207 replies to this topic

[DominO]

Art is not about thinking as far as I am concerned. Abstract art is an illusion.

What do you mean?

[Arvestaked]

Art is not about thinking as far as I am concerned. Abstract art is an illusion.

Yea, I am not quite sure what you mean, either? Do you not think it is unfair to say somebody paints abstractly because they do not have the skills to paint figuratively when in fact they do have the skill and choose not to do figurative work anyway? Do you not feel there is cause to reevaluate your position knowing that artists make that choice? Have you know interest in why that choice was made or have you no interest in at least giving the artist the benefit of the doubt, knowing it is not so simple?

[Armen]

Yea, I am not quite sure what you mean, either? Do you not think it is unfair to say somebody paints abstractly because they do not have the skills to paint figuratively when in fact they do have the skill and choose not to do figurative work anyway? Do you not feel there is cause to reevaluate your position knowing that artists make that choice? Have you know interest in why that choice was made or have you no interest in at least giving the artist the benefit of the doubt, knowing it is not so simple?

The artist may have a conscious choice and it may come from bore or urge to feel special and be different. However, it is not the artist but those who say they can understand and see art in what the abstract painters do that I view as liers and charlatans. They just say it because it is socially fashionable. It is an illusion that they have.

When someone says about an abstract painting, "I like the colors", I say "Yes, the wallpaper is good and the guy is a fantastic decor designer". But painter? Nope.

[DominO]

The artist may have a conscious choice and it may come from bore or urge to feel special and be different. However, it is not the artist but those who say they can understand and see art in what the abstract painters do that I view as liers and charlatans. They just say it because it is socially fashionable. It is an illusion that they have.

When someone says about an abstract painting, "I like the colors", I say "Yes, the wallpaper is good and the guy is a fantastic decor designer". But painter? Nope.

I compleatly and entirly disagree.

I have tried both realistic paintings and abstract, and let me tell you that it is VERY DIFFICULT to paint a good abstract painting. I do agree that sometimes some abstract paintings are overrated, but many are all worked textures and color mixtures that makes them masterpieces.

If you don't believe me, paint yourself abstract paintings and you'll see how difficult it is, there are color mixtures and uses of colors that are really special.

Take a look at that painting carefully.

http://www.armatner....an-Genocide.htm

Don't you feel anything?

Or this one. (take special care to the title Armat gave to that one)

http://www.armatner....ages/Melody.htm



In many cases, it is easy to tell if someone is a fraud, or other time, its only eccentrisism(eccentrisism doesn't only happen in abstract paintings, Dali is not an abstract painter, but is the kind of eccentrics).

A masterpieces reflects something new, a style proper to an artist, not really an immitator but someone inventing a new style, just like in science those we remember are those having made new discoveries.

I think again, that you will only understand once you start painting abstrait by trying to make something that does not look garbadge, something that you look at, and can't stop looking at it, this is what beautiful is.

http://hyeforum.com/...howtopic=10731#

"When I saw this picture (I kept it long time)"

Beautiful is what you look at, you are facinated, can't stop yourself to want to look at it again, again, again and again. No matter what is painted, abstract or not.



Another thing I have to remind you, music, is the most abstract art form, harmonies, and everything was invented by man from bottom to top, without any reality realistic representation... but yet! I will tell you that Chopin noctures, or anything Bach, Beethovens are all masterpieces, something that is really beautifull.

[Azat]

I work for a law firm a block South of Ocean Park, on 28th. I haven't been to this Abbot's Pizza because I prepare my lunch everyday. I will check it out though if you recommend it.

Dusken, I highly recommend Abbots pizza especially the original on Abbott Kenny drive. Not far from you, but if you cant make it there the one on Pico and I think it is 17th street is good too.

[Arvestaked]

The artist may have a conscious choice and it may come from bore or urge to feel special and be different. However, it is not the artist but those who say they can understand and see art in what the abstract painters do that I view as liers and charlatans. They just say it because it is socially fashionable. It is an illusion that they have.

When someone says about an abstract painting, "I like the colors", I say "Yes, the wallpaper is good and the guy is a fantastic decor designer". But painter? Nope.

Most of the good abstract art is not painted to be interpreted. You are not to look at it and say "I see a wine bottle pouring into an ocean." And, likewise, the artist should not be saying "This is how I felt when my mom jumped off of the bridge when I was 9." The painting is not a poem. It is a painting. If your painting cannot get respect from other artists without someone having to preface it with nonsense like "This is my commentary on the terrible political climate in Serbia" then it is bad. It is bad because it is ignorant. It has to do with what is painted and when it was painted. Picasso was a great artist. If I copy a Picasso painting, does that make me a great artist? No. Why not? Because great art is a display of creativity and that is not creative. If I copy a Rembrandt or a Van Eyck or a Rubens, does that make me as good an artist as those three were? No. Why not? Because I am not being creative; I am being technical. So what is creativity? What goes into a painting that make it interesting? I can tell you it has nothing to do with whether you can recognize an object or not. Saying "I'm going to paint a couch" is not more creative than saying "I'm going to paint a red bar across my canvass." Whether you want to make your mark with couches or fields or color is up to you. But that is just a choice and executing it is technicality. The art that goes into it has to do with how exciting something is, how powerful it is, how well it works in the technical sense (whether it be color and composition), and how it shows that it has evolved from past works... Art as it relates to humanity is a process... something that continuously involves itself with man because it is linked to progress. Technical execution is not progress; it is academia -- a tool. That is all. And to say that an abstract work has no composition or is just meaningless colors et cetera, is also ignorant. In good work there is a lot of knowledge that goes into a painting that is not only historical, but having to do with color and composition and lines. Remember you are commenting on the choices of people who have excellent skills and have done figurative work to begin with. It is unfair not to ask yourself why they made such a choice and to give them the benefit of the doubt as you try to discover the reasons.

This is a good painting:



This is a not so good painting:

[Arvestaked]

Dusken, I highly recommend Abbots pizza especially the original on Abbott Kenny drive.  Not far from you, but if you cant make it there the one on Pico and I think it is 17th street is good too.

I will check it out for sure. Thank you for the recommendation. My favorite pizza is Lamonica's. It will be some tough competition.

[Arvestaked]

This is good:



This is bad:



This is good:



This is bad too:

[Armen]

Most of the good abstract art is not painted to be interpreted. You are not to look at it and say "I see a wine bottle pouring into an ocean." And, likewise, the artist should not be saying "This is how I felt when my mom jumped off of the bridge when I was 9." The painting is not a poem. It is a painting. If your painting cannot get respect from other artists without someone having to preface it with nonsense like "This is my commentary on the terrible political climate in Serbia" then it is bad. It is bad because it is ignorant. It has to do with what is painted and when it was painted. Picasso was a great artist. If I copy a Picasso painting, does that make me a great artist? No. Why not? Because great art is a display of creativity and that is not creative. If I copy a Rembrandt or a Van Eyck or a Rubens, does that make me as good an artist as those three were? No. Why not? Because I am not being creative; I am being technical. So what is creativity? What goes into a painting that make it interesting? I can tell you it has nothing to do with whether you can recognize an object or not. Saying "I'm going to paint a couch" is not more creative than saying "I'm going to paint a red bar across my canvass." Whether you want to make your mark with couches or fields or color is up to you. But that is just a choice and executing it is technicality. The art that goes into it has to do with how exciting something is, how powerful it is, how well it works in the technical sense (whether it be color and composition), and how it shows that it has evolved from past works... Art as it relates to humanity is a process... something that continuously involves itself with man because it is linked to progress. Technical execution is not progress; it is academia -- a tool. That is all. And to say that an abstract work has no composition or is just meaningless colors et cetera, is also ignorant. In good work there is a lot of knowledge that goes into a painting that is not only historical, but having to do with color and composition and lines. Remember you are commenting on the choices of people who have excellent skills and have done figurative work to begin with. It is unfair not to ask yourself why they made such a choice and to give them the benefit of the doubt as you try to discover the reasons.

The fact that some painting gets respect from a group of fellow artists does not mean that they are objective. I could view them as a sectarian movement that is after some illusion which I can't explain. There are billions of people that will support my argument that there is no art in an abstract painting.

To call it ignorant is rather subjective as well. If they don't see something you see in abstract art that does not make them ignorant. Somehow these paintings does not excite me and I don't see any power in them. Does this make me ignorant? No. It is just my feeling.

The fact that some skillful painter has chosen to paint an abstract painting that I don't view exciting or beautiful does not mean that his choice is right ro that he has made a really valuable creation by that choice. I can simply tolarate it.

[Armen]

Don't you feel anything?

Sorry, but I don't.

[Arvestaked]

The fact that some painting gets respect from a group of fellow artists does not mean that they are objective. I could view them as a sectarian movement that is after some illusion which I can't explain. There are billions of people that will support my argument that there is no art in an abstract painting.

To call it ignorant is rather subjective as well. If they don't see something you see in abstract art that does not make them ignorant. Somehow these paintings does not excite me and I don't see any power in them. Does this make me ignorant? No. It is just my feeling.

The fact that some skillful painter has chosen to paint an abstract painting that I don't view exciting or beautiful does not mean that his choice is right ro that he has made a really valuable creation by that choice. I can simply tolarate it.

Liking something is not the same as respecting it. I am not saying you need to like what someone does. Art is subjective. And I am certainly not saying that all abstract art is good because the artist made that choice. That could not be farther from the truth. But to say this...

When someone says about an abstract painting, "I like the colors", I say "Yes, the wallpaper is good and the guy is a fantastic decor designer". But painter? Nope.

... is ignorant of the choices that someone makes and why they make them and the intellectual investment that went into it. My point is that art and craft are not the same thing and therefore being a painter of art is not dependant on representing objects and representing them "accurately." Basically, you are saying they are not artists because they paint abstractly or they are not good artists because the paint abstractly and that is ignorant. It is disrespectful. You can say "I do not like abstract art because it does not move me" and I will have no argument.

Edited by dusken, 31 January 2005 - 02:24 PM.

[Armen]

... is ignorant of the choices that someone makes and why they make them and the intellectual investment that went into it. My point is that art and craft are not the same thing and therefore being a painter of art is not dependant on representing objects and representing them "accurately." Basically, you are saying they are not artists because they paint abstractly or they are not good artists because the paint abstractly and that is ignorant. It is disrespectful. You can say "I do not like abstract art because it does not move me" and I will have no argument.

I don't see why I have to respect them. I am neutral. I view their intellectual investment as a waste of intellectual and other resourses. But as long as it does not hurt me in any way I can tolarate it.

[Sasun]

Armen, I used to think like you regarding abstract art or other types of art that I didn't appreciate at the time. But as soon as I started to appreciate I realized that there is a way to understand, or better to say perceive things that are not perceived mechanically. I don't know how to say what I feel, but abstract art can and does contain artfulness. Does that make sense? In particular, I greatly enjoy abstract sculpture and have even thought about becoming an abstract sculptor myself as soon as I win a lottery.
Having said that, I still can't see why cubism used to be and still is so big. But based on my past experience of becoming enlightened with other types of art, I am sure I am missing something in cubism that others can see, rather than assuming that cubism is worthless.

[Armat]

You are a product of your knowledge.One sees and values as much as one is ready to see. To be dogmatic on a subject where little is learned is futile.

[Sasun]

You are a product of your knowledge.One sees and values as much as one is ready to see. To  be dogmatic on a subject where little is learned is futile.

Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else?

[Armat]

Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else?

Everything else

Edited by Armat, 01 February 2005 - 10:53 AM.

[Sasun]

Everything else

In that case this could be a good lesson for all who habitually disrespect and mock others for things that they can't appreciate or understand. For example, religious or spiritual sentiments, feelings that have to do with faith, reverence for ones religious symbols and icons.
Some people find it amusing to ridicule other people's religion. I tell you what, every time you ridicule a religion you hurt many people who consider themselves followers of that religion. Only a superficial and ignorant fool believes that religions are nonsense, ridicules them, and calls it a normal thing expecting applause.
Armen's argument above is very much like somebody's "rational" argument against religions, and why religions do not deserve to be respected or are worthless, or why religious people are limited humans or perhaps even sick and schizophrenic psychos. If somebody is intelligent enough and appreciates arts enough will get the point.

Edited by Sasun, 01 February 2005 - 11:09 AM.

[DominO]

Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else?

That's a poisoned apple.

And I think you are comparing apples with oranges.

[Armen]

And I think you are comparing apples with oranges.

What's wrong with comparing an apple with an orange?

[Anoushik]

In that case this could be a good lesson for all who habitually disrespect and mock others for things that they can't appreciate or understand. For example, religious or spiritual sentiments, feelings that have to do with faith, reverence for ones religious symbols and icons.

I knew that you were going into this when I read your question this morning.

Armen's argument above is very much like somebody's "rational" argument against religions, and why religions do not deserve to be respected or are worthless, or why religious people are limited humans or perhaps even sick and schizophrenic psychos. If somebody is intelligent enough and appreciates arts enough will get the point.

I agree with you Sasun in that people should not disrespect something that they don't understand. You're mentioning the non-religious making fun of the religious. I agree, that's not right. It should be noted, however, that the opposite also takes place and more often then the first case. Since the majority believe in some kind of a God they cannot imagine that some people don't believe in God. This is when confusion and disrespect takes place towards the non-religious. How many times have you yourself written about how atheists are just ignorant and if they wanted to believe in God they'd find God? Believe me Sasun, the non-religious find their position on God attacked much more by the religious then the non-religious attacking religious people.