It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?"
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 like a lot of illustrators, like Frank Frazetta for example...
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.
Originally posted by m khan
Artwork aside, the Rockefellers seem to have done more to destroy America than any other family in history ever,
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Vanitas
it's all just hot air in the guise of “opinions”.
because that is what modern art is: a language, or set of languages. (And so, contrary to popular belief, it does have “rules”.)
art with rules is only as good as the person who created & enforces those rules, so write your own (duh!
)
You cannot expect to understand it unless you learn it.
Or perhaps they intuitively sense the contents or intent;
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.
Here are a few popular misconceptions about art.
It is about creating beauty.
It is not.
(And define “beauty”, anyway.)
(Does this say anything to you?)
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.
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.
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".
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.
Originally posted by HopllyteI cant even remember the guys name who was the subject of this thread... his work is that memorable!