[amichaels]

Personally, I think it's art when it's pleasing to the eye. When something is pleasing to look at, it's usually because it follows the basic structures you learn in most art schools about composition, color and design. Some artists follow those guidelines without even knowing it because their brain works that way already without someone telling them they need to. I think that is part of being an artist.

[Wayne Johnson]

Look, telling the truth about light striking form in space. That is an example.
Telling the truth of motion, of line of shape, of life. Relativisum and psycology are the problem. I'm talking about telling the truth about our physics based reality. What about honor, valor, respect, hope, tradition, love, faith? Tell me something about that. I'm so sick of going to art shows and it's about women, gays, republicans, democrats, mexicans, pro choice, pro life, lesbians, earth day, birthday, nihilisum, death, dismemberment, hatred, porn, erotica, blasfimy, defication, urination, self mutalation, anything but just showing me the beauty and the glory of light striking form in space.

Some people are so afraid of definitions, and so afraid of standards that they will let anything in that even remotly smells like art.

The ugly, mean, vile, banal, twisted, sick, bloody celebration of torture, rape, cruelty, filth, demonic and socio-political psycho-babble -- and death -- is disgusting stuff to me -- and it's our youngest writers/cartoonists/editors cranking out this garbage! Which is sub-anti-human drek, devoid of original thought or of moral, ethical values -- it is hopeless fatalism, nihilism, anarchy, pointy-headed anti-everything gibberish -- and most of it dares to label itself 'adult' -- 'for mature readers' -- etc, ect -- which is nonsense!
Much more 'adult and mature' are the stories no one can, or will, write about and illustrate: Joy, wonder, love honor, humor, wit, intelligence, invention, compassion, trust, respect, duty, character, sacrifice, sentiment, family, discovery, exploration, history, the myriad peoples, customs, and stories abounding out there in the world -- human stories!

ALEX TOTH
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Watashi]

Well i agree when thinking in terms of "good" and "bad" is limiting yourself.
But look at guys like Duchamp...he puts a bike-wheel on a chair/stool and calls it art and charges $300000 for it.




Or he buys a shovel(you know that thing to dig with), then he lays it on the ground and and says...Art!
Then he charges again many $$$$$ for it.




He really pisses me off, he really does.
One of my Art Teachers loves him, he kisses his ass and acts like he's the next best thing to sex.

To me Duchamp is the very reason i dislike that teacher's classes, i started skipping his classes, because i simply could NOT take the BULLSHIT ANYMORE!

For one thing i do give Duchamp credit...and that is the fact that he is able to get on my nerves.
Someone being able to raise emotions by their "art", how stupid it may be, is an artist in my eyes.
But i DO NOT think that about his followers or people who like his art.
I think they are people full of shit and are totally incompetent.
What they do is talk their art into the sky, but it's just talk, empty talk.
They try to talk their art "beautifull".
It's marketing of the highest degree.

I also have the feeling that followers of this art style feel themselves more sophisticated and say "they understand".
And those who do not "understand" and think a kid could do what Duchamp-like-artists do are dumb and belong to the gray masses.
I have the feeling my teacher thinks the same way.


I do consider what this teacher preaches as art, but just for the sake of not limiting myself.

But i do not take him seriously anymore...
Just because alot of things are considered art while to what you're feeling it isn't, doesn't mean that these people aren't really full of shit and just "talkers".
Sometimes i have the feeling some people try to talk the incompetence out of their creations.


My best friend put it best : "Some people are so satisfied in their mediocrity"
I think there is no better way to put it.


Though i must add this: This arrogant attitude i show towards these kind of artists is very dangerous for an artist himself, arrogance is a destroyer in an artist, it cuts away paths in your brain and psyche to "different" original ideas, i know this, i get smacked with my face on the facts quite often.
But i'm trying to work on it, i'm trying to work on a way to being able to swallow this kind of art, to justify it within my thinking pattern.
I think i'd have to if i want to be able to progress and improve.

[Space Monkey]

Wayne: I share your sentiments exactly. I'm glad you wrote what you did because it is something that has been bothering me ever since I started taking art seriously. I'm sure there are many people who share this same viewpoint.

I can't stand it when artists use their technical ability to produce images that only evoke emotions in the deepest, darkest recesses of the human mind and soul. Artists like Giger, who obviously have incredible technical skill, produce some of the most disturbing images I have ever seen. Their is nothing esthetically pleasing in the imagery itself - unless you enjoy the sight of giant alien penises raping mutilated demoniac women, in which case I suggest you seek therapy. Is this bad art? Well... is it good? Other than good technical skill, he has shown me nothing other than his twisted imagination.

Art is always an extension of the artist mind. The fact that so many artists - especially the younger generation - dwell on the deplorable side of humanity only seems to display the total lack of respect for morals and virtue in today's society. You see it in every aspect of society, not just in art. Art is just a visual expression of what's already there. Some things that have been kept behind closed doors and should still be, are being celebrated instead - hence the onslaught of the disgusting imagery we see so much of today. I think Oxford should take the word "perverse" out of the dictionary - it seems to have no meaning anymore.

Watashi: There is a difference between an artist and a politician. Duchamp should run for office - he's a great liar. I think we, as human beings of comparable intelligence should afford ourselves the right to distinguish good from bad. Just because two individual things (such as two pieces of art) fall into he same catagory ("art") doesn't make them equal. That finger painting I did in grade two, while I tried real hard and poured my heart and soul into it, was bad. I'd like that I'm closer to producing something good these days. We should be allowed to make the same judgements about art that we do about everything else.

Churchill was a leader - so was Hitler (forget about the genocide for a second and focus on their ideals). They were both excellent as leaders. One expressed freedom, while the other expressed hatred. Now, you tell me which was was good and which was bad? How come we're allowed to make a definitive judgement about a person and not about a piece of art that came from a person's mind? Hitler's vision was morally corrupt. Well, so are a lot of artists'. Why is one not worthy of admirable respect, but rather digust, while he other is celebrated and recognized as an accomlishment? I guess expressing hatred, perversity and murder is okay, as long as it's expressed as visual art. And Watashi, justifying immorality is the most dangerous thing a man can do. Its cool to be evil, didn't you hear. Everybody's doing it.
_________________
Uhh... yeah, what I just said.

[Mon]

I can't believe what I'm reading

Space Monkey and Wayne seem to want a ban on art that deals with the darker aspects of the human mind. Are you the guys who want stop Marylin Manson? Clean the world of expressions that tells you about an aspect of the world that you would like to forget about?

In the UN they covered up Picasso's "Guernica". The assholes couldn't stand the scene of death and despair while they were forging plans to deal some of their own.

Since we've already brough in Hitler into this, his view of art mirrored that which I'm reading here. He was also into promoting family, honor and valor. And to rid Germany of everything degenerate.

spacemonkey said

[Wayne Johnson]

Would you cover up Guernica?

No. That painting is a great anti war statement.

I want to be clear on this. I agree totaly with space monky, but I am not advocating censorship. I am sick of the degenerate art and ideas in our culture and it's time we swung the pendulum back the other way. You miss my point. Rembrandts beef was reviled for 400 years because of the subjectmatter. a slaughtered Ox. but that wasn't the point remby was making. He was telling the truth about light striking form in space. The art today simply celibrates perversion, and I as well as others I know are sick to death of it. Go back and read the Alex Toth quote, that is the truest thing I have ever read.
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Mon]

Before I can say anything I need to know what art you're talking about that's celebrating perversion, that is posing a threat to your mental well-being.
_________________
www.mattiassnygg.com
Blog!

[Probustion]

some of the best artists the world has ever seen have done perverse images. just look at Ruben's the rape of the daughters of leucippus. there are way better examples to make my point, but i can't think of them right now(i remember an image of a man his liver getting ripped out by a crow - anyone?)
bottom line is, negative happenings have more direct impact on people's emotions. just switch on the tv and you'll see
_________________
talent is overrated.

[Watashi]

When Da Vinchi was young, he used to make "dark art", demons, snake heads the usual grim and gritty stuff you'd expect of a teenager.
Later though he ascended into a more peacefull and academic style.

One could see this kind of stuff like a phase in an artist's life, even the very best go through it and some stick with it for life like Giger for example.

[Wayne Johnson]

I'm talking about Ideas. you may have graphic subject matter, such as in the film Saving Private Ryan, but it is not celibrating that stuff, it is showing the courage and drive of men in the face of such horror. I can handel images portraying horror or perversion but when they celebrate those ideas and embrace that as a way of life, then I have a problem. above was mentioned "just look on the TV." Your right! The world is filled with horrible things. Do we forget the things that make life worth living? Isn't that what some are fighting for? the things that make this a wonderful life, one of hope and valor and compassion, and not one of porn, nihilisum, hate, death, and the like? Are people afraid to tell stories or paint pictures of those things, instead of wallowing in filth? Pyle told stories that involved violence and ugly things, but that was not the focuse, he told stories and painted pictures celebrating the men and women who had desirable human qualities, and desirable human values. The United States is at war with it's self because of a differance in values, so is the world. what values do you hold up? and are they a desirable human values?
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Mon]

I have never seen a degenerate work of art (the kind you're talking about - I've seen (and done!) kinky stuff, but that's not the issue, right?), and in your post you carefully avoid naming a single source of such vile material.

I demand filthy art! Show me degenerate! Then at least we can discuss on equal grounds. Right now I feel left out, like I missed something important.

Let me get back to you on your last question. Don't want to spoil the suspence.

Now give me name of some artist you can't stomach.
_________________
www.mattiassnygg.com
Blog!

[Mikko K]

I certainly didn't expect this discussion to go this way. I'm positively surprised!

Without "bad" you wouldn't know what's "good". At least "good" would lose it's meaning.


I don't personally celebrate stuff like Andres Serrano's Piss Christ (or whatever that piece was called) where he had photographed a Jesus statue dipped in his own urine. But I still think it has a purpose if it pisses off some conservative people. Whatever that crucifix means to you, it's still a piece of plastic.

How can anyone even compare that with real Jesus, whether Christian or not? It's a good statement in my opinion.


I think art reflects the current state of society. Saying we should only paint certain things some people define as "good" is like closing our eyes on reality.

Who cares about violence in Q-uake if we can watch far more K3wL stuff like ira-Q?

[Probustion]

watashi: does that shovel come with the ground it's on?
about giger, i wouldn't say his art is less mature or anything similar. i myself like this type of dark art alot, whether it tells you something about society or not.

it may be more appealing to the youth of today, yes. but that's how it goes with commercial art. in the same way giger did the alien artwork, i think many of us are aiming for(or have already) a job in games or movies. so the artwork we make is a reflection of what's pop in these media.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[biglebowsky]

Watashi - I Just coulden stand what you wrote, I love Dushamps art, for me hi is the most important artist, meaby the last real one. why? becouse I don't realy understand word: ART, What is this? telling 'an artificial construct' is most appropriately ,but i don't fell to be an artist, I dont like when somebody calling me that. Dusham was doing the most hmm... artificial art, He wasnt lier, politician He strongly beliefed in that what he was doing. the IDEA - this is what art is today, not abstract, not academic style,show bidet and name it a fountain.... There proprably can't be something more invitational (exept white square on white ), for him everything what was made by human was an art - was synthetic, beautiful, unusual only because was made by human...
It's all about dushampie, because he before Einstein discover considerateness, next in general about today art.
Today art stay conceptual- based on Idea, certainly begins where we have to border on character of artist and ended on the idea. Representation... Picture has no denotation... It is only a transformer of first two, nothing more. Next we can contend is it good or not, but it's without any direction, it's important to eschew of reiterative. Reiterative = kitsch, I remember it from Umberto Eco definition and this is what I believe. Be truly... W all on this forum (almost all ) are only craftsman's. History has nothing to it, it's not that century. Michael Angelo was a precursor on his ages, C�zanne, Picasso, Dushamp was precursors of XX century art. Painting is dead, is dead in art. meaning. Now conceptual art, installations, commercials. That is no reason to talk about the dead (painting)- were playing on necrophilia�

and sorry for my poor English.

[Probustion]

biglebowski - there is alot of truth in your words, unfortunately i wasn't able to decipher half of it.
i think most people here ask themselves sometimes, am i an artist or only a craftsman.
but why can't the so-called elite(modernism? art history is still a little hazy to me) let the artist decide this for himself? i mean, they say what's art and what's not, but most of us "craftsmen" think directly the opposite. they are not necissarily right, IMO. from the beginning of mankind, the caveman tried "realistic" drawing of animals(his primary concern). after that time, art has gone in several directions, realistic and abstract, but it was all craftsmanship. and now suddenly they want to completely redesign the meaning of art.

i hope i'm making any sense, disagree as you wish. again, i'm not an expert on this topic, just want to make my point.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[Watashi]

biglebowsky,

this Duchamp art form might be based on an idea, though it takes no skill to do it.
Sure it's great that Duchamp has talked an entire story behind his art and even involved the universe.


But THAT is just the point, it is just talk.
I cannot see what he is talking about through his art.
If some artist talks about the mysteries of our universe and makes an incredible painting that takes skill, artistic view, emotion, craftmansship and his entire heart and soul and then a guy comes along criticizing the entire art world and then lays a shovel on the ground and sees it as "better" art is just arrogant.


The point is, i could talk about the universe, oh i could.
But when i put a wheel on a chair/stool or lay a shovel on the ground....then somewhere between buying the shovel and putting it on the ground i must have missed the part where it takes even 1 of those things i mentioned above.

But i think the stories he tells behind his art are far more interesting than what he creates.
But in that case Duchamp should have become a writer, poet or philosopher, those are different art directions.

He did not create what he shows, he just grabbed stuff someone else made with THEIR skills and then he philosophies around THEIR creations.
He just talks.

Though sometimes what these people say is interesting and inspiring, poetic and what not...
But then it's their talk that appeals and not their visual art.

[tbone28]

Subjectivity is what makes our appreciation of art possible. When anyone produces anything and I gaze upon it, “I” will start the creation process within myself. “I” put meaning to what I am looking at. This is the subjective part. The ART is not subjective, but the transformation of input into the viewers is subjective. That is what makes art great. And why “good” art is important. Just like language, the better I can relate to your experience of life or the world or whatever, the better I can evoke emotion in you and gain from it what I like. If I want you to be my friend I will attempt to communicate with you and depending how flexible I am, I will try and evoke good emotions or good thoughts by the way I talk, the way I move, the things I talk about. Art is the same thing. If I make a piece of work and you can relate with it, then I hit my mark. I have no idea what you related with. May have not been what I intended it, but I am at your mercy to find meaning in my art. Subjectivity!

To me “good” art is art that consistently evokes emotion from person(s). I depend on your intelligence or lack of, to find meaning. My child appreciates my art, but I know he does not have the experience that I do, and may not pull from it the ideas I used to create it.
It is like music. When I was writing a lot of music I hoped that people would hear something or get something from my music that I did not intend to put there. That gave me the most pleasure. Educated artists are possibly the hardest to please when it comes to art. Lacking flexibility to see things they have not seen before, or get meaning from things that seem meaningless. Why do they have to? They don’t! Subjectivity is awesome. I learn anatomy not to produce “good” art, but to find those things, images, ideas that people can relate to and create ideas, emotions. That to me is good art.

You can find meaning in a piece of crap, but not everyone. And if your audience is you well, Good for you. Few people honestly do art for themselves. Keep it up, but don’t expect me to understand or find the meaning. Better yet, educate me and I will love your work. But how much time do you have to educate me on your experience of life?
_________________
Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

[biglebowsky]

Probustion
> there is alot of truth in your words, unfortunately i wasn't able to decipher half of it.

Thats why its my last post in this topic, i should painting, and learn english not talking:)

I generally agree with You but people always tryed to give some meanning to their art, difrent then only the skill. I dont se anything negative in 'craftsman' word, but craftsmanship is not art . skill = craftsmanship.


>i hope i'm making any sense, disagree as you wish. again, i'm not an expert on this topic, just want to make my point.

i'm not expert too, and Im not trying to be, truly sorry if that looks like that:)

Watashi
>this Duchamp art form might be based on an idea, though it takes no skill to do it.

Ofcourse, You have right,but it takes intelligence, mind, bravery to do it.
Im not ignore skill, its very important to easily realise what You have in Your head, I honestly admire people with skill its just not really necessery to do art. (imo).

tbone28
>You can find meaning in a piece of crap

Not in every pice of crap, and not always....

[tbone28]

Biglebowsky -

>>>You can find meaning in a piece of crap

>>Not in every pice of crap, and not always....

CAN: a model operator of possibility, not necessity. What you say it true, but it displays you may have not found basic meaning in what I wrote. Thus displaying my inability in one post to find commonality with your experience of the world, your map. Oh well, can't get them all. But I can keep trying.


_________________
Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

[Drunken Monkey]

[spline]

When I was young I got upset by all the art today that is like Duchamps.

I once visited a fine "art" gallery where a well know artist had painted a simple grid. Nothing more, just a very big red grid on a white paper.

For this painting they wanted something like 10.000$!!!

This is something that anyone could have painted and it would have taken anyone about 10-20 min to paint.

And for me this was just crap.

There where a old women looking at the piece, so I askt here what she thought of it.

She said. I just bought it.

I never asked here why. But to me the only reason must have been because it was a famous man who painted it.

Becasue it was not a good painting, it was hardly a painting and if she had liked it she could have easily done the same thing herself.

This is a side of the art community today that I don�t like. It does not matter if the art is good or bad all thats matter is if the artist is known...

But today I�m more at ease with Duchamp, because I know that there is room for everyone, and I belive that if someone is truly good, than he/she will be able to live on that art.

[SpiralEye]

Art is a tool.

The only useful definition of art. And not even that useful.

[Mikko K]

SpiralEye,

[Keating]

[nickej]

For those who don't know, that's a reference to a famous quote from
Hitler's minister of propaganda....
Boy are there a lot of issues swimming here. The ArtRenewal people definitely creep me out. Not because they advocate craft in painting, but because they advocate it at the expense of anything deeper....All those smiling Christian children in their nineteenth century frocks make me shudder. It's like "Village of the Damned" or something.
Don't get me wrong, the stuff that was actually DONE in the nineteenth century is fine. It's the present-day knockoffs, however well painted (and I could have some quibbles with that, as well) that's.....empty.
For me, art isn't empty. That's all, really, although it asks for some definition. Art is matter made to refer to the spirit is perhaps a better way to put it. Like a poem is ideally words made to transcend verbiage, Art is "stuff" that goes beyond "stuff" and evokes, among other things....respect, outrage, thought, reverie, reverence, laughter, joy, anguish, penitence....I could go on.
The present day "Art Market", as in galleries, has little to do with art, per se.
Occasionally good art appears there-Ron Mueck, Lucien Freud, or in a more abstract vein, Anish Kapoor or Andy Goldsworthy. I don't know if it's "great" art, because I think great art has stood up to a couple of generations of evaluation and has been shown to work despite the vagaries of taste. Fine Art really is just a marketing term brought about by the collapse of the patronage system, and a lot of the art derided in this thread seems to come from a mistaken idea that just because much great art of the nineteenth and early twentieth century evoked outrage or revulsion from the average viewer, that evoking outrage is sufficient purpose for art. This obviously wrong, and deserves to be derided for the silliness it is. Nevertheless, some very good art is outrageous, the Serrano "Piss Christ" mentioned earlier springs to mind.
I think the problem I have with the ArtRenewal people is that the kind of art they advocate is so very bland. And it most emphatically HAS been done before. That's the point. It is unchallenging, unexciting. The visual equivalent of Muzak. One of the most technically amazing artists of this or any other time is Odd Nerdrum, yet I seem to have missed seeing any of his stuff at their site. Copyright issues maybe?
I guess the point I'd like to make is that neither technical virtuosity nor conceptual brilliance can alone make art. Given the choice of one or the other, I waffle and vacillate between the two from day to day: concept if I'm feeling cranky and interested in wrestling with ideas, technique if I just want a warm bath of eyewash. Ideally, I'd rather have both at once, but that is extremely rare, as you can see from the fact that the thickest art history book is less than half the height of any months' art magazines,
_________________
Nick Jainschigg
www.nickjainschigg.org

[Mon]

[Torstein Nordstrand]

"What is art?" is, of course, the main clich� question of art discussions, and as some people have already pointed out, there is no straight answer.

That conclusion is confusing in it's relativity, and for young students (myself included... well, kinda young anyway) it's not at all what they want to agree on - because they have strong opinions on what fascinates them. At least having strong opinions on the subject can lead to interesting discussions, and people get to test their stance, and maybe round out their edges a little. I think most of us will end up with some Spooge Wisdom in the end no matter what.

I have little time for Duchamps and other artists that focus on making art about art. It's too political, and it's discussion on expression and boundaries IMO does not help me grow as an artist the way drooling at classical art does.

So I love Artrenewal, the site, because it makes some of my favourite things available to me. I don't care about the front page and the opinions of its crew. My bookmarked link goes to their gallery index. I choose to be influenced - not by the rhetoric, but by what they offer me, for free - days' worth of looking at the works of some of my favourite artists.

It might be an obvious statement, but I wanted to see it in this thread at least just this once.
_________________
www.torsteinnordstrand.com

[Drunken Monkey]

I think the problem people have with certain art works is that they don�t really hold their own and need some cult personality association to really stand out. That sort of thing is not even art in my opinion� just some ego trip.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[Prometheus-ANJ]

I just goto artrenewal to look at the pictures too. I don't think I've actually read any text there.

I think values such as right and wrong have to be put relative to something, a single person, a group of people, or a god. In the case of a god we can only guess its preferences. As for a group of people we can do some sort of poll and then say a certain percent prefer Michelangelo's David statue over Duchamps urinal, print that figure on a paper and put it in a drawer.

I believe that since humans are constructed a cetain way and live a certain way in a universe built a certain way, we share certain preferences when it comes to visually pleasing art. An alien looking like a urinal might find Duchamp's piece terribly exciting, whilst a Rembrant or a Shirow Masamune mech is just wierd spots of color to it.
To me Duchamp's type of art is more like a social commentary and something that can kick my neuronic pathways in the ass a bit. I wouldn't call it visually pleasing art. Some art is both.
_________________
Yak!

[Capt. Fred]

in response to your original question mikko, i ask this:
what value is there deciding what is hot and what is cold?
what difference does it make?

not to you mikko but to everyone arguing:
how can the discussion continue after spooge's, or if not his, then chthonic divinities posts?

Can you not see those comments undermine the entire argument?
there is no argument left. If you think there is, then you have not appreciated their posts fully. This argument has been solidly undermined. What more can be discussed on the level that the discussion is continueing at? Nothing! it has been underminded. if you wish to argue you must attack directly the undermning issue: why the stubborness to try and rate and compete, to compare paitings like fighting chickens in pen. what value is gained from arbitrarily deciding waht is good or bad? why bother? why not choose to live on a plane of pure SUBJECTIVE FEELING and free your self from your petty competition and argumentativeness. if you want to compete, go watch sport and choose a team to support.
i could go on forever�

let me try again:
'art' is a word. a collection of letters.
THE MEANING ASSOCIATED WITH WORD IS NOT FIXED OR ACCURATE.
hence our disputing what its definion is.
but as a non scientifucally defined, non definite word, it's definion is whatever the fcuk you want it to mean! how can there be right or wrong??

I try again to illustrate:
I create a concept and call it a 'dexa'
this 'dexa' i just created, i have said, means "approximately 10".
you will never be able to argue with someone about whether a 'dexa' is 9, or 23, or 11, 0.00000554.
it is whatever the fuck you want to choose if you are so small-minded/close-minded that you feel you must choose a definition AT ALL!

this argument cannot continue. and would not have continued after the spooge-divinity posts if it was happening between clear-thinking people.