I teach Art and Music Appreciation at a local technical college. My first lecture is a paraphrase of the federal jurist's comments about pornography...you can't really define good art but you know it when you see it. I send my students to visit local galleries and art exhibits and write about what piece or pieces they liked. I have had many students who had never seriously visited an art gallery before come back and write how moved they were by a ceratin piece and were surprised how much they enjoyed seeing serious art for the first time.
I have had many students who had never seriously visited an art gallery before come back and write how moved they were by a ceratin piece and were surprised how much they enjoyed seeing serious art for the first time.
Isn't teaching rewarding in this way? I make them go to a museum for a final paper, and they all appreciate how much they've learned through the semester.
While in Las Vegas a few years ago, I visited Steve Wynn’s art collection, being shown at the Bellagio Hotel.
I was struck by how very, very good every piece he displayed was. Even his “modern” art was excellent.
It was somewhat of a sad irony though, as Steve Wynn has this beautiful art collection and he is losing his eyesight.
The piece that really struck me was Rembrandt’s Portrait of a Gentleman in a Red Doublet.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/24/0124pow.html
The online picture doesn’t even come close to showing how good this work is. I looked at it and obviously knew it was a painting, yet the skin appears to have the same semi translucent quality of real skin, it was truly remarkable.
As I looked at it, I thought, this is why the very best artists still try to compare themselves to Rembrandt van Rijn.