The Modern Art Idiocy

page: 51
84
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
If the layman can't understand it and instantly connect with it, it isn't art.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SymbolicLogic
 


By that logic, art would be limited to x factor and jersey shore.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Okay, thanks.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
If the layman can't understand it and instantly connect with it, it isn't art.

The fact that some layman cannot understand it and instantly connect with it doesn't mean it's not art.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The Modern Art Idiocy



Acrylic on birch panel 16" x 12"

Posting opinions in this thread - endless
Posting a subjective rendering - priceless

(and, no, it's not for sale)
edit on 6/11/12 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Oh, I'm SO glad that this thread exists... I've been dying to get my work... Nay... my PASSION out to a more deserving and appreciative crowd of consumers of artistic merit and chic-ness.

Years of my tormented and blood soaked life have gone into this masterpiece... my life, my pain, my hopes, fears, and ambitions.

I have Given BIRTH to this work of art, and it's umbilical still drips its fresh crimson liquid of life onto the floor of my hopes and dreams...


So, without further modesty, humility, or stalling techniques... I give you, my life's WORK!




I call it:

The existentialism of pain and rebirth in an uncaring world of Jungian archetypes and Freudian symbolism

/me bows.


Edit: Yes, I am accepting bids.... one at a time, please.
edit on 6-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Have that silk screened on a panel larger than 3 square feet and there are galleries in New York that will lap it up.

You'll be famous



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



Have that silk screened on a panel larger than 3 square feet and there are galleries in New York that will lap it up.

You'll be famous


Awesome... now all I need is some hipster glasses, a cigarette holder, starbucks Vendi Caramel Mocha Latte/espresso half n half(ironically), and a floral patterned beret, and I'm all set.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Dye your hair white and wear tight shiny clothes too. Then find a place called Studio 55, and you're all set.

Best of luck to you.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I love it masqua

I'm so glad you decided to share it with us :-)

don't know if this has ever happened to you (?) but I occasionally I lose my creative spirit - heart - mojo...

whatever :-)

you just helped to set me back on the path

thanks



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
Ever since the modern era, art has been on a trajectory of increasing politicization at the expense of the aesthetic.

There are no more Klimts and Chagalls. Too much utility has been injected into the aesthetic. Beauty, as Plato and I would both have it, is a form to be inherently valued, and a society that does cannot recognize that principle is more far-removed from its natural impulses that previously imagined.


That, sir (or ma'am) was well said.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
If the layman can't understand it and instantly connect with it, it isn't art.

The fact that some layman cannot understand it and instantly connect with it doesn't mean it's not art.


And the counterpoint is that just because an art critic and the glitterati make up silly stuff to explain it and pay millions for it (usually based on wanting to look sophisticated to your set of people) does not make it art either.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
If the layman can't understand it and instantly connect with it, it isn't art.

The fact that some layman cannot understand it and instantly connect with it doesn't mean it's not art.


And the counterpoint is that just because an art critic and the glitterati make up silly stuff to explain it and pay millions for it (usually based on wanting to look sophisticated to your set of people) does not make it art either.


so, what does make it art?

the use of your favorite color?

:-)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If you really, really want it, I could likely come up with 10,000 words to describe what the painting I posted means to me personally.

But does it matter?

Not to me, anyways. The glitterati can do all that for me if they like, but it doesn't change a thing for me as the painter.
Critics are 10,000 times more numerous than artists, no matter what the medium, and if they each wrote one word, it would be equal to my explanations... 'meh'. I'm just going to go ahead and do another piece, not to please/ridicule them, but simply because I feel like it. It can be bad or good in my eyes (and I have a fix for bad
) and, if asked, put it on display for public viewing. that's it.

Artists who strive for monetary gain through their work are up against a formidable cliff, clawing their way, inch by inch, to some kind of public acceptance and a gracious nod from the mildest of critics, but history has a way of blowing 90% of even that chaff to the winds of time. The best way forward is to just do what one likes and let the Fates decide.

AM radio talk show hosts can rail forever on how they despise modern art of any kind or quality, whether based on established techniques, like a Klimpt, Van Gogh or a Degas or the slimy leavings of a snail on wet paint.

It.just.does.not.matter.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If you really, really want it, I could likely come up with 10,000 words to describe what the painting I posted means to me personally.

But does it matter?

Not to me, anyways. The glitterati can do all that for me if they like, but it doesn't change a thing for me as the painter.
Critics are 10,000 times more numerous than artists, no matter what the medium, and if they each wrote one word, it would be equal to my explanations... 'meh'. I'm just going to go ahead and do another piece, not to please/ridicule them, but simply because I feel like it. It can be bad or good in my eyes (and I have a fix for bad
) and, if asked, put it on display for public viewing. that's it.

Artists who strive for monetary gain through their work are up against a formidable cliff, clawing their way, inch by inch, to some kind of public acceptance and a gracious nod from the mildest of critics, but history has a way of blowing 90% of even that chaff to the winds of time. The best way forward is to just do what one likes and let the Fates decide.

AM radio talk show hosts can rail forever on how they despise modern art of any kind or quality, whether based on established techniques, like a Klimpt, Van Gogh or a Degas or the slimy leavings of a snail on wet paint.

It.just.does.not.matter.

IMHO The best art is the art that the artist enjoys making...you can tell when an artist reaches a transcendent state and it shows in his work. What I think hurts art, IMHO, is the rather silly art scene in contemporary society where people make art to be "edgy" or to please the current artistic trends or to make political and social statements. Those come off as so artificial.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
If the layman can't understand it and instantly connect with it, it isn't art.

The fact that some layman cannot understand it and instantly connect with it doesn't mean it's not art.


And the counterpoint is that just because an art critic and the glitterati make up silly stuff to explain it and pay millions for it (usually based on wanting to look sophisticated to your set of people) does not make it art either.


so, what does make it art?

the use of your favorite color?

:-)


If everything is art, then is anything art?


IMHO, everything is can be art because art is in the eye of the beholder. There is just good art and then there is very, very, very bad art and then there is silly art that is really just a retelling of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

If you recall that fairy tale, we have an entire kingdom who refuses to see that the Emperor was naked because they did not want to be that one, unsophisticated schlub that didn't "get it." This reminds me of the current art culture.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If everything is art, then is anything art?

In my opinion - yes

Art is more than the medium or the subject matter - art is an idea

Art works as a catalyst - no matter what kind of art


IMHO, everything is can be art because art is in the eye of the beholder.

your own words...


There is just good art and then there is very, very, very bad art and then there is silly art that is really just a retelling of "The Emperor's New Clothes."


Thing is - you criticize critics - all the while from the position of critic :-)

Please define 'good art'

You see how 'The Emperor's New Clothes' argument works against it's own self?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I totally get the whole argument. Being an artist myself, I have often visited modern art museums and wondered how in the world those artists can get away with selling such beginner looking art for such insane amounts of monies. Well, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder...I have sold many paintings in galleries in Manhattan, and most of the ones I sold were ones that I had poured much emotion into, but did not think they were that great at all. And the ones I never sell, are the realistic paintings/drawings. Thomas Kinkade I am not
Though I have done some realistic scenes before...I find them tedious, and boring as hell to paint.

I have always laughed at "art competitions" because it seems as though most "normal" people will only like stuff if it is photo-realistic, and they can understand what it is they are looking at, and can categorize it neatly into their little categories of what stuff is. So what if you can copy from life accurately...does that make you a "better" artist? It is subjective to be sure.

Personally I really enjoy art when it evokes some form of response, or emotion from me. Especially when you find out the story or stories behind the artist and the painting or paintings. For example, I painted this picture while I was homeless, living in Brooklyn, and was in love with a girl from the Bronx. It was for her...I was, at the time, heavily drinking whiskey and poured so much emotion into this painting. It is not photo-realistic, but has so much sentimental value to me and her (I'm not with her anymore, but we are still friends, and I gave her the painting which she still has hanging in her apartment to this day) :


Acrylic on canvas 6" x 9"

So, in my opinion...I believe that art is what you make of it...it can be anything...and it's value is subject to many, many factors. Such as the collector's sentimental value of it, whether or not the artist is alive to make more art, whether the art inspired a movement...etc. Cheers, and happy art-making!
edit on 8-11-2012 by AutOmatIc because: spelling



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
That painting on the floor (work in progress ) sold recently at Sotheby's for somewhere around thirty million $'s:



They call it "abstract expressionism."

Personally? I admire his work very much.

Modern art cannot be appreciated on a computer screen nor in photographs.


copy



[
edit on 8-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AutOmatIc
 


I like it.

Not because it's pretty or captures the essence of a therianthropic being springing from the head of a besotted creator, but because it is obviously spontaneous. Thick paint mixed on the panel itself?

Bravo.
edit on 9/11/12 by masqua because: RCD - reading comprehension disfunction





new topics
top topics
 
84
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join