|
On May 17 2012 04:28 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying producing your art in a factory does not make it any more commercial than if you produce it with a paintbrush, or a lump of clay, or a block of ice. The intent to profit is what determines whether art is commercial, not the medium.
|
On May 17 2012 02:32 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +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.
strictly speaking it started even before that.. there's always been tendencies towards deconstruction, although it gained momentum with early modernism, with for example Édouard Manet. This movement has basically always been tied to science - the light-and-shadow aspects of baroque painting is a scientific advancement over flatly lit Renascence paintings. The advancements in chemically engineered paints led to impressionism and so on.
The big, philosophical watershed moment as far as art goes is Duchamp and the readymade though, it's as significant for art as the invention of the internet was for computers.. and eventually art became linked to scientific advancements like mass production and mass media, with Andy Warhol - which Koons is basically just an extension of. Art has always been linked to the advancements of human kind. That is why art will always be relevant, even when it's viewed by the general population as "junk"
|
On May 17 2012 04:33 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 04:28 forgottendreams wrote: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. That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying producing your art in a factory does not make it any more commercial than if you produce it with a paintbrush, or a lump of clay, or a block of ice. The intent to profit is what determines whether art is commercial, not the medium.
Well then Koons would be commercial under your definition of "commercial" because he patently admits intent for mass profit for the goal of demonstrating something broader....
but I guess this argument is the very reason some people might get extremely pissed at debating art
|
On May 17 2012 04:40 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 04:33 Cel.erity wrote:On May 17 2012 04:28 forgottendreams wrote: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. That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying producing your art in a factory does not make it any more commercial than if you produce it with a paintbrush, or a lump of clay, or a block of ice. The intent to profit is what determines whether art is commercial, not the medium. Well then Koons would be commercial under your definition of "commercial" because he patently admits intent for mass profit for the goal of demonstrating something broader.... but I guess this argument is the very reason some people might get extremely pissed at debating art
That's fine, but the OP makes it sound like he's commercial because he has a factory to produce his artwork, which to me does not undermine the creative value of it whatsoever. Most commercial artists are songwriters or painters, the medium doesn't factor into it at all.
|
On May 17 2012 04:47 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 04:40 forgottendreams wrote:On May 17 2012 04:33 Cel.erity wrote:On May 17 2012 04:28 forgottendreams wrote: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. That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying producing your art in a factory does not make it any more commercial than if you produce it with a paintbrush, or a lump of clay, or a block of ice. The intent to profit is what determines whether art is commercial, not the medium. Well then Koons would be commercial under your definition of "commercial" because he patently admits intent for mass profit for the goal of demonstrating something broader.... but I guess this argument is the very reason some people might get extremely pissed at debating art That's fine, but the OP makes it sound like he's commercial because he has a factory to produce his artwork, which to me does not undermine the creative value of it whatsoever. Most commercial artists are songwriters or painters, the medium doesn't factor into it at all.
Wonder what its like to live in mediums of black and white
|
On May 17 2012 04:53 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 04:47 Cel.erity wrote:On May 17 2012 04:40 forgottendreams wrote:On May 17 2012 04:33 Cel.erity wrote:On May 17 2012 04:28 forgottendreams wrote: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. That's not what I was saying at all; I'm saying producing your art in a factory does not make it any more commercial than if you produce it with a paintbrush, or a lump of clay, or a block of ice. The intent to profit is what determines whether art is commercial, not the medium. Well then Koons would be commercial under your definition of "commercial" because he patently admits intent for mass profit for the goal of demonstrating something broader.... but I guess this argument is the very reason some people might get extremely pissed at debating art That's fine, but the OP makes it sound like he's commercial because he has a factory to produce his artwork, which to me does not undermine the creative value of it whatsoever. Most commercial artists are songwriters or painters, the medium doesn't factor into it at all. Wonder what its like to live in mediums of black and white
???? I don't even understand what you're trying to argue with me. I think you must either have a problem with understanding or communicating words, because we're not seeing eye to eye here.
If the goal is to profit, it's commercial art. The commercialism of the art is proportionate to how much you're incentivizing money over personal creative freedom. It's a fairly obvious and ubiquitous definition which does not mention the medium of artwork at all. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
|
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong
|
On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong
Basically this.
I can see why the confusion might arise but it still reeks of ignorance regarding the topic at hand.
|
On May 17 2012 05:10 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong Basically this. I can see why the confusion might arise but it still reeks of ignorance regarding the topic at hand.
you seem like a cool guy, we should hang out.
this is now a bromance thread
|
On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong
No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology.
If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them.
|
On May 17 2012 00:48 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 01:48 Deadlyhazard wrote: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. ![[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 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.jpghttp://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1368/pathfromkernphysikalisc.jpgI 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.
I didn't mean subtlety in life as in capturing the moment, I meant really in the values of the painting (from a technical level). A person is manually controlling what technology can not as of right now. The camera dictates the value arrangements and does not capture a lot of subtle things. Waterfalls are a good example of this. Cameras tend to harden edges too much (and thus making it not look so much like a waterfall) and also capture more detail than a human eye would see. The camera sees life differently than a human being. It does not have peripheral vision and thus tends to hardens edges everywhere even when things are directly in-front of it. It often tends to shoot shadows more towards black (heavy desturation) than what you could see and paint in real life. In most photographs that are taking picture of a contrasting area (such as outdoors), they blow out the light values and the dark values to extremes and miss subtlety in the edges.
The interesting thing about painting is that, with enough technical mastery, you can really make something look like it's directly from life because you're painting what you see, unlike a camera which takes in detail all at once (the human eye, again, doesn't work like that). So you can paint what an eye sees with your globs of color value, rather than what a camera sees. But then you have art that copies photographs...............and it looks like photographs.
hyperrealismphotographypaintings
Not something painted or drawn from life which is very different. It's something that's very hard to see if you haven't had much experience with both mediums or haven't been to a lot of galleries and looked with an educated eye.
|
On May 17 2012 06:55 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology. If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them.
im guessing you're between 20 and 28, male, live on the western half of the states, and have no arts degree.
|
On May 17 2012 07:37 WackaAlpaca wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 06:55 Severedevil wrote:On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology. If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them. im guessing you're between 20 and 28, male, live on the western half of the states, and have no arts degree.
East coast, actually.
That issue is not unique to the arts. Plenty of disciplines confiscate words, change their meanings into something technical within that discipline, and try to reprimand laymen for using the normal definition of the word. It's pretentious and absurd, but an easy excuse to flaunt your knowledge.
|
The thing that people forget about art of all forms (theater, movies, paintings, sculpture, drawings, music) is that most of it has been, is, and continues to be junk. What we remember are the truly great pieces, and we forget the other 97% that is garbage.
Case and point: 60's music.
|
On May 17 2012 09:13 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 07:37 WackaAlpaca wrote:On May 17 2012 06:55 Severedevil wrote:On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology. If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them. im guessing you're between 20 and 28, male, live on the western half of the states, and have no arts degree. East coast, actually. That issue is not unique to the arts. Plenty of disciplines confiscate words, change their meanings into something technical within that discipline, and try to reprimand laymen for using the normal definition of the word. It's pretentious and absurd, but an easy excuse to flaunt your knowledge.
I can see where you are coming from. But if one wishes to have a somewhat intelligent discussion about "modern art" as the OP seem to have intended, then I maintain that you should at least put an effort to become knowledgeable enough to be able to distinguish between terms like modern and postmodern. And I strongly disagree with you that it's a merely technical, pretentious distinction; IMO it's a fundamental distinction -- something that encompasses not just this "discipline" (as you seem to imply) but almost all of human endeavors in the last century.
|
On May 17 2012 07:37 WackaAlpaca wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 06:55 Severedevil wrote:On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology. If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them. im guessing you're between 20 and 28, male, live on the western half of the states, and have no arts degree.
Kinda ironic that this actually describes me instead... 
|
it also applies to almost half of TL userbase.
took a shot.
pointless discussion here on the naming of things - "modern" is just a word, whatever it is used for matters not. In this particular case 'modern' means something other than what it was being used as.
I do enjoy the modern art movement though, and many aspects of post modernism are quite nice aswell. Shame people don't get good enough education in public schools - but i guess art history isnt exactly a big seller in the elective scene >.>
|
On May 17 2012 09:13 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 07:37 WackaAlpaca wrote:On May 17 2012 06:55 Severedevil wrote:On May 17 2012 05:03 WackaAlpaca wrote:
almost every single image in your post is POST MODERN
god damnit almost every single person who says 'modern art' is wrong No, they are not wrong. They are simply not using your preferred set of unintuitive terminology. If historians told me that the 'modern era' ended in the seventies, I'd laugh at them. im guessing you're between 20 and 28, male, live on the western half of the states, and have no arts degree. East coast, actually. That issue is not unique to the arts. Plenty of disciplines confiscate words, change their meanings into something technical within that discipline, and try to reprimand laymen for using the normal definition of the word. It's pretentious and absurd, but an easy excuse to flaunt your knowledge.
every field of expertise has its own vocabulary that has developed through the discourse of the specific field. It's not pretentious or absurd, and it's certainly not an excuse to "flaunt" anything. It's just an attempt at precision.
|
A bunch of academics fapping to their own esoterism, and cynical hacks making money off of them.
|
cant really enjoy "modern" art. I much prefer paintings from people like Spitzweg or other old classics. In some way artists ,like the ones mentioned in the OP and especially that guy with the blue dog statue, come off as people who just make simple crap and then try to philosophize the reason of life into it and actually manage to fool people to believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
