|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 24, 2006 14:48:35 GMT -5
Over 90 years ago an artist named Duchamp singed his name on a urinal and called it art. Now it has been elevated to being higher than portraits by Van Gogh. This led me to wonder as I was reading this bit of info about the works of art and their quality. If I may be so bold I have a proposed explanation. Ok now then when one speaks of greatness in a work he generally speaks of beauty. (what he preserves as beauty). One of the things man holds before all others is perfection. As any educated man or woman knows, a thing only archives perfection though Grace ( NOT GOD) but by grace I mean fluid motion. Example you would never see a martial artist who is considered to have obtained the level of mastery moving rigidly. Nor would you see the master painter moving rigidly with his brush ( unless it happens to be a requirement). The point is that Fluid Motion is a requirement of perfection.
To put the kind of art that is of a level of mastery on a higher scale one could call it a noble art. No person in his right mind would say that an average painting done by a three year old could rival the Deviance self portrait or Etchers "Infinity Ant". So then why on earth wold any sane person put a urinal up on the same pedestal. Was it out of a simple lack of attention, or because he wanted to fulfill a rebellious need?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jan 24, 2006 15:15:22 GMT -5
I remember seeing something somewhere on TV once where someone had a bunch of 4 year olds do paintings of whatever they wanted and then showed it to some "high level" art critics (whatever high level means). Most went on this odd interpretation of what it meant and the emotion involved and what the colors and patterns express. They felt like idiots when the guy told them they were done by kindergarteners.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 24, 2006 16:46:54 GMT -5
I think the critics generally like to hear themselves speak, and if another critic says something they don't understand, they pretend to understand it. In other words, they feed off each other and it ends up a big mess.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Jan 25, 2006 14:06:54 GMT -5
As a painter I can safely say that while there is a lot of crap out there there is various modern art that is exactly what it is art. However to me what seperates art from crap is the amount of effort put into the work. Jackson Pollack for instance is in my opinion an amazing artist, just as good as DaVinci just good in a different way. DaVinci's work was about relism and giving a portrait of something, Pollack's work is about emotion and representation. In the end though what really makes art art is if even one person finds it pleasing to the eye than it is art by defenition. An example of Pollack lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/usa2003/may2003/04may2003d/mvc-006f.jpgAn example of DaVinci docentes.uacj.mx/fgomez/museoglobal/photogallery/L/leonardo%20da%20vinci/leonardo%20da%20vinci%20virgen%20rcs.JPGBoth of these two paintings to me are just as good as the other; it is simply personal preferance.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 25, 2006 17:02:17 GMT -5
Pollack's picture is crap. I see pretentiousness in it, even predictability, not emotion.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jan 26, 2006 6:11:20 GMT -5
art is what ever you like. i have put sme of my art on this board. i think it is art and some don't. that is the good thing about art. its what ever you like. now while i don't like pollac, at least the one that was posted. i don't care about that type of art. i have seen some kids art that i do like. some of the "masters" art i don't care for but i do like davincis' work. its just like movies and music. some movies that win many awards i don't care for.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 27, 2006 19:13:49 GMT -5
I think an example might better get my point accross. Lets say I were to sculpt a man not a representaiton of my self or any one person, instead I made the sculptrure to represent Mans Nobility. Now another man sculpts a trashcan nothing more. Which would you say is better.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Jan 27, 2006 20:06:46 GMT -5
Pollack's picture is crap. I see pretentiousness in it, even predictability, not emotion. Vertigo, why are you always so vicious to anyone who ever makes a point contrary to that which you may feel? Pollack's painting is not predictable in the slightest, he slung random colors of paint at a canvas in random arc's to form unpredictable patterns. Now as for the pretentiousness, I can't even begin to fathom where you are coming from. Also, the tone of your post is very attacking I see no reason why, I am not one of your self proclaimed enemies so please try to be a little more courteous to me in The future. Dragon please understand that with art it varies from person to person there is no such thing as art and non-art; there is only personal opinion nothing more, art is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 27, 2006 20:18:39 GMT -5
ReservoirDog, what you said made me smile, so thank you. As I said in the other thread, my opinion is changing. I don't think I will be telling people what to do or how to feel in the future.
For now, I'll just explain my judgement of that picture since I left it hanging. I see predictability because the weight of paint over the painting seems regular. He might use random arcs but there are many random arcs more or less evenly spaced. I saw pretentiousness because there is no overarching pattern besides it's regularity, I considered it pretentious to think that alone would make it good. I considered it overly planned because he planned to make it random and it didn't work for me.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Jan 27, 2006 21:51:18 GMT -5
By that Logic though wouldn't all painting be planned and pretentious?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 27, 2006 22:30:50 GMT -5
It would. To me, his painting has nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 28, 2006 19:19:12 GMT -5
Belive me I understand Reservoir Dog your postion, but I am not saying that the urinal is not art. What I am saying is that would the scupture not be a more noble form of art?
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Jan 29, 2006 22:11:37 GMT -5
Who is to decide what is noble or what is not, opinion is opinion. In the end all art is nothing more than opinion; vertigo has proven that. When I look at Pollack I see a movement of life, when Vertigo looks at Pollack he sees nothing; opinion is opinion; when it comes to art no one person is right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 30, 2006 17:36:28 GMT -5
Alright I concede this point I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jan 30, 2006 18:01:41 GMT -5
An opinion must refer to something. One can't like something 'just because'. Opinions aren't random happenings, they are contingent. When I look at that painting, I see paint splats on a board but what is it related to? Randomness? Purposelessness? Art should have a purpose. Purposelessness is no purpose.
|
|