What do you think of conceptional art?

[magical]

Just came across a few conceptual art sites on the net - like www.artinitials.com, www.onethousandpaintings.com and also one that just started this month on 07-07-07 http://www.chessboardart.com.

What do you think of these kinda projects?

To me these are interesting new angles of art focused on a big worldwide audience. By offering unique artworks it's almost sure to increase by time...if they and the projects are still known in some years...
It seems that the focus is not really the single painting - anyone can do it - but more the whole project...to be a part of it and get a unique piece of the whole thing...

[Qitsune]

Do you mean conceptual? There are a LOT of debates on CA about conceptual art (often confused with concept art.) It often degenerates, but errr generally, non-figurative art where the idea is more important than the skill put in the realisation is not held in very high consideration.

[magical]

yes, I meant conceptual art..thank you for the correction - edited it in the post but couldn't change the heading...

[MephistoLV]

Conceptional art: def: when a MOMA painting and a Dada painting love each other very much... :)

Seriously though...I think the biggest problem with conceptual art is that most of the people doing it lack credibility. When producing stuff that looks sloppily done, there is a big difference between doing it as a conscious choice to make a statement and doing it because of a lack of skills to do anything more refined. There are just too many people doing the latter, and then hiding behind their ability to pseudo-intellectualize to mask the fact that they would like to be acomplished painters and sculptors but don't know how.

I appreciate a lot of conceptual art and the philosophies behind it, but I have far less respect for those doing it who couldn't communicate their ideas any other way to save their lives.

[sgtplunder]

Of the links you have given, I cannot see myself purchasing them.. I don't really link that type of art.

[Hai]

I wouldn't even call this conceptual art. t's just people who thought of ways to make easy money. They do something that is just so incredibly easy and requires so little effort, wrap it up in big words, call it a "project" and make money. It's brilliant, but calling it art is laughable IMO. I bet the people behind this have nothing to do with art and aren't even interested in art. They're just exploiting other people's desire to own a "unique" piece of art and establish themselves in society as art-lovers or art-connoisseurs.

[chobomaster]

I love conceptual art. It's probably my favorite type of non-figurative art. Back in college I had the most fun out of doing conceptual pieces and talking/learning about them more than talking about other people's abstract paintings & sculptures (I hate most abstract art). I think if you're doing this you should be doing this for the love of discovery, much like a scientist or inventor. In conceptual art you are working purely with the idea.

[watermonster]

I don't really understand such art at this point. Seems to me conceptual art is an easy way out to claiming an 'artist' title and earning money on it without going through the painful process of acquiring artistic skill, knowledge etc.Alternatively, projecting an idea in such a distorted way so as to attract people into shelling out money, making them think they are becoming a part of this idea, becoming "sophisticated." ("I mean, there has to be a deeply imbedded meaning behind two squares on this white canvas! 8)")

[Hyskoa]

To me they inspire laughter. Pointed at the self-proclaimed artist.
Also sorrow, for the wasted canvas and paint they used.

I hope that while I'm still alive, they will ban non-art like this from existance completely so future generations don't presume we were mentally retarded.

[kev ferrara]

Ok, this is one of my hot button topics.

As artists who care about art and want to do good work, and this site is full of good dedicated artists, we shouldn't just dismiss or ignore or dislike or humor "artists" who are laying out such bullshit. We should actively OPPOSE and SEEK TO DESTROY the entire movement that they represent. That should be the goal. How each one of us attempts to get that done is a personal matter.

Understand, every time some clown is paid a million dollars for a hunk of junk and an ashtray, or a paint can full of his own excrement.. the reputation of every single artist on this board is called into question. The word "artist" has been destroyed by these disgusting hacks and charlatans. It is up to us to rebuild the word ARTIST with our work, our advocacy and our behavior.

Not only that, but every time one of these hacks gets paid a million, that is money out of YOUR POCKET, because the idiots who are led by the nose by their "art investment handlers" LEGITIMIZE bullshit art when they buy it for such large sums. It is all a game. The wanna-be-fashionable rich bobos are kept like cattle by "minders" and "handlers" who make sure their clients invest in "the right kind of art".

We must break that game up by any means necessary. This is a war people. Get on board!

This has been my opinion.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[magical]

I really like to see the controvesy.
But isn't it quite rude for any artist to claim another one claiming to be an artist ain't an artist? Who is that artist to decide? I'm sure many other artists wouldn't consider paintings others (also artists on this forum) did are art...but art is always in the eye of the one watching it - so a lot of things get labeled art.

Actually I'm sure that Picasso (don't worry, I'm not comparing these art projects to his paintings...;-)..) was not considered an artist by other artists of his time. he probably was denunciated by others, his work was not respected, probably got bad critics...Yet by now he is named one of the big artsists of his time.

That shows to me that all art (if one person considers it art or not is irrelevant) has its right to exist...there might be others who like or love the idea and invest their money in what they see as art...if people see it as art - it's art (maybe not for you...but for them..). And that's important about art that the people buying it are loving what they got and maybe find a meaning for themselves in the artwork they got...

[Jason Rainville]

Artist is such a general term that no one pays attention to it anymore. Unless you give your specific vocation (I'm a graphic designer, I'm a fine artist, I'm an abstract sculptor etc) I don't think the word 'artist' holds much power anymore. Hell, half the people I meet call themselves 'artist' and little old mundane me could draw circles around them, punch holes in their arguments like a wet napkin, and even do what they do better.

Kev, that argument goes both ways. One of them could easily criticize you for drawing derivitive and tired fantasy and wild-west cliches, turning yourself into a talented robot with no creative thought. You know that's not what I think, I think you do great stuff, but I think that's a slightly narrow view. I've met a painter fromIran who was incredible, and managed to have him for a teacher for half a semester. he believed greatly in the validity of conceptual art as a means of expression. the problem is quite a few conceptual artists manage to do such rediculous things that grabs all the attention from the good ones, the ones who really do try to put meaning into their pieces by carefully selecting every element in their art...

All in all I hate conceptual art. It will never appeal to me or move me. But I know there are SOME in that field that deserve a little respect...

Not that guy with the diamond skull though. He can go suck Vulcan's firey dick.

[kev ferrara]

Vulcan's fiery.... lol

Uh, in case you've never talked to a died in the wool conceptualist they don't believe there's any such thing as talent. They will call actual drawing skills "mere academic memesis". Why do you think Hockney got such play with his ill-researched book who's bumper sticker blurb might as well have been "the old masters cheated". (blood boiling at the thought of that book, and the New York Times giving it play, give me a minute...)

Anyhow...

The point is, my man, they have ALREADY declared war on us. 70 YEARS AGO!

They have an army of acolytes, control a bunch of schools and institutions to indoctrinate the disaffected into the bull...

This could turn into a very long discussion about their reasoning. But it has to do with politics. And of course, laziness. And the joys of snobbery. Etc.

My point is to make you aware that there was a war being waged on our beloved artforms since before we were born. The only way not to be ground down further is to beef up and get pissed. And of course, fight.

(Just as an aside, sometimes the goal of one of these charlatans is to get you to complain so it gets them more publicity. One must be counter-provocative in those cases. If somebody says Diamond Head skull, you say well there's along tradition of decorative skulls. But even though decorative art is nice, It tends to bore me. If I want to look at a Fabrege egg I'll look at one. I prefer artists who do more than decorative op-ed pieces. Then start talking about an artist you love. The point is to keep talking about artists you love. When somebody says Damian Hirst you do whatever the hell you can to get the conversation around to Vermeer, or Frazetta, or Velasquez, or The Real work is being done in concept art these days. Or mention that that conceptual shit is going out and that many galleries in new york don't want to even look at it any more...)

I will go on, if provoked...
:)

And funnily enough,whenever I show my work to a "conceptual artist", at first they're blown away, they ask who I copied from, they want to see my pencil, the look at it like deer caught in headlights...

Then they back away slowly, and maybe change the subject to politics and forget all about what they saw... And often will pretend not to remember the work the next time we talk.

Its funny how many times I've engaged with these kinds of artists. They are nice people, but VERY indoctrinated. To the point where they just spout the dogma and can't even explain it to you when you question them. Which really frustrates them because they usually presume they are smartest and most hip folk ever born, let alone in the room.

:)

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[Jason Rainville]

So you're mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFKkZtX_7V0&mode=related&search=) >:D

They may be waging war, but seeing as how their 'art' will probably never penetrate any sort of mainstream market, and anyone with common sense can see through much of their wishy-washy double talk, we at least have the masses on our side.

[dose]

I think some of it is interesting, but I'm not sure it should be called art. It's closer to philosophy. "Perceptual Philosophy" might be a better term. But, like anything else, about 95% of it is crummy, and 5% is worthwhile.

I do agree that the war declared on "traditional" art is weird (also misguided) and has had terrible repercussions, but I think that's a political issue that is mostly separate from the issue of the quality of the content.

[kev ferrara]

Sorry dose, gotta disagree. If you've read what the actual philosophy of modern to postmodern art is, you will understand that they view "quality" as a political problem. Their war IS on quality. Also on talent and Beaux arts in general and craftsmanship. Its part Marxist/Anti-American, part Feminist/Anti-Male, part Nihilist/Anti-Authority, part Relativist/Anti-quality, part Multi-Culturalist/Anti-Western..... Blah blah blah...

I hate to get into this crap because it's maddening...

nevermind..

kev

[Spiralfish]

KEV...

You bring up some very prudent points. While reading your post about dogma and indoctrination, I was reminded of a question that I encounter often.

Why isnt Illustration an art?

Why? I dont get it..... Illustration is possibly the least respected in the art world...

I dont understand, and I still dont get it.

Is it Jealousy?


Heh, Kev, you are going to get flamed so badly...

Well, He's making some good points.

When I went to first college, the art department failed anyone that was "illustrational" and would not allow them to graduate.

Illustrational was defined as representational, IE capturing an actual likeness of anything.

For example, I go through figure drawing class crits encountering a recurring series of arguements, in which I would point out a technical flaw in some one's work (head too harge, shoulder misaligned)... Only to have the teacher pass it off as style, and praise the student for their discovery.

Eventually, I was experiencing significant grade docks because I was too representational.... in a life drawing class.

So after alot of heated conversations with professors, department heads and deans,.... I transferred to art school.

Atlantis..

Situations, Schools like this exist..... They are common.....

I mean honestly, the department would not allow students that did representational art work to graduate...

If this is NOT war then I dont know what is...
.
.
.
.
.

On the topic of Conceptual Art.

There are some very good artists that express valid and meaningful messages through their work. For example, Alexis Rockman and Walton Ford both do work that is heavy in the depictions of animal... Alot of their work is surreal at a first glance, but closer examination reveals educated commentaries on social political and current social issues.

But on the other hand, the majority of conceptual work Ive seen is not only lacking in technical skill, but the artist is too uninformed to make an educated or meaningful commentary regard the issue they art commenting on....Or in some cases lack any message at all.


This is especially true for current issues in science, as many take the easy way out by not examining the issue themselves and just going along with the public attitude.

Ive seen countless works that reiterate the "Cloning is Bad, Man is Playing God" message. But very few that examine the issue in depth and none that comment on the fact that in practice cloning was been going on for hundreds of years.

[kev ferrara]

Of course illustration is art. Just because you are outnumbered in some particular situation by people who believe it isn't, that does not mean it isn't!

See the sneaky truth is a whole bunch of people resent anybody who seeks to be a success, because it makes them look lazy and inadequate. And the same bunch of people often dislike talented people, because it makes them feel inadequate and gives the lie to "all men are created equal".

Somebody who is driven to succeed, talented and makes money.... wellllll that person deserves to be killed! :) That person is downright Anti-Democratic! A working illustrator is someone who makes the Modernist foot soldier (the ones not getting rich from the bullshit) look like the dupe he is. Since no one wants to look like an idiot, the poor modernist will naturally resent the person who points out their foolishness.

This is why people who have been indoctrinated into let us call it Marxist-tinged Art Philosophy are such haters. And they perpetuate their hate through their teaching, which includes the rejection of those artists and their works that demonstrate the inadequacy of theory over raw talent, craftmanship and creativity.

So you now know where this is coming from psychologically...

Now, when you get into this argument again you need to be armed with good argument, because people who think illustration isn't art are all about argument, and have no idea about art.

So you have to hit them on their turf and make them look like the arrogant, judgemental dogma-ridden pricks they usually are.

Okay, the way to deal with this is to turn these fuckers' arguments back on themselves.

If somebody says "Illustration isn't art"

you say,
"Who are you to tell anyone what is art and what is not."
or
"Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is an illustration and is considered one of the finest pieces of art in history. What are you talking about?"

If they respond:
"Michaelangelo was not an illustrator!"

you respond:
"What is your definition of an illustrator"

This question will not bring an adequate response, I assure you. Because even if they begin to answer the question, they will dance away from finishing the thought because it destroys their argument.

Once they bounce away from answering this question, you fill inthe answer, "Someone who gets paid to illustrate something. Like maybe a story from the bible. Ergo, Michaelangelo was an illustrator. Do you disagree?"

The argument may continue...

If someone responds "If you get paid for your art on assignment, you're a not an artist."

You respond:

"So Michaelangelo was a ? Well if the most talented artist ever in history is a , then I guess black is white and day is night too, isn't it? I guess all is lost and we should close up the art department and all go somewhere else and not be whores... But since for almost every job on the planet you do work on assignment.. the only way out of this moral mess is to be jobless. Thank you for your wisdom!"

or

"I don't really think you're in a position to be judging Michaelangelo. You're not exactly a Michaelangelo."

If they say, "somebody who illustrates another person's idea isn't an artist."

You say "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Do you have some proof of this contention?"

or

"Hmm. Well... Since most of modern art is just illustrations of pseudo-intellectual theories espoused by a handful of fashionable critics. I guess we'll throw out all of modern art then too. Good idea." (See Thomas Wolfe's The Painted Word)

If they say, "Michaelangelo was Pawn of the Christian Religion"

you say,

"Oh, like modern art isn't a religion. Please. Its a total cult and doesn't make any sense."

if they say,

"Yeah, but Christianity killed like millions in the crusades"

you say,

"Are you saying Michaelangelo is a barbarian killer? Come on. Your argument is ludicrous."

If they say,
"But Christianity is still a problem today!"

you say:

"What does that have to do with Michaelangelo's greatness and the fact that he was an illustrator. Can you keep to the topic?"

or

"I think maybe there's another religion out there I'm just a wee bit more worried about, thank you. And maybe you should be too. But I don't really want to talk about politics. I'm here to become an artist."

If they say, "All art is Politics"

you say:

"Says who? You?"

or

Laugh out loud and say, "Yeah, whatever! No wonder you can't draw!"

-----

I must've had this exact conversation like 200 times. :)

Best,
kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[kev ferrara]

Oh, I forgot this one...

"Anything that is representation is illustration. "

You say, "That's a pretty stupid statement. You must not understand art very well. Did somebody tell you that and you believed it?"

or

"If you want to be that reductionist then all art is illustration. How does that help us understand anything?" (Again see Thomas Wolfe's The Painted Word.)

or

"Let's back up a few steps... There's Portraiture, there's expressive realism, there's dramatic illustration, there's sculpture, there's primitivism, Gaugan, Picasso, there's a huge difference between what Rembrandt was doing and what Klimt did or Schiele... I dunno. its just way too complex a subject to be talked about in such a bumper-sticker kind of way. Let's not dumb this down so much."

or

"So? All speech is illustration. All thought is illustration. Machines are an illustration of their schematics. Human Beings are an illustration of their genetic code. In one way or another, everything is an illustration of something (if you want to get philosophical about it). Therefore, your statement holds no meaning. I'm not even sure you believe what you're saying. I think you're just repeating what somebody told you."

[Atlantis]

Well, He's making some good points.

...

Atlantis..

Situations, Schools like this exist..... They are common.....

I mean honestly, the department would not allow students that did representational art work to graduate...

If this is NOT war then I dont know what is...


Heh, I guess I didn't get my meaning across very well. I was applauding 'cuz I agree with everything Mr. Ferrara said.

Before I found this site, I didn't want to be an artist, because my highschool art education had led me to believe that art was about 'expressing yourself' with glue and glitter and plastic squares. I loved to draw, but my art teachers treated drawing like a game, and so I thought artists were just people who couldn't make a living doing *real* jobs. Took conceptart.org to set me straight. :yayca:

So I agree that it is a war for the minds of the public... but there have been lots of debates about this on CA and they always have devolved into flamewars. I usually try not to get involved. :O

[Hai]

I skipped a lot of this thread (I'll read it afterwards, when I have some time), but I just wanted to post my thoughts.

First of all, IMO, the "art" the links that the OP listed leads to isn't art at all. It's business. It's brilliant business, 'cause they've figured out a way to exploit society and the people in it to make lot's of money through little or easy work.

And it is not conceptual art either. What conceptual art does, is allow anyone to be an "artist". If someone has an idea they want to express creatively, but haven't got the years of practice necessary to create good looking figurative work, are we going to rob them of the chance to express themselves? Because they aren't 'artists' like we are? Are we really so insecure about ourselves that we need to eliminate these people? That's really fucked up.

Anyone can have a desire to express themselves creatively, and they want to express themselves *now*. Not after years of practice. So let them express themselves instead of trying to censor them. Eliminating conceptual art would be like eradicating, say, great white sharks because they give other sharks a bad name.

Edit after reading the thread (wan't that much actually):
Kev, you talk about indoctrination... What the hell are you doing here? After reading your posts I get the distinct impression that you're trying to brainwash CA.org'ers into seeing things your way. What the hell happened with the philosophy behind the crit protocols?! You seem very bitter about this, and honestly I think it's clouding your vision.

[kovah]

Ok, this is one of my hot button topics.

As artists who care about art and want to do good work, and this site is full of good dedicated artists, we shouldn't just dismiss or ignore or dislike or humor "artists" who are laying out such bullshit. We should actively OPPOSE and SEEK TO DESTROY the entire movement that they represent. That should be the goal. How each one of us attempts to get that done is a personal matter.

Understand, every time some clown is paid a million dollars for a hunk of junk and an ashtray, or a paint can full of his own excrement.. the reputation of every single artist on this board is called into question. The word "artist" has been destroyed by these disgusting hacks and charlatans. It is up to us to rebuild the word ARTIST with our work, our advocacy and our behavior.

Not only that, but every time one of these hacks gets paid a million, that is money out of YOUR POCKET, because the idiots who are led by the nose by their "art investment handlers" LEGITIMIZE bullshit art when they buy it for such large sums. It is all a game. The wanna-be-fashionable rich bobos are kept like cattle by "minders" and "handlers" who make sure their clients invest in "the right kind of art".

We must break that game up by any means necessary. This is a war people. Get on board!

This has been my opinion.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

Finally someone after my own heart :cheerleader:

/Rant -

My mother wasn't impressed when she realised i was going into the art industry because the only 'art' that the general public is really exposed to is the stuff that is in the galleries at the moment - the modern art of unmade beds and piles of rubbish.

People know of illustration and actual concept art but it doesn't get into the media or the public eye because unless you are highly interested in the game/ect it was made for or getting into the industry itself; why bother looking at all the stuff that came before the final product. Not to mention the general public aren't aware of all the different branches of what we call art because besides the fact that almost everything we see was designed by someone they and we just take it for granted and don't give it a second thought.

I'm tired of people getting paid ridiculous amounts of money for things that toddlers could have thought up because it supposedly had 'deeper meaning' I don't mind people doing it to express themselves. I do however oppose them getting paid more than David Beckham earns in a month for it and giving people with the skills to make 'proper art' in my opinion a bad name as some bum who sits around thinking and throwing paint at canvas.

/end rant

However in light of that, i don't hate ALL modern/conceptual art. That guy that cuts animals in half - Damien Hurst? Though I've not seen any of his work in real life i would like to more of morbid curiosity than anything but i expect that the inside of the animals would be fairly interesting to look at. But I don't think i would get it as in understanding why he made those things as art.

[Hai]

I'm tired of people getting paid ridiculous amounts of money for things that toddlers could have thought up because it supposedly had 'deeper meaning'
What if there was 'deeper meaning'? What if the artist did spend hours upon hours philosophizing aout something, and after dozens of ideas, he comes up with (in his mind) the perfect way to express it? And here you discard it as rubbish? And that toddlers could do the same? How extremely arrogant and prejudiced. I think that the reason you all hate it so much is because of personal experiences. Spiral fish had problems with it in school, kovah had problems related to it with her mother, and I'm sure Kev have had some sort of encounter. I think you're all just bitter because of personal experiences. Why take it out on innocent people like this?

[kev ferrara]

hai!, I'm trying to explain how to combat indoctrination. And ridicule. And marginalization. Wake TFU.

One has to be armed with counter argument because these modernist/postmodernist foot soldiers are constantly being armed with jargon and doublespeak and rationales for why conceptart.org is full of unimportant stuff and for why illustration isn't art and why only the correct political message matters. They are maoists.

There are a lot of artists on the board who have, at one time or another, been ridiculed and maginalized by this so called art movement we are discussing. I, for one, am damn sick of that. And I am never going to be pushed around by them again. If somebody else on this board shares my feelings I am going to arm them with all the verbal defenses I have to offer. If you like being pushed around, you just keep it up.

Regardless, while I do think most conceptart.org peeps would agree with my position, I was writing my post mainly to Spinal Fish who had asked me a direct question. If other people peek in and get something out of it, wonderful. They can reject it as well of course.

What does the crit protocols have to do with postmodern bullshit. You think they would submit their work to a Conceptart.org crit? You can't crit Maoist art. Because the only thing that matters in Maoist art is that it conforms to the correct political message. Since politics is full of sly lies and demagoguery, which has nothing to do with the truth at all, maoist "art" has nothing to do with art or truth. If you want to talk politics instead of art, what are you doing on this board?

Bitter? Oh you bet.

Quick story: Dan Adel, fabulous illustrator, phenomenal painter, WORKS for the new york times doing interior illustration and New York Times Magazine Covers.

Adel has an art show at the Arcadia Gallery in NYC. It is a phenomenal show. It is representational. It sells out in the first day. The New York TImes, who hires him to illustrate their covers... DOES NOT COVER THE OPENING!

Instead it covers a bunch of high school kids in Harlem that made paper maché anti-Bush messages.

When art like this isn't allowed into the NY Times, and thus is NOT ALLOWED TO BE SEEN BY THE PUBLIC by those who choose "all the news that is fit to print" that I submit it is not I who is indoctrinating ANYBODY! I am trying to UNDO the bullshit.

Here's Adel's stuff...

[kev ferrara]

Just read your last post hai... "what if there is deeper meaning"' woooo.... wouldn't that be impressive. Deeper Meaning. Oooo.

There's is deeper meaning in every single object in the world. Put a fingernail on a plate and it can have "deeper meaning". Drop a sausage from the golden gate bridge.. it can have "deeper meaning" ooooo. Deeper Meaning. A black spot on a piece of paper. Deeper Meaning.

I never said these people shouldn't have the right to make their works. But I happen to think they are charlatans and ruinous to the culture and I would like to see their whole movement destroyed. Just as they have worked tirelessly for 70 years or so trying to destroy the entire tradition of western art. They are not about art, they are about text. And text is the method by which they are indoctrinated into political radicalism that seeks to co-opt all "art" into their ideological struggle.

Those innocents who just want to make their little fun postmodern experiments, who really don't know the larger movement they are a part of or what that movement has done to people who try to make their living off their talent... well what can you say about them. They may be innocent, but they are part of the problem.

[Jason Rainville]

Adel has an art show at the Arcadia Gallery in NYC. It is a phenomenal show. It is representational. It sells out in the first day. The New York TImes, who hires him to illustrate their covers... DOES NOT COVER THE OPENING!

Instead it covers a bunch of high school kids in Harlem that made paper maché anti-Bush messages.


Though a shocking story, there could be conflict-of-interest issues with covering employees. I don't know anything about the Times' policies though. Remember too it's a publication that needs to sell issues, and anything politically charged with a hint of controversy usually trumps pretty pictures (I work at a paper, and unfortunately even here at a small town business controversy sells)

Or they could be idiots, or have been infiltrated/put on the sqeeze by Soldiers Of Conceptualization (SOCs) I've never met a practicing SOC yet, still young and go to an applied arts program. But I'll live and let live. Unless they throw the first punch. Then I'll lay into them :)

[Hai]

If you like being pushed around, you just keep it up.
I don't like being pushed around. By anyone. Not by conceptual artists, not by you. If I'm being pushed around, I stand up for myself. I feel provoked by a lot of conceptual artists in the media. Like Hirst. There are certain people I think make rubbish and gets way too much acknowledgement for it. But to discard the whole style is insane.

What does the crit protocols have to do with postmodern bullshit. You think they would submit their work to a Conceptart.org crit?
Kev, you're a funny guy. You do see the different schools of thought you represent in these two discussions? How in one, you're all about the individual discovering stuff himself and in the other you're all about how everyone should do as you say?

Just read your last post hai... "what if there is deeper meaning"' woooo.... wouldn't that be impressive. Deeper Meaning. Oooo.
That's just great. Why are you so caught up in 'deeper meaning'? I could've taken that sentence out and still have conveyed what I wanted.

And text is the method by which they are indoctrinated into political radicalism that seeks to co-opt all "art" into their ideological struggle.
Just like text is the method by which you try to indoctrinate the CA.org'ers?

They may be innocent, but they are part of the problem.
That's pretty cold. Who are you to rob these people of this chance?

[kev ferrara]

A friend of mine knows Adel. Adel has now moved to France.

The new york times CONSTANTLY reviews books by its own flock favorably. Pleeaaaase! Conflict of interest. Oh that's a good one.

Another example, having to do with politics, no conflict of interest...

They report in their art section about a bunch of high school kids who have made some anti-war protest art.. Now, fine, if you want to protest the war. Free speech. But the "art" was a paper maché head on a broom stick. It was junk, Id on't care if Harlem kids made it or not. A paper maché pumpkin head on a broomstick sucks!

But the reviewer compared it to RODIN'S BURGHERS OF CALAIS!

This article was a political article, not an art article. What it was doing in the art section, pretty clearly demonstrates the Times' Maoism.

Rhineville, I hope you never encounter one of these SOC's (Nice name!) but if you do, you will be fore-warned and fore-armed (like popeye!). But if you never encounter one, it just might because a whole bunch of people like me and Kovah and Atlantis have driven their drivel underground already! :)

Here's Burghers of Calais. (Please don't tell me the "story" behind the Burghers must have been what the Times meant by the comparison. They mentioned a work of visual art.)

Anyway...

[kev ferrara]

Hai, who's "pushing you around". Who's saying "do as I say." (If you were referring to the sample dialogue, that was just playwriting for Spinal Fish's benefit) We're just talking here, bro. I am offering my viewpoint. Maybe I'm not being touchy feely enough for you?

You are misunderstanding how text is used in postmodernism. I really think you haven't studied this stuff much. I think you just enjoy being a devil's advocate and being self-righteous in your open-mindedness. Not impressed.

Who am I to rob these people of their chance? They are robbing not only me, and *us* but the culture and the future of the culture. The larger movement has sought to replace us for quite some time. If you want to be a pacifist about it, be my guest.

I am caught up in "deeper meaning" because that is what you used to defend postmodern work. That and that it was "their expression" and everybody has a right to express in their own way.... to which I say, Yeah. So what. Spitting is an expression. Hanging yourself is an expression. There is nothing that is not an expression.

This is the problem with their philosophy. It makes everything art. Which makes the very word art meaningless.

There's a point at which you have to stand up for the culture you want. The culture can not defend itself. Pacifism won't do.

Kev

-------

Okay, so I admit I couldn't find a picture of the actual paper maché heads. But that one above cracked me, so what the hell! :)

[Magic Man]

Just came across a few conceptual art sites on the net - like www.artinitials.com, www.onethousandpaintings.com and also one that just started this month on 07-07-07 http://www.chessboardart.com.

What do you think of these kinda projects?

I think "these kinda projects" are pure fucking garbage.

- m

[kovah]

What if there was 'deeper meaning'? What if the artist did spend hours upon hours philosophizing aout something, and after dozens of ideas, he comes up with (in his mind) the perfect way to express it? And here you discard it as rubbish? And that toddlers could do the same? How extremely arrogant and prejudiced. I think that the reason you all hate it so much is because of personal experiences. Spiral fish had problems with it in school, kovah had problems related to it with her mother, and I'm sure Kev have had some sort of encounter. I think you're all just bitter because of personal experiences. Why take it out on innocent people like this?


Maybe some of them had spent hours thinking about it and crafting their idea into the perfect representation of their thought. But many people here could spend the same amount of hours crafting a painting or illustration using all the skills they possess having spent years studying line tone and so on.

Yet who gets paid the huge sums of money for their creation and gets it put in a gallery for everyone to see. The artist who is able to talk about what their piece means in relation to world politics and man's sins etc. Or the artist who had the skills needed to draw that particular illustration.

I have problems with it because the 'deeper meaning' piece will be held in higher regard by a great many people than the piece that takes a huge amount of technical skill to produce.
It may be that the deeper meaning piece does indeed have a deeper meaning which is the result of hours of deliberating - but in many cases almost any average joe off the street could have produced the finnished product without the extensive thought behind it; for example the unmade bed, one instalment i saw in a gallery where there was a mattress on the floor with a salted pig in underpants lying on it. :\

I had problems at school as well - it was preferred that we looked into what the artist was trying to convey in their painting rather than just admiring the skill it took to make it. Illustrating was fine - but the teachers wanted meaning behind the pieces. Which essentially is very frustrating when all you want to do is illustrate scenes from a book or draw dragons simply for your own enjoyment.

[kev ferrara]

Kovah, you make some nice points but you are going to end up getting tripped up by pointing out the craftsmanship aspects of art as their defining characteristics. The postmodernists have very good arguments against this.

This is why I prefer to call the kind of realism we do as "expressive realism". It isn't the craft that matters, its that the craft brings forth the expression to its potential. Van Gogh as well as Vermeer.

[Hai]

This is the problem with their philosophy. It makes everything art. Which makes the very word art meaningless.
Which is why we have definitions like concept art and conceptual art and illustration and sculpture etc.

You are misunderstanding how text is used in postmodernism. I really think you haven't studied this stuff much. I think you just enjoy being a devil's advocate and being self-righteous in your open-mindedness. Not impressed.
You're right, I probably haven't studied this stuff as much as I could have, or maybe should have.

Are you going to the Italy workshop next year (<-- hopefully)? I'd love to meet you, shake your hand, and maybe have some discussions face to face :)

I think "these kinda projects" are pure fucking garbage.
Can't you at least appreciate the brilliance of the business-aspect?

I have problems with it because the 'deeper meaning' piece will be held in higher regard by a great many people than the piece that takes a huge amount of technical skill to produce.
So you're jealous. That's fine, I am too! :P And there should definitely be equality, but eliminating conceptual art or establishing representational art as dominant serves no other purpose than diminishing the quality of human life IMHO.

[Jason Rainville]

The postmodernists have very good arguments against this.

As do I. Just because someone off the street could have crafted it doesn't mean it's worthless. I forget who did this and I'm paraphrasing extensively so forgive any inconsistencies with the actual story;

A famous explorer during the rennaissance was criticized for doing what could have easily be done. His ideas were called into question and he tested some of his critics. He placed an egg before them and told them to make it stand erect on the table on its own. Try as they might, it would not stand straight. Finally he took the egg, smashed it into the table so it's bottom was flat and let it stand straight. "We could have done that." the critics said. "but you didn't" he replied.

The same argument is moot for simple design and minimalist ideas; just because it looks simple doen't mean it was simple to create. I'm not saying this makes conceptual art valid, I'm just saying that one argument doesn't hold a lot of weight. It does, if the idea behind the art was though up in haste, or there wasn't any thought put into the execution of the craft. Usually that's the case though.

[kovah]

Kovah, you make some nice points but you are going to end up getting tripped up by pointing out the craftsmanship aspects of art as their defining characteristics. The postmodernists have very good arguments against this.

This is why I prefer to call the kind of realism we do as "expressive realism". It isn't the craft that matters, its that the craft brings forth the expression to its potential. Van Gogh as well as Vermeer.

I know, and I'm used to it. I went to art school with a lot of people that created exactly the kind of stuff that i don't like. - that fact and the money is just the particular aspect of it that annoys me the most.

[kev ferrara]

Hai -- DIGITAL HANDSHAKE -- and no offense intended. I totally respect your debating skills. -- Not gonna be in Italy, despite the italian last name :)

kev

[DavePalumbo]

I think it was an old Steven Wright joke:

"I've been doing a lot of abstract painting lately, extremely abstract. No brush, no paint, no canvas, I just think about it. "

[Hyskoa]

I think it was an old Steven Wright joke:

"I've been doing a lot of abstract painting lately, extremely abstract. No brush, no paint, no canvas, I just think about it. "

Dear lord, I've been doing that constantly.
And respect to kev, will take a lot of work to eradicate that abstract shite, but this is a good step in that direction.

[Hai]

will take a lot of work to eradicate that abstract shite
Wait, are we against abstract art or conceptual art here?

[Hyskoa]

Wait, are we against abstract art or conceptual art here?
--------------------------------------------
Abstract art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses color and form in a non-representational way.

conceptual art. Art that is intended to convey an idea or concept to the perceiver and need not involve the creation or appreciation of a traditional art object such as a painting or sculpture.
--------------------------------------------


I'm terribly sorry. I should have specified. I meant crap wannebe art in general.
My sincere apologies.

[chazanoble]

Just came across a few conceptual art sites on the net - like www.artinitials.com, www.onethousandpaintings.com and also one that just started this month on 07-07-07 http://www.chessboardart.com.

What do you think of these kinda projects?

To me these are interesting new angles of art focused on a big worldwide audience. By offering unique artworks it's almost sure to increase by time...if they and the projects are still known in some years...
It seems that the focus is not really the single painting - anyone can do it - but more the whole project...to be a part of it and get a unique piece of the whole thing...

The ideas behind the projects are too flimsy/fluffy for me. Not just conceptual art but in general, if the ideas behind the art piece is more important then the end result, then I think it should be obligatory for the artist to elaborate on his ideas so we can know if he's mentally retarded or someone who actually put some real thoughts into his work.

[DavePalumbo]

you can start an organization: Concept Artists Against Conceptual Art. It'll probably confuse most people, and the acronym is Caaca, but it's a worthwhile cause :)

[Hai]

Melancholie: That's by far the most arrogant statement in this thread. Congratulations. So you're saying graphic design is crap wannabee art? Graphic design (the majority anyway) doesn't 'depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses color and form in a non-representational way.' So that must mean it is crap wannabee art.

There are people who like colors and forms arranged into some sort of composition. Just like there are people who like paintings of warriors and dragons and other figurative work.

[Jason Rainville]

Melancholie: That's by far the most arrogant statement in this thread. Congratulations. So you're saying graphic design is crap wannabee art? Graphic design (the majority anyway) doesn't 'depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses color and form in a non-representational way.' So that must mean it is crap wannabee art.

There are people who like colors and forms arranged into some sort of composition. Just like there are people who like paintings of warriors and dragons and other figurative work.

I didn't get that from his post. But if that's what he meant... where's my pitchfork again?

Also abstract art really means any sort of abstraction, representational or not. I think. I used to hold the belief that abstract was truly so, in that it meant it was depicting nothing. not a person, feeling, idea, nothing. I got beat into the mud for holding that view, which was aparently wrong...

[Hyskoa]

I just make 3 different classes. There's art, kitsch and crap.

Art : caravaggio
Kitsch : Mondriaan
Crap : Rothko


First class has stuff you put in museums and are things which are difficult to make and glorious to watch.
Second class is something you hang in your bathroom or hallway. That's all the value it has.
Third class is something which goes directly from production to the waste management facility.



So your graphic design (after googling some results) would belong in the kitsch department.

ps: those people who like colors and forms arranged into some sort of composition for absolutely no reason are what people used to call potheads.
"WHOE.... DUDE... THE COLORZ. THEY'RE ALIVE."

[Hai]

Hahaha, Melancholie, you crack me up! :D

Fine, you're entitled to an opinion. Yay. Don't come asking me for help when you're beat up for it, though.
(btw, if I start making abstract art, it's because of you melancholie. I feel oddly inspired right now :D)

Also abstract art really means any sort of abstraction, representational or not.
That's what I've been taught. You start with something natural, then you simplify it, then you stylize it and then you reach a point where it's become abstract, and the viewer can't identify the object as the naturalistic thing you started with.

[Jason Rainville]

So your graphic design (after googling some results) would belong in the kitsch department.

I believe you're shallow and arrogant in your beliefs now not only because you think there's not much more value in GD than hanging it on your wall, but that you base that opinion on your extensive google research... :)

[Hyskoa]

Hahaha, Melancholie, you crack me up! :D

Fine, you're entitled to an opinion. Yay. Don't come asking me for help when you're beat up for it, though.
(btw, if I start making abstract art, it's because of you melancholie. I feel oddly inspired right now :D)



Have you actually seen the ones defending crap and kitsch?
I'd say I have ABSOLUTELY no problem at all sleeping at night worrying about the big bad crap- and kitsch-ists chasing after me.
If you actually see the work they present in their work it'll probably go...
"damn.. man.. he's like 5 entire METERS away. That's too far for me to crawl."


So trust me, sleeping peacefully here.

[Hyskoa]

I believe you're shallow and arrogant in your beliefs now not only because you think there's not much more value in GD than hanging it on your wall, but that you base that opinion on your extensive google research... :)

Fine, you can hang it on your ceiling as well.
Happy now?

[Jason Rainville]

Fine, you can hang it on your ceiling as well.
Happy now?

Very. I see you have nothing intelligent left to say, so I'll be off...

[Hai]

I'd say I have ABSOLUTELY no problem at all sleeping at night worrying about the big bad crap- and kitsch-ists chasing after me.
If you actually see the work they present in their work it'll probably go...
"damn.. man.. he's like 5 entire METERS away. That's too far for me to crawl."
:D Wow, what an attitude. Im not entirely sure what to say. Not only are you generalizing like flying hell, you just personally insulted a huge amount of artists. Amazing.

[Costau D]

Some of you in this thread like to smell your own farts I bet...

[kev ferrara]

Colors and forms arranged into some sort of composition without necessarily having regard to meaning or referent are decorations. There is such a thing as decorative art, or as they used to call it "The Applied Arts" which are works of craft for the sake of creating something beautiful. In this regard there is no differece between a Fabergé Egg and a Jackson Pollock.

You may say that each represents a different era (but that is a point about their historicity) or that there is a different sort of meaning in their various curlicues and rendering styles and such (but the meaning of those applicative styles isn't attached to any subject matter that might be transfigured by it, and at the end of the day an application is just an application, equally valid) but at the end of all the disparaties, Fabergé and Pollock created purely decorative works... which is not the same thing that Vermeer did.

[kev ferrara]

Since I also make my living as a graphic artist I would like to weigh in about graphic design. Graphic design is quite a difficult thing to wrap your mind around because it can very easily fool the eye. A graphic designer will often buy a piece of stock photography taken by somebody else and lay over a type design by somebody else using a program designed by somebody else that auto-kerns the type... and they use a graphic element they've scanned in from some old army patch they own plus some dingbat element designed by somebody else and.... voila! A succesful work of graphic design has been born!

This is why I think it necessary to think in heirarchies...

With respect to this topic... I think it should be clear that the more the work has the actual hand of the artist upon it, maniuplating and forming it, the more personal a work it becomes. And personal-ness is clearly one of the main criterias for art (there are many others of course)

[kev ferrara]

There is also the case of visual integrity -- the quality of the observation of reality present in the work. This is also a main art criteria.

As great as I think Saul Bass is, his loyalty is to the meaning of the design and not the integrity of his forms or real world observation. He is making meaningful abstracted cartoons the same way as Picasso and Hirschfeld were (Great Graphic Artists they!) The fact that he uses type makes no difference to me. Saul Bass was a certain kind of artist - a graphic artist.

The kind of artist mentioned previously, the guy who's getting everything from somewhere else and then slapping it over someone else's photo is the equivalent of the amateur painter (never never never seen on CA.org) who pastiches bits and pieces of others' works onto a single canvas and then passes it off as their own work. This is a work of montage, one step above curation. For an egregrious example look at the works of Mike Hoffman who pastiches Frazetta rather embarrassingly.

kev

[kev ferrara]

It seems to me, the pinnacle of art would be that which has phenomenal integrity, is a fantastic expression, a highly personal work, a great design, is highly entertaining AND makes you think. (I'm leaving off a bunch of other things, but let's just leave at these for the purposes of this discussion)

Now, what meets ALL these criteria best... Nomination please...

I nominate the Michaelangelo Pieta, Klimts portrait of What's her face, Rodin's Burghers of Calais and Frazetta's Death Dealer.

Let's hear the postmodern nominations!

[Costau D]

Any object can truly have meaning depending on the times it was in and how nostalgic people can become. Not to mention some stuff is rare and worth tons of money.

When it comes to design and abstract work, it is obviously art. But I think why people have such a hard time towards modern art, is because a lot of the people this past century who are involved seem to be more like con artists, bullshitters, and good salesmen. They come off as fake. They come up with a title only after they are finished, and try to wrap something interesting around it.

Modern I feel is important though. Those compositions, and random nothingness makes people THINK. It gives them new ideas, or it can be for the simple fact of making them be in a different mood or attract their attention.

Thing is, traditionalists who actually take time to study subjects and make it beleivable put a lot more thought into what they do and on one side you could call them scientists and experimentors. And some can be inspired or just get an idea from something random and new. They record life, and try to make something new

Modern artists help make this world and the environemtn itself more interesting to live in. Don't forget that modern art, especially abstract plays a big role in industrial design, architecture, fashion design etc etc...

The argument is rather pointless, because both sides have their uses in life. Both sides of design and art need each other. So what is the point of the argument? Why get so protective and take things so personaly?



KEV MAN: Stick to one post and use paragraphs. There's no need to make multiple posts, just edit the one you already had prior. People will read what you have to say, so relax a bit and let other people reply. This isn't a chat room

[kev ferrara]

I know how to post Space Chimp. I was trying to vault over the dreck. I deleted my earlier posts and put them all in a row to accomplish that.

If the argument is pointless to you, don't post. Using the word "obviously" doesn't cut it here. That's not an argument and doesn't lead to any kind of clarity.

[Costau D]

then explain to me why my points are wrong. I like discussions like this because i learn a lot from people, but funny how many become so hostile as if there can only be ONE definition of art. People tend to over complicate things such as this. It's just my oppinon sure, and I'm more educated in this subject then you might assume I just dont over elaborate and forcefully try to get people to see my point of view (I'm not pointing you out btw with that).

[kev ferrara]

Industrial design is not the problem. It is my contention and many other people's that abstractionism/modernism/postmodernism has been very good in terms of Research and Development for Graphic Design and Expressive Realism. Decorative development is essential and helpful. In that sense modernism has been a voyage of discovery. Good in that way. Although Fechin did just about everything De Kooning and Pollock did except like 30 years before them.

Anyway,

kev

[YVerloc]

I realy like Melancholie's definition of coneceptual art - that's the best one I've heard. And Kev Ferrara makes a good point regarding 'decoration' - it's the exact same thig I've been thinkng myself.

It seems to me that decorative art, conceptual art, and depictive art are really useful categories. The might be oversimplifying things a bit, but that's okay - simple categorization is nice antidote to taking art historians and artist's statements at their word. And a useful antidote too.

I love all three. Two of my favourite artists are Christo and Diebenkorn. Diebenkorn is an awesome decorator - nobody chops up the plane like him. That punk Mondrian isn't fit to wash the Dieb's brushes. Christo is, to me, the epitome of good conceptual art. When I was a kid phrases like "redefining one's relation to space" was just gobbeldygook and Christo was a one trick pony hawking a cheap gimmick. Fast forward after several years designing game environements, all day every day. I've got a new appreciation of 'space', and understand the artist's struggle to shape it meaningfully. It's now amazing to me how we take the space around us so totally for granted. Christo is the master of, well, opening our eyes to the space around us by changing it on us, and letting us see it in a new way.

[kev ferrara]

Hey YVerloc,
Yeah, I like Dibenkorn too. Good designer, interesting application. Though in these categories I've been toying with, of Integrity, Expression, Personal Aesthetic, Design, Entertaining... He, like Saul Bass, falls down slightly on the Integrity front because he goes so "design-y" that he loses form.

Christo I would say is more the curator type. He is exhibiting space for your delictation. It's difficult to say his stuff is expressive, he does have a personal Aesthetic, I guess his design is good, and it seems to be entertaining. But he doesn't really have integrity because he's wrapping buildings like a decorator who lays drapes over a window. I mean, you could argue that a window "draper" is doing the same thing Christo is doing. Which I would posit is a form of design that gives you a new appreciation for what is already there, which is curation. He's DJing space.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[kingshaj]

Maybe some of them had spent hours thinking about it and crafting their idea into the perfect representation of their thought. But many people here could spend the same amount of hours crafting a painting or illustration using all the skills they possess having spent years studying line tone and so on.

Yet who gets paid the huge sums of money for their creation and gets it put in a gallery for everyone to see. The artist who is able to talk about what their piece means in relation to world politics and man's sins etc. Or the artist who had the skills needed to draw that particular illustration.



conceptual artists make no money at all.(famous ones can make less thatn 2oK yearly) Most maintain a "crap job". As a group ConceptArtists make far more.

In the fine art world, it is the rarest thing to have a gallery sell what are also referred to as installation pieces. a game designer at mid level makes substantially more...as does the most average illustrator.

as far as showing in a gallery, well it certainly doesnt mean people will see it. even one's personal website has more viewers.
let alonoe if your work apears in a game or film.

you have no competition form them, nothing to fear nor to be jealous of.

you might as wel bag on street performers.

[kev ferrara]

Hey Kingshaj man, check out Art in America. And every mag on the shelves near it in Barnes & Noble. Hard to argue with all that coverage that the postmodern scene isn't where the cash is at.

(By the way, checked your site out -- real sweet work!)

Best,
kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[kingshaj]

in defense of ABSTRACT art there is a bigger issue...you cant do concept art without it. every time an artists lets himself go and follow the forms on say, alien shoulder pad...choosing lines and forms that are pleasing ,,,for no known expressible reason but its beauty, its abstract.

concept art is pushed forward by feeding off abstract art and graffiti, (graffiti is often just abstract art that is more relevant)

you can see abstraction everywhere...especially the work of some the founders of this site

tinfoil this is graffiti as far as im concerned

http://conceptart.org/artist_images/image.php?img=tinfoil/full/tinfoil-03.jpg

hpx1

http://www.hpx1.com/albums/temp2/sp_005c_morph.gif

Hawkprey

http://conceptart.org/artist_images/image.php?img=hawkprey/full/hawkprey-07.jpg

[kingshaj]

kev, you'll make more money than they do... i had a subscription to that mag once,
and if its that popular there, you must live in a college town.(i do too). try and find it in the boonies...but then try and find even a smaller lesser known video game...you'll find that much easier.

(thanks for the props! tryin real hard...long long way to go..lol))

[kev ferrara]

Bro, what I'm getting at is that when you do expressive realism you end up with a work that is both realistic and abstract simultaneously (well if its a good work). You might ramp up the detail in the effect area and an unimportant part of the piece might just be a brushstroke... totally abstract. But to compose means to order your realism abstractly (and of course with an eye toward narrative heirarchies (and all that) and it seems to me whether you start with abstract shapes or with realistic rendering you end up with both in a decent work.

Although, there's tons of colleges around me in Hudson Valley, Bard, Vassar, SUNY New Paltz, Mount St. Mary's... So maybe ya got me on that.

But I happen to know some folks who know some folks (don't you love this kind of argument) who are in those mags and, bowing to the possibility that some of my friends in the postmodern art biz are full of crap, the cash figures being thrown around sounded impressive.

Gotta disagree that those links lead me to works of abstraction. Those are all what I consider expressive realism.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106 (bust out a crit if you feel like it)

[kingshaj]

i hear you, but im putting it to you that, unless you have an innate feel for abstraction...or an appreciation, you wont create the styles ive shown examples of...you will create something equally amazing no doubt…but the hybrid styles ive tried to show here
(albeit not the clearest examples) just wouldn’t be exist

we owe abstraction for their very existence… my art too

when you engage even for a moment in line form and shape for its own sake…down in the corner of your piece, you are using ideas and vocabularies outlined in the various abstract movements …thus , in my opinion, justifying the movement that centered on them

I just saw your SB its amazing, and for someone with as much appreciation for mark making and the lives of individual strokes …id think you’d love the art that’s based on worshiping them, elevating them to the spotlight…I know you’ve made “the perfect line”
And appreciated it outside of the concerns of the drawing.

[sve]

The main criteria for art in my opinion is if a random person likes it, doesn't like it or is indifferent to it... any "isms" are just for dissertations :) IMO. I'm prepared to meet a lovely creation in most unexpected corners of the world. You can't speak for everyone's life experience and imagination... in art everything is extremely subjective and matter of taste. IMO

[kev ferrara]

Gotta say, you've got me thinking on this one.

The appreciation of the mark.

Yes, I definitely have that and cultivate interesting marks in my own work.

But on their own, marks are just marks. Is the scratch I'm looking at on my computer art? That's a mark. If there's a hundred thousand scratches that etch a cool illo of an inmate trying to scratch his way out of a jail cell, now you're speaking my language. Those marks have meaning.

I guess my philosophy is that the abstractions are the brick and mortar that help to build the organized realistic whole. (Heavy Frazetta and Fechin influence got me there) When my lines are really working right if look at them close, its chaos, pull back, its realistic.
I love that.... uh... dualism (hesitated on the pretentious cheese factor thing)

I think that dualism of abstract marks interacting to form realism.

I will disagree that those loose strokes in the corner of paintings were "outlined in the various abstract movements". All that stuff was done by expressive realist painters first. Check out Fechin's canvases. He was doing that stuff 20 or 30 years before abstract expressionism hit. Check the strokes in Velasquez or Rembrandt or Rubens. So no justification for abstract artists there for me.

I've sorta hit on this thing that the more integrities a work has the better it is. And one of the integrities is Personal Aesthetic (originality of style, let's say) ... now abstract artists like pollock or dekooning or still... they all pass that test. But so do lots of Expressive Realists.

And the integrity of making you think, well lots of postmodern stuff might make you think. But so do a lot of expressive realists.

Then there's the integrity of being entertaining, or having mimetic integrity, or being expressive...etc.

Only certain kinds of art have every integrity I can think of, and that's expressive realism. And expressive realistic work can do everything every other art form can do, but all at once.

kev

P.S. Thanks for checkin' out my stuff. Appreciated. l8r

[Lake]

there's a distinction that needs to be made here.

many people involved in this sort of debate tend to lump all nonrepresentational art into one category "abstract, conceptual, etc."

but there really are different forms there, too.

Abstract art is exactly that: abstracted from something else. Abstract art IS actually representational, just distilled in order to convey composition and concept in a clearer pattern. Picasso's Guernica is a great example of this. Abstract art, like illustration, is "good" when it follows the basic tenets of art (composition, color, value, etc.) so it's not a stretch to say that we can easily critique it the same way.

Conceptual art, on the other hand, is the abstraction of an IDEA. You can't distill an idea, you can only express it in what means that you have. However, to accurately communicate with an audience, you STILL need to know and follow various guidelines (composition, color, value, etc.) so we can still critique THIS art the same way! Just keep in mind when doing so that the expression of an idea doesn't necessarily require recognizable parts, just an image or collection that activates the part of your brain that thinks in a specific way. Conceptual art is supposed to be about the idea, not the execution, but it's STILL ART, which means it needs to communicate with the viewer! Sol De Witt's Tower is a great example of conceptual art.

Then there's the third category here. Non-objective art. This category is the most plentiful, but often the most overlooked. Non-objective art is characterized by having ABSOLUTELY NO SUBJECT MATTER. Because it's not depicting anything and isn't communicating ANYTHING, non-objective art truly is art for art's own sake and can't really be critiqued, except along the intentions of the creator. Non-objective art is "good" only to the person beholding it. Unfortunately, non-objective art sells for a LOT of money. I don't know why. Non objective art can sometimes look freaking AWESOME; Anthony Mccall - that's just cool. The thing is, though, purchasing nonobjective art is essentially buying WHITE NOISE. there's no meaning associated with it; however much the critics want to assign some. This is the category that can't really be considered "bad" on a wide level.