Are you guys kidding me here, art like technology evolves for the better. Are we aware of how many techniques and reasoning that have been developed since even the renaissance? ...whatever man, whatever. Besides most of this ancient art you speak of it is the drama behind them that animates them. Rome for instance has appeal becaue of the stories behind the era, and so is the likes of monet and many other...Anyway art is meant to instigate opinion, which is why I prefered to leave Hagar to his pool of Reminiscence. Art isn't about discussion, its about feeling and telling. REkkr LOL Idon't know what your problem is. Whats wrong with shakespare over appreciating a movie. In fact it would make him very happy... since he loves plays, Oh wait maybe he's not the intellect type Enjoying this thread anyway
I don't think who ever bought that painting placed it in his house for him to think. If you buy a series of paintings only for you to think about them you are in need of a psychaitrist yourself. I think art is about feeling
Then give me some names and I'll check them out. I've heard almost everything from country to black metal. "Open-mindedness" is just a myth, a scam to get you to buy some unique or novel product instead of what is best. Here I find another myth, the myth of "progress" and "change". Just because a new technique is developed it doesn't mean it will be put to good use. For a harsher example: Communism was change, doesn't mean it was a good idea. If art is meant to convey an opinion or message, where is the message behind art today? A toilet bowl with bullhorns doesn't really convey the suffering of Somalian children well does it? Modern art is just confusing and idiotic, and the fact that people have defended it for years and claimed you have to "interpret it in a certain way" to understand it is ridiculous. One hundred years from now this modern style will be forgotten, having never put any significant mark on history. It is disposable because it was MEANT to be disposable. Picasso and Warhol didn't make art because they were serious, they made it because they were mocking art.
Goddamn, get with the 21st century. Photography made the cult of realism less magical than it used to be. It is easy to make a realistic sculpture, more difficult to create something truly new. Would you have us all crapping out copies of copies of copies? The greeks did it first, then the Romans copied them, then Europe, being the outpost of backwards Christiandom, decided that maybe culture isn't so bad, and copied the Romans. Modern people have taken a new direction. There are more things to concern ourselves with these days than some greek ideals. The industrial revolution was something new in history, and modern art reflects man's increasing sense of alienation. Henry Ford's mass production techniques have been applied to mass slaughter, and sculpting a pretty marble statue in the midst of this falls somewhat short of capturing the real zeitgeist of an era.
yeah, so o i. i feel art is to attempt to shake awake.....the times we live in is so intense that ...what fukin art CAN reach that part to shakew us awake...its like the deep problem faced by the modernists post WWI and te Holocaust....how do you react to THAT? it makes you really question what 'art' MEANS in its essence dont it?
The thread is titled "The death of Western art" and all my comments have related to this point, How can something be dead when it has never been more active, In past time only the wealthy comissioned works of Art for their collections. I would agree that art is a fashion and entertainment, however this is not new just bigger, It was the fashion for The wealthy to have a picture of their family painted by the best artists of the time, these artists would pre-paint a Landscape the ask the family to sit for them in order to add them into the picture, it was a big Fashion at the time, today you visit a photographer in order to get the same thing done. All my posts have reflected that art is diverse using media such as (Metal, Wood, Ceramics, Plastics and Textiles) along with paints and pencils, so it is clear that I agree. Art has massive meaning today, so I cannot understand what you mean by this question, Art now belongs to the people and reflects the feelings you and I have about the world around use. If you mean that Art no Longer belongs to the Church or the Governmants of the world in order to get use to go to church (Lest we go to HELL!) or take up a gun and kill are fellow men, then if you define this as having a meaning you may be correct. To this I would say Thank God! for Art now belongs to you and me the poeple of the world, not those who would rule over us and have us die for them on some bloody field far from home, for Church and Country!
If you can you should go and see his work for your self - some of the work takes up the full length of a wall and you need to stand about 20 feet back in order to enjoy the full landscape. He has a picture of death valley looking towards the mountains at the end, it is just breath taking, go see them if you can!
Rob Dougan Modest Mouse Elliott Smith Led Zeppelin Dave Brubeck Quartet Neutral Milk Hotel Dave Matthews Band R.E.M. Granted, very few of them have 10 minute, mind numbing tracks, but that's why I listen.
You know what thats fine, it realy is but have to understand that millions of people do. They bye Abstract works all the time for homes and offices. Why can you not just say you don't like it with out implying its not Art, its just an area of Art that pulls no strings for yourself thats all. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Art Wikiportal This article is about creative art. For the Celtic mythological figure Art, see Art mac Cuinn; for the play, see Art (play). Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity and/or imagination. Throughout the written history of humankind, various constrictions have been applied to the broad concept. Most individuals know what they consider to be art, and what they believe is not art. Additionally, groups, such as academia, have a vaguely shared notion of what is, or is not, art. The word art is often used to refer to the visual arts, and arts is used to refer to visual art, literature, music, dance — the fine arts. However, such distinctions are the subject of many discussions and debates. Art seems to be almost universal throughout the human race — integral to the human condition. There are no cultures that do not participate in it to some extent, and child art is created by all from about the first birthday.
its funny...when i was at art school i met a couple of people that really felt ill when trying to do abstract art! their style was 'tight'...and trying absteact art gave them headaches...haha...tis true. its what really tuurned me onto doing more abstract work when you gaze at a cloud or water isn't this abstract...constantly changing?
Two type of people! Tight minded - Only love a picture that might as well be taken with a camera, yet they would say photography is not Art. Open Minded - Photography is Art and painting is the us of Colour and form shown in a style that makes your mind have to think about more than an image. Just like a Science based mind and an Arts based mind they will never produce kids from one mad night of passion!
If this is the case, which it is, why try to capture the horror and idiocy of this society in the first place? Why not celebrate what is truthful and heroic? Art serves a purpose, it is not meant to convey the pointless destruction and degradation of our civilization. By celebrating decadence you only invite more. Should we cut ourselves and wear gas masks too? Does that not capture our age? Perhaps the decline of society is due to the DECLINE of Greek Ideals. It has become fairly obvious to me that nobody believes in much of anything anymore.
Sorry, but I've tried and heard these all before in my life. I fail to find enjoyment in them. You only believe 10 minute tracks are "mind numbing" because you undoubtly have a short attention span. That is not necessarily bad, its just your taste. Of course, now all of you will undoubtly jump onto my case and telll me about how I should 'lighten up" or be more "tolerant and open".
Or maybe those cultures were just as degenerate (at least I know the Romans were), and the art was a kind of propaganda. Some artists prefer this kind of idealism, others like to reveal that the emperor has no clothes. Some like to cut themselves on a stage, like my friend Erik. I think ideals are stupid. I think artists used to be afraid to be real. What you are describing is the balkanization of epistemology. This is what your views about art symbolize. It no longer provides a stabilizing metaphor for humanity. (quote by Terence McKenna)
The point I was making is that no one has the right or even ability to say what Art is or is not, just like craft. Thousand of people world wide produce Arts and Craft and unless they are copying someone else, then they are making something original that comes from their own self expression, this is Art. The word Art is defined as the use of creative skills to produce a reflection of something, the results of this attempt are to be found not were in this definition. Just as all artists produce something quit different from each other so poeples like or dislikes are also as wide, This is clearly so as no area of the Art world could exist if no one supported it at all. This is why I asked you as a person, can you not at least just say that you do not like some of the areas of Art, without attempting to define to the rest of us what Art is or is Not. Or maybe you are the only one on this planet who can achive the impossible and after millions of years of human development tell the rest of mankind what Art is at last, however you will have to get a move on, as Tommorrow it maybe something else altogether!
I do. To me, if it doesn't look like Art, it's not Art. If it looks like throw-up, it's not art. Abstract is precisely that. It does not look like REAL art. Maybe the artist thinks that it is art, but what I think is and is not art is my own personal opinion, my own personal truth. Abtract is shit.
I bet you don't even have a full and clear understanding of what the current world of abstract/modern art contains, name the last modern art exibitions you went to view (One would be no good at all). I will bet you have not been to any and that you are simply falling into the trap of seeing the extremes of work shown in the media and thinking that this is the true world of modern art, it is not. You have made it clear that its your own opinion which is at least a step in the correct direction, however you then still go on to use lables that you push at everyone reading your post. Why Can you not just say "I do not like Modern art" Not "Its Shit". I go to view exibitions of Modern art/Abstract art a lot and may only go home liking some 25% of what I view, the rest is not for myself, but just because this is so I do not then label it all as Shit! PS What Kind of Art do you class as real then, pictures of flowers or birds, maybe butterflies, What the hell do you mean my real art, again you attempt to define the impossible, but I forget you are superman!
Many people only like representational art, that's fine for them, but the significance of art that is less approachable has to do with the nature of human society today, which is changing in profound ways. Art is a reflection of society. When everything is rainbows and puppies, we'll go back to painting "nice" looking art.
