Art

Better than Pollock or Rothko.

Haha, fucking rofl at the look on his face in those pics with him and the framed works of "art."

Tea_sl said:

I like art. I even like some abstract art. I think it has value as social, political, and cultural commentary.

Pollack examined new territory, and made interesting commentary. When you ask what the use of art is when it has lost its historical purpose. Pollock responds with that. He says art is emotion, that it is a snapshot of energy of creation. Pollock isn't about aesthetic value or the merit of skill. It was an innovative response to an interesting question, and for that reason I think it's good art.

The problem is that a lot of abstract art doesn't express anything interesting. Like the OP has a blank canvas in a gallery. Sure it's making a statement about the nature of modern art, but it's not a particularly interesting or novel statement. On the other hand you've got the modern art of weiwei, who I hold in very high esteem, which does pose interesting commentary.

So, art does ask the viewer to have both a knowledge of its history and for a willingness to explore the philosophical implications in a really awkward way. When people, who have every reason not to be interested in the questions posed in that particular format, decide they don't care, you get this feedback loop of insular ideas that leads to the depressing state of modern art.

Click to expand...

Best post of the thread. I've seen an original Pollack in person and found it striking. I also love free jazz which some people tell me is "just noise" so whatever.

If you are talking about it, even if only to shit on it, then it's art.

Araysar_sl said:

I dont feel like you're saying any different than the previous guy did. I also dont like people saying that an artist's job is to make you "experience" something. That is so broad and generic that it can be construed as anything.

I can experience incredulity or indifference looking at the shittiest and banal art in the world. I am experiencing something, but is that a worthwhile experience? I should be experiencing awe, amazement, when I see art - and not experiencing "why did this asshole draw this?"

Click to expand...

let me try it this way.
Its the artists job to connect with the audience. Not he audiences job to connect with the artist.


If the artist is creating art for themselves, and expects the audience to come to them, or jump through hoops to understand it. they failed. Art is communication. The entire point is to communicate your feeling, idea, whatever to others. If you are not doing that, you didn't do it well enough. The idea or feeling you want to communicate can be very simple. Sometimes its just "pretty" or like the Soviet statues, "pride" and "confidence". others might be more complex and tell a narrative.


Like this classic.
Nails it.

"the treachery of images"

"This is not a pipe."


It is a painting of a pipe. (or in this case, a digital image display via pixels on your screen of a painting, of a pipe..) The text in this image makes it quite clear, after a moment of possibly wondering on the riddle. But like any good riddle or puzzle, once you figure out the answer, its obvious, and no other answer makes sense.
There is no debate on author intent.

Which I suppose is another issue.. Should art be simply taken at face value, or should the authors life be a factor on how their work is read?

Grimmlokk_sl said:

It's not fair to compare mortal artists to the genius that can create these kinds of masterpieces.



Or



The sheer overwhelming glory ofRed, Orange, Tan, and Purplebrings a tear to the eye...



Yeah, I don't know why this bullshit infuriates me so. Maybe that's what these "artists" were going for, mission accomplished I guess. People that vehemently defend this shit and perpetuate it by assigning value to it are worse than the fartsniffing wine snobs out there.

Click to expand...

But what if you know man.. it really brings the room together?

Grimmlokk_sl said:

Better than Pollock or Rothko.

Click to expand...

this is what I mean when I say abstract art is trolling.

when I look at that dog smiling I understand what they mean when they say art is emotion. My dog looks that happy after he takes a big shit, too.

- Bleeding Cool In Conversation With Shia LaBeouf - Bleeding Cool Comic Book, Movies and TV News and Rumors
"Authorship is censorship"

possibly relevant?


Also, holy shit, that guy is a giant douchebag.

Originally I posted this in the FSR before I found this thread. This was painted by a guy who murdered his girlfriend/wife (?) while he was living next to my friend. She grabbed the painting after the cops cleared the place out and gave it to me as a late birthday present. It looks like shit but it has an interesting back story so I keep it around.

This is called artArtist's Shit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~150.000$ for a tin can full of shit and there's 90 of them.


This is also called art

How a Science Fiction Book Cover Became a $5.7 Million Painting

Plagiarism has really become the newest art form.

These last examples are not very good:

- There is a whole field in art called "outsiders art", that is creations by people with no formal training in the fine arts, people who do not consider themselves to be artists, people with mental conditions, but more importantly, people that create things ex nihilo, without any pre-conceived notions of what art should be and how things should be done. A number of XXth century artists tried to find that degree of freedom, that raw energy, and were inspired by outsider arts, children drawings, etc or experienced with psychoactive drugs. That's why a painting by your murderous neighbor can look a bit like a Basquiat.

- If you find there is something ironic about Manzoni's shit being worth more than gold, that's pretty great because that was pretty much Manzoni's point!

- What Brown is doing is not plagiarism. As explained in the quotes of the io9 article, Brown's process is to take a pocket book cover and turn it into a monumental painting (it looks like it's about 3m by 2m), which changes totally the relationship the viewer has with it. Obviously, when you compare a small jpeg of the original work with a small jpeg of Brown's version of it, Brown's contribution is lost, because the sense of scale, the added details, the confrontation with a painting in the context of an exhibition, cannot be in a jpeg.

Szlia_sl said:

These last examples are not very good:

- There is a whole field in art called "outsiders art", that is creations by people with no formal training in the fine arts, people who do not consider themselves to be artists, people with mental conditions, but more importantly, people that create things ex nihilo, without any pre-conceived notions of what art should be and how things should be done. A number of XXth century artists tried to find that degree of freedom, that raw energy, and were inspired by outsider arts, children drawings, etc or experienced with psychoactive drugs. That's why a painting by your murderous neighbor can look a bit like a Basquiat.

- If you find there is something ironic about Manzoni's shit being worth more than gold, that's pretty great because that was pretty much Manzoni's point!

- What Brown is doing is not plagiarism. As explained in the quotes of the io9 article, Brown's process is to take a pocket book cover and turn it into a monumental painting (it looks like it's about 3m by 2m), which changes totally the relationship the viewer has with it. Obviously, when you compare a small jpeg of the original work with a small jpeg of Brown's version of it, Brown's contribution is lost, because the sense of scale, the added details, the confrontation with a painting in the context of an exhibition, cannot be in a jpeg.

Click to expand...

well I guess DC doesnt owe me any money for my work.
I mean, I am creating digital files. and they are PRINTING them. That is totally transformative. Why are they paying me?


That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Enlarging something is not an original work.

Thats like taking a Lord of the rings, and changing the font(hell, Ill even say you made a new font for it), and claiming authorship. A new font would in fact, totally change your perception of how you read it.

Christ, copying artwork by hand is the work of every art forgery in existence. That is what you are saying is original works.

gogusrl_sl said:

This is called artArtist's Shit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~150.000$ for a tin can full of shit and there's 90 of them.


This is also called art

Spoiler

Berniniwas 23 years old when he made this.

Click to expand...

Those sculptures are amazing. To turn rock into something that looks like fabric, that shit blows my mind. I did some sculpting when I was younger (clay and soft stones like soapstone), and I wish I could afford to get back into it.

When people start talking about art being bullshit (and I agree it is), I always think of the difference between renaissance sculptures versus modern art sculptures.

When it comes to art, I know very little. I know I like certain painters and sketch artists because of their style, but I know nothing of their techniques or how they learned it. When it comes to me putting something down on paper or canvas, I can do it all.. almost. I am my own worst critic. Once I complete something, I don't like to look at it for extended periods of time because then i find it's flaws and I begin to hate the piece. So much so, I have destroyed some of my pieces, telling myself I would redo it, but I never do. When I was younger, I tried making a name for myself. I sent portfolios to studios and magazines and publishers hoping someone would bite. When I see shit like abstract art, I want to barf. My worst pieces I have done look better than that shit. I was never taught how to do what I do, I just know how to do. It rustles my jimmies to no end knowing there are people like OP's friend or Jackson Pollack that have zero artistic talent and make a living off of it. Or at the very least get it into exhibits.

I had a chance a few years back to get some of my stuff out there and I didn't do it. A friend worked for a web design company here in Dallas working on John Deer stuff and some video games and he sent me some samples of stuff for a game. The stuff looked good, but I knew I could have done so much better. She had been hired for contract work and my friend was trying to get my foot in the door as one of their permanent artists and wanted me to submit stuff for that game. I never did. I think I was afraid of the rejection.

Anyone have a link to the artist that was posted on the FoH board about 4 years ago? He had a thread that was started in 2001 or 2002. he could barely paint and shade a cube and within 10 years, he was doing shit with canvas and paper that looked like the statues in the above post. I think his name on the message board was Mind Candy or something like that. I have tried looking for it before and I cannot find it. He lives and has a studio here in Dallas as well.