[breeze]

Hehe, here's mine... a couple million too cheap perhaps?!


_________________
I went to write my signature, and now i've got ink all over my monitor!

[Vesper]

(Try adding a couple of zeros at the end... 2,000,000. )

[[666]Flat]

Hello, dear Sijun folks! Here is my piece of art you've all waited for and which will make me rich like CARLOS FONDA. Or what was her name again? I dunno, she had pretty nice boobs and I had to spank my munkey for the sake of appreciation.

I call it "TRIUMPH OF TEH MIND". The red color to the left symbolizes the existence of the red color. The faggish pink color to the right symbolizes SIGFRIED & ROY. And among this spectrum of fagg0try there's a place of uniqueness. Symbolizin' MY PANTS. No, not because green and yellow dominate its colors, you sick bastard. It's because of teh EXCESSIVE MANLINESS going on there.

[666]FLAT, teh inspiration for all da tasty ladies and tasteful fags
_________________

[haohmaru]

...
_________________

[dann82]

lol flat - i don't think i've laughed so hard in my life!!!

power to teh flat one !!!!!!!1


_________________
Life is what you make of it. Mine's a bowl of ice cream.

[Max]

"THE CUBE"

[AndyT]

Muahahaha. Only tools used: dodge/burn, smudge and FlareFX filter

default settings


_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

[Raji]

man i wish i could paint like that...

hahahaha

i do have to say that i applaud the intelligence of those who manage to make art that requires no skill whatsoever and yet still make more money in one painting than all of us would in a lifetime...

i don't care who you are, $30 million is plenty. Picasso at least knew how to draw before delving into abstract art. His famous stuff looked like children's drawings, but he had studied classic art before that AND mastered it. People who sell a blank canvas for millions when they bought it at the local art store for 12.99 are just proving a funny point: find the right moron with enough money and you could sell anything. I've never seen the blank canvas on display, but i have seen a display where 2 canvases (??) were stacked one on top of the other on the wall. The top one was green, the bottom one was white. A few thousand bucks if i remember correctly. I could do that... bush could do that. heck bill gates could do that. and it leaves the audience with nothing and everything to believe and discuss about the painting. Which i think is why those things are so successful. It leaves TONS of room for interpretation. We're proving that point with this very thread. Something so ridiculously simple has already taken up 2 pages.

Raji

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

Hoahmaru and spooge, thanks.

my teachers used to say that art is about social issues, about context not (only ?) about aesthetics and techniques.
if people like Picasso and Kandinsky did not exist, we would still think that the earth is flat, that beauty lies in a symetric world, and that architecture should be about sculpture and monumentality.
i have a lot to say about that subject but i guess images are stronger than any word i can write : hope the links will work.

these are fom Piet Mondrian. they are roughly sorted by date (older first).
from 1905 to 1920/30.






abstraction is a process. link that with the Gestalt theory and reasearch in cognitive psychology and maybe you'll see abstraction differently. well, as we can see, mondrian even knows how to draw (but i don't think it matters) : )
i'm not saying he knows how to draw, so he has the right to stop drawing ! i'm saying, look at the last pic and ask yourself how did he come to that form of vocabulary (lines + primary colors) ?

can graphic design be considered as art ?
Kandinsky 1923 :

Attik design 2000 :

Buro Destruct 1996 :


now compare this painting by Klimt (1902) to this Paul Klee 1925
i could have add some links to Dave Mc Kean's work.
others : Klee/Klimt links >
Gustav Klimt - adele bloch 1907
Paul Klee 1929
Gustav Klimt - die jungfrau 1913
check this by Klee (1940), and think about Keith Harring, Basquiat, JonOne/156 or AshOne

now, i know a lot of people still continue to prefer Vallejo or Suydmak to Rothko and Kandinsky. maybe Vallejo is easier to understand than Kandinsky, but what he is saying is by far less interesting...

My all time favorite painter is Jackson Pollock. About his work, someone wrote :
He painted no image, just "action''.
you have to stand in front of one of his paintings to understand the full meaning of that sentence.
Art is not about watching, it's about feeling...and maybe about trying to understand.
_________________
Wet tentacles, horny chixxx & scary designs
www.hpx1.com

[Raji]

very well said... can't argue with that hpx...

however, i still find it hard to feel anything with no more than the most basic shapes and colors... then again i'm not a good artist, let alone a great one, so perhaps this is beyond my understanding for now.

Raji

[haohmaru]

hardcorepixxx: couldn' t have said it any better.
_________________

[ChiaNi]

I just did this painting. took me about 2 minute on photo shop. Every body Hey!! It is free offering today. just right click on your mouse.


_________________
Holly sprite

[don perkins]

Hardcorepixx; thanks for the wonderful links and insight. very well said.
I really have no education in art, just basically self taught; plus I'm colorblind, so large formless swatches of color are unfortunately lost on me. I don't understand Pollock for that reason, and also I'm too stupid to get what he's saying. But I really enjoyed the Klee and Klimt works. I'd never heard of Klee before,I must read about him, thanks.
Chiani; that's very nice, but you've got it upside down....
_________________
Don Perkins
www.donperkins.com

[faustgfx]

http://fgfx.0wns.org/whore.html


..though i did ended up making an insect out of that stuff... http://fgfx.0wns.org/crap/blam.jpg (unfinished shot) :/
_________________
"hey, wanna dance?"
"do i look like kevin costner to you?
"..no you don't"
"i don't dance with wolves either."

[faustgfx]

old time attik/destruct/tdr/deep end/lost boys/parliament rocks tho. :/
_________________
"hey, wanna dance?"
"do i look like kevin costner to you?
"..no you don't"
"i don't dance with wolves either."

[Cicinimo]

http://www.sackville.ednet.ns.ca/art/gallery/exhibit/abstract/Klee,Paul-Death_and_Fire-1940.jpg That looks like poop. Not that there�s anything wrong with that, so does some of my work. Regardless, when my eyes graced those puke-brown fuzzy stick figures, my overriding thought and emmotion was "dookie".

Call me reckless and uneducated, but I�d rather invest my pondering time on something at least remotely interesting, as opposed to attempting to guess what some nut was thinking as he smeared llama poop on his grandmother�s umbrella.

�but what he is saying is by far less interesting�
In short, HPX (I think your work is brilliant, btw),interest is found squarely in the eye of the beholder. I find the majority of the abstract work I�ve seen boring and ugly.

Dr. Monkey, I�m with you. You too, [666]Flat.
_________________
artpad.org

[haohmaru]

...
_________________

[dann82]

abstraction is a process, he says...

i agree - the process from sane to instable to nutso.

too funny what art can do to a determined soul
_________________
Life is what you make of it. Mine's a bowl of ice cream.

[Drunken Monkey]

I know i know next to nothing about art compared to most people here but...

For something like the following picture to be appreciated it needs to be taught then explained and rationalized.



My question always was why do these things need to be taught to be appreciated? If art is about feeling what is there to teach in order to feel?!

This pic above doesn't move me. It doesn't make feel anything but obscure and primitive. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe there is nothing to get without being well brainwashed first.

Fine and abstract artists often remind me of some elite club that pretend they have something no one else understands while in reality that club is there for its own sake.

P.S.
Please don't take anything i said above to seriously.

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

ok peepz, i apologize for that http://www.sackville.ednet.ns.ca/art/gallery/exhibit/abstract/Klee,Paul-Death_and_Fire-1940.jpg poop pic
yep, it's not 'enjoyable'. certainly not the best example i could have post.
what i was trying to say is : imo, a 'good' piece of art makes me think. I don't have to enjoy it, it just broadens my horizon.
whereas a good drawing just has to be good looking.

Don perkins > ty. glad you liked some of the pics.
cicinimo > i don't care about "education" or knowledge (a little bit though). i first came to color by spraycans and graffiti. i had no art education at that time. just wanted to annoy well-behaved ppl i guess. i'm just amazed to see that "academic painting" that is so deeply related with elitism has so many supporters whereas artforms that precisely fights this is usually seen as garbage.

[Giant Hamster]

commenting on HPX's showcase of the image progression of piet Mondarian:

to me it simply shows lack of ideas and or boredom.

I like visual art because it looks good, I like audible art because it sounds good, I like reading books because they're written well, I like eating food because it tastes good, and I like wearing fur because it feels good.

I don't like looking at visual art because it's intended to sound nice or because it has a good story. I don't like listening to music because the video is cool or because the artist is popular.

When I look at it I want it to look like something worth looking at. Not saying it has to be perfectly realistic and life like, it just has to not be stupid. that red yellow and blue attrocity on white paper with the lines is not appealing. I don't even find it offensive. I'm not searching for some kind of shock out of it...just any reaction other than the faint sound of my neck musles creaking as I tilt my head.

out of simplistic and blah art I find this appealing:



Any buyers? [email protected] to buy.

[Tommy Patterson]

Read Foucault and then you might start to understand this kind of art. What does it mean? Absolutly nothing. What they claim it is cannot be for anyone but themselves and even then they have a lack of logic to place their ideas on. While I could go on for a page and a half, I'll stop. It all started with Neitzsche and ends with anyone that has common sense. This art is shit. Shit. Shit. Shit! Simplicity, plurality and unity are all trademarks of the one true God. Art is derivative not created from abstract nothings. Nature is always the point of departure. Show me a work that isn't and I will vanish before your very eyes. Praise God.

[Giant Hamster]

ohyeah, forgot other things that bug me:

When people offer me food that doesn't taste good and their excuse is either one of the following -

It's healthy for you
you eat it for the texture
it's expensive

same goes for movies:

the director is well known
it's about the children
it's from switzerland
this one scene is awesome

books, etc:

the writer died of pnemonia
he was oppressed
she had no legs

EDIT: Ohyeah, forgot this too:

I usually try to go off a universal truth system. some things i like, some things I don't, some things you like, something you don't. but universally there is a truth about it.

Such as getting shot in the face. the person shooting you might find it fun, you might find it more or less displeasing...but universally the truth is it's stupid and sucks.

another example would be dog feces. you may think they taste wonderful, I may agree, but when it comes down to it the bottom line is it's still shit.

[Drunken Monkey]

Hmm... HPX. This made me think. I guess i just don't know enought to form a different opinion on these things. I don't hate abstract and fine art anymore (although i still think 99% of it is primitive crap that people pretend is worth something). Guess i'll just remain opinionless for a while.

Thank you. And i am done with this thread.

Love your stuff btw.

[spooge demon]

As with any research, most leads nowhere. 1% is invaluable. And sometimes the best way to see how something complex works is by isolating variables, by breaking it, in effect, and see what happens. I think deconstruction is the buzzword. So abstraction happens not only in a painting, but in a life, but also in the grand movements in art. "I wonder what happens if we..." Usually nothing, sometimes everything.

If nothing else "modern" art has made people more aware of the mechanisms of art. Why art works, how to make it work better. Some like to say that art is just escapist fare, a diversion from unpleasant realities. They are uncomfortable if external social, political or economic influences are present. But they are present, whether you acknowledge it or not. Think how much can be learned about the Victorians simply by looking at their art.

Everyone here, every last one, has benefited from this very expensive experiment. Your work in influenced by it whether you like it or not, or whether you are aware of it or not. The hugely extended vocabulary of today's art was built on wasted lives and sometimes blood. Most artists were not able to sign napkins and pay their mortgage.

Please read what hardcore has written more carefully. Thanks HC for taking the time to make the case. It really needs to be said.

I don't have the patience to do this. I will start yelling and screaming. I cannot look at the fascist art renewal.org with seeing red and breaking something. Teeeny tiiiny liittttlee ittty bitttty reptilian brains. I'm no mental giant, but I am not anywhere near that stupid. I am pretty laid back about most things, but it is the reflex I see working at art renewal that is the lesser side of the human animal. And it is sad, too, because the world is a much bigger and more wonderful place than they could even dream it to be. The simply stopped growing at about age 14.

Can art be other than what is easily digestible? Does what you like automatically make it good? Is what you dislike make it bad? What you prefer or understand is not automatically important or good. At least take this basic step into a bigger and better world.

At least, At least At least At least, try to be a bit introspective and be very aware of why you like and dislike things. And answers like " I like beautiful things" is not an answer, it is an evasion, a surface scratch into reality.

I had better STFU now before I really get into trouble.

[tayete]

Well, it is quite known that Picasso liked to laugh about his "customers-public" and himself (it fits well with his Malague�o origin in Spain). If a picture is hanged in a Museum doesn't mean it is good. It can be there just because the Museum needs to have a "Mondrian" or a "Picasso" in its stock, just as a way to add some "name" to the Museum. In fact, it is becoming more and more common, to recognize that only a few of Picasso's (or Mondrian's or Delauny's) pieces are master pieces. Some years ago it seemed that anything that Picasso had touched was great, and it isn't so.

But Velazquez, on the other hand, is recognized to have created almost with every picture a master piece of art (or Rembrandt, or Michellangello, or Durero).

So, I won't let myself be swept by the "everything is art" flood. Recently a museum exhibited a mountain of elephant crap as art. So, what? I admit some Mondrians are a step beyond, but nothing more than that and leads to a dead alley. To pay that amount for an RGB picture, even if it was created when nobody else thought of that, seems an exageration. Maybe it is something interesting to learn the evolution of art, but nothing else.

BTW TOM: Your explanation is wrong. The picture shows the loneliness of man in front of his broken monitor.
_________________
_ _ _____ _ _
http://tayete.blogspot.com

[AliasMoze]

Thanks, HC. Very insightful IMO and educational for me.

I work in the motion picture industry now. There is always a gap between what artists (directors, writers, producers) WANT to be popular and what IS popular (and by "popular" I mean anything that reaches an audience). Some art simply makes an impact, and the best tact for other creators is to look into the work, not turn away from it.

To a degree, I have no appreciation of extremely abstract work, because it seems to require too much context, too much explanation. But to each his own. You can't argue with someone who loves a particular piece, because he's always right. That he enjoys the work is a matter of fact.

[Enayla]

Sometimes, I feel that more realistic, or more classic, art is generally� sold short. Because of the beautiful exterior, a lot of people refuse to � or choose not to � look for any deeper messages. An artist might have had a great intent with three simple brushstrokes across the throat of someone in an image � but nobody will stop to notice, because it�s simply representative art� and thus �meaningless� art. Whereas, should someone take those three brushstrokes and remove them from the context of the painting, and put them on a simple white canvas � a lot of people will interpret, wonder, and applaud. They will see messages in these three strokes of colour � they might even catch onto what the artist intended. Some of these might not have given the more realistic painting the time of their day.

Now, I�m not saying there�s anything wrong with abstract art. I believe art is a combination of the eyes of the beholder, and the heart of the artist himself, or herself. I applaud anyone who can convey their messages through abstract lines and colours on a canvas � and anyone who can appreciate them. I�m glad they find their eyes opened and their horizons broadened. Thumbs up.

I think the problem starts when we start trying to argue what is, or what is not, art. Just because I personally do not enjoy modern art doesn�t mean I�m saying it�s -not- art, whereas I have met quite a few modern artists that refuse to acknowledge that a painting of a landscape, for example can be art. Since when were they made gods to decide? So someone wants to find great depth of feeling in a piece of art � what, if I may ask, makes that person�s opinion more important than the opinion of someone that looks at this picture of a landscape, and gets a sense of deep, deep longing, and perhaps a stab of worry at how the colours drip downwards towards the sea?

Snobbism is the worst thing I know � the snobbism of classic painters telling modern painters that their art is awful� or the snobbism of modern paintings telling classic ones that they have no messages in their work, that their art is shallow, and, in essence, awful. That�s not up to either of them to decide. I don�t like the thought that every piece of art has to bring something new into this world � I don�t like that artists are suddenly forced to make an unique statement with every image, even if that statement is infantile, it still seems to be given more credit than someone who brings back focus on something that has been said before.

Personally, I will continue looking for sources of interests buried deep within the beauty of paintings that go straight to my heart like the stab of a knife. A few lines and colours on a canvas bore me � unless, as is the case here, I can relate to them. I think the first picture in this thread -is- a work of art ;P It caught my interest with a statement that intrigued me.

If I had $30,000,000 I would certainly spend it on other things than a painting that looked like that. But that's me.
_________________
furiae.com

[faustgfx]