What do you get from art?

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by Bowser, Nov 27, 2015.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,238
    And, of course, religious people will be moved by the idols of somebody else's religion. Art affects us at a deeper level than religion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    I haven't found atheists to get emotional about the nativity, only when it's exclusive showing on public property is intended to promote a specific religion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    I thought the point was a comment on the flatness of the image, an extension of the abstract, like paintings that are all one color. The true subject isn't the subject in the photo, but the object quality of the photo itself.
     
  8. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
  9. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,507
    But when I look at something like the The Statue of David, I need appreciate the technical aspects of the work. Every detail, down to the veins in his neck and arms, are there. What was once a lump of stone was given new meaning.
     
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    I'm sure that's why people like it, but it's very traditional. A lot has happened in the art world since then.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,889
    I guess one needs to begin with the question of what is art. Art comes in many forms, because art is, in a nutshell, a mode of communication. Art comes in many forms, the written word, the uttered word, in music, or in other visual forms. How well the art expresses its creator's message is a measure of its success as an art form. Personally, I favor baroque and most art forms with a few exceptions. Some forms of modern art are well and good. However, there has been a tendency in modern art to replace aesthetics and talent with the bizarre and it's evidenced in all art forms. That's where I draw the line.

    When the artist cannot express something with any degree of clarity or his point is simply to be bizarre, then in my view, it is of little value and becomes absurd and silly. Unfortunately, there has been to much of that (e.g. Rothko).

    My other concern with art is the tendency towards snobbishness (e.g. Disumbrationism). At some point, this stuff gets really silly. One of my first experiences with modern art was on college campus. While walking across the perfectly manicured lawn to class one fine day, I happened upon what I thought was a pile of trash. I thought it odd and hoped someone would soon clean up the mess. But in subsequent days more trash piles appeared on the well groomed lawn and the school newspaper announced those piles of trash were in fact art exhibits created by the school's art department. If I want to look at trash, I really don't need to travel anywhere to look at it. I have a trash can, actually I have several. I don't need to travel anywhere to look at trash. And personally, I don't find trash all that aesthetically pleasing or worthy of much contemplation other than to remember trash day. But that's just me, the old philistine, the guy who is perfectly at peace with telling the emperor he has no clothes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artinfo/avant-gardes-that-werent-pranks_b_2680671.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,889
    I'm not very religious, but I do appreciate religious art as expressed through architecture and music.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,238
    You gotta appreciate a Gothic cathedral.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,292
  15. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    The object quality has to start with the technical prowess of the artist. Hopefully, the artists eye will have chosen a proper subject as a matter of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I will cheerfully produce a religious work for pretty much any religion that comes to me with the commission. :blush: Somebodies gotta feed the puppy.

    When Andre Breton urged the surrealists to "take a pistol and shoot randomly into crowds" he was emphasizing the importance of shock value in the surrealism of the day. The dadaists (Duchamp et al) took that shock value and turned it into the most important aspect of what they did. More important than the actual 'art' produced. Conceptualism is in the same vein, just the next step in it. Calling a purchased urinal "art" and then selling same, while a social comment for sure, wasn't (isn't) "art", despite strong public opinion to the contrary.

    There is a difference between "creative reasoning" and "disjunctive reasoning". To the uneducated or the uninitiated it may appear there is no difference, but they are indeed different animals. The contemporary routine usage of the term "artist" to describe pretty much everyone from a baseball pitcher to a garbage person further confuses the issue. The lack of any standards whatsoever regarding what is or is not "art" (let alone "good" art) further muddies those waters such that we end up where we now are, with no standards at all. At least, publicly accepted.

    My personal opinion is that it has to go back to where it started, with the individual artist. If each individual artist always strives to do his/her very best on every artwork they create, to be educated and dedicated to their trade/career and to always attempt to present themselves and their trade in the very best light possible, perhaps we can re-find that top notch body of work that is indeed "works of fine art".

    There are places and times when the opinion of the majority is of paramount relevance and importance, just as there are places and times when that group's collective opinion is irrelevant or just plain wrong.

    Short story:

    An incredibly wealthy couple has this child. The child goes to university and gets an art degree, then they make art to sell. They go to a gallery and get a showing of their art. Their parents family friends cough up large sums of cash to go to the show and buy it out. After a few years of appreciation, they donate those artworks to the local museum. The parents set up a trust for the child. When the child turns 18 they receive $250k US, at 21 $500k US and at 25 they receive $1.5 million US. The child is now portrayed as a very wealthy, successful professional artist, teaches at a local university, gets written up in the at magazines and interviewed by the media etc. So are they for real or only playing at being what they appear to be?

    IMHO, after viewing their work at a museum showing, those works were nothing more or less than imitations of Rothko. I don't much care for Rothko's works.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    It's a random thing I "drew".

    If I believe it, it can happen. The meaningless is only the physical by itself. The meaningful is the substance. The only way they can merge is by going inward, not outward.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,889
    Unfortunately, much of modern art is mostly shock and very little, if any, awe. In my view, art, the best art, is mostly if not totally, awe and little if any shock. Unfortunately, I think shock has become a substitute for talent in many instances.
     
  18. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,507
    That might be true for some modern art, yet I still see non-traditional art that I like. Some artists develop a style that doesn't conform to any thing you might see in the mainstream. Their mind is more on shapes and colors than on making a social/political statement.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,623
    My own definition of Art (as a true discipline)

    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind."

    IMO, it is directly related to our *mirror neural network*. In *realism* painting this presents no problem, the artist has copied exactly what he sees in reality. In "abstract" painting, it gets more complicated as it adds another dimension of *imagination* to the subject and the viewer has more freedom to interpret the substance of the painting.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2015
  20. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    I am no longer certain that there is a "main stream" in art. Conceptualism appears to be out in front in many places, but as I mentioned earlier, conceptualism isn't art.

    I applaud 'new media' projects - heck, my son has a 5 year university degree in New Media that I paid for....with my income from traditional art. Some of my projects would be described as new media as well. However.....I create things based on a traditional education in classic art. While I adhere to the traditional rules, I keep an open mind and try to discover new things to employ in my work.

    Again, a thorough educational background in traditional art is necessary if you wish to be competent in the field. "You gotta know the rules so you know when you can break the rules." If you choose to use elephant dung as your primary medium, you art work is going to be pretty shitty. Your' 'concept' may be wonderful and enlightening, but if you can't portray it sufficiently well for it to communicate that concept to the viewer without explanation you have failed as an artist. Your art should speak for itself, as it will needs do that when you are gone.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,623
    I absolutely agree. That is why I specifically qualified Art as a *true discipline* and the *subject* produces a vicarious mental relationship between the viewer and the artist, IMO, again a function of the mirror neural network which produces empathy.

    Example: Jackson Pollock, who was an technically sound painter, but found new medium in fractal forms, created by his vision. You can look at a Pollock painting for an hour , discovering new and beautiful color relationships and geometries every moment.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
  22. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    I must blushingly admit that one of my favourite subjects is fractals.

    I have looked at Pollock paintings for many hours, they are are indeed very involving. The fine print on the back side of your artistic license allows you to get away with some pretty 'unusual' behavior, he merely took advantage of that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623

Share This Page