Genuine Art

Genuine Art

Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Genuine Art

Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?

gb[/b]

This is even tougher than music.

You think Jackson Pollock would get 20$ for his pissed on paintings these days??

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Genuine Art

Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?

gb[/b]

It's impossible to answer any question that has the phrase 'Genuine Art' in it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
This is even tougher than music.

You think Jackson Pollock would get 20$ for his pissed on paintings these days??

I think that was Andy Warhol, not Jackson Pollock. And the answer is 'yes', I think they would go for more than $20 at auction.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Genuine Art

Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?

gb[/b]

Is not all Art (with a capital A) genuine? Artists wear their heart on their sleeve, they expose themselves to public examination, they bare their inner souls, they are mostly tortured and ravaged by the experiences of life. The sculptor who lovingly carves his oak, is he in some way being disingenuous? The poet who strains every fibre to find the right word, the correct rhythm, is he being insincere? The composer who challenges the harmonic disciplines of the time, is he to be mistrusted. All Art, I suggest, is a genuine exposé of the artist's soul, and it attempts to move, challenge, inspire, fill with spiritual and emotional awe. I could direct you to the late quartets of Beethoven, the drawings of Dürer, the sonnets of Shakespeare for they all inspire, enthuse, and leave the subject a better person after experiencing them.
Nature contains the greatest Art, however. The morning dewdrops glistening on the rose, the bubbling stream catching the sun's rays, the shy kingfisher's glorious colours. Etc.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Is not all Art (with a capital A) genuine? Artists wear their heart on their sleeve, they expose themselves to public examination, they bare their inner souls, they are mostly tortured and ravaged by the experiences of life. The sculptor who lovingly carves his oak, is he in some way being disingenuous? The poet who strains every fibre to find the right wo ...[text shortened]... ose, the bubbling stream catching the sun's rays, the shy kingfisher's glorious colours. Etc.

While I agree with you that all art is genuine art, the rest of your post is overblown melodrama. Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans, for example, may be an exposé of something, but not of the artist's "soul."

I disagree that all art is genuine art. Cow Dung Madonna comes to mind as well as Piss Christ. It is often said no one knows what art is and to thus affirm is arrogant and overblown, yet nowhere does it say one cannot know what art isn't. NEA likes funding schlock like the alleged art mentioned. WE have seemingly steered away from awe inspiring art and developed shock value quasi-art done so for controversy alone and no other reason. I would love to see these cowards try and get NEA to fund a Piss Mohamed, a Piss Koran and other such "controversial" quasi-art.

As for Warhol, he laughed all the way to the bank as did Pollock. I doubt much baring of souls goes on spray painting canvasses with airplane propellers. What is bared is the stupidity of those who ooh and ah over such schlock.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I disagree that all art is genuine art. Cow Dung Madonna comes to mind as well as Piss Christ. It is often said no one knows what art is and to thus affirm is arrogant and overblown, yet nowhere does it say one cannot know what art isn't. NEA likes funding schlock like the alleged art mentioned. WE have seemingly steered away from awe inspiring art and ...[text shortened]... irplane propellers. What is bared is the stupidity of those who ooh and ah over such schlock.

😴

Originally posted by rwingett
While I agree with you that all art is genuine art, the rest of your post is overblown melodrama. Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans, for example, may be an exposé of something, but not of the artist's "soul."

The knowledge that Campbell's Soup was the soup of choice for the Warhol family during Andy's childhood, combined with images and reports from his childhood as well as the subsequent history and contemporary status of the painting, sets up an interesting interpretative framework from which a reading of his 'soul', personality, or what have you, may be extracted.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The knowledge that Campbell's Soup was the soup of choice for the Warhol family during Andy's childhood, combined with images and reports from his childhood as well as the subsequent history and contemporary status of the painting, sets up an interesting interpretative framework from which a reading of his 'soul', personality, or what have you, may be extracted.

I guess you can make the term 'soul' elastic enough to encompass just about everything. Either way, while you may be able to extract snippets of Warhol's alleged soul from his intentionally impersonal artwork, it's certainly not something that is on display as the main attraction (as with the abstract expressionists, for example).

Originally posted by rwingett
😴

Predictable response. I suspect you support pissart more than any other poster.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Predictable response. I suspect you support pissart more than any other poster.

It is worth recalling that "respectable" people like yourself were once outraged by the scandalous artwork of the French Impressionists. Apart from 'ennobling' souls, a large part of what art is supposed to do is precisely to offend the staid sensibilities of sanctimonious prigs like yourself.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Genuine Art

Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?

gb[/b]

Opinion: Whether something is art depends on the beholder. The thoughts and feelings experienced are what make a work art. Art is then an encounter, and the person experiencing the encounter is the only one to decide whether a work is art -- and it is art only for such people at such moments. For example, if you are at an auction trying to get the best price for an art piece, you are not at that moment experiencing the piece as art but rather as an item of commerce. It could also be said that "genuine" means you attach that experience as art to the work itself as the "cause" or trigger of the experience.

Speculation/food for thought and comment: Being that art involves a "work" of some kind, an object can only be experienced as art if and when the person encountering it believes the work was made to trigger the experience. The person himself may be seem to be the "maker" of the experience. so that art can be seen in nature, by the theist and spiritual nontheist alike. Experiencing art in "nature" is a spiritual event. Seeing human-made art AS PART of nature, is spiritual, as well.

Originally posted by JS357
Opinion: Whether something is art depends on the beholder. The thoughts and feelings experienced are what make a work art. Art is then an encounter, and the person experiencing the encounter is the only one to decide whether a work is art -- and it is art only for such people at such moments. For example, if you are at an auction trying to get the best price f ...[text shortened]... is a spiritual event. Seeing human-made art AS PART of nature, is spiritual, as well.

I disagree with this as well. Generally, art is whatever the artist says it is. The artist is the sole determinant of what constitutes art.

I also disagree that nature is art. While you can feasibly draw certain comparisons between them, nature is nature and art is art. While one can certainly find spiritual satisfaction is observing nature, it is the intentional altering (or representation) of it in some way by the artist that makes it art.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is worth recalling that "respectable" people like yourself were once outraged by the scandalous artwork of the French Impressionists. Apart from 'ennobling' souls, a large part of what art is supposed to do is precisely to offend the staid sensibilities of sanctimonious prigs like yourself.

Sanctimonious prigs like myself never were offended by Impressionists . I rest my case. If you have the audacity to compare Renoir, Monet, Manet, Pisarro et al with pissart you must be fairly impressed by such garbage, but in your polluted mind such things merit comparison. I daresay 100 years from now pissart will not merit a blip in art history whereas Impressionism lives on as a respected art form. Stravisnsky's Rite of Spring premiere triggered riots in 1913. It is an enduring masterpiece. No pissart is remotely close to being called a masteroiece. If anything schlockart comes to mind. Such art stirs controversy alone and contempt. I do no recall Impressionism stirring contempt or being reviled.