Good Art vs Bad Art - Page 3

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All

pfods

United States895 Posts

January 20 2011 04:41 GMT

#41

On January 20 2011 12:59 MrMotionPicture wrote:
MC Escher is brilliant. I love his work
+ Show Spoiler +

And I have always adored this painting
+ Show Spoiler +

Klimt! One of the greats

DannyJ

United States5110 Posts

January 20 2011 04:45 GMT

#42

The Mona Lisa is of course well done, but the skill or technique it took to make is not really why it's become iconic. There's always been a sense of mystery and intrigue about it that has just grown for centuries till it's really become famous for just being famous.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6774 Posts

January 20 2011 04:56 GMT

#43

Frank Nitsche

TheGiftedApe

United States1243 Posts

January 20 2011 05:15 GMT

#44

The Mona lisa is a MASTERPIECE, first of all you must take into account the time period when it was made. And some crappy picture of it on the internet does it no justice what-soever. Paintings like that must be seen in real life to truly appreciate the craftsmanship. It's all about the detail and the expression on the face.

First off theres so many different classifications of "art styles"
realism
cubism
Impressionism
Abstract
Expressionism
the list goes on, not to mention the "3d" arts such as sculpture.

Art is whatever appeals to you, if it appeals to you, it's art, thats not to say if it doesn't appeal to you it can't be art, one man's garbage is another's gold. In "realism" the goal is to make the portrait look as realistic as possible, yet making something look realistic is not the goal of cubism. See something you like, Look up the artist, and look into their previous works, usually artists stick to 1-2 styles at most.

my favorite da vinci's+ Show Spoiler +

also i don't think i can legally post in this thread without repping Jim Warren, the artist who did the tl horses.+ Show Spoiler +

jimwarren

DannyJ

United States5110 Posts

January 20 2011 05:23 GMT

#45

I came across this on Youtube a while ago. Very cool transition of portraits chronologically.

Friloux

Canada100 Posts

January 20 2011 05:31 GMT

#46

Personally, there is very little alure to this painting in an absolute sense. It employs mediocre technicial skill. We know who she is (Mme Giocondo), her face looks very similar to many other da Vinci paintings, the landscape is boring. This painting has little going for it. Even so, your perception of the painting is super restricted - you have to stand behind a barrier ten feet away from it (it is a tiny painting!) behind many layers of bulletproof glass, very dimly lit, you're crammed into a huge crowd while flash photography is going off every millisecond. La Gioconda is famous a) i was duplicated and distributed after the invention of plate printing b) Warhol famously duplicated her image, c) some guy wrote a stupid book making up stories about her. It's a shame how many superior paintings get passed by in the Louvre while flocking to the Mona Lisa.

[image loading]

wherebugsgo

Japan10647 Posts

January 20 2011 05:36 GMT

#47

On January 20 2011 09:18 Nokarot wrote:
I'd say that art is mostly subjective. You're welcome to like or dislike something based on opinion.

However, there is certain art that I would just call outright bad, as a simple fact. This includes stuff like "Piss Christ", a photograph of a crusifix in a bucket of urine, or people who have gotten stuff in to a museum using feces (no joke) as their medium. Regardless of your opinion on the subject matter (religion) it is not art to pull something like that, in my opinion.

Personally, I think that art should be aesthetically pleasing to someone. You can't please everyone, but if your intention is to shit on a canvas and have people pay money to see it, it pleases noone.

That's pretty hypocritical.

You say that art is subjective, so whether it's "good" or "bad" is up to opinion, but it's art.

Then you go on to say that, according to you, because you don't like something, it's not art.

Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing. It can make a statement and still be art. It might be "bad" according to you, but it may still be art to other people. And clearly, it is, otherwise those pieces that you referenced would not be considered art in the first place.

TritaN

United States406 Posts

January 20 2011 06:06 GMT

#48

On January 20 2011 14:15 TheGiftedApe wrote:
my favorite da vinci's+ Show Spoiler +

...

This one to me is actually far superior to the Mona Lisa. The composition, flow, mastery of lighting, even the expression on her face.

The Mona Lisa is the most famous, but this and many other paintings are actually better.

starfries

Canada3508 Posts

January 20 2011 06:38 GMT

#49

I actually like the way Piss Christ looks. I think you're letting your visceral response to the medium cloud your judgment. If the guy said he made it out of marble and amber, would it be art? What if there was a guy shipwrecked on an island with no paint, and he made a beautiful painting on the sail canvas out of his blood and feces? I do think there is some "art" that is pretty much universally bad but given that apparently some people find the "shit on a canvas" aesthetically pleasing (it's in a museum) it kind of contradicts your argument.

On January 20 2011 13:37 Gleve wrote:
My Friends brother paints, I liked them maybe you will too?

Landscape
+ Show Spoiler +

I like that painting, what's his name?

Quotidian

Norway1937 Posts

January 20 2011 07:15 GMT

#50

Nice to see that there are some people where not stuck in the eighteen hundreds, formthehead (It'd be fun to see your stuff) and Xeofreestyler specifically...

Some of the art I like, although it's more based on these artist's entire production rather than a single work:
+ Show Spoiler +

Carol Bove
[image loading]

Mauro Pascual
[image loading]

Bjarne Melgaard
[image loading]

nsfw?
+ Show Spoiler +

Tauba Auerbach
[image loading]

And some "bad" art:

+ Show Spoiler +

Dash Snow/Dan Colen

[image loading]

Banksy

Matthew Barney (not really "bad," but totally overwrought and hyperpretentious)

gn1k

United States441 Posts

January 20 2011 09:17 GMT

#51

@formthehead Thank you for laying down some art school knowledge. I have bachelors degree in fine art, sculpture specifically. As for the original question of what makes art significant. It has a ton to do with the time when it was made and the ideas that it introduced to the world.

Like Picasso and his painting the three musicians in the original post. This panting is significant because it represent musicians clearly when you see everything together. However the small sections of the painting in no way represent a group of musicians. If this painting was a puzzle it would be very hard to figure out where the pieces go without looking at the box. Picasso also made sculptures around this time that represent solid space with empty space. It is clearly representing something with pieces that don't look like part of the whole.
[image loading]

This may not seem impressive now, because we live in the world full of cartoons and animation. This painting, the three musicians was made in 1921, mickey mouse wasn't seen until 1928. The work had a huge impact on our art now.

lOvOlUNiMEDiA

United States643 Posts

January 20 2011 09:41 GMT

#52

Jacques-Louis David

[image loading]

YejinYejin

United States1053 Posts

January 20 2011 09:48 GMT

#53

I must admit that some of my favorite art comes from Magic: The Gathering card art.
For more generally accepted "art", here's something I like.
[image loading]

Deleted User 101379

4849 Posts

January 20 2011 09:57 GMT

#54

Why does art always have to be a painting or sculpture. I'm a programmer, i don't care about images, they are boring. I see a piece of art in an beautifully written algorithm.

Emon_

3925 Posts

January 20 2011 11:16 GMT

#55

Taste is personal, subjective. Good and bad don't apply.

sob3k

United States7572 Posts

January 20 2011 11:37 GMT

#56

Art is whatever you like.

This does not stop me from calling art I don't like shit.

Ryndika

1489 Posts

January 20 2011 11:59 GMT

#57

Skilled usage of colours etc is what professional artists most of time do well, + I like pretty much traditional beauty like paintings in OP.

I Also like VERY VERY MUCH thoughtful art like "Banksy" graffs or many picassors paintings too.

I belive the beauty comes from the mind of viewer.

E: But however usually im not very interested in art like what DTK-m2 posted because it doesnt reveal it has mystery in it at all nor does it use colours in very fascinating way to my eye. (See picture below)

Husnan

France298 Posts

January 20 2011 12:05 GMT

#58

On January 20 2011 20:16 Emon_ wrote:
Taste is personal, subjective. Good and bad don't apply.

I completely disagree with this statement. I'm not really knowledgeable about paintings so I'll take the example of music :

Sepultura is a brazilian heavy-mteal band that I personnally adore. If someone doesn't like it, I won't argue with them and respect their "taste". On the other hand, if someone says it's shit, I can provide lots of arguments to explain to them why Sepultura is actually a very talented band, very innovative, original, unique, creative, etc...

Another example : I don't know much about jazz music and I don't like much of it. I would never claim any jazz musician is garbage though because I have no idea how creative/original/talented they really are.

On the other hand, I know pretty well pop and hip hop music and it would be really easy to explain to anyone claiming "Justin Bieber is a great artist" how wrong they are and how unoriginal/plagiarised/hyperproduced and overrated his music really is.

I'm sure the same kind of reasonning could be used for any form of art, I just illustrated it with the form of art I'm most familiar with.

REDBLUEGREEN

Germany1904 Posts

January 20 2011 12:06 GMT

#59

I really like the Hudson River School and American romanticism. I like the non-abstact style depicting the vast wilderness of a still relatively newly discovered continent.
Some of my favorite painters:
Albert Bierstadt:
[image loading]

Frederic Edwin Church:
[image loading]

Thomas Cole:
[image loading]

chongu

Malaysia2593 Posts

January 20 2011 12:26 GMT

#60

To OP and anyone else interested!!! Watch 'The Power of Art' by Simon Schama aired on the BBC. it features artists such as Remambrant, Bernini, Caravaggio and etc. you get to hear their life story and he sorta explains the significant of iconic paintings from a devotist's perspective. Hopefully you'll enjoy art a little more watching these

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Good Art vs Bad Art - Page 3

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming