EPTArgument Blog - Page 5
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 29 2008 15:05 zulu_nation8 wrote: No by tone I don't mean I perceive your posts as rude, I addressed this. edit* sorry, I misread this part of your post I know they are rants. They are symbolic expressions of ideas. It is you who applies extra labels to them. Surely I am partially to blame for this, but that does not change the fact that it is you who applies the tone to my posts, not me. I just mean be more precise when you're talking about stuff so I can have something to respond to, I was talking about this. I will try to do a better job. Where was I not specific enough, I will try to fix it. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 29 2008 15:13 zulu_nation8 wrote: I can't think of a single piece of artwork that is revered for its lack of technical precision, that's like saying something is praised for being bad, it doesn't make sense. picasso? technical is an opinion, as is precise. there are tons of types of art that would most likely be described as neither "technical" nor "precise". If you think art must be either technical or precise your view of art is limited. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 29 2008 15:25 zulu_nation8 wrote: Picasso is like the most technically gifted artist ever... I never said art has to be technical or precise but good art is almost always technically brilliant. you should probably replace "good" with "famous". but anyways, I am saying that "technical" is entirely opinion. I have to assume that we are speaking only of visual art, so from this context I will argue that the majority of abstract art should not be considered technical. If you do consider all famous abstract art to be technical I would like you to give me any example of any art, period, which you do not consider to be technical in nature. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 15:36 travis wrote: you should probably replace "good" with "famous". but anyways, I am saying that "technical" is entirely opinion. I have to assume that we are speaking only of visual art, so from this context I will argue that the majority of abstract art should not be considered technical. If you do consider all famous abstract art to be technical I would like you to give me any example of any art, period, which you do not consider to be technical in nature. Of course abstract art for example abstract expressionism is technical. Its composition, color, form all require very good fundamentals. Why are you trying to argue "technical" is an opinion? It's clearly not to anyone who has learned basic art history. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
So when you replied to incontrol by saying No art is revered for its LACK of technical precision mr.incontrol. what point were you trying to make? Obviously incontrol meant something differently than what you seem to think he did, I would assume he meant the opposite of abstract. also I have to argue that Of course abstract art [...] is technical. Its composition, color, form all require very good fundamentals. is a completely untrue statement. I would argue that anyone is capable of great art, education or no. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.arthit.ru/abstract/0074/abstract-art-12.jpg) | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:20 travis wrote: That is the point I am trying to make. Technique is an opinion. There is no "wrong" art, and there is no "wrong" technique. So when you replied to incontrol by saying what point were you trying to make? Obviously incontrol meant something differently than what you seem to think he did, I would assume he meant the opposite of abstract. I meant people don't call art that has bad technique good art unless it has some other brilliance On August 29 2008 16:20 travis wrote: also I have to argue that is a completely untrue statement. I would argue that anyone is capable of great art, education or no. You can make great art without practice or education if you are a genius yes. Otherwise no you can't just not know anything about visual art and make something really good. Travis you are disagreeing with me about the most basic and self evident points. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:25 travis wrote: what are you trying to say, that this piece does not have good technique? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:27 zulu_nation8 wrote: what are you trying to say, that this piece does not have good technique? no, I am saying that incontrol was never saying that any piece is revered for a lack of display of skill. that would be incredibly silly. I am saying that I think he was saying that pieces are sometimes revered for a lack of display of method | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Start arguing for yourself and stop relying on blanket statements of seudo authority. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote: It's ok travis. Zulu thinks all great art exemplifies "technical prowess." He is wrong but I have a feeling he won't budge on the matter. It's a shame too cause he seems fairly educated yet he cannot grasp the notion that while art is fucking HUGE as a definition he cannot recall a single piece of art work that relatively speaking didn't take technical excellence. Cause off the top of my head I can think of a million examples.. and that is before I hit google. Ok.. not ALL great art exhibit technical prowess but certainly most do. The Picasso or minimalist or whatever pieces that just look like random shapes and lines actually demonstrate tremendous mastery in form. Otherwise please give me some examples of great works of art which do not demonstrate brilliant technique because off the top of my head I honestly can't think of any. edit: maybe like one | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
(not to say that incontrol does.. but I have given off the wrong impression before and want no animosity between us) | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:34 travis wrote: no, I am saying that incontrol was never saying that any piece is revered for a lack of display of skill. that would be incredibly silly. I am saying that I think he was saying that pieces are sometimes revered for a lack of display of method And my response to that would be what you think is lack of method lots of times actually has tremendous precision. Give me examples. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote: PS I hate how zulu continuously says "people say" in regard to art. Are you kidding me? That is the most cop-out response someone can make. Here! Let me align myself with the almighty generic "someone once said so now it becomes 'people.'" Start arguing for yourself and stop relying on blanket statements of seudo authority. Where did I say "people say"? If I did I think I was speaking of opinions widely upheld by the art world aka stuff they write in books. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 29 2008 16:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: Otherwise please give me some examples of great works of art which do not demonstrate brilliant technique because off the top of my head I honestly can't think of any. again, incontrol will have to confirm this but I am confident he was not using "technical precision" as a synonym for "skill". | ||
| ||
