Support NeoGAF

[Kyaw]

I was just expressing my dislike for AbEx... just went a bit more dramatically that it should have, i have researched and studied expressionism but it's just not something i can enjoy.
I'm fully aware that not everyone can do abstract expressionism, i was just probably being ignorant with my comment earlier.

I do like some of the expressionists' work like Kandinsky, Mark Rothko's colourfield paintings and some of the earlier Cubism pieces like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso_Portrait_of_Daniel-Henry_Kahnweiler_1910.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JuanGris.Portrait_of_Picasso.jpg

I like these for their overall nice aesthetics (to me), technical precision and clever process of cubism.

I get the whole 'then do it' argument. I've tried. I didn't enjoy doing it or have any emotional motivation to paint like that. Thus the result is 'meh'.

I wrote this in my A-Level expressionism opinion section:

Expressionism has many qualities I thoroughly enjoy such as the bold use of colours and unorthodoxy compositions and structure. Artists’ creations contain unparalleled emotional content and their expression of the surroundings of them also makes it one of the most unique art movements in history. The ability to do that kind of expressive visual art is a talent many do not have. I think artists, whether expressionists or not, are somewhat expressive with their work. They have their own unique styles and visual qualities which separates each and every artist. Expressionists are the ones that carry these emotions and political turmoil to the extreme and construct their art based on these extremities.

I believe in aestheticism in a way that everything I produce should be close to my understanding and impression of what looks aesthetically pleasing. I also draw technically so that my drawings are visually correct and all the details are either accurate or exaggerated for emphasis. This is why I don’t agree with or enjoy many parts of Expressionism. Emotional content is not my emphasis nor is strong suit as I enjoy and practice technical accuracy and aestheticism. After viewing Jackson Pollock’s No. 5, 1948, I wondered how it could be sold for such a ridiculous price. The piece just doesn’t agree with me. The technique of action painting is based on several natural factors such as gravity, inertia and the way paint reacts on or into the surface. I cannot agree that something is art when so many of the factors present in its creation are merely chance and probability. Sure, you can control these factors but not to pixel or dot perfection. I actually enjoy Colour Field painting as the aim of it is to place less emphasis on gesture, brushstrokes and action in favour of an overall consistency of form and process. The blending and choice of colours present in the works of colour field artists intrigues me as they are quite pleasing to look at. While some work such as Mark Rothko’s might not be technical in the traditional sense, the colours match to create a sight of visual pleasure.

After researching and reviewing this art movement as a whole, I understand all the fundamental ideas behind Expressionism and even discovered some aspects I enjoy but I still do not agree or enjoy the movement in its entirety.

I probably should have said more than throwing out the 'anyone can do it' statement.
Now I hope everyone sees and understand my view on the matter.

 

[KittenMaster]

I think every time I see an abstract art, I tend to think that the texture or pattern would be useful applied to something rather than as a stand alone display.

 

[Snake]

There is a lot of photoshop potential in this one.

 

[Cruceh]

I went to france the other week and got one of those 4 day museum passes. Friends wanted to go to this modern art thing. Oh god, it was awful.

 

[Kraftwerk]

Where's Keanu?

Spoiler

Pardon the shitty Photoshop, first time I ever did that

 

[ianp622]

I was just expressing my dislike for AbEx... just went a bit more dramatically that it should have, i have researched and studied expressionism but it's just not something i can enjoy.
I'm fully aware that not everyone can do abstract expressionism, i was just probably being ignorant with my comment earlier.

I do like some of the expressionists' work like Kandinsky, Mark Rothko's colourfield paintings and some of the earlier Cubism pieces like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso_Portrait_of_Daniel-Henry_Kahnweiler_1910.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JuanGris.Portrait_of_Picasso.jpg

I like these for their overall nice aesthetics (to me), technical precision and clever process of cubism.

I get the whole 'then do it' argument. I've tried. I didn't enjoy doing it or have any emotional motivation to paint like that. Thus the result is 'meh'.

I wrote this in my A-Level expressionism opinion section:



I probably should have said more than throwing out the 'anyone can do it' statement.
Now I hope everyone sees and understand my view on the matter.

You are presenting an entirely different viewpoint. We never said that you have to enjoy abstract expressionism, but we just don't want you to dismiss it. I've made a girl cry with one of my paintings (although there were most likely other factors involved) that had no representational content at all. Likewise, I appreciate the emotional impact of the abstract expressionists, who can summon such emotions without drawing on something known beforehand.

Have you viewed No. 5, 1948 in person? Pollock's works don't have the same effect on a small screen.

Non-uniform and curvy lines are an aesthetic in and of themselves, even if they don't appeal to you. They convey spontaneity, but more importantly, the personal touch of the artist. Pollock's drips aren't random - their shape is a function of how he flicks his wrist - but they also work more as a unified work than serve an aesthetic purpose themselves. And color is just as important as it is in color field art.

Again, it's fine if you don't enjoy it, just be aware of your biases and don't use them to trivialize the works of others.

And the reason it doesn't work for you is more than just emotional involvement - some of my pieces that inspire the most emotion are done when I am rather emotionally disconnected from them. My happiest pieces are sometimes done when I am feeling my worst. But it's emotion combined with the knowledge of how art works beyond representation (and that is what abstraction is all about) that makes good art.

 

[Kyaw]

I guess you have a point. I haven't seen any of the works in real life.
Maybe I can find something aesthetically pleasing from the curves, the bezel of each paint streak and the colours. I never said the drips were random, I just said it depended on too many factors out of the control of the painter.

But yeah, I agree that I shouldn't have said what I said.

 

[flyover]

I dated a girl who had one of her paintings put in the MOBA collection:

It's a painting of a picture of her and her mom -- though it looks like her mom is using her as a puppet.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You are presenting an entirely different viewpoint. We never said that you have to enjoy abstract expressionism, but we just don't want you to dismiss it. I've made a girl cry with one of my paintings (although there were most likely other factors involved) that had no representational content at all. Likewise, I appreciate the emotional impact of the abstract expressionists, who can summon such emotions without drawing on something known beforehand.

Have you viewed No. 5, 1948 in person? Pollock's works don't have the same effect on a small screen.

Non-uniform and curvy lines are an aesthetic in and of themselves, even if they don't appeal to you. They convey spontaneity, but more importantly, the personal touch of the artist. Pollock's drips aren't random - their shape is a function of how he flicks his wrist - but they also work more as a unified work than serve an aesthetic purpose themselves. And color is just as important as it is in color field art.

Again, it's fine if you don't enjoy it, just be aware of your biases and don't use them to trivialize the works of others.

And the reason it doesn't work for you is more than just emotional involvement - some of my pieces that inspire the most emotion are done when I am rather emotionally disconnected from them. My happiest pieces are sometimes done when I am feeling my worst. But it's emotion combined with the knowledge of how art works beyond representation (and that is what abstraction is all about) that makes good art.

Please, watch the video of Pollock working that I posted earlier in the thread and tell me exactly how what he's doing ISN'T random. There's no thought, no vision behind his work, and such is apparent. It doesn't matter that his lines are "a function of how he flicks his wrist" if they don't actually function in the service of anything greater. Moreover, please tell me how "spontaneity" and "the personal touch of the artist" are virtues unto themselves if all that you get, in the end, is a formless series of drips. Again, I DO get why people might like these paintings and why they might move the emotions, but the essence of great art is not just the ability to move but the ability to move via communication. Art is not just about like/dislike, and I'm not arguing against these works just because I don't like them (I do) or because they're not my taste. It's because I think that greatness in art is more than just the ability to slop paint on a canvas. I challenge anybody in this thread to post a Pollock and a Caravaggio and tell me why Pollock should be taken seriously by comparison.

Spoiler

I'd also get into the argument of why "non-representation" in art is BS, why it's narrative that both gives a work depth and staying power and also gives it a "hook" to allow people to actually take something from it beyond emotion, but that's a can of worms that I'm not particularly willing to argue. Art is communication, an interpretation of reality, and the meaning of a work is contained primarily in the work itself; if a work can mean anything - and any of Pollock or Rothko's famous works can - then it is meaningless, and I'd argue that if that's the case, it's difficult to even call it art, let alone great art.

Edit: To put it differently - if Pollock's work is all about some nebulous effect that you're supposed to get from seeing it in person (I have seen AbEx works in person, by the way), that's almost the very definition of gimmickry, of flash over substance.

 

[ronito]

That's awesome. Imma email that to the artist with the subject of "Fixed that for ya." if you don't mind.

 

[Kraftwerk]

Edit: To put it differently - if Pollock's work is all about some nebulous effect that you're supposed to get from seeing it in person (I have seen AbEx works in person, by the way), that's almost the very definition of gimmickry, of flash over substance.

Please, watch the video of Pollock working that I posted earlier in the thread and tell me exactly how what he's doing ISN'T random. There's no thought, no vision behind his work, and such is apparent. It doesn't matter that his lines are "a function of how he flicks his wrist" if they don't actually function in the service of anything greater. Moreover, please tell me how "spontaneity" and "the personal touch of the artist" are virtues unto themselves if all that you get, in the end, is a formless series of drips. Again, I DO get why people might like these paintings and why they might move the emotions, but the essence of great art is not just the ability to move but the ability to move via communication. Art is not just about like/dislike, and I'm not arguing against these works just because I don't like them (I do) or because they're not my taste. It's because I think that greatness in art is more than just the ability to slop paint on a canvas. I challenge anybody in this thread to post a Pollock and a Caravaggio and tell me why Pollock should be taken seriously by comparison.

Spoiler

I'd also get into the argument of why "non-representation" in art is BS, why it's narrative that both gives a work depth and staying power and also gives it a "hook" to allow people to actually take something from it beyond emotion, but that's a can of worms that I'm not particularly willing to argue. Art is communication, an interpretation of reality, and the meaning of a work is contained primarily in the work itself; if a work can mean anything - and any of Pollock or Rothko's famous works can - then it is meaningless, and I'd argue that if that's the case, it's difficult to even call it art, let alone great art.

Snowman, I think we will never reach a conclusion in this particular debate. Because it goes so deep. Not to get too meta here, but this is what makes us unique individuals. Each of us likes different things, and perceive things in a completely different way.

Also, one issue I have with your argument is that, you set a set of rules about what is art and not art, and then strictly follow them, and expect ( I use expect loosely here ) others to base their opinions on this set of rules. One could say that this is not healthy (?)

In the above paragraph you state that art is not just about the essence, the feeling etc. Well, who is anyone to claim that? To me, there are no rules to define art. You pave the road as you go along.

I wanted to add some more things here, but the doorbell rang and I lost my rain of thought. Will add when I remember ;p

 

[ianp622]

Please, watch the video of Pollock working that I posted earlier in the thread and tell me exactly how what he's doing ISN'T random. There's no thought, no vision behind his work, and such is apparent. It doesn't matter that his lines are "a function of how he flicks his wrist" if they don't actually function in the service of anything greater. Moreover, please tell me how "spontaneity" and "the personal touch of the artist" are virtues unto themselves if all that you get, in the end, is a formless series of drips. Again, I DO get why people might like these paintings and why they might move the emotions, but the essence of great art is not just the ability to move but the ability to move via communication. Art is not just about like/dislike, and I'm not arguing against these works just because I don't like them (I do) or because they're not my taste. It's because I think that greatness in art is more than just the ability to slop paint on a canvas. I challenge anybody in this thread to post a Pollock and a Caravaggio and tell me why Pollock should be taken seriously by comparison.

I'd also get into the argument of why "non-representation" in art is BS, why it's narrative that both gives a work depth and staying power and also gives it a "hook" to allow people to actually take something from it beyond emotion, but that's a can of worms that I'm not particularly willing to argue. Art is communication, an interpretation of reality, and the meaning of a work is contained primarily in the work itself; if a work can mean anything - and any of Pollock or Rothko's famous works can - then it is meaningless, and I'd argue that if that's the case, it's difficult to even call it art, let alone great art.


Edit: To put it differently - if Pollock's work is all about some nebulous effect that you're supposed to get from seeing it in person (I have seen AbEx works in person, by the way), that's almost the very definition of gimmickry, of flash over substance.

Snowman, I think we will never reach a conclusion in this particular debate. Because it goes so deep. Not to get too meta here, but this is what makes us unique individuals. Each of us likes different things, and perceive things in a completely different way.

Also, one issue I have with your argument is that, you set a set of rules about what is art and not art, and then strictly follow them, and expect ( I use expect loosely here ) others to base their opinions on this set of rules. One could say that this is not healthy (?)

In the above paragraph you state that art is not just about the essence, the feeling etc. Well, who is anyone to claim that? To me, there are no rules to define art. You pave the road as you go along.

I wanted to add some more things here, but the doorbell rang and I lost my rain of thought. Will add when I remember ;p

Kraftwerk covered a portion of my response. Abstract expressionism is communicative - it just happens to be in a langauge that you don't yet understand.

Pollock makes it look effortless because he is skilled at it. Again, if it's random, I challenge you to do the same. Then you can pick an obscure Pollock piece (I don't know many) and put it next to yours, and see if I can figure out which one is real and which one isn't.

Saying that a Pollock can "mean" anything is missing the point. There is very seldom a message that one gets from an abstract expressionism work. It is a painting because it can't be put into words like a narrative could be.

Again, you don't have to like it, but don't discount the fact that it can affect some people in a very deep way, and not just like a fart as you mentioned before. A combination of learning the language of art and developing an increasingly chaotic mind have led me to a point where abstract expressionism is the closest thing that captures the essence of who I am and how I think, and therefore it is more inspiring to me than a Caravaggio.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Snowman, I think we will never reach a conclusion in this particular debate. Because it goes so deep. Not to get too meta here, but this is what makes us unique individuals. Each of us likes different things, and perceive things in a completely different way.

Also, one issue I have with your argument is that, you set a set of rules about what is art and not art, and then strictly follow them, and expect ( I use expect loosely here ) others to base their opinions on this set of rules. One could say that this is not healthy (?)

In the above paragraph you state that art is not just about the essence, the feeling etc. Well, who is anyone to claim that? To me, there are no rules to define art. You pave the road as you go along.

I wanted to add some more things here, but the doorbell rang and I lost my rain of thought. Will add when I remember ;p

What I'm arguing, though, is a way of looking at art beyond the realm of personal taste and like/dislike. What I'm saying is that if I can watch something, not necessarily "like" it, but identify that it is good or great art, then such is attainable by others, as well. Last Year at Marienbad, for example, is a film that bores the shit out of me, but it's clearly a great work of art for a number of manifest and explicable reasons. Pollock, meanwhile, is somebody whose work I like as a diversion once in a while but whose art is clearly not good; there's a reason why people who aren't versed in all the obfuscating explication surrounding the extreme versions of AbEx art look at something like a Pollock painting and scoff at the art world more generally for buying into such. Taking my argument and going, "Well, it's just not your taste" really says nothing as to the quality of my argument or to the merits of the piece in question.

As for your latter questions: I state that because I live in a time when we have access to pretty much the entire history of art. Between libraries, electronic databases, Netflix, the internet, etc. we have almost the entire history of the art world at our fingertips, and through this, one can begin to see that there are REASONS why certain works last, reasons why something does or does not work. Yes, there is always that sense of the ineffable in any great work of art, but that's there in addition to probably dozens of other considerations that should also work. I'm not saying that there are rules of art, BUT there are some works of art that are clearly objectively better than others. It would be literally impossible to correctly argue Michael Bay as a better director than Stanley Kubrick, no matter how much one might like the flash and excitement of Bay more than the cold reflection of a Kubrick. I think that it's high time artists stop hiding behind nebulous concepts like intuition and emotion and apply more rigor to their field, understand how and why it works. I'm tired of reading the BS cultural studies analyses that come out of college English departments, analyses of art that try to circle around some nebulous idea without actually invoking the tools or ideas that actually comprise the art itself.

I make the arguments that I make because I love art, and I want to see more good/great art made. It helps me in my own creative processes, and I can only hope that somebody else will find some value in them. I don't do it out of some unhealthy need to make everybody else think like I do but because I'm passionate about art and have a strong argumentative streak running through my veins that compels me to share my views and denude ideas that I see as founded on specious grounds.

 

[sprsk]

I love how John Adams is like

"Fuck I dropped the constitution!"

and Obama looks like he just accidentally stepped on it and doesn't know it yet.


And everyone else is looking at Obama with a "Who the fuck is the guy on the bench?" look on their face.

 

[GDGF]

I love how John Adams is like

"Fuck I dropped the constitution!"

and Obama looks like he just accidentally stepped on it and doesn't know it yet.


And everyone else is looking at Obama with a "Who the fuck is the guy on the bench?" look on their face.

Dude on the bench should be picking up the free money lying on the ground.

 

[sprsk]

Dude on the bench should be picking up the free money lying on the ground.

Actually he looks more like he lost the keys to his time machine.

"Now how am I supposed to get back to 2011?!"

 

[Kraftwerk]

What I'm arguing, though, is a way of looking at art beyond the realm of personal taste and like/dislike. What I'm saying is that if I can watch something, not necessarily "like" it, but identify that it is good or great art, then such is attainable by others, as well. Last Year at Marienbad, for example, is a film that bores the shit out of me, but it's clearly a great work of art for a number of manifest and explicable reasons. Pollock, meanwhile, is somebody whose work I like as a diversion once in a while but whose art is clearly not good; there's a reason why people who aren't versed in all the obfuscating explication surrounding the extreme versions of AbEx art look at something like a Pollock painting and scoff at the art world more generally for buying into such. Taking my argument and going, "Well, it's just not your taste" really says nothing as to the quality of my argument or to the merits of the piece in question.

As for your latter questions: I state that because I live in a time when we have access to pretty much the entire history of art. Between libraries, electronic databases, Netflix, the internet, etc. we have almost the entire history of the art world at our fingertips, and through this, one can begin to see that there are REASONS why certain works last, reasons why something does or does not work. Yes, there is always that sense of the ineffable in any great work of art, but that's there in addition to probably dozens of other considerations that should also work. I'm not saying that there are rules of art, BUT there are some works of art that are clearly objectively better than others. It would be literally impossible to correctly argue Michael Bay as a better director than Stanley Kubrick, no matter how much one might like the flash and excitement of Bay more than the cold reflection of a Kubrick. I think that it's high time artists stop hiding behind nebulous concepts like intuition and emotion and apply more rigor to their field, understand how and why it works. I'm tired of reading the BS cultural studies analyses that come out of college English departments, analyses of art that try to circle around some nebulous idea without actually invoking the tools or ideas that actually comprise the art itself.

I make the arguments that I make because I love art, and I want to see more good/great art made. It helps me in my own creative processes, and I can only hope that somebody else will find some value in them. I don't do it out of some unhealthy need to make everybody else think like I do but because I'm passionate about art and have a strong argumentative streak running through my veins that compels me to share my views and denude ideas that I see as founded on specious grounds.

What I will state now, is going to be a slippery slope and go into another discussion, but to me:

If ONE person, just one, likes Jackson Pollock' work: then he has achieved his goal. His goal as an artist could be many things. To make that one person cry, smile, fear, love, or go through just one of the many emotions and feeling that there is.

My friend loves Michael Bay. He will defend his movies. To him, transformers is like Punch Drunk Love to you. I don't agree with him, and have debated this with him. He just sees something in his work.

Now, who the fuck am I to question my friends choice and integrity? There is no axis to determine perfection and bad things. In morality and ethics one might say there are some vague ones, but not in this case.

I used to draw. When I was 15 I participated in an art competition. I drew Gandhi walking in his white clothes during the salt march.One of the judges who was walking through us said it looked incredible. But I was not satisfied. I took the fattest brush I had and stroked the canvas. I drew the Indian flag on top of everything. The same judge got really angry with me, and thought I was an idiot for "ruining the painting" ( exact quote ).

Needless to say I didn't even place in the top ten. When going back on the bus, one of the teachers who had escorted us to the competition came to me and said that my painting was his favourite, and it was simply incredible. He told me the flag on top of everything made the painting give out an aura, and it made him proud.

I gave Mr. Bhupinder Chaudary my painting. He hanged in his house. My goal had been achieved. I made one person feel something, see something in my painting.

When I understood Pollock, that same feeling went through me. I saw something in his work. I don't even care if he is a hack, or made that to make $100 million. To me, stirring and creating a feeling in another human is an INCREDIBLE feat that requires dedication, passion and skill.

"exhales" Well, that is what I have to say about that. It may seem full of hyperbole and such, but all I am trying to do is trying to convey what it is in my mind in the best way possible.

 

[cluxdeluxe]

p

 

[Typographenia]

There is a lot of photoshop potential in this one.

There's really only one right answer:

 

[Dr.Acula]

 

[RetroMG]

I actually really liked this one when I first saw it, and thought it was about the founding fathers' concern over the plight of the common everyman in the US.

Then I saw that Obama was standing on the constitution and thought, "Oh, well, so much for that."

I also think it's funny that Clinton is applauding, and I have no idea what W is supposed to be doing. I think he's telling JFK to kick Adams while he's bent over.

 

[Staccat0]

you know, there was a time that i would think stuff like this was funny. now it's cruel and pointless. some people who make "bad art" really like their art and put a lot of time, effort, and themselves into creating it. i applaud anyone with the courage to produce art and put it out into the world for people to see.

This is where I'm at. You work with enough bad artists and you come to respect them in a different way. Not everyone gets to be good at the thing they love to do.

 

[demon]

Then why don't you?

Do it, then. You could be rich and famous tomorrow!

hurr hurrr you sure got him there. Or maybe it's because he doesn't like it to start off with? Because he didn't choose art as a career path? Because creating such art still takes effort and time and tools that he isn't familiar with or doesn't want to bother with? Because not everyone who lays a turd on a canvas or pedestal does get rich or famous? I have little appreciation or respect for art that involves little to no artistry, skill, or any display of developed talent. It's lazy, uninteresting and has less value than art produced with care and skill by an artist who has practiced and developed his talent beyond layman abilities. That said I'm not necessarily referring to as much art as some might think (I appreciate some abstract expressionism for example). There is a lot of horse shit art out there though. Probaby literally, too.

Makes me think of the "artwork" produced by animals and passed off as done by an artist, lauded by art critics, only to be revealed as having been done by a fucking elephant or something. Fuckin hilarious.

 

[ianp622]

What I'm arguing, though, is a way of looking at art beyond the realm of personal taste and like/dislike. What I'm saying is that if I can watch something, not necessarily "like" it, but identify that it is good or great art, then such is attainable by others, as well. Last Year at Marienbad, for example, is a film that bores the shit out of me, but it's clearly a great work of art for a number of manifest and explicable reasons. Pollock, meanwhile, is somebody whose work I like as a diversion once in a while but whose art is clearly not good; there's a reason why people who aren't versed in all the obfuscating explication surrounding the extreme versions of AbEx art look at something like a Pollock painting and scoff at the art world more generally for buying into such. Taking my argument and going, "Well, it's just not your taste" really says nothing as to the quality of my argument or to the merits of the piece in question.

I agree that one can say something is good or not beyond personal taste. You are not doing that however - you are pigeonholing art into good or bad based on your personal definition of it, which I think is unreasonably restrictive. I don't think the question of "What is art?" is a particularly interesting one - almost anything applies. The question of "What is good art?" is, however. Different styles have different guidelines. Representational art uniquely has narrative, technical skill, and a demonstration of observational ability. Abstract art is basically everything that makes a good representational painting, minus those three - composition, movement, line quality, color, depth, and a qualia.

We are attacking the quality of your argument through your definition of good art, not your personal taste. We both understand that your conception of "good art" and your personal taste are not identical.

As for your latter questions: I state that because I live in a time when we have access to pretty much the entire history of art. Between libraries, electronic databases, Netflix, the internet, etc. we have almost the entire history of the art world at our fingertips, and through this, one can begin to see that there are REASONS why certain works last, reasons why something does or does not work. Yes, there is always that sense of the ineffable in any great work of art, but that's there in addition to probably dozens of other considerations that should also work. I'm not saying that there are rules of art, BUT there are some works of art that are clearly objectively better than others. It would be literally impossible to correctly argue Michael Bay as a better director than Stanley Kubrick, no matter how much one might like the flash and excitement of Bay more than the cold reflection of a Kubrick.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I think that it's high time artists stop hiding behind nebulous concepts like intuition and emotion and apply more rigor to their field, understand how and why it works. I'm tired of reading the BS cultural studies analyses that come out of college English departments, analyses of art that try to circle around some nebulous idea without actually invoking the tools or ideas that actually comprise the art itself.

There will always be artists that spout bullshit about their art, and I think the majority of artists these days do. However, a skilled abstract artist understands how art works more than most - they have stripped away everything in art besides the art itself.

At this point, the quality of an artwork is ill-served by words. In fact, trying to describe the emotional power of a piece is futile because language isn't powerful enough. One can, however, state what makes art good, but this is really referencing previous knowledge that a person might have. You can't convince someone that something is good art if he or she doesn't know what "composition" is. Really, the only people I actually trust to talk about art are artists themselves.

I have little appreciation or respect for art that involves little to no artistry, skill, or any display of developed talent. It's lazy, uninteresting and has less value than art produced with care and skill by an artist who has practiced and developed his talent beyond layman abilities. That said I'm not necessarily referring to as much art as some might think (I appreciate some abstract expressionism for example). There is a lot of horse shit art out there though. Probaby literally, too.

Makes me think of the "artwork" produced by animals and passed off as done by an artist, lauded by art critics, only to be revealed as having been done by a fucking elephant or something. Fuckin hilarious.

It's not always laziness - and someone knowledgeable can tell the difference between someone who made a choice to express their thoughts in an unstructured way rather than through traditional methods and someone who just started doing abstract art because it was easy. It may be uninteresting to you, and have less value to you. But just because you see chaos does not mean the artist got their without a lot of hard work and studying.

 

[sixteen-bit]