Abstract art

[newfangle]

Art is not about emotion. In fact, all of this modern artistic trash we see is not actually art.

Art represents a deeply intimate experience with man's mind. The greatest works of art the world has ever seen (Michaelangelo's David is my personal favorite) exult man as a heroic being, not as a trashy little ant with an itching to rape his mother.

This subjective crap we see floating around is as meaningless as the "artists'" desire to sell paintings to saps who want to spend half a million bucks on a blue circle.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by newfangle
In fact, all of this modern artistic trash we see is not actually art.

Haha, you can't prove anything about art, except that you don't know a **** about it. I bet you have a horrible taste in music too.

Here is a fine example of why abstrasct art pwns realistic art:
http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

 

[Marla_Singer]

The most obvious answer is missing : As a style of Art, abstract Art is a wonderful idea.

How can we consider the most realistic it is, the best it is ? A Webcam picture is more realistic than a Van Gogh, so what ? Art is about the emotions it inspires, it's not about the accuracy of drawing.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
The most obvious answer is missing : As a style of Art, abstract Art is a wonderful idea.

How can we consider the most realistic it is, the best it is ? A Webcam picture is more realistic than a Van Gogh, so what ? Art is about the emotions it inspires, it's not about the accuracy of drawing.

Very well said, Marla Singer. Do you want the Order of Honour?

 

[cgannon64]

Those are some cool drawings, Lenin. I like 6 and 7.

@ newfangle: If art is an intimate experience with your mind, wouldn't it be impossible for you to judge what I think is the best art? And that my opinion of art has as much validity as yours?

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin

Haha, you can't prove anything about art, except that you don't know a **** about it. I bet you have a horrible taste in music too.

Here is a fine example of why abstrasct art pwns realistic art:
http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

Why do you respond to me? I don't take anything you say seriously.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by cgannon64


@ newfangle: If art is an intimate experience with your mind, wouldn't it be impossible for you to judge what I think is the best art? And that my opinion of art has as much validity as yours?

In short, no. Why? Because art is objective. Why? Because it reflects the metaphysical value-judgements of the artist, which are formed from objective concept formation.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by newfangle
Art is not about emotion. In fact, all of this modern artistic trash we see is not actually art.

Art represents a deeply intimate experience with man's mind. The greatest works of art the world has ever seen (Michaelangelo's David is my personal favorite) exult man as a heroic being, not as a trashy little ant with an itching to rape his mother.

This subjective crap we see floating around is as meaningless as the "artists'" desire to sell paintings to saps who want to spend half a million bucks on a blue circle.

Though Newfangle is generalising all modern art to be crap he does have a point. Much of today's modern art is crap. In my oppinon it is because the artists are trying to make a living off of a dead artform. It's like a musician trying to make a living by playing a primitive flute. Why dabble with a flute made from bone when you can use computers, guitars, drums etc... to make music.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by newfangle


Why do you respond to me? I don't take anything you say seriously.

Because you responded to me. Was it really that hard to figure out, or are you playing tough, untouchable and above me?

A second reason is that - I have seen other posters respond to you for this reason as well - you do seldom have any idea of what you are talking about.

Let me guess, you are the kind of guy who went from being a mindless socialist to a mindless neo-liberalist, right? If so, why would anyone take anything you say seriously?

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by andrewgprv


Though Newfangle is generalising all modern art to be crap he does have a point. Much of today's modern art is crap. In my oppinon it is because the artists are trying to make a living off of a dead artform. It's like a musician trying to make a living by playing a primitive flute. Why dabble with a flute made from bone when you can use computers, guitars, drums etc... to make music.

Isn't your comparison better suited for realistic art?

 

[Goober]

Mmm . . . Giant Radioactive Monkeys . . .

I am not a fan of Art, any types. Unless it involves Civ 3, or other COmputer Games . . .

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
Though Newfangle is generalising all modern art to be crap he does have a point. Much of today's modern art is crap. In my oppinon it is because the artists are trying to make a living off of a dead artform. It's like a musician trying to make a living by playing a primitive flute. Why dabble with a flute made from bone when you can use computers, guitars, drums etc... to make music.

Of course this is true with many other forms of the visual arts too. I've seen many uninspired realistic-looking paintings.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin



Let me guess, you are the kind of guy who went from being a mindless socialist to a mindless neo-liberalist, right? If so, why would anyone take anything you say seriously?

What the christ is a neo-liberalist?

 

[AceChilla]

The quality of art is directly proportional to its resemblence of a giant radioactive monkey.

Obviously

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by pandora
so...
i think you are talking about things like mondrian?
mondrian is much more famous than kandinsky for good reason.
i cannot (and nobody will) tell you the point about abstact art if you dont see it.
you can exchange the colors of some of mondrians rectangles.
if your head isnt screaming, cause what you first had was good and what got after the changes is bull****, you dont see it and i cannot "proof" it.

Yes, I am talking about Mondrian (and similar artists). As you probably guessed, I had this specific painting in mind:

At least I think that's the one. And you're right, switching the colors does make it look worse. So what? I can switch the position of your eyes and nose, and you'll probably look much worse. Does that mean you're beautiful?

Originally posted by Karl Lenin

Haha, you can't prove anything about art, except that you don't know a **** about it. I bet you have a horrible taste in music too.

Here is a fine example of why abstrasct art pwns realistic art:
http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

So abstract art "pwns" realistic art because people on LSD draw abstract art instead of realistic drawings? Wow, are driving skills better while on LSD too? Maybe I should try it!

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
The most obvious answer is missing : As a style of Art, abstract Art is a wonderful idea.

How can we consider the most realistic it is, the best it is ? A Webcam picture is more realistic than a Van Gogh, so what ? Art is about the emotions it inspires, it's not about the accuracy of drawing.

That's a very good point. And yes, realism is not all that matters in art. After all, in my opinion the best period in art was Impressionism. Some very beautiful paintings there. But I find it hard to find beauty in things that appear almost random. (Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, though.)

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by newfangle


In short, no. Why? Because art is objective. Why? Because it reflects the metaphysical value-judgements of the artist, which are formed from objective concept formation.

Human opinions are far from objective.

What you find beautiful, I find ugly. What you find funny, I find boring. And so on...

If humans were truly objective everyone would hold the same opinion of everything.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by cgannon64


Human opinions are far from objective.

What you find beautiful, I find ugly. What you find funny, I find boring. And so on...

If humans were truly objective everyone would hold the same opinion of everything.

Who said anything about human opinions being objective? I was talking about art.

 

[cgannon64]

Art is nothing more than a human opinion of what they see.

When you draw something, you are reflecting how YOU see it, not taking a photograph.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by newfangle
Because it reflects the metaphysical value-judgements of the artist, which are formed from objective concept formation.

Hmm, I'll be sure to say that to my art teacher.

"Okay, class, let's begin. Now remember, art is a subjective medium, so..."
"Uh, ma'am..."
"Yes?"
"No, it's not. Art reflects the metaphysical value-judgements of the artist, which are formed from objective concept formation."
"Right. Now get out your crayons."

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by newfangle


What the christ is a neo-liberalist?

Somebody who believes in neo-liberalism, I guess.

Originally posted by WillJ
So abstract art "pwns" realistic art because people on LSD draw abstract art instead of realistic drawings? Wow, are driving skills better while on LSD too? Maybe I should try it!

So you are one of those who believe that if you are good at one thing that involves brain activity, then you are good at everything that involves brain activity? I tell you that Michael Schumacher is a worse artist than Paul Klee, even if Schumacher is a better driver.