17 Sep '12 11:07>5 edits
Originally posted by JS357Here are some works of a form of art that I find exquisite. One color, one brush, one stroke.
It will help if people here can answer this:
Is Vladimir Tretchikoff's work good art, bad art, or not art, and why?
He did "The Green Lady."
http://www.vladimirtretchikoff.com/gallery.htm
Do you have other examples of good art, bad art, and human made works that are not-art?
http://www.skbhavnani.com/art.html
Notice the piece "Shimmer"and "Pause" particularly.
How the shimmer comes out of black ink on paper.
The delicacy of the insect, its impression of lightness.
There is no second stroke. Each stroke is itself.
My flavor.
That response to any nominated 'art' of the past and of different contexts is highly variable is a banal truism. To me it suggests the idea that "art" is an event, a happening that includes the artist, the audience, or lack of, and the cultural context and its time. One time and place and from a certain people's perspective it is regarded as art. Another time, place and culture or subculture, it is not. A passing ephemeral conceptual phenomenon in general, dependent on minds and circumstances.
Enduring art endures for some, not others. the strength of endurance and impression that continues varies. The strength of endurance of some art "happenings" and its response is extremely strong, almost impregnable.
I believe this is because it captures a certain universality in a new way that is immediately gripping to the majority. But again that too will have some cultural limits and certain cultures will find it hard to enter into the "happenings" of other cultures' art, having absorbed cultural and subcultural impressions and traces from the cradle. It appears to me that from ephemeral to enduring it was at some time to someone, even if it was just the artist - art.
Art, like all meanings, is of the mind.