EPTGood Art vs Bad Art - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
enigmaticcam
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
TritaN
United States406 Posts
On January 21 2011 08:15 enigmaticcam wrote: There is no greater art form than the female body. One of the many reasons I choose to believe in a creator, as ridiculous as many people here find that notion.  | ||
|
Kamille
Monaco1035 Posts
On January 21 2011 08:15 enigmaticcam wrote: There is no greater art form than the female body. | ||
|
enigmaticcam
United States280 Posts
ha! exactly | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On January 21 2011 08:26 TritaN wrote: One of the many reasons I choose to believe in a creator, as ridiculous as many people here find that notion. For some people it's the female body, for scientists it might be the molecular structure of a dragonfly's compound eye viewed from above a microscope. There's so much stuff whose overwhelmingity (yea, i know ) gives a convincing reason to believe in a creator. | ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
I personally think Caspar David Friedrich's work is pretty amazing, if some people here with a bit more expertise/knowledge than me in painting/painters/art (which would be just about anyone) could recommend me some similar artists I would love that :-) ![[image loading]](http://www.backtoclassics.com/images/pics/caspardavidfriedrich/caspardavidfriedrich_theseaofice.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://en.wahooart.com/A55A04/w.nsf/OPRA/BRUE-7YXQKV/$File/Caspar+David+Friedrich+-+Moonrise+by+the+Sea+.JPG) | ||
|
Obsolescence
United States270 Posts
On January 20 2011 08:49 Kazragore wrote: What distinguishes a 'good' piece of art from a 'bad' piece of art (I am thinking specifically of paintings here, but I suppose other forms of art apply as well). When I look at a painting, I usually judge it by how aesthetically pleasing it is, and then what I think about it- does it make me think about something profound or spark a pleasant memory? I suppose I ask this question because I don't see the majesty of some supposedly monumentally important works of art. Art isn't a thing. Art is a label. There are no art experts, because art doesn't exist in a physical sense - because art is not a thing. You can't know art like you know your transaction history, or the census statistics. Art is just a term people use to label experiences. You have an emotional experience when you view a painting. You turn to the person next to you and ask, "what is this called?" They respond, "This is art." Mistakenly, you assume that the painting is art, but art is not a thing -- it is an experience. This is why art is subjective. No person likes art as a whole concept. Art experts/enthusiasts don't like art, they like that painting or this song. Art is the label they apply to experiences that evoke a mental or emotional response in them -- not in everyone. A song isn't art, but someone may label a song as art. A painting isn't art, but someone may label a painting as art. Since humans do not share experiences, we do not share art, but two people may still label the same item as art. This is how the public at large has been duped. You've been tricked into the belief that art and knowledge of art actually exist as definite things. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
- Lawrence Weiner | ||
|
oppS
Canada28 Posts
It goes for any type of 'art'--eg. dance/music. Like what you like. Appreciate the talent that went into what you don't. And keep your mind open. | ||
|
HisDudeness
United States17 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images.ientrymail.com/famousdeaddb/ross.jpg) Bob RossEnd of discussion. | ||
|
FuDDx
United States5008 Posts
I know he is in heaven painting landscapes for all of us....... Happy little trees... | ||
|
gn1k
United States441 Posts
On January 20 2011 22:18 dbizzle wrote: What makes Picasso so amazing is that he was a child prodigy in art and was a master painter when he was young. When he got older he was trying to "unlearn" his painting styles to become more child-like and thats why you see a lot of his work in abstract forms. He was an amazing traditional painter. He wasn't trying to unlearn anything. Picasso along with George Braque were exploring representing the world with more abstract representation of reality. Also I agree the female form is the most perfect piece of art. | ||
|
aztrorisk
United States896 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/572/w500h420/CRI_7572.jpg) | ||
|
Lenny
Sweden20 Posts
In my mind Zdzisław Beksiński works is pretty incredible. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l82y49aHCd1qbo48xo1_500.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://cdn.imgfave.com/image_cache/1291794805404099.jpeg) ![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7sg8yvh3c1qbmt20.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://bp2.blogger.com/_T8QSIQUeLBM/Rh8TKpxT3sI/AAAAAAAAAHM/9eEiSXUgVWg/s400/zdzislaw_beksinski_009.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2010/02/zdzislaw-beksinski-1972-2.jpg) | ||
|
Ciraxis
Australia400 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Wanderer above a Sea of Fog, Caspar David Friedrich, 1818. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Caspar_David_Friedrich_032.jpg) For me, its all about the persona's reflection on his life, standing on the top of his mountain having overcome it all. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On January 21 2011 23:14 Ciraxis wrote: My contribution to the art: + Show Spoiler + Wanderer above a Sea of Fog, Caspar David Friedrich, 1818. For me, its all about the persona's reflection on his life, standing on the top of his mountain having overcome it all. Spoken like a true Nazi! Frederichs was big with those guys! His image really took a hit from that, haha. Took a long time to have that stigma wear off from his name. This is my favorite of his: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://towerweb.net/alt-lib/art/friedrich/oakwoodabbey2.jpg) | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
so good to find tl members with typing virtuosity about my fav subject (imagery, art, concepts) so many "chefs d'oeuvres" were featured so i won't link any (although i might have selected identical ones myself) will "edit in" some of my favorites soon, with wooops maybe one of my own, i do feel weird (would be advertising it as art worthy hmmm) will edit my 2 cents on "art": basically agreeing=linking/expanding on other "golden"post on this thread for now, and i can't believe no one mentioned this before, art is two different things as applied to 3 different types of people: first the two: people who invest in / like art.............people who don't people who don't (who cares) people who do care: those who only practice / those who watch / those who do both (the only people capable of the first are "untouched" tribes, kept in their isolation, still here ..under constant scrutiny from "our" advance civilized society"...) people who do care: those who practice i happen to be one of them (painter+ Show Spoiler + "ecole nationale des beaux arts bourges", boy do these introductions sound ever so pompous, one need not have gone to art school to have a valid art "undertaking" or opinion! people who do care: those who watch only sorry, u guys are missing out, quick go out and try it before u die.. honest it's all it's cranked up to be! this said 3 essentials: that's what i'll edit, because having to follow Bourdieu (yes! sociologist/philosophy, who cares...his opinion is one of the best one ever shaped with Deleuze and the outdated Faure and other "out" people (various from other "fields") (not to say i agree but what great reads) is a tough nugget to crrrrack: art is a notion, it is a term applied to the resulting conversion of three simultaneous/consecutive things: (can't believe no on has said it here: art of war) 1the goal/vision/trip of the artist: is it present, interesting, touching, advancing it's medium....(i personally think i'm not an artist, just a painter and advancing history of Painting significantelly would be great, but it would not be art) 2 the means through which the artist expressed himself (that's so complex i have to take 5) 3 the result (i will not go into post showcasing or millenium bumping, as this would be interesting but off topic) it's again to the two possible viewer(one of the post mentioned this): the ones who do the ones who only watch in both cases the end product is subjective to previous art interest... (ie once you've dwelled into looking for information or further your knowledge ... you're fucked) people only interested in watching have it great, they feel... that's where the real art lies all people who do (practice / critic / for fun or for keeps) get further and further away from being good "critics", since they may dismiss some piece because of reasons in "means" or "concept"... they will appreciate the finer methods and discard on whims or pet peeve, just like the "tourist" however for different reasons... the very nature of the matter resides somewhere around these considerations as it tands this notion is therefore possible to be applied or denied to/on anything (ie: "art status" is definable, the more the art has been done recently, the more difficult/codified it is however...so no your subjectivity does not come into, not one bit) personnal taste is a given in each and everyone of us, however there is such a thing as "criticism" the above mentioned leave no room for subjectivity to enter ART scalling is not a good thing (useless), if you're looking for some "real" art, it"s what's still showcased (the history is written by the victor...) that people like Dali are not "regarded" as they should for instance, is just a time frame issue... he'll get some master pieces in the big book of chefs d'oeuvres by the way never had as many mona treats i one read, nice so to "end up": criterias applied by people will always shape a: this is "art" or "nice but no" art is not confined to museums, indeed videogames like (no other ex yet) sim city could very well be dubbed art in my book a bad artist could produce wonders, a good artist could produce poorly, the viewer could loose himself and wallow i hate or love, in all cases a subjective point of view is difficult and most important: your own feeling is only the beginning (once you've seen a gazillion different stuff you develop your own feeling, and from there that just might lead to developing your "own" criticism about "art" (but/and then you'll still have pet peeves, mine's are rembrandt vermeer and tiepolo) | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On January 21 2011 23:55 DannyJ wrote: Spoken like a true Nazi! Frederichs was big with those guys! His image really took a hit from that, haha. Took a long time to have that stigma wear off from his name. How is that even chronologically possible? You mean he was popular with the Nazi party? That's hardly his fault... | ||
|
Ciraxis
Australia400 Posts
On January 21 2011 23:55 DannyJ wrote: Spoken like a true Nazi! Frederichs was big with those guys! His image really took a hit from that, haha. Took a long time to have that stigma wear off from his name. This is my favorite of his: + Show Spoiler + To be honest, I quite admire Germany, and more specifically Prussia, for their strict military discipline and desire to be better than everyone else (at least prior to WW2, don't know what its like in Germany now). It is a pity this positive cultural trait was ramped up into an aggressive, racist political theory in the form of Nazi ideology. I think these imperialist desires of pre-Nazi Germany can be witnessed in artwork like the one I posted (Friedrich), in philosophy (Neitzsche) and in music (Wagner). One of my favorite ideas of Neitzsche is the idea of the Ubermensch , "the goal of humanity is to be above humanity!" But his philosophy, Friedrich's artwork (didn't know about this, but I take your word, as I wouldn't be surprised) and Wagner's music were both, along with many other aspects of German culture were hijacked and developed as cultural propaganda. Anyway, I guess this emphasizes how important the context behind artwork actually is and that culture, philosophy, music and many other aspects of the society can dramatically motivate artworks. On top of that, the way we view the artwork is also significantly influenced by our own context . Ultimately for me, this makes art purely subjective, though some works like Mona Lisa should be praised and honored for its history and influence in art circles, even if you don't consider it as 'art'. | ||
|
Fanciful
United States59 Posts
On January 22 2011 14:03 Ciraxis wrote: To be honest, I quite admire Germany, and more specifically Prussia, for their strict military discipline and desire to be better than everyone else (at least prior to WW2, don't know what its like in Germany now). It is a pity this positive cultural trait was ramped up into an aggressive, racist political theory in the form of Nazi ideology. I think these imperialist desires of pre-Nazi Germany can be witnessed in artwork like the one I posted (Friedrich), in philosophy (Neitzsche) and in music (Wagner). One of my favorite ideas of Neitzsche is the idea of the Ubermensch , "the goal of humanity is to be above humanity!" But his philosophy, Friedrich's artwork (didn't know about this, but I take your word, as I wouldn't be surprised) and Wagner's music were both, along with many other aspects of German culture were hijacked and developed as cultural propaganda. Anyway, I guess this emphasizes how important the context behind artwork actually is and that culture, philosophy, music and many other aspects of the society can dramatically motivate artworks. On top of that, the way we view the artwork is also significantly influenced by our own context . Ultimately for me, this makes art purely subjective, though some works like Mona Lisa should be praised and honored for its history and influence in art circles, even if you don't consider it as 'art'. I call Godwins Law on this. I like Josh Keyes work. http://www.joshkeyes.net/printeditions.htm I think he helps TL with banners sometimes? | ||
| ||
