For me it's usually an emotional reaction, but sometimes it provokes thought. Often it is very subtle, but it's there nonetheless. Is that the goal of an artist, to give rise to emotion and thought? I watched a video that claimed contemporary art is a mere shadow of its former glory. I'm not sure I agree. Anyway, I was just curious how art affects other people.
OK Bowser, I'll bite. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! First and trivially, I get a decent income from selling my art, have done so for 48 years thus far. Not a bad motivator to keep doing that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Secondly, I will have to agree that much of contemporary "art" is hooey. Since I have a classic university education I am very familiar with the formal 'rules' of what constitutes a "work of art" and find that most current offerings fail those tests/rules. Also, much of what is currently touted as "art" just isn't. However, not everyone can be the best. Some excel and some.....well, don't. Same thing with "art" and "artists". There are as many reasons for an artist to make a piece of art as there are artists. However, from my perch on tradition and formal education I can share my reasons for making a piece of art. For subject matter, I 'follow my nose'. To wit: I find something that interests, intrigues, fascinates or otherwise impresses me beyond the norm. I then study that a whole bunch, take many photos, do research, set up and create a piece based on that something. I am completely subjective about the subject - it is something that I have attached to and wish to get involved with further. Example: For the last 25+ years I have periodically gone to a place about 600 miles from my home in Detroit, way out in the wilderness of upper Ontario, right on the shores of Lake Superior. There is a nice little beach surrounded by mountains and forest where there are 4 back country camping sites (flat sheltered places just big enough for a tent, with a 'thunder box' back country toilet) on 1/4 mile of sand beach. Beyond that are rocks along the shore that get bigger and bigger until you are on stone mountains hiking the North Shore trail originally established by traveling bands of Ojibwe. The beach area is sacred to the Ojibwe who believe that Elemental Spirits abide there. This likely due to some pretty strange natural phenomena that occur in the area. The Group of Seven (first Canadian painting 'school') stayed there to paint the cliffs plein air on a few occasions. While I stay there, we hike the trails and I take (literally thousands of) pictures. I have been an artist studying art since I was in third grade. I have vast experience making art over my life and have developed what we call the "artist's eye" for subject matter. It is reflexive.....I am hiking along the beach in the pouring rain under black skies, then the rain stops for a minute, the waves are crashing on the rocks incessantly and there, just off the end of the South point, a break in the cloud bank appears for just a moment and the blue sky shines through at the horizon. It briefly lights up the waves crests turquoise right up to the shore before me. It creates a moment of "recursion" - a juxtaposing of opposites that I find exciting and the scale was awe - inspiring. I took a 'mental holograph' of that moment and 3 photographs with a Nikon DSLR of the moments right after as the break was washed away by more rain and the light died. Back in studio, I used the photos as reference and painted my mental holograph as the model on 24" x 36" oil/canvas. I worked on it until I got the feeling that I had in the original setting from the painting. It is not a copy of the photograph, rather, it is my expression of my impression of that moment in that place. I made it because I loved that place in that moment and the feelings I got from being there then. When someone else looks at it and gets something akin to the feelings I do, I have succeeded artistically. So yes, it is the goal of the artist to give rise to thought and emotion...in themselves and in others, in that order. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for your thoughts. I've tried my hand with oils and local nature, but could never quite catch the feeling. I've worked mostly with other media since, though I don't express it very often. It is good to hear from someone who's dedicated to their art. I've seen some primitive art on eBay that I actually liked, so I think I can go either way.
Speaking for myself, it doesn't even really matter whether anybody sees it or not. There's a certain "need" to record an idea or an impression.
That's pretty much what I do, hang it on the walls at home. What are your choices of mediums? Pastels were my most recent. Also, I've taken an interest in videography, but there are limits because of equipment and other technical issues.
ISIS and the mermaid Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I like the video, there is much truth in what he says. The rock over the concrete ditch fails the classic tests as does the shit painting and a bunch of the other .....stuff. :barf: I like oils a lot, followed by acrylics, then porcelain (especially plane tilings) pencil, stone, metal, fibre glas, cellulose wood etc. 24k gold is a personal favourite for small metal casting, followed by silicon bronze. (I have a small personal foundry) Subject matter varies quite a lot, though I am very fond of oil landscapes, Serpinski Gaskets and tilings along the lines of MC Escher.
While in Italy we visited the Accademia Gallery in Florence. The classical art there gives a person true appreciation for the masters of that era. I've seen pictures of the statue of David, but I never really appreciated it until actually seeing it in person. I do think artistry has a different meaning now than what it once was.
My father was a carpenter and I've done some carpentry from time to time so I naturally gravitated toward woodcarving. Lately, I've been painting in acrylics. I find people are surprised when I tell them that working in 3D is easier than 2D.
...Back to the video for a minute here. Our man makes the point that it was Monet and his crowd that opened the door to modern 'bad art' by putting on the "Salon Des Refuses " show of their works due to their being...well, refused entrance into the Paris Salon showing. However....since the Salon was comprised of wealthy gallery owners and museum directors who exclusively showed wealthy traditional artists works, the salon itself is actually to blame for this as well. Wealthy artists of the day paid models to sit and model for them in studio so they could paint them as gods or goddesses or others of the limited classical subjects those artists were guided into creating. Wealthy artists could afford to have apprentices grind their pigments to make paints, to collect supplies and manufacture paint brushes, canvas stretchers and other artists tools/props/supplies. This very much restricted who could get into the Salon shows to the wealthy. Common artists could not afford all that. When tube oil paint was invented in the USA in the early 1800's, it was then made available and relatively cheap to a much larger group of people. The plein air easel, canvas board and synthetic dyes for colour made setting up anywhere to paint easy and cheap as well. Then it was just a matter of finding things to paint beyond high - priced models in the studio. Monet chose haystacks, the ocean and water lilies which had a wide appeal and sold well, thus inspiring a ton of copycats and knock - offs. Van Gogh painted the places and people in his life, Gauguin painted half - nekked Tahitian girls and so on. So while the Salon refuses may have started the movement towards modern bad art, they had a lot of help. I personally do not think a return to strict duplication of reality or portrayal of myths (portraits, landscapes and religious scenes) is possible now, and I cannot endorse restricting or excluding novel subject matter and/or media. It would be kind - of nice to have a few basic rules in place somewhere, however.....
Haha, an upset art critic. Well, there is no such thing as an objective opinion especially when it comes art.."what we know is good and beautiful"...this guy hasn't given the perception of perspective a single thought. I offically declare this guy an idiot. There is value in both craftmanship and free expression, why put one against the other? We need all types of artistical expressions. The photorealistic genre is coming back, especially among young people today, it's a trend. I was an impressionist rebel one could say, against my mother who tried to copy the old masters, so I recognise this type of reasoning, it's common, among common people. - Why don't you paint beautiful pictures instead? So many times I have heard that.. I'm leaning towarsd the other side even, that photorealism has very low artistic value in the eye of me beholding it. I find it rather cheap and tacky. For me good art is something that strikes a chord within me, makes me think in new patterns, that is inspiring.
Agreed. It is an excellent way to polish your technical abilities, however, as the piece either works or it does not. Personally, I prefer expression, impression, use of colour, creativity and superior technical ability to 'separate the adults from the children', as it were. 'But then, I started out with photorealism while studying under Dan Dacey (Maine, USA). The point was to make a picture that looked more realistic than a photograph. Those always sold quickly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Back in the ancient times, idol worship was connected to the subjectivity induced by art objects. An artist or sculpture would fabricate a likeness.The art affect allows one to feel something extra, appearing to stem from the object. With the best art, one does not have to be programmed to feel something the art. I could show you art you never saw or heard about to form an opinion and you will still be moved. A good idol art could trigger a feeling in the audience. An interesting art affect is connected to atheism. Some atheist will get all emotional about the art called the nativity scene, to where they lose self control and go into a bully style trance. Is this subjectivity based on idol worship via art? Is this an idol religion based on negative feelings. Should one idol religion be given special consideration by the state?
