Nothing screams "closed-minded" more than a GAF art thread.we're not gonna get anywhere here, are we?
Nothing screams "closed-minded" more than a GAF art thread.we're not gonna get anywhere here, are we?
Nothing screams "closed-minded" more than a GAF art thread.
This is fantastic.
Id like to know for my own sake, how old are you?
Also, if anyone could do it - then do it and see how much your paintings go for? Always the same argument in every art thread.
This post and the "i want to murder him" post made this all worthwhile.
I love art. I collect art books. I buy art. I hang art up on my walls because it makes me happy. That's all there is to it.
But the point of pieces like Yves Klein's Blue isn't to show one's craft. It's a piece that is meant to provoke a specific spiritual and psychological experience, and some exhibition of technical expertise would do nothing to further that goal.
http://garethleaney.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/ikb-79-1959-by-yves-klein/
Saw this sucker in person once, at the Tate Modern in London. I shit you not, they were selling posters of it in the gift shop. Of a solid color blue rectangle. And the defense of this piece of nonsense in the above blog post is ludicrous.
I'm on the fence about Pollock. I can kind of see how his art might be genuinely great and in-imitable. But anything more "modern" or abstract than Pollock is bullshit, especially when it's as obviously simplistic and devoid of craft as those stupid balloon dogs.
Christmas card art? you stupid man, that is the work's of The Painter of Light.
I can't even begun to tell you the emotionless I see from this painting.
White, snow, kids, the smell of the burning wood. The house Those cut be as deeply as any picture, more so than a goat watching it's on entrails as dogs smoke and watch.
Maybe he's not acclaimed, maybe the critics never gave him a chance. Maybe if created a QVC brand to deliver his seminal works to consumers for four easily payments. He does it for the people.
At yet we are the freaks that would rather worship at that sight of a light painter than see a penis, or a suggestive nod.
Art that is grim, meaningful, and not instantly recognizable is you shit. Keep telling yourself how good swirly circles that don't tell you have to feel are better than this.
That actually took skill, and hard work.
But the point of pieces like Yves Klein's Blue isn't to show one's craft. It's a piece that is meant to provoke a specific spiritual and psychological experience, and some exhibition of technical expertise would do nothing to further that goal.
Big, anonymous art sales have a wide variety of uses, ranging from laundering drug money all the way to laundering embezzled bank money.
meanwhile in africa...
The discussion in this thread is very much helping me clarify what I don't completely understand.
I completely agree with you that the value of art is that it makes your life emotionally better or richer, and that is more than enough to give it significant value.
As someone who personally finds this satisfaction in music more often than in painting/photography/sculpture, I feel that looking back at how my taste and appreciation of different types of music has changed over time gives me the impression that this process is a constructive one.
By that I mean that I feel like my tastes and ability to appreciate music are constantly evolving and being refined, and there's a sense that my taste is genuinely "improving" over time. I imagine the same is true for paintings.
And so my question is, if indeed you do feel this way, do you sometimes look back at your younger self and the taste you had at the time with a feeling that "today you know better/are more educated?"
If so, can it be said that certain artistic tastes are more correct than others? Similar to how some scientific views are more correct than others, even if the majority of the world doesn't share those views?
But the point of pieces like Yves Klein's Blue isn't to show one's craft. It's a piece that is meant to provoke a specific spiritual and psychological experience, and some exhibition of technical expertise would do nothing to further that goal.
Let me recommend all of you The $12 Million Stuffed Shark. I read this book last year and it really helped me understand how the contemporary art market works.
In answer to the first part of the bolded: Yes. i've always adored art and colours - but my art tastes have changed quite a bit and definitely matured - but not in a boring way. Im a HUGE fan of graffiti (I collect graff art books) and my house is purple inside and filled with KAWS figures and paintings.
In answer to your 2nd question: yes i believe someones tastes can be more refined and educated than others, even if they are only opinions and viewpoints. To use your music analogy, if someone listened to Justin Bieber and someone listened to Beethoven, i would say that the person listening to beethoven has a better music taste than someone interested in Bieber. It may be his taste but I think some things can be argued better even if others dont share those views.
For me, i dont care if you dislike a piece of art, that's fine. What is NOT fine however is saying that "Well an IDIOT could paint that, that takes no skill or talent, only an idiot would pay $$$ for that!" <-- that shows a closed mind.
I think as you get older and can afford nicer things you really do develop a taste for the finer things in life if you have access to them and are open minded. As i get on in years i have managed to travel more and see incredible "art" in the flesh - something in my younger days i would have only been able to see in books.
Also, if anyone could do it - then do it and see how much your paintings go for? Always the same argument in every art thread.
Dude those just look like doormats or jigsaw puzzles or bad metal record album covers - do you really think those paintings are better than the Triptych?
It's art so i guess you can argue either way but im pretty sure the original poster was trolling because otherwise that is just some terrible taste.
When i went to NYC for first time and went to MOMA - it was incredible to see Picasso's, Monet's and various other artists' works in the flesh. It was mind blowing.
There was so much amazing stuff in there i spent the whole day just drinking in all the art.
As some have said - some of the paintings to you may not seem so complex, but you need to evaluate them as per what others were doing at the time to really appreciate their brilliance.
I for one dont really appreciate Monet's paintings as much as some others, but not for one second do i think they are overpriced or that someone is an "idiot" or "should be murdered" for buying them like other people in this thread have said.
Also, if anyone could do it - then do it and see how much your paintings go for? Always the same argument in every art thread.
Christmas card art? you stupid man, that is the work's of The Painter of Light.
That actually took skill, and hard work.
Just like playing the guitar well doesn't make you a great musician, painting realistically doesn't make you a great artist.
Titian - Portrait of a Man (Ariosto)
Titian - Portrait of a Young Englishman (face detail) - had to scan this myself as there wasn't one online.
Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - A Hearty Welcome
Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Under the Roof of Blue Ionian Weather (mostly as an example of his beautiful marble rendering)
Tintoretto - Last Supper
And then something like a Japanese woodblock print that is something simply made to be pleasant to look at.
Kawase Hasui - Shuzenji no Ame
painting realistic might not make you a very original artist but the artist is no doubt SKILLED
those random fucking paintsplashes clusterfuck paintings is something a baby can do
I'm not sure that this is a good line of argument. Much better art than this has sold for much less, and there are many factors at play other than pure artistic merit (whatever that even means). Established artists dealing with things that are abstracted to this level of weirdness probably could spend zero effort farting out something and sell it for exorbitant sums while a no-name off the street would be laughed out of the room.
Perception is absolutely everything here. On a technical level somebody could make a painting that was four blue triangles with slightly blurred edges and it would be about on par with half the stuff in this thread. If you knew that they were creating it in a cynical effort to dupe pretentious art critics, you would probably dismiss it out of hand. If you thought it came from somebody who had poured their soul into this abstract expression of something, you might appreciate it as good art. All art requires interpretation to be meaningful since in the end, there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Abstract art takes it to the utmost extreme, where essentially all of the meaning is created by the viewer and not by the artist. I definitely understand why people think its nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bICqvmKL5s
posted earlier in thread
LOOK at that fucker going at it
i.....come the fuck on
*dips brush*
*SPLASH SPLASH SPLASH*
jesus christ
But the point of pieces like Yves Klein's Blue isn't to show one's craft. It's a piece that is meant to provoke a specific spiritual and psychological experience, and some exhibition of technical expertise would do nothing to further that goal.
$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.
This is my favourate Pollock peice. You don't get any feeling at all out of it?
I get a hell of a lot more out of it than that tacky cottage painting someone posted up the page.
Just like playing the guitar fast doesn't make you a great musician, painting realistic doesn't make you a great artist.
Which corresponds to my increasing disdain for people who favor those styles over traditional representational approaches. My general attitude is this: if it looks like an ugly mess, it probably is.Not a huge fan of Bacon's work but I'm not surprised. Seems like there's been an increasing interest in toppling more traditional style paintings from the top of the list the last few years.
The point is to get lost in a field of color. A textbook or .jpg completely loses it. If it does nothing for you fine. But you can still "get the concept" without really liking a piece. Art isn't meant to be experienced sans it's space, texture and scale.
Saying it communicates nothing is laughable.
The value of those is on the level of "how many _____ can you find in this picture?" puzzles from children's books. I like those things (though they certainly aren't "abstract," as implied by the titles of those pages), but they hardly say anything other than "people can recognize characters via simplified color strips."
Works like Rothko's are great precisely because they invite a plethora of experiences and individual perspectives.
it's a rothko painting. search him and color field theory. it's an art style. do some research. gaf keeps on throwing the word pretentious around, yet they're making the quick presumptions and name calling without knowing the context of the painting and art form. being super detailed in a drawing, doesn't necessarily translate to a good piece of art. that's like saying the guitarists who focus in on soloing are great musicians. yet they only play cover songs at dive bars and improvise solos over them.
What the fuck is this? That is not what a person looks like. I can visibly see the stroke marks on the wall behind what I am going to generously assume is a woman (with stage 3 asschin's disease by the look of it). Based on everything else in this frame I'm surprised that he managed to keep the colour within the lines. Well, for the most part at least. My favorite bit is the eyes where he gets halfway through making the left one blue by drawing a single line that just sort of goes nowhere and was like "yep, that's good enough". Then forgot that people actually have two eyes so he should probably work on the other one too. Is this guy a shit painter, or is he just working with some fucking ugly people?
The pretentious ignorance in this thread... Don't you need to be at least 13 to join GAF?
If you don't understand something, read a book about it and go see some paintings in real life before bashing a whole cultural and artistic movement. Shame on this iphone / jpeg generation.
I sure as hell wouldn't want it hanging in my living room.
But maybe somebody knowledgeable in art history can clarify for us why this artwork is a big deal.
This is an opinion too.Everyone with an opinion in this topic is an idiot
Not saying it is worth that, but Francis Bacon was an amazing artist.
Not a huge fan of Bacon's work but I'm not surprised. Seems like there's been an increasing interest in toppling more traditional style paintings from the top of the list the last few years.