Your example of Guernica: If someone with no knowledge of the meaning behind it, and saw it for the first time... would they really be emotionally blown away? Should a painting have to be explained?
I dunno, I prefer art that is breathtaking at first sight and self explanatory (eg. Starry Night), versus a piece that requires an explanation, like Andy Warhol's soup cans or some abstract modern art that consists of random splashes of paint that somehow makes sense of it all.
My taste is in agreement with yours, but I'm not sure Guernica fits the other examples you gave.
In person it's overwhelming, because it's huge - much too big to hold in your head at once - and every corner of it has something happening in it. Something horrible, or a horrified / horrorific reaction to something horrible. The abstractions and symbolism also create this kind of dreamlike, inarticulable sense of "we'll never get to the bottom of this" - with this being the painting itself, and by extension the experience it depicts.
My guess is that an inhabitant of a future utopian civilization, which had eliminated violence for generations, would have no frame of reference, and no (or an inadequate) emotional response. I don't, however, think it would take any specific knowledge ("in 1937 the Germans..." blah blah blah) to recognize and respond to the painting as depicting experiences and responses common to violence and destruction and war anywhere and any time those happen.
It's just my opinion, but I like visual art that you'd say "wow!" or "beautiful!" when you first look at it.
Not "Hmm... now what's this all about? A soup can?" And then someone has to explain "Oh, this is Andy's fascination with consumer culture and processes of mass production."
Same goes for photography. For instance, that famous National Geographic cover photo of the Afgan girl. I was a kid when I first saw it in the '80s. I didn't learn the history behind it until many years later, but I didn't need that extra layer of description for it to be forever etched in my mind.
I took an art history class at my local community college just on a whim.
I ended up traveling with the professor and a few students to Europe on an 'art history tour' and it was absolutely mind-blowing.
If you are truly interested in art, I highly recommend getting a class on both how to look at but also understand and even critique what you see, as it can really change your worldview for the better.
That sounds awesome. I actually went to Barcelona once (where Picasso studied art at one point). Some cool pieces there to see.
But yea, I'm definitely interested in art. Aside from my day job as a digital artist, I love painting on canvas. Nothing that would win an award, but it's fun: https://i.imgur.com/L4kMhg9.jpeg
I dunno, I prefer art that is breathtaking at first sight and self explanatory (eg. Starry Night), versus a piece that requires an explanation, like Andy Warhol's soup cans or some abstract modern art that consists of random splashes of paint that somehow makes sense of it all.