Non Art (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Art-Specific Topics] >> Abstracts (public)



Message

robertracy -> Non Art (8/9/2008 11:28:44 AM)

Modern "art" is nothing really.  All it is is decomposition and disintegration.  The kind of stuff one finds in a garbage bin.  Real art is not "stuff".  It does not seek to shock, affront, distort, deconstruct, or dissolve.

Apologies for my negative comments, but doesn't it just fit the subject of modern "art"?

I won't argue on this subject. I've stated my case and will allow the rest to fight it out.

Robert Tracy



Vfem -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 12:04:35 PM)

I think the idea of taking it out of the garbage bin and making it useful or someone wants to look it art in itself. Definitely anything done with design as a frame of mind needs to be considered.

I'm definitely not arguing your view, just stating my own.



bafiedel -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 12:20:56 PM)

I can't agree with your opinion.  For me, art is anything that reaches in and enriches my soul.  Classic, modern, or anywhere in between. 

edited to add:
Of course what enriches one person may belong on the junk heap of the next person, but I wouldn't condemn the whole genre or movement just because I don't like a specific piece.



jiminycricket -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 12:57:49 PM)

You might be able to convince me about the decomposition, but I find it hard to agree about the disintegration part. *grin*

All that being said, your personal work is scrumptious, Robert!



swirlygirl -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 1:09:08 PM)

My opinion is that art has wide open arms and has room for endless forms of expression. Deconstructed form reveals a beauty that is not apparent to everyone and I guess is ugly garbage to some. Sometimes an artistic statement can be made with just a few lines or colors. I don't know much about art but I know what impression art makes on me [:)]



labeana -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 2:23:25 PM)

the history of art is full of many eras where "modern art" had to struggle to be acknowledged as viable...art movements are evolutionary and reactionary, they grow and change and always seem to evoke extreme emotions....ours is no different



toucanne -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 2:46:10 PM)

The variations in personal preferences are endless. I don't agree that preferring one style over another makes what you dislike "garbage". I wouldn't even call the work of Robert Kincaid garbage, but if you gave me one of his paintings, I wouldn't hang it in my living room. I'd put it on eBay to get it out of my sight and make some money! Him or the whale guy.

I believe good art is art that makes you think, that provokes a reaction. There's a lot of art that is technically perfect but brings out nothing but a yawn.

When discussing art hitory, we also need to be mindful of terminology.
Modern art= 1880-1945
Contemporary art= 1945-the present



swirlygirl -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 2:55:06 PM)

Those are all good points Muriel [:)]



lisaw -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 7:03:39 PM)

The fact is, a careful consideration of art history will always show attempts to "shock, affront, distort, deconstruct, or dissolve."  Works that today we consider to be very "traditional" have in fact shocked the pantaloons off people back in the day.  As far as the garbage bin is concerned... there are a lot of candidates for the garbage under the listing of "modern," "abstract," or "contemporary."  They would be in great company with the garbage candidates from the "realism," traditional," "Barbizon," "Hague School," "Naturalism," etc.  Just two cents from a gal that works in both ends of the spectrum.

Welcome to the forums, Robert.  hope to see you around here more often, the men are decidedly under-represented here! [;)]



robertracy -> RE: Non Art (8/9/2008 8:15:55 PM)

quote:

When discussing art hitory, we also need to be mindful of terminology.
Modern art= 1880-1945
Contemporary art= 1945-the present
quote:

ORIGINAL: toucanne

I must reply to you toucane.  I'm afraid I didn't define my terms.

My mistake.  What I mean by Modern Art refers exclusively to anything so called "Abstract".   My point is that Art, to be Art must be intelligible.   Smears of paint on a canvas do not qualify.  Nor do "found objects" and all the rest of modern junk.  All of the latter is not art.  Rather it is anti-art.  There are plenty of modern artists who create real art.  E.g., Andrew Wyeth and his father.  In my opinion Andrew is the greatest artist of the 20th century despite his grim view of man and the world (personally his father, N.C. Wyeth appeals to me much more, although he is great too, but not the greatest.).

I often wonder which is worse:  the ones who practice, or have practiced Abstract art as a colossal fraud such as Picasso, or those who do it (or are taken in by it) in all sincerity.



podkaynestudios -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 12:40:56 AM)

Robert, we're having a discussion down in art history about overrated or overexposed artists. You might consider adding your two cents in down there sometime. We'd love to have you! [:)]

http://www.ebsqart.com/forum/The_Most_Overrated_Artist_in_History/m_203325/tm.htm



toucanne -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 12:23:09 PM)

quote:

I often wonder which is worse: the ones who practice, or have practiced Abstract art as a colossal fraud such as Picasso, or those who do it (or are taken in by it) in all sincerity.

When I was in college in the 80s, Abstract Expressionism was the thing, and I dutifully produced huge abstract paintings, some of which I sold, and some of which won awards. And I had a lot of fun doing it.

Abstract painting is a test of your compositional abilities and your sense of color. Aside from that, it is pure freedom. I get a lot of joy from painting uninhibitedly, reveling in the feel and texture of paint, in the play of colors, in the new shapes that are born under my fingers.

Attempting a faithful reproduction of something in nature is a completely different exercise, and it is more like work. I have only a passing interest in photo-realism. It is admirable craftsmanship, but then so what? If I want an exact rendition of a scene, I'll grab my camera.

I don't feel like a fraud or that anyone is conning me into anything. There are definitely frauds in art, as in other disciplines, but I look for them among those who make millions by painting the same thing over and over.



robertracy -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 1:04:29 PM)

I agree on what you say about Photo-Realism as a school within Modern Art.  It is not fully Art.  It's an "admirable craftmaship" but evokes nothing.  As you say, if that's all I have to show "I'll grab my camera."



toucanne -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 1:22:36 PM)

I don't mean to knock photo-realism for others to practice if that's what they love to do. It's just not what I choose to expand my own energy on.
That's just the thing: I don't think any form of creative expression is invalid per se. If you love to do it, more power to you.

Now Robert, maybe you can open a thread under a topic that you do admire, and tell us what it is you like? As far as styles and your general outlook on what art should be, not just individual artists? [:)]



robertracy -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 1:52:50 PM)

Thank you toucanne (so sorry I don't know your real name but I don't know if you give it or how to find it) for the challenge.  It will be difficult, especially since I'm not a writer.  But I have some thoughts.  Same deal.  I'll have my say and let the chips fall where they may.  I might respond to something here or there but will stay out of a fight.


Let me think on it a little, and make it as brief as I can given that this enormous subject demands more than I can offer.


Robert





toucanne -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 2:00:33 PM)

quote:

especially since I'm not a writer.

Neither are most of us, and you don't see it bothering us! [:D]
A few thoughts would be fine, and only if you want to. No dissertations required! [:D]

Muriel



labeana -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 3:01:46 PM)

Hi Robert...don't feel bad, it took me a very long time to learn what I do know about the forums, I'm just not that computer oriented...to find someone's name, just look underneath their avatar....go down to the line that starts with an email icon....to the far right on that line of icons is their ebsq portfolio...click on that and you usually get their name that way.....then it's just a matter of remembering it(but that's another story lol)




robertracy -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 4:27:39 PM)

Thank you dear Lauren.


RobertLauren Lauren



labeana -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 5:03:10 PM)

[:)]



Vfem -> RE: Non Art (8/10/2008 10:49:15 PM)

Can I add I've see pee in the snow in a cool design thought to be art. I was just proud of my husband... I told him it was 'abstract' but lovely[:D]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode