I would like to preface this post by saying that I know absolutely nothing about art (my last art class was in middle school), and that is why I am asking this question.
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.
Regardless, what do you think makes a painting (or other work of art) significant and beautiful? And maybe some artists around here can explain the big deal with the Mona Lisa to me haha
Whatever appeals to you. I find mondrian and Jan Van Eyck equally beautiful. One for its thoughtfulness, one for its pure skill and talent. Art is entirely subjective in what you like and what you dislike.
That said, Anyone who begins to make claims about what is and is not art, or what "takes talent" and what doesn't, has immediately lost at the conversation at hand. People dismiss dada as talentless, but I question them why they didn't do it, or don't do it. And if they tried, it would be extremely kitsch. Sometimes art is more then what it simply looks like.(not saying that you were expressing any of these views, I just wanted to point this out because I know where these discussion inevitably lead to).
Jan Van Eyck -Ghent Altar Piece. I can't find a high enough resolution picture to do this justice, but if you ever find one/see it in real life, the precision used to paint this is absolutely amazing. It is one of the most highly detailed paintings I've ever seen
Unique Forms of Continuity in Space - Umberto Boccioni
Edit: The Mona Lisa is considered to be a great piece because of who painted it, the skill used to paint it, the mystery behind it, the visual appeal of it, and the techniques used to make it(sfumato)
The reason the Mona Lisa is famous is because it was stolen. What I find most interesting about the painting is the background. You can clearly see it is disconnected, but for what reason? With post modernism, cubism, fauvism and all the other isms, it seems to be more about originality and "creativity" apart from aesthetic ideals. You can look at some paintings for their "truth" value as well, especially with abstract expressionist like Pollock.
I find a charm within Rossetti's work even though most find it strange. He uses the same woman in most of his works, but Pandora has a mystery about her. A solemn despair almost at what she is about to do.
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.
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.
Why isn't it art?
Why does it have to be aesthetically pleasing? If I like a piece, not because it looks good, but for some other reason, does it cease to be art?
There is nothing pleasing about looking at this man. But the detail and precision of the roman sculptor who made it makes me appreciate and enjoy it greatly. Is it not art?
Paintings like the Mona Lisa are so valuable because they represent an era in history. They are valuable for their historical significance, and not so much for the art itself. The Mona Lisa probably got famous because it was stolen from the Louvre in 1911, and it's appeared in pop culture from time to time since then.
What makes a piece of art beautiful and meaningful is the way each person perceives it.
When you see a painting that you love you are actually connecting with the artist's feelings and emotions. You 'share' something in common. You share a vision because you can relate your feelings with the ones of the artist's when he was painting it. And that kind of relation is a powerful one.
That's why there is paintings you could stare all day and never be bored. Also that's the reason why some people like certain painters and hate others. It's all in the eyes, mind and heart (soul?) of who see it.
Hello I'm kind of nervous to post this but here, my father is an artist , and these are some of his works, I hope you enjoy.... www.tonycacalano.com btw I love his work hehe , maybe it's just because i've been around it my whole life and he is my dad
Skill and effort is what I think separates good art from bad. For the Mona Lisa you have to look at the artwork that came before it and the history of really Florence and the Medici. Leonardo's only rival at the time was Michaelangelo . Art techniques like realistic perspective had only recently been developed. Just look at art from the dark ages and then the Mona Lisa and you should get an idea why it and allot of renaissance artist get so much credit.
Personally my favorite Renaissance artist was Botticelli
But you have to understand that he could of been burned at the stake for painting nudes and pagan art. Allot of Botticelli's work was destroyed during Church book burnings, he even tossed a bunch of his work after he was told that it was sinful.
Visual art, or any type of art for that matter, is closely tied with emotion.
I'm not really big on paintings and pictures and stuff, but I really enjoy listening to music and I'm sure all arguments would still apply. The thing is, a good song isn't just defined by how pleasing it sounds, although that is the most obvious factor and most people (sadly) tend to judge it by that alone. Real good music evokes emotions more complicated and deep such as marvel (which can include detail and technical mastery), despair, curiosity (e.g. picasso), etc. The beauty of a piece of art is the culmination of all these things... not just the "happy feeling" which is just a small part of real beauty.
As I said before, it is sad that many people don't realize this and it is even more sad that society seems to be pressuring against it... Many things of real beauty are quickly picked apart by naive critics, ignored by the media, and quickly dismissed. Even worse, our culture is absolutely obsessed with sex, which is not real beauty (or maybe some of it is... but "art" that only offers sex is quite shallow and lacking, and by no means good), it's just the result of our biological imperative to reproduce. This makes it even more difficult.
Good art and bad art is subjective. I hate non-representational art, personally. I love realism (naturalism).....I like to look at designs too, but on representational stuff....like an armor.
The Mona Lisa is a typical example of the amount of perfection in composition that developed during the renaissance. If you look at it as just a portrait, comparing it to later paintings, it might not look like much, but the way it's built up, the lighting, facial features and attention to details, it's really quite a spectacular piece of art for its era. As for artists such as Picasso, one should know he was extremely talented when it came to realism, but broke away from that genre in search of something new and innovative. Cubism and other modern art can probably be hard to appreciate unless you know the thought behind it, but it's also about colours and composition; especially how colours contrast and complement eachother. In essence, it's art that goes against the traditional standards of art just for the sake of doing just that, but at the same time being very skillfully made.
I personally prefer prefer the more classical renaissance/baroque style artworks, since lighting in such pictures tend to be superb, and the attention to details absolutely astonishing. In general I like art with lots of effort and training behind it - these days there seems to be a lot of nobodies doing weird shit for the sake of weird, without much thought or craftmanship behind it, and I really don't appreciate that.
On January 20 2011 10:14 sushiman wrote: The Mona Lisa is a typical example of the amount of perfection in composition that developed during the renaissance. If you look at it as just a portrait, comparing it to later paintings, it might not look like much, but the way it's built up, the lighting, facial features and attention to details, it's really quite a spectacular piece of art for its era. As for artists such as Picasso, one should know he was extremely talented when it came to realism, but broke away from that genre in search of something new and innovative. Cubism and other modern art can probably be hard to appreciate unless you know the thought behind it, but it's also about colours and composition; especially how colours contrast and complement eachother. In essence, it's art that goes against the traditional standards of art just for the sake of doing just that, but at the same time being very skillfully made.
I personally prefer prefer the more classical renaissance/baroque style artworks, since lighting in such pictures tend to be superb, and the attention to details absolutely astonishing. In general I like art with lots of effort and training behind it - these days there seems to be a lot of nobodies doing weird shit for the sake of weird, without much thought or craftmanship behind it, and I really don't appreciate that.
I agree, I prefer Baroque paintings. They have such nice theatrical spectacle and I love the dramatic diagonal compositions.
On January 20 2011 09:21 DrainX wrote: I'm not sure why, but I love Goyas paintings. These two especially. + Show Spoiler +
I love the contrast between Goya's early work and his later paintings. You can tell something profoundly disturbing must have happened in his life to affect him so. I read that his wife died, but I don't know if that is true.
I like Goya's Saturn, but I was more impressed by Ruben's version: + Show Spoiler +
So different from Ruben's usual paintings (which I don't usually like).
One of my friends is an artist, and her creative process has really soured me to the current state of the profession. She throws together colours and textures, and then looks for meaning in her work. She does have some ideas before hand, but each painting is kind of a stream of consciousness.
That said, I went to 798 when I was in Beijing and it was fantastic, so there is some amazing art being made these days.
Here is a sample of my friend's work, I know some people really like it, but it isn't what I look for in art. + Show Spoiler +
For the record, even after watching and thinking its awesome, I still think beauty is quite a subjective thing and theres not really something like good art nor bad art. There is however good and bad design but that I feel is no longer relevant since they are completely different things
alot of new art is absolutly bullshit, i went to the googinhiem in new york and there was a work of "art" called fuzzy warm light it was just a fourecent light on the ground. the problem with most art is that each artist is trying to be edgyer then the last guy its getting fucking silly
He uploads some of his stuff on deviant art occasionally, he's an artist from I believe Israel who's now living in Florida. He's a master of color and using the palette knife. He even has a Youtube video up of him doing a painting, it's INCREDIBLE. I don't know how he manages to work saturated colors like he does, when I try it comes out like crap! Hes a beast!
(I went to the Cooper Union school of art in NYC, which is a tuition-free school that's one of the most competitive art schools in the world. That'll be my "I'm 2700 diamond!" preamble to lend me credibility)
Art (by my own definition, of course) is any object that's supposed to represent an abstract idea, and not just itself. You'll notice that this encompasses pretty much anything anybody calls art or otherwise assigns a secondary meaning to. All you have to do to make art is call it art.
This sounds very counter-intuitive for most people, because they are accustomed to the idea that art is a higher form of expression, or that there's some kind of mastery or genius involved. Art historians and art critics are responsible for that part of the equation; they reinforce the idea of art as a tradition that is culturally and historically significant. When you call something art, it is put in context of everything that has ever been considered art, and others who are part of that culture can choose to elevate it or expand upon it.
Art as a label does not mean "good" or "creative", and art as a concept is just a form of expression with a lot of tradition (that the artist may or may not agree with, but always acknowledges). It seems a bit redundant to say it, but "good art" is just a collection of opinions... nobody has to give a fuck.
Anyways, a good way to appreciate or "understand" art is to read up on the history around it: what was happening in the artist's country at the time, what kind of philosophy was emerging, what books were written, etc. Taking in art as a purely visual experience is not a good idea, because chances are they were made in a different era with a dramatically different cultural climate, and you probably possess a much different visual and emotional "vocabulary" than the artist.
TL;DR
If actual art was starcraft 2, then what people call "art" would be the SC2 strategy forum. Just because stuff gets posted doesn't mean that it's of any value to you. Go out and get your own ideas.
art is completely subjective. however some pieces are looked back on as greats because they were innovative of the time or a masterpiece from an aritst. @ the picture with the 4 girls, i think its unbalanced towards the left and its rather distracting, but thats just me =D
The Mona Lisa is a painting with amazing technique and a lot of subjective themes. You most likely have to try painting to really appreciate how Leonardo is one of the painters with the best technique in the history of art. If you have never tried painting before, if you have never read on art history then it's incredulous to ask of you to appreciate the genre the way everyone says you should. If you don't dwell into the subject then it's just telling you it's good the way vegetables are good.
Saying "the Mona Lisa looks average to me" is like saying Beethoven sounds like average classical music to me.
Oh and as a side note. Art is a concept that has changed dramatically over time. Until only recently art meant technique, the application of knowledge (science). Much the same difference between science and engineering today.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 +
@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. 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.
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.
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)
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.
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: Frederic Edwin Church: Thomas Cole:
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
I did a trip to New York this summer and never really having seen much art before that I was blown away by the shear numbers of quality paintings/sculptures/photographs that I managed to see. If you think art is crap I really encourage you to go to some of the great art cities like NY, Paris, Barcelona etc and see it for your self. Art is like music ment to be seen live.
Personally I really like Picasso after reading about him and really understanding what times he was living in and what his life looked like. I think you really have to understand the artist to understand the art.
There is nothing like "good" or "bad" art, theres only popular and unpopular art. If someone important (either a well known "art-expert" or a famous rockstar) likes the paintings/sculputres, bang, there you go, its considered art and will get expensive.
Friend of mine is into painting animes n stuff, does great character & story writing as well. i see no real difference between his and a japanese work, but hes not making a single buck out of his work.
If we're to follow Bourdieu's philosophy based on Kant, your appreciation of art depends on your cultural capital. Ones appreciation of art is very much based on social influences - primarily your family and upbringing, but your education, friends and life experiences are also major points of influence. Wether someone thinks a particular type of art is 'good' or 'bad' is based entirely on a persons cultural capital - a person of low cultural capital would appreciate things a person of high cultural capital wouldn't, and visa versa.
Now, the difference between low and high cultural capital depends on how a person uses and interprets art. For low cultural capital, art is interpreted by emotion - a piece is judged by how much it moves you, how much it reminds you of familiar situations or at least situations that one can empathise with. Examples of low cultural capital art would be the pictures above me - kitchy pictures that show romanticized situations meant to appeal to emotion, having the person go "Oh, living like that would be wonderful" or "That's just like the stories grandpa used to tell".
On the other side of the spectrum, a person with high cultural capital evaluates art without the emotional focus. Yes, emotion may play a part in a person's appreciation of a piece of art, but that's not the main focus of intepretation of art for a person of high cultural capital. Focus points could be composition, coloring and lighting, or social commentary, or cultural references to other art.
While low capital appreciates art in their own terms, high capital appreciates art on the art's terms. This causes low capital-viewers to be far less observant to the nuances of a piece of art than that of a person of high cultural capital. While a person of low cultural capital would see how a piece of art applies to their own life and own emotions and thus have a very self-centered view of the piece, a person of high cultural capital would look to non-selfbased factors such as picture composition, color choice, perspective and lighting which might give deeper insight into the intentions of the artist.
I guess you can say that the further 'up' the scale of cultural capital a person is, the more tools of interpretations are available to him or her. With low capital, only a nuance of the intent of the art is fathomable for the viewer, meaning the person misses out on a lot of its meaning.
I asked my art history roommate and she had a good answer:
"Famous / Important art is not necessarily aesthetically beautiful art. Famous / Important art is contextual to that time period, and they influence all art after them."
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.
Art and music is about emotions. People are allowed to dislike your music, Stalin. You don't have to get defensive about it - just get on with your life. If the music inspires you, that's enough.
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. His paintings brings out the core emotions, a really good example is his painting of Guernica
Its about Spain letting the Nazi's bomb one of its towns
I immediately thought "Elfen Lied!" When I saw your second picture. What's up with these art creations with a man eating what seems like a baby? (enlighten me!)
On January 20 2011 14:31 Friloux wrote: 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.
I gotta agree with this, I particularly enjoyed these when I was at the Louvre:
This is all about one's perspective. I personally find most paintings to be very uninteresting while finding most sculptures to be intriguing. When I do like paintings usually they are about architecture and not normally about people. I wish I had my college art history book with me so I could look up a few photos of the ones I really like.
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.
Art and music is about emotions. People are allowed to dislike your music, Stalin. You don't have to get defensive about it - just get on with your life. If the music inspires you, that's enough.
I immediately thought "Elfen Lied!" When I saw your second picture. What's up with these art creations with a man eating what seems like a baby? (enlighten me!)
... it's called the Kiss. It's a portrait of a man and a woman in an erotic embrace.
Maybe you're thinking of a painting called Saturn Devouring His Son. That's a mythological reference.
Traditional or cultural art is just like fashion, it only appeals to rich elitist snobs who are willing to spend millions on something humans put a high value on. And which has an Intellectual property and high standing at the top of societies hierarchy but in a sense the materials itself are rather worthless and say expensive fur is such an insane waste of resources.
This reminds me during WW2 the Nazi's looted and stole priceless art and I remember there was some documentary on how there were special troops deployed on the allies side to try and save as much art as possible and how they risked their lives for it. When saving art becomes a higher priority than saving the lives of soldiers you have a fucked up god complex. Art should be admired for what it is but not valued above human life, art is such a novelty but that's me.
@Quotidian I'm not really interested in art so I shouldn't really have an opinion about it, but what I mean is art is really overrated and while the average person may enjoy it's beauty. I don't think most people in the world care about it and value it so highly as all those elitist snobs you see on TV shows. I've never meet a person that was interested in art or fashion but every wealthy person you see on TV lives by it as if it's bigger than life itself and spends $$$ millions on it and to me that's just a fucked up point of view.
On January 20 2011 22:34 ChaseR wrote: Traditional or cultural art is just like fashion, it only appeals to rich elitist snobs who are willing to spend millions on something humans put a high value on and has an Intellectual property and high standing at the top of societies hierarchy but in a sense the materials itself are absolutely worthless and say expensive fur are only an insane waste of resources.
Not sure what youmean by "traditional or cultural art," but that might be true in Norway, because we're completely culturally backwards here... for some reason we distrust cultural expressions that demand something of the viewer. We're afraid of the notion of elitism, even when elitism is a positive thing. In the UK, the amount of people who go to museums rivals the amount of people who go to football matches. Sure, only the rich can afford to buy (most) art, but that doesn't mean that people from every part of society can't enjoy it.
The problem with art - and by that I mean contemporary art - is that you can't be taught why it's good or important unless you're open to it already, as a concept. And gaining understanding of it is a slow process. It takes time to understand why what Duchamp did was important, and it takes time to understand how Duchamp leads to artists like Mike Kelley or Mary Kelly.
And considering most artists are anything but rich, I don't think your initial statement is true at all. Artists may be cultural elitists, but that's a good thing. There's nothing wrong with demanding greatness or aspiring to it, though unfortunantly very few artists do nowadays.
Also, you have to realize that a pretty picture is not necessarily art. It sounds dismissive because it's usually meant to be dismissive by assholes, but making something look good is different from making something expressive, i.e. "I like how this looks" vs "I like what this is trying to tell me". The typical thing that holds people back from approaching a lot of artwork is that they have a "art should be beautiful" philosophy, but really their outlook is "I like beautiful things" and one shouldn't judge art objects on that criteria.
It's a matter of opinion, but "I want it to look amazing" isn't necessarily a great one to have.
Fun fact: Some say that the black blur on the lower left is the dropping hair of a suicidal woman jumping to her death. :O
I never understood why people have crazy theories for that thing on the left. I've heard like dozens of ideas.
It's just a freaking tree! He has tons of paintings with the exact same thing in it.
Obviously people are committing suicide in every painting he has ever done. lol jk I always figured it was a tree as well or perhaps some odd building, but that was when I was younger and my mind would wander in my english class which had this on the wall.
Traditional or cultural art is just like fashion, it only appeals to rich elitist snobs who are willing to spend millions on something humans put a high value on. And which has an Intellectual property and high standing at the top of societies hierarchy but in a sense the materials itself are rather worthless and say expensive fur is such an insane waste of resources.
This reminds me during WW2 the Nazi's looted and stole priceless art and I remember there was some documentary on how there were special troops deployed on the allies side to try and save as much art as possible and how they risked their lives for it. When saving art becomes a higher priority than saving the lives of soldiers you have a fucked up god complex. Art should be admired for what it is but not valued above human life, art is such a novelty but that's me.
@Quotidian I'm not really interested in art so I shouldn't really have an opinion about it, but what I mean is art is really overrated and while the average person may enjoy it's beauty. I don't think most people in the world care about it and value it so highly as all those elitist snobs you see on TV shows. I've never meet a person that was interested in art or fashion but every wealthy person you see on TV lives by it as if it's bigger than life itself and spends $$$ millions on it and to me that's just a fucked up point of view.
It does seem ridiculous that the army would risk the lives of soldier for the sake of "just" art, but I can kind of see where they're coming from - art has always been so influential on not only later pieces of art but modern culture as a whole.
It's the same idea as book burning really, there will always be people who recognise the significance of what is being destroyed and will go to great lengths to protect it.
and some of the Dutch/Flemish paintings on the top floor whose names I forget
Jacques-Louis David - Oath of the Horatii Gericault - Raft of the Medusa
Caravaggio and Vermeer are my favourites right now. I also enjoy some of the expressionists. Thing is, there has to be some kind virtuoso craftsmanship (+ Show Spoiler +
) or else i just can't appreciate it.
Some pieces of traditional art i like in particular:
Unfortunately the colors are pale. This has to really piss off every deceased artist. A big part of their paintings has already been lost.
There is a lot of great digital art being produced these days. The problem however with digital art is, that the piece itself isn't unique and therefore it's hard to actually sell or even collect it. This seems to be a vital part of art. Also, most people are biased and think that it has nothing to do with craftsmanship. While this is actually true to some extent (don't mind the contradiction), it seems that the focus is shifting towards other things such as composition and context.
Now, the real question is, how can someone actually make money with digital art without having to go into service with some random company? Because that will eventually kill the impetus to create something that is truly art, whatever that is.
there seems to be a strong correlation between people who like impressionism and people who slag on cubism, minimalism and other kinds of modern and/or abstract art. or maybe Im just imagining things.
my favorites are Kay Nielsen, Arthur Rackham and Yoshitaka Amano. Illustration is a fascinating (and for the most part lost) art form.
VV excellent post about the pitfalls of relativism right below mine. VV
I think one definite problem when speaking of art is that people have to get the notion that "everything is art because its all subjective" out of their heads. I'm currently an honors student in the last year of my Bachelor of Fine Arts and nothing is more annoying than people starting to say that art is purely based on subjectivity. This will generally be said by those who havent really studied it and have a superficial understanding about it. Its similar to telling a neuroscience-related person that we only use 10% of our brain. Its a myth and simply not true. Art is a lot more than subjective beauty because if it wasnt, Picasso and my 5 year old cousin, who draws curly smoke, would both be considered artists. Which is a bit insulting.
Marcel Duchamp's LHOOQ (Elle a chaud au cue = She's horny)
Marcel Duchamp, arguably the archetype of the modern artist, taught us that context is very important. The Mona Lisa may be boring to you but the painting has survived since the 16th century for many reasons. A true sign of a masterpiece is one which gets better every time you learn/realize something about it, every time you see it. The style in which it was drawn, the enigmatic woman with the slight smile, etc etc etc. Books have been written about this painting and its theft in 1911 brought its popularity even higher. Personally, its no where near my favorite painting but Da Vinci's genius cannot be overlooked. Same with Picasso.
This is all nice and well but let's all remember that Art is, in this day and age, a business. I wont get into that but it plays a role in what is exhibited and what is popular. One thing everyone should remember is a quote by Oscar Wilde "What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." Basically, do not confuse price and value. Gustam Klimt's The Kiss sold for 180,000,000$ only because someone was willing to pay that much. It's true value is incalculable. The Kiss by G.K.
I'm very saddened by how little I know about any kind of visual art and how little I can appreciate it -- a stark contrast to how much I love all kinds of music, listen to it, play it, watch it live, etc. I took one art history class in college, and it was one of the most eye-opening and coolest classes ever -- so please, keep posting great art and please explain why it is great :D
As cool as I thought Bernini's works were in art class, it was even cooler to see in person -- to see a life-sized 3D image of something in mid action, frozen in time, looking like it's about to burst into life once again...I marveled at the mastery of this sculpture.
On January 20 2011 21:46 plated.rawr wrote: Media studies ftw.
If we're to follow Bourdieu's philosophy based on Kant, your appreciation of art depends on your cultural capital. Ones appreciation of art is very much based on social influences - primarily your family and upbringing, but your education, friends and life experiences are also major points of influence. Wether someone thinks a particular type of art is 'good' or 'bad' is based entirely on a persons cultural capital - a person of low cultural capital would appreciate things a person of high cultural capital wouldn't, and visa versa.
Now, the difference between low and high cultural capital depends on how a person uses and interprets art. For low cultural capital, art is interpreted by emotion - a piece is judged by how much it moves you, how much it reminds you of familiar situations or at least situations that one can empathise with. Examples of low cultural capital art would be the pictures above me - kitchy pictures that show romanticized situations meant to appeal to emotion, having the person go "Oh, living like that would be wonderful" or "That's just like the stories grandpa used to tell".
On the other side of the spectrum, a person with high cultural capital evaluates art without the emotional focus. Yes, emotion may play a part in a person's appreciation of a piece of art, but that's not the main focus of intepretation of art for a person of high cultural capital. Focus points could be composition, coloring and lighting, or social commentary, or cultural references to other art.
While low capital appreciates art in their own terms, high capital appreciates art on the art's terms. This causes low capital-viewers to be far less observant to the nuances of a piece of art than that of a person of high cultural capital. While a person of low cultural capital would see how a piece of art applies to their own life and own emotions and thus have a very self-centered view of the piece, a person of high cultural capital would look to non-selfbased factors such as picture composition, color choice, perspective and lighting which might give deeper insight into the intentions of the artist.
I guess you can say that the further 'up' the scale of cultural capital a person is, the more tools of interpretations are available to him or her. With low capital, only a nuance of the intent of the art is fathomable for the viewer, meaning the person misses out on a lot of its meaning.
Erm. Bourdieu is a sociologist, the cultural capital theory is not a philosophy. Although it can be applied to media studies from a sociological perspective.
Anyway, you gave a good overall summary but I'd like to add that 'low' art does not necessarily have less meaning put into it. However, because its production is much less sophisticated, it can and is easily utilised for commercial purposes, which do not have deeper meaning.
On January 20 2011 08:49 Kazragore wrote: I would like to preface this post by saying that I know absolutely nothing about art (my last art class was in middle school), and that is why I am asking this question.
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.
Regardless, what do you think makes a painting (or other work of art) significant and beautiful? And maybe some artists around here can explain the big deal with the Mona Lisa to me haha
so you wanna talk about why van gogh is better then picasso? you´re crazy. you could also make a "cs vs bw" or "apple vs windows" thread. there is no thing like "better" just because they use the same medium. they have completely different points of view, they state completely different oppinions.
ever thought about that maybe your conservative views enjoy von gogh more, while modern chaotic ppl like the likes of picasso more or something along those lines? the goths dont like more than 3 dark colors in their pictures, the steve-jobs followers need clear cuts between colors... its only YOU that defines if he likes or dislikes some art.
you could also make a "cs vs bw" or "apple vs windows" thread. there is no thing like "better" just because they use the same medium. they have completely different points of view, they state completely different oppinions.
I think you mean "apple vs orange."
And clearly "cs vs bw" brood war would win simply by virtue that this is TeamLiquid.
On January 20 2011 21:46 plated.rawr wrote: Media studies ftw.
If we're to follow Bourdieu's philosophy based on Kant, your appreciation of art depends on your cultural capital. Ones appreciation of art is very much based on social influences - primarily your family and upbringing, but your education, friends and life experiences are also major points of influence. Wether someone thinks a particular type of art is 'good' or 'bad' is based entirely on a persons cultural capital - a person of low cultural capital would appreciate things a person of high cultural capital wouldn't, and visa versa.
Now, the difference between low and high cultural capital depends on how a person uses and interprets art. For low cultural capital, art is interpreted by emotion - a piece is judged by how much it moves you, how much it reminds you of familiar situations or at least situations that one can empathise with. Examples of low cultural capital art would be the pictures above me - kitchy pictures that show romanticized situations meant to appeal to emotion, having the person go "Oh, living like that would be wonderful" or "That's just like the stories grandpa used to tell".
On the other side of the spectrum, a person with high cultural capital evaluates art without the emotional focus. Yes, emotion may play a part in a person's appreciation of a piece of art, but that's not the main focus of intepretation of art for a person of high cultural capital. Focus points could be composition, coloring and lighting, or social commentary, or cultural references to other art.
While low capital appreciates art in their own terms, high capital appreciates art on the art's terms. This causes low capital-viewers to be far less observant to the nuances of a piece of art than that of a person of high cultural capital. While a person of low cultural capital would see how a piece of art applies to their own life and own emotions and thus have a very self-centered view of the piece, a person of high cultural capital would look to non-selfbased factors such as picture composition, color choice, perspective and lighting which might give deeper insight into the intentions of the artist.
I guess you can say that the further 'up' the scale of cultural capital a person is, the more tools of interpretations are available to him or her. With low capital, only a nuance of the intent of the art is fathomable for the viewer, meaning the person misses out on a lot of its meaning.
Erm. Bourdieu is a sociologist, the cultural capital theory is not a philosophy. Although it can be applied to media studies from a sociological perspective.
Anyway, you gave a good overall summary but I'd like to add that 'low' art does not necessarily have less meaning put into it. However, because its production is much less sophisticated, it can and is easily utilised for commercial purposes, which do not have deeper meaning.
You're right about Bourdieu of course, but since it carries on Kants principles, I'd dare clame that it can still be considered philosophy even though Bourdieu is a sociologist, no? Anyhow, that's just nitpicking as you're correct of course.
I never mentioned low or high art - only interpretation from a low and high cultural capital-based viewpoint. While the thought put into the art by the artist is of course at the center of importance, the depth of the artwork isn't solely based on the sender - I'd argue that the recipient creates a lot of the meaning based on their tools of interpretation, regardless of the artists original intent.
im sorry to say this but contemporary art is terrible imo. Someone can draw a red box in the middle of a paper and apparently that is very good art simply because of the name brand the artist carries. We all know art is supposed to be subjective, but when you walk into the contemporary art section in an art museum, it gets to be ridiculous.
But seriously, in addition to other nice paintings people posted, why can't people draw like this + Show Spoiler +
On January 20 2011 23:57 Kindred wrote: I think one definite problem when speaking of art is that people have to get the notion that "everything is art because its all subjective" out of their heads. I'm currently an honors student in the last year of my Bachelor of Fine Arts and nothing is more annoying than people starting to say that art is purely based on subjectivity. This will generally be said by those who havent really studied it and have a superficial understanding about it. Its similar to telling a neuroscience-related person that we only use 10% of our brain. Its a myth and simply not true. Art is a lot more than subjective beauty because if it wasnt, Picasso and my 5 year old cousin, who draws curly smoke, would both be considered artists. Which is a bit insulting.
It's insulting to say they're both of equal importance but you could rationalize both as being "art". What art means as an object and what it means art historically are related but they're not entirely the same thing. Subjectivity is a way for people to approach art from what it means in context of everything else as opposed to some overbearing philosophical definition. People being anti-intellectual and defensive is something different, and they'll latch on to any excuse they can find... so I find it hard to put subjectivity in that same category.
distinguishing whether art is good/bad is more important as a matter of art business/dealership than art criticism, i believe. the value of art resides only in one category: desire. this is not to say that people have different tastes, therefore what is bad for one might be good for another. no. instead, art appreciation is an exploration/reimagination of the great human experience (both personal and social). some say it is even touch of the divine. desire for these things defines art.
anyway, my personal taste: i LOOOOOVE rothko, and rego. and i cannot, for the life of me, learn to appreciate (especially drip-based) abstract paintings, like pollock. maybe someday i will.
GGzerG United States. January 20 2011 09:41. Posts 1053 Hello I'm kind of nervous to post this but here, my father is an artist , and these are some of his works, I hope you enjoy.... www.tonycacalano.com btw I love his work hehe , maybe it's just because i've been around it my whole life and he is my dad
edit : i dont know how to post pictures sorry
JESUS CHRIST! Your dad rocks! Very cleverly direct and elusive and whimsical at the same time. i particularly like To Street
PS Let me share 2 easy ways to post image:
(web) open the image link on a tab, copy-paste it on you message, and write [ img ] at the start, and [ /img ] at the end of the copied link (without spaces)
(pc) click the Upload Image link on your message window header, find your image in your pc, copy the link to your message window. xD
It's up to the viewers discretion to decide if it's "good art" or "bad art". That's why it's called art, because it can or cannot trigger certain emotions within you.
On January 21 2011 00:41 white_horse wrote: so now the attitude is that artists like rockwell are reduced to storybook illustrators?
No, they aren't, but you can't blame contemporary art for not being what you expect of it. Illustration is not a lost skill, it's just not what contemporary artists choose to use to express themselves.
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.
Why isn't it art?
Why does it have to be aesthetically pleasing? If I like a piece, not because it looks good, but for some other reason, does it cease to be art?
There is nothing pleasing about looking at this man. But the detail and precision of the roman sculptor who made it makes me appreciate and enjoy it greatly. Is it not art?
Is that Cicero? He was the best Orator of the time and owned a lot of people in any court case...
I immediately thought "Elfen Lied!" When I saw your second picture. What's up with these art creations with a man eating what seems like a baby? (enlighten me!)
... it's called the Kiss. It's a portrait of a man and a woman in an erotic embrace.
Maybe you're thinking of a painting called Saturn Devouring His Son. That's a mythological reference.
Yeah the portrait was pretty self explanatory but thank you; it just reminded me of the opening from Elfen Lied, but instead of a kiss they were just embracing each other.
On January 21 2011 00:41 white_horse wrote: so now the attitude is that artists like rockwell are reduced to storybook illustrators?
No, they aren't, but you can't blame contemporary art for not being what you expect of it. Illustration is not a lost skill, it's just not what contemporary artists choose to use to express themselves.
sure they do, they use all mediums at their disposal
On January 20 2011 12:31 nitram wrote: Zdzislaw Beksinski
Props to you man. His work is amazing. Despite what many see to be horrible, nightmarish works, I saw only wonder. His buildings really seem to be what I saw in my dreams once. XD
I think "good art" is when it impacts you in a way that inspires you. This is where the subjectivity that many speak about comes in. If a child's simple painting causes you to think, wonder and dream then that would be considered art.
What good is a million different paintings when not one touches your soul?
Art isn't subjective. If anything, it is ruled by an understanding by consensus in the art world. That consensus basically says that everything can be art, regardless of critera. Even the notion of the artist is up in the air, considering the whole artist/curator relationship.
Somebody saying "I don't like this, therefore it is not art" changes nothing.
edit: good vs bad is of course subjective. But that's a pretty mundane thing.. it's like saying a movie is good or bad, you don't really gain anything unless you're able to understand why it's good or bad.
I might just wanna say that what separates good from bad art (as in "visual" art), also applies to music, dance, architecture, and basically most kinds of art (in a general sense). In this context, I always found it interesting that "quality" of art (as in "technically skilled") does not necessarily contribute to its popularity. You might say "Well why the hell do people go to museums to see the best of the best works of art, if - after your theory - they might equally enjoy some random guy painting stuff". Here's why: Thing is, a skillful artist can create art that is considered as an achievement for human history, if the audience finds their emotions reflected in it. But by no means is a piece of art necessarily getting a huge popularity. The best example might be dodecaphonic music. It's based on a pretty recent musical theory (early 20th century) that doesn't bother implementing the melodies, intervals and harmonies that made popular pretty much all the music that is listened today (classic-pop-rock-jazz-techno-whateveryoulistento). Which leads to the widely shared opinion that it sounds plain awful. It just doesn't feel right. One might think that it's nothing that a mentally sane person could listen to for more than 3 minutes without getting a strkme (btw, that's the usual problem of people getting used to something, they look at something new in a kind of pejorative way, especially if they don't understand it). BUT - this by no means is indication for lack of quality of this particular genre of art. It just ain't made for the masses, although pretty much the majority of "theoretical musicians" admit that it's thoughtfully constructed, composed, and executed. Same reasoning also goes the other way around: There's a lot of beautiful music out there that isn't based on great instrumental skills or singing abilities. But people love it and consider it great music (and thus great art). I personally still love listening to Rise Against (check them out if you haven't, they're awesome) but I would never consider them skillful in a technical sense. You instantly hear that the lead singer had no education and that the guitar solos can be played by any child with 2 years of guitar class. BUT - I am still touched by their music, it makes me feel great, it makes me feel sad, it makes me feel angry. So there we have music that I and everyone I talked to (who isn't a biased fanboy) considers not essentially "good" (still, in a technical sense) music but definitely music that is worth listening to. Same thing applies to architecture. If you admire how the arabs built like half of the city of Granada in Spain and erected the most amazing buildings and gardens and mosques there - I heard people saying, they don't like it, but that's fine, it doesn't imply that it's not "good". Seeing someone dancing might get you aroused, even though the movements aren't based on any dance education or years of practice, just a natural sense (or talent) of how to do it. So, in short: The quality of a piece of art (however you really define "good") does not have as huge of an influence on the likability of a piece of art. If you actually like a piece of art is rather defined by if you see yourself somewhat reflected in there (sometimes without actually knowing how). If the piece has been created by a grandmaster of his class, even better. But that just makes it more enjoyable, only very few people start liking a piece of art just because it is well crafted.
I hope, I made myself at least partially clear, might have gotten a lil confusing here or there.
tl;dr - The link between the quality of art and its popularity is widely overvalued imo. And after all, it doesn't really matter. Listen to what you makes you feel good, and look at pictures that impress you. Who rly cares if it's good or bad? That's what art is all about, isn't it?
Hm... I like the direction of this discussion, let me try to put in my own measily 2 cents =)
I think art is subjective and objective at the same time, because I believe art is very much related to beauty and inspiration. It's easy for me to argue that inspiration is something that must be felt personally -- a short film may convict me to be a better person, I may find sympathy in a song, I may derive courage from a poem -- and someone else may just pass these things by, not finding any personal connection with the same pieces of art.
And then there is beauty, which I think there are some forms of which are objective -- something that awes your soul, no matter who you are, that makes you go "wow....." and you are lost within it, you are mesmerized, you are entranced. I think the human soul cannot help but be captivated by certain beautiful things -- tremendous landscapes, performance that seems superhuman, colors, harmonies and pictures that seem out of this world ... for example, a sunrise or sunset... (or a double rainbow??)
Hm, I do want to acknowledge that there are things beautiful to some and not others -- for we are all different (eye in the beholder?). But I just want to establish that there is "inspiration" and/or "beauty" inherent in all art, and that there is such a thing as "universal" beauty.
You need to study art history before making a thread like this. The Mona Lisa was a great picture for it's time, because it is the first known picture in which a woman is smiling. Before that, there were no smiling women in pictures.
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.
Hahaha... Piss Christ. As demeaning as it is I really do like the lighting But I probably also like it merely because it's demeaning.
Personally I think that any pop song that uses lyrics that aren't words (as in, the vocalist just makes incoherent noise during the song) is bad. So I guess I agree that there is certain art that is outright bad, but it's also subjective. A lot of people really like pop songs for some awful reason, so who am I to say they're bad? Especially considering I find amusement in Piss Christ.
I really don't have time to study art. But I do like some of Dali's paintings.
Also, this is SICK music:
So in summary, all art is enjoyable to someone, most art is un-enjoyable to someone else, but you're allowed to give your opinion on just how amazing or horrible you think art is no matter the context. Not that it matters at all to anyone else
I think it comes down to time. The ability to garner a human response is relatively easily, but to find a piece that maintains its potency across generations and cultures is the defining quality that sets some things apart from others. It seems more noble to appreciate art that transcends a simple moment, given that the process requires the sacrifice of the ability to commit to the more common-place joy that others find in having loose standards.
There's also the principle of artistic aftertaste, which most modern art shock pieces simply do not have. After you see a composition, there sometimes comes a wonder of how it came about. When you have something rendered so well that it defies the audience's ability to deconstruct it and replicate it by their own process of thought, you have something worthy of being good art.
The biggest problem is the fact that many people place art as a centerpiece of their identity, so therefore we have arguments in order to legitimize our passions. In the scope of things, whether something is good or bad art isn't all that important to people other than artists, who actually have to change something with their means of work or simply be destroyed by the brutal democratic nature of art in general.
On January 21 2011 00:32 white_horse wrote: im sorry to say this but contemporary art is terrible imo. Someone can draw a red box in the middle of a paper and apparently that is very good art simply because of the name brand the artist carries. We all know art is supposed to be subjective, but when you walk into the contemporary art section in an art museum, it gets to be ridiculous.
But seriously, in addition to other nice paintings people posted, why can't people draw like this + Show Spoiler +
I actually live very close to the Rockwell Museum in Vermont and I've grown up seeing his works practically everywhere. Some are quite good like the first one you posted while others are honestly very bland.
I'll take pictures of my few pieces of art when I get home. They very clearly reflect that I'm a geek.
People can "draw" like Rockwell, they just don't because they aren't asked too. He was paid alot of money to do those, something that would never happen today. The world of illustration is basically dead to large extent, at least compared to what it once was.
Sorry for the essay, but I really like discussions like this ^^. TL;DR art can be subjective depending on the audience, but becomes more objective (but not completely) the more knowledge the audience has of it, making good art the art that the people with the most knowledge think is good. There are exceptions, of course, but in general, this is how it works. How I come to this conclusion:
Art is really anything that is creative and incites an emotional response, therefore anything can be art. People feel that there is art in nature (and they would be correct, because people can obviously find beauty in physique), which comes, well, without any sort of creative intention (that we know of). Because of this, people feel art is subjective (if the art incites an emotional response from the audience, then is there such thing as non-art?)
In truth, I feel that anything can be art. But is there a such thing as bad art? Is it all subjective, relative to the audience? What makes good art good and bad art bad?
First, let's look at the creativity that goes into art. Now, not all art has to be intentional, but let's focus on that because looking at a blade of grass and feeling inspired is so godamn specific; anything that isn't intentionally art but people find beautiful usually falls into a niche, or ends up being a force of nature. So, what goes into creative design?
Aesthetic appeal (sight, sound, smell, feel, you know the senses): Artistic creation will explore the senses to connect with the audience's emotionality. Is it appealing to the senses?
Cognitive appeal: Is there a point? What does the piece of art say? Does it provoke ideas? Force questions? Is it funny? Does it make you think?
Display of skill: Is the skill required to implement this piece of art beyond average? Obviously if any joe could replicate it, then it might not be worthy as a masterpiece.
The brain often tries to find patterns, so good art usually works by exploring patterns and evoking an emotional response based on the aspects previously mentioned. The audience's experience usually comes into play because of this, due to the fact that an experience can tie reference to something and evoke an emotion -- this is why memes become so popular on the internet, because experiencing an idea and seeing it applied to something new / funny / thought provoking can be emotionally exciting.
What makes good art good is the implementation of those three aspects to some degree, and still accomplishing the basic notion that art has to incite an emotional response. If the artist is going for a minimalist approach, and therefore his technicality (display of skill) is not expansive, then usually the other two aspects are much more prominent in a good piece of art. Here is a classic minimalist piece of art:
That is a painting of Tony Smith's "Free Ride." Obviously the image is not very technical, doesn't require a lot of skill to replicate, but the ideas behind the piece are thought provoking and the aesthetic appeal coincides with the cognitive appeal. You look at the image for long enough and you start to wonder at the angles and what the meaning behind the title is in reference to the image itself.
Similarly, if a piece is very technically oriented, say Steve Vai's epic guitar playing the Aesthetic and Cognitive appeals aren't as important for it to be considered "good," or emotionally inciting. Obviously there are aesthetic aspects, and the combination of chords / progressions can incite a different response from the audience, but the thoughts behind the music aren't as important as making it sound cool and being very difficult to play.
I find that the subjectivity of art diminishes as knowledge and understanding increase. There are things that people will always find attractive; the brain is not a random mishmash of character traits and ways of thinking. Humans are much more similar than they are different, therefore, we generally appreciate the same things and dislike the same things. As your knowledge of art expands, so does your knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Any critic will say "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was a bad movie, but it still makes a lot of money because it was entertaining to some extent. In general, I have found that capitalism does not always favor the best art, just whatever the masses want to see, so you can't really base what is good and what is bad on how much money something pulls in. Keep in mind, historically, artists have been notoriously poor, with very few becoming rich and/or famous in the past. Off the top of my head, Edgar Allen Poe comes to mind, a man that died drunk and destitute without seeing any of his work becoming a success. Nowadays, most people that made it through middle school know of Poe's poetry, but the man's genius was not recognized in his lifetime. Only recently have artists been able to effectively live off of their talent, and only a fortunate few make it to superstar status.
I work at a movie theater, and I have a bachelor's degree in creative writing. With my knowledge of what makes a good story, I can confidently say which narratives are good and which are bad, but I still have preferences and I'm not 100% impartial to every genre. I can experience a story and judge it more objectively than most, however, because I know what makes a good story good, I can pick out those little nuances that reflect a skilled writer, I see all the grammatical mistakes or all the immature dialogue tags, I can see the Deus Ex Machina and judge whether it was appropriate or whether it was a cop-out. I can see when a story is relying on its audience being ignorant, or whether it is expecting it to be knowledgeable. I can see when a story has wit.
I still like my comedies, though, and I still enjoy shitty movies from time to time, but for the most part, knowledge of art makes for a more objective viewer, and therefore better at judging whether something is good or bad. Just look at the primary audience for most pop-music: young, impressionable teenagers that have a lot of expendable income (their parents' money) but not a lot of experience or knowledge of music. I would argue that most pop music is bad, because it does little in combing skill, aesthetic appeal, and cognitive appeal, but still exists due to its audience.
And so, because knowledge gives credibility to critics and such, their opinion is usually valued. There are some bullshit professions, however, like wine tasters and (some) painting critics, which have been scientifically trolled.
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.
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.
It depends I think, some people would concider a certain piece of art useless/pointless/etc., others would concider it beautiful, interesting or though provoking. It's subjective, but I think that's how the art should be in its nature.
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 :-)
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.
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.
I agree with many before me, mostly art is something that appeal to you in some way, makes you think. So it's very personal what art is and defining what is good and bad art.
In my mind Zdzisław Beksiński works is pretty incredible. + Show Spoiler +
thank you for a great read! (hope u don't mind if i place my wall of text)
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!
), i'm therefore in the third category (i watch stuff and do stuff)
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)
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'.
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'.
OP, actually yu talk about beauty for yourself. but the art is something completely different. when u know the difference, yu wont say this is beautiful. watch some entelletuels, they look a piece of for hourrs. what are they looking?? beauty? no this is art.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/l/leonardo/monalisa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Picasso_three_musicians_moma_2006.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.clarkart.edu/museum/collections/images/impressionist_07.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/starry-night/gogh.starry-night.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xtazi.com/dali/d134.jpg)
The ship - Salvador Dali![[image loading]](http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/nude2.jpg)
Marcel Duchamp - Nude Descending a Staircase![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/eyck/ghent/ghentopn.jpg)
Jan Van Eyck -Ghent Altar Piece. I can't find a high enough resolution picture to do this justice, but if you ever find one/see it in real life, the precision used to paint this is absolutely amazing. It is one of the most highly detailed paintings I've ever seen![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lae49wXkWp1qepdj8o1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/745/w500h420/CRI_3745.jpg)
Unique Forms of Continuity in Space - Umberto Boccioni![[image loading]](https://apah.wikispaces.com/file/view/Waterhouse-Hylas-Nymphs.jpg/34646581/Waterhouse-Hylas-Nymphs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.steveartgallery.se/upload1/file-admin/images/Dante%20Gabriel%20Rossetti19.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://eeweems.com/goya/saturn_1000.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/goya/goya.colossus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_STrsF-ai_UU/TGiohBSPLEI/AAAAAAAAAUA/k2MQpErziZ8/s1600/Judging-Portrait%2520of%2520a%2520Roman%2520(c80bc).jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iYQuY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://samcroasdale.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/the-devil-and-god-raging-inside-of-me.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/68/Dream_Theater_-_Octavarium.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/John_Singer_Sargent_001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Gar%C3%A7on_%C3%A0_la_pipe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HM2xa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.winterspells.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/281px-rubens_saturn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5LDmPN74ls/TOX90CdF8-I/AAAAAAAAAEs/eReiICKc3kI/s1600/Untitled%2B%2528A%2BSelf-Identifying%2BImage%2529%2B-%2B2008.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.oil-paintings-art.com/images/images%20Modern%20Art/Modern%20art003.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OilGESChvLI/SRnphWdHf6I/AAAAAAAAAdY/Nr2dea7Hl-4/s400/zdzislaw_beksinski_1983_3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ihazabucket.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/beksinski_9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/06/09.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://uniquehomesandgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sargent-John-Singer-01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3WvZtBK6TdY/TLTftUF_ExI/AAAAAAAAN1I/CVHDIKnpdxI/john-blockley-granja1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/bersini/hopper.office-night.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mindspring.com/~mc.escher/escher/escher29.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/k/klimt/kiss.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.philmcbride.com/land1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.philmcbride.com/portrait1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.philmcbride.com/portrait2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423977703_358798_frank-nitsche.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artfacts.net/artworkpics/10866b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sP3hd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/h9A92.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/QvBP8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.friloux-art.com/tl/Mona_Lisa_Louvre.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.friloux-art.com/tl/Crowd_at_Mona_Lisa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dZv0M8dmM7g/TKOYEJN9VHI/AAAAAAAAAto/DPegW_Z9Yn8/s1600/carol-bove1176732077.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.caseykaplangallery.com/artists/marlo_pascual/slides/05.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pastwillywonkainc.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/willywonkainc-15.jpg?w=500)
![[image loading]](http://marta-herford.info/wp-content/gallery/marta-sammlung/bjarne-melgaard.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.minusspace.com/logimages2008/deitch-constraction.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static2.slamxhype.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tauba-auerbach4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://bandeiranegra1.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/dash-snow-nest-room.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.noristudios.com/sketchbook/uploaded_images/bansky1-701209.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zaguarcollages.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/matthew_barney_w_s1.jpg?w=450&h=611)
![[image loading]](http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Picasso_Guitar_sheet_metal_wire_1912.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.chrisholden.info/resources/_wsb_673x790_david-napoleon-crossing-the-alps.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://arttattler.com/Images/Europe/Germany/Frankfurt/Schirn%20Kunsthalle/Women%20Impressionists/Cassatt_Summertime.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.essentialart.com/mh/Albert_Bierstadt_The_Sierra_Nevada_in_California.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.fineart-china.com/upload1/file-admin/images/Frederic%20Edwin%20Church36.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.catskillinterpretivecenter.org/gallery/Cole/ColeHomeInTheWoods.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://beckisblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/david-hockney-_a-bigger-splash-1967.jpg?w=454&h=449)
![[image loading]](http://www.c4gallery.com/artist/database/andy-warhol/disaster-series/andy-warhol-electric-chair-orange-disaster-1964.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/156/w500h420/CRI_151156.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/p/picasso/guernica.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://all-history.org/New%20Folder/325/22.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://oldmastersnewperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/david-oath_of_the_horatii-1784-600x464.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Jean_Louis_Th%C3%A9odore_G%C3%A9ricault_002.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Velazquez/Pope_Innocent_X.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sommarn%C3%B6je_%281886%29%2C_akvarell_av_Anders_Zorn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Dejeuner-canotiers.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.awesome-art.com/awesome/images/t_Monet%20-%20Umbrella.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/1885-1889_Birkenhain.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.graffiti.org/sd/tribal2004_daim_5715.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://allisonbeilke.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1024magritte-sonofman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://artmight.com/albums/classic-h/H-R-Giger/hr-giger-erotomechanics-IX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6BvHb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/japK0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vjyvi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/HDhmpTjR0qjh9zi3khExbVX4o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1295621612&Signature=F9P6Qn1y1w2RxKB3bsJ14vDu8T4%3D)
![[image loading]](http://www.inoutstar.com/images/Marcel-Duchamp-676.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.feelingeurope.eu/Images/The%20Kiss%20Gustav%20Klimt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Je2QS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Jfh9b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://artmight.com/albums/classic-n/Norman-Rockwell/Saying-Grace.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thomas-kinkade-norman-rockwell-pictures-paintings-art.com/Norman%20Rockwell-No-Swimming.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OhGhc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Kandinsky_WWI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/The_Dancing_Couple-1663-Jan_Steen.jpg)
Jan Steen: The dancing couple![[image loading]](http://redtreetimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pieter_brueghel_the_triumpf_of_death.jpg)
Pieter Brueghel: The triumpf of death![[image loading]](http://www.nicepicture.info/data/media/46/Salvador_Dali_Geopolitical_child_watches_the_birth.jpg)
Salvador Dali: Geopoliticus child watching the birth of the new man![[image loading]](http://img508.imageshack.us/i/viejoscomiendosopa.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img171.imageshack.us/i/326pxfranciscodegoyasat.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/The_Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Ophelia_1894.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/GENTILESCHI_Judith.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Lempicka_musician.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fEVDI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/V1vlN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img171.imageshack.us/i/chroniquesdepekinbenjam.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/11118923.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd-wright/fallingwater-pictures/fallingwater-1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://valemapena.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/02-guggenheim-museum-bilbao-spain.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cursodehistoriadaarte.com.br/wp-content/uploads/Steven-Holl-Museu-Nelson-Atkins.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.egodesign.ca/_files/articles/blocks/7559_seagram_building_by_mies_van_der_rohe__philip_johnson_ezra_stoller_new_york_1954_58.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.scuolamediavirgilio.it/cittanellastoria/post-ind-moderna/img/mies-van-der-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://figure-ground.com/data/mies_pavilion/0011.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Tonysmith_freeride_sculpture.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://images.ientrymail.com/famousdeaddb/ross.jpg)
Bob Ross![[image loading]](http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/572/w500h420/CRI_7572.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Caspar_David_Friedrich_032.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://towerweb.net/alt-lib/art/friedrich/oakwoodabbey2.jpg)
