Art? or the work of a crazy person?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2005   #61
Quote: Could you please explain more on what rules and regulations for architecture?


As I said, I don't really know exactly what rules of craft apply to architecture, because all architecture must derive some fort of craft in order for it to function properly as a stable living environment. In essence, this means, that because certain rules are applied as a must, due to the laws of nature and physics, architecture in itself may not even require rules of absolute form, as long as they could support the living environment.

In other words, architecture in itself is an entirely seperate craft. However, for a very very long time it has been considered a near "art" form. This is why I say architecture is the exception. What makes "architecture" is in essence already understood to a degree, thus it can change drastically or not at all and still be considered art.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #62
I do understand your point that without technique there is no art, but also you must consider that without meaning there is very little art. Pretty pictures, with little or no meaning, do not qualify as art in my book. Even worse I consider pretty pictures with a misguided symbolism to be the lowest form of illustration, I won't even call it art. The work of the idiot who does naught but please the peon and the moron who espouses what is most popular disregarding intelligent thought and only swaying with the masses is very dangerous, and is furthermore contrary to everything that I personally hold dear in my study of art. I feel that all art must move us foreward not necessarily technically, but must move our understanding of human society foreward in some way. Even the disgusting Piss Christ and Scatological art did push the boundries and understandings of religious iconology and gave the art world an interesting view into how mediums affect symbolism. Weather or not the artists involved with the experiements are going to hell, is not up to us to decided no matter how religious one might be. With those examples I think it is important to turn to another artist, one who tries to be more innocuous and give the masses a simple and easy to understand nationalistic and fantasy message. Yet despite the simple message I consider the artist Thomas Kinkade to not only be a failure as an artist, despite his technique, but I consider him to be a dangerous man who represents well neigh everything wrong with modern society, excluding of course my terrible grammar.

When studying the world of Thomas Kinkade, or his studio minions, you have to really ask yourself, have they created art? There is undoubtedly technique and craftmanship in the work, however I am inclined to believe that his work is naught but pure vapid meaningless filth. I honestly would rather have art with only brains with little technique, than art with no brains and all technique. After all what is scarier, a smart man who doesn't know how to paint or a dullard who can make beautiful things which carry a strong popular message? Hitler was able to paint beautiful images with his voice and his pen, yet he lacked the mental capacity or the moral depth to use his talent for good ends. I see Thomas Kinkade's work as a less harmful, but still dangerous version of this as it promotes mindless consumption, mindless patriotism and everything which I personally find wrong with modern society. Technique be damned I appreciate a brain more than I do an idiot. At least bad art with no technique is not bought by people who are ignorant of the traditions of western thought and the intellectuals who carry that tradition on. Good technique with little, or mindless, meaning is a terribly dangerous weapon.


That is why while I do not consume or encourage works such as the "oak tree", I do not consider them a danger to society. The pithy rabble, the horde of mindless peons which must be roused to seriously endanger a society laugh at works like the oak tree and does not comprehend or understand them at a simple enough level to be moved by them. While the merits of this work of art are dubious, as Stalhberg described it "Freshman philosophy, at best" is not and can not be truely dangerous to society or intellectual thought as a whole due to its lack of ability to anger, prod, poke, or worst case scenario, inspire the mindless rabble. Kinkade however, represents the ease with which the media maniupulates public opinion on both the left and right and prevents true intellectual discourse. The Oak Tree is nothing but a badly written essay in a journal, easily ignored and passed over once its lack of significance is proven. Those who play on the simple minded emotions of the public and toy with them turning a nation this way and that at the simplest whim, or for pure greed, deserve nothing less than death in my honest opinion. As they usually receive in communist countries when the dictatorship falls. Those resonsible for whipping up public frenzy and inspiring mindless nationalistic riots are often the most hated.
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #63
Originally Posted by helicopterr: Lets not get started on this...


You people should have heeded my warning
 
Old 12 December 2005   #64
I do not find art as a driving force for the meaning of society. Certainly throughout history, as it is blatantly obvious, people use art to represent wealth and power. However, true power comes from the person and not an art. Even using the fact that art symbolizes power, it is not nearly as dangerous as you are considering in your argument.

Examples. Napolean used art to symbolize his power and spread his message. It helped him gain popularity, however the art was not nearly his greatest strength. The art gave him an image to persuade the masses, but if he cannot talk the talk or walk the walk, the art would have been meaningless. He was incredibly powerful, for his intellectual abilities, his political prowess, and much more. It was not how the artists created the image that made him powerful. It was how HE manipulated the art for his own benefit.

Hitler, as we all know, began his studies in art, and eventually desired to become a great artist. However, I think this is a wonderful premise. If his works had actually been accepted on those multiple accounts...would we even have suffered a war as severe as WW2? I believe a war still would have occured, but Hitler never would have turned into the political figure he became. So had hitler been accepted as an artist, his rage would never have escalated as greatly and the war in the state it was, would have probably involved Russia fighting against smaller Eastern European coutries. The war would most likely have taken place at a later date.

Now if you include literature...well that and music are sort of what you would call "half arts." They have the "musical arts" and the "literary arts", but they are not even in the same category as the art in this current discussion. Also, literary arts tends to require a much more intelligent person than the visual arts.

My problem with the argument supporting modern art(from your perspective), is that meaning can be any broad incorporation. If the meaning of the work, was to create an entity that is not real, and make it real for whatever reason(entertainment, etc.), much like many of the creations on this website, then I would say that is successful. I would consider any and all of that art. However, if you have meaning, and nothing else...then that is destroying the fundamental basis of what art once was. That I have a problem with. If someone wants to "express themself", fine then go and express themself...just do not call it art, unless you have technique and a subject for the piece. "Art is expression" is that new definition of art, that makes me cringe when I see or hear the word "modern art."

Quote: I feel that all art must move us foreward not necessarily technically, but must move our understanding of human society foreward in some way.


That is called philosophy(and in some aspects of psychology). That is not art. If your technically crafted artwork happens to do that...than great. Now the art is not only art, but it is a piece that aids philosophical arguments and understandings. The Mona Lisa for example, is what I would consider one of the greatest pieces of artwork in existence. However, it did little to effect the forward movement of society in the long run, it only effected the forward movement of the craft and technique of art. If it did in some way effect society, then it brought fame to Da Vinci, and thus brought fame and fortune to the persons involved, his friends and acquaintances, and the community he was from; no more. If something generates "hype" or a "coolness" factor, that is all the Branching forward for human understanding that I need. However, it still requires the criteria of subject and technique.

Here are a list of artists I would consider "great."

Renaissance:
- Michelangelo
- Da Vinci
- Durer
- Bernini
- Botticelli
- Raphael
- David(hes actually from the baroque period, but the period came shortly after so I am placing him here)

19th and forward:
- M.C.Escher(He is absolutely fascinating. Easily one of the top 10 of all time in my book)
- Disney
- Van Gogh
- Monet
- Courbet
- Estes(Some may label him a modern artist...however I would label him a technical artist, for various reasons)
- Dali(Some may also label him a modern artist...however in his images are subjects, and a great deal of technique)
- Stan Lee
- Yoshitaka Amano
- Akira Toriyama
(these last three are probably more recognizable then some).

Quote: I honestly would rather have art with only brains with little technique, than art with no brains and all technique


The ability and knowledge it requires to achieve such technique is intense. There is no such thing as technique that lacks brains. It is like swinging a bat. You have to keep practicing, and the more you practice the more you hit the ball. It is not necessary for an artist to be a philosopher, politician, or psychologist. What such people do with the art, is entirely different. That has nothing to do with the art, that is the greed or manipulation of others when using the masterpiece, which is entirely irrelevant.

Quote: I see Thomas Kinkade's work as a less harmful, but still dangerous version of this as it promotes mindless consumption, mindless patriotism and everything which I personally find wrong with modern society. Technique be damned I appreciate a brain more than I do an idiot. At least bad art with no technique is not bought by people who are ignorant of the traditions of western thought and the intellectuals who carry that tradition on.


An example of something that is irrelevant to art. It is unfortunate, that people sometimes manipulate art, however that is not the responsibility of an artist. That is the responsibility of people in general to do what is right regardless of all alternatives.

In other words concerning art:

If you want to show you are a creative, intellectual person, deserved of the title of "artist" than show me on canvas(or through sculpture or whatever other medium), what your creativity is. Do not make something, and then say you are creative because you thought up "so and so". I am not interested if you are creative. I want you to prove you are creative with the medium, so I can judge for myself whether the piece shows that creativity or not. I do not want to judge you, I want to judge the work, which is what art is. If I wanted to talk to some pseudo-intellectual, I would direct myself to the nearest Philosophy class, which is exactly what most modern art represents. It is not art. IT IS PHILOSOPHY.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #65
Skirnir: That's just incorrect when you define Modern Art as philosophy, stripping it from technique or craft.

If you compare intellectualism to art, Renaissance artists were more engaged. Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, and others were scientists, philosophers, engineers, inventors, and architects. This is rare with Modern Artists with some exceptions. The difference however, Modernist artists were innovators. They did not need to be high intellectuals to break new grounds. The drastic changes in 20th century societies provided them with fertile grounds to rebel on traditions, seeking new ways to adapt to new age. Their influence was major.

We have to realise that art evolve with society and culture. We cannot judge the art product of one era by comparing it to and older one. Each one is a product of its time and place. I think you know well that the progression was gradual and not sudden.

Your bottomline of the discussion led to a conclusion that Modern Art is not art after all. With all respect, but I find that to be very subjective judgement, and ungrounded.
__________________
 
Old 12 December 2005   #66
Thats why I said "Most"...there are few exceptions...but almost all of them occured when artists first created what later became known as "modern art."

For example, Picasso and Kandinsky, probably the two most well known for the advancement and creation of modern art.

They both had a very firm understanding of the more ancient traditional crafts. They had learned techniques such as linear perspective, overlap, foreshadowing, shading, etc. They began their craft by taking a subjects/objects, and breaking down the parts into new objects/pieces/lines/colors. So they made the first step for something innovative.

However, these artists(Especially Picasso), believed you had to find the meaning yourself in the painting; they refused to explain the art themselves. There were a very few cases they did explain themself, but that was regarding what they believed as their more engaging pieces, for example, Picasso's Guernica, which was relative to the Spanish Civil War.

In fact, what I respect about Picasso and other original modern artists, is they believed you had no right to call yourself an artist of such style unless you could first prove you had the ability to do more traditional artwork. They believed if you lacked the skill to do things like landscapes, protraits, life-studies, et al. that you were a wannabe artist. When I first discovered this, that put Picasso and many other original modern artists MUCH MUCH higher in my book, and I have much more respect for those few individuals.

Now...like all crafts, you do have to find their progress by comparing them to other eras of society. Art is a craft, and if you study all other eras of history regarding art, unless there was some major conflict, such as war or damaging natural disaster, which causes digression in all sciencies/mathematics/art/politics/law/etc., the art would always progress in technique. If modern artists wanted to progress upon works like Picasso, Kandinsky, et al. then fine, however the way in which they did it was not progress, it was digression.

They progressed in philosophy labeling art, and gradually removed more form, technique, and subject. This is a digression on the whole. If they wanted progress, the next step would have been, taking the new pieces/objects/colors, and giving them more definition, while not redevelopign the original form. This would require the skill and knowledge to understand that definition, and thus the "modern artists" would have shown they actually have the talent...and that they could actually attempt other styles/artforms with at least decent results. However, they did not. They started creating works and...though this may sound harsh...spouting BS.

If people want to be modern artists...ok...I have one challenge for them then. Prove to me, through sculpture, or on canvas something more traditional. If they can prove to me, they have the skill to put themselves on a level with other artists, who can create realistic works/landscapes/portraits/characters/Entities/Still-lifes or something similar, Then they can keep the title of artist. However, if they lack that skill...they lack the foundation of art, and thus have no right to use the title. They can use a different title, such as "modern creators" or "modern developers" or "modern pseudo-intellectuals" or something along those lines. The word artist, however, I believe should only be granted to those who have the technical merit.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #67
I have been reading through eveyones points (and boy has it been a long read )

Ok, well to me there really is no right or wrong answer. We all have different tastes, different ideas of what art is. It's just getting complicated now.

I go through ideas of what I think art is, but my idea of art keeps changing. If a piece of work inspires me, makes me go WOW, and moves my emotions then to me that is art, whether it is conceptual, modern, contemporary (whatever you want to call it), or not, if it does the things stated then to me, it is art.

Quote: Paperclip: Too much of this sort of thing around these days. It's not funny anymore.


I agree, that's why I don't like most contemporary art, it's just not original anymore, nothing shocks me, it's just 'oh right another person trying to be funny'. There are some pieces though that have had an effect on me in the past.

I guess you can't judge art by the genre/movement it's been put into. I'll use books as an example. The Author Philip Pullman stated that he didn't like his books being categorised as childrens books because he said they can be read by anyone, and I agree. In a way I guess that's like art, you look at the category it's in and if it's in a category you don't like the sound of then you won't take a second look at the art within the category.

That's just my opinion
 
Old 12 December 2005   #68
Originally Posted by Skirnir: Now...like all crafts, you do have to find their progress by comparing them to other eras of society. Art is a craft, and if you study all other eras of history regarding art, unless there was some major conflict, such as war or damaging natural disaster, which causes digression in all sciencies/mathematics/art/politics/law/etc., the art would always progress in technique. If modern artists wanted to progress upon works like Picasso, Kandinsky, et al. then fine, however the way in which they did it was not progress, it was digression.


I think what you mean is 'regression' not 'digression'

On that point, I have a hard time to believe that war has negative output on the development of human societies. History tells us that nations who fought more wars had progressed more than others. Especially modern wars, they tend to mobilize the society at all levels, science, art, technology, medicine, and so many other industries. Sadly though, socieites pay a heavy price with the sacrifice of their young ones.

When I talk about war and advancement in societies, I'm not adopting it, and it is regardless of just or unjust causes. I have lived wars, and seen it first hand. It's tragic necessity of life. The United States has fought the most number of wars of any other nation in history, and it has reached advancement in all industries like no other point in human history. Modern history also tells us that nations like Japan, Germany, Russia, and China were able to mobilize their population into building their societies with utmost motivation, again regardless of the intent to invade and win, they advanced at a very rapid pace.

Modern art is a product of that era. An era where artists became masters of themselves, free of the aristocracy of the palaces, religious institutions, and rich beaureucrats. They were able to put their art on any wall, scrutinized by common people. Surely alienated a lot of them, yet helped in spreading the culture of art as something accessible by middle and low income classes of the societies.

Not every Renaissance artist was as great like Da Vinci, neither every Modernist Artist is as great like Kandinsky. Additionally, what we inherited from history books, museums, and palaces represents only the best of the best. Today, we have access to every kind of BS artist who claim to be a modernist, or even an artist.

I personally feel in debt to all those who dedicated their lives, suffered alienation, starvation for the sake of innovation in art. They did not seek to please an emperor, nor a king. They worked for humanity.

By the way, I see CG Art as an extension to Modernism. There are many great CG Artists who even post their work here that their work could prove that. I am talking about the best of the best. e.g. Craig Mullins
__________________

Last edited by ashakarc : 12 December 2005 at 09:39 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #69
I hate postmodernism.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #70
Hey forum leaders, how about imposing a maximum word limit on replies??
 
Old 12 December 2005   #71
There is - you should have seen these posts before they were culled...

note: just kidding
 
Old 12 December 2005   #72
You are all correct, I agree with you all with one excpetion..You're all wrong! But that aside yes, what you are saying is not completely untrue, and although nothing you said made any sense I completely understand what you mean.

CML
__________________
PolyBoost Tools for 3ds max
 
Old 12 December 2005   #73
Quote: You are all correct, I agree with you all with one excpetion..You're all wrong! But that aside yes, what you are saying is not completely untrue, and although nothing you said made any sense I completely understand what you mean.


Exactly! You're wrong...I agree.


BTW, I think that the text attached to this is the interesting part whereas the oak tree itself is boring. The interview could have been published in a satire anthology, the oak tree is actually unimportant.

"and then you get an artist - says he doesn't wanna paint at all
and he takes an empty canvas... puts it on the wall."

Mark Knopfler, "In The Gallery"
 
Old 12 December 2005   #74
i agree on the fact that art relates to the period its made, i mean nowaday michelangelo would probably be only concidered as a good illustrator and not an "artist" anymore, maybe a bit arsh but when you see that plenty people concider themself as artist only doing chromed sphere in bryce sure, it lack some distance...

on the figurative side or craft side, sometimes a doodle is more appealing and powerfull than the most accomplished oil or cg work, its not an insult to any intelligence nor culture nor feelings or sensation claiming so, but that debate still continues since art isn't figurative anymore...
 
Old 12 December 2005   #75
heliocoptor: Comeon man some people LIKE this kinda discourse :-). It's much better than 95% of the posts on here like "yeah cool" "yeah 5 stars" etc. etc.
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.