Art

Originally posted by rwingett
If you can find a five year old who can paint like Van Gogh I would recommend becoming his agent.

do you like Seurat, Rwingy dude?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you like Seurat, Rwingy dude?

Yes, I do. I bet Renoir wouldn't last three rounds in the ring against Seurat. One stiff uppercut and he'd be seeing spots.




Spots. Get it?

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I do. I bet Renoir wouldn't last three rounds in the ring against Seurat. One stiff uppercut and he'd be seeing spots.




Spots. Get it?

Lol, i feel i must humour you lest i offend your majesty, oh great Ming.

here is an artist i think you shall like, George Henry, one of the artists which made Glasgow school of art famous, a fact of which is that they are still living off its reputation of the 1880s to this day, when in reality all the lecturers are American and the place is falling to bits! (even Howson and Cambell later exponents in our own time had to secretly paint figures in other rooms, not attend lectures on abstract expressionism and generally tell the lecturers to get lost)

http://www.artistsfootsteps.co.uk/art_work_large.asp?ID=207

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, i feel i must humour you lest i offend your majesty, oh great Ming.

here is an artist i think you shall like, George Henry, one of the artists which made Glasgow school of art famous, a fact of which is that they are still living off its reputation of the 1880s to this day, when in reality all the lecturers are American and the place is fal ...[text shortened]... y tell the lecturers to get lost)

http://www.artistsfootsteps.co.uk/art_work_large.asp?ID=207

It's difficult to say much based on one image. Although if he was slighting abstract expressionism, then he and I will come to blows. I'm rather fond of Andy Goldsworthy. He's British, but lives in Scotland. Does that count?

Originally posted by rwingett
It's difficult to say much based on one image. Although if he was slighting abstract expressionism, then he and I will come to blows. I'm rather fond of Andy Goldsworthy. He's British, but lives in Scotland. Does that count?

the 'enviromentalist' artist, who does wonderful things with leaves and melting ice, meh its ok, a bit new agey for me, but i can understand its appeal!

the artists who were slighting abstract expressionism and who are now quite famous, were Peter Howson and Steven Campbell, for both were figure painters, much to the dismay and horror of their lecturers. i know for a fact that they had to fight like mad just to paint their genre!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the 'enviromentalist' artist, who does wonderful things with leaves and melting ice, meh its ok, a bit new agey for me, but i can understand its appeal!

the artists who were slighting abstract expressionism and who are now quite famous, were Peter Howson and Steven Campbell, for both were figure painters, much to the dismay and horror of their lecturers. i know for a fact that they had to fight like mad just to paint their genre!

Took a look through my copy of 'Art In The Eighties', by Edward Lucie-Smith. It's got a chapter on new Scottish painting, with several images by Campbell, Howson, John Bellany and Ken Currie. Some interesting stuff.

Originally posted by rwingett
Took a look through my copy of 'Art In The Eighties', by Edward Lucie-Smith. It's got a chapter on new Scottish painting, with several images by Campbell, Howson, John Bellany and Ken Currie. Some interesting stuff.

yes, there is some good stuff there. Howson to me became almost stylised, almost illustration to a point, his images of the war torn Balkans were profound though, i saw them in exhibition in Glasgow.

The last degree show in Glasgow was described as abysmal, a former lecturer stated to me that it was hard to believe that students had spent the last four years learning fine art, he went on to state, that you could have picked up any number of persons from off of the street and they would have produced work of a surpassing quality. The ceramics department i think is no more, very sad, it used to be one of the highlights!

i dunno Ringy dude, the more older one gets, the more sceptical one seems to become. even some of those images of Campbell look 'gaudy', by today's standards.

show me something wonderful!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, there is some good stuff there. Howson to me became almost stylised, almost illustration to a point, his images of the war torn Balkans were profound though, i saw them in exhibition in Glasgow.

The last degree show in Glasgow was described as abysmal, a former lecturer stated to me that it was hard to believe that students had spent the l ...[text shortened]... those images of Campbell look 'gaudy', by today's standards.

show me something wonderful!

http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/index.html

There's a list of contemporary artists at the above site with a decent sampling of their work. You might find something of interest there.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/index.html

There's a list of contemporary artists at the above site with a decent sampling of their work. You might find something of interest there.

meh, its ok, i am much more inclined to be interested and exited about this type of thing, 3d pavement art

http://www.oddee.com/item_96589.aspx

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
meh, its ok, i am much more inclined to be interested and exited about this type of thing, 3d pavement art

http://www.oddee.com/item_96589.aspx

Meh, it's OK. While technically impressive, it seems more like a gimmick.

Reminds me of the Steven Campbell painting, "Three Men Of Exactly The Same Size In An Unequal Room":
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Nx-0gLWOl3o/SATe5-jTPII/AAAAAAAAAhw/fmINo8fF-7M/s400/StevenCampbell3.jpg

Originally posted by rwingett
Meh, it's OK. While technically impressive, it seems more like a gimmick.

Reminds me of the Steven Campbell painting, "Three Men Of Exactly The Same Size In An Unequal Room":
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Nx-0gLWOl3o/SATe5-jTPII/AAAAAAAAAhw/fmINo8fF-7M/s400/StevenCampbell3.jpg

oh great Ming, please forgive my intrusion upon your majesty, but i thought, indeed i trembled to harbour the thought that it was socialist art, art for the people, art for people to interact with and to enjoy, environmental art in the broadest sense! none of that pretentious non art that we see upon gallery walls, rubber stamped by academics in the great art schools, as if taste can be taught or acquired or officiated from a scrap of paper? yes it may be gimmicky, but no less so than all the gimmicks through all the ages, is Jackson Pollock, or Warhol, any less gimmicky?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh great Ming, please forgive my intrusion upon your majesty, but i thought, indeed i trembled to harbour the thought that it was socialist art, art for the people, art for people to interact with and to enjoy, environmental art in the broadest sense! none of that pretentious non art that we see upon gallery walls, rubber stamped by academics in the ...[text shortened]... so than all the gimmicks through all the ages, is Jackson Pollock, or Warhol, any less gimmicky?

I expect a little more from the people, I guess. A little effort is required on their part. Rather than being a purely passive participant in the interaction between the two, I expect the viewer to actively meet the artwork halfway.

The abstract expressionists, like Pollock and Kline, embodied the very essence of painting. It was all about the very visceral act of applying paint to the canvas. Warhol's art was a wry comment on the gimmickry of consumerist society itself. Your sidewalk artist is just a series of technically proficient optical illusions, nothing more. There's nothing there to stir the soul or stimulate the mind. It has its place, to be sure, but it falls well short of being great art.

Originally posted by rwingett
I expect a little more from the people, I guess. A little effort is required on their part. Rather than being a purely passive participant in the interaction between the two, I expect the viewer to actively meet the artwork halfway.

The abstract expressionists, like Pollock and Kline, embodied the very essence of painting. It was all about the very visc stimulate the mind. It has its place, to be sure, but it falls well short of being great art.

you may be correct, it is art for the eye, not for the mind. However i would also like to argue that simply because the concept may be good, it does not necessarily translate into good 'art', as in the case of cubism. As for abstract expressionism there are very few that i myself would hang upon the wall, with the exception of Kadinsky. Pollock would be quite at home on any municipal building as décor for the walls and i defy anyone to make either sense of or give vent to their imagination through his work. It is simply the product of a mechanical function. Warhol, at least was emulating the expedience of modernity, or as you rightly say, the gimmickry, but in many instances it was simply a commercial exercise. I thought someone like you may be inclined towards the socialist realism of the soviet schools? you know, images of men beating steel on huge iron anvils and ladies carrying railway sleepers above their heads!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you may be correct, it is art for the eye, not for the mind. However i would also like to argue that simply because the concept may be good, it does not necessarily translate into good 'art', as in the case of cubism. As for abstract expressionism there are very few that i myself would hang upon the wall, with the exception of Kadinsky. Pollock wo ...[text shortened]... men beating steel on huge iron anvils and ladies carrying railway sleepers above their heads!

Socialist Realism? Come on, give me a break. Do I look like a Stalinist caricature? A true socialist would never bind himself to such a stultifying style. The few years immediately following the revolution was an incredibly dynamic period for Soviet graphic design. A lot of great stuff was done. But this was soon stamped out by the heavy weight of Socialist Realism.

As for 'good art' and 'bad art', the terms are open to much abuse. Especially the latter. In any event, it would take an omniscient viewer to properly render such a judgment. Typically when someone uses the term 'bad art', they are merely projecting their own deficiencies as a viewer onto the artwork itself. They have reneged upon their obligation to meet the artwork halfway and have chosen to blame the artwork for it. The viewer does not 'get it' and since he can scarcely conceive that he is the deficient half of the equation, he concludes that it is the artwork that is 'bad.' In some cases it may be, but more often than not it is the case that the viewer simply needs to exert himself a little more. The most effective artwork requires a certain diligence on the part of the viewer and will reveal itself only slowly to him. An artwork that yields up all its secrets in one glance is scarcely worthy of a second one.

Originally posted by Blackamp
Do you enjoy Art? Are you even, perhaps, an Art lover? Or do you think Art is pretentious and a waste of time? Perhaps you know someone who suffered or even died for the sake of Art? Do you have Art in your home? How much would you pay for Art? Do you collect Art? Do you know the difference between good Art and bad Art?


ps: I know, "take it to Culture, Spanky".😞

Love all forms of art as long as the intent is appeal through aesthetics rather than in your face garbage like crucifixes floating in urine, madonnas made with elephant dung and other such repulsive so called art. It does not have to be classical to be good, just creative and appelaing. I love Klimpt, Renoir, Monet, Manet, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Rafael, Pinturicchio, Piero de la Francesca, Modigliani, Giotto.

In music Wagner, Brahms, Verdi, Beethoven, Mozart, Puccini, Cilea. Haydn, Purcell, Schubert, Schumann, Caldara. Modern music mostly blues, old country, Cole Porter.

I don't know what art is, but I do know what art isn't!