Visual Art vs. Other Art Forms

[Jacob Kobryn]

Hi,

I'd like to open a discussion about visual art vs. the different art forms, eg music, writing, and film. For me what art is is some sort of expression made by the artist. Most of often these expressions are emotional but they also can be to protest, for a cause, etc.

Music can take you on an emotional journey for 30min - 1:30 and leave you amazed and feeling what was expressed by the musicians. Images, thoughts, and ideas can also be provoked through lyrical content. Books often last up to 10 hours and can be extremely powerful (though in my opinion, not as powerful as music). Other than the general atmosphere/emotion of the book being expressed, readers establish personal connections with the characters and events. Film is similar to literature and also makes a visual impression on the viewer.

I am starting to feel inferior as a visual artist to the above mentioned art forms. With a painting, there are some powerful images, but mostly I look at something and feel "that's cool looking" and walk away. Rarely ever does a painting make a lasting impression on me. I'm often moved by extraordinary works of music and occasionally literature. For myself, art is a form of self-expression but I find it difficult to captivate viewers and take them on a journey like one can do with an album or novel. Art is more self indulgent if you will.

I think the reason why is because art is only one "frame." It's one frozen piece of time that always stays the same and is rarely enjoyable for more than 10 minutes. Other art forms last much longer and have a stronger ability to captivate listeners/viewers.

An idea I had was to create sort of an album, only with paintings. So if there would be 10 tracks on an album, I would create 10 paintings that were connected by a similar theme and would flow like an album does. I don't really understand why things like this aren't more frequently occurring.

What do you think about this?

Jake

[Equality72521]

well there are art forms that do last such an awe inspiring feeling or spiritual awakening. Its just that since the majority of people here are figurative in nature, our art will look "cool" but wont leave a lasting impression. As illustrators, the purpose of a visual is to help the reader understand the literature a bit more clearly, or to make an emotional appeal in that specific part of the story. That is just how we think. A lot of the artworks in museums, specifically modern art museums, portray the emotion of the artists and can move the viewer in several ways.

My example is of Mark Rothko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko). The link is very helpful in understanding this man.

In my own words, one of his paintings has made such a well of emotions, a few people have been known to cry. This brings me to your statement of the "frame" of an artwork. Rothko has stated to actually view one of his pieces, to stand 16 inches away from the canvas so the the painting envelops the viewer, somewhat transporting the viewer in to zen-like/hypnotic state of mind.

Is this the kind of emotion you would like to appeal to the public? I know this doesnt really have to do with other art forms, Im just stating that a lot of art, when viewed correctly, can change your perspective.

I have attached two images, one of the Rothko Chapel and Light Cloud, Dark Cloud, which has moved some of my fellow classmates in college to tears.

To answer your initial thought, I tend to find myself attaching music to different artists. The most recent example is Kings of Leon (http://www.myspace.com/kingsofleon)'s Only By The Night to James Jean's artwork, or Copeland (http://www.myspace.com/copeland) to Alex Ross's artwork. So, when I hear this music, I not only become emotional, but I am directing that emotional appeal to artwork I find inspiring, giving me the motivation to create my own works with that appeal. Does that make sense?

I think one great example that everyone here know is Andrew Jones. He has incorporated his artwork with music. I wasnt at the NZ workshop, or have seen any of his live shows, but Im sure those participants felt a rush of emotions, from the music and watching a great master create!

A lot of artists do have a theme with their art, but a lot of time, an artist targets his art to a specific group of people, like the guys in High Fructose target the younger, trendsetting generation and those who paint the Old West target the people in the Midwest. More generally, we pick a demographic to target.

artwork portraying emotion is downplayed, what I think, is because of the general state of mind of our generation. I am honestly worried about our future artists and what they will have to create to stir people. Think about Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/), that is a scary thought.

I hope I made sense in my blabbering. Very thought provoking subject.

[MiniGoth]

I like the idea.

I'd like to talk about film vs. a still image for a moment, because it's interesting. A lot of the techniques are very similar(creating depth through lighting and focus, for example), though compositions vary a bit.

Very seldom will a symmetrical composition ever work in film, because the mind absorbs this information very quickly. A still image may have tons of other engaging details, but a film shot is a bit closer to graphic arts in the sense that the place, person and ideas must be easily recognizable. Without a dynamic composition, the shot will be incredibly dull, and a viewer lose interest quickly.

Both tell a story. A single picture captures a single moment in time, a film, all the moments. In between, is a graphic novel, capturing points of time in the story, rather than all of them. Pacing is key in a film, important in a comic, and irrelevant in a painting (being, for this case, a single frame).

Writing could be set similarly. A poem or scene, a single painting(not counting epic poems, such as The Iliad or Sailing to Byzantium). A commercial novel, similar to a commercial comic, where story is king, and plot points often come fast and furious - many commercial films do this as well, so the analogy is not as strong here as it could be.

Then there's the literary novel, in which the pacing tends to be slower and highly character driven, rather than plot driven(think Confederacy of Dunces, the Lovely Bones - similar to more introspective films).

Writing has it's own set of craft and device, just like painting or filmmaking - though the skill set is a bit different, the general idea is the same.

How to bring the story to life?


On a related ramble, let's talk about passive vs. interactive entertainment. A film is the most passive of the forms mentioned, as the story, music, visuals are all laid out for the viewer. Least amount of interaction required.

Comics, IMO are the next in the line, as there is a clear story plotted, and visuals; and it is left up to the reader to fill in the sounds.

Music usually comes next - from ballads, to instrumental. Ballads have the story, it's up to you for the visuals, though the inflection of the singer provides the emotional cues. Pure instrumental asks the most in terms of world building, as the emotional cues/soundtrack is there, but without a story or characters built in(minus symphonies a la Peter and the Wolf, but we're talking generalities).

Paintings are next. We see characters/landscape/a frame in time. The mood is set, in a good painting, the general idea is there, but the viewer is left to fill in the story surrounding the image, plus sounds.

I think novels ask the most, and provide the greatest variety. A good writer can give you a rough visual cue, or musical, but it's up to the reader to form a complete image of the character, location, etc. A great example is the CHOW and EOW threads that start from books or historical characters - what appears in one person's mind from a description is completely different than the next interpretation.

Isn't art cool?

[Grief]

it's good to see that youre starting to think about the function of art and ways to which it can be used to convey your ideas.

a lot of what you said is true enough, but i'd have to disagree with some of the conclusions youre trying to arrive at ( at one time i can clearly remember thinking about this issue and how other mediums differ from what i wanted to pursue)

sound art / music on its own is entirely abstract. it requires the attention of the audience, and they are able to elicit their own reaction based on how they let the sound influence them. while it may seem like music would give you more freedom as an artist because its so open to the audience's interpretation, you must realize that there are constraints for sound, namely that it operates in a linear fashion through time. part of 'narration' of the music (assuming there is a standardized structure and not just an experimental seemingly random set of sounds) part of the story requires that the listener devote the entire duration to enjoying the piece.

now its safe to say that if you only hear ...say 5 seconds of Bach and only look at 5 square inches of Pollock that youre really not savoring the entire body of work with any justice.

more often than not music and visual art follow the same "rules", if such a word can even be applied to the arts. where we have rhythm, harmony, composition, repitition, tone, key, etc. these words are not exclusive to one form of art, nor are the ideas that understanding these elements will strengthen your knowledge of the subject.

parallels such as this can be extracted from analyzing most any medium of art you mentioned.

i really hope you find some visual items worth looking at for more than 10 minutes. there's a lot of really killer girls out there jake, and few would be flattered to know they are only as interesting as the duration of Alvin and the Chipmunks singing the Twevle Days of Christmas.

the final idea you had to depict an album with paintings is one that has been done quite a bit. ive had that exact project numerous, numerous times for single songs. i think you'd be surprised how many images are inspired by music, its just that you gotta remember music is abstract. there is no visual standard for auditory sensations (unless youre studying synaesthesia which is the pairing of two sensations, but that's getting a bit beyond what youre asking for the time being) so one artists representation of a song you know may differ entirely from what you had in mind.

i bet if we both sat down and painted a song we both knew we wouldn't come up with the same images or anything remotely close. what color is Slayer's "Cult" (aside from the obvious answer black)? i may answer this miles away from the conclusion you arrive at.

that's the real beauty of art, there is no one single solution. every work is filtered through the artist's own experiences, knowledge, and talent.

so try not to think of the picture as holding a 'frame' or single moment in time, but it carries all the time of the subject up until that point, every piece of art is everything you are as an artist, you may not realize any of the factors which are guiding your decisions and it may be all a subconscious act, but there certainly are characteristics of your life on display in your work whether youre cognitive to it or not.

hope this helps.

[m@.]

Paradoxically enough I think the less we use a sense, the more powerful it can be.
I definitely think vision is the less powerful sense, but that's the most "important" in everyday life. We live in a visual world. I would say 90% of all our perception at any time is filled with vision. But visual things will definitely not ,move you that much. Maybe the things they mean will move you, but not the image itself.
Then comes music. We use hearing all the time, but our overall "sensescape" is definitely not as much filled with sounds than it is with images. And music is VERY powerful I think. It sort of fills your mind way more than, say, a painting does.

And at last, I think touch is the most powerful sense of all. We hardly think about touch at all, at any time (well we do use it all the time, unconsciouly, for things like balance and controlling the pressure we apply on objects, but it definitely doesn't fill our "sense-space" much at all), but touch can be very very powerful, like physical pain or an orgasm. I don't think any vision can deliver to our brain something as powerful as physical pain.

[HunterKiller_]

Funny, I've been thinking about this very subject recently.

I think one of the possible contributing factors could be that we are 'desensitized' to pictures, because we looks at art all day and make art all day.

I know that many non-artists would be much more fascinated by a given painting than many artists.

I could listen to a song I like over and over, while I have a shelf of art books that I haven't looked at more than once.

Hmmm.... It seem even more strange now that I've typed this out.

EDIT: On the note of film. I think film is more of a collection of arts than a single category of medium.
The production of a good film requires so many aspects. Artists must storyboard it and compose the shots, set designers craft the props, actors play the roles, etc.

[MiniGoth]

HK on film - completely agree. I was simplifying in terms of audience viewing final product - the creation involves SO much. Which explains why it's such a passive experience, generally speaking - everything's already been figured out and presented.

[HunterKiller_]

I also thought of another point.

Think about the time required to complete a novel. I don't know about composing songs, but I imagine it it's not an over night thing.

In the time it takes to complete a lengthy novel (months), a competent artist could create not a single brilliant image, but a conceptualize a whole new world.

EDIT: Going back to Jake's point about art being self-indulgent, I do think this is also a factor. Art is pretty much masturbation.
Music is composed to be performed to an audience. We draw because we like to.

[Grief]

hmmm throwing out a hypothetical question for everyone:

let's assume the 'desensitization' to visual art art is true due to the overwhelming amount of visuals in daily life. do you feel that this makes visual art a more finely tuned skill to accomplish since everyone is a critic of sorts?

compare that rationale to the fact that we rarely hear music in nature (gross overgeneralization but play along), do you think that we automatically have a lower standard for any series of sounds that are organized intentionally and passed off as music?

it just seems to me that bad art has less of a chance of going bank for success/ money / recognition than bad music. again all subjective arguments of what constitutes good/bad aside for the time being.

why doesnt everyone on this forum own a copy of scott mccould's Understanding Comics. he lays out a pretty interesting idea that comics ought to be considered the highest form of art. in which you can control time, setting, environment, detail , sound, movement just bu suggesting visual space in a way that is universally understood.

[HunterKiller_]

Grief: Good point is good.

[Grief]

EDIT: Going back to Jake's point about art being self-indulgent, I do think this is also a factor. Art is pretty much masturbation.
Music is composed to be performed to an audience. We draw because we like to.

hmm i guess art is masturbation because i'm usually studying nudes in both cases.


i typed a novel in response to agreeing with this statement, then disagreeing with it and realized i did nothing but spin tires and throw mud, so i'll spare you all my rambling and bid you a good night, lest i type something too profoundly ignorant.

[paperX]

I think some of the things you have said is pretty debatable in a sense Jake, an amazing song/film/novel can capture the audience for a certain amount of time because they come in expecting to be engaged for the set length. For example a for 3 min song (in regard to an actual good song here) the listener would be expected to listen for the whole length of the 3 minutes, just like a film you would have to watch from beginning to end. (novel vice versa)

However for visual arts such as a painting, there isn't a length set on how the length of the audience's engagement. A painting requires much more imagination and interactivity from the viewer than compared to the other mediums mentioned.

In the past, entire religious stories were told through static images as you say, however people were captured for much longer periods of time. Why? Because the audience were told to unravel and understand a narrative in the painting/ tapestry etc.

In modern society, with the introduction of motion media and photography, visual imagery has become much more oversaturated and harder to keep the viewer's attention. Illustration is about getting the message/idea to the viewer as clearly as possible, so first impression is of vital importance. However, if an image only manages to make you feel "that's cool looking" and walk away... then either:

1. It got its job done, you have to remember a lot of illustration is promotional material, its meant to give you part of a story to make you interested in finding out (eg: watch the movie or play the game)

2. You're not spending time looking at it the right way (no offense intended at all). Like I said earlier, visual imagery requires a lot of user interaction. There are people in this world writing tens of thousand word thesis papers based on just one painting even. I'm sure paintings would have left a lasting impression on them for longer than 3 seconds.

When it comes to visual imagery, knowing "how to see" just as important as say, knowing the technical knowledge. Try finding a good painting and really sit down to analyse it, put yourself in the artist's shoes...what was he thinking/feeling when he painted it? Use your imagination, I'm sure its not hard to think of a story around the image (unless the image itself is based on a biblical story or seomthing, even then you can still imagine the scenario right?)

Even still, art is subjective, what it meant to the creator might not mean the same thing to you or the person next to you. Find a painting and make up a whole world around it, go wild, I'm sure you'll be more engaged.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, a painting is different to a song or movie in the sense that you can't fully be engaged with it the same way. The viewer can't just sit back and be "taken away on a journey", the viewer has to look, really see and come up with his personal interpretation. That's one of the aspects that makes a painting unique.

Anyhow, I hope I contributed to this discussion somehow, a lot of what I have said is kinda old and obvious, it's a bit late so I might be rambling on a bit :^^;:

[paperX]

EDIT: Going back to Jake's point about art being self-indulgent, I do think this is also a factor. Art is pretty much masturbation.
Music is composed to be performed to an audience. We draw because we like to.

Are you saying musicians don't make music because they like to? Or Artists don't draw to show their art to an audience? :P

I agree with Grief's comment about spinning tires and throwing mud, I'm just posting this cuz I know you know I'm not trying to start a fight :P

[HunterKiller_]

PaperX: You've got some good points there.
However, I think Jake may have been speaking more about emotional responses.
Analyzing a painting is not going to ignite your emotions, well, at least I've never experienced such a thing.

Music can incite strong emotions... but I suppose a picture can too (yeah, that just came into my head now). Depending on the subject matter.

I was also just speaking to a friend on the matter, he told me that his brother who is a musician has the exact opposite reaction, i.e. he thinks visual art is more powerful than music, so maybe it is just because we are desensitized.

[HunterKiller_]

Are you saying musicians don't make music because they like to? Or Artists don't draw to show their art to an audience? :P

I guess I can't say for sure because I'm not a musician and I don't know what they are thinking when they make music, but I image it would be lame to make music and not perform to an audience.

I think I speak for many artists when I that when I draw, I'm first an foremost doing it for my own enjoyment without regard for the viewer. That is speaking in regards to personal works.

[Flake]

Rarely ever does a painting make a lasting impression on me.
I think you need to look at better paintings.

[paperX]

PaperX:
Analyzing a painting is not going to ignite your emotions, well, at least I've never experienced such a thing.


You misunderstand, I don't mean analysing as in judging a painting technically, in fact I offered a few examples of what I meant.

They might have not been that good though, ok here's another:

Using van gogh's famous Wheat Field with Crows as an example (a bit cliche I know, but bear with me):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Vincent_van_Gogh_%281853-1890%29_-_Wheat_Field_with_Crows_%281890%29.jpg/800px-Vincent_van_Gogh_%281853-1890%29_-_Wheat_Field_with_Crows_%281890%29.jpg

Sure, one can look at that and think "ok, its a farm, moving on". But when one knows about van gogh's life and the situation the painting was completed in, you get a whole new level of engagement if you really "look" at it.

I don't want to type out all massive analysis of the painting or anything, but long story short, this painting does create a emotional response for me because I'm essentially looking into the mind of a man struggling on the verge of his own sanity. That dark brooding sky almost crushing downwards, the three paths that offer only uncertainty, the foreboding shapes of the crows...I don't care if it's cliche or whatever, this painting makes me feel uneasy, the composition is crushing, the subject matter is definitely not as simple as it seems, it's like looking through a madman's eyes and seeing death staring at me back right in the face, and I'm probably not the only one who thinks so.

I guess I can't say for sure because I'm not a musician and I don't know what they are thinking when they make music, but I image it would be lame to make music and not perform to an audience.

I think I speak for many artists when I that when I draw, I'm first an foremost doing it for my own enjoyment without regard for the viewer. That is speaking in regards to personal works.


I'm not sure I agree with both your statements there, firstly I'm sure there are MANY musicians out there who views music as a source of creative/emotional/ spiritual etc output and can create music regardless of whether another soul needs to hear it or not.

I also think that just because as artists we can do the same (I agree that we all do), doesn't mean we can't create art for the benefit of others.

Heck, creating an emotional response in people was my answer to Andrew at the workshop when he asked me what I wanted to do with my art, and I stick by that.

[Nrx]

I think the issue is we take art, and think ok we create it and its done, but if you compare this to music.

lots of music is created, then cut down to the best, then this is selected and put together as a a album, then the way you act on stage has to be considered etc etc, theres much more to making art work than just its creation.


the biggest point, that ive realised recently. when i pick up my guitar and invent a riff, its instantly motivational, it instantly means something OR it dosnt, and i know to scrap it. With art, i get a idea i get real excited i knock out some thumbs, but its never the same as seeing the final image, when the final image comes to exist 99% of the time its no were near as good as i imagined it and its way too late to re work it, were as a song id have realised by now that it sucks.

unless your axel rose, then you just release chinease democracy anyway...

[Black Spot]

The trouble is we are overloaded with imagery all around us, dulling our senses. Popular music and jingles are bit like that as well. Looking and listening properly, savouring the moment takes time. Novels are different in that they evoke visuals and sounds in our head as we read. All can be savoured or just skimmed over.

Don’t know about anyone else but I can very emotional when viewing art.

[Jacob Kobryn]

Well I DON'T listen to popular music and the music I listen to is much more abstract and experimental.

I think that one reason for this is because art hangs on a wall and adds to the general atmosphere of a place where music or writing transports you to an entirely new atmosphere/world.

[Flake]

So I was thinking a bit more about this on my way to the shops earlier..

You say you don't listen to "popular" music, but that's likely because you realised early on that most music sucked and it wasn't to your current tastes, so by various means (friends recommendations, Pandora, Last fm, selective choice of radio/tv, "customers who bought this also bought..") exposed yourself to lots of music that you were more likely to enjoy.
This process probably took years and now you'll have a vast repertoire of bands you dig, yes?

Have you tried the same with visual art?

Compare how long you have spent listening to music vs looking right up close at sweet paintings.
It's the same kinda thing, most of them suck, but gradually you learn which schools or styles are more likely to appeal to you, you explore these branches a little more, find out who taught or influenced them etc, where they got that idea to expand on.
Before you know it you have 500 favourite paintings that blow your mind.

A full appreciation of anything takes some time.

It's midnight here, I hope that made some kind of sense..

[Jacob Kobryn]

Yeah that makes sense. That's sort of how I discover new music...

My favorite artists are Giger, Beksinski, Brom, Zar, and Travis Smith. Can you recommend anything similar?

[Flake]

Nope, because other things float my particular boat and I know next to nothing about that particular niche of art.

As I said, the process takes time.

[HunterKiller_]

Can you recommend anything similar?

Have you looked through the A-Z artist thread?

[Jacob Kobryn]

I have, and I've contributed.

[Elwell]

Rarely ever does a painting make a lasting impression on me.


Analyzing a painting is not going to ignite your emotions, well, at least I've never experienced such a thing.


That's very sad.

[Jacob Kobryn]

I'll post a few images that I've felt emotional about:

http://best383.com/galeria/zdzislaw_beksinski_1984_3a.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i157/xitazuradaisukix/beksinski/zdzislaw_beksinski_1979_2.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v906/183/113/1280829252/n1280829252_192535_7845.jpg

Another one I found really powerful was this image of this woman in the rain and her head is on fire. It was in Imagine FX. I don't remember the name of the artist.

[Flake]

Well, it's a start.

For further reading I suggest "Sly and the Family Stone" or "Funkadelic".

Things can be powerful without being grim.

[Flake]

That's very sad.

Someone in one of the EOW threads posted "I've never read a book..."

THAT is scary ro me..

[Jacob Kobryn]

I know, It's just the way my mind works. I mean that first image is really, really powerful for me. It's like that couple is hugging each other for an eternity. That kind of love... is powerful. I'm sorry but I like grim. The music I listen too, the art I like, the movies I watch, the books I read are drawn to that. I HATE mindless gore though.
I'm sure why the tree is so powerful for me, it just is. Same goes for the umbrella image.

Another powerful one for me is Arnold Bocklin's Isle of the Dead.

http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/wallpaper/arnold_bocklin/02/arnold_bocklin800.jpg

The only movies that have ever been very powerful for me are Pans Labyrinth, which I literally get chills when I watch, and The Lord of the Rings. I used to cry when watching that film, but I haven't seen it in years.

[Flake]

Chill dude, I kinda like the first one too, but I wonder if you realise that it has far more in common with 19th century Romantics or symbolists than anything that most teenagers would describe as "metal!1!"?

It's not grim, it's kinda sweet. Or cuddly.

[Jacob Kobryn]

I do realize. I don't listen to "ZoMg Soo uber brootal, so meytal lulz!1!" nor do I dress/act that way.
Until you stop viewing me as an arrogant metal head teenager, we can't have a serious conversation. A lot of the music I listen to makes U2 look insanely heavy...

[Jacob Kobryn]

I kind of am a romantic to be honest. A depressed/frustrated romantic.

A lot of my negativity is sprung from my love...

[Flake]

Jake, I don't.

Please don't take anything personally, this is just me chatting stuff online because everyone else in the house has gone to bed.

Chill a bit,

[bhanu]

Rarely ever does a painting make a lasting impression on me
I think you need to look at better paintings.

or look at them in a better way...beauty lies in the eye of the beholder..and where he stands...
last night I sat for 20 minutes looking at an old watercolor my girl made when she was a kid....it seemed so beautiful to me...that all her technically better stuff stood nowhere infront of that.

And i love brutal/thrash/grindcore ......

who says metalheads cant be subtle.....
and i dont see much negativity in you Jake...not much...

[Jacob Kobryn]

[off toppic]I don't like being called a metal-head because I don't at all only listen to metal.

Though a lot of my music is placed in the genre of metal, it's often much closer to folk or psychedelic rock. I just like GOOD Music...
Rock and Metal, but more specifically Progressive Rock/Metal, Psychedelic Rock, Post-Rock/Metal, Avant-Garde, Krautrock, and Math-Rock, as well as some Ambient/Drone, Prog-Folk, Neo-Folk, Jazz-Fusion, and Zuel. I dislike bands with higher-pitched male singers and that use "cheesy" keyboards (like Rush). Normally, I like more obscure and experimental bands... artistic bands.

My Favorite bands are (though they change constantly):

Opeth
Tool
Meshuggah
Porcupine Tree
Katatonia
Alice In Chains
Deathspell Omega
Isis
Arcturus
Ne Obliviscaris

Aside (though arguably, Kat. will probably be fully progressive on their next release) Katatonia and AIC, those are all very progressive bands. If you want to hear some REALLY weird stuff then head over to my "Most 'Out There' albums you own" thread. Any artist should appreciate this stuff for the sheer bizarre originality of it. NeO needs some more support too, so you should check them out anyway. They're unsigned but they're AMAZING so if you live in AUS you should go to their gigs and buy their merchandise or whatever.

I'm not an angry person by ANY stretch also. A bit morbid yeah, but not at all angry or mean. I'm a nice person despite my morbid taste in art and music... I swear.

I listen to a TON of post-rock and rock as well as metal. Sigur Ros is one of my favorite bands and they're not at all metal.

Check out my Last FM for more on what I listen to.

I also hate the entire "metal" personality. I'm not at all "metal." [/off toppic]

p.s. How did this thread get so off topic, how did I become the infamous CA metal-head, and what does my taste in music have to do with the topic of this thread?

[Jacob Kobryn]

who says metalheads cant be subtle.....


Who says metal cant be subtle?

I hate that when people hear the term metal they instantly think that it all sounds like Slayer or Slipknot.

[Bowlin]

Another powerful one for me is Arnold Bocklin's Isle of the Dead.

http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/wallpaper/arnold_bocklin/02/arnold_bocklin800.jpg



I'm curious as to why Darrell K Sweet made his own version of the picture, or vice versa?

[Jacob Kobryn]

So did Giger:

http://www.system75.com/gallery/giger/images/Bocklin.jpg

Böcklin's was first though. His painting was made 54 years before Sweet was even born.

[waranghira]

The only movies that have ever been very powerful for me are Pans Labyrinth, which I literally get chills when I watch

ooohh, the leading character is so pretty. </pedomode>

[Grief]

youve identified some pieces of art youre attracted towards but you havent elaborated on what about them is of interest to you.

it look slike you tend to gravitate toward muted tones with a diffused edge quality. even more fascinating is the thematic addition of isolation and central focus of the images.

i think you need to take a greater look at the images and extract what from it you can distill for your own work. ask some critical questions of why the artists did what they did.

its easy to say 'i like the environmet' but then ask what is it about the enironment that you like, maybe the colors, then why do you like those colors? etc.

once you are able to analyze components more specifically then you can begin to use them in your own studies and find ways in which you can alter or enhance the conceptual basis youre using those elements in

[Duq]

Hey why isnt the theatre and performance mentioned anywhere :O

Its the genre where everything you experience you can never experience again. Since theatre is a one time only experience. And this is what makes a good theatre play so damn awesome, the impression you get from it will last forever and you can never reevaluate it.

This is the same I have with visual art. Its one image that connects with you, and alot of how you are on that particular day will decide how much of an impression that piece will make. And you can see it a thousands times afterwards, discover why it had a such an effect. But the initial experience will never happen again.

Music and film provide the same, but a main difference is that in music and film you get the emotions of others to deal with. You can then reflect those over your own life, and if the reflection is valuable to your own life, you get an awesome movie or song. But visual art and performance is all about being presented with one powerfull image, void of subtext, and triggering the audience to tell the story, making these media's very personal.

yay sunday artsy fartsy talk!

[Opilione]

I don't really understand why things like this aren't more frequently occurring.
Try sequential art instead. Doesn't have to be a traditional comic. If you've flipped through the Comic Book Tattoo compilation, though some of them are a bit lacking, there's some excellent examples of sequential art that isn't traditional comic form.

I also second the emphasis on learning to look at art in a different way. You're always limited by the medium - film may be more absorbing for the viewer but it's an exceedingly corrupting production and the original idea is often lost in the creation of the final product. A novel may be considered more valuable to society but it may also be less accessible due to language barriers. Music is still only audio and it often takes people listening to songs in different ways to enjoy them and associate them with things. The beauty of art is that it has an immediate viseral affect on the viewer, and the reaction of the viewer will be reflective of how she or he thinks about art. This is probably why the traditional forms of art have such a problematic place in our society at the moment. We live in a society where immediate visual art has become possibly the most highly disposable part of the pop culture economy. Thus you probably have to be even better than artists of old to break out of the shit and actually have an effect on your audience, an audience who is subconsciously exposed to more pieces of art in advertising and packaging each day than any that has come before. Film comes second thanks to the glories of the tube, then music thanks to its association with the filmic arts.

Sorry, I don't have any answers, but again, I emphasise maybe refreshing your art theory, exploring different avenues and schools of thought about art, perhaps not even from the topic itself, but from areas like lit and film theory, music history, even human psychology. The broader your knowledge is, the more you'll get out of yours and other people's art.

[chriskot]

It's past 7:00am here and I haven't gotten any sleep yet. My apologies if what I'm about to put forth is incoherent/nonsensical in any way.

I think that one reason for this is because art hangs on a wall and adds to the general atmosphere of a place where music or writing transports you to an entirely new atmosphere/world.

I'd like to argue this statement, actually. I think that both art and music can fulfill both purposes.

Yes, music can take you to a different place altogether, but it can also simply add to the atmosphere. When I'm just going for a walk with my iPod, I usually pick songs to complement my environment or mood. For example, when I am taking a happy walk through the snow, I can listen to Christmas music and it simply seems to emphasize how I already see and feel (I don't actually have much Christmas music on my iPod, but I think you can see what I'm getting at with this example). Music appeals to the sense of hearing, and can thus (theoretically) accomplish the same effect as any sound you can hear. Likewise, art appeals to the sense of sight. The effect will vary greatly depending on the type of art, but certain art can transport you to anywhere when done correctly. When standing in front of an enormous mural it is very easy to feel like you are in the picture. Also, don't forget that architecture and sculpture are also types of visual art. Not all art needs to hang on walls.

Off topic: That picture of the tree with the branches stretching off into the distance. I've seen it before and I really like it. Can someone tell me who it's by?

[Goog]

I think one reason why some only have responses to one genre of painting, music, etc. is because that is what lines up with their life's experiences. I was very much in the same boat as you Jake, until I started opening myself up to other influences, like nature and other people. For example, it's hard to have a response to a painting of something in nature unless you spend time with nature and it's beauties and subtleties. I sternly believe that every art form has it's merits, it's just up to me to experience them in order to understand them, and consequently have a response to them.

[Jacob Kobryn]

Off topic: That picture of the tree with the branches stretching off into the distance. I've seen it before and I really like it. Can someone tell me who it's by?

Zdzislaw Beksinski

[Dadaist]

I am starting to feel inferior as a visual artist to the above mentioned art forms. With a painting, there are some powerful images, but mostly I look at something and feel "that's cool looking" and walk away. Rarely ever does a painting make a lasting impression on me. I'm often moved by extraordinary works of music and occasionally literature. For myself, art is a form of self-expression but I find it difficult to captivate viewers and take them on a journey like one can do with an album or novel. Art is more self indulgent if you will.

I devour books and most of them don't leave a lasting impression on me. In all art forms people are more often exposed to rubbish than great art. There are paintings by Leonora Carrington, De Chirico, Ernst and Alfred Kubin I wouldn't trade for some novels I've read. Many paintings have allowed me to have glimpes at fascinating worlds that the most descriptive novels couldn't recreate.

[arttorney]

In all art forms there is drivel, there is the sublime, and there is everything in between. Keep looking, Jake, and I hope you can find the 2d artwork that can carry you off into another dimension. I am sure it is out there.

For me personally, I can say I was completely hypnotized by van Gogh's Mulberry Tree down at the Norton Simon, and a Room full of prints from Kandinsky's Small Worlds series nearly brought me to tears.

For your taste, it looks like you may enjoy "Toilers At Sea" by Albert P. Ryder and Victor Hugo's ink drawing style, which was quite dark.

[erinel]

Does video game art count? They're another in between, in between film and paintings. But some of the art I see go into games, especially backgrounds and landscapes, will awe me sometimes and fill me with some feelings. But again, that might be because of the connection you feel to other aspects in the game.