Arvestaked Posted January 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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: http://home.comcast.net/~bill_rathbone/images/rothko.jpg This is a not so good painting: http://abstract-art.com/landfield/la00_ptg_fldr/la00_painting_images/la89b_Mstr-Moon.JPG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted January 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png I will check it out for sure. Thank you for the recommendation. My favorite pizza is Lamonica's. It will be some tough competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted January 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 This is good: http://www.walkerart.org/programs/vaexhib_images/elemental_black_curve.jpg This is bad: http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l4n_new_artists/n07_new_artists_images/n54kh_kho_geometry.jpg This is good: http://www.moma.org/collection/depts/drawings/images/large/234_1969_gorky_sum.jpg This is bad too: http://abstract-art.com/RonDavis/b_shows/b0_Harwood/b0_Harwood_imgs/p0734l_Nova_Comet.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 Don't you feel anything? style_images/master/snapback.png Sorry, but I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted January 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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 January 31, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 ... 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else? style_images/master/snapback.png Everything else Edited February 1, 2005 by Armat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) Everything else style_images/master/snapback.png 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 February 1, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Armat, does it apply to arts only or everything else? style_images/master/snapback.png That's a poisoned apple. And I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 And I think you are comparing apples with oranges. style_images/master/snapback.png What's wrong with comparing an apple with an orange? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 What's wrong with comparing an apple with an orange? style_images/master/snapback.png Oh please, you know what this expression means. Sasun is comparing "concepts" with something detectable with the 5 known senses. And beside that, his point is highly hypocritical everytime he start calling others ignorant, he reject others understanding of reality, which is in no way worst than his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 I knew that you were going into this when I read your question this morning. 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. style_images/master/snapback.png I agree, beside your "non-religious" statment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Oh please, you know what this expression means. Sasun is comparing "concepts" with something detectable with the 5 known senses. And beside that, his point is highly hypocritical everytime he start calling others ignorant, he reject others understanding of reality, which is in no way worst than his. style_images/master/snapback.png As far as I am concerned abstract painting (although some say 5 senses deteced that) for example is nothing more than a concept. And can be compared with other concepts. Sasun is not hypocritical at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) As far as I am concerned abstract painting (although some say 5 senses deteced that) for example is nothing more than a concept. And can be compared with other concepts. Sasun is not hypocritical at all. style_images/master/snapback.png The painting IS detected from the 5 senses. You do percieve red, blue, green... for the large majority of people, what you say is green, is green. That is not only a mere concept comming from nowhere. And again, music is the most abstract of all arts, yet for a reason, you don't seem to have any problem with that. Edited February 2, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The painting IS detected from the 5 senses. You do percieve red, blue, green... for the large majority of people, what you say is green, is green. That is not only a mere concept comming from nowhere. And again, music is the most abstract of all arts, yet for a reason, you don't seem to have any problem with that. style_images/master/snapback.png That's what I said. It is colors. But nothing big like you seem to take it for. Well, some abstract music I don't understand either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 That's what I said. It is colors. But nothing big like you seem to take it for. Well, some abstract music I don't understand either. style_images/master/snapback.png The color is there, the interpretation is something very personal... but this doesn't change the fact that the painting can be touched, and seen... it is an object. As for music, again, you don't get it. Every music without lyrics is more abstract than the most abstracts of paintings, yet people like them and it doesn't change the fact that many are masterpieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) The color is there, the interpretation is something very personal... but this doesn't change the fact that the painting can be touched, and seen... it is an object. Maybe the painting is an object but what you make of it to be taken as "great" ort "good" is not. That's what Sasun is comparing I think. Not the canvas or the paints or brushes. As for music, again, you don't get it. Every music without lyrics is more abstract than the most abstracts of paintings, yet people like them and it doesn't change the fact that many are masterpieces. style_images/master/snapback.png You read somewhere that someone said the music is abstract and continue to narrate it like mantra. How is music more abstract than paintings? Edited February 2, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 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. style_images/master/snapback.png Anoushik, we are all ignorant, I am ignorant, you are ignorant, Armen is ignorant, OK? When I think you don't know something, I say you are ignorant on that. You think I don't know something, and you can as well say I am ignorant. Essentially all arguments are about that, we all disagree on stuff, and we think our opponents are ignorant on this or that even though we don't use the word "ignorant" to characterize them so. Do you see my point? Calling one ignorant is not the same as riduculing or humiliating. It is a way of disagreeing and being sure that you are right and your opponent is wrong. And this is usually the case when two people argue. The reason you argue with someone is because you think you are right while your opponent is wrong. And being wrong on something means being ignorant, not knowing the subject matter. On the other hand, I will never call you an idiot because I think you are ignorant. That's the difference. Consider a religious person who spends his life time mainly on worship of God. And consider someone who doesn't care about God at all, and he calls the first person an idiot and riducules his religion. This is the case that I protest. This second person has no idea at all what he is talking about, or what he is ridiculing. He is an ignorant person, but he is also unethical and malicious. If the religious person called an atheist an idiot and riduculed him, it would be the same unethical and malicious behavior. I am not saying it is any better. Now consider someone who likes rabiz music and is mocking you because you like to play piano or laughs at you when you say you admire piano music. Tell me please would you call this person ignorant or no? And would you not protest because he is mocking you for something he has no idea about? This is not a hypothetical scenario, I have seen this type of a behavior many times in Armenia when a rabiz person is mocking a meek person carrying a violin on his way to a music school, or some other similar scenario. I hope I was clear enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Maybe the painting is an object but what you make of it to be taken as "great" ort "good" is not. That's what Sasun is comparing I think. Not the canvas or the paints or brushes. You read somewhere that someone said the music is abstract and continue to narrate it like mantra. How is music more abstract than paintings? style_images/master/snapback.png I think, you are refusing the understand what I am trying to say. What I am talking about is the "originator" of the feeling, which in this cases is a painting, the large majority of people can see and touch, a camcorder can record, a digital camera can take picture of. You on the other hand are talking about "feelings" and comparing both feelings and supporting Sasuns(just because he has your positions in religious issues, without even trying to understand me) position without even taking the time to think about what I say. Sasuns proposition is about feelings based on other feelings. The type of belief Sasun is refering to is proper to everyone and very personal. The "God" he feels, is not a god which can be detected with the known 5 senses, it is a feeling, and his conclusion is based on that feeling. This is why both are different, and this is why I told him that he is comparing apples with oranges. The reason why I claimed hypocrasy, was because Sasun is doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing... since such beliefs are very personal, everytime you discuss about it, another will claim you are ignorant, based on his own conceptions. And even the conception itself is open to debate. Read the thread God vs Armenia you'll see. Example: The subject of the study is "God" which is a conception, and which the existance would be seen(according to believers) by other things than the 5 senses. Now about the painting, sibject of the study, the painting, the colors red, blue, green, yellow, etc. will be seen by the majority of people. A spectroscopic study will reviel that the colors observed do have the properties of green, yellow etc. Now, before answering, please try to understand what I am saying, and before jumping to conclusion, please understand that I am NOT judging here the position of people from different beliefs, but am rather saying why Sasun is comparing apples with oranges. ----------- I came up with the conclusion that music was the most abstract art when I was 11 years old, while wanting to play music myself, and before having read anything about it. Any visual represention, has a situation is space, you will tell about the colors, the forms, the shapes etc... that you percieve, even in an abstract painting, can be percieved by the large majority of people(I am not talking about feelings here). When you touch a sculpture, you can talk about the shape etc... even when your eyes are closed, and once you look at it, your touch was close to what you have seen. With music, it is not the same, when you listen to Chopin, what you will percieve and represent is only abstract. One movement of a music will make you feel like this or that, the other another way, each accords will make you feel different. If you try to represent the music in space, it will be entirly subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) I think, you are refusing the understand what I am trying to say. I think this is usual in this forum and you must be long accustomed to this. What I am talking about is the "originator" of the feeling, which in this cases is a painting, the large majority of people can see and touch, a camcorder can record, a digital camera can take picture of. If the originator of the feeling is different you can't compare the feelings? Who says so? Sasuns proposition is about feelings based on other feelings. The type of belief Sasun is refering to is proper to everyone and very personal. The "God" he feels, is not a god which can be detected with the known 5 senses, it is a feeling, and his conclusion is based on that feeling. This is why both are different, and this is why I told him that he is comparing apples with oranges. The fact that the feeling is based on 5 senses does not make it valid. For example you may look at a girls behaviour with your 5 senses and conclude that she loves you but it may well turn out to be an illusion. So I can also view both cases a apples for example. The fact that you does not want to compare them is not a basis to claim that I shouldn't compare them either. It is your categorisation of things. Think outside the box a little. Now about the painting, sibject of the study, the painting, the colors red, blue, green, yellow, etc. will be seen by the majority of people. A spectroscopic study will reviel that the colors observed do have the properties of green, yellow etc. They may see the colors but their interpretation of abstract art is a faith that something is realy beautiful whereas I don't find it either beautiful, or great, or energizing, or powerful... Now, before answering, please try to understand what I am saying, and before jumping to conclusion, please understand that I am NOT judging here the position of people from different beliefs, but am rather saying why Sasun is comparing apples with oranges. I read it but I still think you're wrong. I came up with the conclusion that music was the most abstract art when I was 11 years old, while wanting to play music myself, and before having read anything about it. Any visual represention, has a situation is space, you will tell about the colors, the forms, the shapes etc... that you percieve, even in an abstract painting, can be percieved by the large majority of people(I am not talking about feelings here). When you touch a sculpture, you can talk about the shape etc... even when your eyes are closed, and once you look at it, your touch was close to what you have seen. With music, it is not the same, when you listen to Chopin, what you will percieve and represent is only abstract. One movement of a music will make you feel like this or that, the other another way, each accords will make you feel different. If you try to represent the music in space, it will be entirly subjective. style_images/master/snapback.png Well, you can represent music in time but you can't really and fully represent sculpture and painting in time. So? That makes sculpture and painting more abstract? Also, music is representable in space by being loud or not loud. Meaning how it fills the space. The more loud it is the more space it fills. Edited February 2, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.