Is this art...?

[thestonesfan]

So he did research to find how wide to make the stripe for this? What kind of research?

Sorry, but the perfect picture of a blue stripe on a red background is still only a blue stripe on a red background. It has no meaning at all, and if you say it does, it's tacked on and contrived.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin
Anyone could create modern art by accident, like a monkey with a typwriter could write Hamlet - by accident. The perfection of the "blue stripe" painting in this thread is increadible, it's far away from random.

There is no effort in it.

Originally posted by Karl Lenin
Imagine an artist who is about making a painting of a funny and happy clown when he is told that his mother has died. The painting ends up very sad, even if it portrays a funny and happy clown. Now remove the clown and you have what expressionism is about. It's wonderful art and in no way a mindless flurry of junk

You make about 50% sense here...
Tell me something - how much expression and emotion do you think I put into this work below?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


There is no effort in it.



You make about 50% sense here...
Tell me something - how much expression and emotion do you think I put into this work below?

Hmmm...I like the contrasts. Between the white and the black colors, for one. Also, the choice of an eye looking at me challenges me by introducing an element of introspection. This in itself is contrasted by the boldness of the lettering below. I sense some kind of indifferent anger emanating from the piece. Cold, yet the potency cannot be denied. I love it. I will pay $2,500,000 for it.

Once you die a tragic death.

Seriously, my point is that you can attach an unlimited amount of bull**** to any picture, and it won't make it any better.

 

[CurtSibling]

*ponce arty mode*

Luvvie! It's a deal!

We must do an expo at the Louvre!

*end ponce arty mode*

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
So he did research to find how wide to make the stripe for this? What kind of research?

Sorry, but the perfect picture of a blue stripe on a red background is still only a blue stripe on a red background. It has no meaning at all, and if you say it does, it's tacked on and contrived.

I believe he had been experimenting with shapes, ratios and stuff for most of his life and that was his research.

I agree that it has no meaning, it just pleasant to watch.

 

[Civrules]

Art is art, and this is art. I like what you have done.

Originally posted by Giotto
If this is considered art (and it is, Ellsworth Kelly is considered one of the greatest minimalist painters of the post-abstract-expressionist period) then yes, your's is definitly art

BTW, I am going to DIA on Monday, I might just see that one.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
You make about 50% sense here...
Tell me something - how much expression and emotion do you think I put into this work below?

It's not about how much expression and emotion you put into a work, it's about what the beholder sees or experiences and as beholder don't I see any off it right now.

 

[Double Barrel]

"Art" is such a subjective word these days. Part of society's gradual decline to relativism, I suppose.

If someone says that a dog turd with glitter on it is “art”, the relativists seem to claim a higher ground because of the subjectivity of the definition of "art". Myself, I speak with brutal honesty and say that it is a glittering dog turd.

Not to dismiss anyone here and their artwork. Whatever floats your boat, I respect your right to think whatever you want.

But, IMHO, "art" (as in music), should take some skill, among other talents. One of my favorite artists is Salvador Dali, for he created art that not many folks can duplicate. My point being that "art" should elevate your conscience and inspire you. The blue stripe on a red background does nothing for me. But “Persistence of Time” (Dali) leaves my mind wandering off into some other level of reality.

My wife works for a prestigious fine arts museum, so I'm dragged to openings from time to time. I have to control my smart ass mouth and snickers, because some of the "art" is something even I could easily create. C'mon, a bunch of rocks arranged on a floor (with a crowd barrier around it to protect it from passerbys) does not constitute "art" to me, but to someone else it does. There are literally dozens of examples of this nature.

I guess perception is reality, and if enough people buy into the perception that "art" is merely subjective, who am I to change their minds?

But, at the end of the day, as creating "art" becomes easier and easier, within the reach of the common man, I see a shift in the future towards those that have true talent as being valued as the real artists in our society.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by RoddyVR
shrink it and make it your avatar.

as stated by others, its cool.

Wow, that's the same idea I had. It does look pleasing to the eye, but it's hard to find the meaning behind it. Everything reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer tried to make a BBQ grill and failed.

 

[JonathanValjean]

I like it Azadre, and it qualifies for art in my book.

 

[Pirate]

Here's the test. Did you, as the artist, create it with the intention of it being art? If so then it is art.

Now, that doesn't mean that it is GOOD art.

Bad art is still art, and everyone knows there is a TON of bad art out there.

The value judgements of good vs. bad are in the eye of the beholder. But the definition of art is in the heart of the artist.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin

It's not about how much expression and emotion you put into a work, it's about what the beholder sees or experiences and as beholder don't I see any off it right now.

Actually, It's about creativity.
I am a diploma illustrator, so you don't have to tell me what art is about - I can tell you.

You either take the complete picaso or you put in an effort to create.

Option two shines more by far, an artist must work to create.
There is no substitute for this.

Sorry, but dip a hamster in paint and let it slip about at random on a bit of paper is about the value I place on modern art.

I prefer the master artists, who put major work into it.
The only modern artform I respect is comic art.

But hey!
It's all a matter of taste...If you wish to pay top dollar for a meaningless shape, good luck to you.

I'll stick with quality creativity.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


I prefer the master artists, who put major work into it.
The only modern artform I respect is comic art.

I respect comic artists because they abide by what I feel is the golden guideline of art.

"Create what you would like see, and you become God."

You can set an easel up in the mountains and paint a beautiful landscape, but it's essentially the same as a photo. You're just copying what you see. You're just making a pretty picture. Art, yes, but great art? No.

Conversely, you can get some paint, sit down, and put nothing but your emotions on a canvas. Evocative? Perhaps. Great art? No.

Great art is when you imagine something, say, two knights jousting with a pretty maiden watching, and are able to put that image down on a canvas in a visually convincing way. These are the pictures that are truly worth a thousand words. You are the God of your creation, because it is your world, imagined by you, and created by you.

 

[Achinz]

Art is about fashion too. The blue and red example was OK in its heyday but anyone doing the same thing today would not get much noticed as an up-and-coming artist.

The original example would fit into the new category of computer art I suppose.

BTW for aspiring computer-based artists, there's a nifty painting package put out by Corel that allows much power for all the effects of painting eg watercolor, oils, layering etc.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Actually, It's about creativity.
I am a diploma illustrator, so you don't have to tell me what art is about - I can tell you.

You either take the complete picaso or you put in an effort to create.

Option two shines more by far, an artist must work to create.
There is no substitute for this.

Sorry, but dip a hamster in paint and let it slip about at random on a bit of paper is about the value I place on modern art.

I prefer the master artists, who put major work into it.
The only modern artform I respect is comic art.

But hey!
It's all a matter of taste...If you wish to pay top dollar for a meaningless shape, good luck to you.

I'll stick with quality creativity.

What the hell does this has to do with the kinds of art we were talking about - expressionism and minimalism?

I'm sure you know what it takes to create comic art, and I know nothing about it and have never claimed to know anything about it either. But comic art is completely different from expressionism and minimalism, so your diploma illustrator title isn't going to change my view on the art I appreciate.

 

[Giotto]

I think the idea behind minimalist art is for the viewer to take derive his or her own feelings from the art, as opposed with classical art which traditionally is designed with a specific feeling in mind. The pointless and random titles of a lot of minimalist art comes from the notion that titles are pointless. The title intentionally has nothing to do with the painting and it isn't meant to. The title usually is just an homage the painter pays to something they find important or inspirational in their own life. Then again, many minimalist paintings are just titled what they are.

Whan you call art really depends on your own personal definition of art. My personal defintion is that art is anything created by a human being which is designed to portray some sort of feeling, emotion, or message.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin

What the hell does this has to do with the kinds of art we were talking about - expressionism and minimalism?

I'm sure you know what it takes to create comic art, and I know nothing about it and have never claimed to know anything about it either. But comic art is completely different from rmsharpe, so your diploma illustrator title isn't going to change my view on the art I appreciate.

The archetype communist - he tries to start a fight over art!
Are you going to fling me in gulag for my decadent views?

Also!
Do I care what art you like? Nope!
Why would I wish to change your tastes? No reason to!
Do you think I am concerned? Not so!

You're wrong on another point too.
Many different artists operate in the comcs genre, you will find your
expressionist and minimalist styles there too, if you know what to look for.

Anyway, sure have it your way...Enjoy those blue and red lines.

Hey! We all could bash out some garish line images too -
And within 30 seconds, just to prove how easy it is to make such stuff.

It isn't true art, let me tell you.
But if it floats your boat, fine.

 

[CurtSibling]

Wow!
I have made my entry in the complex world of expressionism and minimalism!

 

[IceBlaZe]

I don't enjoy the Red and Blue stripes piece.
I wouldn't put it in my livingroom, and the only way I would pay for it is if it was a good financial investment I could sell for a higher price.
I don't think it takes much talent to draw it.

But, even given the above, that does not mean it isn't art. Art is the artist's way to express what he feels about himself, or just express himself, and/or express what he feels about or express the elements of the outer world, whether abstract or not. It doesn't have to impress, it doesn't have to be sophisticated, it doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to show talent and it doesn't have to be popular nor expensive.

blargh

 

[CurtSibling]

"blargh"

My sentiments exactly on non-talented, but highly-paid 'artists'.