Can you tell masterpieces from crap?

reply to post by Rikku


In strict visual terms (and remembering that artists very quickly adopt new media - mspaint would be the equivalent of cheap kindergarten paint on butchers paper, there are some awesome, dedicated painting applications, designed for artists by artists) you could either be lucky, knowledgable or a budding fake art investigator.
D.Hockney (pre-digital) had the hallmarks of talent...later works have been produced on an ipad...

How does a classic piece of literature, written with quill and ink different to a classic piece of literature written on an ipad?

Å99

olaru12
My talent is in knowing BS when I see or hear it.

And for now it's best I keep it to myself.

...and you should be commended for articulating your ignorance - or talent...

Å99

olaru12
My talent is in knowing BS when I see or hear it.

And for now it's best I keep it to myself.

You've also used words to express yourself...and all of sudden you're a master in literature?

Å99

reply to post by akushla99

So mastery and masterpiece are not related?

originally posted by: akushla99
...but there are many 'give-aways' (too many to casually mention)...

Å99

If there are so many give-aways, why the artists did not even notice that one painting in the gallery was created by an ass.

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99
...but there are many 'give-aways' (too many to casually mention)...

Å99

If there are so many give-aways, why the artists did not even notice that one painting in the gallery was created by an ass.

Who knows why - how would I know about someone elses expertise or lack of it?

Usually bodies of work retain working features that can be identified to the artist, if there is something to base it off. Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics - obviously...and the 'industry' of art has bred its own brand of 'merchant bankers'...that has an ego bigger than thier experience...there's no easy answer...

Å99

originally posted by: simus
reply to post by akushla99

 

So mastery and masterpiece are not related?

Not always. And it depends on how you define mastery.

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99
Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics

Do you suggest that one has to be godlike to tell an ass-work from art?

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99
Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics

Do you suggest that one has to be godlike to tell an ass-work from art?

No. I believe that's what you said.

...but, it's a relevant question, in context - what the hell is Art...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99


You've also used words to express yourself...and all of sudden you're a master in literature?

Å99

Thanks for the compliment! I sincerely appreciate it but calling me a "master" is a bit of a stretch. I have read
plenty of good books however.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: akushla99


You've also used words to express yourself...and all of sudden you're a master in literature?

Å99

Thanks for the compliment! I sincerely appreciate it but calling me a "master" is a bit of a stretch. I have read
plenty of good books however.

Oh - but you are too modest 😊

More people should read more books - anyway...master of art/master of literature - they are throw-away lines...but the more you immerse yourself in the feeling of reading/viewing them, the more is revealed about yourself and the world around you...not that everyone can put thier finger on what the revelation is...irrelevant though...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99
No. I believe that's what you said.

...but, it's a relevant question, in context - what the hell is Art...

You wrote that artists and professional critics are not godlike in the context of their inability to tell an ass-work from art.

a reply to: simus

8 of 12. Not bad. Now ask me if I think anything I saw was good art.

Nope.

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99
No. I believe that's what you said.

...but, it's a relevant question, in context - what the hell is Art...

You wrote that artists and professional critics are not godlike in the context of their inability to tell an ass-work from art.

No. That's not what I wrote.

"Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics..." - that's what I wrote...

...and how does this make you feel?...

Å99

originally posted by: tadaman
8 of 12. Not bad. Now ask me if I think anything I saw was good art.

Nope.

Given that random guessing gives 6/12 indeed excellent.

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99
No. I believe that's what you said.

...but, it's a relevant question, in context - what the hell is Art...

You wrote that artists and professional critics are not godlike in the context of their inability to tell an ass-work from art.

No. That's not what I wrote.

"Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics..." - that's what I wrote...

...and how does this make you feel?...

Å99

You wrote it in response to my question " why the artists did not even notice that one painting in the gallery was created by an ass" as it is easy to check: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: akushla99
No. I believe that's what you said.

...but, it's a relevant question, in context - what the hell is Art...

You wrote that artists and professional critics are not godlike in the context of their inability to tell an ass-work from art.

No. That's not what I wrote.

"Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics..." - that's what I wrote...

...and how does this make you feel?...

Å99

You wrote it in response to my question " why the artists did not even notice that one painting in the gallery was created by an ass" as it is easy to check: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Full Quote of the sentence in which you are basing this ridiculous line of questioning(?) *shrugs*...

"Artists aren't godlike, and neither are professional critics - obviously...and the 'industry' of art has bred its own brand of 'merchant bankers'...that has an ego bigger than thier experience...there's no easy answer..."
That's called a quote, not what you think I wrote.

If you've been paying attention to anything I've been writing you'd notice something.

In all honesty, I have no idea what your point is.

What I did not say, or suggest...
That one needs to be godlike to tell the difference - which is twisting what I wrote...and in the context of my actual quote, phrases such as 'industry', 'merchant bankers' (which is rhyming slang for something else), 'egos bigger than thier experience' - should have rung a few bells, but I have no control over the comprehension skills of random interweb posters...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99
which is twisting what I wrote...

It is a legitimate interpretation of what you wrote.

Anyway, may be now you can unambiguously answer why the artists could not tell the work of an ass from the work of one of their own?