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