|
On May 13 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course, 'modern art' is like the vaguest thing ever. There's plenty of modern art that is incredibly skillful and badass. But that's usually not what people talk about.
![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/xWSbymrXHnFYFRs7DDkqjjWZpDbU*gtx*HjJJaTPep4FhVh2ec9CsFX38UMm4IwzIfC1QMawlzLqROF8SlD4rXE1g0b*myrl/BrianDettmer1.jpg)
Brian Dettmer
---
But then again, visiting churches and seeing all the "skillfull" and "technical" paintings became boring really fast. There is really hardly any content, just paintings of biblical events or people (I generalise of course). Nowadays we have photos, so realistic impressionist paintings without content are boring and maybe outmoded imo.
What I mean by content is something like expressionist stuff or something that'll be a good photo anyways, for example:
![[image loading]](http://www.oilpainting-frame.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new21/Joaquin%20Sorolla-847979.jpg)
Edit: Forgot to add that imo it doesn't need to be 'technical' to 'have content'. I really like banksy's stuff.
|
I really don't like a lot of the modern art that I've seen, like that Koons fellow, the pieces are lovely, BUT I'LL BE DAMNED if hes allowed to be counted as an artist. Thats like me conscripting a street artist to paint something and me going around yelling "Look how artistic I am! I'm sooo good!"
Generally I'm of the sort who believes that art should strike a combination of form and content, and modern art seems to really overshadow form with content, which leads to meaningless and hideous blobs of 'wtf.' that have some incredibly complex meaning that noone could ever really derive from that hideous blob of 'wtf.'
I can appreciate some modern art, but only if theres any sort of thought given to the form and not solely to the content.
Like the picture JieXian posted, that is a GORGEOUS piece of artwork, its got a superb form and it's content is far from being meaningless or particularly difficult and vague.
I just wish people would differentiate between GOOD modern art and BAD modern art.
Seriously though, Koons is not an artist.
EDIT: I also hope that eventually we can start to incorporate more game art into the non-game art world, because I love game art and the ability for a piece of conceptual game art to tell a story has always made me swoon. <3 <3
|
mr. brainwash eveolved into something cool. if only i didnt see the documentary "exit through the gift shop" and know that he stole his ideas it from other artists, banksy mostly, and was horrible at art to begin with, then i think i could appreciate him more. but me looking at it from afar, i like what mbw is doing. it is so timely and energetic.
|
The best thing about art is that the great pieces stand the test of time. I personally think that most modern art is not good enough. But time will tell.
Also, I am always interested about the shift in priorities: Artist do not seek beauty anymore, but insted they seek originality, or novelty. But maybe when there is so much of it, novelty just becomes old. Just my thoughts though.
|
On May 14 2012 00:15 Zambrah wrote:
I really don't like a lot of the modern art that I've seen, like that Koons fellow, the pieces are lovely, BUT I'LL BE DAMNED if hes allowed to be counted as an artist. Thats like me conscripting a street artist to paint something and me going around yelling "Look how artistic I am! I'm sooo good!"
Generally I'm of the sort who believes that art should strike a combination of form and content, and modern art seems to really overshadow form with content, which leads to meaningless and hideous blobs of 'wtf.' that have some incredibly complex meaning that noone could ever really derive from that hideous blob of 'wtf.'
I can appreciate some modern art, but only if theres any sort of thought given to the form and not solely to the content.
Like the picture JieXian posted, that is a GORGEOUS piece of artwork, its got a superb form and it's content is far from being meaningless or particularly difficult and vague.
I just wish people would differentiate between GOOD modern art and BAD modern art.
Seriously though, Koons is not an artist.
EDIT: I also hope that eventually we can start to incorporate more game art into the non-game art world, because I love game art and the ability for a piece of conceptual game art to tell a story has always made me swoon. <3 <3
i get what koons is trying to do. he is just being commercial/practical in the time when money runs everything. but he is MOST DEFINITELY NOT AN ARTIST.
|
It may not work for everyone, but I think this way:
The artistic merit of a work is constrained by the likelihood of creating the same effect unintentionally.
I came up with that criterion after getting quite cross with smug people arguing along the lines of "The fact a piece elicits emotion, even if that emotion is anger at the piece being called art, qualifies it as art".
Lots of things I see elicit emotion. A heap of dog shit left on the pavement by an irresponsible owner elicits emotion. By my reckoning, cutting out that square foot of befouled pavement and putting it in a gallery would not make it art, because the same effect could be replicated unintentionally.
A similar argument applies for flinging paint at a canvas and related activities. Here a case can be made for the artist judging where to aim, which colours to use, and when to stop. However, I reckon it wouldn't take many completely random attempts to hit upon something people would start to project meaning into and thus call art. To me, if the person doing the looking is doing most of the work, he's the artist, not the person throwing the paint.
|
People want to be hip and original, and so by these days they are completely forced to do absurd or meaningless or just plain bad art. If you need to be told from the outside what the purpose or meaning of a piece of art is, in other words if you can't find the meaning or purpose or emotion in the art itself, then to me it's shit art. Most modern art could have practically any meaning depending on how you wanted to interpret it, and while some people think multiple interpretations are a good thing, I just think that's a definition for "meaningless."
|
Who cares about 'interpretation'? Any art can be interpreted. Skill and technique are far more impressive imo, and they set the standard for objectivity.
|
On May 14 2012 00:07 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course, 'modern art' is like the vaguest thing ever. There's plenty of modern art that is incredibly skillful and badass. But that's usually not what people talk about. Brian Dettmer --- But then again, visiting churches and seeing all the "skillfull" and "technical" paintings became boring really fast. There is really hardly any content, just paintings of biblical events or people (I generalise of course). Nowadays we have photos, so realistic impressionist paintings without content are boring and maybe outmoded imo. What I mean by content is something like expressionist stuff or something that'll be a good photo anyways, for example: Edit: Forgot to add that imo it doesn't need to be 'technical' to 'have content'. I really like banksy's stuff.
I don't understand your comment about photographs. Photographs can never be technically as realistic as an extremely masterful painting, but photographs don't have the same range of values that real paintings do. Oil pigments from life contain a larger dark-white (if you think in value terms) scale than photographs. Another thing is that photographs tend to distort perspective, and have many many problems capturing subtlety in the shadows such as the warmth of reflected light (as one example). Photographs at their current time can not be as technically sound as an extremely well handled oil painting. That's why some people tell you to view paintings in real life versus a photograph of a painting, because there's so much more to see in it.
|
On May 15 2012 01:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 00:07 JieXian wrote:On May 13 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course, 'modern art' is like the vaguest thing ever. There's plenty of modern art that is incredibly skillful and badass. But that's usually not what people talk about. Brian Dettmer --- But then again, visiting churches and seeing all the "skillfull" and "technical" paintings became boring really fast. There is really hardly any content, just paintings of biblical events or people (I generalise of course). Nowadays we have photos, so realistic impressionist paintings without content are boring and maybe outmoded imo. What I mean by content is something like expressionist stuff or something that'll be a good photo anyways, for example: Edit: Forgot to add that imo it doesn't need to be 'technical' to 'have content'. I really like banksy's stuff. I don't understand your comment about photographs. Photographs can never be technically as realistic as an extremely masterful painting, but photographs don't have the same range of values that real paintings do. Oil pigments from life contain a larger dark-white (if you think in value terms) scale than photographs. Another thing is that photographs tend to distort perspective, and have many many problems capturing subtlety in the shadows such as the warmth of reflected light (as one example). Photographs at their current time can not be as technically sound as an extremely well handled oil painting. That's why some people tell you to view paintings in real life versus a photograph of a painting, because there's so much more to see in it.
Don't you have it reversed? Like photograph can technically capture reality realistically, while a masterful painting can capture something else, like the "soul" of reality or something.
|
On May 15 2012 01:37 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 01:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On May 14 2012 00:07 JieXian wrote:On May 13 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course, 'modern art' is like the vaguest thing ever. There's plenty of modern art that is incredibly skillful and badass. But that's usually not what people talk about. Brian Dettmer --- But then again, visiting churches and seeing all the "skillfull" and "technical" paintings became boring really fast. There is really hardly any content, just paintings of biblical events or people (I generalise of course). Nowadays we have photos, so realistic impressionist paintings without content are boring and maybe outmoded imo. What I mean by content is something like expressionist stuff or something that'll be a good photo anyways, for example: Edit: Forgot to add that imo it doesn't need to be 'technical' to 'have content'. I really like banksy's stuff. I don't understand your comment about photographs. Photographs can never be technically as realistic as an extremely masterful painting, but photographs don't have the same range of values that real paintings do. Oil pigments from life contain a larger dark-white (if you think in value terms) scale than photographs. Another thing is that photographs tend to distort perspective, and have many many problems capturing subtlety in the shadows such as the warmth of reflected light (as one example). Photographs at their current time can not be as technically sound as an extremely well handled oil painting. That's why some people tell you to view paintings in real life versus a photograph of a painting, because there's so much more to see in it. Don't you have it reversed? Like photograph can technically capture reality realistically, while a masterful painting can capture something else, like the "soul" of reality or something.
No, that's what the misinformed public thinks. There's a reason digital art can't have the same depth of value that an oil painting can -- because technology right now doesn't go as far as black ---> white on the value range as something in real life can. Photographs transcribe light in what it views, it does not capture actual value and misses subtley that real life offers. That's why when you see a photograph, you don't mistake it for something that's in actuality -- just a representation of that reality.
Tromp L'oiel is something good to search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompe-l'œil
Seeing this in real life can fool your eye. A photograph can not do that because it doesn't have the range of values that something in real life does or a painting. Another thing to note is that paintings can't capture actual values either -- but they still have a larger range of value than a photograph. Real life's values have yet to be mimicked. We can not photograph or paint a picture of the sun, because it is too high in value for us to reach.
And as for the soul thing, that's something personal. I paint for 8-12 hours a day, on free days. I study painting religiously. I love photography too -- it's an art form but I feel it's less of a craft because it's not as hard to pull off as a strong painting is. Personally, I don't fully need a narrative or 'soul' in a picture to appreciate it. I love technical works from the old masters -- just studies. Nothing meaningful, but really deep in their construction of visual space.
http://www.zhaomingwu.com/
This contemporary artist has wonderful works and studies on his website. Check 'em out. If you want soul, there's some soul! His edge control is AMAZING.
|
On May 15 2012 00:04 Umpteen wrote:
It may not work for everyone, but I think this way:
The artistic merit of a work is constrained by the likelihood of creating the same effect unintentionally.
I came up with that criterion after getting quite cross with smug people arguing along the lines of "The fact a piece elicits emotion, even if that emotion is anger at the piece being called art, qualifies it as art".
Lots of things I see elicit emotion. A heap of dog shit left on the pavement by an irresponsible owner elicits emotion. By my reckoning, cutting out that square foot of befouled pavement and putting it in a gallery would not make it art, because the same effect could be replicated unintentionally.
A similar argument applies for flinging paint at a canvas and related activities. Here a case can be made for the artist judging where to aim, which colours to use, and when to stop. However, I reckon it wouldn't take many completely random attempts to hit upon something people would start to project meaning into and thus call art. To me, if the person doing the looking is doing most of the work, he's the artist, not the person throwing the paint.
I think that's a good definition for artistic merit; like a lot of people here I have serious objections towards treating certain "paintings" as art when they look nearly identical to someone randomly throwing paint on a canvas. We need something to differentiate the two; art that actually produces meaning vs something that doesn't, and which the viewer has to force meaning onto.
It just seems like artists are running out of ideas (just as in philosophy). So instead of trying to find a new way to frame things, they've moved onto creating random jumbles of objects, or just funky looking things, that have no explicit meaning but which people can read into thousands of meanings if they try really hard. It just screams of an intellectually lazy movement that is almost a parody of itself...no longer do artists have to do anything explicitly meaningful. Just let people create the meaning themselves.
What I do like about some modern (recent) art though...is that its exploring the use of new materials to create some beautiful pieces. And some of these works of art do have a purpose, or show something interesting. I think that's probably going to be the next step in art, making use of more advanced technology & techniques to create new ways of seeing things.
|
On May 14 2012 00:01 Garm wrote:Modern art is too wide a term to say anything categorical about. However, there's a certain part of it, I guess, that kinda bothers me. Shit like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y6iaU.jpg) I just cannot get myself to see the vaue in this. Commenting on a meaningless, shallow society by making something meaningless and shallow just seems like a waste of time. And while I'm sure some of these artworks have meaning for the people who made them, this movement has opened the doors for countless uninspired hacks to throw some shit on a canvas and make a quick buck off of it, because to the outside wiever it is impossible to tell the artist's intension.
when i was a younger artist, i used to think the same way as you did regarding that type of 2d imagery. after my composition and color class i am taking this semester, i've started to appreciate it a bit more, since if you take any famous painting or illustration, and you break it down into to it's most basic elements, it's all just shapes, values and sometimes color/color temperature. subject matter not the most interesting, but i certainly appreciate the arrangement of shapes a lot more than i would have 2-6 years ago.
i don't find any interest in a lot of the 3d installations in the post-modern contemporary fine art world. it's gotten very pretentious in a way that is very frustrating. some of the 2d stuff has some interesting composition ideas, but i usually won't find a lot of interest in the subject matter, like in the image above.
some of the issue is context of presentation too-- a lot of poop presented as gold, and people treat it as such, while sometimes a lot of masterful illustrations are presented in more "blue collar" settings like comic books or magazine spreads and end up regarded as garbage by so called art critics.
i suppose it's just the nature of the beast. from the business perspective, it needs to sell, whether in a high end or lower end setting. it's like complaining about MVP using all-ins against Parting and Nani-- not the ideal way to win from a spectator perspective, but as a professional, his job is to win. We might not like that he's all-inning to win, but we respect the fact that he is winning in arguably the most prestigious league in SC2 right now. (however, this analogy doesn't translate perfectly when you consider that in the art world there are a lot of niche communities that have specific pinnacles of achievement)
still, i'm sure there are good contemporary modern and post-modern artists that work with good ideation and interesting process that are both original and interesting to look at. but not my normal cup of tea, and i won't necessarily be going out of my way to look for it. quite the opposite in fact: I'll be flying out to Kansas City for Spectrum Live this coming weekend and i'll be looking at a lot of contemporary illustration and painting (with a lot being of the sci-fi/fantasy genres)
|
On May 15 2012 01:48 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 01:37 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 15 2012 01:31 Deadlyhazard wrote:On May 14 2012 00:07 JieXian wrote:On May 13 2012 23:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course, 'modern art' is like the vaguest thing ever. There's plenty of modern art that is incredibly skillful and badass. But that's usually not what people talk about. Brian Dettmer --- But then again, visiting churches and seeing all the "skillfull" and "technical" paintings became boring really fast. There is really hardly any content, just paintings of biblical events or people (I generalise of course). Nowadays we have photos, so realistic impressionist paintings without content are boring and maybe outmoded imo. What I mean by content is something like expressionist stuff or something that'll be a good photo anyways, for example: Edit: Forgot to add that imo it doesn't need to be 'technical' to 'have content'. I really like banksy's stuff. I don't understand your comment about photographs. Photographs can never be technically as realistic as an extremely masterful painting, but photographs don't have the same range of values that real paintings do. Oil pigments from life contain a larger dark-white (if you think in value terms) scale than photographs. Another thing is that photographs tend to distort perspective, and have many many problems capturing subtlety in the shadows such as the warmth of reflected light (as one example). Photographs at their current time can not be as technically sound as an extremely well handled oil painting. That's why some people tell you to view paintings in real life versus a photograph of a painting, because there's so much more to see in it. Don't you have it reversed? Like photograph can technically capture reality realistically, while a masterful painting can capture something else, like the "soul" of reality or something. No, that's what the misinformed public thinks. There's a reason digital art can't have the same depth of value that an oil painting can -- because technology right now doesn't go as far as black ---> white on the value range as something in real life can. Photographs transcribe light in what it views, it does not capture actual value and misses subtley that real life offers. That's why when you see a photograph, you don't mistake it for something that's in actuality -- just a representation of that reality. Tromp L'oiel is something good to search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompe-l'œilSeeing this in real life can fool your eye. A photograph can not do that because it doesn't have the range of values that something in real life does or a painting. Another thing to note is that paintings can't capture actual values either -- but they still have a larger range of value than a photograph. Real life's values have yet to be mimicked. We can not photograph or paint a picture of the sun, because it is too high in value for us to reach. And as for the soul thing, that's something personal. I paint for 8-12 hours a day, on free days. I study painting religiously. I love photography too -- it's an art form but I feel it's less of a craft because it's not as hard to pull off as a strong painting is. Personally, I don't fully need a narrative or 'soul' in a picture to appreciate it. I love technical works from the old masters -- just studies. Nothing meaningful, but really deep in their construction of visual space. http://www.zhaomingwu.com/This contemporary artist has wonderful works and studies on his website. Check 'em out. If you want soul, there's some soul! His edge control is AMAZING.
Posts like this is why I love TL :D
To address your first point. As someone who loves photography and painting (but love music more and hence taken that path :D). I cannot agree with you more and I have said before that using a camera, feeling and knowing it's limitations, I appreciate what our eyes can do so much.
While I definitely agree with you, I think you're missing my point. I was discussing on a very generic level, that photos capture images of reality well, while for paintings, you can do a lot more than just that. If were talking about good photos and good paintings, I believe that both involve good construction of visual space, both involves large ranges of values and everything. I respect your view as a painter so please elaborate because I don't see how one range is wider than the other. Isn't it just a matter of software and equipment for photos?
About trompe l'oeil, we can agree that that's an exception because those were made for that purpose, to exploit the limitations of photos.
Thinking about it from another point of view, to me photos do capture many subtleties of life. Think flash's unimpressed meme and all kinds of photos of this type that captured that right moment (I have more examples but I'm lazy to find them because I'm sure you know what I mean.)
Of course photos are way easier, which is why, in my opinion, a painting should play on their strenghts and not try to achieve the impossible - realism - Which is why I like zhaoming's portaits a lot in contrast to only one of his landscape drawing (The Days). No matter how long you've trained, I think it's impossible beat a photographer with some good equipment when it comes to the strenghts of photography.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6509/42028030205324318596429.jpg
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1368/pathfromkernphysikalisc.jpg
I can understand your appreciation of technicality. It's just like music in a way. Musicians see so much more and hence appreciate music in many more ways but to me, in the end, both of them has to have soul to be at a different level than "wow he's playing 100 notes in 1 second" or some crazy jazz chords and chord changes. And just like music, sometimes the simplest things can just hit the right notes.
|
On May 11 2012 13:05 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 12:59 lorkac wrote:On May 11 2012 12:47 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:42 lorkac wrote:Modern makes me want to stab my eye with a spoon terran. It forsakes art as act of creation and simply attempt to make essays out of pictures. The piece becomes impossible to appreciate within its own merits and one has to contextualize it with very specific and very time chained anchors. Count me as one of those who will, most likely, forever hate "modern art." + Show Spoiler +Really it's just 20th Century art in general that I hate, as well as a lot of contemporary art as well. If you mean essays as those made by angry self-absorbed teens writing about how they have life all-figured out, then we have an agreement. There are great modern arts though, Lucien Freud, Paula Rego, and even Mark Rothko (technically abstract exp., but I'd choose him to represent modern art then Koons all day). Don't get me wrong--I love art. I even enjoy looking at modern art while I walk around a museum, scroll through website galleries, etc... I even find some of their messages interesting and meaningful. However--I still hate modern art. Me enjoying a piece every now and then will not quell my hatred of it. I do wish my hatred of it made me stop going to galleries... I completely understand you. I manage a small gallery myself and have been with the art "business" for a while. For me modern art is where it should be, but I think we need to sift through the garbage from the true art. Koons and Hirst and the absolute representatives of what is bad about modern art. But for every Michael Jackson and Bubbles (Koons), there is Rothko's almost religious red squares, and for every Mother and Child (Hirst) there is Rego's women.
I can write about art and the 'art industry' for hours, but I have a job to get to.
But first, it's important that we make a distinction between Modern art and Modernism (say, art from 1900 to 1960 and stragglers) and Post-Modern or Contemporary Art (starting from 1960 to 1970 until now).
The kind of art and the issues that the OP has raised (Damien Hirst and Koons) definitely falls under contemporary, while Rothko is the embodiment of Modernist, reductive, abstract expressionist painting.
|
On May 13 2012 23:24 OniGami wrote:
Modern art do seem bullshity sometimes. That Pollock guy started it all. Re above on Banksy, is he like a street artist who uses stencils? Is this considered "art" now?
Pollock came nowhere close to starting modern art, it probably started with Matisse and fauvism who began to challenge and deconstruct the usage of colors. As far as Banksy... I think he's hipster trash but each their own.
On May 14 2012 00:05 pyrogenetix wrote:
The world runs on power, and power is perceived by the general public.
Just like money only has value if people believe the government backing it has the power to support it. Just like luxury products only have value that people think it is worth. Just like stocks. Fashion.
What the fuck makes Gucci, LV, Armani so fucking expensive anyway? Is their design and quality really that high? Or is it something else that people buy into? What determines credit ratings anyway? What does a AAA rating carry in value anyway?
Modern Art is knee deep into the pissing contest along with modern fashion, global finance, international marketing etc. Everyone is just trying to sell their shit, it really doesn't matter what the fuck it is, as long as people are hyped into buying it.
Actually I can tell the difference between an Armani suit and a budget suit (night and day to me at least), difference between the quality and stitching between say Ralph Lauren and Chaps. I once used to think the difference was negligible until I actually bought some top quality stuff, although yes some is overrated. I think fine art takes a similar path, some is shock crap but alot of it involves deep thought and highly refined technique although admittedly alot of art can derive value from the rich (Koons).
Some artists like Kandinksy, Cindy Sherman or Pablo Picasso should immediately communicate to even the amatuer how much skill and innovation fine art can take.
|
Art stands on its own. If your 'art' requires preparation or explanation or expensive gallery space to have its effect, that's a red flag.
That said, a lot of old-school visual art employs great technical prowess on flat moments, such as the silk merchant's wife sitting in her room posing for a comission. Of course that'll bore most folks, unless they're studying your work to appreciate your technique rather the product itself. How about portraying transient moments, or impossible moments, or moments from an angle you could never normally perceive?
http://i.imgur.com/Kji50.jpg
|
Actually, I don't view that first guy's art as commercial. Who cares how it's produced? Art is produced in many different ways.
The most commercial "artist" right now is probably Richard Prince. Absolutely zero respect for that guy. He literally takes photographs of photographs that other people took, and then sells them for millions of dollars. I'm curious, how many people here actually consider that man an artist, if he doesn't have any sort of creative process?
|
On May 11 2012 12:31 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Finally, we get to MBW (Mr. Brainwash), Thierry Guetta, who is considered modern arts biggest "ìt" artist. I was fortunate to attend his Life is Beautiful exhibit in California a couple of years ago.
Isn't Thierry Guetta just a purely fictional character from Banksy's movie?
On May 14 2012 00:26 6NR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 00:15 Zambrah wrote:
I really don't like a lot of the modern art that I've seen, like that Koons fellow, the pieces are lovely, BUT I'LL BE DAMNED if hes allowed to be counted as an artist. Thats like me conscripting a street artist to paint something and me going around yelling "Look how artistic I am! I'm sooo good!"
Generally I'm of the sort who believes that art should strike a combination of form and content, and modern art seems to really overshadow form with content, which leads to meaningless and hideous blobs of 'wtf.' that have some incredibly complex meaning that noone could ever really derive from that hideous blob of 'wtf.'
I can appreciate some modern art, but only if theres any sort of thought given to the form and not solely to the content.
Like the picture JieXian posted, that is a GORGEOUS piece of artwork, its got a superb form and it's content is far from being meaningless or particularly difficult and vague.
I just wish people would differentiate between GOOD modern art and BAD modern art.
Seriously though, Koons is not an artist.
EDIT: I also hope that eventually we can start to incorporate more game art into the non-game art world, because I love game art and the ability for a piece of conceptual game art to tell a story has always made me swoon. <3 <3 i get what koons is trying to do. he is just being commercial/practical in the time when money runs everything. but he is MOST DEFINITELY NOT AN ARTIST.
he's absolutely an artist - your opinion simply doesn't matter. He has shown in enough museums, been represented in art books, bought by private collectors and so on to trump the opinions of anybody throwing their opinion around on the internet. No one here has the authority or clout to define who is or who isn't an artist. The art world handles that bit itself.
On May 17 2012 03:51 Severedevil wrote:
Art stands on its own. If your 'art' requires preparation or explanation or expensive gallery space to have its effect, that's a red flag.
the traditional white cube is just the best way to show and view art, just like a theater is the best place to view a play or a cinema the best place to watch a movie. That doesn't mean art that's shown in gallery spaces won't work outside of that space as well
On May 17 2012 01:06 Defacer wrote:
But first, it's important that we make a distinction between Modern art and Modernism (say, art from 1900 to 1960 and stragglers) and Post-Modern or Contemporary Art (starting from 1960 to 1970 until now).
very good point. In a lot of ways when you say "modern art" you're describing a mode of art production that is no longer relevant (same goes for post-modern art, although there is some debate and theories that say we are still living in post-modern times because of post-modernisms relationship to finance capitalism). The correct term is generally "contemporary art"
On May 17 2012 04:02 Cel.erity wrote:Actually, I don't view that first guy's art as commercial. Who cares how it's produced? Art is produced in many different ways. The most commercial "artist" right now is probably Richard Prince. Absolutely zero respect for that guy. He literally takes photographs of photographs that other people took, and then sells them for millions of dollars. I'm curious, how many people here actually consider that man an artist, if he doesn't have any sort of creative process?
his work is more diverse than that.. not my favorite artist by any means, but I certainly consider his production and conceptual approach legitimate
|
On May 17 2012 04:02 Cel.erity wrote:Actually, I don't view that first guy's art as commercial. Who cares how it's produced? Art is produced in many different ways. The most commercial "artist" right now is probably Richard Prince. Absolutely zero respect for that guy. He literally takes photographs of photographs that other people took, and then sells them for millions of dollars. I'm curious, how many people here actually consider that man an artist, if he doesn't have any sort of creative process?
You may not view Koons to be commercial but he himself does. As far who cares how it's produced? Really? Technique and production is half the game.
It's pretty easy for you guys to read up on Koons but for me he comes accross as a guy who got desperate for money, sold out and then later pretended he was playing the rich the entire time by demonstrating America's artificial addiction to the big and mass produced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
