It seems that our government now sends it's Gestapo to cover Art Shows, that partake in political controversies of our times.

http://www.suntimes.com/includes/pics/12axis.jpg

They specially wanted the name and address of the artist that drew the above picture. Here is the link (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-axis12.html) to the whole storie.

Godless.

That's great, I want a T-shirt like that!

Republicans don't understand how creative minds work. They had to recycle the cold war because they can't think of anything else. They don't understand that drawing someone holding a gun to the presidents head is not only not indication of a plan to do it, but almost assures that the person who drew it won't do it.

Also, the article describes the stamps as having a picture of bush with a revolver pointed at his head, but I do believe if I squint that I see a Beretta 92 in your little Jpeg.

Oh its definately a 9 mili. !

Word is that the 'artist' (or political activist) made a similar statement a couple of years ago in one of his other works.

Personaly, I think its fair game. Private citizens should be able to do and say what they like as long as they are not stating that they will or exokicitly recommending to others to kill or harm someone.

This stamp is clearly a symbol of the utter hatred many have for the president of the U.S. Maybe it refers to the political suicide Bush is committing by re-instating the patriot act (which is unamerican). Or it could also imply that Bush is operating 'with a gun to his head' meanning he is only a brainless puppet (which few could prove otherwise). In any case, art speaks of social tendancies through the implicit recognition of ourselfves.
I believe that picture is precisely just and only that and no more.

Prisme

To interfere with art is truly ignorant but we're talking about brainless people so that's no surprise. To put limits on art of any form is to take away all that it stands for.

that was a crack up. stupid americans. and to top it all off, a 37 cent stamp??, WTF??

being an artist, i would like to go further than that artist and do a Mussolini on Bush. only trouble is, cant think where i'd 'hang it'

Vlayer a 37¢ stamp is what is used today; but your right the artist should have used a nickle stamp, however the joke is to make it as real as posible.

duendy; I've not seen one depicted with Mussolini, however I've got this one;

http://www.falloutshelternews.com/images/bushlikeness.jpg

How about Bush and Hitler?. LOL.. :D

G.

Now this is some art work:
http://www.falloutshelternews.com/images/BushHitler2.gif

LOL..

G

duendy; I've not seen one depicted with Mussolini, however I've got this one;

http://www.falloutshelternews.com/images/bushlikeness.jpg

How about Bush and Hitler?. LOL.. :D

G.

haha...you've read me too innocently Godless. what i meant was to actually DO a Mussolini on him--you do know what happened to Mussolini....?

Vlayer a 37¢ stamp is what is used today; but your right the artist should have used a nickle stamp, however the joke is to make it as real as posible.

why wolud you make a 37c stamp, its jsut like having multiples of 1.601 km between places

I’m pissed about this "Art Controversy". To call what the "artist" created art, is offensive to real art.

Jackasses like this one, who made the Bush stamps, have helped dive art to an even lower standard. His objective was not to make a political statement, but to get a little money out of it. His idea wasn’t even original, nor do I consider it art. He’s just someone trying to provoke a reaction and got it.

Devaluing art by painting a picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache is the most unartistic thing somebody can do. Bush Stamp guy should be shot.

I Paint Shop Pro'd a picture of Stalin into a Wendys advertisement, how dare you criticise art.

Fine. I'll go shit on a canvas and we can call it art. I'm an artist, and anyone who calls me otherwise is anti-art. Any body who refuses to buy it doesn't know how much hard work I put into it (As I'd have to eat five cans of corn to make this one piece that I'm thinking about).

Or wait, has somebody already done the shit on canvas thing?

Probably. I think it involved an industrial fan, not direct shitting. G.G Allin would crap onstage and throw it at his audience. Maybe you should scrawl anti-bush slogans with your faeces.

Art.

Riight.

It's as much art as Micheal Moore's film Farenheit 911 is a documentary.

It's an expression of emotion, but I would hardly describe it as art. Looks more like a picket sign carried at an anti-Bush rally than something someone would hang on their wall.

why is that controversial?

I’m pissed about this "Art Controversy". To call what the "artist" created art, is offensive to real art.

Jackasses like this one, who made the Bush stamps, have helped dive art to an even lower standard. His objective was not to make a political statement, but to get a little money out of it. His idea wasn’t even original, nor do I consider it art. He’s just someone trying to provoke a reaction and got it.

Devaluing art by painting a picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache is the most unartistic thing somebody can do. Bush Stamp guy should be shot.
Art is whatever people accept as art, how would you define it?

Art is whatever people accept as art, how would you define it?

It stops being art when I can do it or if it has already been done or if it's just a collection of pictures thrown together (Like pasting vaginas on a Madonna). I do not consider modern art, art. I do not consider Impressionism art. I do not consider Jackson Pollack an artist.

Do you consider shit on a stick art? Because there are certain people out there who think that's art.

Depends on how the shit and the stick interact.

So what is your favorite piece of art in all the world, Counsler? Indulge me, please.

Depends on how the shit and the stick interact.

The stick is sticking out of the biggest piece of dog shit you've ever seen.


So what is your favorite piece of art in all the world, Counsler? Indulge me, please.

The Third of May by Goya. My second favorite is The Death of Marat by Jacques-Louis David.

I've not seen one depicted with Mussolini
because Mussolini was not an ass. He wasn't a racist like Hitler or a moron like Bush.
Il Duce!

I do not consider modern art, art. I do not consider Impressionism art. I do not consider Jackson Pollack an artist.

In the aesthetics opinions are like ass holes! everyone is got one.

I've seen cow shit embolsemed in acrilic used for paper weight. Texas Art.

Shit on a stic may be considered art, when an idiot seems to recongnise an image of Jesus or the Virgin Mary on the stic.

People are praying to a fence post, because the distorted image, has a resemblence of the Maddona:
http://www.blackchampagne.com/images-news/03-0207-catholic.jpg

Is the distorted image art? Apparently so, and they belive it truly depicts a religious sign.

Godless.

I know everyone has heard of the image of Jesus on a tortilla, I've even bet you all have heard of religious images on patoto chips, but this is even better:

http://www.chipofthemonth.com/spudnick/chipalike/marylin.jpg

Does it look like Marlin Monroe?. I believe it does resemble. Is this art?. I believe it could be art by frying!.

:D

Godless

And what is it supposed to express, Counsler? (Notice I haven't yet struck it from the realm of art.)

It stops being art when I can do it or if it has already been done or if it's just a collection of pictures thrown together (Like pasting vaginas on a Madonna). I do not consider modern art, art. I do not consider Impressionism art. I do not consider Jackson Pollack an artist.

Do you consider shit on a stick art? Because there are certain people out there who think that's art.


Art is art whenever the artist is satisfied with their work. It doesnt have shit to do with what anyone thinks of it either, nor is it about selling it. As an artist I tend to feel like Ive really accomplished something when everyone hates it, because in general the publics taste in art is shallow, judgemental and concensual. What you consider art doest mean jack shit dude. All that means is you wont be going to see certain artists or wont be buying their work. Any artist that is concerned with what you or I or anyone else thinks is probably a huge sellout, and probably exactly the kind of artist you appreciate.

Art is art whenever the artist is satisfied with their work. It doesnt have shit to do with what anyone thinks of it either, nor is it about selling it.

Funny thing is, I always thought that artists wanted to express themselves to other people, not themselves. An artist might feel personal satisfaction, but all the artist that I've ever read about were concerned with whether or not people would "get" their art.

What you consider art doest mean jack shit dude.

I did not say that my opinion of what I consider art to be your opinion as well. Just because I've expressed what I believe art is and should be, doesn't mean that you have to accept it. It's that whole beauty in the eye of the holder thing.

What you consider art, doesn't mean jack shit either, dude.

All that means is you wont be going to see certain artists or wont be buying their work.

Indeed. Hurt them by not supporting them, but then again, my tax dollars going to the NEA doesn't help me. So by default I'm a hypocrite.

Any artist that is concerned with what you or I or anyone else thinks is probably a huge sellout, and probably exactly the kind of artist you appreciate.

Calm down and smoke some of that pot that you artistic types like. I was not attacking you, and you should not be attacking me. I'm not attempting to force my art views on you, except, you're making it difficult for me to consider yours by inserting so much malice into your post.

You're suppose to be a fun loving hippy, not a vengeful paint-by-numbers "artist" with leprosy.

And actually, you're wrong. I said I hated modern art, remember? So I wouldn't appreciate your work, or any artist in the past two decades.

Tiassa, get to your point and post your five pages (That I will not be reading) already.

Where have I seen this before?

It all seems to be scripted...

Some troglodyte comes out and says, "modern art is crap" and usually mentions shit on canvass and the fact that he could do it himself.

Then the art people descend like flies, trying to make him realize what an idiot he is, talking about how 'art is life' and 'art is everywhere'.

It's sort of like wine-tasting; you have a bunch of dorks that are highly advanced at picking out subtleties, and can smell roses or vinegar and all kinds of shit, but most people just drink it to get a buzz and don't discriminate.

Tiassa, get to your point and post your five pages (That I will not be reading) already.

I'll spare you the effort of ignoring it. The point is that you have a really underdeveloped sense of art.

Well Bob! Counselor is whithin his right to have an opinion of modern art; I myself aren't to particular on Picazo's work, I myself don't like the fact that taxes are spent, "my hard earned money" to support worthless artists. These people are not driven by "profit motive" they are basically guranteed an income no matter what kind of shit they come up with.

However I do know that in the aesthetics no one opinion can determine the outcome of a successfull artist, or that a pice of art will appeal to many people with all sorts of different backgrounds.

Artist do try to depict our enviorement and political times, I mostly like art that appeals to my sense of likes, thus art is a personal matter which appeals to a persons psyche. Beign political minded and anti-bushies the art pice above appealed to my sense of humor, but I truly don't consider the work a pice of art. Just a political message. But called art non-the-less.

Tiassa; I was looking forward to reading your long post. I do enjoy reading them, regardless of what anyone else has to say!. :)

Godless.

Well Bob! Counselor is whithin his right to have an opinion of modern art;

And what does that mean, that he's entitled to his opinion? Why is it even worth saying? As if I was trying to take away his 'right to an opinion'. Every retard is entitled to their own opinion, it's no compliment, nor is it a thing of value.

I myself aren't to particular on Picazo's work, I myself don't like the fact that taxes are spent, "my hard earned money" to support worthless artists. These people are not driven by "profit motive" they are basically guranteed an income no matter what kind of shit they come up with.

Do you realize the kind of shit this government spends its money on, and how piddling in comparison the NEA is? No, it's not your money that you're upset about, it's the fact that you don't agree with the artists. You probably wouldn't complain if you agreed with them.

Btw

You're a moron, and you spelt Picasso's name wrong. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/mrobert0/Shoot_Zombie_Emote_by_BrennenGeist.gif

I'll spare you the effort of ignoring it. The point is that you have a really underdeveloped sense of art.

Please. Spare me your pot-smoking anti-conservative commentary. I never claimed to be an artist or an art professional, or an avid art lover. I just gave my thoughts on what I thought real art was, and you disagreed (But - rant alert here - you're an elitist, remember? And by those terms you have to disagree with me and call me these things because I do not support the same art as you. Like most artists, Tiassa, you're anal and arrogant. Thanks for reenforcing my beliefs).

Please, Tiassa, tell me, in twenty words or less, who your favorite artist is. Then I can come back at you and tell you that it isn't art at all, and that you're full of shit. And that you have a really underdeveloped sense of art, because you don't meet my criteria for what I consider good art.

You're a moron, and you spelt Picasso's name wrong.

Well it takes one to know one Bob!. :eek:

And for spelling the Ass whipe's name wrong! Who gives a Shit?.

BTW. My grammar and spelling is always wrong. LOL..

And basically you are just a Bob (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32212)

Godless.

Please, Tiassa, tell me, in twenty words or less, who your favorite artist is.

Clive Barker.

Like most artists, Tiassa, you're anal and arrogant. Thanks for reenforcing my beliefs

Actually, many artists seem anal and arrogant specifically because they share an aspect of your definition of art: "It stops being art when I can do it or if it has already been done ...."

Right there is the source of most of art's snobbery. Nothing like contributing to what you loathe, eh, Counsler?

How many classics of literature, for instance, should we throw out, since the novel was already written? How many classic paintings, including Goya and David, should we throw out because painted pictures have been done?

Nothing like invalidating yourself, eh, Counselor?

The only reason I'm curious about your favorite art, in the end, is whether or not it meets your own standard. There's nothing about Goya's Third of May or David's Death of Marat that doesn't apply to others. I don't begrudge you your favorites, Counselor, although I do find it ironic that your own favorites don't even meet your own standard.

Or is this one of those dotted lines you custom-cut in order to validate your own artistic assertions?

Clive Barker.

Hack.

Actually, many artists seem anal and arrogant specifically because they share an aspect of your definition of art: "It stops being art when I can do it or if it has already been done ...."

Are you calling me an artist? I take that as an insult. I have a job, thank you very much.

How many classics of literature, for instance, should we throw out, since the novel was already written? How many classic paintings, including Goya and David, should we throw out because painted pictures have been done?

I thought we were talking about paintings? See, I do consider books art, very much so, but when people typically bring up art; they're talking about paintings (Don't deny it, you know it's true). So naturally, Ive assumed that we're talking about paintings, not books.

Nothing like invalidating yourself, eh, Counselor?

The only thing you've invalidated is someones parking. But you just wake up every morning and get right back at it, don't you?

The only reason I'm curious about your favorite art, in the end, is whether or not it meets your own standard. There's nothing about Goya's Third of May or David's Death of Marat that doesn't apply to others. I don't begrudge you your favorites, Counselor, although I do find it ironic that your own favorites don't even meet your own standard.

Goya meets my standards. So does David's Death of Marat. Both pieces are something that I could not do (I cannot paint with that detail - I cannot paint with that meaning). So they do meet my standard, you're just wrong (Or you you lack reading comprehension - which is what you've told me, and everyone else on this forum, several times).

Or is this one of those dotted lines you custom-cut in order to validate your own artistic assertions?

You're so right. I, not being an artist at all, have no right to decide my own personal preferences and then express them on the internet. Thank you for setting me straight.

Funny thing is, I always thought that artists wanted to express themselves to other people, not themselves. An artist might feel personal satisfaction, but all the artist that I've ever read about were concerned with whether or not people would "get" their art.



I did not say that my opinion of what I consider art to be your opinion as well. Just because I've expressed what I believe art is and should be, doesn't mean that you have to accept it. It's that whole beauty in the eye of the holder thing.

What you consider art, doesn't mean jack shit either, dude.



Indeed. Hurt them by not supporting them, but then again, my tax dollars going to the NEA doesn't help me. So by default I'm a hypocrite.



Calm down and smoke some of that pot that you artistic types like. I was not attacking you, and you should not be attacking me. I'm not attempting to force my art views on you, except, you're making it difficult for me to consider yours by inserting so much malice into your post.

You're suppose to be a fun loving hippy, not a vengeful paint-by-numbers "artist" with leprosy.

And actually, you're wrong. I said I hated modern art, remember? So I wouldn't appreciate your work, or any artist in the past two decades.

Tiassa, get to your point and post your five pages (That I will not be reading) already.


youre right about some things there and I apologize for being agressive about it. You have your opinion and I have mine.

And Im not a pot smoking hippy. I havent smoked pot in years.

How do you know you wouldnt like my art? I do some very traditional gemstone carving forms that have been appreciated through the centuries. :P

My favorite artist has always been M.C. Escher.
http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/art/dew_sml.gif

Now he was a cool artist.

I do not consider modern art, art. I do not consider Impressionism art.

I have to think that you either have your movements confused, or you really are hopeless.

I hate modern art so much. Impressionism, not so much. But modern art... good lord, there's very little good modern art. By throwing away convention, they've adopted a new set of conventions just as conventional as the old. Besides, I like natural ratios, like thirds and fifths and phi. They look good.

I have to think that you either have your movements confused, or you really are hopeless.

What? I dislike modern art. Do you need a list? I do not like:

1. Romanticism
2. Impressionism
3. Modern art

Out of the three, I do not consider Impressionism or Modern art, art. I could easily make an Impressionist painting... and, well, modern art; all I have to do is get one of my exgirlfriends used tampons and tape it to a wall.

Roman gets it, and VossitArt has come around (Or did he even need converting in the first place). Really, I don't see how open and accepting people like Tiassa can tell me that my own personal preference on art, is crap. And isn't an opinion at all.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, blah blah.

There's something much more impressive in this (http://www.mystudios.com/treasure/brueghel/bruegel-procession-calvary.jpg), a 16th century religious painging, than this (http://www.thefineartcompany.co.uk/surreal/modern-art-online.jpg).

I can agree that much of modern art is pretty crappy (and this all reminds me of conversations of days of yore but I don't have time to get into this right now). But you don't think this is art?

http://www.specialgratis.it/sfondi_a/arte/Claude%20Monet/Ridimensiona%20dimonet000.jpg

Or this?

http://www.specialgratis.it/sfondi_a/arte/Claude%20Monet/Ridimensiona%20dimonet002.jpg

I do, Coffe don't.

If you can shit on a canvas and pass it off as modern art why havn't you tried it numb nuts?

Oh, quit victimizing yourself, Counsler.

And why did you cite only part of your own standard? I don't see what about either of those paintings wasn't done already.

It seems that our government now sends it's Gestapo to cover Art Shows, that partake in political controversies of our times.

http://www.suntimes.com/includes/pics/12axis.jpg
thats not art...
thats just a funny pic!!

Oh, quit victimizing yourself, Counsler.

And why did you cite only part of your own standard? I don't see what about either of those paintings wasn't done already.

Well, when you're not busy stroking your ego (along with other things), let me explain this to you: they meet my standards. If you don't see how Goya's work meets my standards (And they are my standards, not yours), then you lack reading comprehension.

Dont think you can limit art. it'd be like limiting the bodymind. cant be done

of course any art--for me must have feeling. if i listen to a musician, singer, or watch a dancer. GOT to have feeling or you know it, and it isn't Duende

Same with art. but i can understand people who go for the safe too. thy just need Acid puttin their cocoa is all...haha

1. Romanticism
2. Impressionism
3. Modern art
.

Romanticism includes Goya. So do you or don't you like him now?

Gee, not like we've had this debate before.

-Bob-
I think he's referring to the pop-pre-Raphaelites like Waterhouse.

Goya rules.

Waterhouse was a little bit gay. Is that what you mean, Counseler?

It's just that when I hear 'Romanticism' I instantly think of Goya.

Romanticism is great.

Individualism was enforced as people moved further from the “I’m composing pieces and storing them, incase someone orders one” attitude.

Though, when musicians started taking pride from pedantic techniques, and started to compose merely because they wanted to be the first ones to do something and puzzle the masses with it… this ruins it.

The coolest guy ever was a romantic (or however you articulate that in English).

http://www.1001art.net/paganini.jpg


And the people who fall in the “I’m off to appreciate Schönberg, and you’s guyses don’t get him” category are annoying.

Schönberg is awesome, I don't give a shit what anyone says. You need to smoke a blunt before you take a listen, though.

Schönberg is like a mathematician.
Schöberg is blinded with atonality (exclude Verklärte Nacht) and too impressed with dodecaphony.
Most don’t realize how restricting dodecaphony is. It’s not an ‘improvement’ casted upon music as advancement.
Schönberg appoints another set of rules disguised as an upgrade to a medium that advocates those not dependant on rules. Think about this and realize that he started of as a late romantic (still, not sure of the spelling), then think what romanticism is about and see the irony.

Though… it is about enforcing individualism, I’ll give you that.

That being said, I respect the man but not as a composer, but rather as a researcher.

Pardon, but what is dodecaphony?

It is a system that is constructed using a line consisting of 12 tones. The line is called “Die Reihe”.

An octave has 12 chromatic notes, these notes act as the foundation of a dodecaphonic piece and Schönberg used them like so:

Notes from the basic octave perform in the basic “reihe” so that they do NOT form tonal subjects (triads etc..). Contacts to scales are avoided (strike one in my opinion).

And now the thrill… no note can be repeated in the “reihe”, until all of the notes are played trough once (composer can repeat individual notes, though). Strike two.

Now, add reversals (not sure of the terminology in English, so bare with me), flip intervals transform notes to different octavic scales and use transportation to change the pitch and you have a piece.

Someone who has absolutely NO talent nor brains can use this method to create a composition that he/she can call to be a musical piece.

Romanticism includes Goya. So do you or don't you like him now?

Indeed. I was waiting for Tiassa to pick up on that (Because he knows so much about art). Goya was also the father of modern art, so really, he is two things that I said I didn't like.

I guess Tiassa just knew so much that he didn't feel like pointing it out.

Goya still rules.

When I think romanticism, I think this:
http://www.princeton.edu/~romance/images/bouchdia.jpg

Counseler:

The correct word for that art is Rococco. That's a painting by Boucher, predating Goya and Romanticism by about half a century (and sandwiched inbetween Neo-Classicism, which you also seem to enjoy).

I wouldn't say Goya is the father of modern art, although he certainly was a contributor. Manet is usually the man who's given that distinction.


Someone who has absolutely NO talent nor brains can use this method to create a composition that he/she can call to be a musical piece.

Hmm, I'll have to remember that.

Well, when you're not busy stroking your ego (along with other things), let me explain this to you: they meet my standards

Well, when you're not busy being dishonest, go back and read how you only answered to half of your own standard.

Not that tough, Counsler.

If you don't see how Goya's work meets my standards (And they are my standards, not yours), then you lack reading comprehension

No matter how much you're itching to use that one, Counsler, you ought to wait for a more appropriate time. As it is, in order for me to lack reading comprehension, you need to put up something to read. As I have noted before, your explanation of how those works meet your standard is incomplete compared to your own standard.

Here, let me quote you:

It stops being art when I can do it or if it has already been done or if it's just a collection of pictures thrown together (Like pasting vaginas on a Madonna). (#802022 (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=802022))

Goya meets my standards. So does David's Death of Marat. Both pieces are something that I could not do (I cannot paint with that detail - I cannot paint with that meaning). So they do meet my standard, you're just wrong (Or you you lack reading comprehension - which is what you've told me, and everyone else on this forum, several times). (#802501 (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=802501))

It would seem the reading comprehension problem, Counsler, is yours. After all, as I pointed out:


I don't see what about either of those paintings wasn't done already.

As you see, I've addressed part of the standard you posted, Counsler, but have refused to comment on. All you can do is bitch about reading comprehension while failing to address the point. Did you miss that? Did it just slip by you, Counsler? Or are you just so determined to make an issue that you haven't time for things like integrity?

Maybe you should worry about something other than getting your shots in. That way you can present yourself more honestly.

Oh, well. It's my fault, anyway. This is what I get for taking you seriously.

and counsellor....i also LOVE Goya.......an extremely powerful artist.....but i take you up on where you imply that if YOU can 'do art' it aint no good--or words to that effect
i spose you include in that Abstract stuff, Naive, etc. when i was at art school, my pre foundation was an eye opener. ie., i found that several people had real problems with doin abstract IF their work was tight. one siad doing it gave them a headache......!

so dont preSUME.......as i say, ALL art is meaningful, especially when done with feeling. am personally not mad on shock-for-fame art, and conceptual-for-the-middle-classes art....but thats me. and id ont mean ALL of them neither. it also depends what mood i am in too

It seems that our government now sends it's Gestapo to cover Art Shows, that partake in political controversies of our times.

http://www.suntimes.com/includes/pics/12axis.jpg

They specially wanted the name and address of the artist that drew the above picture. Here is the link (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-axis12.html) to the whole storie.

Godless.


Its kind of amusing reading people arguing opinions about art. I think art could do far worse than the stamp this thread is about. The only art that I might consider to be a failure is art an artist puts out for display and no one notices or even thinks it worthy of a comment. This piece, however, is wonderful in that it has caused lots of people to think, and to have huge discussions because of it simple existence. Minimal effort, maximum results. How many of us here can say they have created anything that has caused such a stirring of opinions and ideas?

Ah, that's right, Tiassa. Just pass it off as my fault, not yours. How could you ever be at fault? It's all on me, I don't know my own standards! My OWN standards. Not the ones that you have, mine. We're talking about my standards here, and for god-fucking-sakes, I just don't know them. But you seem to know what my standards are, so really, I'm at fault.

I hate modern art so much. Impressionism, not so much. But modern art... good lord, there's very little good modern art. By throwing away convention, they've adopted a new set of conventions just as conventional as the old. Besides, I like natural ratios, like thirds and fifths and phi. They look good.
Modern art is so passe, we are already on post-postmodern, and realism is coming back. Much of modern art was a statement on how art until then was too confining. Not everyone had to like it, appealing to the general public wasn't the goal. I hate it when people say that if they could do it, it's not art, well you didn't do it, and that's the difference, it's not a product, but a personal expression that must be understood in context.

Which of the best artists, in some of your opinions, created art specifically or generally to please the public for sales sake? Im not a person who is very educated or aware of great masters and masterworks because of where I am with my art. I don't look at other peoples art because I don't want to chance being influenced by other are. Thats just my deal for the moment. My impression of great artists of the past is that they either created art to manifest their vision, either solitary, or if socially were eccentrics, without regard for public opinion or they were intensely gift and/or schooled artists whose work naturally appealed to the public and therefor was marketable without the artist needed to push or promote their work to sell it. Im aware that certainly there must have been great artists who did their thing to make a living and were dependant selling their work just to get by, but I don't know who specifically there many artists like that?>

well ..at to please and promote the State--as in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia etc was Realism. you know those vile propaganda painting, sculpture of 'uber people' gazing at the 'horizon'/'political vision' etc. that is propbably the extreme

uou have Chocolate Box art which is usually a cert to sell to the people who demand 'reality'

in Reniassance you had paronized artists who were TOLD by the church how to compose their paintings. if artist didn't do it right he could face the Inquisition

Obviously many artists want to have people want to buy their art. Van Gogh for example had his brother really try, but fialed. however, he never compromized his individual vision. that's a sign of a great artist. i saw his works in Amsterdam and the really blew me away