[Mikko K]

I browsed through the old threads to find out what the hell is this artrenewal thing I've seen mentioned lately.

I read the discussions on "good" art versus "bad" art. I also visited artrenewal.org and got a creepy feeling. Their opinions started to scare me. I'm not talking about the nazi-mentality towards modern art.

Why? Well, I admit to have a tendency to look at technical excellence in people's artworks and rarely stop to look more carefully at "amateurish" work. Am I a fool like the ones at artrenewal? Should I give less value to nice renderings, and start to look for deeper meanings in scribblings done by beginner artists?

I am one of those people who'd really like to get some serious painting education, and now my attitudes have been questioned

Maybe being a bit cynical here, but somehow I believe that things have been done already when it comes to abstract pieces, and the only difference I can make is to paint as well as possible, like for entertainment purposes (games etc.). I don't believe in deeper meanings too much, sure everyone has the ability to be a depressed artist.

I try not to think too black and white about this. I just can't help but FEEL that today, not many people really have something to say that has not been said a million times before. Does this kind of thinking automatically mean I'm never going to accomplish anything that's really "artistic", since I claim to be nothing special myself while making statements like this?

I'd really like to get some feedback.


Btw. I have a print of Picasso-abstract on my wall. I love it.

[Mikko K]

To simplify my idea in that late night post:

Where's the line between nice renderings (like Boris Vallejo) and "real" art? Who's to determine that?

Should we just be making neat looking images or perhaps focus more on the so-called creative side, trying to figure out something that hasn't been done already, to be provocative for the sake of it or something. These questions bother me a lot.

I've heard someone say that "talking about music is like dancing about literature, it doesn't make sense". Does this apply to art in general? Should we discuss these things at all? (well seems the answer is no. no replies)

[Probustion]

have you read dynamic anatomy by Burne Hogarth? There's an interesting read about how modern art neglects science in art.

modern art doesn't work for me. i can't be enthousiastic about a piece of art that looks like it's made by a 10 year old. i do think art can be more powerful with a strong story to back it up. i think boris vallejo qualifies perfectly as real art, don't you?

if i may add a point to this topic, i wonder what people here would consider the next trend in art?
_________________
talent is overrated.

[spooge demon]

There is no such thing as good and bad art in an absolute sense. It is entirely subjective. It all makes perfect sense when you surrender and accept that uneasy idea.

To my grandmother Thomas Kincade is a better artist than Michelangelo. And her aesthetic experience in looking at her Kincade is comparable to someone with an advanced degree looking at a Rothko.

Art is an artificial construct; it has no nature outside our own definitions.

You might say "but spooge, nice tie by the way, your work is pretty academic and falls in line with the European academic tradition... " Yes it does, but I do not make the mistake that my tastes are in any way reflective of any objective standard. It is what I like and appreciate. I think a lot of people think that something is good art and then proceed to work that way, because it is "the proper way."


So which is better, eastern or western art? It is sad that a brain could even formulate the question.

Why does art need to be measured and compared and quantified? I think it is a reflex that is part of our culture. If you think about it for a little bit, you see that it is pointless trying to do this.

You can have the strongest opinions in the world as to what is good and bad, and that is fine, just realize that that it is your own standard, not anyone else�s. And it is not that you are right and they are ill-educated big-footed hillbillies and if they could just be enlightened the way you are, they would see that X really is the greatest velvet painter of all time.

But if you accept the assumptions within a school of thought, you get a lot closer to being able to define good and bad. But you are limiting yourself. Look at Schiele�s drawings. Are they bad? They are in the same universe as the European academics. But they are uh, out of proportion and he was a pretty strange guy, he should have been drawing truth and beauty, the real values in art. Oh geez. You see even when you go a little down the path of good and bad it has a very negative effect of all artists. It is great for petty bourgeois politician artists who wish to create a career out of controlling every one else�s definition of truth, but it is anathema to art. Um, IMHO.

[J.Der]

Well put Spooge, the terms 'good' and 'bad' art are defined by those who view and judge a piece on the basis of their own personal tastes and/or opinions.

Some artist's work are easier to appreciate, for example, many people could easily admire an artist who can create photorealistic settings and characters, whereas others would question his intentions to do so, especially when a camera is so readily accessible in these contemporary times. The same goes for modern and impressionist art. I am not the most avid fan of abstract pieces, but no matter how strongly I feel towards or against the art form, and no matter how much time I put into defending my claim, I will never be right, nor will I ever be wrong.

It's this free-spirited subjectiveness that makes art 'art', as opposed to industry...If that makes any sense (I'm really tired).

-JD

[J.Der]

Sorry. Double post.

-JD

[Vhy]

Artrenewal isn't a bunch of fools; they are Art collectors

Ignore them.

[amichaels]

Well, there are many types of modern art, and I can say that post doesn't appeal to me. Take Jackson Pollack for exmple. I don't particularly like his paintings, but he has been hailed as a genius and they even made a movie about his life. There is "modern" art out there that does appeal to me in it's use of color and composition. My stepmother is a painter, and while she doesn't strive for super realism and she's not trying to be Rembrandt, her paintings are more impressionistic and her use of color is superb. One of my favorites is an abstract that reminds me of a waterfall. It has deep shadows, rich tones of brown and red, and soft golden highlights. It doesn't look like a photograph, but it invokes feelings and though, which is what art is supposed to do isn't it?
I think that a lot of contemporary artists, especially those my age, are not attracted to modern or abstract art. From my observation, it seems to just not appeal to much of my generation and so we discount it as crap without bothering to look at it's merits.

[Mikko K]

Spooge:

Thanks for taking your time to reply. Everything you said makes sense to me.

Sometimes I feel that my language skills limit me when talking about abstracts like art, as I'm not a native english speaker. So I hope you didn't get the wrong impression of me being strongly on one side or another.

You're right that in our culture, we are probably using too much time and energy to put things in boxes while trying to maintain some level of sanity in chaos. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I get pissed off when people like the teachers at my school don't value traditional skills if compared to crazy artistic ideas and freaky lifestyles.

I do realise my anger doesn't make my own opinions any better though. Maybe it's a part of the process of growth as an artist, to be able to give up extremism and show more respect to different views.

amichaels:
You have a point, I agree that modern art doesn't often appeal to younger generation. Could this be a part of growing up with loads of information, movies, tv, comics and stuff? Are we too desensitized to appreciate relatively simple images?

[amichaels]

I think technology has influenced the way we think about art. Why paint on canvas when you can do it on the computer? Technology has revolutionized art, but I think it has also taken something away from us. There are a lot of digital artists out there working and making a living who've never really taken any traditional art classes past high school, while others go to trade schools for graphic art where they don't really give you much in the way of art history or traditional art tech knowledge. We're so used to seeing art done solely on the computer that no one really pays a lot of attention to more traditional media anymore. Like when was the last time any of us actually went to an art gallery that wasn't on the web?

Another thing I have noticed about the web though is that there is a LOT of really bad art you have to sift through to find anything good. Although I have to admire some of those really bad artists. They post their stuff and it's terrible, but they don't care and they keep producing crap because they have a passion for art.

Anyway, lastly, I wanted to say to Mikko, that your english is better than a large percentage of native english speaking people on the internet. I could rant on that too, but I'll only say;

The keyboard has all 26 letters of the english alphabet on it for a reason! >_<

[cheney]

Art is not subjective, people are. Dispite Mullin's very open minded post I still get flamed occasionally for mentioning using aspects such as layers, channels, filters, guides, and other such. Is it really the art end result that matters, or are we so particular that we must bitch and complain when I define my methods differently from merely a paintbrush?

I have had some of the most popular artists from this board castrate me because I have been able to define methods of solving practical digital art issues using digital tools rather than merely painterly strokes. Perhaps I am bound to fail because I do not conform to the "western academic tradition", as Mullins put it, dispite that using a computer does not entirely conform to such a tradition by the mere possibilities it allows outside a naked canvas.

Out of curiosity what is the difference from using filters compared to Dutch artists who often mixed strange things into their oils, or some Dutch artists who would turn their canvas upside down to let the paint resolve to a natural dripping effect?
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Mikko K]

amichaels:

Your concern about traditional art is truly justified. I've noticed there's also a some kind of generation gap between digital and traditional media. I have seen older people giving a lot more credit to pictures they perceive to be created using traditional methods. Try printing a digital image and showing it to your grandmother. For sure she'll like it better than on-screen, because the medium (ie. paper) is more comfortable to people her age.

Now I'm being really nitpicky, but you said there's a lot of bad art on the net. It brings us back to the beginning of this discussion. Is it a matter of taste, if someone would prefer random photoshop doodles over Michelangelo. And if so, should we listen to that opinion at all?

Is there a bottomline, some minimum standard of quality that a picture should fill in order to be called "art"?

Cheney: It's annoying if people mock you for using filters. Still, remember that your images should be open to critique just like anyone else's. Are you sure you don't provoke these critics by making a big noise about your creation procedure?

[maxetormer]

Nice tread the way i see things is this, as we all know art is subjetive and threfore there can not be any way to measure it

But hey! there is a way.... the feeling, so in oder to create really, really, great art first u need talent, and there is just not way to gain it usless u have it =)
Now Picasso in his earlier days painted realistic stuff and it was great realistic stuff with lots of expresion not just tecnical skill , now for some reason the abstract images of Picasso are great, but why?, well the thing si that he si so dam great because he, knew how the real world works ligths shadows all that academic stuff and then he decided to deformate it.

So i like to belive tha in order to twist deform something u have to understad to way how it works, that is the formula that i think can be applyed to make, good abstract art, but since there are no formulas is this trade, some peolpe can create good abstract art with out academitc trianing now this person might be the greatest abstract painter but if he can not render an apple then he will not be as impresive (to me ) as some person that can both render an apple and do his abstract intepretation of this apple, abstract art in the most extreme way it is just a concept (and idea) so if the persons doing the painting does not, have good fundamts to do his-her art, then it lacks of interest to me.

The way i see, an abstract image has to have a good concept even if the idea is just to make a pretty cojuntion of colors, then the inner concept is just to deform reality on a pretty way, (cause even if don�t inttend for ur image to have a concept, it still has is it, the thing is if ur concept is interesting and well fundamented enougth?) you see even in that way the deform reality concept stays.
For a abstract pice u have to understad what u are about to des-asamble in the first place, which is in this case is reality it self.

So i belive that learn the academic way is usefull to be able to do good abstact art, cause it trains ur eye, lets u understad color, and wich color looks good with what color, then u can just decide what knowledge of that academic fundamentals u want to use. ur choise.

some people would say hey! but u are already contamined with the academic way, threfore u will create a not so original pice in comparition to a non trainded painter, so IMO i think that the thing goes to this conclusion, u have the power to chose with wich things u want to be "contamined" the academic ways or the lack of it, on both ways you will surrender to systems and esblished ideas, becasue lets face it, an importat degree of what u like and of what u learn is determined by ur influences so u decide wich influences do u want, u can chose either school or not school and since is about one of the few things u caa semi-chose it is entirely up to u to decide,

MY STATEMENT:
i vote for learn the most u can by the school or by ur own medium, and reject what u do not like so i am studing on an art univesity and i am taking what i need form it, the other things on life and art as well..., most of them u do not get to chose them so... he he.

IMO i like both abstract and realistc art and OMG if i whould love to work doing fantasy games or movies art (also Frazzeta ROCKS!!) he he
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[maxetormer]

Mikko K:

Well art is it, sounds harsh but is the plain truth, deterimined by the society so in order for sometnhig to be called art or some people to be called artist the society has to say u are one ( the typicla Van Gohg example, he was not an artist utill the socieity said tha he was one, his paintgs did not have gotteen better in our time, they were as good in his time as now, but only now we apreasite)
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[amichaels]

I guess all I am saying with the bad art comment is this:

If you know someone is trying for a particular style but do it terribly, or their basic skills are really poor it is art, but it's not good. There are more kinds of art and styles than I can think of or list, but bad art is produced in all mediums and styles. I'm not going to hound someone and tell them I think their art sucks because I believe in being polite. But go to the elfwood gallery some time and tell me there isn't an abundance of bad art there. (Although I have found a few gems in those galleries.)
I think bad art is different than a style that doesn't appeal to a person. I don't really like cubism, but I trust the people who do to tell me what's "good" and what isn't. Most of the time I look at my own work and say, "Hey, this is bad art. It sucks."

On the subject of filters though, they can be really useful. But I don't particularly like art that is created almost exclusively with filters, like those crazy pointy-abstract-wierd wallpapers I have been seeing a lot f lately. That doesn't really appeal to me. I think there is a point where the computer starts doing all the work, and that's bad. But using them in a way that isn't overpowering is fine. IMO.

[Chthonic Divinity]

who cares about whats 'good' or 'bad'??
when did art become a competition?
expression is paramount.

[maxetormer]

Yup for the sake of art, i agree with you.
but since i have to eat from my trade, i have to make things that the society likes or... wait... die.... and then see if in 100 years my paintings are consider art

I think that to suirvive ones most find a half point =)
bw i belive competition is good good hearthed one
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[Mikko K]

Chthonic Divinity:
That's a very straightforward way of thinking, I really admire you.

I'm confused. On the other hand, why talk about these things. But then, as philosopher Wittgenstein once said: "everything that can be discussed, can be discussed clearly".


So should there be some kind of agreement on what's "art" and what isn't

OR

should we just consider everything as "art", be that good or bad "art". So that everyone can decide by themselves.

I prefer the latter, but it's a complicated issue if you really give it some serious thought.

[amichaels]

Now...I know I can't be the only person who has looked at a piece of art (that's supposed to be a painting, drawing of whatever) and said to theirself, "Wow, that's a piece of really bad art."

[maxetormer]

Yup i agree, i had been there i must say =) i seen plenty of bad images but i refuse to call them "bad art", they are bad images, something is art utill the society sais so, and when the image also produces that fuzzy inexplicable feeling that real good art produces on me.
(meanign: my subjetive tastes of course =)
I say that cuase, there is no way to say waht is art (belive me many philosofers have tryed before us) so in order to get some where, we have to start where they left, on the premesies that there is not concept to defiene art therefore there is no bad art or good art, there are various "images" and some of them are "art" .

And thys are art becuase in period of time the society said they were art so thay can losee the status in the future, and even worse , all what i just said it is not even the real truth since saing that would restrict us to makeing only commersial art, and well if Van Gogh would have done that, he would not had painted the images he had, and we would never have had the pleasure of seening his paintings so there is no fumula to do art or so say what will be art in the future or now =)

bw not having a concept to define art, does not mean that art does not exist or that we cant say "this is art" we just cant explain it with out and interminable ramblig (like this one) =) juar juar juar
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[maxetormer]

deleted- ill delete this my self but i cant ill be forever gratefull if some admist deleted this too useless posts =)
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[maxetormer]

deleted
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[Probustion]

maxetormer, i feel ya. i also think an artists is ought to know the basics, regardless of his style.

filters: i think the problem with filters happens when you can clearly see they are filters. some of them are valuable, but they have to be applied subtle.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[AliasMoze]

Here's my amateur opinion.

Regarding the original post, I think that art standards in general fluctuate with every generation. These day, maybe even with every year. The things we call art often reflect what we as people are going through, and so the styles and content evolve. There's also the standards of any given medium, like paintings, that seem to require building on the old standards just so people can understand the work; too radical a jump can be too alien to an audience.

So is Mullins (just to pick an example) better than Da Vinci? Well, to most educated people probably not. There's the intellectual part of adults that says "this is great art, this is not." To a comtemporary non-artist, though, with no pre-conceived notions, I'd say more than half would enjoy Mullins's stuff more. It has more relative context. You know what I mean? The Mona Lisa doesn't exactly hold up, except for those you know it "should" be great.

These preexisting conceits, I think, are why the older generation always thinks what the new generation does is garbage. It happens in film, music, visual art, everything. What it comes down to, as has been said, is opinion, and that's based on cultural context, execution, and preexisting notions about what to like.

(Music is the best example. A typical teenager doesn't just listen to a new album and declare it good. He listens to it, maybe likes it, maybe not, checks with his friends to make sure listening to said album is cool, and finally decides whether he likes the music or not.)

[spline]

There is a cultural elite who defines to the art community what is to be considered (fine)art and what is not.

This elite does not think Boris or Frank Frazetta is (fine)art, therefore he will not be represented in for example "the art book".

Why, because the content the pictures are associated with.

If you make a peace of art and hang it in a nice art gallery it will go to art history. But if it is printed on the cover of a fantasy magazine or for a hollywood movie it will not be considered fine art, by those who think they knew.

For example Boris and Frank Frazetta pictures will is not considered fine art because they are illustrations!

Well what they forget is that many old masters did illustrations of for example the bible or the greek stories. And their pictures are considered fine art...

Then there is the other "thing" that they would hold against these artist, and that is that they make muscular people.

Well I say, Michelangelo also painted muscular people he even painted women that is so muscular that they look like men...

In other word these people are a bunch of afraid people who does not trust their own judgement, they need the picture hanging in a accepted art gallery.
To consider it to be fine art.

And right now what is fine art, and what is not. Are in so called art books decided by these afraid people that lacks a own judgement...

Maybe they will recognise Boris and Frank and many other great artists in due time...

[Probustion]

you make it sound like if it is too commercial, it isn't art, or did i misunderstood? but i can imagine being in "the art book" is somewhat commercial too. do you have anymore information about this book? never heard of it.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[iandredd]

That's interesting spline. I wonder if Frazetta were working as an artist 500 years ago if we would read about him in art history books.
I think the art renewal reaction is a little bit sad. They end up looking as bad as people that write off all traditional art.
IMHO when it comes to abstract art part of the problem people have with it is the money involved. When you seen millions of pounds spent on something that may have been created in 20 minutes it can seem morally repugnant. I maybe exaggerating as I cant think offhand of some appropriate examples. It is a lot easier for some to accept an artist who has spent a lifetime learning their skills and a lot of time producing their images. I hope that that made some kind of sense :s.

[spline]

"The Art Book" by Phaidon.

Well, yes if its too commercial and also to easy to understand. It will not be considered fineart today, unless it was done many years ago...

Comes as a big book and a small pocket version, they are excellent books, they have pictures from allmost all artists that is considered to have been important. Its a great source of inspiration.

I have not checked out the art renewal reaction, but I think I would agree that it is abit sad...However, it is also sad that the fine art critics of today does not recognise alot of great art.

I think there should be room for booth types of art, they are booth needed.

[Wayne Johnson]

Why not let the great artists of the past tell us what the definitions are.

We run around hopeing that the culture will decide for us, when it's our decision.

What does davincie say about it?

what does Hawthorn Say about it?

what does Pyle say about it?

What does Pike say about it?

What dose Rembrandt say about it?


hogarth says, "a clear cut definition of art" is what we need.

I have defined art for myself for lak of a definition, my definition is based on years of study of what great artists represented in thier work and by what they have said themselves.

"To be art it must, reveal a new truth or help remind us of an old one. Not a relative truth, but and absolute one. And it must speak to most of the people most of the time."
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[liv the fish]