[Nex]

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

of course, thats true.

but I don't have to be able to play classical when I want to play punk.



[This message has been edited by Nex (edited March 20, 2001).]

[Giant Hamster]

nex: but you should try

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

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

[Nex]

well i don't know many classical players that play punk either =)

[For the record: I play neither classical nor punk but i gave it a try]

[This message has been edited by Nex (edited March 20, 2001).]

[Ragnarok]

Have you heard modern classical music?
Have you managed to listen to it more than 5 mins?
You will think there's no music in there, that the composer went crazy. But I there is. And a lot.

I hope you see the simil

About modern artist. You should do a research about every modern artist to do the kind of afirmations you are doing.
As modern artist I only know Picasso and Mir� and both were talented artists although I don't understand their ideas.
But they weren't bored of photorealistic paintings, they wanted to develop and that's the way the found.

I don't find necesary to say more, most of the points have been made

[Muzman]

I don't know where this "Modernists hate people like us. The are against the noble art tradition." thing comes from. Give me instances.
Might be worth remembering that such arts did fight their way out from underneath the snobbery of the traditionalists often enough.
Really, this agro bendt against a few performance and conceptual artists who get famous for their weirdness is totally unrepresentative. Plus we have all the weird arts lumped in together in a totally prejudicial fashion.
Minimalism isn't all bad; it requires a lot of skill, decision making and experience with the media used. And while painting in all one colour is ostensibly stupid; but seeing a 12 foot tall, 20 foot wide canvas with inches thick paint, lit properly has a certain quality you can't get anywhere else.

Despise the rich white postmodernist art critic schools if you will, there's no getting around the fact that whatever works works. Bitch to the world economy if you want that everyone neeeds rareified traditional art skills but no one appreciates it. Unfortunately it's a matter of "tough". The realist/traditionalist field is rareified to the point of being exclusive, I feel, and people turned to other methods of expressing their ideas. Obviously that's not all there is to it, but it needs addressing for the future of the field.

[wayfinder]

i'm sorry.

i had prepared a really, really long rant that basically supported Nex and dissed Lunatique, but I decided not to post it, since most of what was in there has already been said, and more importantly, only the people i wouldn't need to preach to would read it with an open mind anyway.so instead of a long rant post, i'll just add some bits of knowledge to the thread.

the artist Daydreamer was talking about is Yves Klein, who is long dead and not painting his 120th blue painting right now. he patented his "YKB" (Yves Klein Bleu) somewhere in the fifties or sixties I think, and is generally counted into a style called body art. look it up if you care.

And lunatique, daydreamer, and the others who violently agree with them: please remember that art is not just about reproducing something with the best possible technique. mankind has long progressed from this. art is about pushing the boundaries, going beyond what's known and established, art shapes society and mind by expanding horizons. nobody tells you to go everywhere art has gone, that would be silly. but the knowledge that someone HAS BEEN THERE is enough, i think, to enrichen mankind's cultural heritage. what maybe sets apart illustration (which you seem to prefer) from fine art is the element of innovation [edit]that fine art has[/edit ].


------------------
.think.big.

[This message has been edited by wayfinder (edited March 21, 2001).]

[DonSeeg]

Thought that everyone that admires Picasso so very much would like to see this quote. It is very interesting.

In his book LIBRO NERO, the Italian author Giovanni Papini gives this report of an interview he had with the top god of modern art, Pablo Picasso. Here is what Picasso reportedly thinks of himself:

"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."

[Joel]

I used to ask myself that same question Isric. My friends and I would see a painting of a large blue canvas with some geometric lines in a darker tone and ask 'How can that possibly be art?'. We finally asked our teacher to explain it to us.
The painting im referring to is by Robert Hunter, Untitled 1977. Our teacher told us that we can't just look at the painting and take it at face value, we have to ask ourselves what is the message the artist is giving us? In this case the artist was involved in the minimalist movement. He personally wanted to remove all evidence of human emotion in a painting, and this painting was his way of getting that idea across.
Alot of the art on these boards is just pretty pictures, and I love this kind of art. I think that with fine art, it's more about the message, not what the final work looks like. Here at school the aesthetic elements of the work we produce is only one criteria out of 7. The ideas, experimentation, etc make up the rest.
Hope this helped, please correct me if im totally wrong anyone.

Joel

[quaternius]

Don - that's a good one...lol
heh...I just found out about these great artists, they paint these wonderful paintings... but you can only see them if you understand what "fine art" is... to everyone else they're invisible.

This emperor I know just bought one... paid gobs of money for it. All his friends say it's absolutely beautiful.
Me? Well... I hate to admit it... but I don't see anything.


heh...just trying to inject a little humor into this thread.

Q

[Lunatique]

Don: EXACTLY. Thank you.

That's another reason I actaully have respect for Picasso. He called it like it was, and was unafraid to bite the hand that fed him(even though it's AFTER he got rich and famous. ...). Well, his womanizer nature was quite amusing too. . ..

See, I'm sick of hearing these modern artists claiming that they are doing something superior to the painters with technique, and their work is more relevent. The truth is, deep down inside, they all wished they had more talent and could paint like the masters, and to remedy that sense of inferiority, they hide behind the modern movement and pretend their lack of talent is actually a preference for a different way of painting. If these modern guys HAD the talent to paint like the masters, and modern art was not the "in" thing at the time, you think they'd still paint the same way? I think not.

[wayfinder]

lunatique, bullshit. you're so inclined to believe what you dreamed up about modern artists that you bend everything you hear to fit your tiny world. was that 19th century suicidal painter you've been talking about a relative of yours or what?

how would you know how realistic someone can paint who never published one of their realistic works, or someone whose realistic stuff you do not know? how can you just assume that because they DO NOT paint realistically, that they CANNOT? Maybe it's because you are to narrow-minded to accept that others, given the choice, would not choose as you would? And, more importantly, you fail to see that the pure technique or painting ability is not what makes an artist! a painter, maybe. but not every artist who expresses himself or herself visually is a painter. the world has seen many painters, it has grown bored of them. the public can still appreciate good technique, but they will not be satisfied with only technique, because they yearn for something they do not know yet. the same thing done better and better over again is only interesting up to a certain point.

as for the picasso quote: very interesting, not very surprising though. i believe that the reactions of the audience are part of the opus. it sheds kind of a new light on picasso's work, but i don't think it loses anything by it. it's very difficult to please the crowd, and he certainly did it in a very entertaining way. everyone's a winner.
except you, of course!




------------------
.think.big.

[Muzman]

(*cough* I'll keep my cool *cough)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lunatique:
See, I'm sick of hearing these modern artists claiming that they are doing something superior to the painters with technique, and their work is more relevent.

---

At some point in this slandering you really are going to have to mention who has said these things and hopefully where it was said as well.
I hope this isn't all based on that hilarious diatrabe that's in the 'philosophy' section of that artrenewal site. Great site, good purpose, but that article is mostly bunkum.
Sadly, it's a tad more complicated than "this is good, that isn't. Anyone who says otherwise is some sort of con artist"
What's a "modern artist" by the way? The cubists? The surrealists? (go on, tell me Dali couldn't paint, I dare you), how about nouveau folks like Aubrey Beardsley and Schiel(sp?).
Come on, lay it on the line, this discussion needs some legs.



[This message has been edited by Muzman (edited March 22, 2001).]

[Kreuze]

I think there is more to art than technical prowess. *Some* realistic celebrated works with great technique I see (while I admire the skill it took to create them) aren't as interesting to me as *some* works of modern art. I don't think modern art is just the revenge of those who can't draw realisticly.

However, one thing I wonder about is art schools teaching anything that isn't centered around fundamentals and technique. How effective can it be to try to teach originality? Who is to judge whether your message is conveyed by your artwork, whether your ideas important? I guess the teachers that grade students on those things, and teach students those things, and I personally think that's a bit silly. What is good art and what just crap is just a personal opinion. I reserve the right to make these decisions on my own and not be wrong if my decisions go against mass opinion or "expert" opinion. I wouldn't grade anyone on what I think, it isn't the right way to think, it's just my opinion.

(I've never been to any art schools myself, so I guess I don't really know, maybe I'm mislead However I have been told that something *is* good art or something isn't, and not agreed. )


[This message has been edited by Kreuze (edited March 22, 2001).]

[Pigeon]

If you can say
what you want to say
in a five-line poem,
why write a twenty-
page verbose essay?

[Rinaldo]

Heh, I'm going to be waisting my time here, but ehh.

I don't pretend to know anything about anything besides what has happend to me personaly. But I have felt a lot of hostility from people who are into "non-realistic" stuff. In High school it was there, mostly in writing essays on art, explain it all away etc. it HAS to have meaninig, you must express yourself.
However the criteria for all this does not allow for much expression at all. It's a very small window to fit in. I have found what people consider "true art" whatever it may be. to have one quality. it is very restrictive. it has rules and boundaries, this is art, and this is not. To me that does not sound very subjective, or "anything goes" it sounds like a Load of BS.
I have heard from not a few people upon going into a "fine art" program. that there are a lot of resrictions on what you can do. if you want to do what you want, most likely you will be stopped. especialy if it involves something like realism which the people running the school can't usuialy teach. the problem is that you MUST do something original, preferably as abstract, and subjtive as possible, so that you can't really grade it from an objective standpoint. From my experiance, going to school to learn "art" will crush you until you conform. More so than commercial art/Illustration.

If all art is subjective and "in the eye of the beholder", if you can't say one is better than the other without being wrong. then why can't something like comic books be considered "art". why all the elite stuff. why do I get funny looks when I draw something the way I want. It's your classic "We want to have our cake and eat it too".

I draw Orcs bashing the snot out of each other, and faries sitting on giant mushrooms. It's what i want to do. I hope it's not considered art, but I really don't care. I love doing it and never want to have to defend it as something more than that. As long as other people like it, and I like it, you can call it what you want.


ohh, and

quote:

---

Originally posted by wayfinder:
as for the picasso quote: very interesting, not very surprising though. i believe that the reactions of the audience are part of the opus. it sheds kind of a new light on picasso's work, but i don't think it loses anything by it. it's very difficult to please the crowd, and he certainly did it in a very entertaining way. everyone's a winner.
except you, of course!

---

Ahahahahahahahaha *sorry* but that's too funny. Ignorance is bliss I suppose



[This message has been edited by Rinaldo (edited March 22, 2001).]

[Giant Hamster]

interensting as some modern art may be, how could you descide which modern artists are actually talented or hiding behind a mask of worthlessness and really cant do anything better and only chose art as a carrer because it was easier than taco bell?

its nearly imposible. so againsnt my better judgement, ive just descided to not look at any modern art, i dont like anyof it.

if that sounds rash...well. what if you have a bunch of friends, but one of them is really an enemy, and you cant tell, and the others wont tell you, and you know he's there. how do you get through that?? they could all stab you in the back any minute of your life.....its kind of like that.

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

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

[Lunatique]

wayfinder: I didn't dream anything up. Read up on some writings by R. H. Ives Gammell, especailly "Twilight of Painting." You'll understand then why I feel so strongly about the subject. While you're at it, dig up anything on the Boston painters around the 1930's.

Also, if you read my ealier posts, you'll see that I DID say that I do find some modern art kinda cool. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Mucha and Klimt. BUT, notice that even though Klimt did some pretty wacky drawings, he has also more than demonstrated he is capable of doing excellent paintings/drawings.

Yes, I admit, for me to respect an artist and his/her work, they need to demonstrate somehow that they do have talent/skill. Then, it's up to me whether I see any meaning/relevence in their work. If some guy wants to shock me with splotches of paint or glued together pieces from junk, then fine, I'm shocked and amused. Relevent to me? No. Yeah, it IS an elitist attitude, but since when is the art of creative endeavors NOT elitist? Artists, composers, writers, film-makers all need to demonstrate talent to be taken seriously, and sadly, splotches of paint and glued together junk parts doesn't demonstrate talent very well. If the person CAN draw/paint well, but chose to hide that fact, then it's my loss, I guess.

Think about this for a minute: why does everyone here love Craig's work? Why do we respect him so much? Other than the fact he is a generous, nurturing, kind soul, we are in awe of his talent. Do you think that if some guy posted a bunch of paint swatches and pasted together collages of images, he's going to get any respect here? Well, I really don't think so. But guess what, if he did that at an art gallery, he might just end up a millionaire. What do you think of that? Honestly. Really.

Muzman: slandering? How was I slandering? Go to your local library or bookstore and research 19th century art, especially on how the modernists treated John William Godward.

When I referred to the modern artists that hides behind masks, I'm mosly speaking about the artists I've met in the San Francisco area. When I go to these "art gatherings" in the Mission district(very famous for its art scene), or run into other artists at parties, I'd meet these guys with master's degree in fine arts or painting, and they'd talk up a storm, as if they knew it all and their work is so relevent. Then, they'd show a portfolio of these pretentious abstract expressionistic stuff and start giving a speech about what it means and how it's supposed to make me feel/think. When asked to show other works, such as figure studies, portraits, or other works that actually require true drawing/painting ability, they'd either say, "Well, I didn't do too much of that, it's just not my thing," or they'd show these horrible works that most high school kids would laugh at.

Case in point: a close friend of mine graduated with a degree in fine arts from Berkeley. Not ONCE was he taught how to paint. I repeat: NOT ONCE. How do you think that happened? It's the modern art movement that made it that way. Can you imagine someone graduating with a degree in English Literature, but was never taught grammar? Well, same thing.

Now, I'm well aware that superior technique does not = good art. I mean, look at Boris Vallejo. He's got technique up the wazoo(specifically his work from late 70's to early 90's), but his work is very pretentious and cheesy.

More than anything, I'm really just upset about the way modern art bullied the art world into conforming to what they told people to think, appreciate, and laugh at. If they didn't go and attack/ostracize other painters, then I would be fine with it all, but as malicious as they were, I just can't in good conscience let them get away with it. Everytime I read about another criticism/attack on Bouguereau by these guys, I just want to scream, "well, can YOU paint that well? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP. How DARE you."

See, even though I think Boris Vallejo's paintings have gotten quite ridiculous in the last decade(some say ANY decade), I at least admit that the man's got mad skillz. I don't just go and discredit him COMPLETELY.

Bottom line is this: we all have our preferences. I don't like most modern art, and I don't like the fact they destroyed the tradition of painting for many decades, and I don't like the fact there are too many pretentious, talentless, greedy, gimmicky modern artists in this world.

Look, even though we are all artists, but we'll probably never all agree on any given topic. It doesn't really matter. This is where we come to express our opinions, and to give each other support in our path of becoming better artists.

After all is said and done, I love this place and the people here, and that's all I got to say.

[Muzman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lunatique:
When I referred to the modern artists that hides behind masks, I'm mosly speaking about the artists I've met in the San Francisco area. When I go to these "art gatherings" in the Mission district(very famous for its art scene), or run into other artists at parties, I'd meet these guys with master's degree in fine arts or painting, and they'd talk up a storm, as if they knew it all and their work is so relevent. Then, they'd show a portfolio of these pretentious abstract expressionistic stuff and start giving a speech about what it means and how it's supposed to make me feel/think. When asked to show other works, such as figure studies, portraits, or other works that actually require true drawing/painting ability, they'd either say, "Well, I didn't do too much of that, it's just not my thing," or they'd show these horrible works that most high school kids would laugh at.

---

This is what I don't quite get. What is wrong with that exactly? I don't understand why to you 'art' seems to equal 'realism' and how this isn't just a matter of taste.

quote:

---

Case in point: a close friend of mine graduated with a degree in fine arts from Berkeley. Not ONCE was he taught how to paint. I repeat: NOT ONCE. How do you think that happened? It's the modern art movement that made it that way. Can you imagine someone graduating with a degree in English Literature, but was never taught grammar? Well, same thing.

---

Not at all. Surprisingly few Lit graduates actually go into creative writing. Grammer is the basis for language, in the visual arts this is more analogous to stick figures. But if he hadn't done any art history, then that is a bit of a shame. Don't try and blame that on the modernists though; history as an aspect of most disciplines has been getting a resurgence of late across the board. Blame the pragmatic fifties for its decline

quote:

---

More than anything, I'm really just upset about the way modern art bullied the art world into conforming to what they told people to think, appreciate, and laugh at. If they didn't go and attack/ostracize other painters, then I would be fine with it all, but as malicious as they were, I just can't in good conscience let them get away with it. Everytime I read about another criticism/attack on Bouguereau by these guys, I just want to scream, "well, can YOU paint that well? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP. How DARE you."

---

yes, and I think only ex or attempted Presidents should be able to vote. A common sentiment though, happens to me all the time.

But really, while the ragging on some artists a long time ago ain't good and certainly art criticism has become a tad convaluted, this whole 'Vast conspiracy' thing is a bit much. I don't think traditional realism was ever in danger of dying off or that it was being actively surpressed. There's no doubt that it fell out of favour, and looking at how realistic these people could go over 100yrs ago you'd expect some divergence. (once things are rarified to the Nth degree tangents do start to emerge. Putting it down to 'losers who can't cut it by the old/proper standard' would seem a pretty dim view).
The rise of modernist and post modernist ideas isn't the doing of a few art critics or their ability to talk up or down various art works and artists.

[PlantMan]

I had this 'fine art' is bullshit ideology until i was about 18 when my teacher forced me to look at fine artists. Before, I had spent a furious amount of time apeing the comic /photorealist works that I loved. To be able to create a technically correct piece of work is satisfiying for a while. To get the light ,textures etc correct is essential.

But there is much more to enjoy! I know its hard for a persons faith to accept it isnt everything but if you don't face the possibilities that are explained in fine art theory you will be chasing your tail in fantasy land forever.

The more I look at stuff on this site, your work ,your heroes etc the more depressed i get. And you arent all young! I swear if i see another robo mech babe shiny conan penis turd i am going to scream. I cant believe I used to spend ages slavishly copying a wolf from a Jim Burns picture and I'm seeing the same thing again here. I'm telling you to look further!


Fine art theory will help you open your imagination and help you define techniques that can liven up stayed genres and methods of depiction. After you've learnt the rules; break them. Never repeat yourself and only copy others so as to improve or make it your own.

Now that sounds like more fun doesn't it?

In fact: Kill your heroes.


[This message has been edited by PlantMan (edited March 23, 2001).]

[Munier]

I would like to make a point as one who is new to this forum but not new to art, having spent 30 years in and out of the art world.

It is a myth that Picasso was a great academic painter, and one that is perpetrated by his supporters, that he was a master at drawing and realism but chose a "better" road. In fact, if you compare his so called great academic drawings to what was coming out of dozens of atelier's and thousands of properly trained art students at the end of the 19th century, you'll see that Picasso was at best a mediocre talent. He might have developed into a fine artist, but as in Don's quote's from him, he preferred the quick buck, infidelity, and underneath that hard shell he really was a bastard through and through, treating people, and especially women, like dirt. Of course, one might still be a great artist and a shithead. In his case only the latter applies.

People need to find worthwhile qualities in his work because they so fear being ridiculed by their peers in the art world. Look at anything he ever made and make believe it was done by some unknown in a village art fair. Would it stand out as great?.....I think not.

[Munier]

The art of painting is a visual language. One must have command of the syntax, Grammer and vocabulary in order to communicate...which by the way is the whole point...to move oneself and others. It must also be about humanity in one way or another, even if it has to do with the way we see a landscape or still life, but the best art usually includes the human form as one can best instill poetically the strongest human emotions, universally experienced, in this way.

That said, it cannot be done without mastery first over drawing, and then over all of the other parameters of painting, i.e. modeling, perpspective, tonality, coloration, composition, design, glazing and scumbling, etc. ....and all most harmoniously support the subject or theme to create a great work of art.

Sorry, but yes, you do have to make it all work together.

Abstract art does not do that. But to take it a step further, "abstract art" is itself a misnomer. It is neither abstract nor is it art. Let me explain. the word "glass" for example, is an abstraction for the object "glass" that we use to take a drink. The written word "glass" abstracts one step further. Thus "abstract" means one thing representing another. Understood in this way, then Bouguereau, Godward, Alma-Tadema, etc., were amongst the greatest abstract artists in history, turning a 2 dimensional surface into a window looking out on another world.

Rothko, POllock, and DeKooning's work was not abstract but tangible splatters and dribbles of paint, lacking in meaning, unable to communicate, and therefore total failures as works of art.

[Ahcri]

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Ahcri ]

[worthless_meat_sack]

Munier, is Western art superior to Eastern art? In your opinion. This is not a trap, I really would like to know how you think about this. I won't argue with you, promise

(unrelated statement below)

Muzman rules in my book

[Jason Manley]

I just wanted to say that I agree with Muniers point about picasso in comparison to those before him....if picasso had competed in the Prix de Rome like the academics then he would have failed...he made some nice 'almost finished" drawings(in comparison the the 19th century stuff) and also a painting or two that resembled traditional subject matter and approach though was harsh in comparison to those same academics.

now here is a question that I dare ask...if picasso was working like that at that age and his father was an artist teaching and working with him...how much of those early images have Daddy's hand in them?? hehehehehe....most I'd bet. oh then he moved out on his own and you all see what happened...(teasing)

Sorry art world...i cant stand Picasso junk...well 99.685 percent of it anyway...the cubist stuff is brillaint..as are some of the color/mood things he experimented with (though most of it had been done before).

The quote from picasso earlier in the thread put it all in perspective wonderfully. The shameless philosophy presented in that same quote disturbs me.

tis simply my opinion though....that is something we can have in the art world now that art has been freed to the people and beaten out of the hands of the rich and priveleged.

some of what has happened in modern art and non european art has helped us all (mood exploration by the germans...or flat space pictorial composition by the asian artists long before them...etc..) some of the crap has hindered us (cy twombley...helen frankenthaler..haha..had to say it...yikes....the loss of technique via the repression of traditional art by modern institutions)....all is to be learned from...including mr scotch tape himself "robert rauschenberg".

to me...art is a term that no longer just defines oil paintings, pastels, drawings and sculpture...it is a broad meaning term that can create arguments that are impossible to win...it is a bigger world...more ideas...more passions...more art...

I particularily like the tradional stuff...but that doesnt make those who enjoy abstract stuff any less appreciative...tis just a different perspective..thats all.

jason

you want to see something interesting...take a look at Matisse's very very early stuff..tis refined still life and such..highly polished from what I remember...he tried to be a painter...didnt do too bad...(though he was let go from bougueraus school..errr..failed out of it)...seeing that kind of discipline from MR TEN FOOT BRUSH impressed me.

[roundeye]

BLARGH

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: roundeye ]

[Jason Manley]

In response to the last post...

Im not going to clutter the thread with unnecessary attacks.

I will say that Ive worked on three unreleased and unnanounced titles in the past year beyond the previous Icewind stuff I've done. Im sure you will see a flood of stuff soon enough. just because you dont see it on the gamer sites does not mean that it is not finished.

I would not be able to do what I do if I didnt learn from as many artists as I can.

I draw or paint every single day.

but regardless...I still hate 99.685 percent of picassos junk...matisse too...yawn...larry rivers...ack! haha

but...I love expressionist stuff, cubist stuff, surrealist stuff, baroque stuff, russian art etc......not just impressionist and academic imagery. I do not only learn from the art I like however...

it is often helpful to look at a persons body of work and try to see what not to do as well..and to understand why I dont like a particular artists work.

Do you all think it is best to learn from both sides...from all sides? or does a single focus aid in learning the most...where is the balance point in studying art that keeps an artist from being spread too thin in their learning...from being unfocused while focused?


jason

I need a little signature that says "its all just my opinion!!

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jason Manley ]

[sweet euphoria]

hello

whats with the crummy post attacking jason's work? I read his posts a lot and he seems to really enjoy helping on here. That comment was lame. Try criticizing your own work before spreading your own frusterations around. I like his illustrations. So there.

Ive been reading posts on this site for the past few months. I like this topic a lot.

What is everyone's favorite artist?

I do like picasso. I especially like his early stuff. It seems to me that he seems to be the artist who made it possible for everyone to be an artist in their own way.

There is another topic about the Art renewal center that is similar to this and is pretty good. Its wierd, it's almost the same discussion as here.

I'm learning a lot. Thank you.


Sweet Euphoria

[Munier]

Meat Sack....I really don't like calling anyone that name.

I cannot truly say that I have seen enough estern art to make sweeping judgements that I feel secure about. I can only speak from what I have seen. Genreally speaking eastern art does not have as extensive an aresenal of tools with which to create great art. However, the soul of great art is great subject matter and theme, and often eastern arts will capture strong emotional subject matter successfully. That will always surpass inane or silly subject matter no matter how great the technique. But the greatest art I have ever seen combines great techniques that are associated with western achievements, with great subjects and themes.

Therefore on balance I believe western art has achieved more than eastern. But it's not absolute by any stretch.

I hope that clairfies things at least somewhat.

Back to Picasso for a second. Compared to Waterhouse, Burne Jones, Almat-tadema, Lord Leighton and Bouguereau...oh, and Emile Munier, Picasso was a rank amateur...and that's his best work.

Everyone has different opinions, and everyone has the right to them. But it's a long and completely false leap to conclude that they are all equally correct.

[Norling]

Here's a little something for you guys to reflect over:

There's a classical pievo of art in the swedish history. A collection of poems name "camera obscura". When it first was published, it became a great success. But, after a while, the artists said that they had simply taken random words from a wordbook and made poems frome them. Still it's considered as art. Why?

Anybody can take random words and write poems, steal a bench and claim that the emptiness created the non-existing bench is art (yes, this has been done), or anybbody can make a pile of junk and claim it's art.
Any skilled painter can recreate Mona Lisa too.

But, can anybody get the idea to create such artworks? Can anybody get the idea to make a simplistic action and then explain to people why it's art? I think not. Now you think, "i'll do some really wicked stuff and tell people it's art!". Try, and you'll see that it's not that easy.

Well...Art is art if the creator says that it's art. I can say that this post is art and then it is art.

So, any discussion about what is art and what is not ar is pointless. Everything can be art.

BUT. There is a difference between good art and bad art. If you want to create good art, then you need to have a famous name. Yes, the buissness is very unfair, but if you have a famous name, then you can do almost anything and it'll be recognized as an artwork.

I've heard an old story about picasso paying with a check. Well...Picassos signature was on the check, so it's art. The dude recieving the check din't change it for money at the bank, becouse picassos name was on it. It was and artwork by a famous artist.
So....It's all about the name. You guys can't create fine art becouse you don't have a famous name. that's it.

[worthless_meat_sack]

Thanks Munier, very enlightening.