Post-a-piece...

[Takoush]

you welcome

 

in http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/

Thanks again Ed jan; yet this website is another great Armenian source!

 

You have a fine way of finding these good sources!!!

[Nazarian]

I love the Jan van Eyck's'Giovanni Arnolfini and His Bride' posted earlier. Another one of my favorite paintings is Bruegel Elder's 'Hunters in the Snow'. I started liking it even more after watching 'Solaris' (Tarkovsky version).

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/334733138_f5c839afb2_o.jpg

[luhay]

http://homepage.mac.com/levision/.Pictures/Open%20Market%20and%20Globalized.jpgGlobalized Open-Market Earth

 

 

 

 

 

http://homepage.mac.com/levision/.Pictures/Where%20Do%20You%20Live.jpgWhere Do You Live

 

 

 

 

 

http://homepage.mac.com/levision/.Pictures/City%20for%20Sale.jpgCity For Sale http://homepage.mac.com/levision/.Pictures/City%20Faces.jpgCity Faces

[luhay]

I forgot to shrink the images . Sorry about that

[Arvestaked]

http://www.peterwegner.com/images/portfolio/3.jpg

peter wegner

 

 

 

 

[Arvestaked]

http://grammarpolice.net/archives/images/martin.jpg

agnes martin

[Anileve]

Don't really appreciate the one above.

 

But more importantly....ARVY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Missed you and the mouse, especially your precious exchange.

[Arvestaked]

I didn't think anyone would appreciate them.

 

I felt compelled to post but I don't know how long it would last. It doesn't take long before responding becomes a chore.

 

Is that moronic mouse gone or something?

[Anileve]

Ahhhh, that's our Arvy! An artistic cynic and denigrating eccentric.

[nairi]

I didn't think anyone would appreciate them.

 

Do you appreciate them? If so, why?

[Arvestaked]

Yes.

 

Because.

[nairi]

I was hoping you could let me see what it is that I should appreciate about the two pieces you posted. I don't have much of an eye for art.

[Arvestaked]

It's not in my ability to give you that eye.

 

Anyway, the impact of many abstract peices is very mitigated in photographs.

[nairi]

It's not in my ability to give you that eye.

 

If you can tell me what you appreciate in it, I might be able to see it as well, or in any case see something more than I am seeing now.

[Arvestaked]

It doesn't work that way. You either think it is nice or interesting or you don't.

 

I've seen Peter Wegner's work in person. I don't like all of it -- it get's pretty off-the-wall -- but a lot of it succeeds in being quite interesting. It makes you think differently while still being quite pretty.

 

Agnes Martin was a minimalist. It's difficult to take a picture of a minimalistic peice and be able to fully appreciate it. Her stuff is very simple and beautiful. But even in person people in museums would make fun of the minimalist by saying "I can do that." The peice of hers I posted is not her strongest work nor is it the style she's most known for but it was the best picture.

[nairi]

It doesn't work that way. You either think it is nice or interesting or you don't.

 

So that's all there is to art? Either you think it's nice or you don't? Or is it rather that you either see something in it or you don't? And if you don't see something in it, is it not fair to ask someone to show you who does seem to see something in it? Or at least to open up an alternative way of interpreting or seeing the art piece?

 

I've seen Peter Wegner's work in person. I don't like all of it -- it get's pretty off-the-wall -- but a lot of it succeeds in being quite interesting. It makes you think differently while still being quite pretty.

 

But in what way does it make you think differently? Differently about what?

[Arvestaked]

So that's all there is to art? Either you think it's nice or you don't? Or is it rather that you either see something in it or you don't? And if you don't see something in it, is it not fair to ask someone to show you who does seem to see something in it? Or at least to open up an alternative way of interpreting or seeing the art piece?

 

Liking a peice is personal. Respecting a peice is something else: you take into account art history and the artists existing body of work. Is the artist contributing to the evolution of art? Is the artist developing himself/herself?

 

But in what way does it make you think differently? Differently about what?

 

About art.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Arvestaked

[nairi]

Liking a peice is personal. Respecting a peice is something else: you take into account art history and the artists existing body of work. Is the artist contributing to the evolution of art? Is the artist developing himself/herself?

 

Ah, so what you're saying is that art remains within the confines of art history and art critics. In other words, it is not meant to reach the domain of the general public.

 

As to your own questions: is Wegner contributing to the evolution of art? If so, in what way?

 

About art.

 

L'art pour l'art? Is that what abstract painting is all about?

[Arvestaked]

Ah, so what you're saying is that art remains within the confines of art history and art critics. In other words, it is not meant to reach the domain of the general public.

 

Nothing is there to stop someone from liking anything. But liking something does not mean one understands why something is important or potentially important.

 

 

As to your own questions: is Wegner contributing to the evolution of art? If so, in what way?

 

They were rhetorical questions.

 

 

L'art pour l'art? Is that what abstract painting is all about?

 

Art is should and usually is a personal. Respected art is necessarily also about the art.

[nairi]

Nothing is there to stop someone from liking anything. But liking something does not mean one understands why something is important or potentially important.

 

Am I right in assuming that you only appreciate art that you consider to be important or potentially important? If so, what makes the pieces that you posted important or potentially important, if only in the context of art history?

 

They were rhetorical questions.

 

Were they? To me they seemed to be examples of questions that in answering would help us see the importance or potential importance of an art piece.

 

Art is should and usually is a personal.

 

Really?

 

Respected art is necessarily also about the art

 

So you're implying that an art piece is not necessarily only about art (assuming you mean other art works).

[Arvestaked]

"Art is should and usually is a personal" should have read "Art should be and usually is a personal endeavor." I don't know why it came out as it did.

 

What's with the grilling anyway? I feel like I'm being interviewed by some anti-art magazine.

[nairi]

What's with the grilling anyway? I feel like I'm being interviewed by some anti-art magazine.

 

So asking you to explain why you appreciated two pieces of art enough to want to share them with us constitutes in me being anti-art?

 

Don't worry. You don't need to answer this question either. I'll stop torturing you.

[ALMA]

I think its really nice

Hand Painting

[ALMA]

 

 

 

 

[DominO]

 

So asking you to explain why you appreciated two pieces of art enough to want to share them with us constitutes in me being anti-art?

 

Don't worry. You don't need to answer this question either. I'll stop torturing you.

 

 

 

What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece is that when you watch a piece you say this is a Mr. X all right, it is HIS style. Artists become great artists the same way scientists become great scientists. No one remember imitators, we remember Einstein, we do not remember a physicist simply because he uses the theory of relativity. In art, you should watch and say: "oh, interesting composition, interesting style, never seen "such" before." But not only new is important, beauty is important to, and this is subjective and depend on the imperssion of the moment, the "Qualia", Qualia is not an objective entity independent from the observer so you are requesting a truth for a philosophical question. Nairi, check for "Philosophy of Art" there are many works written on that.