Ace said:

NDRU said:

Its the first thing that came to mind as an example of modern art that people get angry at So If I express myself in this way (the shoe thing) its art because art is just expression. Whether or not it speaks to you is another question right? But its still art, yes? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not art.

LleeLlee said:

yes, the shoe is art, but the subconscious tendencies that you revealed by that particular choice of imagery would shock Freud!
















kidding!
[Edited 12/7/06 16:50pm]

So much passion!

I want to have sex with every last one of you on this thread.

and now for something completely different...

i love getting my hands on clay and i want to learn how to throw on a wheel someday
and i appreciate the skill and ability required to make this stuff

but i will never find it beautiful
and if anyone ever gave it to me it would remain in the box till you died and then i would give it away

the mona lisa. i just can't get into it...maybe if i see it in person some day my opinion will change?

and jackson pollock's 'lavender mist' type of painting. just...no. it may be less cerebral to interpret and enjoy a caravaggio, but so be it. that's what attracts me; i guess i'm just shallow like that.

AsianBomb777 said:

Have you ever tried to paint an expressionist work (something like a Jackson Pollock, say)? Even though it might look like it didn't take much skill, it actually if very hard to do. Part of the brilliance of a great artist is the fact that they can make something look simple or easy when it's not.

I took 3 semesters of drawing in college, printmaking, and two design classes--required because I was an art history major. Things that look like 'a five-year old' could do often are much more complicated.

I used to hate Picasso; my attitude was that he invented Cubism b/c he couldn't do any better. Then I saw a drawing he did at the age of 14 to be accepted to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Fuckin' amazing! And I realized that Picasso was such a genius that he transcended "traditional" painting/drawing b/c he had a higher calling. (Not unlike our little purple wonder, Prince. Prince does weird shit and makes it look easy b/c he's too talented for common-ness.)

DevotedPuppy said:

Yeah, I have.

I've won a few awards in high school for some abstracts that I've done, though they were more psuedo-Dali surrealist in nature, and a few when I was in teh Air Force.

It's not that I don't think these artist can't paint like the best of them. It's that I think the paintings they've chosen to paint are shite. It's they way I view country and rap music--sure some of it is good, but to call it music like you would call Mozart's work music is at the very least to me, awkward. But that's a whole other thread.

.

NDRU said:

Modern art (roughly 1900 to pre WWII) is more about how artists were responding to the machine age and the industrial revolution. Photography had a huge effect on painting. Duchamp declaring that he was an ARTIST (as opposed to a painter or sculptor).

Contemporary art (post WWII) is when art started to really get conceptual...that is when you get the Abstract Expressionist reacting to the horrors of the Holocaust, Sol LeWitt (the father of conceptual art), artists reacting to the Canon and deconstructing the "institution."

By saying art is only interesting if it presents an engaging subject matter or some technical mastery seems to presume that the art must be representational or aesthetically pleasing. A lot of contemporary art (esp. conceptual) is not representational--does that mean it's not engaging? I would argue no. Sometimes the engagement is in the thickness of the brush stroke or the shade of color, or the way the canvas is shaped. Art does not have to make the viewer feel good; some artists want to make the viewer uncomfortable.

When Duchamp chose a shovel as a work of art (In Advance of the Broken Arm is the name of the piece) he changed the history of art and made it so that technical skill was no longer a requirment to be an "artist." The act of choosing, and saying, "This is art" is enough. But that does not mean that you or I can pick up a piece of trash and say, "This is art." It won't work, because Duchamp already did it. As juvenile as it is, being the first to come up with an idea or style in art is important; thus Duchamp is brilliant, and I am, well, I'm just an art historian.

AsianBomb777 said:

But you said you were big on skill & execution, so I inferred that you thought it took no skill. I hate John Currin's work, but I admit that his paintings are technically very good.




Ahh, but it's all relative. So today Mozart is classic and rap is shit. And today people line up around the block to see Monet et al. and pay millions for van Gogh. But just over 100 years ago the Impressionists were scandalous, their work was shit and Van Gogh only sold one painting while living. (I know you don't seem fond of the Impressionists, but I'm using them as a general example. I'm not so crazy about them myself, but I recognize why they are important to the history of art.)

DevotedPuppy said:[quote]

AsianBomb777 said:

you are correct on everything. Please don't respond to my posts anymore. It's exhausting trying to find smart things to say back.

Art(ists) I don't like:

John Currin (I heard him lecture in hopes hearing him speak about his work would allow me to appreciate it...but it made me dislike it even more.)




Roberto Matta (Had to give tours on an exhibition of his for months. It was horrible...)




Robert Smithson & the damn Sprial Jetty. Ugh. I cannot stand "earthwork" art.


Decorative Arts, including but not limited to: silver, porcelain, textiles, quilts; and folk/outsider art. I'm a self-admitted art snob and I like my art to have no function (otherwise it's design!) and the artists should have art training, even if their art looks like they didn't.

AsianBomb777 said:

I wasn't trying to be a bitch, just trying to have intelligent conversation. Sorry if I offended you.

DevotedPuppy said:

Your apology offends me.

AsianBomb777 said:

Ummm...your lame attempt at an artistic avatar offends me? A little more technical skill next time, please. (And don't blame Anx's ass, either. lol.)

DevotedPuppy said:

DevotedPuppy said:

You obviously haven't seen my cubist ass avatars.

DevotedPuppy said:

Incredibly educated you are in Art History... and very well put are your words. Excellent.

Freespirit said:

Why are you talking like Yoda?

AsianBomb777 said:

There's something not quite right about that phrase...there's a joke in there somewhere, I know it... (dammit, where are all the org smart asses when you need 'em?)

lmao!!

DevotedPuppy said:

Saying a shovel is art was a brilliant idea & innovation, but as a stand alone piece (taken out of the context of art history) it doesn't hold up as a great piece of art to me.

I think much modern (modern in a general sense, notice I never capitalized it) art relies too much on its ties to art history, and not enough on its own merits. And that's only my opinion.

But I give your essay an A minus
[Edited 12/7/06 23:16pm]

NDRU said:

Interesting point about context...but I think you could say that about a lot of "classic" art too. How many mythological scenes do we see today and don't understand because we don't know the story? Sure we can appreciate the colors or compositiion, but without the context of the myth the work is incomplete.

I think art has to be tied to art history (context)....you don't study other subjects without considering the context...what good is know about the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, or the Versailles Treaty if you don't know the context?

Hmm....I'm have to think about that some more in relation to contemporary art...


ps. I only capitalized 'modern' because it was at the beginning of a sentence. I never capital modern or contemporary (art) in the middle unless it's in the name of a musuem.

DevotedPuppy said:

Nah, I don't believe it for a second.

minneapolisgenius said:

but think about it. He's bending over the whole time. That could be very hard...on your back

does anybody really buy this crap?!

IrresistibleB1tch said:

my mom would love it!

is that Kinkaid?

NDRU said:

Kink-aid indeed...

the painter of light my ass...

(no offense to your mother, mind you)

IrresistibleB1tch said:

That's my house and horse and cart. Buy it? I live it!