Cool Pictures IV: The Awesomeness is Volatile

[madviking]

Can't tell if serious, or trolling.

Hopefully trolling, because, with all due respect, I can't wade through this without stepping on the BS.

It is Duchamp.

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://imgur.com/gallery/djhPu

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://cuneimedia.com/arcanum/hr-gigers-tarot-of-the-underworld

HR Geiger tarot cards. Full set in the link.

From the same site:

 

[Kaitzilla]

HR Geiger is a genius

Everything he does is disturbing.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

wat

waaaat

Seconded


Ooooh, awesome tarot cards ! I love awesome tarot cards.

 

[Glassfan]

F35A banking

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can't tell if serious, or trolling.

Hopefully trolling, because, with all due respect, I can't wade through this without stepping on the BS.

I beg your pardon? Then please tell me just how "realistic" dyed oil or eggs slapped on a color by number canvas is compared to what it supposedly represents?

Like I said, it's a trompe l'oiel (trick of the eye). Albertian illusionism is a trick of painting that utilizes lines to create the illusion of perspective in a painting, as if the picture frame were a window into another world, and we are viewers looking through that window witnessing the event in question.

Don't forget that these were once considered to be "true to life" in their time as well.

 

[cardgame]

And that is the art of it.

Your statement on the bottom of 47 is still 100% bull, no substance.

 

[Borachio]

Is that a triptych, or a trick tip?

 

[Angst]

Most of the art discussion in this thread: read up on it. Traitorfish and Cheezy have the long end here. Counterarguers don't. Facepalming isn't an argument! Calling bs because you don't understand the intellectual discussion of the aesthetics behind something is antiintellectualism! I have my own preferences in regards to artwork where I disdain a lot of stuff, for the reasons you say a spot painting isn't art actually, but that's not to say metaart is invalid simply because it's selfcritical in itself.

The most laughable thing is that most of the counterpoints are sticking to romantic/Kantian aesthetics that are basically rationalizations of the divine. That is, obsolete. There are a number of tendencies I recognize of this; you seem to have a preference for the artistic genius and the ability that is behind making art. You kneejerk over seeing some spots and denounce the work & artist for being talentless, but fail to properly deconstruct Traitorfish's points other than "I don't get it". Now, I'm not to say there's something specifically wrong with Kant, but the discourse you're riding is about 200 years old and has been picked completely apart since, by the exact artworks you don't like.

Note that I can fully understand and appreciate your tastes, but your rationalizations over why you feel that way - antiintellectualism, indifference in regards to aesthetic discussion and cultural contexts, a requirement for talent - something that is a romantic construct as well, and simple kneejerk reception without explaining or understanding why - that's not particularly nice for me to read.

There's a difference between art you don't get, art you don't like, and things that aren't art, as each can be discussed individually as an aesthetic problem.

 

[cardgame]

I should clarify my position then.

Pomo is art, it's just really terrible art.

 

[Traitorfish]

HR Geiger tarot cards. Full set in the link.

HR Geiger is a genius

I thought you two didn't like modern art?

 

[Angst]

I should clarify my position then.

Pomo is art, it's just really terrible art.

that's more like it

i don't think it's terrible at all tho. i just don't like it myself.

 

[eduhum]

Another wall of text accidentally deleted

I just don't understand how art has been so much tergiversated, up to the point where its meaning and original concept, how it was born, in the dawn of mankind, has shifted from something that moved your emotions and enlightened your spirit to some simple lines that concentrate only in the message, a message which, actually, is nearly always stupid/redundant/obvious.

EDIT: I mean, someone posted here the Romantically Apocalyptic website. Much better than those 86 million Rothko paintings, and yet not as known. The world is unfair, I guess

 

[Traitorfish]

Another wall of text accidentally deleted

I just don't understand how art has been so much tergiversated, up to the point where its meaning and original concept, how it was born, in the dawn of mankind, has shifted from something that moved your emotions and enlightened your spirit to some simple lines that concentrate only in the message, a message which, actually, is nearly always stupid/redundant/obvious.

What are you talking about? Rothko wasn't a conceptual artist. Conceptual art is a very specific movement within late 20th century art, and is aside from anything else more associated with postmodernism than modernism (which rather tended towards formalism). In fact, he was an abstract expressionist with a strongly Nietzschean philosophy of art, which puts him at least intent far closer to your demand for art to "move and enlighten" than... whatever it is you seem to be attributing to him. You may not like it, but that doesn't give you license to just make up whatever nonsense fits your ideological agenda.

 

[Angst]

Another wall of text accidentally deleted

I just don't understand how art has been so much tergiversated, up to the point where its meaning and original concept, how it was born, in the dawn of mankind, has shifted from something that moved your emotions and enlightened your spirit to some simple lines that concentrate only in the message, a message which, actually, is nearly always stupid/redundant/obvious.

EDIT: I mean, someone posted here the Romantically Apocalyptic website. Much better than those 86 million Rothko paintings, and yet not as known. The world is unfair, I guess

the whole idea that art has to "move your emotions" and "enlighten your spirit" is a relatively new concept - it is nowhere near to what art meant in the first place. art used to be a terminological equivalent to craftmanship and was pretty much the same thing

 

[Camikaze]

To the extent that art is supposed to be an accessible mode of communication (which may not be much at all), art that requires art history training to appreciate is hard to class as effective, or good. People like art that they're told to like, but only so long as it's pretty. They're in it for what, to them (i.e. subjectively), looks good. For the vast majority, appreciating art means appreciating that it is pretty, not appreciating its meaning. Yves Klein Blue is easy to appreciate, but that's just because it's pretty. What some might call 'art snobbery' involves maintaining that art must be appreciated in a certain way. If you appreciate art for its looks rather than its meaning, that is not wrong. That is different (or perhaps more accurately, normal). A claim that someone is failing to appreciate art is a claim that someone is failing to appreciate art your way.

(And if meaning is what is conveyed, if it cannot be appreciated without training or specialised education on the subject, then for most people, the intended meaning is not actually there).

 

[Angst]

To the extent that art is supposed to be an accessible mode of communication (which may not be much at all), art that requires art history training to appreciate is hard to class as effective, or good. People like art that they're told to like, but only so long as it's pretty. They're in it for what, to them (i.e. subjectively), looks good. For the vast majority, appreciating art means appreciating that it is pretty, not appreciating its meaning. Yves Klein Blue is easy to appreciate, but that's just because it's pretty. What some might call 'art snobbery' involves maintaining that art must be appreciated in a certain way. If you appreciate art for its looks rather than its meaning, that is not wrong. That is different (or perhaps more accurately, normal). A claim that someone is failing to appreciate art is a claim that someone is failing to appreciate art your way.

(And if meaning is what is conveyed, if it cannot be appreciated without training or specialised education on the subject, then for most people, the intended meaning is not actually there).

is this a counter to me?

i have no issue with their appreciation of art. i dislike to spend much time with most seemingly pointless postmodernist works. even though i like studying them, i don't appreciate them with my emotions, only with my curious brains. i have an issue with their classification of art, however, which is simply wrong.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: How about taking the discussions on the definition of art to a new thread?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Yes please.

And call it "How narrow-minded is your definition of art ?"