[Isric]

The vast majority of fine art I see these days makes me seriously question mankind. 'Fine Art' (and again I stress the majority) seems to be the place people go when they want to be 'artists', but don't have the technical skills, knowledge, ability, style, and all around understanding of how the world works. Am I alone here, would someone else like to clarify my view of what fine art is? It's really frustrating to me when people consider a few hundred cambell soup can's, or a completely black canvas is art.

[surferboi]

ever notice the ppl who run art galleries arent artists? also could be cuz all the good paintings are in ppls homes. i dunno but i totally agree with ya.

[burn0ut]

lol me and my friends always talk about that isric.
its funny its like... exactly what we argue about hehe
a white paper: a white rabbit blinking in a snow storm..
black paper: eyes threw the body of a dead man...

we make jokes about that shit all the time

[eddie]

You guys familiar with Picasso? Thats a rhetorical question, don't answer that. He could draw photorealistically by the time he was 13, but have you seen his later work? The stuff he was drawing at later periods in his life ranged from abstract pieces, to pieces that resembled children's doodles. Point being, I think you guys are thinking that art = emulating life photorealistically, which its not.. Just some braincandy for ya; I used Picasso as an example because he is probably one of the most famous artists of the 20th century; you hafta figure he knew what he was doing..

[burn0ut]

well id just like to say, i dont think art=emulating life photorealistically at all.
Why have art if you want it photorealistic i dunno, i wouldnt like it tho.
blah ill goto sleep...
and i dont really like picasso... mabye i will when i get older.. who knows

[Collosimo]

Picasso is a great example for the point I am about to make. When told by a reporter (or somebody) that his work was so childlike and easy.. Picasso remained calm. The reporter challenged him to draw a circle accurately.. he was assuming that Picasso created his works with such flowing and abstract figures, because he couldnt draw accurately.

The reporter was wrong. Picasso promptly pulled out a brush and ink and he drew a perfect circle on the page... The reporter was embarrassed.

Moral of the story: I hate the way that the majority of 'modern fine artists' use the excuse that they draw roughly and abstract because... well Picasso did!

Wrong... a lot of them probably cant draw for shit! Picasso was in my mind a master... I dont like the way others hide there lack of skills with pathetic excuses.

------------------
/COLLOSIMO

[Lunatique]

I actually posted this in random Musings last week about a very similar topic. I'll post it here:

"I have heated debates about this with my friends all the time.

In my personal view: I'm tired of arguing what is art. The truth is, you can't please everyone, and what you like might be the opposite of someone else's taste. So, if some no talent hack with an exihibitionist bent wants to pass his/her "work" as art, then fine, let them do whatever the hell they want, just don't expect ME to accept it as art, or talk to the people who actually agree it's art. What they do should just be considered theater performances.

I'm still VERY angry at the injustices done to real painters ever since the beginning of "modern art." For the first half of the 20th century, art critics(mostly intellectual writers trying to make a name for themselves), who cannot paint or understand anything about art, started praising modern art as the only art that is relevent and meaningful, using ridiculous phrases like, "xxxx's work has an almost religious fervor and intellectual urgency...blah blah" while describing a piece of canvas with blotches of dirty paint. Man, I want to shoot those fuckers. Not just because they were putting words in the mouths of these modern artists, making them saints when they are not, they also severely crticized, ostracized, and banished talented painters with the ability to paint coherent, beautiful images into obscurity and poverty.

John William Godward, a talented 19th century neo-classical painter, committed suicide because of these pretentious, pseudo art intellectuals. They attacked his beautiful paintings with snide mockery, much in the same way they did with Bouguereau's work. In his suicide note, there was one line that said something to the extent of: "This world is not big enough for me and Picasso." William's family was so ashamed of him that they burned all of his letters and photographs after he died. Not ONE photograph of him survived.

Now, you want to talk about art? These fuckers who condemned talented painters with real skills and sense of beauty and managed to compeletely destroy the tradition of painting for almost a century, are the same ones that tried to dictate what is art and what isn't. From the early 1900's to the recent decades, all the art schools in this country stopped teaching students how to paint. It was all about "liberal art" and "modernism." No one who graduated from art school in those decades knew how to paint because they stopped teaching it. Not ONCE, was the discipline of classical painting ever taught in those schools in those decades. Only in the recent decades did it really change.

So, you want to debate what is art what what is meaningful? We JUST recovered from the greatest fraud of the 20th century: modern art.

So, if the debate of art is out of the way, I just have to say that I'm a believer in BEAUTY. I see lots of UGLY art, but I see many things that's not art, but far more BEAUTIFUL.

There. My 2 cents."

Now, regarding Picasso: He could out draw/paint most "so called" masters by the time he was a teenager. I've seen works of his from age 13~17. Simply breathtaking. Super realism, superb technique. He got BORED with it by the time he was 17 and started doing other things to keep it fresh. Picasso is probably the modern dude I actually respect.

[ceenda]

Yeah, I hear you Isric. You just have to let them go about it, it's not as if the general public at large appreciates the stuff that's out right now(why would it always be in the papers) and we probably should give the public more credit. It'll turn round some day with people demanding art that has actually had some effort put into it, probably sooner than later.

[Plouffe]

Lunitique: Totally agree with you. WEll i really dont like modern art because well art cristicts dont know what they talk about and put a shit load of bullshit into other peoples mouths.

All i gotta say is that you have to blame the invention of the camera for Modern Art. I mean when people have seen that this tool can take a still in minutes well right there classical painters started starving. instead of using a painter which would take hours to do the same still. They would now have to find a way to expresse their "ART" in an other way that the camera couldnt thus MODERN shitty ART.

anyways i dont have anything else to say....

[travis travis]

the large perception I think is that modern art is done by cowards, choosing safe abstraction that can't be criticised so much. so that's what you have to wonder I think, are the people doing it actually brave, do they understand, are they serious? or are they just hacks reeling in big money and grinning all the way to the bank. I don't think there's one answer... but take the example of a philosopher living away from society, a lot of people might call him just a cad avoiding life. I'm not really defending modern artists because I think a lot of them are just lazy trash... but I can see the poetic possibilities at the same time... although the honest among them are probably as common as greats in any other field, 1 in a million...

I think there's plenty of room for art to be interpretive, to be whatever it takes for the artist to give a message, but I think most modern artists are just horrible at giving the message... AND lazy, so why should we care?

[Isric]

excellent points here. And every one of them is valid.
I was just drawing one day and started thinking. How INCREDIBLE would it be to have this ability during...the rennaicance (sp?) or during the industrial revolution and it's age of Art Neuveau (again sp?). Modern art single handedly destroyed many brilliant artists. It banished the ideas about skill, technique, ability, artistic knowledge and said that anything goes.
And one of my biggest problems with the whole thing, is that while they ranted and raved about how we 'cannot judge their art', the same people began proclaming that (for example) comic books were nothing more than kitch. That illustrators were rigid and facist conformists.
Thank the gods that age is ending.

[Pigeon]

How sad to see my artist peers on this forum so unaccepting of other art. Let's face it folks, art has changed since the time of cave paintings, and certainly has changed since the time of photography. Actually, ever since Mannerism (right after the Rennaisance), Western art has become weirder, more abstract and more expressive. I suppose you all dislike most things after the Rennaisance - Mannerism, Realism, Romanticism, Impressionism, Post-impressionism, cubism, German Expressionism, Abstract expressionism, the Fauves, Blue Riders, Art Deco, Pop Art and other modernist movements, Post-modernism. That's a lot of different art to not like.

Here's what I'm guessing you like: Rennaisance, Neoclassicism, Pre-Raphaelites, Super Realism, propaganda art and other commercial illustration from the 20th century.

Not liking all those movements of art is akin to not liking music without lyrics. Not liking books that have no pictures. Not liking foreign movies that have subtitles. Broaden your horizons, study history, reach out to those who aren't like you, and you just may find something wonderful in a place you had overlooked before.

------------------
-Pigeon
http://www.darklight.org/dunakin

[This message has been edited by Pigeon (edited March 19, 2001).]

[Daydreamer]

see, i'm just throwin' in my lousy 0.02 $ into this discussion, as i sadi, just MY very own opinion on this, for i happened to stumble across a lot of this oh so 'modern" art at the moment i'm in "Kunst LK"...would be the german thing for OAC grade 13 Arts or something similar... Well our teacher's a big time fan of modern art, especially mondrian, rothko, klee, beckmannm beu� etc...so last tuesday, we made a trip to stuttgart to visit the national art gallery, to see some of those fella's work for real....when we entered the building, i gulped...and when he started talkin' passionately i thought i gonna puke within' the next couple of minutes if he won't stop it immedialtely...see, i really have deep respect for ppl like picasso and beckmann (others artists aswell, just lemme take those two as examples) both of them were masters in realistic painting, they could draw and paint close to photorealistic, and so they did, but after a while, they both got tired by it and started playing, with the perspective, with the hues etc...and THEY had full right to do so, coz they knew how to do it the real way, they had already prooven to be skilled, and now they started experimenting and that's something i truly respect...one might not like all of their artwork (i don't for example ) but some are for sure if not pleasing to the eye at least interesting in terms of technique, subject matter, style or whatever... then there are other ppl...like beu�....dont know if u've heard of him...he's a wierd fella...doing mostly sculptures....and his work just sucks ass...like one time he crapped into a corner, wrote an 5 page essay 'bout it, said it was "art" and ever since nobody changed anything in that specific corner...another tzime, he dropped big amounts of fat (like butter) from 10 meters height onto a metal plate....the room where he did that is perfectly conserved, his art is praised above all others, and it just f*cking STINKS !!....its just getting to the point where a blob of red ink on a 8x7 meter canvas is worth like 2 mio $$$, just coz the artist himself or another stupid critic said something "ohsoimportantsounding" 'bout his style and influence blablablabalaaaaaa.....

its just: do whatever you want, but dont exspect to become famous for burning a book to ashes and spray them on canvas...again, if you've prooven youself to be worthy of experimenting, if, as a sculptor, you're able to model a perfect realistic human body in any kind of pose, or any other subject, then you can start to play with form, style, etc...if u r not, leave it...

just my thoughts, flames, hatemmail etc are all welcome

PS: sorry for the typos, grammar etc, but for one thing english's not my motherlang. and for the other: this topic's something i could go ramble 'bout forever...

PPS: did you ppl know that one artist (don't remeber the name, sorry) has a patent on a certain shade of blue ? since he got the patent, he just keeps painting his canvas with that hue....and his paintings are titled "Blue I", "Blue II"...he's currently "busy" with No 120ish.....just wanted to let you know....*geez*


------------------
Some dream..
Some do...
Some do both !

Tagtr�umer

[travis travis]

daydreamer you made me think a little... and here's what I think... modern artists that do those sorts of ridiculously simple things for fame and profit... are not artists... if they're willing to do the same thing though and not get payed, not get recognized, then there might be something to it. But I don't see any of them that aren't out for a profit, and if you're out for profit, you're not an artist.

[Jason Manley]

Check this link...read the essays...see lots of good work

www.artrenewal.org

[ceenda]

Excellent link! Thankyou Jason!

[Nex]

I strongly disagree with a lot of what has been said yet.

Abstract art is only good/acceptable when the artist has proved before that he can paint photorealistic

So is it about the picture or about the artists' CV?
How _ever_ can a picture be judged by that?

If spoogedemon would -just for fun- draw a streak of blue on a white canvas and post it here i am SURE at least 30% would think its great. This is quite sad, insofar, that the picture is not judged by what it looks like but by who made it.
[with the possible exception that spooge probably could make a single brushstroke look good]

anything goes, there are no rules anymore

those complains are the same that people had when they heard the first jazz records. how could those musicans play the WRONG notes with no apparent rhytm pattern? scandalous.

Later then came Rock "this is no music, just noise", and then Punk "Those guys can't even play their instruments.. this is awful"
.. and so on and so on.

New things happen, you don't have to like them- i don't like anything new either- but if you never give it a chance you can never develop.

Its harder to judge what is good and what is not in abstract art.. because you have to take a lot of time to understand a piece- its not like some photorealistic picture of an apple where you instantly know: it looks exactly like an apple.. its good.
Abstract is just what the name says.. its not about concrete things like apples and mountains but about expressions-

Its not really fair to judge any artform by the standards of another one.
Just imagine what an abstract artist would say to many of the pictures posted here- no emotion, no expression, no inner meaning just eye candy. It just doesn't work that way.

[edit: I'm sure there are lots of spelling errors but I'm too tired to read it through again ]

[quaternius]

Great Links, I've spent lots of time on those sites. This kind of discussion has obviously been going on as long as art has been created. Here's a thought-provoking book to read...touches a lot on this subject... "How to Become a Famous Artist (and still paint pictures)" by W.Joe Innis (buy it, it's cheap)
Mr. Innis' paintings are collected internationally - they sell for many thousands of dollars - he's... I guess you'd peg him as a kind of modern impressionist.
But he's not afraid to bite the hand that feeds him - 'cause he's already made his millions. He takes apart the academic establishment, the gallery establishment, the museum establishment and I was LOL! Very convincing arguments, from someone who's been there - done that. Think I'll put some quotes from his book on my site... they're very good.
I'd agree with a few others here, that classic, neoclassic, realist art, or impressionist art isn't the only kind of art I appreciate. I'll admit there are some talented modernists. Then there's frauds like Pollack - where the act of artistic creation gets confused with the result. However, if you look at the flip side - I've met more than a few "modernist" artists who've nothing but disdain for anything before cubism - and "direct" or "realist" artists are derided as shlock - it's not real art. "That's commercial art - not fine art" they say. I find "them" to be less tolerant than we who prefer the more classic forms but also accept good examples of modernist work.

'nuff for now - good venting session this...

Q

[Pigeon]

Hitler and book-burning are what came to mind as I read this thread.

Fine Art is a way of life, so the art is as much in the process as in the result, making Pollack one of the greatest artists we've seen. Art is a way of seeing the world, interpreting it, analyzing it, and then communicating what you've found to others. All messages and methods of communication are equally valid.

Few artists want to destroy the art that came before them. Hitler was one artist who wanted to, as are 9 or 10 artists here apparently. I know this is a mean thing to say, but I am appalled by what I've read here. Artists should build on what other artists have done, to find their own new way of communicating. We should be thanking the modernists for pushing the boundaries so that we can do art in the way we choose.

But if you want to continue with your line of thought, then shame on prehistoric man for not drawing bison more realistically, shame on the Egyptians for using art as a written language instead of just as portraits and landscapes, shame on millenia of folk artists for awkward and stylistic renderings, and shame on our 5-year old children for drawing the sun blue instead of yellow.

But I say shame on those who are elitist and intolerant of the expression of others.

[Isric]

wow, nicely put Pigeon. Actually, as I have pondered these things in my head, those exact images have come to mind; Cave paintings, childrens drawings, etc...I knew I would get the wrong idea across, it's terribly hard to communicate through simple words.
I DO appreciate expression, emotion, pushing the boundaries, and genrally creating things that make people think. My question i suppose, should be rephrased to 'Modern Art'. I am a great fan of cubism, art deco, art neuveau, and even some impressionism. But what really gets me is such things as...poo in a corner. a completely white canvas. dead (and rotting) rabbit corpses hanging from a rope. filling a public starewell with paper and setting for to it (and calling the black charred destroyed remains 'art'). It's this sort of stuff that frustrates me. NOT because I don't understand it, and NOT because I'm hitler and I hate everything I don't understand.

For me it is simply this: Whenever I tell someone I want to go into art, the aforementioned things are what pop into their minds. It is as though artists, because of the modern art movement, are no longer respected in the real world (I understand there are acceptions, there always are). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

(the reason I'm starting this is because I may be on my way to Art College soon, and I'd like to be able to know some of the diferent ideas people have regarding this)

[Lunatique]

Ok, let's clear things up:

I think modern artists have the right to do whatever they want, and people have the right to appreciate it. If art critics want to adore them, fine.

My problem with the modern art movement is this: they BANISHED all art with technique, training, and discipline to obscurity, and chose to attack, ridicule, and destroy these talented painters by character assassination or publicly denouncing them. THAT, is my problem.

The modernists, in their crusade to establish themselves, destroyed everything that was beautiful about paintings at the time, and they went on to dictate what was relevent and what wasn't. They TOLD people what they should like and what they shouldn't like. If you said you liked Bouguereau, Gerome, or any other painter that had technique, you would be ridiculed and ostracized from the art community.

So, it's not that modern art has no merit(every once a while I might see something and say, "that's kinda cool"), but it's the way they bulldozed their way into the art world and mercilessly took over and did basically what Hitler did. They wanted to wipe out everything going on at the time except for what they agreed with. They BULLIED the art world into submission, put a stop to all teachings of the discipline of painting in all art schools for decades, and that was just WRONG.

You want to talk about book burning? That's EXACTLY the kind of mentality the modernists had.

THAT, is the basis for my dislike of modern art. Oh, that, and the fact 99% of them couldn't draw/paint their way out of a paper bag.

If you are a writer, you must know your grammar.

If you are a composer, you must know how to play your instrument and have some understanding of musical structure, no matter how outlandish or exotic it might be.

But, oh wait, you don't have to know how to draw or paint to be an artist?

See my point?

. . .. I can't believe I spelled "grammar" wrong. How embarrassing. *turns crimson*

[This message has been edited by Lunatique (edited March 19, 2001).]

[Jaydeman]

Regarding Lunatique's postings here so far...
Okay so first you rant and rant about the modernists forcing their way into the art world, destroying, attacking, and ridiculing what you term as "real" artists, but earlier you had written about art critics "Man, I want to shoot those fuckers", basically stating that you, at least in spirit, condone those types of actions and mentalities?
Second, you posted "So, if the debate of art is out of the way, I just have to say that I'm a believer in BEAUTY. I see lots of UGLY art, but I see many things that's not art, but far more BEAUTIFUL. " So by this message, you are stating that only what you term as "beautiful" art has any true value to you?
Third, the whole genre of modern art was a new movement of art, a rejection of all things traditional. Art always reinvents itself, you should know that as an artist. As such, condemning a specific genre simply because you, personally, do not like the visual style of it, is wrong. You may not agree with the methods that the modernists took in establishing their place, but let me ask you this...WHO gave them the power to "bully" and "destroy" the traditionalists? Society did, so if you want to blame something for modernism, blame society and culture.
And your comment about "You want to talk about book burning? That's EXACTLY the kind of mentality the modernists had." seems hypocritical, since that's the same mentality that you have towards them.
Traditionalists had, and still have, their place in Art and Art History, but to more or less show in your opinion that you consider them the greatest or more talented genre is fine...as long as you remember that it is your OPINION and not fact. Art is open to interpretation by everyone, otherwise it would simply be illustration. Therefore, your next comment of "THAT, is the basis for my dislike of modern art. Oh, that, and the fact 99% of them couldn't draw/paint their way out of a paper bag." makes no sense and has no merit because you are comparing them with a tradionalist's slide rule, imposing your values of traditionalist technique to them. True modernists would laugh their asses off at your comment, given the views that you have shown.

And..."If you are a writer, you must know your grammer?"
If you are a writer, you must know your spelling as well....

------------------
The Jaydeman sez...
"That was Zen, This is Tao."

[This message has been edited by Jaydeman (edited March 19, 2001).]

[Giant Hamster]

A true artist has no limit, and should let it be know that they are a true artist by drawing atleast one painting in every style/genre/way they can. After that, I don't care what they do, They have already proven themselves to be an artist.

that's what im working on right now...about 12% of the way done after 7 years.

EDIT: so what im saying is, I am not a true artist yet. I am an artist in practice. i hope to acheive my goal by atleast 85. hopefully...but even 85 is pushing it.

------------------
-JameZ the Giant Hamster-

The Hamster Alliance
AIM: Gianthmstr
Multimedia Producer/designer/all of the above.,overall guru ...and music music music! weee!!

[This message has been edited by Giant Hamster (edited March 19, 2001).]

[quaternius]

Yay Lunatique! - That's what I was inadequately trying to say. I have no problem with the modernists - except when they deride other more classic art as worthless. There's pieces by deKooning and Picasso and many others that are quite astonishing. I'm a member of MOMA here in S.F. and I wouldn't miss a new show. But my own preference is usually more realist. For that I am looked down upon by my "artiste" friends who are more "enlightened" than me - pisses me off.
Like Lunatique said, for much of the 20th century the art gestapo has really been the modernists - not the realists.

And Pidgeon - I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree; although the process may be as important as the result, in my book the process doesn't equal the result. I can therefore admire the process and sheer "breakout originality" of someone like Pollack - and I DO - but still classify the result as overrated. Personally, art must create an emotional response - Pollack doesn't do it for me. If Pollack does it for you, that's great - there SHOULD be enough room in art for many tastes. I certainly don't want to destroy art - even a "piss-christ" artwork. I'm a live and let live type of guy. But I expect the same from others.

Okay... off the soapbox... everybody's got an opinion...model render just finished... back to work.

Q

[Lunatique]

Ok, Jaydeman, we have this debate way too often in real life, so I'll let others speak their minds. You already know what I would say; I want to know what others think. Afterall, I wanted to initiate you into Sijun.com so you could have interesting dialogue with the cool people here.

BTW, if Jaydeman seems hostile towards me, it is only half true. We do have VERY heated debates about this sort of topic, BUT we are also old friends and very close.

Ahem. That spelling thing was a low blow. Weren't you just complaining about people disregarding the points you made because of spelling errors?

[Jaydeman]

CoughCough..yah, I just wanted to share the experience of being flamed for spelling mistakes...
See what I friend I am? I share all my experiences with you...

------------------
The Jaydeman sez...
"That was Zen, This is Tao."

[chromochaos]

//The vast majority of fine art I see these days makes me seriously question mankind.
>> thats a good thing
//'Fine Art' (and again I stress the majority) seems to be the place people go when they want to be 'artists', but don't have the technical skills, knowledge, ability, style, and all around understanding of how the world works.
>>You could be right... and I think maybe this also is good. There should be a place for everyone in this world. Even those people that suck at everything. Perhaps even it should be the same place as the most enlightened and skillful reside.
//Modern art single handedly destroyed many brilliant artists...raved about how we 'cannot judge their art', the same people began proclaming that (for example) comic books were nothing more than kitch.
>>Clement Greenberg single handedly destroyed many brilliant artists... wow what a writer! What to say about comic books... this is still a tough one because it is such an arteriol and rarely does its market allow for violence or sex. Think commodity. Yes buying a stale shit in a corner for millions fucks with you. What does that have to do with any sort of quality I might understand?
//...and if you're out for profit, you're not an artist.
>>this is a really important statement.
//drawing at least one painting in every style/genre/way...
>>nice

I will try to sum what I am thinking. Ok cave man rarely had it wrong... thoughts on the historical impact of photography are important to assimilate... it is important to always reclassify things and say that performance art is shit in liew of theatre. It is important to find the Antonin Artaud or the DaVinci, the multi&inter-media&discipline artists, who pioneered into invention and convention. It is also important to realize the walls that seperate design and engineer from poverty in industry.

Do you remember the answer to the Jewish question? (and don't say 42, because that isn't it)

The plan for the great SAIC BFA finale is 'Pixel & Pigment' it is a year off, but you are all invited.

[Isric]

nicely put

[Lunatique]

That's an awesome site! There are a few others like it, but this one's got a great starting page!

Here's another one: http://www.artmagick.com/

------------------
www.arcanum.net/~lunachild

[Collosimo]

It is understandable nowadays that art is everything and anything... I would accept that.

My point earlier.. was that I do not enjoy art that is abstract or badly drawn clearly because the artist has very low skill limits. I think that there are too many modern artists hiding behind the wave of 'everything goes'.

Thats not to mean I dont think it is good art, because quite a bit is, and you realize that when you study an artwork properly.



------------------
/COLLOSIMO