Is expression of skill the only thing that makes art good?
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: Is expression of skill the only thing that makes art good?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Is expression of skill the only thing that makes art good?

    To start off I don't believe this is so, but I've noticed a fairly hostile attitude on this forum toward abstract and "modern" art. I understand that this is a "concept art" forum and the nature of illustration and concept work requires an emphasis on realism, however it's a little dissapointing to see artists just outright dismissing things they don't understand. I am not going to make an attempt to try and stand up for the whole of non-representational/modern art (because there is plenty of it that IS crap) and I certainly don't think that little girls (or really anyone) should be selling paintings for 10,000. There are certainly historical issues with some older paintings. But I don't think that a giant painting of a red dot is worth half a mil....however that has nothing to do, in my mind, with whether or not I respect it as "art."

    Why are people bothered when they have to think about what a piece of art is or means? Maybe the fact that it got you thinking is enough. Some art requires you know something about the ideas and motives of the particular artist...if you're not interested in finding that stuff out, fine, but to dismiss it as crap without making an attempt to understand it is just self-inflicted stupidity. Some art also requires you to understand the era and context in which it was created. Another issue is reproduction, a 15 foot color field painting is going to look pretty stupid as a 2 x 3 inch black and white pic in some art history book, and the very nature of installation art requires you to be there and inside of it. I didn't "get" abstact art for a long time, and one day I was at the graduate MFA show at my school and I stopped infront of this giant canvas that was covered with inummerable layers of paint and near the top had a raised wavy texture crossing from side to side. My immediate response was, "Ok so what is the point of that?" Then I saw the little artist statement on the wall and decided to go read it...it basically said that, in the artists view realist/illusionistic art is always a reference to another experience, and because its a 2D reproduction created by a person it can never be a potent as the real experience. He wanted his paintings to be original experiences of their own. It's not a reference to a thing, it is a thing and that, in his mind, gave it worth. That left an impression on me.

    Skill vs Art...Does more skill make better art? What is the point of making a painting that looks exactly like a photograph? Just to prove you can do it? That seems a little masturbatory to me. I think punk rock is a good example in the skill vs art clash...here is a genre of music that (originally anyway) intentionally steers away from musical complexity to become a more visceral expression. Whether you like it or not 90% of new rock out there has some punk in it now, so it appealed to some one. On the other end of the spectrum there's Van Halen. Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing skill is certainly impressive, but most of their music just sounds like musical masturbation (there it is again! ) to me. It seems like the expression is lost inorder to showcase Eddie's talent...that and to give David Lee Roth something to jump around to after hes done to much coke to sit down.

    Anyway, as those are my thoughts, I'm interested to hear other people's...fire away


    James Ball

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 118 Times in 69 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    http://www.ouchthewebsite.com/page.j...mouch/joel.inc

    I know for a fact this guy never took an art class in his life.

    Tell me that don't piss you off? He getting recognition because he surfs, not because he's an artist.

    I refuse to believe he has more skill then me.....especially since I grew up with him. I know him more then you do anyway.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    524
    Thanked 314 Times in 89 Posts
    Follows
    2
    Following
    0
    Now I understand why punk is my least favorite genre of music.

    Honest response: In my opinion, expression without skill is guideless and skill without expression is lifeless.... the best art is the marriage of the two.

    Last edited by Sinix; July 11th, 2005 at 02:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    755
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 757 Times in 47 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Cthogua,

    I totally agree with you.

    And NoSeRider, dude, stop your whining and moaning for gods sake! Every fucking week, I see you opening some opinionated threads, about how someone gets too much money for theitr art, or how you could draw at least as good as Jim Lee.
    Man, stop being so bitter about life and so jealous over other peoples success. Develop your skills, create something outstanding, invest your time into studies, learn your buisness and how to market yourself and make some money, instead of vomiting all over the Lounge. It's really getting annoying.


    Cheers
    M

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Next to Black Pyramid
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 84 Times in 46 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    so many words, so little attention span.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 118 Times in 69 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    945
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Very good post Cthogua, I was afraid this would be another "modern art doesn't suck, you're just too stupid to get it"-thread, but I agree with you bout 100%.

    One thing in particular that you brought up is something I've been thinking a lot about lately while contemplating my own art and skills and where to go from where I am: the, as you so poetically described it, masturbatory art.
    After getting really frustraded with myself I came to the conclusion that I was tripping to much on "leet skillz". Seeing a piece I would find it cool based on the ammount of skills expressed. Like thinking "wow, he drew all of that without any reference, how cool", instead of admiring the impact the actual piece had on me.

    /fd
    "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 49 Times in 26 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I don┤t think it┤s really hostility.

    For example:

    If there is a forum dedicated to baseball then you won┤t find many people starting discussions about football in that forum.

    Here it┤s conceptart for film and games (and some other stuff) so modern art is not really discussed (exept in "art history" threads) here.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,661
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Noserider

    I understand your frustration.

    However, I have to agree with Marko (not as hostile though). Whoever that guy is, he'll be famous now... for a while, but people will see his art isn't that good after all. To become a great artist, really *great*, it takes real skill. Look at all the great artists: Sargent, Tadema, Bouguereau, Michaelangelo. Their art lives on through the ages because it's actually GOOD, and people can see that. They have eyes.

    So, keep at it! Besides, YOUR art IS good. So that guy will be on an internet website for a few months and soon forgotten. But YOUR art will be looked upon hundreds of years from now and never forgottened.

    Cheers!

    Last edited by CaptainInsano; July 11th, 2005 at 04:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    533
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hi,
    Picasso said "At 14, I was drawing like Raphael, but I spent my whole life learning to draw like a child."
    It shows that each artist has a different goal, and will develop particular skills to achieve it.
    Trying to define which amount of skills is required in a painting to be called Art, is pointless. Each one of us has a different definition - or sensation - of what is Art : I'm sure that many artists exposed at Venice's biennal art festival, or at the Kassel's Documenta, would consider conceptArt to be NO art at all... Are they right ? No more than the one who will say that red points on a blue background (Joan Miro) doesn't make a piece of art.
    Let other people live and feel art the way they want, and let's do our own art : the only question that is important to me is "Today, did I achieve my goals through my painting ?" Nothing else really matters.
    Bye

    ____________

    = W A N D E R E R =
    C O M I C B O O K A R T I S T

    ++ FLESH AND FOAM ++
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Thanks for the support Marko, glad to see a pro weighing in.

    Nose, I really don't see why you have such a problem with the surfer guys art. You say you know him so I can't really comment on what he may or maynot be like as a person, but I don't think his art looks that bad. I've certainly seen an ass-ton of crappier surfer art. Is it gimmicky? Probably a little. However getting gallery showings and whatnot probably has more to do with connections than the presence of substance or quality in his work.

    Also to clarify...I wasn't really complaining about the lack of discussion of modern art on this forum..its called Conceptart.org, I understand that. What bothered me was people who are trying to become better artists shutting out entire genres of work because it doesn't resemble their own, or the work they aspire to make. Perhaps this is just my deluded opinion, but I think that as artists we need to be as open-minded as possible. There are lessons to be learned everywhere if you look hard enough...and there is more to learned than technique.

    I'll write more later, but I should probably get back to work, since I am...at work


    James Ball

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    My Inner Universe
    Posts
    1,191
    Thanks
    3,376
    Thanked 873 Times in 200 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Honestly, i think your all gay.... lol

    but really, IMO I think people that do modern art are lifelong uninspired artists, sometimes with great skill, sometimes not, and its the one with the actual basic skill at least who come up with the good looking modern art and the non skill people are just in it for the money cause they know people will buy it and look at it because they want to prove they are clever and better than anyone because they can figure out with the piece of art actually means even if it really didn't have a meaning in the 1st place.

    Not everything has a meaning, non of my art has a meaning, i just draw the things i do because i think they look kool, end of. its like RHCP songs, amazing lyrics, yet most of them even anthony doesn't even know wat they mean. I'm sure alot of people do draw things for meaning and stuff, but i'm saying people need to stop assuming every piece of modern art has a meaning just because its a swirl and called lifes vortex or something. maybe some do, but i like to sit back and judge whether i like it or not because of how it looks, not wat it means... my opinion, sorry if this comes along as a rant, i'm real crap at talking about stuff like this...

    I agree with you somewat tho. peace to all!

    Crit for a crit!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    302
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The thing that toubles me about modern art is, that it's just a copy of some older stuff, for example if you paint like picaso youre not producing art but just a copy the revolutionary thing about absract art was the way of viewing things, Imagine that nooone ever did some nonrealistic painting and youre the first one to do it. The same goes for concept art youre doing super realistic stuff, but that won't make you a good artist, because someone did it already for example do you know Menzel? An increadibly skilled guy he spent his entire life with drawing but he wasnt the first maybe he would have become famous if he was born few hundred years erlier during renaisance. I think creating something new is that what makes art, most of modern artist do just copy, So a guy who sells an abstract picture is somehow the same like an guy who sells an illustration. But both of them didn't produce art.

    sorry for my bad english i hope you catch my drift ^^

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 847 Times in 457 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I, for one, like to visit Contemporary art museums. There is very good modern art, but there is so much crap it's scary.

    What I hate the most: Stuff that looks like nothing and is uninteresting if you don't have a guide or a little sign explaining it.

    I can look at automatiste art or cubist art and like it even if I don't understand it. But some of it seems like some artists hide their lack of expression or talent in deep thoughful bullshit.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,475
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    A quote I have from Michealangelo. "If people know how hard I worked to become as good as I am, it wouldn't seem wonderful at all."

    Nagasch: You are referring to the great debate between innovative art and derivitive art. I don't think I spelled derivitive right but it is art which has been done before. ie. copying an old masters painting. Sure it looks good but it ain't new. On the flipside, innovative is something totally new. ie. moderan art. Sure it's new but it doesn't look good. Sometimes!

    Modern art has its place. I bought a book which I thought was on conceptart for film/games but turned out to be more about artists like Duchamp. By the end of the book, my opinion had been completely changed. Art is not solely about the amount of brushstrokes nor is it solely about the amount of thought put into each brushstroke. It's both.

    [][][][] DRAW EVERYDAY [][][][]>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,859
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthogua
    What is the point of making a painting that looks exactly like a photograph? Just to prove you can do it? That seems a little masturbatory to me.
    hmm. that got me thinking about VISUAL ART vs MUSIC

    Painting a realistic bird is pretty much the "same" as a musician trying to inmitate the chirps and tweets of a bird with his instrutment.

    While, a finished Beethoven symphony, with all its abstract sounds and notes is just like an abstract painting with all its dynamic shapes and colors.

    CONCLUSION: 'Realistic music' (imitating bird chirps) is not exciting, while the 'abstract music (Beethoven's symphony) is quite exciting!

    Could the same apply for the visual arts?
    Could this be why abstract art is so hot today? (besides being a 'rebellious' act) What is the state of realistic painting and drawing in today's culture? I mean, we have photographs and video cameras for realism afterall

    Just something to think about it...

    Last edited by Denart; July 11th, 2005 at 06:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,256
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 524 Times in 365 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I don't think you can compare music with visual art. Besides, classical music isn't abstract. It's following strict rules of harmony and rythm which were found out in a process that took about hundreds of years, just like in art. Just like seeing a realistic painting pleases the eye, it was meant to please the ear. Modern music (And I don't mean pop-music with that) appeals, just like modern art, to the will of the audience to be open to new experiences.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,468
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Denart
    hmm. that got me thinking about VISUAL ART vs MUSIC

    Painting a realistic bird is pretty much the "same" as a musician trying to inmitate the chirps and tweets of a bird with his instrutment.

    While, a finished Beethoven symphony, with all its abstract sounds and notes is just like an abstract painting with all its dynamic shapes and colors.

    CONCLUSION: 'Realistic music' (imitating bird chirps) is not exciting, while the 'abstract music (Beethoven's symphony) is quite exciting!

    Could the same apply for the visual arts?
    Could this be why abstract art is so hot today? (besides being a 'rebellious' act) What is the state of realistic painting and drawing in today's culture? I mean, we have photographs and video cameras for realism afterall

    Just something to think about it...
    Denart, I would agree to a certain point on what youi said perhaps. But I dont think you thought your anaglagy all the way through. Comparing a realistic bird to beethoven is just wrong. Only if all you do is paint realistic birds and you cant do anything else, the same is if all you do is paint squares and do nothing else. A painting isnt always about the finished product, its about the thought they put into it, such as comparing a Rubens to Beethoven would be alittle more interesting. For in real Masters work, there is more thought to composition, details, whats going on, etc etc, just like a
    Beethoven symphany.

    One reason why abstract art is huge is because its pop art, for the most part who buys art, rich people. And I wouldnt be surprised if the majority of rich people that buy art know anything about it. Muesuems and gallery owners, and Time magazine can make whoever they want famous, just like the 4 year old abstract artist from my home town. The people that know art the best are artists. Art is alot like the music industry, escpiecally when it comes to musuems and galleries.

    My biggest problem though with abstract art is that anyone can do it, anyone can learn to draw realistically as well, but it takes more time and energy and dedication to learn "realism" than abstract art. Just like the 4 year old girl again, her work looks like anyone could have gone to school to learn it. Someone said it the best earlier, you need the combination of skill and creativity along with dedication. To be a great abstract artist in my opinion one need to know the rules before they can break them, usually abstract works are more interesting when the artist has studied real life before they go to abstract art.

    Another thing is I dont see why people bitch about abstract art on this site, abstract art can be conceptual art as well. But that also depends on what you consider abstract too, you can define cartoon characters as abstract art if you want, hell alot of "realists" if they wanted to could consider alot of the work up here abstract.

    Ok I am rambling now, just some stuff to think about perhaps...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthogua
    I stopped infront of this giant canvas that was covered with inummerable layers of paint and near the top had a raised wavy texture crossing from side to side.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthogua
    I think punk rock is a good example in the skill vs art clash...here is a genre of music that (originally anyway) intentionally steers away from musical complexity to become a more visceral expression.
    While I understand where you're coming from, Cthogua, I have to say that this really isn't a very good analogy or example.

    If we take punk rock as the more visceral, basic elements of music all boiled down, you will notice that the end result is still "music" - it has a beat, it's likely that it also has a melody (even if very basic), and it will have a chorus, a hook line somewhere that is "catchy" and can get people to sing along, or memorise that section.

    In art, I think this would be parallel to, say, drawing a human figure in powerful motion with broad, aggressive brush strokes - something that isn't hugely realistic or detailed, but still recognisable and able to be associated with an existing idea of (in this case) human form and movement. It is more raw and "down to basics" than a hugely detailed and realistic Bouguereau painting, but still has elements that allow people to latch on and feel for the image.

    If we're sticking with music analogies, I'd say that something like a Rothko or Pollock painting would resemble something like Robert Fripp's "Soundscapes" ... no consistant or recognisable rhythm, no particular melody or repetition of notes and chords, just something that, if you're in the right mood, you can put on in the background and let it soothe you. It's really not the sort of thing you can sit and actively listen to, since there's nothing to really "get"... it's just there, and that's it.

    Of course, with that kind of ambient/aimless music, there are people who could sit and actively listen to it for hours and then suggest that they hear the emotion or ideas that went into the music - but that'd just be based on their own experiences, feelings or beliefs. Everyone could have a different angle on it, because it's so ambiguous.

    With a painting that actively depicts something recognisable (like any music with a rhythm and melody), it's much easier for people to find meaning or feeling in that.

    It really depends on personal taste.

    Consider this:

    - Looking at a modern-art piece of a giant canvas painted odd shades of bright green is the visual equivalent of a giant bell or gong being struck nearby. It grabs your attention, makes you look and think "why is this happening?", might make you run away in fear or inquisitive to learn more...

    - Looking at a superbly-rendered, traditional realist painting is the visual equivalent of having an orchestra playing nearby. It has a complexity and structure, yet a cohesion that is pleasing to the senses. If you appreciate the style, you can look closer and enjoy all the individual parts that make up the whole.

    It's all a matter of taste in the end. Currently the trend is towards eye-catching things that require people to think more, but I think this is just a passing phase - 500 years on, Da Vinci is still being celebrated and enjoyed... do you think Pollock, Duchamp or Rothko's works will be enjoying the same fame and praise in 500 years' time?

    I seriously doubt it.

    And hey, I like Van Halen (although yes, the band is just a vehicle for Eddie's show-offery - listen to Dream Theater instead, now that's an instance where huge amounts of skill combine to make some damn good music!)

    [edit] Uh, after re-reading, I realise I skipped the whole part about "skill" to concentrate on musical analogy!

    Well, here's one - Robert Fripp (King Crimson guitarist) is a hugely talented and skilful guitar player, he could play pretty much anything under the sun if he felt like it, yet he chooses to create these bizarre, ambient experimental "soundscapes". These things sometimes sound like they could have been generated by a computer, or by some 6-year old messing around with effects. You have to stop and think why a man with so much talent and skill is choosing to play stuff that the vast majority of people will either completely ignore, or detest. There are very few people who would say "Yeah, I really like that experimental stuff"... yet the man has skill.

    Would that be like a hugely skilled and talented painter setting aside his awesomely detailed realistic paintings, and just aimlessly moving a brush over a canvas to see what came out? I think so ... it's a personal thing. Fripp knows he can play anything, so in fact he does just that ... he'll play anything. I'm sure it has deep personal significance for himself, but to the rest of the world, it's a bit of a "huh?" situation.

    Thing is, he proved how good and skilful a player he was BEFORE moving on to this crazy ambient stuff. He's established. I think you need to build up a reservoir of skill before you can go and do this thing of trying to break new boundaries. If not, then you just got lucky, and it won't last long.

    Huge of amounts of experimentation, boundary-breaking and weirdness may eventually build up into useful and consistent skill, but starting with recognisable and reliable techiques to build up skill (artistic or musical!), and THEN using these established skills to break away from the standard, seems like a much better route to me.

    Yes?

    Last edited by MoP; July 11th, 2005 at 08:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Originally I brought up music to make the point about skill vs emotive power/expression. However I think Denart made a very good point about music being abstract...and I'm going to have to disagree with Faust on this. Abstract doesn't mean it lacks structure, which is all rules of rhythm and harmony are. Infact since it lacks an image to latch onto often times abstract paintings are about structure. Without taking it to the non-representational stage abstracting an object often means showing and simplifying something's structure rather than details. Anyway, I think instrumental music is nothing but abstract, sure you can imagine people sitting around playing it, but thats a pretty dull way to listen to music IMHO. The sounds of music pull directly at our emotions, something the early non-representationalists like Frantisek Kupka and Wassily Kandinsky were very interested in trying to capture in their paintings. There was a painter named Stanton Macdonald Wright that created a whole system that equated the colors of the color wheel to the notes of the 12 tone western scale. He did these large abstract paintings in a color "Key" and would use musical scales to derive harmonious colors. I believe he called it Synchromy, or something like that. I was fortunate enough to see a major retrospective of his work at the Raliegh Museum of Art and was really blown away. His totally abstract paintings were large enough to have a nice sensory impact and his representational pieces were full of really nice and interesting color effects

    Matt: I think you need to understand form, color, and texture in order to be a good abstract painter. True you don't need any training to fling paint at a canvas, but I don't neccessarily see whats wrong with exploring accidental marks either. I'm not trying to say that Pollock is or isn't a better artist than Thomas Eakins...its fucking apples and oranges, the two were trying to do completely different things with their art, they're not even comparable.

    Also, when I started this thread I was really addressing what I percieved to be hostility toward non-representational art amoung many of the artists here. In order to draw something you HAVE to abstract it to some degree, even paintings considered "photoreal" often employ some visual trick inorder to make the mind think of photographs, depth of field or similiar smooth blurs...everyone should check out the work of Gerhart Richter ...man I wish I would have thought of him earlier...his work ranges from totally abstract panels to paintings that are almost impossible to discern from photographs. Another more contemporary artist who would probably be considered a realist is CA.orgs own Wes9000, however his sketches are filled with abstract mayhem.

    enough from me for now...

    James Ball

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthogua
    Anyway, I think instrumental music is nothing but abstract
    Agh! I'd have to disagree with you there.

    Anyone else find it amusing that one of the meanings of "abstract" is "to make off with belongings of others" ?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    416
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Just thought I'd throw this quote out, courtesy of our friends at the CGTalk forums.

    "From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown--a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."
    ~ Pablo Picasso

    Personally, I admire most the artists on the board who are comfortable enough with their own sense of style that they're not ruled by some obsessive desire to create perfectly-rendered pieces. Bengal, codakromek, Hunger Artist, etc. are all examples of artists here who rely more on simple line, color, and form than complicated rendering. Not to say that I don't find the detailed paintings of Matt Dixon, Imphead, and the like to be equally inspiring.

    http://4hcomic.com
    A webcomic of Apocalyptic proportions.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    MoP: Hehe You replyed while I was replying!! dammit now I have to write more...nah I can always talk about art.

    I have to agree with you that most people, and especially those who haven't studied art will be drawn to paintings that are images of something, or nod their head to the catchy hook in the song. Especially if it is an image of a figure. Theres ALOT of psychological wieght to a figure and even more to a face. However color and form can have a very intense emotional effect with less literal connotations.

    I don't want to come across as saying that non-rep. art is better than rep. art, or anything like that...I've just been throwing up some arguements. I was trying to establish that they each have their own merits since I had noticed a fair amount of anti-abstract sentiment floating around here.

    James Ball

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Sacramento and Los Angeles
    Posts
    988
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 164 Times in 61 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think many of us dismiss modern art simply because we have no interest in it. I am however interested in art that requires skill. I dont think that studying modern art will incease my technical abilities so I dont really pay it any mind. I basically see it as something completely unrelated to what Im involved with.

    On one other thing you said, you say that creating perfect realism in a painting is nothing more than a mastubatory act? So what, masturbation feels damn good to me

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MoP
    Agh! I'd have to disagree with you there.

    Anyone else find it amusing that one of the meanings of "abstract" is "to make off with belongings of others" ?
    ...do you mean abscond?

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Kamakura
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    it seems to me like you guys think about this too hard. if you look at a picture and find you are enjoying looking at it in some way, or it makes you feel something special, isn't that the most important thing? i couldn't give a fuck about the skill level of some guy i don't know, or pretty much anything else except the image itself.

    the glory of art is that it can express volumes without using a single word. and here you guys are writing novels about it.. haha.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    To get back to your original question, which seems to be getting a little lost, which I believe was "why are so many people here hostile to modern or contemporary art?" correct?

    I can't speak for everybody but the reason I get hostile towards modern art often is this:

    I go to a "art" school, the Alberta College of Art and Design to be exact, and it deals with mostly modern art. I deal mostly with more traditional or realistic art and take constant flack from teachers and students because of it. I spend a lot of my time during crit periods just defending the fact that I choose to do my work the way I do. I find most of the modern art world I've come across is very closeminded about anything not 'modern' and very dismissive of it, despite the fact they claim to be the most open of all art forms.

    So I, and a lot of 'realistic' artists I know, tend to instantly go hostile to modern art because of this. Its not right and certainly not fair but its how I react now...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Next to Black Pyramid
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 84 Times in 46 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Denart
    hmm. that got me thinking about VISUAL ART vs MUSIC

    Painting a realistic bird is pretty much the "same" as a musician trying to inmitate the chirps and tweets of a bird with his instrutment.

    While, a finished Beethoven symphony, with all its abstract sounds and notes is just like an abstract painting with all its dynamic shapes and colors.

    CONCLUSION: 'Realistic music' (imitating bird chirps) is not exciting, while the 'abstract music (Beethoven's symphony) is quite exciting!
    comparing beethoven to abstract art might be a little off. Syphonys are very calculated orderly. something absract paintings are not. I would compair a syphony to a classiscal realism.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Lightbulb

    Cthogua: Nope, "abscond" is to run away, usually to evade capture by someone...

    Abstract, the transitional verb:
    http://www.answers.com/abstract&r=67

    I dunno, I just thought that meaning was funny when applied to a lot of modern abstract art

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    with Dagon
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 472 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well slap my uninformed ass and call me Cletus....on second thought don't ...Interesting though, I've never heard or read abstract used that way.

    However I don't see how modernists steal from anyone any more or less than realists

    conclusion: Paint whatever ya like

    Ia Ia Cthulhu Fthagn

    The Sketchbook Lives AGAIN!

    Darkergreen, My environment, and concept art portfolio

    "Its all Fish-Men in the end anyway" -Sara, my wife

    "Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure."
    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

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
  •