When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

[arildno]

http://www.evogallery.org/?table=Artist&do=thumbs&id=22

Is this art? I think not.

This is precisely the type of worthless crap that passes for art these days.
Read any art review of this, and the "artist" will be lauded for his ability to combine several traditions and poking fun at some earlier predecessors.
Or some equally nonsensical review.

 

[arildno]

Take, for example, al ook at the following idiot review of a "sculpture" the same artist made:
http://www.haberarts.com/serra.htm

 

[wolram]

Take, for example, al ook at the following idiot review of a "sculpture" the same artist made:
http://www.haberarts.com/serra.htm

That guy is king of the Dick Heads.

 

[wolram]

Aww, please Fi, if this is art i should sell my garage wall, it has some great
patterns all done in oils

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Sorry I deleted my message. I felt bad about commenting not quite raptuously on someone's work because it is subjective. I still think it could look good in your dream home, Wolram.

 

[wolram]

Sorry I deleted my message. I felt bad about commenting not quite raptuously on someone's work because it is subjective. I still think it could look good in your dream home, Wolram.

I was thinking of asking you to do the decor, can you do rustic?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Did I use the term incorrectly?

Not that I'm aware of.

The reason I asked is that the word "concept" can be used to cover such a broad field that I'm left not knowing what specific sorts of things you feel are better explored abstractly.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I was thinking of asking you to do the decor, can you do rustic?

Rustic is my favourite. My Grandfather (artist/wood-turner/stone-mason/sculptor) built his house with a stone chimeny, exposed beams, lovely!
The walls were covered with his paintings, some suited to the house, but mostly of naked women which was a little incongruous. If I were doing your decor I wouldn't recommend quite so many naked women.
As for your garage door, Deauchamp's Ready Mades have already been done, but that this has been added to in a way that traces the years of grime and passion, not unlike Pollock's tracing of his trancelike state of creation, it should be critically recieved.

 

[wolram]

I yearn for a rustic cottage, and i not mad on nudes, they are ok in a gallery
but not in my dream home, i picture solid ageless and comfy rooms, the art
would have to fit in with that.

 

[honestrosewater]

You guys (wolram, arildno, et al) should like the chairman of the Art Renewal Center, Fred Ross - these two rants, er, articles especially : http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/A_Hoving_Eye/hoving1.asp

The scientists here should understand the pressure to produce something original and useful that helps their field progress. The same pressure is there for many artists. I don't think you should curb your criticism, but I think you should at least acknowledge that it's not necessarily a scheme or lack of effort on the artist's part; They could just be trying to do something new.

I read a great article about an artist's struggle to produce original work; I think artists are alone in this process and responsible for the result in a way that scientists are not. I can't find the article now, but Hemingway touches on this in his Nobel acceptance speech:

How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.
- http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1954/hemingway-speech.html

 

[wolram]

I loved the Fred Ross article, he is certainly a man who can pick out the
fraudsters, I do not know much about art, only that one needs passion to
create a beautiful image and that passion needs inspiration, i think an artist
should not think that he/she can produce to order, so good artists will all ways
be poor.

 

[hypnagogue]

I honestly don't understand arguments about art like this one. It seems clear to me that there is no fact of the matter about what is good art and what is bad art-- the aesthetic experience is created in the mind of each individual experiencer. There is no ultimate authority to which we can appeal to say definitively that this is good, and that is bad (unlike in the sciences, where we can appeal to nature itself as the ultimate authority).

So ultimately we can only offer individual opinions and leave it at that; it seems there is no sense in trying to persuade someone to change their views about what constitutes good art. If one actually does persuade another to change their views, all one has done is to bring another's subjective evaluation of art more in line with one's own, which itself is rather arbitrary. Certainly such a persuasion does not amount to bringing one closer to (or farther from) any sort of objective truth.

 

[arildno]

I honestly don't understand arguments about art like this one. It seems clear to me that there is no fact of the matter about what is good art and what is bad art-- the aesthetic experience is created in the mind of each individual experiencer. There is no ultimate authority to which we can appeal to say definitively that this is good, and that is bad (unlike in the sciences, where we can appeal to nature itself as the ultimate authority).

So ultimately we can only offer individual opinions and leave it at that; it seems there is no sense in trying to persuade someone to change their views about what constitutes good art. If one actually does persuade another to change their views, all one has done is to bring another's subjective evaluation of art more in line with one's own, which itself is rather arbitrary. Certainly such a persuasion does not amount to bringing one closer to (or farther from) any sort of objective truth.

Sure, and these are often arguments given by the art clique in defense of what most would regard as the sheerest nonsense.
However, the very same persons regard themselves to know "better" than the average person; in particular, they regard their own derision of popular cultural expressions as well-founded.

PS :
I do not think you suffer from this double-thinking hypnagogue.

 

[wolram]

Sure, and these are often arguments given by the art clique in defense of what most would regard as the sheerest nonsense.
However, the very same persons regard themselves to know "better" than the average person; in particular, they regard their own derision of popular cultural expressions as well-founded.

PS :
I do not think you suffer from this double-thinking hypnagogue.

Yes some plonker could stand a wreaked car on its boot, trunk and call it art
do we have to believe him/her, i think deep down every one knows this stuff
is rubbish.

 

[arildno]

Yes some plonker could stand a wreaked car on its boot, trunk and call it art
do we have to believe him/her, i think deep down every one knows this stuff
is rubbish.

Agreed.
However, a person who can say lots of interesting stuff about a wreaked car can be said to have the potential of becoming a comedian, at least..

 

[honestrosewater]

I think arguments about what the goals of an artist, or art in general, should be (note the should) can only be based on personal opinion, but I don't think such arguments are pointless. Changing the way a person views art can make their experience more (or less) enjoyable, richer, etc.

But once the goals are set, an argument over whether an artist has achieved their goals can be decided by logic and evidence. Assuming that an artist who offers their work to the public actually wants the public to accept and consume it, i.e., look at it, listen to it, read it, maybe even appreciate or pay for it, the art rejected here is 'bad', in the sense that it hasn't served its purpose. Granted, this may not be the goal of every artist, but assuming that they want their work to be consumed by the most people possible, I don't think smearing excrement on canvas is the way to go.

Er, actually, now that I think of it, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity in the short-term. I'm not sure that this is a successful strategy in the long run though.

 

[wolram]

I have had a look on the net, to me some of the best i could find were
sci fi artists, now some one is going to say how ignorant i am, but they
look skillfully done to me.

 

[arildno]

I think arguments about what the goals of an artist, or art in general, should be (note the should) can only be based on personal opinion, but I don't think such arguments are pointless. Changing the way a person views art can make their experience more (or less) enjoyable, richer, etc.

But once the goals are set, an argument over whether an artist has achieved their goals can be decided by logic and evidence. Assuming that an artist who offers their work to the public actually wants the public to accept and consume it, i.e., look at it, listen to it, read it, maybe even appreciate or pay for it, the art rejected here is 'bad', in the sense that it hasn't served its purpose. Granted, this may not be the goal of every artist, but assuming that they want their work to be consumed by the most people possible, I don't think smearing excrement on canvas is the way to go.

Good points.

What I would like to add, is the particular quality that truly great artists have:
The ability to produce a work of art that has almost UNIVERSAL appeal, yet that you always can return to, and be enriched by (it conveys some deep truths, if you like).

What I've wanted to focus on, is that this universality of appeal should be regarded as a REQUIREMENT for what constitutes great art.
In particular, an individual who knows nothing of art is to have a (preferably great) aesthetic experience when encountering the art work.
It must not be needed for him to have read many art books; the art work must have the strength to speak to him on its own, not by its myriad of contained references to earlier works the viewer is unacquainted with, but which the artist have been informed by in his creation.

But nowadays, the appreciation of art has become something of an elitist activity; most of us are unable to find any sort of aesthetic enjoyments from the so-called art works.
We're told tthat this is because you must devote your life to study art in order to appreciate how great it truly is.
I would rather say that this lack of general appeal is indicative of the work's mediocrity/worthlessness.

I don't mean to say that IF you study a great artwork, you won't be able to find out lots of interesting stuff that a cursory glance can't give you, but you don't make crap into art by over-studying it, either..

 

[hypnagogue]

My own view is that a lot of modern art is garbage. I'm not impressed by someone's act of throwing paint around haphazardly on a canvas, or by blowing up 1950s style comic book art to giant proportions, etc. (The worst I've seen was a piece called "Presence," and it was literally just a canvas that had been 'painted' a uniform white.) Still, if other people get kicks out of these things, I don't begrudge them that, or think that they're deluded or misguided or whatever. More power to them.

I read the "Bad Art/Good Art" article by Ross, and I'm sympathetic with his concern to fight against the modernist movement, if all the things he says about it are true. However, Ross seems to hold that good art is only more or less photorealistic art, judging by his writing and the picture examples he adorns the article with. I'm not really a fan of Picasso, but I do find aesthetic value in some works by Matisse and Cezanne. I'm left to wonder what Ross thinks of a painter like Van Gogh, who is one of my favorites, but whose work resembles Cezanne and Matisse more than it does Waterhouse and Bouguereau. Basically, the fringes of abstract/modern art are mostly worthless to me, but at least in my own case, I find that surreal art can sometimes be more attractive than highly realistic pieces.

 

[arildno]

However, Ross seems to hold that good art is only more or less photorealistic art, judging by his writing and the picture examples he adorns the article with.

I agree; this is utter nonsense!
Designs, as Evo have put it, certainly can qualify as art; after all the adornments, lines and colours and patterns used within architecture throughout the ages are more often abstract or not.
Just transferring abstract design onto a new medium, the canvas, does not as such dequalify it from being art, IMO.

 

[wolram]

I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.

 

[honestrosewater]

I agree; this is utter nonsense!
Designs, as Evo have put it, certainly can qualify as art; after all the adornments, lines and colours and patterns used within architecture throughout the ages are more often abstract or not.
Just transferring abstract design onto a new medium, the canvas, does not as such dequalify it from being art, IMO.

I happen to love sketches, sometimes more than the finished piece. They have a thought-in-action kind of quality. Though I think they would look out of place framed on a wall. Part of their appeal for me is that they are 'unfinished'.

 

[wolram]

I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.

May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job.

 

[honestrosewater]

May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job.

The same has been said of writers:

"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
- Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)

[and here's more]

"Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers."
- T. S. Eliot (1888-1965)

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

- http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/quotes.html

He has a great collection.

Your images are still awaiting approval.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached...

Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,

The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.

 

[honestrosewater]

Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,

I was going to bring this up eventually if no one else did - seriously. There is new technology, new life forms or natural phenomena or such being discovered, new jobs, new cities, new philosophies and paradigms. The individual arts also feed each other in more seemingly mundane but potentially useful ways: new clothing fashions for portraits, new architecture for streetscapes, new dishware for still lifes, and so on.

The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.

Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone.

 

[Evo]

I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.

I agree....

 

[cronxeh]

http://carboninside.com/55186809_l.gif

 

[wolram]

By Rose Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone.

The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.

 

[wolram]

I agree....

Wey hey, we will soon have an army

 

[honestrosewater]

The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.

Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.

 

[wolram]

Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.

I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster Do i detect
some wee wee takeing I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world

 

[honestrosewater]

I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster Do i detect
some wee wee takeing I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world

Gordon Bennett, what the ecky thump is wee wee takeing?!?

 

[arildno]

I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.

arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.

I think artists should worry less about getting their work original, than endeavouring it to be authentic.
The one who tries to be original must always refer to, and distance himself from what has gone before, i.e, his works will basically be limited to being comments on, or breaks with earlier artistic traditions.

Trying to make your art authentic however, by not feeling satisfied until you feel some strong form of connection or identification with your own work, that it becomes an expression of your individuality is the way to go, in my opinion.
Besides, since we're all unique individuals, originality in the work will be an effect of the search for authenticity.

Take a look at the following photograph called "Embrace" by Robert Mapplethorpe (it's one of my favourites, along with the self portrait I linked to earlier):
http://www.iol.ie/~webfoto/maple2j.htm
Although in many ways a "classic" embrace, it is not derivative because it has a ring of authenticity and passion in it.
It doesn't matter how many earlier works of art it is reminiscent of (and an art historian could probably come up with dozens of such references); it has the strength to speak to the viewer on its own.

While the motif is evidently "gay", and hence will speak to gays somewhat differently than to straights, I wouldn't think that straights are barred from deriving some aesthetic experience from it.

It seems to me also original the way light and darkness are used here.

As for analyzing it:
Is it a home-coming? A farewell?
Or is it simply two strangers who accidentally met, and connects for a brief moment of intimacy?

Does it really matter, in the end, what we end up thinking about it?

As far as I see, it is art because it first and foremost is visually striking, not because it contains some sort of coded message the viewer must decipher.