The Modern Art Idiocy

page: 19
84
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 

We had a professor that kept an easel and paints set up in the gallery so that anytime someone said, "what's so great about that? I could do that" he'd point to the canvas and say "please demonstrate". Finally, one grandmotherly lady snapped back, "I don't need to demonstrate. Everybody sh1ts... do want me to do that too"?
I would have replied "Only if you feel its necessary for the piece you are about to produce for us. Would you like a receptacle & toilet paper, or will it be an improv?"




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 





...I like a lot of illustrators, like Frank Frazetta for example...


:-)

I don't suppose there are any strings you could pull so that we could have a favorite sci-fi/fantasy art thread?

it would be impossible without Frazetta - but the whole nudity thing makes it impossible

Off topic - I know...





[edit on 2/16/2010 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
In David Rockefeller's autobiography he mentions meeting with Picasso in Africa during WWII, while coordinating intelligence operations, and that Picasso was very grateful that his mother had taken such an interest in his work. Every school child knows that Picasso is one of the greatest artists of all times.Wish we could somehow take our schools back from the Rockefellers.
Artwork aside, the Rockefellers seem to have done more to destroy America than any other family in history ever, and that's not even counting what their grandfather, Senator Nelson Aldrich did creating the FED that is destroying our economy and making their banks richer and richer and richer at the expense of the US taxpayers. They could afford to make a few Picassos

It is a shame that Americans worship money so much, seeing how the people who have it, got it from cheating them.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by m khan]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I think poor Leonardo da Vinci and all the other old Masters must be doing backflips if modern humans call this childish crapola 'Art' - shows how the West has degenerated - whatever happen to 'Art imitating Nature' - all gone I guess...along with Humanity's ever-dwindling imagination - and future for that matter ....!



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
It's not the artwork, it's the Life Experience that is for sale.


In new-agey terms one could say its not only what you see but also the energy behind it, I guess.


doesn't have to be new-agey to still be true.

Alex grey pours HUNDREDS of hours into his paintings, mixes all his own colours too, that work takes energy physical, mental and devotional energy, It takes alot to commit to such long projects.

Just because you may or not be able to directly access that devotional energy in its original state - as it was being consumed, you can see that energy transformed, it became the piece of art you witness.

-B.M

[edit on 16/2/10 by B.Morrison]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Frank Frazetta

I'm not surpirized someone would bring that artist up. I'm a big fan and always have been.

In the same vein, I collected all of the Conan The Barbarian book series mostly because the covers were so great. Fantasy art is the bomb and I have collected graphic novels, 'zines like Heavy Metal and comics as long as I can remember. It's a huge pile
but I love going through old issues. I keep EVERYTHING jacketed and mags as old as the 70's are still like new.

Great stuff.

About Picasso... since he keeps coming up, I have to agree that his early work was just gorgeous.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


See, on one side of your mouth, you say "we're not bashing the artists!" and then out the other side of your mouth, you say "Well, it's crap, everything this artist has done is cramp, he's a no-talent hack and I could fart a better painting! Just put a canvass behind me!"

The piece that you looked at when you made this post is one I happen to like. I find it interesting. it's intricate, has a lot for the eye to take in, without being totally garish and haphazard inthe way a lot of Pollack paintings.

It's the intricacies and combinations, the "composition" that really make the effect. That third painting in your OP? I love it. Why? because it's well put-together. While another poster who chimed in with some art from a 9 year old girl... I disliked it. it struck me as strained and derivative. She might as well be doing Inu Yasha fan art. She has skill, but no style.

On the other hand, Piccasso had style but no skill.

Painting - just like music - is hit or miss. Not every song is going to be good. And once the artist gets a taste of the money that can be had, it's going to impact their quality (example? Listen to Nickelback then, and Nickelback now.)

[edit on 16-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by m khan

Artwork aside, the Rockefellers seem to have done more to destroy America than any other family in history ever,


That has got to be one of the most ill-informed statements and to say "Rockefellers--artwork aside" truly shows a lack of knowledge of anything Rockefeller or artistic.

John D., Jr. has done some incredible things to preserve very old works of art and has been one of the most dedicated art patrons in our time. You really should read more history instead of parrotting these ignorant statements floating around.

The Rockefellers may be very wealthy, but they have also given much in return to humanity. I suggest you look at some of his philanthropic works and some of the art treasures he has given to the public.





[edit on 17-2-2010 by Alethea]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Alethea]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Anyone who can really draw or paint has a piece like this hidden amongst thier sketch books and roughs of someone they had a crush on, some become finished peices like La Giacond. Times may change, but somethings never do. Leonardo carried this painting with him everywhere he went, I have a sketchbook with a drawing like this that goes with me everywhere. I know of other great artists that could deserve to have their work so revered by everyone not just other artists. But real honest to goodness artists like good work, which among other artists is usually the opposite end of the spectrum as to what is considered "high art" by intellectuals. Like Lautrec, Monet and Renoir all liked good work, but not what would be called high art of the day. And infact they spat on what they saw as conventional art or high art of the period. There are two kinds of artists. Artisans can do what is possible, these artist create art the sells but nothing new is expressed. A real artist does the impossible, they can literally take nothing and make it something. They like any other artist that has left indelible fingerprint seen in art and history today usually real artists are one step ahead of "intellectuals" in what is considered good work. One artist I can think of is Alex Ross another is Frank Frazetta, Norman Rockwell, Any of the OxMox Sculptors, Jennifer Jensko or Boris & Julie even Bob Ross... just to name a few. They deserve far more credit that they have been given. I would gladly pay for one of their works... but not this junk.... its down right insulting.

Yes many modern artists have had schooling and can draw and paint, but there is a reason for this that goes unoticed to the untrained eye. Many modern artist do study for years formal art training only to end up painting "strong colored lines" for a reason. So many have trouble drawing hands or feet leaving them partly covered or out of sight just enough. I know lots of people that can create beautiful pencil works, but cant paint or sculpt. Painting involves so many skills that require immense patience and a steady hand of a surgeon. They have trouble painting trees... or the subtle hues of the sky. Hair is another problem for pseudo artists making animals and people look like they have helmets on. Or they cannot visualize in 360 degrees needed for exacting sculpture work. Which is far more difficult than drawing and painting forcing you to think in 720 degrees. They avoid drawing or painting articles that give them trouble even if it hinders thier final vision of what the piece should look like. Because to the trained eye it SCREAMS foul! So like failed wrestlers, football players and boxers they throw a mishmash of half baked Jiu Jitsu and kick boxing together in a pot and stir... get a lots of tribal and ye olde english tattoos... and viola you have a MMA fighter. But the real deal martial artists wipe the floors with the pseudo artists any day of the week. I cant even remember the guys name who was the subject of this thread... his work is that memorable!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopllyte
To any real artist [Mark Rothko's] work is down right insulting.

REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS ART NEED NO LONG WINDED EXPLANATION, IT SHOULD BE IMMEADIATLY UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYONE. IF YOU NEED SOMEONE TO TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS...CHANCES ARE ITS NOT ART.

What we entailed in his thesis was in direct opposition to this MODERN ART SICKNESS for lack of better terms.


Hm. Have you personally seen a Rothko? Not a digitized image, but an actual piece of his work? If not, how can you slam something you haven't even inspected?

I have a little trouble reconciling a self-professed artist who criticizes "modern art"... I thought that debate was over in the 1960s.

A lot of people call modern art "abstract art," which is a misnomer. Again, if it's inspired, as filled with spirit, then it's Art. From the Art Dimensiion or something. I don't care what it looks like — if it has Spirit, then you feel it.

Let me ask you, just to gauge your perspective, have you ever seen a Picasso, from his Cubist period? Have you inspected one? That's the typical image of Picasso that pops into anybody's head when they hear his name. He became so closely identified with Cubism that people think that's all he did.

But, of course, as I've tried to elucidate, artists don't paint just one style into infinity — or, if they do, they turn into Bob Ross and die.

Artists flex and reconfigure their styles continually, leaving a trail of diverse images as record of their passing, right? So, Picasso was an accomplished representational artist before he ever went off exploring in his Blue period, right?

Or how about Jackson Pollock? Now, there was a guy who assaulted your senses. Jackson will chew on your eyeballs if you stand there and really feel his work.

I know, I know, I said "feel his work"... That's an art gallery cliché, for sure, but it's actually a very good method of acknowledging how much activity went into creating one of his monster paintings.

And not just the physical activity of applying and pouring paint, but of all the other personal turmoil coiled around Pollock. He dumped it ALL into his work, and furiously. He was inspired, driven by spirit.

These guys, the Van Goghs and Picassos and Pollocks and Rothkos, are, essentially, opening their minds and allowing a creative energy to flow through them, and they each have their own history of varied styles,

People PAY to TOUCH and SEE and FEEL the essence of the creative force, right? That's what a masterpiece is.

It's like freezing a pane of Creative Energy and placing it on display, yes?

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 2/17/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
As a working artist myself...
I don't get into all this so called art by the experts. This type of art reminds me of how music is today. They are more about the artist's story/background. About the drama than the actual art itself. Music isn't about music anymore its about looks and what kind of reputation you have.
Of course art reflects life and boy do we live in a drama filled world...

Instead of knowing the story behind the artist, the artist needs to tell his story in his art, make us feel it. Not interpret it. When we look at the art we get a feeling of the situation. I for one care less about the artist personal life, well its just that "personal" but more about what their works and how they speak to me when i look at them, they move me, that is real art.

I dont care if the artist saved the world from destruction and is loved by all. If he paints 3 stripes, its just that, 3 stripes. Im not going to put it on a pedestal because who made it, sorry.


[edit on 17-2-2010 by Optix]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison
Just because you may or not be able to directly access that devotional energy in its original state - as it was being consumed, you can see that energy transformed, it became the piece of art you witness.


I do subscribe to the belief that an artists work "contains" his intentions and energy and that these are transfered to some extent to the viewer.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I wonder how many of those who read this thread – let alone replied to it – did approach the basic question(s) underlying the problem of Art...

Because without doing so there can be no genuine discussion about this subject; without doing so, it's all just hot air in the guise of “opinions”.

For those who are thinking of approaching it, here are a few final thoughts from me.

If a person or group of people were talking in a foreign language you've never heard, would you say they were talking “rubbish”?
Only if you did not know they were talking a different language.

And if you took care to learn that language you would understand what they were saying. Only then could you judge whether they are talking “rubbish” or not.

The comparison is perfectly valid because that is what modern art is: a language, or set of languages. (And so, contrary to popular belief, it does have “rules”.)

You cannot expect to understand it unless you learn it.
Oh, you can “love” it – just like many people “love” (or dislike) foreign languages by their mere sounds, disregarding the actual contents of the expression. Or perhaps they intuitively sense the contents or intent; that can happen in art, too – a person can intuitively sense, or react to, the intent of the artist. (That would be the case with me and Rothko, for example – to name just one example among many.)

But to really understand it, there has to be some effort involved.
Modern art can be – and it usually is – an acquired taste.
So what?
Acquired tastes are not only accepted but even praised as a sign of a cultivated personality in many other segments of life, from food and drink to literature. It is usually referred to as growth.

There is a lot – a LOT! – of “jabberwocky” (bluffing) in modern art – just as there is in any other field of human endeavour. (After all, most novels spewed out aren't exactly high literature, either.)
But you can only judge it if you understand the “proper” language the artist is supposed to speak – or at least to emulate.


Here are a few popular misconceptions about art.

It is about creating beauty.

It is not.
(And define “beauty”, anyway.)
But it often is – or was – about reactions to common perceptions of what Beauty is.


It should be judged by the emotional response that it arouses.

That is only true of certain types of work – and even there the underlying context is one of common (more or less established) conceptions and perceptions.

Modern art – meaning the art that developed from the late 19th century on, the art of a world shaped by the experience of no less than two world wars and countless upheavals (with the philosophies that go with them) – is largely based on the intellect and views the modern world as an intellectual construction.
That is the context without which modern art cannot possibly be understood.

Somebody said – with the best intention – that you shouldn't view paintings as “paint on canvas”.

Actually, that is precisely what most of modern and post-modern work is about: it forces you to view paintings not as the "real thing" but as representations - i.e. artificial constructs - and, eventually, just that: paint on canvas.

(Does this say anything to you?)


As for the money involved... art, as any other commodity - the commodity here being enjoyment, either in the work itself OR in the prestige it bestows (yes: why not – this kind of enjoyment is accepted in any other field of daily culture, so why not in art?) - it is subject to the law of supply and demand.

I am pretty sure van Gogh himself (who DID sell a picture in his lifetime, often exchanged his paintings for groceries and other goods, and lived to see himself hailed as a “genius” in the prestigious Mercure de France), van Gogh himself who suffered a lot and often starved, would be APPALLED by the prices his paintings achieve. He would think it highly immoral and utterly incomprehensible to pay such amounts for any work of art.
But then, he always was naïve regarding money and the “real” world.

And BTW... why raise the question about modern art only?
Does the Mona Lisa deserve to be literally price-less?
Are any of Monet's paintings “worth” the tens of millions they fetch?

They are only paint on canvas.
What is it, then, that makes them so expensive?
Think about it. Because it's the same cause that makes modern art as expensive as it is.

BTW, I wonder how many people here are aware that English – more specifically, USA English – is possibly the only language that automatically equates “art” with painting, drawing, sculpture?
Nowhere else are these disciplines called “art” – unless, of course, they ARE art. You won't find expressions like “child art”, for example - or indeed casual references to anyone's painting or sculptures as my, your, his, her “art”. If they are paintings, they'll be called paintings; if they are sculptures, they'll be called sculptures... you get the point.
The term art presupposes judgement about quality.

I find this very interesting, totally fascinating; and I think anyone interested in this question would profit from pondering on it.
(There's nothing “good” or “bad” implied here – it's just a fact that speaks volumes about a specific culture.)

The underlying identification of art with artisan work – revealed by judgements regarding the amount of (physical) “effort” went into a work - is by no means a specifically American trait, of course. But that doesn't make it any less unhelpful or misleading.

What worries me is that so many people seem to be aware that they do not understand it – and, by implication, that there is a “foreign language” involved – but unwilling to try and learn it.
That's the problem, in my view – not for the world at large, of course, but for themselves, because they are depriving themselves of great pleasures and preventing their Mind to grow in different directions.

Art is not an easy language to learn, but it is immensely rewarding because learning to understand it implies – and demands - active reflection on the culture that surrounds you: on Life as you know it.

And now, I'll refer you once more to the original question.

If you really want to understand it, you'll take it seriously.
If you don't want to understand it, then there is, right there, something very interesting and highly valuable you could learn about yourself.

Now tell me: which old master's work ever made you engage in this sort of questioning...?








[edit on 17-2-2010 by Vanitas]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Maybe I could make millions of dollars if I just paint one big blue squiggly line and call the painting "A River Runs Through It."



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by B.Morrison
Just because you may or not be able to directly access that devotional energy in its original state - as it was being consumed, you can see that energy transformed, it became the piece of art you witness.


I do subscribe to the belief that an artists work "contains" his intentions and energy and that these are transfered to some extent to the viewer.


I agree, and I'll clarify now that I'm a ridiculously esoteric person at times, and I feel connected to something special when interacting with certain works of visual art, I also think some artists leave more in their art then others and you can tap into it, but I left that stuff out as I was sharing a non esoteric interpretation of what you had earlier said


P.L.U.R.I
-B.M



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas

it's all just hot air in the guise of “opinions”.


who are you to question the integrity of my opinions.


because that is what modern art is: a language, or set of languages. (And so, contrary to popular belief, it does have “rules”.)


point to where this 'popular belief' has been mention in this thread, I have not seen it.

art with rules is only as good as the person who created & enforces those rules, so write your own (duh!

)



Same thing with music, you can learn all the scales chords & rhythms you want and speak fluent jazz, blues, soul, funk, techno, drum & bass, pop, opera or barber shop and it still won't garantee 'good' works of art. And in many cases, the detriment to the raw unbridled creative talent outweighs the gain of prejudices and outdated generalistic limitations defined by boffins.


You cannot expect to understand it unless you learn it.


that is a 'learnt' concept/belief itself, and a false one at that.


Or perhaps they intuitively sense the contents or intent;


everyone can do this to begin with, it gets 'unlearnt' along the way.



So what?
Acquired tastes are not only accepted but even praised as a sign of a cultivated personality in many other segments of life, from food and drink to literature. It is usually referred to as growth.


So... its growth limited by the simple fact that you AREN'T breaking ANY new ground. Anyone can learn to do what has been done before I refer to the well known '100 monkeys' effect for one thing. There's still original thought left under the sun, but following trends won't bring them to you.



Here are a few popular misconceptions about art.
It is about creating beauty.
It is not.
(And define “beauty”, anyway.)


I say art is creative expression.


(Does this say anything to you?)


he got bored of bending spoons?


He would think it highly immoral and utterly incomprehensible to pay such amounts for any work of art.
But then, he always was naïve regarding money and the “real” world.


Any painting that sells for more money then it would take to feed all the starving people in 3rd world countries IS highly immoral and there's nothing naive about that view.



BTW, I wonder how many people here are aware that English – more specifically, USA English – is possibly the only language that automatically equates “art” with painting, drawing, sculpture?
Nowhere else are these disciplines called “art” – unless, of course, they ARE art.... The term art presupposes judgement about quality.


But we are discussing this in English.

So what you say is irrelevant because we aren't using the word 'art' in the context of one of these other languages.

Btw, Australian English IS one of those other languages that shares the USA-English definition of 'art'...

Everything I've said here is just my 2 cent, however I did not appreciate being 'told' where I & everyone else was going wrong and felt your post called for a reply like this...

-B.M

[edit on 17/2/10 by B.Morrison]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 



WHAT IS ART?

...and that is the multi-million dollar question, isnt it?

Let's allow the highbrows to muse on it:


fromThe Spirit in Man, Art and Literature C.G. Jung (Princeton University Press) pg. 77-78.

We have talked so much about the meaning of works of art that one can hardly suppress a doubt as to whether art really "means" anything at all. Perhaps art has no "meaning," at least not as we understand meaning. Perhaps it is like nature, which simply is and "means" nothing beyond that. Is "meaning" necessarily more than mere interpretation- an interpretation secreted into something by an intellect hungry for meaning? Art, it has been said, is beauty, and a "thing of beauty is a joy forever." It needs no meaning, for meaning has nothing to do with art. Within this sphere of art, I must accept the truth of this statement. But when I speak of the relation of psychology to art we are outside this sphere, and it is impossible for us not to speculate. We must interpret, we must find meanings in things, otherwise we would be quite unable to think about them. We have to break down life and events, which are self-contained processes, into meanings, images, concepts, well knowing that in doing so we are getting further away from the living mystery. As long as we ourselves are caught up in the process of creation, we neither see nor understand, for nothing is more injurious to immediate experience than cognition. But for the purpose of cognitive understanding we must detach ourselves from the creative process and look at it from the outside; only then does it become an image that expresses what we are bound to call "meaning".


Some weird examples:




I have no idea what these images mean because they came to me in a dream. The following mornings, I painted them quickly while the memory of shape, colour and detail were still fresh.

The viewer, myself included, can speculate all we want on what these images mean, but, we would be projecting the meanings we want into them. It's hopeless because 10,000 people with varied experience will have 10,000 differing conclusions. Should they have a specific meaning or does it depend entirely on individual history? Also, do the dream images come from me, or through me?

That's an even bigger question.

Let's take a look at Picasso again:


from How Art Made the World by Nigel Spivey, Perseus Books, pg. 24:

Pablo Picasso, arguably the most illustrious artist of the twentieth century, seems to have paid a visit to the newly discovered Lascaux cave in 1941. "We have learned nothing!" is reported as his awed, almost indignant comment, implying that the anonymous Stone Age draughtsmen of Lascaux had miraculously anticipated the representational aims and achievements of art within modern, 'civilized' society. Uncannily (as it must have seemed to him), the prominent animals at Lascaux were bulls- favoured subjects of Picasso, and, indeed, featuring one of his earliest paintings as a boy.



A website, in French, displaying the paintings within the cave

Nice wake-up call, Pablo.
Something old is new again and we can sit and speculate on the "meaning" behind the paintings at Lascaux. I have my own extensive views... whether they are accurate or not is meaningless simply because they are debatable.

For instance, I believe that all art springs from the well of 'visions' and are but variations of shamanistic journeys into the Collective Unconscious. Here is a painting which has in it two very different icons of the primitive past; the famous Sorcerer (a therianthrope of varied animal groups), San Insect Men (a transformation of men into insects) and the lines which connect the two images within a cave setting.



Art, imo, is not what we make of it, it is what makes us

sp and added Lascaux link

[edit on 17/2/10 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
*rubbing my eyes at that second image there masqua* very awesome.

______________________________________

Cool post Vanitas


______________________________________

Re: OP: I know it can happen that poor-quality is praised as genius because its happened to me before (I produced something way-below-standard and it was praised as brilliant, masterpiece, blablabla).

Thats embarrasing.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 




That second picture is amazing... feels very "familiar"

You should do some prints



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopllyteI cant even remember the guys name who was the subject of this thread... his work is that memorable!


Okay, I admit that I've been lurking this thread for days without posting


It's hard for me to separate out the ostensible subject -- is it reasonable to spend $72million on a Rothko -- and the subtext of what is art.

But I want to mention my very first reaction to this thread. Setting: my fiance was reading ATS across the room from me, said "Skyfloating's posted a thread about modern art."

I looked up, and saw the OP, and immediately identified the images as Rothko. Not because I'm an expert, or a huge fan even. But because to me they are unique. I'm sure I could be fooled, especially when looking at a small jpeg image from eight feet away. But even in that format, I find there to be something really compelling in his layering of color and placement of shape.

Would I spend $72million on them? Of course not. But then again maybe, if I was a curator of a collection that was missing a Rothko, the situation would be very different.





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join