Suprematism Art - Page 2
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: Suprematism Art

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 127 Times in 76 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah maybe I am missing out on something... I enjoyed moment of silence alone in familiar surroundings before, but maybe that's like watching rented movies at home. And 4'33 is like the Avatar in 3D of silence. pld:

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas Heirwegh View Post
    Don't give that impression then Modern art started more because of Sigmeund Freud's psychoanalysis then about artists who tried to prove they were still necessary.
    Freudian psychoanalysis is ALSO bullshit. We truly live in the Age of Preposterism...

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 311 Times in 113 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Malevich was a graphic designer who wasn't talented enough to be an important painter. So he rationalized his way to a manifesto idea where graphic design, his level of talent, would seem more important than deeper and more accomplished works of art.

    One benefit of being a graphic designer-cum-fine art painter, is that the ease with which the work can be done leaves a great many hours in the day to hype the product, to develop advertising copy.

    Nothing more annoying than people who buy into some lame artist's pretentious self-hype repeating as if it were fact, and then acting as if they are sophisticated for pretending to "get" the profundity of the doggerel. (The appeal to the authority, the estimable Mr. Mullins in this case, is a typical amateur arguer's attempt to make an argument by fiat, rather than through rigor.)

    If you actually understood aesthetics, Jonas, you would laugh at Malevich's claims.

    That he was an important artist... well, if you believe that meaningless graphic designs are important, and constituted the best the world of art had to offer in the 20th century, then I suppose he was an important artist to you and all those in your particular bandwagon. But your bandwagon is just one squeaky cart on the road. And the demand that your particular uninformed opinion, the dogmatic understanding with which you have been programmed, be taken as gospel is increasingly falling on deaf ears.

    Kiss. Kiss.

    Evil Kev
    XXX

    First of all Kevin, I don't buy into anything and I never claimed Malevich is right. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's about an artist who tried something and nothing more. I assume that's not so hard to understand.
    Now I'll say this, you have a certain responsibility on these forums because you have many youngsters on here who highly respect you and thus believe anything you say without question. So please don't act like you speak in facts when that's just not the case.
    You assume Malevich was arrogant and the only reason why he did what he did was because of ego. If that isn't buying into something I don't know what is. It's a prejudice, nothing more. Who ever said he was? Who ever said thats what motivated him. You can tell from his art alone?

    Second thing, where did I say Malevich is was a superb designer? As I said before, I don't claim anything and most certainly not that I know it all. He was influential in the beginning of the 20th century, that's a fact. Whether you like this or not is simply not important, I'm not a defender of modern art man, and I'm not against it either, why would I? Also what are aesthetics exactly to you. You claim to know perfectly what good aesthetics are, again get of you high horse Kevin. Nothing more annoying then people who claim they know all the facts and only have prejudice as a foundation to build on.
    If you don't like it or don't agree with it then discuss humbly and don't mock it like your opinion means anything to the world.
    I don't see why some people are so heavily against it anyway, there are allot of things to be against in this world. Cool down a bit

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 311 Times in 113 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    Freudian psychoanalysis is ALSO bullshit. We truly live in the Age of Preposterism...
    First thing you have to realize when digging in art history is you have to understand the world then and forget what is now.

    We all know NOW what Freud's theories are. Back then it heavily influenced artists like Gustave Klimt, Kokoschka, Egon Schiele, etc.
    Now what's there not to understand? You claim it didn't have unfluence or it shouldn't have?

    See, your not reading to well. I don't claim Freud is still relevant today but he most certainly was back then.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonas Heirwegh For This Useful Post:


  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas Heirwegh View Post
    First thing you have to realize when digging in art history is you have to understand the world then and forget what is now.

    We all know NOW what Freud's theories are. Back then it heavily influenced artists like Gustave Klimt, Kokoschka, Egon Schiele, etc.
    Now what's there not to understand? You claim it didn't have unfluence or it shouldn't have?

    See, your not reading to well. I don't claim Freud is still relevant today but he most certainly was back then.
    Fair enough. Many of these people were indeed very influential, out of all proportion to the actual value of their ideas. We should perhaps learn something from this. It was an understandable error. So can we now move on then?

    I don't want to overstate the point. I very much like the art of Klimt, Kokoschka and Schiele, for example. But then, their art remained grounded in classical drawing. There will always be a subjective element to the decision of where the cutoff point should be, where art gets too weird to still be art.

    I'm not sure there is much point to the debate, actually - it's a bit like the one on what is the "real" definition of art.

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 311 Times in 113 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    Fair enough. Many of these people were indeed very influential, out of all proportion to the actual value of their ideas. We should perhaps learn something from this. It was an understandable error. So can we now move on then?

    I don't want to overstate the point. I very much like the art of Klimt, Kokoschka and Schiele, for example. But then, their art remained grounded in classical drawing. There will always be a subjective element to the decision of where the cutoff point should be, where art gets too weird to still be art.

    I'm not sure there is much point to the debate, actually - it's a bit like the one on what is the "real" definition of art.

    It is very much subjective indeed. I don't think there is a definition to art because nothing is art and all is art. There is no cutoff point, there will never be and it will always be a debate for people who can't understand that.

    Art is in yourself, YOU give that definition for yourself only, nobody else. What is art only exists in your own mind. It's a word like love, what love means to you can be something different then what it means to me. So it's pointless
    But this thread isn't about that.

    Also, don't think about it as errors. They weren't wrong back then, they changed something and changing means progress. As artists we should know that you have to go through many "errors" to progress.

    Last edited by Jonas Heirwegh; January 13th, 2012 at 01:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #37
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Oh. No. You. Dit. Int.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas Heirwegh View Post
    First of all Kevin, I don't buy into anything and I never claimed Malevich is right. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's about an artist who tried something and nothing more. I assume that's not so hard to understand.
    Now I'll say this, you have a certain responsibility on these forums because you have many youngsters on here who highly respect you and thus believe anything you say without question. So please don't act like you speak in facts when that's just not the case.
    You assume Malevich was arrogant and the only reason why he did what he did was because of ego. If that isn't buying into something I don't know what is. It's a prejudice, nothing more. Who ever said he was? Who ever said thats what motivated him. You can tell from his art alone?

    Second thing, where did I say Malevich is was a superb designer? As I said before, I don't claim anything and most certainly not that I know it all. He was influential in the beginning of the 20th century, that's a fact. Whether you like this or not is simply not important, I'm not a defender of modern art man, and I'm not against it either, why would I? Also what are aesthetics exactly to you. You claim to know perfectly what good aesthetics are, again get of you high horse Kevin. Nothing more annoying then people who claim they know all the facts and only have prejudice as a foundation to build on.
    If you don't like it or don't agree with it then discuss humbly and don't mock it like your opinion means anything to the world.
    I don't see why some people are so heavily against it anyway, there are allot of things to be against in this world. Cool down a bit
    No, you listen...

    You are telling people to "stop judging, and at least read what Malevich was trying to do and appreciate that he was attempting something new, etc..."

    Well, you seeeeeeeeem to be suggesting that you have read what Malevich said, and beyond that find it compelling enough as a rationale for his results that it should be respected. And you are suggesting the results are original enough to warrant attention... are important in terms of art history...

    Well, who the hell cares about an art history that has been taken over by credulous pretentious douchebags? Eh? Why should we bow before the trained seals of academia? What in bloody hell do they know about art?

    I say in response to the other point about reading Malevich and understanding his thoughts that went into his work: Either you haven't read Malevich, you haven't understood Malevich, or you have read and understood Malevich and don't understand why he's wrong or dumb or childish. In all cases, you are setting yourself up as a source of righteousness on the matter which isn't warranted. You are merely a carrier of the "be open minded" meme, which is just another tedious scrap of politically correct dogma which deserves to be crushed underfoot.

    Open-mindedness alone helps nothing and does no good. Open mindedness must be accompanied by educated skepticism. The goal of teaching artists is to make strong, creative minds. Not simpering doe-eyed wonder-robots with neither the capacity nor willingness to make informed judgments about art.

    Since art lives by virtue of what it communicates aesthetically, an instinctual response to a work of art, positive or negative, is exactly NOT the thing you want to delegitimize. Particularly when you seek to replace that honest aesthetic response with an academically-approved pseudo-intellectual one. From my perspective it is you who are providing a disservice to the aesthetic education of the photoshop-addicted idiots who are reading this fucking shitty thread.

    ♥,
    Evil Kev
    XXX

    Last edited by kev ferrara; January 13th, 2012 at 07:22 PM.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 127 Times in 76 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    maybe it means or sounds different in Russian or whatever.... but doesn't the name SUPREME-ism is a dead give away of their ego size ?

    It's glaring when you compare them to the Zen artists who draw circles and conveniently call their art form Circles(Enso).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Since art lives by virtue of what it communicates aesthetically, an instinctual response to a work of art, positive or negative, is exactly NOT the thing you want to delegitimize. Particularly when you seek to replace that honest aesthetic response with an academically-approved pseudo-intellectual one. From my perspective it is you who are providing a disservice to the aesthetic education of the photoshop-addicted idiots who are reading this fucking shitty thread.
    I think this postmodernist "anything goes" and "no objective reality" thing is inflicting monstrous harm on society, and the most disturbing aspect of it is that way in which it has infiltrated academia, which after all are supposed to be the bastions and carriers of the torch of our culture. It has now taken hold even in some of the sciences. Before long we'll be back in the early Renaissance, when all the most important work was beginning to be done outside of the universities.

    What I do find interesting, and cannot really explain, is that university-trained musicians are today at a higher technical standard than any musicians have ever been before, whereas in the visual arts they have descended into utter nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by enrigo View Post
    maybe it means or sounds different in Russian or whatever.... but doesn't the name SUPREME-ism is a dead give away of their ego size ?
    All the "isms" have gotten a bit out of hand. They used to be nothing more than convenient labels for art historians to divide up art history into periods and broad movements. Then, at some point in the late 19th century, the idea took hold that it was the main responsibility of every artist to either invent a new "ism" or to become a disciple of a recently invented one. So the "isms" wildly proliferated, often at the expense of actual art.

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to blogmatix For This Useful Post:


  12. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 489 Times in 311 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    Fair enough. Many of these people were indeed very influential, out of all proportion to the actual value of their ideas.
    Bad ideas are just as necessary for progress (individual or collective) as good ones. Without bad ideas we may not be able to recognize and appreciate the good ones. Sometimes, bad ideas can seem right at the time, but as we gain experience we (collectively or individually) eventually gain perspective to correct them... It's happened in sciences a thousand times, and will continue it happen. We are on a continuous learning treadmill, personally, professorially and as a society (or just about any segment of it)

    Being open minded and judgmental (as in exercising critical thinking, rather then chronically pooh poohing everything at a drop of a pin just to make one self feel important) are not mutually exclusive.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Conniekat8 For This Useful Post:


  14. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas Heirwegh View Post
    this guy is one of the most important art figures of the 20th century.
    How's that?

    For the lazy guys, yes this guy could paint portraits and landscapes in a more realistic fashion.
    But this thread isn't bout that, it's about a skewed white canvas on a wall. You're trying to prove he had skills because people may attack him for being unskilled. Fine, but painting portraits and landscapes have nothing to do with the skill it takes to evenly apply white paint to a flat surface. So people attacking him for creating something that took no skill is still valid. Unless you want to go down that road where I create a homage to one of the greatest artists of the 20th century every time I paint my living room.

    a movement that has been really useful as many fine artists today benefit from it.
    How's that?

    If you find this stuff boring without even doing the effort then stop screwing up potential interesting threads here on the forums.
    Sorry, google isn't a "get out of jail free" card for arguments. You can't call people lazy for not doing research when you fail to explain your personal opinion. It's different for common knowledge and facts. But we're not talking about looking up the distance between Earth and the Sun. When you say something like the stuff above, the burden of proof is on you to explain yourself. Padding your posts with "I'm on the internet, I ain't gotta explain shit" is dumb.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,972
    Thanks
    1,331
    Thanked 1,923 Times in 757 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    What I do find interesting, and cannot really explain, is that university-trained musicians are today at a higher technical standard than any musicians have ever been before, whereas in the visual arts they have descended into utter nonsense.
    I've been fascinated by this too.

    Here's why, off the top of my head, I think that is.

    Music making is not being overrun by technology like image making.
    It was the momentum of photography and it's impact on the image producing market that was part of the reason Malevich and his ken side stepped the problem. A problem which has been side stepped again by the post modernists...

    Thus, with the apotheosis of photography into low cost pan photoshop heaven, the visual skill carriage has been decoupled from the commercial gravy train and allowed to rot in the wasteland of a post modernist siding. (purple I know... but you get the idea )
    Music does not have this problem to anywhere near the same degree, hence its pracatitioners are still required to come up with the goods.

    Last edited by Chris Bennett; January 14th, 2012 at 05:45 AM.
    From Gegarin's point of view
    http://www.chrisbennettartist.co.uk/
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 311 Times in 113 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    No, you listen...

    You are telling people to "stop judging, and at least read what Malevich was trying to do and appreciate that he was attempting something new, etc..."

    Well, you seeeeeeeeem to be suggesting that you have read what Malevich said, and beyond that find it compelling enough as a rationale for his results that it should be respected. And you are suggesting the results are original enough to warrant attention... are important in terms of art history...

    Well, who the hell cares about an art history that has been taken over by credulous pretentious douchebags? Eh? Why should we bow before the trained seals of academia? What in bloody hell do they know about art?

    I say in response to the other point about reading Malevich and understanding his thoughts that went into his work: Either you haven't read Malevich, you haven't understood Malevich, or you have read and understood Malevich and don't understand why he's wrong or dumb or childish. In all cases, you are setting yourself up as a source of righteousness on the matter which isn't warranted. You are merely a carrier of the "be open minded" meme, which is just another tedious scrap of politically correct dogma which deserves to be crushed underfoot.

    Open-mindedness alone helps nothing and does no good. Open mindedness must be accompanied by educated skepticism. The goal of teaching artists is to make strong, creative minds. Not simpering doe-eyed wonder-robots with neither the capacity nor willingness to make informed judgments about art.

    Since art lives by virtue of what it communicates aesthetically, an instinctual response to a work of art, positive or negative, is exactly NOT the thing you want to delegitimize. Particularly when you seek to replace that honest aesthetic response with an academically-approved pseudo-intellectual one. From my perspective it is you who are providing a disservice to the aesthetic education of the photoshop-addicted idiots who are reading this fucking shitty thread.

    ♥,
    Evil Kev
    XXX

    I'm skeptical, trust me. Just don't mock the whole thing like it's all crap man, some naive folks around here are actually gonna believe that shit and think the whole 20th century should be forgotten.

    Now a serious question. What should we remember from the 20th century fine arts according to you? I'm really curious about that, no bullshit.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    676
    Thanked 239 Times in 136 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I didn't read through the entire thread, just throwing my two cents out there.

    While one could argue that Malevich and to a lesser extent Lissitzky's art in itself isn't much to look at (Lissitzky wasn't quite as simplistic), they were hugely influental for the rise of the Bauhaus and constructivism in general. They didn't set out to paint pretty pictures, but rather to act as scientists. You see, apart from painting pictures they also created sculptures with the sole purpose of exploring the properties of different materials, which is something architects and designers continued to do throughout the constructivistic era.
    The German art movement De Stihl, pioneered by artists such as Gerrit Rietveld and Piet Mondrian, was doing a bit of the same thing, just exploring shapes and composition for the sake of research.
    While I do think these minimalist paintings are hugely overpriced and often quite anticlimatic, I can see the effect it had on much of the modernist movement.
    I just think it had alot more to say for fields other than painting.

    Woah, I can feel my design history is getting rusty. Better freshen it up.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iambanana For This Useful Post:


  19. #45
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I have no problem with the argument that the modern art movement was highly creative and came up with a bunch of interesting new types of design. If you want to argue that it was a great design workshop, I'm down with that. Just don't tell me its deep as art because it isn't. The aesthetic arguments don't hold water, they are simply advertising copy. Mostly the movement is populated with experimental graphic decorations or cartoons, only different from other decorations because they are bolder and don't look like Victorian wallpaper elements, only different from other cartoons because they have paint quality to their grotesqueries and more authority in the execution. And of course, they can be sold off the gallery wall.

    All I am saying is look at Malevich for what it is, (experiments in design) not what he or any other academic who wants to seem smart says it is.

    Last edited by kev ferrara; January 14th, 2012 at 12:20 PM.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    One of my weaknesses is listening to sports analysts. The comparison to critics is unmistakable. We get more of our information from ESPN than from the athletes themselves just as we get more of our information from writers and critics than directly from artists, sound bites and out of context quotes notwithstanding.

    Most of us here make art or a least aspire to art making. There are artists, the 20th century is rife with them, who took too many cues from the critics rather than from themselves. There are athletes who do this but the greats change the game rather than let the game change them. Or at least, through experience and will, find and build on a personal voice without being pulled here and there by a critic's nose ring.

    The reason I bring up this shoddy analogy is that I work in the business where bandwagon criticism was invented, academia. In fact I switched my teaching career path from painting to illustration and drawing because I was too weak to stand up tho the pressure of academia. It's exhausting. There is also the fact that I enjoy the vocabulary of illustration more than that of "fine art" and find it less restricting.

    Making decisions from an educated viewpoint includes not only reading and writing but making art and the universal ingredient of time. Controversial? Yeah probably. But I gotta tell ya it's really hard to take the opinions of some of my colleagues seriously when they are so much better at speaking and boring writing than they are at making art while limiting their reading and study to the hot spots of academic art history.

    I guess my whole point in this is that defense of an ism can only be made at the academic level especially if we live outside its time frame. Discussions can be interesting and fun but I have come to believe that experiencing art is just that, experience. Maybe this rant is just my academic weariness. Making art is affirming and transcending on the other hand talking about artists whose work may be important historically and academically but holds no power visually is getting old for me.

    Apologies.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    676
    Thanked 239 Times in 136 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Just don't tell me its deep as art because it isn't.
    I won't either. It isn't deep as art at all, simply experimentations. Which is why I get so endlessly aggravated when people argue for the hidden symbolisms and metaphors.
    There are none.

    I think we agree.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to iambanana For This Useful Post:


  24. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by iambanana View Post
    I won't either. It isn't deep as art at all, simply experimentations. Which is why I get so endlessly aggravated when people argue for the hidden symbolisms and metaphors.
    There are none.
    Yup, what is irritating about modern art isn't the art itself but the nonsense that gets talked about it. :-)

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 489 Times in 311 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by iambanana View Post
    I won't either. It isn't deep as art at all, simply experimentations. Which is why I get so endlessly aggravated when people argue for the hidden symbolisms and metaphors.
    There are none.

    I think we agree.
    I remember when I was about 5-6 years old, my grandpa was painting the walls in his house, and watching me. To keep me out if his hair, he took his drawing board, strapped a piece of paper on it, and let me play with paint.

    I started playing with paint, and entertaining myself with a story that was unflodign in my head, something like, the red splotch is going to eat the blue one in this spot, and the blue will poke the green etc... It went on till the entire 24x36 sheet was covered by paint.

    My Grandpa saved it and for grins would show it to people. I distinctly remember the adults attributing all kinds of visions and meaning to it, and I was thinking, OMG, these people are truly off their nut. For some reason those moments always stayed with me.

    Much later onm in late highschool or college (I forget exactly when) I learned about inductive reasoning.... I haven't really investigated how inductive reasoning applies to, or interferes with art. On the surface it seems like there is a lot of it going on. That, and subjective projections.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Conniekat8 View Post
    My Grandpa saved it and for grins would show it to people. I distinctly remember the adults attributing all kinds of visions and meaning to it, and I was thinking, OMG, these people are truly off their nut. For some reason those moments always stayed with me.
    Nowadays, such work sometimes gets sold for gazillions, everybody eager to have a work by some or other "prodigy." :-)

    I just discovered the work of Zdzislaw Beksinski:

    http://lcrazzy1.narod.ru/image/fanta...eksinski/1.htm

    It looks like it is infused with meaning, and I'm sure a good critic can write whole essays about the deeper and real meaning of each painting. The artist himself always laughed at such attempts. He never gave any of his paintings a title, and when asked about the deeper meaning of art, he said "I cannot conceive of a sensible statement on painting".

    I rather like that. :-)

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 489 Times in 311 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by iambanana View Post
    While I totally agree with you, were you drunk while writing this? The best stufff is always written while drunk. Such as this.
    LOLOL I wish I was, I would be having a lot more fun.

    More like 'in a wake-up, or half awake mode, between the first sip of caffeine and the rest of it....
    I hate waking up, my body feels all wrong for the first few hours.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 489 Times in 311 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    Nowadays, such work sometimes gets sold for gazillions, everybody eager to have a work by some or other "prodigy." :-)
    Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had my grandpa not moved away when I was around 6....

    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    I just discovered the work of Zdzislaw Beksinski:

    http://lcrazzy1.narod.ru/image/fanta...eksinski/1.htm

    It looks like it is infused with meaning, and I'm sure a good critic can write whole essays about the deeper and real meaning of each painting. The artist himself always laughed at such attempts. He never gave any of his paintings a title, and when asked about the deeper meaning of art, he said "I cannot conceive of a sensible statement on painting".

    I rather like that. :-)
    Thanks for sharing this. I haven't heard of the artist before. Trippy work. I can see how people could induce all kinds of concepts and symbolism into it....

    Just reminded me of something one of my art teacher said, that I found thought provoking on several levels: "The experience of a piece of art doesn't belong to the artist."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    3,855
    Thanks
    2,297
    Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,352 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Trixtar View Post
    Second thought is that he was probably a guy who didn't know how to paint people and nature and never bothered to learn.
    He did try to learn to paint people and nature. He wasn't very good at it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Conniekat8 View Post
    Thanks for sharing this. I haven't heard of the artist before. Trippy work. I can see how people could induce all kinds of concepts and symbolism into it....
    I have seen some of these before but never knew who painted them. Rather interestingly, as dark as his work is, he himself was apparently a relaxed, pleasant man with a good sense of humour. Apparently he himself felt his work was actually humourous and even optimistic rather than dark.

    But with the universe's trademark sick sense of humour, he was eventually murdered.

    Just reminded me of something one of my art teacher said, that I found thought provoking on several levels: "The experience of a piece of art doesn't belong to the artist."
    Come to think of it, this is true: the things you do yourself, you are too close to to see them clearly.

    I also like the expression "experience of a piece of art." There is of course room for sober analysis, but art must first and foremost be experienced. We don't listen to a Beethoven symphony in order to count the notes.

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to blogmatix For This Useful Post:


  32. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 489 Times in 311 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    Come to think of it, this is true: the things you do yourself, you are too close to to see them clearly.
    Also, I gather that the more skilled the artist, the more capable they are able to guide the viewer into a certain experience... by using a few visual 'tricks' (out of the lack of a better work here. But then, when you look at your own piece, you're too aware of the tricks, to really enjoy the experience.
    Little like seeing the setup of a stunt in a movie, it ruins a fall off a tall building, if you knew it wasn't really a tall building, but a three foot wall with a fat cushion under it.

    Personally, not being skilled enough to create those illusions deliberately, I an noticing similar happens with what I see as 'errors', when I finish a piece (more like when I draw the line and say, enough, move on), all I see on it is errors and things I wish I've done better... and a casual viewer can sincerely enjoy it - to my dismay.

    Anyway, that's in part of why I'm a fan of one particular teacher, other then just drawing or painting skills, he always makes us *think*!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked 30 Times in 20 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    He should have called it something less pretentious, like "averagetism."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •