"Modern art" ??

[Avelorn]

@Mattsterbenz: Some stellar piece of painting there, very nice! And good illustration of your point as well.

@Einion: The bottom right one came out very well I think, I like that harmony of colours and the whispy white made me think of clouds. Looks like a very abstract seascape. If it's a good large size I'd like to hang that on my wall. Looks like a copy of the one in the link but upside down. The bottom left looks like a careful Rothko copy. Top right looks pretty good as well, but I don't like the top left. It's always difficult to judge this kind of artwork without the proper context though.

 

[SciFry]

Now I may not undertsand art to much but when I think of art I think Michelangelo, Leonardo Davinci, Monet that is just tip top stuff. And of course many more.I have this thing though about certain things like if you take a stack of tire's and paint one side white and call it a day that to me is not art it's junk with paint on it.If you glue a christmass ball to a beer bottle that's not art it's also junk.But one thing that has always bothered me more than anything is that At one time I did some work in Anthony Quinn's house in Bristol RI. and I stood right in front of a Pablo Picasso painting and thought WOW this Painting suck's! Don't get me wrong Picasso was a very talanted artist but I just don't get it.I'd like to look at a painting and actually know what I'm looking at so maby I can see the feeling or emotion.

 

[ScottRadom]

I think Einion's is on par with any of the other shit I've seen. Attaboy!

Boy, people do get passionate about art. I mean, that's good! I feel that way about mini's (no I am NOT calling them art!) and booze. I'm always happy to see people passionate abotu stuff. Except Live Action Role Playing. That's retarded.

Good conversation!

But if anyone was wondering what the official answer is, it's that modern art IS indeed crap. That's from the top. So there it is, arguement solved and all.

Have a nice day everyone!

 

[Dedwrekka]

I would think that if any crowd were to be open about the definition of the word "Art" it'd be mini painters.

 

[ScottRadom]

I would think that if any crowd were to be open about the definition of the word "Art" it'd be mini painters.

That sure is a fair point. On the surface we share many of the same ideals I think.

But like everything it's all a matter of taste. It's an old arguement that's been done to death but I do not consider mini painting (in general) art. There are examples that defo standout as pieces even I would refer to as art.

For me mini painting appeals to my boyish instinct of loving "cool" looking toys and stuff. If I look at a mini I can't say it brings up any sort of emotional response like sadness or what have you. And rarer yet do I feel the mini's represent much in terms of an emotional transfer from the sculpture. I just like the actual representation (yes I know... of an imaginary subject!) of something that looks... cool.

Lately I've come to appreciate the technical aspect of what we do. The fine blending, placement of shading and lighting, all those things I struggle so hard with. When I see them done well I really appreciate the artist's prowess with a brush and their capacity to reason out what goes where.

I just DO NOT feel that way about most of the pieces termed modern art. Einion's examples to me show nothing that speaks to me as either an emotional trigger or as something I can appreciate technically. I just don't get it.

Real canvas (or digital, or whatever) pictures that mimic an identifiable subject give me an appreciation for something technical. I can honestly think of ANY piece of art that has triggered any feeling in me. Maybe I am broken and black inside. But I sure can appreciate those brush strokes coming together piece by piece to make something I can recognize.

HEY! I have an example from the OP. Shawn R.L. once posted a pic of an extremely personal piece of art. It is a man on the ground reaching up his hand with a beam of light shining down on him. Now... it's obvious if you've seen it that the artist is conveying an emotion, but what I like about it is it's a damn, damn fine example of OSL technique! It really is good.

Hey Shawn, maybe you could post that up again, or PM me a copy. I saved it to an account I no longer use. Actually I don't think I had your permission to copy it, so maybe that's for the best. It's a nice piece, and a very good study (to my eyes anywho) of a great technique.

So once again, modern art bad, identifiable images good.

 

[Beelzebrush]

Fair play Einion

You should try a de Kooning next It could become addictive :handshake:

I agree with Avelorns post.

 

[Avelorn]

So once again, modern art bad, identifiable images good.

Well I think that settles it really.

Sometimes you make me glad Scott and sometimes you make me sad. If art is aesthetic things that evokes an emotional response, you're surely the finest artwork on this forum!

:smile-big:

 

[Legacy Account]

I'll not debate the art thing - it's pointless

A point of utter pedantry as it's something that irritates me: 'Modern Art' refers to works produced during a specific period. That period ended decades ago and encompasses a gamut of movements from Impressionism through to Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism and Constructivism. It's pretty difficult to dismiss everything created during this period!

More recent works would be more correctly described as Postmodern. Current works are Contemporary.

One thing to note is that Impressionists were thought of as art terrorists in their time and their stuff looks positively traditional by today's standards.

Sorry. I'll get my anorak....

 

[skeeve]

I'll not debate the art thing - it's pointless

A point of utter pedantry as it's something that irritates me: 'Modern Art' refers to works produced during a specific period. T

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A quote. I edited it to remove the most obvious references.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"This school does away with two things: line, without which it is impossible to reproduce any form, animate or inanimate, and colour, which gives the form the appearance of reality.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Dirty three-quarters of a canvas with black and white, rub the rest with yellow, dot it with red and blue blobs at random, and you will have *******of spring before which the initiates will swoon in ecstasy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Smear a panel with grey, plonk some black and yellow lines across it, and the enlightened few, the visionaries, exclaim: Isn't that a perfect ******* the <a certain place-name> ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]When the human figure is involved, it is another matter entirely: the aim is not to render its form, its relief, its expression - ****************** no definite line, no colour, light or shadow; in the implementation of so extravagant a theory, artists fall into hopeless, grotesque confusion, happily without precedent in art, for it is quite simply the negation of the most elementary rules of drawing and painting. The scribblings of a child have a naivety, a sincerity which make one smile, but the excesses of this <group of people> sicken or disgust. "[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]So, what it is written about? Anybody venture a guess?
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[ScottRadom]

Well I think that settles it really.

Sometimes you make me glad Scott and sometimes you make me sad. If art is aesthetic things that evokes an emotional response, you're surely the finest artwork on this forum!

:smile-big:

I'm not sure if I'm being praised or insulted. But since I'm a "glass is half full" kinda guy, Thanks Avelorn! Much appreciated!

 

[Avelorn]

I can't willfully praise someone without giving it the slant of possible sarcasm, keeps people on their toes. Half-full is always the way to go regardless.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

dauber22;533894[/COLOR]]

However, there are times when making something "recognizable" can be as much of a crutch as an obstacle. Its kind of tough to explain what I mean exactly, but I think that's what BB was trying to express, too. The best analogy I can come up with is trying to paint something in a photo-realistic style. I think we'd all agree that trying to do so is much easier if you have a reference photo. Well, if all you do is recreate the reference photo it would certainly demonstrate skill,but would it really be art? And if your sole purpose is to create a photo-realistic representation of something you could take a photo of, why not just take a photo? So if the sole goal of art is realistic representation, isn't all art invalid, save for photography? And isn't everything short of absolute lifelike representation a step in the direction of the dreaded "abstraction"? In fact, isn't ALL 2-dimensional representation of a 3D world an abstraction? And if the argument is that you could train a child do do an abstract drawing... Well, you can also train a child to do representational drawings. Ever see a child s drawing of his house and family? You can tell its a house and a family.

BTW, thanks for raising this topic. It's a fun discussion.

Yes, it is fun. It's nice that it hasn't degenerated into a fight.

I was trying to make the point that abstract art is the underpinning of all art. Abstract or representational - not exclusively photo representational - both depend on the same principals of composition, color, tone etc. So I do have a l of respect if someone does show a competency with those things either in abstract or representational art. Seems that abstract has simply run amok - anything goes and MUST all be appreciated equally....no.

 

[noneedforaname]

The one thing I hate about modern art is all that tracey emin sh!tted in bed so called art. Its not art its just rubbish. The excuse i've heard numerous times used to excuse this is

"art is anything that is designed to elicit a reaction in the viewer"

surely me punching someone in the face is art then??? i can appreciate classical, cubist, renaissance, pre raphaelite the works. The one thing that makes art speak to me, is the fact skill was applied to produce (i.e. not crapping in your bed) and you can empathise with the feel or the mood of the artist that produced it. Not just reacting to it, I react to traffic lights (occasionally).

Well thats my tuppence ha'penny's worth

 

[Dedwrekka]

Yes, it is fun. It's nice that it hasn't degenerated into a fight.

I was trying to make the point that abstract art is the underpinning of all art. Abstract or representational - not exclusively photo representational - both depend on the same principals of composition, color, tone etc. So I do have a l of respect if someone does show a competency with those things either in abstract or representational art. Seems that abstract has simply run amok - anything goes and MUST all be appreciated equally....no.

I don't think anyone expects all art to be appreciated equally. In fact there are many who would try to take the badboy approach to their art and say that they don't expect anyone else to "get it". Does it make it any less "art"? No. But you don't have to "get it" or like it for it to be "art", that definition is entirely out of the viewer's hands. Part of it is people trying new things with art, and reminding us constantly that what we consider classical art is people doing the same thing, trying to push the definition of what art "has" to be.


---------
You can't really argue that something isn't art. You can argue that you don't like it, or that you don't understand it or it's meanings, but it's art none the less.

It's something like the well argued definition of professional work. It may be bad work, but if they make money doing it it's professional work no matter the quality. Only for artists, the subject is art no matter if they make money or someone doesn't like it, for the simple basis of it being presented for the purpose of artistic expression.

Anything can be "art", truly. A motorcycle can be art. A car can be art. A tire can even be art. Art doesn't require the viewer to know or understand. It just is. What you take away from it is nothing but what you bring with you.

Does that mean I like the stacked and painted tires? No. I think it's silly, but it's no less art. Just not particularly good art.

--------

Likewise, the ability to recreate a piece of art makes the art no less art. There have been hundreds of people who make a lot of money selling fake art, or stealing art and replacing it with almost exactingly detailed replicas (which, when discovered, can and sometimes do go for more than the original painting).

Not that it isn't easy to paint like some artists, but that doesn't devalue the static level of being art or not.

 

[Legacy Account]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]So, what it is written about? Anybody venture a guess?[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

I knew that one without having to use Google

 

[Legacy Account]

The one thing I hate about modern art is all that tracey emin sh!tted in bed so called art. Its not art its just rubbish.

The art industry would die on its arse without the likes of Emin incurring the wrath of Joe Public every year. Can't say I'm a fan of hers, but if you can't see the slightest bit of cunning and genius in what she does (did?) then I'd say you aint looking hard enough.

 

[noneedforaname]

There is obscene self publicity and shameless denigration of the good name of art in her work but not even a ounce of art.

 

[Avelorn]

And mentioning Tracey Well we always have the stuckist manifesto (she coined the term as an insult)

 

[Legacy Account]

...but not even a ounce of art.

Depends on your definition of art.

I'd say the fact that Emin and her work elicits such vehemence from people is a sign that she did something right

 

[Chern Ann]

Depends on your definition of art.

I'd say the fact that Emin and her work elicits such vehemence from people is a sign that she did something right

I think the vehemence stems more from moral outrage at the perceived stupidity of the art establishment than a direct reaction to her "work". It's probably similar to a serial killer publishing a book about his exploits and attempting to make money out of it. Given a very narrow definition of the word "right" (attention seeking regardless of consequence), I guess the killer would be "right".