring to Surrealism: “characterized by the evocative juxtaposition of incongruous images in order to include unconscious and dream elements”
From the replies, I now know that the difference between surrealism and lowbrow art is that the former is true art whereas the latter is laughable cartooning that only appeals to the like Nicholas Cage and Matt Groening. Thanx to all for that clarification.
March 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm #1156710Antagonism ?????…. I thought we were having an open discussion without personal invective, and was starting to enjoy it. Sorry I joined in.
March 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm #1156726I was replying because you asked a question and I answer with the historical context of the words (which were coined long before 1994!!!) Personally I find the historical context of words as well as the pseudo sciences of the Victorian age very interesting. How that reads into antagonism is beyond me but my apologies if you were offended by the historical context of words.
Art and society changed drastically throughout the end of the Victorian age and well into the 1900’s. As it always has been and will most like always be some people don’t like change and will resort to derogatory terms to try and stop it. Fortunately people like the Surrealists and the Impressionists and so on ignored that sort of thing and shared their talents with the world opening the doors for future generations of artists of all types.From the replies, I now know that the difference between surrealism and lowbrow art is that the former is true art whereas the latter is laughable cartooning that only appeals to the like Nicholas Cage and Matt Groening. Thanx to all for that clarification.
????
The point is there is no lowbrow art. There’s no highbrow art, there’s no middlebrow art. Those terms are not needed nor should they be used because they have a negative connotation. It’s all art, people have individual tastes but there’s no need to be derogatory about another’s taste.The Purple Dog Painting Blog
Find me on Instagram
Find me on FacebookMarch 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm #1156721“The point is there is no lowbrow art. There’s no highbrow art, there’s no middlebrow art.”
Tell that to Mark Ryden…
I'm not lazy because I sleep until late. I just dream alot.
March 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm #1156730If we are taking “lowbrow art” to mean only what Robert Williams meant by the term in 1994, then by definition it cannot be surrealism as the Surrealist movement was by the over.
I know that I have heard the term “lowbrow” used long before 1994, or even 1984.
Of course any artist can make art that is “surreal” by the popular usage of that phrase.
I din’t see antagonism, unless of course Old Hobby Painter is a phrenologist, then I could see how the comments on Victorian Phrenology might have seemed antagonistic.
My Painting Blog: http://adkpainter.blogspot.com/
This is our ART: useless, boring, impotent, elitist, and very, very beautiful.
March 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm #1156732I am truly sorry about being personally invictive. I asked a very simple question as to how the contemporary lowbrow art movement melded with surrealism.
I did not expect an irrelevent historical railing about phrenology and how Victorian pseudoscience somehow tainted the artwork of impressionists, expressionists, abstractionists, surrealists, dadaists, Fauvists, Realists, Post-impressionists, and on and on, and how there isn’t any highbrow, middlebrow or lowbrow art, and how inane it is for people to believe so.
The lowbrow art movement does exist and is rapidly expanding in its scope, whether or not “real” artists believe it. Again, I apologize for being invictive and for even asking the question to begin with.
March 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm #1156736I am truly sorry about being personally invictive. I asked a very simple question as to how the contemporary lowbrow art movement melded with surrealism.
I did not expect an irrelevent historical railing about phrenology and how Victorian pseudoscience somehow tainted the artwork of impressionists, expressionists, abstractionists, surrealists, dadaists, Fauvists, Realists, Post-impressionists, and on and on, and how there isn’t any highbrow, middlebrow or lowbrow art, and how inane it is for people to believe so.
The lowbrow art movement does exist and is rapidly expanding in its scope, whether or not “real” artists believe it. Again, I apologize for being invictive and for even asking the question to begin with.
I understand better now, I thought you were using the terms high and low brow in a less specific way. Heres the wiki definition!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbrow_(art_movement)#History
I must look into it.March 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm #1156712I am truly sorry about being personally invictive. I asked a very simple question as to how the contemporary lowbrow art movement melded with surrealism.
I did not expect an irrelevent historical railing about phrenology and how Victorian pseudoscience somehow tainted the artwork of impressionists, expressionists, abstractionists, surrealists, dadaists, Fauvists, Realists, Post-impressionists, and on and on, and how there isn’t any highbrow, middlebrow or lowbrow art, and how inane it is for people to believe so.
The lowbrow art movement does exist and is rapidly expanding in its scope, whether or not “real” artists believe it. Again, I apologize for being invictive and for even asking the question to begin with.
Dear Old Hobbyist — don’t you see that the problem is one of communication? You assumed that everyone had heard that quote from 1994. That label was coined while I was looking the other way but I did find the phrenology comments very interesting. I’ve used the term highbrow for MANY years to refer to a kind of snobby preoccupation (I’m no kid), never used the term low brow but did NOT know it was said by some famous person. We here on wet canvas are all over the place on our knowledge. Take that into consideration when you post a topic and read the comments.
March 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm #1156713How does low-brow art [COLOR=blue][B]differ[/B][/COLOR] from surrealism?
dif·fer/ˈdifər/
Verb:
-
[*]Be unlike or dissimilar.
[*]Disagree.I asked a very simple question as to how the contemporary lowbrow art movement [COLOR=blue][B]melded[/B][/COLOR] with surrealism.
melded past participle, past tense of meld (Verb)
Verb:
-
[*]Blend; combine.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
If you're asking me for advice, I'm going to assume that you've run out of rational options.
My work on Facebook -
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Low-brow art’ is closed to new replies.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search