Page 2 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 May 2015, 1:48 pm

Dantac wrote:
This scene always pops on my mind when that art-for-cash comes up:


The metal cube, the way the 2nd woman describes it, is laced with the group-think value generating talk.

this illustrates an insufferable haughtiness I've seen all too often. it is a look at the pseudo-sophisticated "adult" methods of people saying to other people [in other words], "I'm smarter than you." it is not even confined to the art world but to culture in general. I could do without the whole deal. why do people have to behave like this?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 May 2015, 1:58 pm

Grebels wrote:
auntblabby, I'm sure you'll enjoy this quote from artstory.com http://www.theartstory.org/artist-rausc ... robert.htm

Preferring to leave the interpretation of the works to his viewers, Rauschenberg allowed chance to determine the placement and combination of the different found images and objects in his artwork such that there were no predetermined arrangements or meanings embedded within the works.

thank you Grebels :) that was educational in a way that I could grok Image

Grebels wrote:
I vaguely recall people asking "What is it". They wanted an abstract painting to represent something. The were told it's a painting. But please allow artists to explore. They feel that all art has been done and coming up with something new is a problem. Please don't bother to ask Damien Hirst what his art means. He gets good artists to copy photos he likes and then paints a dash of red over them. The meaning is the show is a sell out and he makes a lot of money. Hirst himself says there is the world of Art and The Art World. One is all about art and the other all about money. Much of what I see as commercially successful in the UK these days are abstracted landscapes with attractive colours. The meaning I see is does it go with the wallpaper. However, art is to give sensation. Why does meaning have to be necessary? In spite of all this I still find so much about art these days which is worthwhile. Incidentally I count it a privilege to discuss my paintings in a gallery.

an artist who is personable is a unique and valuable person indeed, in my limited experience, one who makes the world of art worthwhile in a unique and uniquely accessible way. :wtg: your world-of-art explanations are succinct and illustrative. :idea:



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

23 May 2015, 1:16 am

The Point of Art varies if you are doing it, living it, or just observing others who do.

I drove five hours to meet a famous mechanic. In my world an artist. He makes ninety year old motorcycles run like new. There are lots of mechanics, a few good ones, the greats are rare.

There are arts beyond image and words.

He showed me a 1923 BMW, it started first kick. A customer of his also had one. Of sixteen known, eleven in museums, they had two, so they raced them on back country roads at 75mph. He lives the art.

Many things can be raised to the level of an art. Only art it's self allows entry level work to claim to be art.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 May 2015, 1:18 am

art restoration is its own art.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2015, 10:22 am

Call me a philistine but I have to see something in a piece of art in order to appreciate it.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,829
Location: Stendec

23 May 2015, 10:39 am

Raptor wrote:
Call me a philistine but I have to see something in a piece of art in order to appreciate it.
Philistine!

I'm the same way, and I'm proud of it! No arrogant, narcissistic artiste is ever going to convince me that his or her crap-on-canvas piece of work is true art!



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2015, 12:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Call me a philistine but I have to see something in a piece of art in order to appreciate it.
Philistine!
A label I relish. :D

Quote:
I'm the same way, and I'm proud of it! No arrogant, narcissistic artiste is ever going to convince me that his or her crap-on-canvas piece of work is true art!

I especially hate abstract.
In my philistinic opinion, if I have to have what I'm seeing in a painting explained to me then that artist has failed to produce anything worthy of being called art.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 May 2015, 2:18 pm

at a limited, superficial level I can appreciate abstract artworks, but I enjoy it a whole lot more if there is an explanation of some kind to help guide my thinking on it.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,829
Location: Stendec

23 May 2015, 9:50 pm

auntblabby wrote:
at a limited, superficial level I can appreciate abstract artworks, but I enjoy it a whole lot more if there is an explanation of some kind to help guide my thinking on it.


Fnord wrote:
Art should stand on its own, without any explanation whatsoever.

Explaining a work of art is like explaining a joke - if the person doesn't "get it" right from the start, then any explanation will only make the experience worse.
I still stand by this. Just as explaining a joke ruins appreciation of the joke, so does explaining art ruin the appreciation of the art.

Being told what to think is an insult.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 May 2015, 10:01 pm

I'd much rather have the joke explained to me, than to 1] totally miss out on the humor, and 2] be totally written off by the jokester as not being able to get it or not worthy of the effort, just because they are too lazy/haughty to bother trying to explain it to me. if I tell a joke that nobody else understands, at least I will give my audience the benefit of the doubt and try to convey my meaning to them as best I can, they are worth it by default, unless they later prove themselves not worthy [like if they throw rotten vegetables at me]. same for any quasi-artistic creation of mine, I will gladly describe my philosophy/creative process to anybody willing to listen.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

23 May 2015, 10:05 pm

What's the point of art?

Art is merely expression.

No purpose but that.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 May 2015, 10:19 pm

^^^
but in expression is a world of meaning.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,588

23 May 2015, 11:29 pm

adifferentname wrote:
What's the point of art?

Art is merely expression.

No purpose but that.


Ha! merely an expression.

Yes, ART IS an expression;
but that is
what
human
life
is all
about;
expression;
Far, FAr, FAR
from 'merely'.

"Loneliness doesn't come from having no one around you,
but from being unable to communicate the things that are important to you."

-Carl Jung

Without art; human being is less than human being; history shows this truth
over and over and over again. And truly mechanical cognition leaning ways of
life takes away human soul in mind and body balance with the rest of nature;
human heArt in terms of feeling a full range of nuanced emotion;
and human spirit in terms of communicating emotional and
sensory feelings to other human beings; and the rest of
Nature aka God. More or less this interconnecting
purpose of ART is reflective of the creating
Force that is one and same AS Nature
aka
GOD.

To put it in
'layman's terms'
ART is GOD Now, As Is,
as total connecting Force
of All that is; again aka GOD.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

24 May 2015, 5:31 am

Thanks auntblabby

Fred you have said this far better than I could have done. Thanks.



nerdygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.

24 May 2015, 6:28 am

There is no ONE point or purpose to art.
Art, in its various mediums, is a form a communication.
Why do people communicate? The reasons are endless.

The further art gets from words and representational pictures, the more abstract it becomes because it is further from standard forms of communication. I personally find that an explanation of abstract art is sometimes helpful. As a composer, I *want* to explain certain of my pieces.

I think three questions arise when considering art:
1) What is it about?
2) What does it mean?
3) How was it made?

Question #1 is fair, and it is reasonable for an artist to explain this or for a viewer/listener to ask. Sometimes, this answer is obvious (ie. representational art). Sometimes, this is not obvious (abstract art). It is helpful to know what it is ABOUT. Who would read a book without knowing the topic? Knowing what the piece of art is about allows us to form a frame of reference to be able to view or listen to the art, which may help our ability to understand it. Without a basic understanding of what the art is about, we cannot judge whether or not the artist effectively communicated. The answer to this question should come only from the artist, not some critic.

Question #2 is a bit subjective, so it probably isn't a fair question. The artist might explain what the art means to him/her, but it is not right to expect that the art will mean the same thing to the viewer/listener. Any explanation here might help the viewer/listener to understand the *artist*, but perhaps not the artwork.

Question #3 is superfluous. Ultimately, the artist either did or did not effectively communicate. One does not need to know HOW the artist did the work in order to know whether or not the communication was effective. I also do not believe that knowing the technique behind the creation of the art increases one's enjoyment of it. Only if someone is particularly interested in an artist's technique would this be an interesting question. Some might argue that an artist's technique helped or hindered the communication of the idea, but that is a discussion best left to art critics and art appreciation classes. Most people don't care about these nitty-gritty details.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,588

24 May 2015, 7:54 am

Grebels wrote:
Thanks auntblabby

Fred you have said this far better than I could have done. Thanks.


You are welcome, Mike; my pleasure;
only part of a mind and body, out of balance
is a horrible state of being human
aka human being
in my humble
opinion.
I aim to help
others get whole...
It's not always easy...
Smiles..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick