The Modern Art Idiocy

reply to post by OhZone


if you were thinking deep thoughts at the time and can come up with a meaningful way to explain how those thoughts contributed to the brush strokes, then yep, you do

[edit on 1-8-2010 by undo]

reply to post by OhZone


And you can always "find" it later in a different light and present it as a "readymade" art piece.

Edit: I forgot a "you".

[edit on 1/8/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by masqua


oh you picked one of my favorite shows as a kid for your avatar! i see the mods are doing 60's tv show avatars or something, eh? before it was star trek now it's old sit coms? do you think the old tv shows reflected the modern art way of thinking in the art world?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by undo]

70's actually. I just screwed up because I can't remember anything from 1965 - 75. ;P

Originally posted by undo do you think the old tv shows reflected the modern art way of thinking in the art world?

For certain. Those old sitcoms (and the new ones), after all, reflected our society just the same way paintings, music or any other venue does. The commentary that runs through all of them were full of statements about what was right or wrong in the eyes of popular opinion. They were about hopes and dreams, disgust and despair all at once. It'd be hard to find any sitcom that didn't then, and still continues to do today, try to make people understand what was happening in the world.

Take any one of them and look carefully between the jokes and you'll see serious situations whether it's in Laurel and Hardy, the Beverly Hillbillies, the Jetsons or the Simpsons.

There's no better way to get a message across than in between jokes on a really popular sitcom.

If 'modern art' has within it a portion dedicated to pointing out what is wrong or right in society (which in my mind it does) then it is a damn creative way to do it.

reply to post by masqua

To do the same digitally might be possible, but wouldn't it take a seriously dedicated expert in CGI to pull off something similar to a successful watercolour painter?

this is a very interesting subject I think - and I've thought about it - a lot

I paint - but I also love Photoshop

I love trying to get a painterly look in the digital medium - but I went through a long, interesting period a while back - constantly asking myself why I would bother

I decided that there are things I can do electronically that I can't do with paint - but that there are things I love about paint that I can't give up

I finally had to ask myself - is the end result the only goal - or is the medium somehow as important as the image?

are they separate things?

there is something about paint - brush, water...paper - the act of painting and the process

I will never be able to give that up

but - if I'm honest with myself I know that what I'm really after is the image - and that can be done any number of ways

if I can get the same look digitally - is that somehow less honest?

I'm still not sure how I feel about it

I would be very interested in other opinions on this subject

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


you have an online gallery somewhere???
everyone (except me, you've already seen most of my remaining pieces) should post their gallery links, if they have one!

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by masqua

 

I would be very interested in other opinions on this subject

it is possible to do, i think. this is captain jack, which i tried to do as painterly as possible. was going for more of an oil paint tho, than a water color. i wanted it to look gritty/messy like jack so i stayed with real obvious strips of solid color, layered on top of each other. i realize now i should've fine tuned his hair a bit more, but yeah you can definitely do traditional style paint with graphic programs. never could get his eyes right.
fc06.deviantart.net...

water colors are possible in graphic programs also, but it's definitely harder. i have one somewhere in my old computer that crashed that looked like a water color but that was totally by accident and don't think i could do it again, on purpose!

i was a huge fan of pencils and inks for a long time. then went to acrylics (whew that was a learning curve for me and just think, oils are even harder!). i never attempted a serious water color in traditional paints. maybe that has some bearing on my view of rendering it graphically on purpose. lol

i don't think it's dishonest. it takes some thought and effort to do it in graphics programs. it doesn't just hop unto the page.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I decided that there are things I can do electronically that I can't do with paint - but that there are things I love about paint that I can't give up

I finally had to ask myself - is the end result the only goal - or is the medium somehow as important as the image?

are they separate things?

The medium is secondary to the message (or meaning) behind the art. Also, the goal, in my experience, is that point at which I say to myself; "Stop, before you screw it up entirely".

It doesn't matter a whit if you pound nails onto barnboard, as long as there's something in the design which makes people stop, look at it and think about what impact it may have.

Here's a great quote:

There is no more tiresome, circular or pointless question than What is Art? Worse yet is the corollary question, Is this or that Art? In the postpostmodern info-stream relativist image flux we now live in, the only reasonable answers are: nothing, everything, and always.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

Yup.

If I was in your shoes, I'd work something up on a computer, get it onto a nice hardboard and then get out my acrylics to flesh it out with a loaded brush.

Mixed media is all the rage.

I recently visited a very nice gallery in which many paintings were of fish and had all the trappings of fishing gear stuck on them... hooks, leaders, sinkers, lures, et al. They were done in nice dark greens and blues with flashes of silvery highlights and were all pricey as hell.

Originally posted by undo
do you think the old tv shows reflected the modern art way of thinking in the art world?

That's another thing I think many people do not think about, we are really surrounded by art, but in many cases we just don't think of it that way.

TV shows, like movies, are also art.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I finally had to ask myself - is the end result the only goal - or is the medium somehow as important as the image?

are they separate things?

They are separate things because one can exist without the other, but they are not independent, because art depends on the medium, so they are also connected. I hope I am not making too much of a mess of that sentence.

but - if I'm honest with myself I know that what I'm really after is the image - and that can be done any number of ways

Yes, it can be done in many ways, but all those ways will look slightly different, so the medium used is part of the process of creating art.

if I can get the same look digitally - is that somehow less honest?

No, computers are just tools, nothing more.

reply to post by masqua


oh yoooo hoo, you have a gallery?
linky.

reply to post by ArMaP


definitely so.
lots of things are artistic, i do believe. and i like most of them.

reply to post by undo


What is art? Everything, nothing and always.

This car:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc11f976af16.jpg[/atsimg]

is as much art as this manhole cover:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/446c76174d9f.jpg[/atsimg]

and this bit of folly:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e81617a6dc92.jpg[/atsimg]

and, yes, I DO have a bit of a gallery, but it might be construed as advertising, so I'll send you a link via U2U

reply to post by masqua


why would you feel bad about linking your gallery ? the guys we are talking about in thread make millions and in some cases, billions of dollars on art. here we are further advertising them in this thread. and you feel bad about linking your artwork? you a billionaire artist?

[edit on 1-8-2010 by undo]

oh check this out:

masqua's art
www.masqua.ca...

now that took some time and effort and talent!



[edit on 1-8-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


For one thing, it's just a gallery to showcase my last 5 years of work and, for another, it has personal information and a contact link which would make it look like I was promoting my stuff on this website.

Even though I have permission from admin to link to the website, I'd rather not.

Anyways, showing in a gallery is much better for viewing the paintings than even the most professional photography can accomplish. For me, it's all in the texture. Ya can't take a pic and show that.

Oh dear, I've been noticing some of this for years. One guy was making a fortune, interviewed on a talk show years ago that dipped his dogs bushy tail in random paint and let it swish around on the canvas. Hmmmmm....great stuff, the rich were flocking to this. I don't know what its about.

Colors themselves and some of the abstracts works really interest me, or the collages, mixed media, batiked into watercolor, really interests me. Sometimes when I'm blinking into the sun and thanking the energy, and close my eyes the resulting colors are like wonderful paintings, changing rapidly shape and color and if I could only capture those on canvas, I'd love to have them hanging up, but that is a study of abstract and color, and even a bit of geometry and its interplay. Or to use those colors in a skein of yarn, or handpainting a warp, or a rug or a lamp, sheets, throws, they're gorgeous.

But this is a little different I must admit.

For practice however, to connect to the right hemisphere, I do suggest people, explore art, in terms of color, and watercolors, pastels, acrylics, like washes, spunges, crayons, just let color go, and freeform what you're doing. Its very helpful.

reply to post by masqua


oy, see that's the problem. everyone's afraid someone else is gonna make money, so a few people are picked out to make money and the rest of us are like salmon swimming upstream.

reply to post by masqua


art produced in graphic programs do not have texture or "originals". i wonder if there's a program that can add texture to the print, based on your choices? interesting, i didn't even think of that. you'd have to print off a copy of your own work with the texture added just so you could show it as an original from which prints could be made!

reply to post by undo


You can always make your own paper, that way it will be a unique piece, specially if the paper sheets are all different in some way.

Edit: you can even use special paper, my sister once used watercolour paper on a inkjet printer, with interesting results.

[edit on 1/8/2010 by ArMaP]