Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,114 - 2,125 of 6,170
Posts 2,114 - 2,125 of 6,170
I agree; it is difficult to say exactly what is art and what is not. I, for example, can't stand those pieces such as the unmade bed that Mortuus mentioned and the pile of rubbish that was displayed not that long ago (before it got binned by a cleaner who mistook it for an actual pile of rubbish). I remember arguing with a friend about it and saying that they couldn't be classed in the same category as what I would call 'proper' artists like Monet, Constable, Van Gogh or whatever (sorry, art is not my forte so I don't know any modern artists) because to paint a lifelike portrait or a beautiful landscape takes talent, whereas even I could pile some bits of paper together and call it art. Her reply, however, was, "Yes, but you didn't." She argued that thinking up an idea such as the unmade bed or the room with lights that went on and off took a lot of creativity, and so it could still be classed as art. So there are two sides to the argument when it comes to modern art.
And of course, if we liken art to music (a subject I'm far more familiar with), at the changeovers between various musical periods there was just as much complaining about the decline in standards as there is today in art. When the Baroque period of complicated polyphonic structures ended, to be replaced by the simple chords, melodies and harmonies of the Classical period, many people hated this 'modern' music. They said that Mozart's concertos that only featured three chords could never be up to the standard of a Bach piece that had twenty different melodies interlocking and seven- or eight-note chords. Yet today we recognise that both were probably just as good as each other. So I can see a point for modern art.
And of course, if we liken art to music (a subject I'm far more familiar with), at the changeovers between various musical periods there was just as much complaining about the decline in standards as there is today in art. When the Baroque period of complicated polyphonic structures ended, to be replaced by the simple chords, melodies and harmonies of the Classical period, many people hated this 'modern' music. They said that Mozart's concertos that only featured three chords could never be up to the standard of a Bach piece that had twenty different melodies interlocking and seven- or eight-note chords. Yet today we recognise that both were probably just as good as each other. So I can see a point for modern art.
In my opinion (not that anyone really cares 
), the old style art is what I would consider Art, as Laydee has already said, it takes a great ammount of skill and expertise, as well as creativity to accomplish their work. However since my last visit to the Tate Modern, it just about confirms that Art these days is more about expressing emotion, and coming up with ideas that no one else would have thought of. I myself do not see this as art, as no skill is really involved in moving some objects around. Perhaps it should have its own category or name?
One thing I feel sure about though, is that the modern art is influenced from a young age, I did GCSE art and alot of the time I saw people creating course work pieces which were physical objects arranged, painted and crafted to represent something, I must admit I even did it myself. As long as they explain it in their written work they can attain an A grade. The skills needed to create 'masterpieces' on a canvas are not taught so much anymore and it is more determined by a persons natural ability to draw. I myself cant draw to save my life
.
), the old style art is what I would consider Art, as Laydee has already said, it takes a great ammount of skill and expertise, as well as creativity to accomplish their work. However since my last visit to the Tate Modern, it just about confirms that Art these days is more about expressing emotion, and coming up with ideas that no one else would have thought of. I myself do not see this as art, as no skill is really involved in moving some objects around. Perhaps it should have its own category or name? One thing I feel sure about though, is that the modern art is influenced from a young age, I did GCSE art and alot of the time I saw people creating course work pieces which were physical objects arranged, painted and crafted to represent something, I must admit I even did it myself. As long as they explain it in their written work they can attain an A grade. The skills needed to create 'masterpieces' on a canvas are not taught so much anymore and it is more determined by a persons natural ability to draw. I myself cant draw to save my life
.
I suggest "Hoax" as a new name for the rearranged objects Roob talks about. Its just an easy way to make money (in quantities depending on the artists ability to deceive) or get some recognition. A species I know all to well and who, after some time, seem to end up believing in their own fraud.
Which brings us back to pornography.
Which brings us back to pornography.
Isnt "Hoax" that greebo style make of clothes and skateboards etc? I am going to London again in a weeks time to go round some galleries etc (and shopping spree!), Im hoping to see more Art than Hoax
I think you are right, it is an easy attempt to make money. Im sure if I went out and arranged some objects and gave it a name I could make some money Perhaps a little project is in order 
I think you are right, it is an easy attempt to make money. Im sure if I went out and arranged some objects and gave it a name I could make some money
Perhaps a little project is in order 
I read about a study where they put up drawings some kids in kindergarten had done and invited art critics to the exhibition, without telling them the drawings were done by children.
Universally, the critics praised the work. One commented on "the maturity of the artist."
Universally, the critics praised the work. One commented on "the maturity of the artist."
With some abstract art I think the exact arrangement of shapes and colors is not important, because the point is to convey a particular mood. In other words, there could be any number of "equivalent" paintings completely different in the small details but the same when viewed as a whole. I've tried to capture this idea with abstract screen savers, where the patterns are constantly moving and changing.
I imagine that most operating systems have their own screen saver built in, you can just add whatever images you want.
With Windows, just right click on the desktop, choose Properties, Screen Saver tab, select My Pictures Slideshow, then go from there.
With Windows, just right click on the desktop, choose Properties, Screen Saver tab, select My Pictures Slideshow, then go from there.
Art is in the eye of the perceiver so utterly that even well made porn can be considered art to a porn afficianado. what do you think about professional wrestling? i figure you dont find it artistic, yeah? I used to do it for a variety show I co-hosted and came to learn it to be a rather graceful combination of dance, gymnastics, improv sketch work/building and general theatrics... not just an art, but several arts. So can be said of really most anything. A Pile of rubbish? well, if you look at it in the right way (sadly for most people this means 'in a museum or gallery') a pile of rubbish does/can carry a deeper multilayered meaning or emotional impact. if it is beheld as art then so it is.
'Art' that sends a message might not be art but propaganda. Art can be, and is, its own thing.
I went to a life drawing session (naked people) one time in college. The model that day was a girl I knew. She had a lovely body, good shape and proportions and was pretty in every way really, but what struck me the most about her looks, even nude, was her HANDS. They were just beautiful to draw. Some other people said the same thing.
I went to a life drawing session (naked people) one time in college. The model that day was a girl I knew. She had a lovely body, good shape and proportions and was pretty in every way really, but what struck me the most about her looks, even nude, was her HANDS. They were just beautiful to draw. Some other people said the same thing.
revscrj:
I tend to believe that anything becomes complex and fascinating if you let yurself get interested in it. But I also think that what makes porn porn is (at least in part) the attitude that the audience is presumed to take with respect to it.
Actually, I think porn may at times have a positive function. If a man can't see anything in a woman beyond physical sexual characteristics, then it is probably better that he stay at home and masturbate, aided by Playboy, or whatever, than that he get involved with a real woman, of whose feelings, thoughts, aspirations, and dignity he has no conception, much less concern. With some of the guys I see in transcripts, it's rather frightening to imagine them alone with a real woman! Whoever provides them with an alternative is doing a favor for some woman, somewhere!
I tend to believe that anything becomes complex and fascinating if you let yurself get interested in it. But I also think that what makes porn porn is (at least in part) the attitude that the audience is presumed to take with respect to it.
Actually, I think porn may at times have a positive function. If a man can't see anything in a woman beyond physical sexual characteristics, then it is probably better that he stay at home and masturbate, aided by Playboy, or whatever, than that he get involved with a real woman, of whose feelings, thoughts, aspirations, and dignity he has no conception, much less concern. With some of the guys I see in transcripts, it's rather frightening to imagine them alone with a real woman! Whoever provides them with an alternative is doing a favor for some woman, somewhere!
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar