ED Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 http://grammarpolice.net/archives/images/martin.jpg agnes martin "kevin Kline made in china" i saw a similar peace in Montreal years ago, 8' x 10' waist of canvas, name of the "art work" was composition in yellow, well, it was painted all in yellow. what defines as being art? and what defines someones nightmarish creation as being art? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 "kevin Kline made in china" i saw a similar peace in Montreal years ago, 8' x 10' waist of canvas, name of the "art work" was composition in yellow, well, it was painted all in yellow. what defines as being art? and what defines someones nightmarish creation as being art? Ed, your brother is an artist, why don't you ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Ed, your brother is an artist, why don't you ask him. i did and he agrees with me, what makes you think I'm not an artist? lets see, I create, develop, research and make innovations using modern tools and up to date CAD software my brother is an artist, why dot you ask him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 oh and in a museum of contemporary art also in Montreal someone stacked up only the most stupid of candy's and called it a "sweet corner" or 3 vacuum cleaners one on top of another "clean corner" (same wannabe artist) sorry, to me thats not an art Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 oh and in a museum of contemporary art also in Montreal someone stacked up only the most stupid of candy's and called it a "sweet corner" or 3 vacuum cleaners one on top of another "clean corner" (same wannabe artist) sorry, to me thats not an art I don't like that sort of display art either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 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. I still find this a very reductive and selective view on art. The question is: what is the function of an art critic? And who decides what is good art and bad art? Finally, when you give an opinion on an art piece, is it not fair to expect someone to explain your opinion? So if Arvestaked posts two pieces here which he claims to appreciate, why should I not be allowed to ask him what it is that he appreciates about those art pieces? It's one thing to say that you like something; it's something else to try to formulate and explain what it is about that something that you like. Similarly, it's one thing to simply say that an art piece is important, and another to explain why you think that that art piece is important (or deserving to be taken seriously and studied). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 I still find this a very reductive and selective view on art. The question is: what is the function of an art critic? And who decides what is good art and bad art? Finally, when you give an opinion on an art piece, is it not fair to expect someone to explain your opinion? It isn't reductive or selective. If someone copies a Sargent painting to the stroke (and there are people that can do stuff like this) would that make him a brilliant artist? No. That is an exercise in technical skill, not creativity. It does more to confirm Sargents talent. The same can be understood if someone makes a painting in exactly the same style; it would be more of a display of someones craft and not a true artistic contribution. I think anyone can accept this. And if you do accept it you are (possibly unknowingly) accepting that an artist may or may not make a contribution to the evolution of art and that artistic statements have their place in the timeline of art. Because of the prerequisite of perceiving a place in time and understanding other instances of evolution, you must then accept that not everyone may be able to fully appreciate how something plays a role in the world of art. But like I said, nothing is there to stop anyone from liking or disliking something. But I do believe that unless one tries to educate him or her self about art they should not disrespect works of art if they do not like them. Maybe that is a simplistic analysis but it makes sense. Art critics are idiots. So if Arvestaked posts two pieces here which he claims to appreciate, why should I not be allowed to ask him what it is that he appreciates about those art pieces? It's one thing to say that you like something; it's something else to try to formulate and explain what it is about that something that you like. Similarly, it's one thing to simply say that an art piece is important, and another to explain why you think that that art piece is important (or deserving to be taken seriously and studied). It's a post-a-peice thread. I just wanted to post peices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 (edited) This'll frustrate people... Ellsworth Kelly http://www.nga.gov.au/International/Catalogue/Images/LRG/116211.jpg Orange curve [Orange white] 1964-65 oil on canvas 310 (h) x 244.5 (w) cm Edited May 18, 2007 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 It isn't reductive or selective. If someone copies a Sargent painting to the stroke (and there are people that can do stuff like this) would that make him a brilliant artist? No. That is an exercise in technical skill, not creativity. It does more to confirm Sargents talent. The same can be understood if someone makes a painting in exactly the same style; it would be more of a display of someones craft and not a true artistic contribution. I think anyone can accept this. And if you do accept it you are (possibly unknowingly) accepting that an artist may or may not make a contribution to the evolution of art and that artistic statements have their place in the timeline of art. Because of the prerequisite of perceiving a place in time and understanding other instances of evolution, you must then accept that not everyone may be able to fully appreciate how something plays a role in the world of art. But like I said, nothing is there to stop anyone from liking or disliking something. But I do believe that unless one tries to educate him or her self about art they should not disrespect works of art if they do not like them. Maybe that is a simplistic analysis but it makes sense. The reason why I said it was a very reductive and selective view is that both of you seem to imply that art should only remain within the confines of art. Not only that, you are also giving almost a fixed definition of what you consider to be good art, as if art may not be viewed in any other way, or an artist should not have the right to go beyond this fixed definition. Moreover, you are once again emphasizing that one cannot respect art unless one is educated in art. Ironically, while you undermine the art critic, you are in fact saying that art cannot be respected unless you have been trained as an art critic. I truly wonder how much art theory you have in fact studied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 The reason why I said it was a very reductive and selective view is that both of you seem to imply that art should only remain within the confines of art. Not only that, you are also giving almost a fixed definition of what you consider to be good art, as if art may not be viewed in any other way, or an artist should not have the right to go beyond this fixed definition. Moreover, you are once again emphasizing that one cannot respect art unless one is educated in art. Ironically, while you undermine the art critic, you are in fact saying that art cannot be respected unless you have been trained as an art critic. I truly wonder how much art theory you have in fact studied. You are consistently misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not implying that art should only remain within the confines of art. I don't even know what you mean by that. I can't even see an alternative. I have also said more than once that liking a work of art is a personal reaction that someone can have whether they have studied it or not and that is fine. One would be gaining something from it. I also did not emphasizing that one cannot respect art unless one is educated in art. I specifically said that I don't believe one should disrespect it. I truly wonder how much reading comprehension you have studied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 The reason why I said it was a very reductive and selective view is that both of you seem to imply that art should only remain within the confines of art. Not only that, you are also giving almost a fixed definition of what you consider to be good art, as if art may not be viewed in any other way, or an artist should not have the right to go beyond this fixed definition. Moreover, you are once again emphasizing that one cannot respect art unless one is educated in art. Ironically, while you undermine the art critic, you are in fact saying that art cannot be respected unless you have been trained as an art critic. I truly wonder how much art theory you have in fact studied. No, I am not implying that. In simple form, a masterpiece should be an interaction between inovation and feeling associated with it, it is not easy to accomplish this. The second is more difficult, it is an impression of the moment, you can like or dislike a work. Why you dislike it is another matter, if you feel something you do not like and the work is innovative you have to be able to transend beyond that as the feeling itself is a sentiment and the artist was successful on sharing the message. If someone tell you "fk you" you won't like this but it does not change the fact that he was successful in getting a reaction from you. Some like apple and hate orange, others like orange but hate apple. Disrespecting a piece which you do not like is like saying orange is discusting. It is taste, and there are sentiments which are implicated in this. If you want to experiment go ahead, try for example an Ultramarine blue oil paint or acrylic (heavy loaded) fill a canvas board with that color, obviously when you watch it there is a sentiment. Can you say that this sentiment is the same as another who watch the same thing? This sentiment is personal, you may like it or not. When the artist paint he tries to represent a feeling in his work through creativity, a new feeling, always new..., to accomplish this, he'll try new ways, explore new mixes of colors, blending technics, etc. Unlike what you seem to think, on the average it is not the realism on the work which differenciate a master with an amator artist, it is a "WOW" effect. The artist wants a reaction from you, like the feeling, hate it, the worst would be if you had no feeling at all or ignored the art all together. The WOW effect is not only achieved by the colors used, but the composition, the shapes, the textures, the brush strokes, even a little bit of 3D, even the dimentions of the canvases etc. Sometimes you will like a work but still not get why you like it because you will find the piece trash, but will still like to look at it. Did this never happened to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 i did and he agrees with me, what makes you think I'm not an artist? lets see, I create, develop, research and make innovations using modern tools and up to date CAD software my brother is an artist, why dot you ask him That I said your brother is an artist does not negate that you are an artist. I admit that clarification was in order. Because we were talking about paintings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 You are consistently misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not implying that art should only remain within the confines of art. I don't even know what you mean by that. That all art is only about art and nothing else. I specifically said that I don't believe one should disrespect it. You said that one should not disrespect it unless they know more about art, which to me reads as you can only truly respect it if you understand its position within the world of art criticism. I truly wonder how much reading comprehension you have studied. It's called "reading between the lines." You don't even realize what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 No, I am not implying that. In simple form, a masterpiece should be an interaction between inovation and feeling associated with it, it is not easy to accomplish this. Once again you are giving art a fixed definition, as if nothing else is possible. In other words, a piece that does not follow your definition cannot possibly be a masterpiece (whatever the heck a masterpiece is, and whoever the heck decides what a masterpiece is). The second is more difficult, it is an impression of the moment, you can like or dislike a work. But there is always a reason why you like or dislike a piece of work. Maybe you can't find the right words to express your opinion, but there must always be some reason. I was asking Arvestaked to explain his reason to me, but apparently he has too much trouble doing so, which makes me question his opinion and appreciation for the works that he posted. Some like apple and hate orange, others like orange but hate apple. Disrespecting a piece which you do not like is like saying orange is discusting. It is taste, and there are sentiments which are implicated in this. I don't believe that that is all there is to art. Some artists indeed go for the esthetic aspect of it, and only ask to be liked or disliked on an esthetic level. Other artists have something to say with their piece, some statement to make. And yet other artists make art for a zillion other reasons. Now coming back to Wegner, for instance, is he only about esthetics, or does he also have a statement to make, or is it something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nairi, where is the fixed definition, how can you qualify what I said as a fixed definition fails me. A "feeling" is subjective, and obviously there are basic definition to what art is, it is a creation, when this creation is inovative, by its style, work, emotions vehiculated it is a masterpiece. What that means is another story and is in the realm of "philosophy of art." And yes, something which is not inovative in the period which it was created can not be a masterpiece, an immitation is not a masterpiece. Like a great scientist can not be a great scientist if he does not bring anything new to the field. I truly am not getting your point there. There are of course reasons why someone will like or dislike a work, it is personal, it should not be important for you why another person does not like a piece, as art concerns what YOU got from the piece. BTW, every artists have something to say with their piece, in every art you can not produce if you have nothing to say, unless you're fake. Your field is language, so take literary art, can you write if you have nothing to say? Once again you are giving art a fixed definition, as if nothing else is possible. In other words, a piece that does not follow your definition cannot possibly be a masterpiece (whatever the heck a masterpiece is, and whoever the heck decides what a masterpiece is). But there is always a reason why you like or dislike a piece of work. Maybe you can't find the right words to express your opinion, but there must always be some reason. I was asking Arvestaked to explain his reason to me, but apparently he has too much trouble doing so, which makes me question his opinion and appreciation for the works that he posted. I don't believe that that is all there is to art. Some artists indeed go for the esthetic aspect of it, and only ask to be liked or disliked on an esthetic level. Other artists have something to say with their piece, some statement to make. And yet other artists make art for a zillion other reasons. Now coming back to Wegner, for instance, is he only about esthetics, or does he also have a statement to make, or is it something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Domino (and Arvestaked if he's up for it), what do you make of this (famous) piece by Manet? http://peintres.celebres.free.fr/AA_IMG/manet34.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nairi, what sentiment you have when you look at it? Domino (and Arvestaked if he's up for it), what do you make of this (famous) piece by Manet? http://peintres.celebres.free.fr/AA_IMG/manet34.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Nairi, what sentiment you have when you look at it? I find it disturbing, because someone is being executed by a firing squad. The next question I ask myself is, who is the person being executed and who is the firing squad? The question after that is, what is Manet trying to say with this piece? Was he on the side of the executed or the executioners? Depending on the answers to among others these questions, I may well change my mind about how I feel about this painting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 You said that one should not disrespect it unless they know more about art, which to me reads as you can only truly respect it if you understand its position within the world of art criticism. Well, then you're quite stupid. You can respect it for whatever reason you want. Why would I care why you respect something. It's called "reading between the lines." You don't even realize what you are saying. I know perfectly well what I am saying thanks. You're asking questions as if you know the answers when you don't and are getting pissy when I'm not saying what you want to hear. If you don't actually want people's opinions or can't handle them don't ask for them. I don't know why you puckered your poop chute over a couple of abstract painting and why you suddenly got so rude but keep me the hell out of your personal frustrations. ...or just get stuffed if that's what it would take... http://library.thinkquest.org/20868/ico/gal/b059.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Interesting you should react this way, since you never answered my question as to why you appreciate the pieces that you posted. Is it because you are not able to? I don't see why you should be ashamed to say so if it is so. And if it isn't so, then why are you so reluctant to share your insights on those two art pieces with others who are obviously incapable of seeing what you are apparently capable of seeing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 (edited) I answered your questions. You set out from the beginning to prove your fantasy that I would appreciate something for no reason and now you're trying to convince yourself that you succeeded. Edited May 19, 2007 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 I answered your questions. You didn't. At least not in a way that allowed me to gain more insight into your appreciation for those pieces. If you had, I would have stopped "grilling" you, as you put it. You set out from the beginning to prove your fantasy that I would appreciate something for no reason and now you're trying to convince yourself that you succeeded. You got me. Bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Domino (and Arvestaked if he's up for it), what do you make of this (famous) piece by Manet? http://peintres.celebres.free.fr/AA_IMG/manet34.jpg Reminds one of Goya's famed piece http://www.internationalresearch.wisc.edu/images/goyamaythird[1].jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 Reminds one of Goya's famed piece I wonder whether Domino thinks Manet's is a masterpiece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 I wonder whether Domino thinks Manet's is a masterpiece. Nairi, you want me to tell from my computers monitor on whatever or not it is a masterpiece. 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.