|
Post by necroshine on Feb 14, 2006 6:33:44 GMT -5
You point at a fact to compare what we are talking about which is an opinion about art. You have your views way off. No one is telling you that a fact is changed. We are saying that there is more to art than you are seeing. No one is taking a fact like “dvd’s are round” and now we are telling you that they are square. We are telling you that there is more to art than it is crap, or it needs a message to be good art. I hope I have showed that. Sometimes art is just fun. Now it is ok to have your opinion about something. But it seems that you think your opinion is the only correct one. There is just more to life and art than that. And as far as the sky being blue. You are wrong on that. I have seen it green, red, pink, yellow, black, purple and lastly blue. The sky can be any color under the rainbow. And if you don’t believe that get outside more.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 14, 2006 8:09:48 GMT -5
Aren't there facts about art? How can an elephant's paint splats be as good as a master's work? Are you mad?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 14, 2006 8:40:34 GMT -5
Here Vertigo actually makes a good point. If all art is just as good as another's what on earth distinguishes mastery. In essence what is the point then of mastery between Picasso and any 3 year-old?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Feb 14, 2006 19:13:23 GMT -5
I for one do not care for Picasso’s work. His is called a master but I don’t care for it. I don’t like cubism art. Now if the “art world” wants to hold up some artists as being a master then that is fine but for me, and my likes and dislikes I don’t think that is anymore a master than someone else putting paint to canvas. I know you can show me a painting that sells for $10,000 and it is just paint slung on paper, then I can show you a 10 year old that did the same thing you can not tell the two apart. A lot of art critics can not tell them apart either. This has been proven. The only difference is “name brand” it’s the same as anything else. Just because the name on the painting is some well known artist to me doesn’t make it any better or worse than anyone else’s. Frankly I can not tell the difference between when a well known artist throws paint on paper and when an elephant does it. Its just how much money you have to pay for something. I like swords I am not going to pay $300 for a “real” sword when all I’m going to do is hang it on the wall, when a $20 one will do just fine. As far as I’m concerned its all hype in the art world. No one can tell me one person’s art is any better than anyone else’s. as I said before there is what you like and don’t like but I don’t think there is better and worse art. But that is my take on it. What is yours?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 22, 2006 1:14:33 GMT -5
I thought this post was particularly interesting because I just graduated from college with a BFA so I know what you are talking about.
See what Duchamp did was take the power away from the critics and give it back to the artist by making the fountain. He submitted his piece to a show that was accepting anything. So he wanted to see if they were going to be true to their word. They first rejected it when he submitted it under another name. Then he told them that it was his and they accepted it. By doing that he made art whatever the artist said was art. This made this piece important to the evolution of art. Unfortunately now people are using that and making crap. If there is no true effort or meaning behind the piece then it is crap, but it is still art. I guess you can look at the visual art like music. Vanilla Ice was a pop singer and his stuff will not stand up to the test of time. Unlike Billie Holiday whose music is still moving people today because it has substance.
People like Duchamp now but tomorrow his art may be still be note worthy but opinions about what art should be will change and his piece my not be worth as much as a Picasso.
Oh and the art world is more concerned about the name than the art. I remember I was at a charity show and I submitted my work to be auctioned off so the gallery got all of the money and I got exposure. So my piece (which were two photographies) were priced at $400 together. Another lady, Linda Pace, who owns Art Pace (a world renown gallery) stuff was priced at $1600. Now if you compared our artwork you would be wondering why it was priced that high. I wouldn't have paid 0.50 for her art because it was stuff stuck to plastic spray painted silver with a pink boa stuck to it. It was crap. Now I know not everyone will like mine but I knew my work had some meaning in it and I spent much more time on it. I guess it just like wal-mart jeans and guess jeans the difference between the two are that you are paying for the name.
Also people will buy anything because an artist sucessfully sold jars of fecal matter. So I guess you could call that art crap.
|
|
|
Post by audioinput on Mar 6, 2006 10:45:26 GMT -5
Hey, if people buy it, it must be good, right? Art's just supply and demand. It's just "demand" is weird to define.
|
|
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 May 7, 2006 18:42:13 GMT -5
You people don't realize that abstract expresionism, like Pollak, is extremely difficult to do. There is a teqnique to it such as placement of colors, mixing of colors, and layering of colors. Pollak could make very detailed pictures of people and animals using paint drizzles, I doubt any one of you could ever be able to even attempt that. As long as there is feeling and emotion from the artist in the work; IT IS ART!
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on May 7, 2006 21:16:45 GMT -5
From a former art major, it's really not that difficult. There's a lot of creative room beyond technique and someone will be receptive to it. The thing with art is that it's a very subjective item. I look at Pollock and see a mess. Others see it and have the same thing happen as when people stare at clouds or those 3D pictures...things form for them and some apply that to emotion creating an association.
On the other hand someone looks at Rembrandt and sees something boring, lacking flair. The wonderful thing about art is that there's something for everyone. There will something that everyone can find that grabs them even though for the next guy/gal it's overblown crap.
But that's all just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on May 23, 2006 7:18:13 GMT -5
Yes I understand that art is subjective. Even still I have never really heard anyone say that Leonardo Davinci was a Hack. What I am asking is where do you draw the line between no talent hack and Master Artist. Isnt there some distinction? If not I could just go and compair what a five year old did with some clay and say that it is better than the David. From any reasonable person that would be obsurde. For instance to a parent the peice of clay might be worth more because their child did it, but that dose not make it as good as the David. See where I am going with this?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on May 23, 2006 15:21:40 GMT -5
Take a dump on a white canvas and someone will proclaim it a masterpiece.
|
|
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 Jul 6, 2006 1:30:07 GMT -5
And what is wrong with that? Let someone proclaim it one, to them it is. Modern Art and Abstract Expressionism (which is what I study) rely on the idea that someone can look at the work and see one thing, but someone else looks at it and sees a completely different picture. Classical art is simplistic you look at it and what you see is what you get; there is nothing beyond what you see, you can not make it your own. Modern art however has that beauty of personal meaning, I'm not painting or sculpting what I see I'm painting and sculpting what you see. That is what makes it 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 Jul 6, 2006 1:38:11 GMT -5
Modern Art relies on emotion and feeling. Picking out colors that evoke those emotions and feelings and aranging them in a patern (or sometimes lack there of) is a painstaking process that takes most people, who actually give a shit about what they are doing, several days of work. On top of that there is the idea of how to apply the paint to the surface of whatever it is that you are painting. I use my hands and rags mostly, and believe me you can tell a diference in what application methods are used. Abstraction is every bit as hard if not harder than realism and the only people who will say it is not are people who have never tried to make an abstraction that is truly meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 6, 2006 18:16:41 GMT -5
i'm not the biggest fan of abstract art but i agree with you reservoir. i may try a few paintings for myself. maybe you can give a pointer or two.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jul 7, 2006 8:12:00 GMT -5
And what is wrong with that? Let someone proclaim it one, to them it is. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was showing how highly subjective and relativistic it is.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 9, 2006 10:00:55 GMT -5
www.deviantart.com/deviation/36026447/alright like i said i was going to try this abstract art thing. there is the link click on it why don't you? does it make you feel something? sad, happy, indifferent? do you see something i don't? please let me know.
|
|