PDA

View Full Version : any thoughts about modern art in general?


cpaulson
04-05-2005, 07:44 AM
i am curious... does anyone else out there think that these modern movements in art, Cubism, impressionism, etc. have led to some degradation of what art once was? perhaps these movements helped open up some new ways of thinking about art... and perhaps they just led to lesser forms of what art once was... i mean look at what is taught in schools nowadays... it's all about abstract art, and has little to do with teaching proper techniques as a foundation... at least that is how it seems to be in canadian schools at least...

Lunatique
04-05-2005, 07:51 AM
I think modern art has opened up a whole different way to approach art in general, but it came at a price. The price we paid is that for decades, only modern art was taught in schools, and only modern art had any relevance, while traditional knowledge and training of drawing and painting was shoved aside and deemed as souless and academic.

I think we've pretty much recovered from that by now. Angry voices have been heard in the form of artrenewal.org and other similar movements to bring back the traditional knowledge and training to artists. Commercial illustration also kept that traditional alive during the years the modern art ruled.

What we must not forget is, excess in anything is not always a good thing. Equilibrium is essential to the survival of most things on this planet.

What modern art gave us is a different set of eyes and ways to look at art, and for that we should be thankful.

Alexandrite
04-05-2005, 08:19 AM
i agree with everything you've said, Lunatique.
It seems to me as though modernism was a bit of a 20th century obsession in art...

heh, last year I took a 20th Century Art History course, and after lecture upon lecture describing all the tumultous changes in the world, and how art reacted or chose not to react to them, i've come to the conclusion that a lot of these art movements over the course of the past century - dadaism, modernism, surrealism, constructivism, suprematism, minimalism, etc etc etc - you just had to BE there for, to grasp the driving forces behind them.. had to live in those exact days... now to us, looking back through time, modernism and other movements seem odd, detached from what art once was. but so much of the art of the century, was a response to the political and social happenings of the days. they came, they passed, art responded and also passed with them.

my question is, we've had modernism... "modern", "current", "today"... we've had post-modernism after that... now what are they going to call the next "current" thing! :)

maX_Andrews
04-05-2005, 10:25 AM
Conceptualism of course!

Classical art revolved around the process of art as photography. Paint what you see, the better you can get it to look the better you were. Impressionism and expressionism led to art as observation and retelling through the eyes of the artist. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is Michelangelo's retelling of biblical scenes as he observed them in the non-visual form of the bible. Starry starry night by van gough is his expression of divinity and his beliefs towards fatalism and life, represented on canvas by his own way of placing brush strokes. Modernism takes expression one step further by freeing the bindings of the physically possible and encouraging the abstract expression of thought in an emotional or non-representational form. Up to this point all of what is considered art falls under the category of a creation. It is something the artist made out of an idea or perhaps out of nothing. The transition to postmodern thinking is crossed by Marcelle Duchamp's urinal exhibition and opens the doorway for the process and observed objects themselves to in fact be the final piece. Warhol painted soup cans. Postmodern artists would buy a soup can and submit it to a gallery. The proccess-driven postmodern aesthetic paved the way for current conceptual art that involves a merging between the process-based art of the postmodern and the image-based art of representationalism. Conceptual art tends to raise a lot of questions for the artist during the proccess. One of the most recutting factors in a conceptual project is that of "why." Why do I make art this way? Why do these images produce this effect? Why is this a good way to illustrate my complex idea? Conceptual art tends to show increased exhibitions of mixed-medium and digital art, again emphasizing the proccess of the work almost as much as the final work itself. It is paradoxical in a sense that the final work is in fact the proccess of making the work, and at the same time the proccess of making the work is voided as you are really creating nothing but a process of creation. It is in these ambiguities that current expressionism struggles to emerge.

About me:
I'm max andrews
Artist name: MadMax
What I do: Studying photography at NYU
Hobbies: 3D art, photo, fencing, volleyball, girls.

John Keates
04-05-2005, 12:56 PM
maX_Andrews,

You made a very good summation of art history as it is taught in art schools. However, I for one don't buy it.

For instance, I would say that the following is exactly wrong:

"Classical art revolved around the process of art as photography. Paint what you see, the better you can get it to look the better you were. Impressionism and expressionism led to art as observation and retelling through the eyes of the artist."

There were very few artists - or even none, before the impressionists who were trying to be like cameras. Even the northern European still life painters were painting things which were very different to photographs. I challenge you to get a whole load of fruit together from around the world at the same time with no modern transportation, add just the right amount of mould to it, and have a lizard catch an insect just at the very moment that you take the shot.

I also challenge you to take a photo of a lady feeding her father through the bars of an open jail whilst a fight breaks out behind her and angels hover above.

Now lets try impressionism. How to make a monet: Take a photo of some fields, up the contrast and apply a photoshop filter to make it look splotchy.

The fact is that Monet was trying to paint in a mechanical way. He had very little emotional attachment to the subject matter apart from that he thought it was quite nice. He is in some ways the father of colour photography.

Van Gough's paintings have more emotional power. Don't mistake him for an impressionist though - he was pretty much a one-off (apart from the fact that the vast majority of his paintings weren't painted by him and nobody actually knows which ones were any more).

One of the reasons why art critics put an emphesis on process is that it gives them something to talk about. If a painter makes a really good image then there is little to say about it. If they make a confused series of gestures then you can write a book and still have room for more woffle.

Sorry if the above seems a little agressive, I guess I just didn't get on with art school.

conundrum
04-05-2005, 02:04 PM
i think when madmax referred to "photographs" he meant the level of realism (how representational it is) rather than a literal photograph, but if he didn't then your comment is completely right. Although i have to disagree your proposal that Monet did not paint with emotion, certainly he did refine his technique but i honestly believe that if you were to hang a monet print next to your "four step monet," anyone would be able to pick the monet. Largely due to the amount of feeling an artist of his calibre manages to evoke from a landscape. Basically you are attacking the basis of what impressionism is, a work which evokes emotion through minimal use of actual detail and maximum use of suggested detail. a computer is merely interpreting and affecting all data from that photo, whereas the painter is discerning which data must be kept and which must be discarded in order to achieve "impressionism", meaning that only the painter can embed emotion within the image. though i have to admit that i personally have a lot more admiration for the work of Monet than Van Gough, so i might be a little biased

John Keates
04-05-2005, 02:16 PM
Hi Conundrum,

"a computer is merely interpreting and affecting all data from that photo, whereas the painter is discerning which data must be kept and which must be discarded in order to achieve "impressionism","

Well that's just it, Monet didn't discard anything. He was quite unselective. There is a quote from him saying something like " I just look somewhere and see a colour, then I get that colour and dab it onto the painting in the same place and move on" That is basically how he painted (apart from that he would work things up in the studio).

Don't get me wrong, I quite like his paintings, they are quite nice. But I don't get much more from them than that.

If you still think that he was mr. emotion then ponder this: He was painting on his little boat one day with his wife in the cabin when he noticed that she had died. He immediately took a canvas and started to paint her, capturing the dappled light on her dead body. He then woke up from his painting mindset and the emotional value of his wifes death hit him.

Granted, a landscape can have an emotional quality but I am not convinced that Monet was a particulrly good proponent of expressive painting. He was better at capturing the quality of light which could now be done because of the invention of the paint tube.

Kanga
04-05-2005, 03:02 PM
For the longest time I suspected modern art of hijacking taste, value and quality. I saw it as a clever marketing trick bent on engineering a hype to turn art into pure investment articles. A veritable Emperors Cloths syndrome.

With an Industrial Design colleague in 1984 I travelled from Australia to Europe and visited about 20 major cities. In each city we visited a contemporary art museum. I was determined to see as much of this crap as I could because this art hoax truley bothered me. I thought if I experienced modern art first hand, not through books or properganderous arty blah blah I might be able to make a true judgement.

Of course we sifted through many traditional museums as well for relief in between.

What I saw was what I was expecting to see,... the biggest load of bunk and hogwash. I mean really, a blank canvas obscenely priced from a guy who painted over it in clear water! However, one evening in Stockholm about sunset ,.... there it was contemporary art and very very beautifull, almost every piece. Was I exhausted, was it an overload, was it just the taste of the director of the museum? To this day I don't know, the only thing I know is if it speaks to you it's no hoax.

I guess if modern art has taught me anything it is that there is not only one way to do things.

Tocpe
04-05-2005, 03:06 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the abstract, "splashes of color on a canvas" kind of modern art.

Some of ya who don't dig modern art either might find this site interesting: http://www.artrenewal.org/

cpaulson
04-05-2005, 03:36 PM
wow what a fantastic site that art renewal center is... the article on the first page by Fred Ross, says excactly what is going through my head while i sit through my history of modern art class at my university... I am glad to see this kind of movement out there, thanks for the link lunatique and tocpe. i can't wait to see what my art professor says about this site when i show it to him...:thumbsup:

maX_Andrews
04-05-2005, 04:56 PM
"Monet didn't discard anything. He was quite unselective. There is a quote from him saying something like " I just look somewhere and see a colour, then I get that colour and dab it onto the painting in the same place and move on" That is basically how he painted"

I find that very interesting. It makes him almost Warholian in his approach then...very very interesting I think this may help an essay I am writing :)

John, I was referring to "photographic" painting in the sense that they look like photos. Fine brushes for the most part with fine strokes and accurate color. I appreciate your rebuttal to my history post and I learned a lot from what you put forth. As for the art school thing tho this has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only part I learned from art school so far was the conceptual art bit, as that is what we are currently concentrating on. The earlier part I just BS'd together from memories of my freshman high school art history class. Isn't art fun? :applause:

dbclemons
04-05-2005, 06:51 PM
If any instruction omits learning artistic fundamentals, then it is indeed faulty. There are fundamentals in "abstract" art or "modern" art as well; however, which contain elements that exist in all art forms. Modern theories have opened up more approaches that an artist can use to communicate their ideas, but the value of what they do is still measured by how well they execute that presentation. Whether or not it's the viewer's cup of tea is not the point. It's a challenge for them to understand the artwork on the artist's terms (or not.)

-David

Kanga
04-05-2005, 10:12 PM
If any instruction omits learning artistic fundamentals, then it is indeed faulty. There are fundamentals in "abstract" art or "modern" art as well; however, which contain elements that exist in all art forms. Modern theories have opened up more approaches that an artist can use to communicate their ideas, but the value of what they do is still measured by how well they execute that presentation. Whether or not it's the viewer's cup of tea is not the point. It's a challenge for them to understand the artwork on the artist's terms (or not.)

-David

Wierd I thought every modern movement or at least contemporary set out to break the rules, then everyone rushed in to firmly establish them :) .

You cant discern whether an artists execution is done well if you have to see everything from his or her or its viewpoint. The responsibility or joy of communication is negated.

To get back to the original point I believe museums, academies, galleries and learned critics are just businesses like the rest. The mystiek technique used to sell contemporary art HAS damaged all art.

Happily true talent thrives and survives despite all this.

dbclemons
04-05-2005, 11:53 PM
Exactly. The rules just get replaced with new ones, plus there's no communication if you don't understand what's being said. I don't necessarily agree that there's been a damage done by the commercialism of art. If anything, modern art has brought about a more "free agent" approach (for better or worse.) I'm not arguing, just clarifiying. :)

-David

Wierd I thought every modern movement or at least contemporary set out to break the rules, then everyone rushed in to firmly establish them :) .

You cant discern whether an artists execution is done well if you have to see everything from his or her or its viewpoint. The responsibility or joy of communication is negated.

To get back to the original point I believe museums, academies, galleries and learned critics are just businesses like the rest. The mystiek technique used to sell contemporary art HAS damaged all art.

Happily true talent thrives and survives despite all this.

DoInferno
04-06-2005, 02:59 PM
Well that's just it, Monet didn't discard anything. He was quite unselective. There is a quote from him saying something like " I just look somewhere and see a colour, then I get that colour and dab it onto the painting in the same place and move on" That is basically how he painted (apart from that he would work things up in the studio).

Wow! That´s kinda scary man, sorry to say, but your knownledge about this art movement are totally wrong! I myself, am not a great Monet´s fan, but you are saying he was unselective! He did exactly the opposite of what you´re saying!


At his time, tubes of paint were created, and that helped artist to go out of their studios. Well, that´s not the first time in history an artist goes out of his studio to paint, that´s for sure. It´s probably hard to make all of your paint and them leave out, but you can do it! I known some friends of mine that do just that!

The reason they were going ou on the fields and city to paint is a completely cientifical reason. The study of light in science had advanced a lot at that time, and the impressionist were developing a way of painting that would try to use on the canvas, with the pigment, how the eyes see the colors in lights.

We can see a innovative use of colors them, and a great difference in the way they saw the world they were representing. A shadown now, would be more than just ading a little grey to a place and make it darker. A shadown now is sometimes blue, sometimes red, sometimes full of different colors.

A church painted on the morning looked like one way, painted on the afternoon it looked a completely diferent way! He was painting the light! And that my friend is very Selective in my opinion.

Take a lot at this:

http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/images/monet_sunrise_l.jpg

And this:

http://www.artofcolour.com/painting-profile/profiles-no8-files/monet-venice.jpg

That´s wath they call "Painting the light".

As i said before, i´m not a Monet and impressionist fan, and i´m not a neoclassicist fan also. I really respect and love those art expression tought. As an artist i just ca n´t have any preconception about a movement or a way to paint... Sorry if i ofended someone and sorry for the long text, but there is a little more to come:

Neoclassicist painters are great, right? But we must also analyse a great problem at the time, that would botter a lot of us if it happened nowadays...

At that time artists had to paint exactly how the academy wanted. You would have to go to the academy and learn a bunch of rules, including the themes that must be painted, the way you have to use your brush, the correct position of a Lady, and a lot of others rules.

Isn´t it strange they all painted greek and roman motives? It was a rule! Impressionists on the other hand were the first ones (maybe romantics also... Gotta check this!) to paint a naked girl that happened to be a contemporay of them! It was not "allowed" by the academy to paint your girlfriend taking a bath! You had to make something like Vênus taking a bath!

Don´t you think it ended up being good for us all the last century movement, that finished with this arrogance of the academy?

Ahhhg! Enought of writing!!!

BigSky
04-06-2005, 05:27 PM
Just a couple of things I'd like to chime in on, questions really.

As I look at the "art renewal" site, and the general mood of this thread, which seems to lump "modern art" into one, easy to categorize, homogeneous basket, perhaps there's a couple of things which might set us thinking.

1. Why this nostalgia for the past? This is not only in art, but in politics as well, where, thanks to the politics of fear being paraded on the world democratic stage at the moment, we see a resurgence of nostalgias - art, religion, patriarchy. This is surely something that is worth at least thinking about. The guess would be that we are a little scared to take the spirit of the age head on, and (given that it's just a little bit scarey - perpetual war, ecological crises, growing personal anonymity and the lack of relevance of community/state), we can't step up to the plate like, say van gogh, or Duchamp, or Warhol, or Pollock. If we are really going to think about art, we're going to have to think about that. Is the nostalgia a distraction from something which is a little too difficult to look at?

2. Are we very stuck in the means of expression of our tools? Have we yet, not really learned how to use them to express, merely to reproduce? Personally, I have seen enough mecha bots and winged hairless android babes to last a lifetime. I think that that kind of stuff represents a kind of tool-first mentality, very much like the academies and salons of the past. It took a Cezanne or a Goya to wrench us away from a tools-led discipline into a more powerful role. Remember...the artist as an individual in his own right, expressing with a similar power as an author is only a recent phenomenon. We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

3. Does the "realist" school emerge as a result of the phenomenon of the network? Many voices boil down to a dull humming, where everyone likes generally what grandma likes?

Please don't get me wrong. I am as frustrated as the next guy when it comes to the highly politicized art world - there is a lot of dead wood, a lot of shysterism, and very definately the creation of markets. But the fact is that markets get created all the time for products WAAAY more crap and irrelevant than contemporary art. Anyone seen a leaf blower recently? Perfumed toilet paper? Coco-pops? Creating markets is what capitalism does, and it doesn't care about content. We should be caring about that because it's blind to the very thing that great art has always praised - human connection and being.

Tocpe
04-06-2005, 05:57 PM
Personally, I don't think art should be restricted or categorized. I like the art renewal site cause it's a great collection of that kind of art. But I don't think I have *any* right to tell others what kind of art is "good" art or what they should like. That would kill creativity and innovation. And that would be bad.

About the only kind of art I'm not a big fan of is Pollock's but that's because I can't really get into it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Art is a form of expression, and to supress expression is censorship. And censorship is wrong.


...did I just open up a can of worms? ;)

RobertoOrtiz
04-06-2005, 06:50 PM
I am not a fan on contemporary artists.
I see to many divas for my taste. It is like the artists has forgotten that the reason we care about his art is his art, not him. If I wanted to see performance art, I would see a performance artist.

I think my disatisafaction with contemporary art comes from the way a lot schools teach art today. It is like a lot of fundamentals are skipped over to jump right into the self expression of the artist.

-R

cpaulson
04-06-2005, 07:04 PM
"I think my disatisafaction with contemporary art comes from the way a lot schools teach art today. It is like a lot of fundamentals are skipped over to jump right into the self expression of the artist."

it's worse than that in my experience... where i am going to school, they don't skip the fundamentals, to get us thinking creatively... there are no instructors that know the fundementals really solidly enough to teach em... maybe my school is just crap, but i wouldn't be suprised if this is the same situation at many other universities...

Gamoron
04-06-2005, 07:12 PM
:applause: BigSky. I couldn't have said it any better ( really I dropped out of art school). But you said exactly what I would like to say.

I used to believe that classical and neo-classical and realism where the only "true" forms of art. Thats bullshit. So is this site http://www.artrenewal.org/. It celebrates the influence of one continents take on art.

The best thing about the modern art movement for me was that it helped me to appreciate the art of the world. I firmly believe world art influenced it.Before I would look at, say Mayan sculptures and think it was shabby compared to the works of the classical European masters. That view is so biassed and narrow minded.

That view is the reason there is all kinds of art in these forums that are focused on how to render and draft as well as possible. The end result being this beautifully painted elf, or ogre or titty girl or naked girl with big gun. What is the point behind that crap? If you're striving to be the best conceptual artist you can then you're well on your way. But I don't feel that will turn you into some mover and shaker like all the painters that have been discussed here.

My point is that yes you should refine your skills. But don't let them cloud your view of art as the expression of an idea. Photographs and camcorders do an excellent job of capturing the subject. Painting and manipulation of media and materials can help give it better depth. The feel and texture of a painting and how it reflects the light off a canvas is so key to creating a responce.

like I said I dropped out of school and you can tell by the above garble. I need to think through my thoughts better.

EDIT: that art renewal site is bullshit. They want to set up the same system that existed 200 years ago. One that only excepted a minute group of artists that painted in one certain fashion. That site is the anti-art.
Look at it this way. How many of you listen Rock, Punk Rock or Hip Hop and rap? How about Drumn'Bass or Dub? You think you'd have that today if there was an insitute in place to crush it before you heard it? Remember Blues and other black folk music of the early 20th century made all that possible. There were things in place that tried to put a stop to it. Luckily for us it survived and we all feel it.

Opening the doors for all people to create art has been a truly great thing. Maybe a lot contemporary Western art sucks but thats only 1/3 of the story.

lulaassassina
04-06-2005, 07:40 PM
Since I am studying Theory and Art Critique, I feel that I should post on this thread.

Now, don't judge me as an academist or something like that, but there are a lot of think I think you should destroy in your head.

First of all, modern art didn't lead to a degradation of art. As a proof for that, and you can see it in this forum, art is still mostly figurative and in the same canons of composition and theme. Modern art brought liberty in art, and the greatest quality of nowadays art is EXPRESSION.

About technique, as any discussion about that, is one of the most relative question. Then again, technique serves expression, and expression is personal. Please forgive yourself and stop wanting to be like the other, you have potential. Release it, is one of the most important steps of an artist, acception of individual expression. And this is made of gold. You admire others by it's expression, the so called feeling, not their technique.

Most of all, if you don't want to do or develop somekind of art, don't do it. There is nothing wrong on doing it or not. It's a choice. You don't have to reject something to be satisfied with the opposite.

My advice, study modern art! Knowledge doesn't bite.

Hope I've helped. And sorry for my english.
luv.

Kanga
04-06-2005, 08:04 PM
ooh EEK!

They call it art reneal! Looked like kitch.overcoloured.artregurgitation. Neat excecution but sugary sweet romatic ickyness. Laconic camp poses and those nasty proportions, but then again I didn't get past the first page. Looks like the artists made stuff from a period they have little real connection to so they emminate a copy like quality.

This is a personal reaction I know lots of you like this stuff and don't want to offend you but for me this is,....

Disturbing 2D :eek:

SpeccySteve
04-06-2005, 09:46 PM
ooh EEK!

They call it art reneal! Looked like kitch.overcoloured.artregurgitation. Neat excecution but sugary sweet romatic ickyness. Laconic camp poses and those nasty proportions, but then again I didn't get past the first page. Looks like the artists made stuff from a period they have little real connection to so they emminate a copy like quality.

This is a personal reaction I know lots of you like this stuff and don't want to offend you but for me this is,....

Disturbing 2D :eek:

Kinda agree, a large proportion of that site isn't my cup of tea either, on the other hand some of it just rocks. ( in my opinion.)

Same as any genre / style of anything ( art, music, film, whatever ), some of it will be great but the vast majority will be a bit dodgy at best.

-Steve

Kanga
04-06-2005, 10:05 PM
Kinda agree, a large proportion of that site isn't my cup of tea either, on the other hand some of it just rocks. ( in my opinion.)

Same as any genre / style of anything ( art, music, film, whatever ), some of it will be great but the vast majority will be a bit dodgy at best.

-Steve

Yeah Steve,... like I said never got off the first page, the craftmanship is top notch just what I saw was a real shock. I'll go back and check out the rest sometime.

I can go a bit overboard.

ashakarc
04-06-2005, 10:48 PM
"...did I just open up a can of worms? http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/wink.gif"
It depends on your definition of "worms" ;)

The problem with art schools is not related to Modernism or any other movement. It is just bad practice, if there is any. Professors don't practice what they preach, and most knowledge is passed on to students like fast food. Now, this is a general phenomenon, not particularly true for all those great minds out there. The question is that do I need schooling for my education?

best,
ashakarc

SpeccySteve
04-06-2005, 10:57 PM
I can go a bit overboard.

In this case though it's probably fair comment, some of the content over there is nasty and you do have to wade through a lot of badness to find the cool stuff- kinda like music from the 80's.

-Steve

DoInferno
04-07-2005, 01:47 AM
Well, i REALLY agree with lula_assassina!

And i will add something to what he said. When i wen´t to my Art college, i tought my first grade teacher would teach me how to finally reproduce in a good maner whatever were in front of me. It didn´t happen... After a while i realized that he were not supposed to. I´m supposed to discover my way of representing what i wan´t the way i wan´t.

Technique, is something anyone can get. All you gotta do is practice, and you will have the technique to do whatever you wan´t. Art is much more than technique, it´s about your own language, your way to make something, your way to aproach a subject and much more.

About Artrenewal, i think anyone has the right to make XVIII century art. Just don´t expect to see it selling a lot, because people want to buy the expression of an era. That way XVIII century art is well placed in the market when it´s something made in XVIII century. Sorry to say but we are in the XXI century, so we must find our way to express our world in our maner.

The problem with Artrenewal is that they wan´t to kill others art expression, they think they are worthless. It´s the same kind of thinking Hitler had! That´s scary, they don´t wan´t me to do what i do and they have nothing to do with my production!

SpeccySteve
04-07-2005, 02:38 AM
When i wen´t to my Art college, i tought my first grade teacher would teach me how to finally reproduce in a good maner whatever were in front of me. It didn´t happen... After a while i realized that he were not supposed to. I´m supposed to discover my way of representing what i wan´t the way i wan´t.

So what was your teacher there for exactly? If he can't teach you technique and can't teach you how to represent what you see the way you want is he / she even needed?

Technique, is something anyone can get. All you gotta do is practice, and you will have the technique to do whatever you wan´t. Art is much more than technique, it´s about your own language, your way to make something, your way to aproach a subject and much more.

Agreed somewhat, although I'd be more confident about that statement if I had a tenth of the technical skill I'd like to have at this point. I might not feel the need to use it but I'd be happier having it just in case..

About Artrenewal, i think anyone has the right to make XVIII century art. Just don´t expect to see it selling a lot, because people want to buy the expression of an era. That way XVIII century art is well placed in the market when it´s something made in XVIII century. Sorry to say but we are in the XXI century, so we must find our way to express our world in our maner.

Kinda agree ,although I'd still love to see more artists with the technical expertise typical of that era going at contemporary subjects with similar drive and focus. Lose the 18th century business, show me MY world, selectively , make it look cool though. No frilly ballgown portraits please most of us don't wear them and I already own a camera ta.

(Trivia: I'd bet a lot of that "18th century art" sells for more than yer average pickled cow but that's another issue altogether..)

The problem with Artrenewal is that they wan´t to kill others art expression, they think they are worthless.

I see the site as a (slightly over zealous) backlash against the bias towards modernism / conceptual art that seems to be rife in modern art circles where realist / representational painting is not just unfashionable but actively looked down upon as purely nostalgic or cheesy.

I agree however that by adopting any rigid definition of "what is or isn't proper art", artrenewal becomes just as restrictive and limited as the "non-realists" that irritate them so much, it's a daft idea and they'll miss out on a lot of cool stuff. Own goal.

I personally think we can divide things into "cool" and "not cool", who / what goes where is entirely personal opinion, there's no formula.

Wow, rambling post at 3am, apologies for typos or poorly constructed thoughts, stay cool.

lulaassassina
04-07-2005, 03:29 PM
SpeccySteve:
So what was your teacher there for exactly? If he can't teach you technique and can't teach you how to represent what you see the way you want is he / she even needed?
A teacher should onto student's needs. But since there is no recipy and since we are talking about a maturity process, the teacher's function is to orient. And if there is technique to share, that's great! Please don't reduct art developing and teaching like that. Everything you know comes with experience. Even the things people say to you must become experience in order to become knowledge.

Agreed somewhat, although I'd be more confident about that statement if I had a tenth of the technical skill I'd like to have at this point. I might not feel the need to use it but I'd be happier having it just in case..

Hey but that's you, isn't it? No one is really happy, or better, satisfied. That's why we call it a search, it never ends!

luv

Ilikesoup
04-07-2005, 10:18 PM
I am not a fan on contemporary artists.
I see to many divas for my taste. It is like the artists has forgotten that the reason we care about his art is his art, not him. If I wanted to see performance art, I would see a performance artist.

I think my disatisafaction with contemporary art comes from the way a lot schools teach art today. It is like a lot of fundamentals are skipped over to jump right into the self expression of the artist.

-R

Respect the movement, but hate the artist, Roberto. :D
DaVinci saw painting as a science, concerned with creating the illusion of depth in a flat image. I think of each modern movement as an experiment in how to create a more effective painting. Most Cubist paintings are incomprehensible, but the Cubism movement explored ways to depict movement in a still image.

As for divas, I'm sure they were around during the Renaissance, too.

slaughters
04-07-2005, 10:42 PM
...1. Why this nostalgia for the past? This is not only in art, but in politics as well...At what exact time in the past can you point to that people were *not* nostolgic about the past?

... I have seen enough mecha bots and winged hairless android babes to last a lifetime. I think that that kind of stuff represents a kind of tool-first mentality...Or, android babes and mecha bots are just the 3D equivalent to all those dreary flower and fruit still lifes that painters have had to make through out the ages.

As for "Modern Art" (art made in the late 19th century is "modern"?), a lot of the styles: impressionism, pointilsm, cubism, etc. were made specifically by the artist in an attempt to do something totally different than their contemporaries (I recently read some biographies on Monet and Picasso). Because of this I've always thought of it as "artificial art". Made just to be different, not from any inner drive.

Except for Van Gogh. He was just plain weird. He painted what he really saw in his head. Stary Night was even painted while he was in an asylumn. (note: saw that recently from a distance of about 1 or 2 feet away. The white specs in the painting of the night sky are not paint. They are from where the paint did not cover all of the canvas)

Spinmeister
04-08-2005, 03:51 PM
By the 1980's when Conceptual Art was in vogue in fine art circles, art had traveled from material to ether, from renderings to ideas. Perhaps as Art History is taught, there is a need to create a progressive, evolutionary timeline like this. BUT, as you know, at any given moment today, EVERYTHING in the art spectrum is going on.

So, my conclusion over the past 15 years is that Art is Pluralistic; let a million flowers bloom. This may frustrate Art Historians, but the reality is that we are much more globally connected today and it is difficult to imprint their definition on what art is or what it should be. We are fortunate to live in a moment of many styles and movements.

Gamoron
04-08-2005, 04:27 PM
@ Spinmeister

Hear, Hear!

Kanga
04-08-2005, 04:45 PM
Spinmeister
Insightfull.
I believe it is so.

Spinmeister
04-08-2005, 06:58 PM
Thanks guys... I enjoyed sorting that out of my cluttered synapses.

Enjoying this forum, will plan on learning and contributing further!

CodeNothing
04-08-2005, 07:14 PM
The art "world" is full of self proclamed leaders that people follow because they got a digree and a lot of money.


The leaders in the art world would like you to believe that asthetics are dead. If fact, nothing here on CG talk is concidered "fine art" anymore. ART is conceptual not. No, not conceptual as in character design and environmental design, conceptual like "these phonebooks hanging from strings represent the slow pull of time on the human soul."

That was an actual "fine art" piece at my college. The critics loved it. The sad thing is the fine arts program students arnt even required to take a single painting or drawing class. They litteraly just sit around and talk about theory all day long. Then they go to the studio and put a pile of dirt in the middle of the room, put a brick on top, and try to figure out what it all means...

The good news is, If you have studied art history, you know that all the great artists of their day were rebels against the structure of the art community. and as i for one believe that the art community is at an all time low nowadays, we have nowhere to go but up. :scream:

Gamoron
04-08-2005, 10:29 PM
@ CodeNothing

Another Hear, Hear!

ozhaver
04-16-2005, 04:29 AM
There are three things I take in consideration when I see a work of visual art: Technique, Composition and Theme/Idea (or the new lets-seem-sophisticated word of the era: concept). Mostly, good works of art are *balanced in these three elements.

When one is unbalanced, then you find out the "artist" has to write an essay to help you understand what the hell s/he was trying to do (and to help you find something artistic in it; or to explain how his/her shallow work of art is not really shallow in thought).



I simply think there are many ways to express ideas other than visual arts. If someone doesn't have enough talent for painting or drawing, but still can write those enormous paragraphs they stick aside the paintings in galleries or put in the brochure booklets, or has to give speeches and conferences during exhibition openings, then, why don't they become writers/orators instead? or try music, or theatre, etc.? Why be bullheaded?

While modernism and post-modernism have helped in broadening the ways of looking at and making art, it doesn't always succeed into the creation of a good piece of art. There are great things out there, but there is also tons of garbage being worshiped as "genius". In my opinion concerning modernism and post modernism in *visual arts*- for I really love what it did to literature, philosophy and history- there aren't that many great works compared to other eras...but to each its own.

I think I am also annoyed by my educators and their mania with modernism. They are making me SWALLOW it, and I still can't do that all the time. Not to mention that to me it has become passé. To me modernism lost it's appeal when they finally won their war. Basically a tyrant overthrew another one and took its place. I also figure that there are some people just defending their bacon... I also have seen a lot of repulsion towards anything done before 20th century. And I believe our generation is slowly progressing into changing these views, so I am very joyful inside.

TheDweller
04-19-2005, 04:01 AM
I think it's easy to see that Modern art is a huge failure simply by looking at the sorry state of the visual arts as a whole. Impressionism has it's appeal due to the pretty pastel colors. Van Gogh for his pretty swirls of paint. Most other artists or modern art movements would likely be all but lost on anyone who didn't actually study art. I'm not saying art has to appeal to everyone to be good, but if it fails at it's most basic functions (communication on SOME level to an average person) then when does it cease to be art, and instead become artistic self gratification or simple academic BS?

If you went up to random people on the street and asked them to name an artist from the last 50 years you MIGHT get lucky and hear Dali every so often. Most times you'd get a blank stare. Ask them to name a musician, an actor, or a writer from the past 10 years and most could give you a list. Visual arts are truelly dieing out from lack of support, and I'll be so bold as to blame it on modern art easily. Art's saviors are NOT the modern artists who are "freeing us to be as creative as we want to be", but are instead the comicbooks artists, the tatoo artists, the animators, and the video game artists, and they are doing so with a good solid appreciation of "traditional" art skills.

An art education should enhance someone's appreciation of art, not be required to even attempt it.

slaughters
04-19-2005, 11:58 AM
... tatoo artists...Sorry, I just giggle when ever I see those two words together :)

TheDweller
04-19-2005, 05:32 PM
Sorry, I just giggle when ever I see those two words together :)

Well like any artists there is a lot of crap, and a few truelly talented individuals. However, if you are implying the whole field doesn't deserve to be called artists you need to face that tatoos are what the street level average person can relate to. "Giggling" at that level of art is simply another form of elitism similar to fine art's view on illustration and other commercial artists.

adam-crockett
04-19-2005, 08:40 PM
boo hoo hoo. "I don' understand this new fangled art stuff. What evah happened to makin' purty pictures that I can understan'?"

All this denouncing of "modern" art movements (as if you could combine all the art coming out of all the world's cultures for the past 50 years as a single movement) is hilarious for an "artists" forum.

You dont have to understand it. You dont have to like it. Just be glad there is a market out there for crazy wierd stuff so that all of OUR self gratifying fluff has a place too.

Often I see art that confuses me, that challenges my ideas of art. I dont get it, it hurts, it doesn't make sense, and I think about it for days. Or it just bores me. None of that matters.

I've always held the belief that an artist makes art for their own reasons. The viewer likes or dislikes the art for their own reasons. They dont have to be the same reasons. Either a piece makes a connection with a particular viewer or it doesn't, its all subjective anyway.

Wah.

TheDweller
04-19-2005, 10:43 PM
I see it more as

Boo hoo hoo. "I want to be an important artist too, but technical ability is a lot of hard work, and besides all the good ideas have been taken. I'll poop on a dog and let you figure out what it means to you."

C'mon. What other field seriously conducts itself this way? Do you think if someone wants to be a great chef they can just do whatever? "You don't like how it tastes? Well you must like that old fashioned, boring tasty food. Phugh! My food is not for you to like, all that is important is that I pushed the boundries! Shut up and eat your spaghetti and chocolate sauce dolt!"

When was the last time you heard a group of kids talking about artists they liked? Why is music out surviving visual art? Why are many public schools cutting art programs and no one even cares? Why is it that few people buy actual paintings anymore or go to art galleries and museums? I truelly think there is no longer an appreciation for art, and the average person doesn't care. They can no longer relate to "art". In my opinion this is the result of what is now generations of "art" not being for people anymore. It's for intellectuals who would rather discuss and defend art, and who feel superior because they "get it".

maX_Andrews
04-19-2005, 11:07 PM
Visual art is dying because it is a slow medium. The world is observedly speeding up, as is eveident in the frequency of cuts on your favorite tv program and the amount of Ghz in that box under your desk. We demand faster, faster, and faster production times, lower prices, and volume over quality. Visual art is a slow medium by nature, the tools available are cumbersome at best for translating ideas and deep thought into imagery. Digital has in part solved this problem by offering instant, cheap solutions, but the downfall here is that the ease of use has seen a huge rise in photographers that just don't care. The other mediums of visual art remain in large part time consuming and almost unanimously expensive. In the music industry you sign with a label that gives you cost benefits, or you spend a few hundred bucks and throw together a band with your buddies. There is no equivalent in visual art. You can't pluck at a page until it sounds good, you have to start over and over and over. THis takes time, and most people won't give that to you.

SpeccySteve
04-20-2005, 12:02 AM
I agree with Dweller, the days of the general public "getting" so called "fine art" seem long gone, I feel the only forms of art that the general public actually care about are film, music, games, graphic novels etc so for me they are more relevant than "fine art" as they actually have an audience, they reach people.
Visual art is a visual medium, if I need to read two pages of explanation before your visual communication makes any sense I'd suggest you have failed to communicate your idea, at least within the context of visual art.

regarding tattoos, they are a visual medium and people care about them to the extent they are prepared to wear these designs for the rest of their lives therefore to me they are art, far more so than a pickled cow in a gallery somewhere.

I wouldn't have one but then I am terrified of needles..

Late night ramblings, please excuse any typos.

adam-crockett
04-20-2005, 12:25 AM
I see it more as

Boo hoo hoo. "I want to be an important artist too, but technical ability is a lot of hard work, and besides all the good ideas have been taken. I'll poop on a dog and let you figure out what it means to you."

...because art should only be created by people with technical ability.

Pish posh.

Art is the expression of the individual artist, regardless of techical ability. Poop on a dog and call it art. I don't care. Its not my taste, but good for YOU for doing it. I hated going to the museum with my dad because his idea of art dialogue is "Thats terrible, I could do that." To which I reply, "well, sure. But he actually DID."

The Art Brut, Outsider, or Uneducated art "movements" (not really a movement, just collectors and critics finally taking notice) is a fascinating thing. Artists with absolutely no technical ability making art just because it feels good. Just because they have to. Artists like the Reverened Howard Finster. His paintings were TERRIBLE, but he was a great, prolific artist. I have even more respect for his creative genius after I visited his home in Georgia. What an incredible wonderland of creativity!!


C'mon. What other field seriously conducts itself this way? Do you think if someone wants to be a great chef they can just do whatever? "You don't like how it tastes? Well you must like that old fashioned, boring tasty food. Phugh! My food is not for you to like, all that is important is that I pushed the boundries! Shut up and eat your spaghetti and chocolate sauce dolt!"


Dude, have you ever had caviar? I mean the word "taste"..the very epitome of subjectivism... comes from food.


When was the last time you heard a group of kids talking about artists they liked? Why is music out surviving visual art? Why are many public schools cutting art programs and no one even cares? Why is it that few people buy actual paintings anymore or go to art galleries and museums? I truelly think there is no longer an appreciation for art, and the average person doesn't care. They can no longer relate to "art". In my opinion this is the result of what is now generations of "art" not being for people anymore. It's for intellectuals who would rather discuss and defend art, and who feel superior because they "get it".

Kids discuss music and movies and comics and toys, things that are all mass produced and mass marketed to them via every media possible.

What makes you think that music is "outsurviving" visual art? I see no evidence of that. Art museums are a HUGE tourist attraction. Ever stood in line for hours to get into an art show? I have a couple of times recently. Of course, I live in Pioneer Square in Seattle, where there is row after row of art galleries. "How do they stay open" I wonder. They must be making sales.

Then there is the visual art periodical sections which EASILY take up as much space as music periodicals. There are plenty of examples of art thriving in our country despite the conservative backlash against it.

I agree wholeheartedly that art education is crappy, but I think that is more indicative of the conservative american attitude towards art (exhibited clearly in this thread). Even more to blame is the conservative educational system that places no importance on art. Anybody from other countries want to talk about their art education experiences? (pre college)

You brought up music, so lets turn the same argument against it. "Modern musicians are killing music! They dont have any technical ability so they just loop some samples and call it music so they can be famous. Its no wonder music education doesnt get funded anymore."

Its just ridiculous. I like Moby and DJ shadow just as much as Billie Holiday and Goreki.

ThePhotographer
04-20-2005, 12:27 AM
I'm so relieved that many of you seem to have the same feelings about the Art Renewal Center as I do - thanks, you made my day.

Here's a very well written post found on their site - I couldn't agree more :


http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=67&forumID=8

Kanga
04-20-2005, 12:31 AM
Well if you go out and take a look around there is some really brilliant contemporary art. The thing is movies and games are more convenient so we have stopped hunting the good stuff down. I have this friend who is a lady that loves dragging me to openings and galleries, museums etc and I see a lot of whacky stuff that would fit right into a modern console game, in fact I reckon alot of the stuff was inspired by contemporary art.

Do yourself a favour and check out modern art that is made NOW, much of it can be very inspiring, trust your eyes as most of the artists meant it to be appreciated first hand. All that hype and fashion stuff isn't necessary to enjoy creative work.

adam-crockett
04-20-2005, 12:54 AM
Well if you go out and take a look around there is some really brilliant contemporary art. The thing is movies and games are more convenient so we have stopped hunting the good stuff down. I have this friend who is a lady that loves dragging me to openings and galleries, museums etc and I see a lot of whacky stuff that would fit right into a modern console game, in fact I reckon alot of the stuff was inspired by contemporary art.

Do yourself a favour and check out modern art that is made NOW, much of it can be very inspiring, trust your eyes as most of the artists meant it to be appreciated first hand. All that hype and fashion stuff isn't necessary to enjoy creative work.

Quoted for total agreement.

ozhaver
04-20-2005, 02:49 AM
...because art should only be created by people with technical ability.

Pish posh.

Art is the expression of the individual artist, regardless of techical ability. Poop on a dog and call it art. I don't care. Its not my taste, but good for YOU for doing it. I hated going to the museum with my dad because his idea of art dialogue is "Thats terrible, I could do that." To which I reply, "well, sure. But he actually DID."

The Art Brut, Outsider, or Uneducated art "movements" (not really a movement, just collectors and critics finally taking notice) is a fascinating thing. Artists with absolutely no technical ability making art just because it feels good. Just because they have to. Artists like the Reverened Howard Finster. His paintings were TERRIBLE, but he was a great, prolific artist. I have even more respect for his creative genius after I visited his home in Georgia. What an incredible wonderland of creativity!!

Even though art can be therapeutic...it is not therapy you know...:rolleyes: You make it sound like creating art is for mental release only. I am not saying there is a bit of it involved, but this release, or in some cases compulsion, is not the point of art itself.

Creating in itself is different from creating art. You can create anything you want, this doesn't make it art. Art is not just creating. I can as well create gastric gas, is that art too?

Sure!, modernists and post modernists would say it is...But for real, who believes that from the heart? No, you have to sit and think...perhaps take some classes with one of those modern professors and go into the everything-is-art-ttitude to be able to swallow such...'things'. Art is not pure expression either. Expressing and creating expressive art are two different things. Art can be very well a technical exercise done by the artist which is not more than a mass study. Then again some people may find it beautiful and touching- even if the intention of the artist wasn’t such. Expression is not a requirement either. If it is involved, the better, but it’s not necessary.

Who qualifies genius? The little few who can 'interpret' & swallow modern & post-modern art or the social bulk? Expressing is directly connected to communicating. Like I said before: if you need to write an essay to explain why your piece is artistic, why don't you better stick to what you are good at? WRITE THEN! or dance or sing or fart! Do what you are good at!

I think modernists made art into a fancy childish craving. It's like wanting to be a cook, but not having any ability at all and still keep going unsuccessfully at it, day after day, year after year. Ah yes, someone will say at your funeral, he cooked! That was what mattered. Was the food even edible? No, then why is this person’s cooking important at all?

Yes, talent and technique are VERY relevant when it comes to art. I can appreciate ideas in themselves and in a philosophical value, but isn't that what philosophizing is for? If all you want is to talk, then talk! Inefficiently illustrating your essays adds nothing to the bunch of words which in the end are the really important element in all this "expressive" exercise.

Most people who do art to feel good, or to rant about, and, are not good at it- mostly keep it to themselves. I think we have lost quality control when it comes to museums and galleries. But such is the product of Capitalism. Material, material, material. This is another modern art element/obsession. Such fervent focus on material! Oh why is it special? cuz it's made of penguin dung! that is what makes it special!

Yes "I could do that", some artists can, even ten times better- but guess what?: that is not what modern & post modern tasters (aka gallery owners and museum managers) are about. They want to sell, if crap sells, they will sell crap. You also mention: "BUT HE DID"- Iapplaud their guts and shamelessness. I wouldn’t have the face or bigotry to even bring into the light of day some of the stuff I have seen hanging in museum walls. I think my dignity as an artist and as a person is more important than popularity.

I think some people do need a reality check and a career change. They are behaving like spoiled brats whose daddy and mommy (a.k.a. modernism and postmodernism) let them have their way whenever, wherever and however they want. Thus we end up with these sorts of confusions.

I agree wholeheartedly that art education is crappy, but I think that is more indicative of the conservative american attitude towards art (exhibited clearly in this thread). Even more to blame is the conservative educational system that places no importance on art. Anybody from other contries want to talk about there art education experiences? (pre college)

You brought up music, so lets turn the same argument against it. "Modern musicians are killing music! They don’t have any technical ability so they just loop some samples and call it music so they can be famous. Its no wonder music education doesn’t get funded anymore."

Yes it so is, OMG- we spent a week discussing Picasso back in my 3rd semester at the university, to then figure out it was all commerce, all a big huge prank. I applaud him for the wits, just like I applaud many artists who are exposing now, whom I know personally, whose talent I know the extension of, and, who make 30 pieces in one month which are sold in less than two after the big luxurious party opening. I mention to most: I admire your commercial genius, but I hope you are aware of the crap you are making. Mostly, they nod and smile- guess why?: they are getting rich quick. And money moves the world. What is modern art without the media? Nothing. It wouldn’t be where it is today.

I wouldn't dare compare music to visual arts, though I know the best abstract art makers that have ever existed: I tunes, Winamp and Windows Media Player Visual effects plug-ins. At least these ones incorporate the text into the artwork itself. And I don't need to take time apart to understand (or waste my precious time) it through reading the brochure or discovering all the kinky or disturbing personal facts of the artist's life. Not saying that I don’t love a challenge, a good one is always appreciated, but most challenges today are absorbed and filtered into mostly meaningless personal individual exposed diaries who should be kept private.

Don't forget beauty. Don't forget visual enticement. Visual arts are called visual arts because of something. Fine Arts are called Fine Arts because of something. Farting and expressing just for the sake of expressing, or that lie about the automatism (once you put your brush on the canvas and think "it needs more yellow here" it is not automatically anymore- therefore impossible, why try to be mechanical machines?) etc. are things apart. In my opinion of course.

I am just glad that these movements in the visual arts are finally over- its about being patient, nothing lasts forever - we just have to wait til the remaing few extinguish.

Kanga
04-20-2005, 03:20 AM
....
Yes "I could do that", some artists can, even ten times better- but guess what?: that is not what modern & post modern tasters (aka gallery owners and museum managers) are about. They want to sell, if crap sells, they will sell crap. You also mention: "BUT HE DID"- Iapplaud their guts and shamelessness. I wouldn’t have the face or bigotry to even bring into the light of day some of the stuff I have seen hanging in museum walls. I think my dignity as an artist and as a person is more important than popularity....[/b]

Ok so it is clear someone rammed abstract art down your throat and smacked your hand everytime you drew something,.... well that looked like something.

Leave all that baggage behind. Make the stuff you make but still look around, between all the stuff that makes you ill are some very inspiring artists and very inspiring pieces. Most of these people are just like you, gifted and hard working. They use real anatomy they use real techniques just in a different way.

Crickey everytime someone talks about modern art I get slapped wiith picasso,... he's just one artist, check out the ones who are alive and well and making great pieces.

If you say art is this and nothing else thats fine, the rest of us will be checking out everything and who knows we might even learn something new.

maX_Andrews
04-20-2005, 03:21 AM
Who qualifies genius? The little few who can 'interpret' & swallow modern & post-modern art or the social bulk? Expressing is directly connected to communicating. Like I said before: if you need to write an essay to explain why your piece is artistic, why don't you better stick to what you are good at? WRITE THEN! or dance or sing or fart! Do what you are good at!
I'll agree with the part about writing. If you need to include a paragraph to explain your work then your work is not effective. I'll also agree with the "do what you're good at" part, just so long as that does not include not doing anything you are not good at.

Most people who do art to feel good, or to rant about, and, are not good at it- mostly keep it to themselves. I think we have lost quality control when it comes to museums and galleries. But such is the product of Capitalism. Material, material, material. This is another modern art element/obsession. Such fervent focus on material! Oh why is it special? cuz it's made of penguin dung! that is what makes it special!
Here I have to disagree. I think that you can't control the type of art that is deemed museum worthy. To you and many others, penguin dung sculptures have little aesthetic value, but I am sure that some people would find enjoyment and interest in the sheer absurdity of it.

Being in art school myself, and having sat through hours upon hours of "What is art" conversations, the one thing I have definitely learned is that there are A LOT of very different opinions regarding art, and it is not fair or wise to declare one's own preference as an absolute maxim. It is not that you like something and someone doesn't, it is that they see something in it that you do not. Conversely, I am sure there are qualities you may admire that others find trivial and frivolous. I don't see any point in arguing over which is better, as there is no "better." All that can be done is to respect deviating views on art, and to attempt to appreciate them. Obviously the value is found in different ways of seeing, and I find the infinitely variable concept of interpretation fascinating.

Then again, I am not saying not to have an opinion. By all means, take a stand. But don't do it blindy, based on your preference. Take a stand after you have been to both sides.

I like the discussion we have in this thread, keep it up!

Kanga
04-20-2005, 03:34 AM
......
Being in art school myself, and having sat through hours upon hours of "What is art" conversations, the one thing I have definitely learned is that there are A LOT of very different opinions regarding art, and it is not fair or wise to declare one's own preference as an absolute maxim. It is not that you like something and someone doesn't, it is that they see something in it that you do not. Conversely, I am sure there are qualities you may admire that others find trivial and frivolous. I don't see any point in arguing over which is better, as there is no "better." All that can be done is to respect deviating views on art, and to attempt to appreciate them. Obviously the value is found in different ways of seeing, and I find the infinitely variable concept of interpretation fascinating.....

Total agreement!
When you are absolutely sure about something all other possibilities are eliminated, for you.
Having said that I am glad they keep gravity switched on in the weekend :thumbsup: .

adam-crockett
04-20-2005, 03:36 AM
I'll agree with the part about writing. If you need to include a paragraph to explain your work then your work is not effective. I'll also agree with the "do what you're good at" part, just so long as that does not include not doing anything you are not good at.


My favorite artist's statement I've read in New American Painters has to be this one:

To the extent that art relies on words it is not visual.

adam-crockett
04-20-2005, 04:31 AM
Even though art can be therapeutic...it is not therapy you know...:rolleyes: You make it sound like creating art is for mental release only. I am not saying there is a bit of it involved, but this release, or in some cases compulsion, is not the point of art itself.

Creating in itself is different from creating art. You can create anything you want, this doesn't make it art. Art is not just creating. I can as well create gastric gas, is that art too?

I never even used the word therapy. I guess you are referring to where I said "they have to". I was was talking about compulsion not therapy. Many artists can be quite obsessive.

The medium matters not. Farting can be an art. If an artist uses farts as a medium, practices it every day, experiments, and refines the act of farting beyond the simple everyday act, he has raised it to an art form. He is an artist. Maybe Chris Burden has actually done this, I dont know.

I'd have to say Trey Parker and Matt Stone have made farting into an art form.

Fart Form?

F'art Form

"hello there, Im a f'Artist." heh heh

Moving on.



Sure!, modernists and post modernists would say it is...But for real, who believes that from the heart? No, you have to sit and think...perhaps take some classes with one of those modern professors and go into the everything-is-art-ttitude to be able to swallow such...'things'. Art is not pure expression either. Expressing and creating expressive art are two different things. Art can be very well a technical exercise done by the artist which is not more than a mass study. Then again some people may find it beautiful and touching- even if the intention of the artist wasn’t such. Expression is not a requirement either. If it is involved, the better, but it’s not necessary.

Im not sure what the hell you are talking about, so I'll move on.



Who qualifies genius?

MENSA?



Expressing is directly connected to communicating. Like I said before: if you need to write an essay to explain why your piece is artistic, why don't you better stick to what you are good at? WRITE THEN! or dance or sing or fart! Do what you are good at!


Even if you think you know what a piece is about...does't the artist's own written thoughts on it usually shed more light? Isn't this very forum full of that sort of thing? Again, just because its esoteric and YOU (or I) don't get it, you can't say its not art. Well, you can, I won't stop you, but you'd be wrong.



I think modernists made art into a fancy childish craving. It's like wanting to be a cook, but not having any ability at all and still keep going unsuccessfully at it, day after day, year after year. Ah yes, someone will say at your funeral, he cooked! That was what mattered. Was the food even edible? No, then why is this person’s cooking important at all?


I think modernists are simply making their art and ignoring the pedantic insistance of traditionalists to conform to their ideals.

What makes anyone's art important? Is it how much they sold? Is it their influence on others? Is it it's general acceptance by the public? If someone commits their life to perfecting something that is unappreciated by others, I would say that person is MORE of an artist than someone who spends there life catering the existing tastes of the populace. Though that artist would have, admitedly, chosen a frustrating path.


Yes, talent and technique are VERY relevant when it comes to art. I can appreciate ideas in themselves and in a philosophical value, but isn't that what philosophizing is for? If all you want is to talk, then talk! Inefficiently illustrating your essays adds nothing to the bunch of words which in the end are the really important element in all this "expressive" exercise.

Most people who do art to feel good, or to rant about, and, are not good at it- mostly keep it to themselves. I think we have lost quality control when it comes to museums and galleries. But such is the product of Capitalism. Material, material, material. This is another modern art element/obsession. Such fervent focus on material! Oh why is it special? cuz it's made of penguin dung! that is what makes it special!


Yeah, the Nazis were really good at Quality Control in their arts.


Yes "I could do that", some artists can, even ten times better- but guess what?: that is not what modern & post modern tasters (aka gallery owners and museum managers) are about. They want to sell, if crap sells, they will sell crap. You also mention: "BUT HE DID"- Iapplaud their guts and shamelessness. I wouldn’t have the face or bigotry to even bring into the light of day some of the stuff I have seen hanging in museum walls. I think my dignity as an artist and as a person is more important than popularity.


If crap sells: then somebody must like it.


I think some people do need a reality check and a career change. They are behaving like spoiled brats whose daddy and mommy (a.k.a. modernism and postmodernism) let them have their way whenever, wherever and however they want. Thus we end up with these sorts of confusions.


Yeah, those dang artists should be taught a lesson. How dare they create things we dont understand! Spank them!


Yes it so is, OMG- we spent a week discussing Picasso back in my 3rd semester at the university, to then figure out it was all commerce, all a big huge prank. I applaud him for the wits, just like I applaud many artists who are exposing now, whom I know personally, whose talent I know the extension of, and, who make 30 pieces in one month which are sold in less than two after the big luxurious party opening. I mention to most: I admire your commercial genius, but I hope you are aware of the crap you are making. Mostly, they nod and smile- guess why?: they are getting rich quick. And money moves the world. What is modern art without the media? Nothing. It wouldn’t be where it is today.

Yes, art as commerce. It is a commodity. Many people make a very good living off art. They make whatever they want, and people buy it. It blows my mind too.

How do I get in on some of that action? Right now I make whatever my art director tells me to.


I wouldn't dare compare music to visual arts, though I know the best abstract art makers that have ever existed: I tunes, Winamp and Windows Media Player Visual effects plug-ins. At least these ones incorporate the text into the artwork itself. And I don't need to take time apart to understand (or waste my precious time) it through reading the brochure or discovering all the kinky or disturbing personal facts of the artist's life. Not saying that I don’t love a challenge, a good one is always appreciated, but most challenges today are absorbed and filtered into mostly meaningless personal individual exposed diaries who should be kept private.

Don't forget beauty. Don't forget visual enticement. Visual arts are called visual arts because of something. Fine Arts are called Fine Arts because of something. Farting and expressing just for the sake of expressing, or that lie about the automatism (once you put your brush on the canvas and think "it needs more yellow here" it is not automatically anymore- therefore impossible, why try to be mechanical machines?) etc. are things apart. In my opinion of course.

I am just glad that these movements in the visual arts are finally over- its about being patient, nothing lasts forever - we just have to wait til the remaing few extinguish.

Over?? What are you talking about. There will be tragic imitators for generations. If they'd only find their own path.

Family's home. Gonna go spend time with them.

I'll come back and provoke more later.

ozhaver
04-20-2005, 04:34 AM
Kanga & Max_andrews- sorry for the extremity in my previous post, but it's my sense of sarcasm and a ‘slap’ through imitation using a symmetrical opposite. I was turning the tables around. Also sorry for fusing you both in, but you both agree and back up each other in this thread all the time. So why not?

No I do agree, I am no purist whatsoever. There are good stuff and bad stuff (like I said in my first post of this thread a bit far back) in every movement. Some I think are more appreciated as historical items in themselves, than as good pieces in many cases, in all periods. More like show and tell- this was done in this period, it's not the best one, but it still remains and is an example of it. I think it is wrong to base acceptance of art of any type by merely founding judgment on random examples.

While your comment of hand slapping is hilarious, I'm afraid it's true. My art department is full of old New York ex-students professors who were rabid in the 70's and 80's and quite fanatical...The art history department is also totally centered on occidental art- oriental art is not discussed at all, neither is African art. What I have found out about that has been by myself. Shameful, for I quite enjoy them. They don't even think illustration is an art...but such is the impression extreme modernists have made on me. I am glad though, the sword has two edges, they keep saying "everything and anything is art", contradicting themselves, lead me to think: "oh, so illustration is art also" and I am glad cuz I quite enjoy it.

I still hold my stand that most abstract and absurd pieces are quite slippery on a basis of idea vs development. Not many stand alone as things to admire without the little boz with the paragraph. About the penguin dung, I should restate- the fact that its funny and absurd and done with bizarre materials is just the medium, not the end result. I can make a chocolate penguin and it could look like the dung one. I think modernism pays too much importance to material- which is why digital artists, like us, are struggling with these people who won't already accept, or easily accept digital art as a worthy medium: cuz it's light-play and mathematical language functions- untouchable. Funny don't you think? That the advocates of expression and open mindedness are the current enemies?

While many "see" like I also agreed in my first post of this thread...in different ways, and see different things, when it comes to it in the end if we are going to talk about the concept of art- a middle ground of agreement which isn't subject to overly multiplicity must be found. If not eliminate the concept itself and there is no more endless meaningless never-ending discussing and arguing. We could just call it THING- or something more...neutral and infinite and shapeless and pointless. I do think that THING can encompass EVERY-THING.

Again, bring back beauty (and I do believe this is in the eye of the beholder- and I can appreciate tons of different beauty conceptions, like I said, I am not a purist) into Visual Fine Arts. Balance the scales again, and many will be happy and less contempt towards the chaos and disorder that it has turned into which is apparently impossible even to talk about it. In the end people like you resort to say let's agree to disagree without realizing that brings us nowhere.

Also, there are many ways to express oneself, I think the world will appreciate it if we dedicate ourselves to the ones we are good for. After all, you are unique, like everybody else.

And, once more, the world could use more writers! <3

PS. the mention on Picasso is cuz everyone knows who he is and everyone is supposed to think he is good (in the eyes of the modernists)- but there are many cases, and not all that he did was crap either.

ozhaver
04-20-2005, 04:55 AM
adam crocket:

Before posting, please review the following:




Be courteous and polite. Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others. Use of the forums is a privilege, not a right.
Engage your brain before your mouth. You are responsible for your own words and any harm they may cause.
Don't dilute the forums with irrelevant and unnecessary fluff. CGTalk is a professional, moderated forum. It's a place to talk about all things related to computer graphics.
I would pay attention to number 3. (*this after you finish reading my two posts of before)

As soon as i read about the f'artist- it was over. Petty.
I wouldn't waste my time trying to win arguments- if I had no good base for arguing. Again, petty and slippery. Derrida would laugh his ass off at ya. :rolleyes:

I would recommend you to re-read all the posts here before judging...

& for such a post-modern mind-set...

saying this: "I think modernists are simply making their art and ignoring the pedantic insistance of traditionalists to conform to their ideals." (I would evaluate, i think it's the other way round. Good thing though I belong in NEITHER- all things have good and bad things, modernists just have a knack for trying to turn every single bad thing into a 'good' thing...):applause:

just did it and cleared it out for me.

Relax...I know that everyone is entitled to YOUR opinion already- you've made it clear before and your point is also read over (and found flawed too). I rest my case here.

Total waste of time. Then again, it's all about the ego isn't it? Ego and self gratification (masturbative if you ask me...).

I think it's nicer if our intention as artists is to share with society our dreams and stories and little worlds, etc., not just to get attention and payment. Call me idealist, but this is how I see it. :thumbsup:

adam-crockett
04-20-2005, 06:25 AM
Oz,

yeah, i was all hungry when I wrote that post so it did come out a little more abrasive than I had intended. I was speaking in generalities, and didn't intend for any of that to be aimed at you personally, so if I was petty or I offended, I sincerely appologize.

Reading over it, I was trying to be serious, and then I just lost steam, and it came accross as me being really short with you. Sorry.

Wrist slap aside, I love this thread : )

Carry on!

Adam

ozhaver
04-20-2005, 07:48 AM
No problem. I can't be more than briefly annoyed by strangers either way; it's not really personal if I don't know you personally. And I am hypoglycemic too, so I understand the bit about the hunger- I used to do that error and sometimes I forget and re-do it.

Either way, I am not sure anymore what are people referring to in this thread, some say they are talking about Modernism, when in reality they are defending Post Modernism and its ideals. Perhaps a bit more of study should be taken into consideration by these individuals. I think this is a heated theme for some, and I would understand. But, nevertheless I was studying my notes and I found a nice quote for this discussion by Charles Baudelaire (if such fervent defending about Modernism is really real, I don’t need to state who this person is in art theory) on Post Modernism;

"Eclecticism has at all periods and places held itself superior to past doctrines because, coming last on the scene, it finds the remotest horizons already open to it; but this impartiality only goes to prove the impotence of the eclectics. People who are so lavish with their time for reflections are not complete men: they lack the element of passion. No matter how clever he may be, an eclectic is but a feeble man; for he is a man without love. Therefore he has no ideal...; neither star nor compass. Doubt has led certain artists to beg the aid of all the other arts. Experiment with contradictory means, the encroachment of one art upon another, the importation of poetry, with and sentiment into painting - all these modern miniseries are vices peculiar to the eclectics."

*Note: I don't necessarily share this opinion and I am just posting it for reference and as a good example of modern thought*

I perceive the approach to art candent in this thread as permeated a lot by a Deconstructive flair- mixed with some confusion on the semiotic approach to the subject- which is Post Modern if we are to classify this as anything (one of the good achievements of Post Modernism in my opinion). Nevertheless, I think most are speaking solely based out on opinions (only) than in more factual and solid arguments. Pay more attention to context in the future guys.

I don't know what most speak so much about, since theoretically we could well argue that the very roots of Modern Art, as in the art of the modern world *does start with *Neoclassicism and *Romanticism. Of course there are people out there who would kill me if I said this, but yes, in timeline it is the "egg" of Modernism.

Then we very well slip into Realism and Impressionism, (don't forget the ever evaded Pre-Raphaelites please), Afterwards is Post Impressionism, Art Nouveau and Symbolism, then comes the part of my less beloved but equally interesting: Expressionism(to take in note *the Fauves), Abstraction (Analytic Cubism, Synthetic Cubism, Orphism, Futurism, Cubo-Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism ), Fantasy (Dadaism, *Surrealism- Ernst & Kahlo amongst my favorites), Abstract Expressionism, Color Field Painting, Late Abstract Expressionism, African American Painting, Op Art, Pop Art, Photorealism, Neo-Expressionism, Conceptualism, Performance Art; in Photography we have many initial school, including The School of Paris, The Stieglitz School and such movements as The Heroic Age of Photography, Abstraction and Fantasy too, Constructivists, Documentary Photography and all that which I didn’t pay much attention to cuz photography has never been one of my main interests. *exhales*

Obviously from all this bulk of overload of movements and whatnot, some works can be rescued. ;-) But not cuz it simply says "Modern Art" it means it's good or better. Then again, I don't think people are clear on the way they are trying to "define" ("define" cuz the most common given definition isn't really a definition at all) Art, and the way Modernism defined Art. Yes, defined*, it did define it and classified it into lots and lots of categories.

I also think people do take a lot from granted using the term: photorealistic. If they even knew the photorealists’ work and who they were, they would think it twice when they use this to brand certain current digital artists who do an awesome job at being other than purist photorealists in reality and have quite found an interesting new un-named movement.

Again, I paint and draw and write and sing in the shower and make pranks and daydream all day, etc. out of love for them/it, out of my defect: I can't escape it, therefore I embrace it. It would be precious if someday I can live off of my art alone, and if I can't, I will still live anyway-working at a boring bank or being a bum- drawing on fast food napkins with ketchup is fun too!, though not my best kind of art. So take care people, worry not, just create and make beautiful works of art so you can keep inspiring and making the world a better place. Who cares about definitions anyway? Who has the grip of reality? You, in your case, Me in my case. (Subjectivism at its best eh?)



Ta ta!

slaughters
04-20-2005, 01:53 PM
Well like any artists there is a lot of crap, and a few truelly talented individuals. However, if you are implying the whole field doesn't deserve to be called artist....Post a photograph of a Tatto that you would be proud to hang in your home or office. The best of the best of the best that *I* have seen are at the level of comic book art. Poorly done comic book art.

In my opinion tattoos are more about machismo attitude, or just striving to be weird, than they are about art.

maX_Andrews
04-20-2005, 03:44 PM
Post a photograph of a Tatto that you would be proud to hang in your home or office. The best of the best of the best that *I* have seen are at the level of comic book art. Poorly done comic book art.

In my opinion tattoos are more about machismo attitude, or just striving to be weird, than they are about art.

I disagree with this almost completely. Although tatoos are not my taste and are often done for lame reasons, many people do consider them a form of expression. Tatoos make a statement about something, and shows people that it was important enough to make permananent on the skin. Even if they have no motive, tatoos can be expressed as the appreciation of the human body by using it to its fullest. Few people consider tatoos as body art, and for many it's something you do freshmen year in college on your birthday, but there is definitely a group that genuinely appreciates the concept of body marking.

I agree that I would not want to "hang" most tatoos in my house or office, but then again that is not their intent.

ozhaver
04-20-2005, 07:00 PM
slaughters: Check out the history of tattooing. Do you know how and where and with whom it began? I think it's many beginnings merit some consideration in the cultural sense. I wouldn't go around insulting recklessly like this...

maX_Andrews: So again, either "curl or straighten your hair"- are they lame or not? If the intention behind (Art or Tattoo Art) is lame doesn't that make it lame too?

Expression, expression, expression! Is not like we can't talk or shout, or sing or dance or do whatever we want to express ourselves...In the past this surely was the main focus- let go of the tight grips and the fear of expressing- but today we don't live in a censor-bin or inside a jail...(most of us at least). Like I've said before expression is just an element inside all elements that Art encompasses. It's not the most important element, and it alone is not enough to make Art. Expressing alone can be just ranting for example. People are stuck in expressing alone and forsaking other important things....

And while I wouldn't tattoo myself, for I would get bored after a few weeks and need to rip the skin off - plus I hate needles - I have seen some tattoos that I would definitely hang on a museum wall.

People seem to be very selectively open minded here...

slaughters
04-20-2005, 09:36 PM
...many people do consider them a form of expression....Just because it is a "form of expression" does *not* automatically make it art. It just makes it a "form of expression".

....Do you know how and where and with whom it began?I think it's many beginnings merit some consideration in the cultural sense. I wouldn't go around insulting recklessly like this...It was used in ancient times to mark the passage of specific cultural boundries or the recognition of specific acheivements. It has continued to mean this to some extent into todays time as well (US Marines, Sailors, Gang Bangers, etc..)

I totally disagree with defining the permanent mutilation of the human body as "art". I will agree that it is a "form of expression".

TheDweller
04-20-2005, 11:38 PM
Post a photograph of a Tatto that you would be proud to hang in your home or office. The best of the best of the best that *I* have seen are at the level of comic book art. Poorly done comic book art.

Ok.

This is an example of a tatoo from a local tatoo artist Zee from Studio Zee, New Haven, Ct (giving credit where it's due). Whether he originated the design or not I do not know, but part of the "art" of tatoo art is adapting it to the body. A great design well placed to accentuate the body looks better to me (and in fact to many people) than at least half the work in the MOMA.

The fact that there are likely more people with tatoos than "modern art" tells me that it is more enriching to many peoples lives than you are giving it credit for. If art isn't meant to be enriching, but rather meant to be an intellectual excerise for elitists then I'm giving up on art quite happily.

slaughters
04-21-2005, 02:01 AM
...This is an example of a tatoo from a local tatoo artist Zee from Studio Zee....That's a photo manip. The design does not curve according to the contours of the shoulder and if you "zoom in" in PhotoShop you can see where the edges of the 2D design are blured into the flesh color of the shoulder.

P.S.

Lot's of peoiple had Mullet hair cuts in the 70's and 80's. That did not make it "art". Back then you could have said:

"The fact that there are likely more people with MULLETS than "modern art" tells me that it is more enriching to many peoples lives than you are giving it credit for...."

TheDweller
04-21-2005, 02:37 AM
That's a photo manip. The design does not curve according to the contours of the shoulder and if you "zoom in" in PhotoShop you can see where the edges of the 2D design are blured into the flesh color of the shoulder.

If you want you can claim these are photo manips too.

Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of "Better to be thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

Not saying you are a fool, but it's a bold statement to make if you aren't sure, especially on a forum full of Photoshop experts. Knowing a good fair bit about Photoshop myself (and having picked out the retouched spots on very professional jobs), I don't even see what you think you saw as your "proof".

slaughters
04-21-2005, 04:27 AM
... especially on a forum full of Photoshop experts. Knowing a good fair bit about Photoshop myself (and having picked out the retouched spots on very professional jobs), I don't even see what you think you saw as your "proof".Good greif.

The skin on the arm and the tatoo design is very pixilated when zoomed in around 800%-1000% (as you would expect it to be). Where the arm and tatto design meet the pixels are all very close to the same colors, as if a blur or smudge tool was used to smooth out differences between a skin colored background and a slightly different skin colored arm. This is most obvious in the upper left hand side of the shoulder.

Of course smart blur, iincreased saturation, edge enhance and level correction can give this effect as well.

Either way the point is, that is not the way the tatoo looks like. It's what it looks like after the photo has been manipulated. At the least heavily PhotoShop filtered. So I guess your point could be that heavily photoshop filtered tatoos look like comic book art?

maX_Andrews
04-21-2005, 05:58 AM
Why must you be so stubbornly extreme? I already conceded that the majority of tattoo art has no meaning beyond pure juvenile epxression and/or liberation. All I am claiming is that despite the widespread "misuse" of tattoo art, there are those who genuinely are making art. Tattoo art is really a two-part art, as there are two creators. There is the artist who creates the image, and there is the reciever who's body is the vessel, or canvas.
And Tattoos are not as barbaric as you might think. To quote from a pubslished source, "It is something of a well-kept secret that, even in the 1880's and early 1900's, members of European royalty and American high society sported tatoos: Queen Victoria's gandsons, Winston Churchill's mother, Princess Waldemar of Denmark, Emperor Wilhelm II, the Vanderbilts..."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0821277545/102-4659417-1524144?v=glance
I saw this gallery in person a few months ago in it's larger-than-life nude glory. Admidst all of the idealized men and women porn star portraits in the show, by far the most beautiful agreed upon by a huge majprity of those attending the show was that of a bald headed woman covered in tattoos and riddled with piercings.
In your opinion "multilation of the body," but for others, it is an improvement upon the body. The tools are rather rudamentray at this point, but imagine if tattoo ink were non permanent? Would that change your perception? Maybe yes, maybe no. The very concept of permanent tattoos can also be used to make a statement in itself. If you recognize the irreversibility of the tattoo and harness that choice to put a message onto yourself that you hold to be absolute, then that statement will be very powerful and that alone may be enough to warrant it as artistic. Imagine tattooing one's self with numbers on the forearm in a holocaust fashion. The some, disrespectful, to others, a silly idea, and to even others, a powerful personal and historical, perhaps even artistic, statement.

The point is, even if you don't and will never change your mind, you should at least try to understand those who do see it in a different way. We all have our quirks. I myself DO NOT LIKE tattoos on people, but I can appreciate those who find meaning and significance in it. Can we at least see eye-to-eye here?

TheDweller
04-21-2005, 08:27 AM
Good greif.

The skin on the arm and the tatoo design is very pixilated when zoomed in around 800%-1000% (as you would expect it to be). Where the arm and tatto design meet the pixels are all very close to the same colors, as if a blur or smudge tool was used to smooth out differences between a skin colored background and a slightly different skin colored arm. This is most obvious in the upper left hand side of the shoulder.

Of course smart blur, iincreased saturation, edge enhance and level correction can give this effect as well.

Either way the point is, that is not the way the tatoo looks like. It's what it looks like after the photo has been manipulated. At the least heavily PhotoShop filtered. So I guess your point could be that heavily photoshop filtered tatoos look like comic book art?

You're not proving yourself any smarter here...

Look at the photos again, a lot more realisticly. Whoever worked on them obviously could barely color the backgrounds. Are you trying to suggest that this same person was able to create a complex mask, able to "heavily Photoshop" the tatoo, without doing the same to the person wearing the tatoo? I don't see ANY proof of heavy photo manip beyond some very ametuerish effects added to the background (one of the classic hallmarks of a Photoshop novice if I ever saw one, right up there with lense flares and the filter that makes everything look "like a painting").

If you want to deny it has any artistic ability beyond "the level of comic book art. Poorly done comic book art", then go ahead. I think most people would disagree, no matter how they feel about tatoos. All of this nonesense trying to suggest it's not "real" is absurd.

I think we've derailed this thread enough however.

-EDIT-
I opened the photos again in Photoshop to check the histogram. It's got a very healthy and natural histogram, I wouldn't expect that it's even had it's levels changed much. Additionally, I took another look at the top left shoulder, and the only spot I see that looks a little blurred is obviously caused by jpeg artifacts. In fact, at the 800-1000% you recommended looking at this at, I can't believe you'd try to suggest you could pick up anything that subtle against the artifacts/compression.

slaughters
04-21-2005, 12:56 PM
You're not proving yourself any smarter here......And continually posting snide insults at me with every post does not make you look all that great Joe.

If you could stick with the subject and hold off the personal attacks you would make your point more effectivly.

Why must you be so stubbornly extreme?..Maxwell,

Well made points, but I suggest that you follow your own advise. "...even if you don't and will never change your mind, you should at least try to understand those who do see it in a different way."

TheDweller
04-21-2005, 01:34 PM
Sorry Stan. Not that it's any excuse, but I never should have been up at 4am when I had to get up at 8am. I was getting frustrated trying to figure out exactly why you felt it was necessary to discredit my posts. Also, you have to admit to being a good bit baiting in some of YOUR posts. Of course that's no excuse for me, as soon as I got to the frustrated point I should have just left the thread as uselessly off track.

Haha, I look past at my past posts on this thread and I see the cool, calm, and rational slowly slipping away. I apologize to everyone on the thread.

maX_Andrews
04-21-2005, 02:03 PM
"...even if you don't and will never change your mind, you should at least try to understand those who do see it in a different way."

Agreed, but we both have to bend in order for one of us to bend. Intesting, really.

ozhaver
04-21-2005, 09:38 PM
So the theme now is: how to detect photoshoping in tattoo pictures?
I would've taken this to PM a long time ago...

The only points he or she is bringing against tattooing is that it's part of "macho culture", is this a valid point on a basis of context or just merely opinion based on *personal principles? (I have female tattooed pals that would have lots of things to say about this) or not worthy cuz it's skin "damaging"...? And then this person goes to try to base his argument on that this little- errr... not that good a pic, not that great an example either- is a photoshoped picture? I have seen much better in my days- MUCH better. And then he puts comic book art (in Modernism = Pop Art) as below too...my oh my...is this even worth such the fuzz? Again, take it to PM...

Oh! and just curious, what are your thoughts on piercing? PM me if you want to answer me. Let's go back to the thread's theme.

ashakarc
04-21-2005, 10:45 PM
I have few remarks to make:

It is confusing to mix Modernism and modern art in one discussion. The original thread solicited thoughts on modern art, and obviously the discussion is steered towards Modernism. Is it modern art as in contemporary or Modernism?!
The term 'art' is not exclusive to painting..!! is it?
Rather than bashing the superficiality of Modernism, how about combatting the core values and ideals of Modernism, so we can learn something useful.
Agree with oz haver, PM each other for quarrels and let's have the original theme of the thread in place
Keep it up !

ozhaver
04-22-2005, 03:19 AM
#2.

Agreed- I can only speak more about literature and visual arts cuz it's what I have been studying fervently (concentrating on painting & drawing)- but we are forgetting lots and lots and lots of wonderful things.

Even more, in my opinion I only have contempt towards *certain movements of Modern & Post Modern painting, drawing, sculpture and architecture (in certain cases, there are works I love and adore in each of the before-mentioned). I don't have any major negative criticism towards music, theatre, dance, cinematography, photography, literature, philosophy (and all that comes from this; guess why PhD and BFA have this sigils?).

I can't give up Kafka, I can't give up Cindy Sherman, Gustave Moreau, Ernst, all the Romantics (yes they do belong in the Modern Era)...and all the names I am forsaking to write here (which are A LOT).

We can't undo the past, and there is no good reason why. So what if you don't like this or that painting? Just because a person has a scar here and there does not make him or her less beautiful. Well, in certain cases...I would agree; nevertheless, I can recognize certain something behind it all. If it wasn't for these artists, we, the new generation of artists wouldn't be here sitting painting on these weird thingamabobs called computers...Just think about it? Without the modern & post modern approach, and the philosophical effects on all cultures and the sense of experimentation, only through this, this thing, we now call digital art wouldn't be possible.

What we must be careful with is saying: this person is making modern art- this is bad calling. Even if it looks like modern art, it doesn’t belong to that period anymore. Some even discuss that Post Modernism is also over, that we are somewhere beyond that now too.

And, for as much as I would LOVE and ADORE doing: saying this or that isn't ART- I can't- it's just a tiny voice against millions. The individual does not dictate what art is- society does. Now talking about good and bad Art is different- and I think it is well permitted a more fluid and personal review of this.

It's so sad that most would simply pass judgment without knowledge. If you are going to judge something, anything – please be more careful and try to be as objective as possible (being subjectivism the inevitable state of the human mind, and therefore reality)

I would recommend reading the following:

Art Objects, Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery by Jeanette Winterson.


Perhaps some of you may learn something new. :)

edit: I think this makes a better ending to this post;

James Abbot McNeill Whistler, From: The Gentle Art of Making Enemies

"As music is the poetry of sound, so is painting the poetry of sight, and the subject-matter has nothing to do with harmony of sound or of colour."

ozhaver
04-22-2005, 05:15 AM
I just need to say that I insulted myself by not mentioning Denis Diderot. :love:Especially these two works:


Lettre sur les aveugles, 1749
Lettre sur les sourds et muets, 1751
Simply beautiful! One of my favorite philosophers! <3 Reading him is soooo inspiring and re-fueling and interesting! Go read now!

ashakarc
04-22-2005, 05:34 AM
From the Enlightenment period, my favourite is the one and only: Voltaire...esp. Candide

ozhaver
04-22-2005, 05:37 AM
Reading Voltaire is such a journey! Denis Diderot is like hearing a passionate speech, but with Voltaire you get to travel! I also enjoy his work very much. I find some influence of Montaigne in him.

ashakarc
04-22-2005, 06:41 AM
Here. I would like to shed some light on why Modernism need to be seen within a larger context to understand what it was about, but in no way I can construct the geneology of that movement.

Earlier, there was a mention of Voltaire, Diderot, and others. These philosophers were part of the Enlightenment movement that put the framework of the French and American revolutions, capitalism, socialism, paralleled by neo-classical art styles. Humanist artists,thinkers, and architects were consequently influenced by the dramatic changes of their times. They pretty much represented the grand parents that gave birth to the fathers of Modernism. Many consider the great German philosopher Nietzsche, as the father of Modernism (Thus Spake Zarathustra) He opened the floodgates of many generations of artists and thinkers to annaihilate traditions in search of new ways to life and to live up to the increasing complexity of human society.

As architecture is my prime specialty, I learned that Modernism brought to us great ideas on Form and Function, and new outlooks on city planning and urban design. But, at the same time, 50 years later, people realized that this architecture can no more sustain itself in human societies with diverse cultures and environments because of its poor internationalized style. The battle is still on, clearly the blood is not dried yet!

An interesting quote by Walter Gropius on MODERN architecture:
"Modern architecture is not a few branches of an old tree- it is new growth coming right from the roots. This does not mean, however, that we are witness to the sudden advent of a 'new style'. What we see and experience is a movement in flux which has created a fundamentally different outlook on architecture. Its underlying philosophy knits well with the big trends of today's science and art, steadying it against those forces which try to block its advance and to retard the growing power of its ideas."

Gord-MacDonald
04-22-2005, 10:25 AM
Hi Conundrum,

Well that's just it, Monet didn't discard anything. He was quite unselective. There is a quote from him saying something like " I just look somewhere and see a colour, then I get that colour and dab it onto the painting in the same place and move on" That is basically how he painted (apart from that he would work things up in the studio).

Cezanne, who was not only a contemporary of Monet (yea I know he was a post impressionist), but also a close personal friend, said of Monet:
"Monet is nothing but an eye, but my God what an eye!"

I believe that Cezanne hit the nail on the head - "but my God what an eye". Monet was selective - he had the powers of perception, as well as the pictoral innovativeness to create some of the most powerful artworks in the history of Western Civilization. Monet made paintings unlike any created by any other artist before him - a great cultural achievement!

The only way that anyone can ever understand the genius of Monet, is to stand in front of one of his major works. Forget about reproductions!

I first saw Monets "Water Lilies" at MOMA in 1974. It was a revelation! When it comes to painting, you have gotta be there - reproductions lie! The paintings don't!

Gord

ps: On this same trip to MOMA, I saw the some of the most ambitious paintings created by Matisse (red studio, piano lesson). Before seeing these paintings, I had seen good quality reproductions of these paintings - they could NOT prepare me for the power of the original artworks!

Limbus
06-30-2005, 04:30 PM
Why is it that few people buy actual paintings anymore or go to art galleries and museums?
Just over a million people went to see the MoMA exibition in Berlin last year and most of them had to wait in line for 3-9 hours to get in.

CGTalk Moderation
06-30-2005, 04:30 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.