Simviation Forums

I'm no expert on art although, I do like the odd turner painting, but is this stuff what passes for art.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38212014

Cheers
Rich

If it is I'm going to clear out my basement and make a fortune!

Whatever "stuff" those Judges are on, I want some of it, to deaden the pain in my aching Winter bones...

I despair!.... ....!
Some folks want locking-up!... ....!

For "Art", give me Michelangelo any day of the week!.... ...!

Paul.

I was an Artist for most of my life.If that is Art,
I am a telephone pole with nobs on.
What a load of wah hoo.

Anthin....

Actually I didn't think that was too bad -- at least it is creating things from objects.
If you want to see talentless nonsence parading as art - google 'tracy emin' -

I think just because you "don't get it" or don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.

At least there isn't any of the "I could have done that" comments so far, that you hear so often.

Fact is, you didn't take the time, didn't make the effort to do it. The artist did. That's why they're artists and we're not.

I remember an eastern European fellow who couldn't understand why Americans painted pin-up gals on war birds, was over his head, couldn't grasp the concept.

Just because you grouped several dissociated objects together and proclaim it "Art" doesn't necessarily make it so. Here's a good explanation of my meaning...

Art Is Form and Content.
At it's most basic level, art is form and content. Let's break down the two terms:

Form means:
The elements of art,
the principles of design and
the actual, physical materials that the artist has used.

Form, in this context, is concrete and fairly easily described -- no matter which piece of art is under scrutiny.

Suppose you've written: "One half of all art is form. Here is how Goya's The Shootings of May Third, 1808 fits in." You would then go on to provide details about how Goya used color, value, space and line (elements of art). He used balance, contrast, emphasis and proportion (principles of design). He composed the aforementioned elements and principles on canvas, using brushes and oil paints (the physical materials).

The example just given employed a work of Western art, and was written in English. It doesn't take much of a leap in imagination, though, to understand that the concepts behind "form" could be applied to any piece of art, created anywhere on earth, at any time, using any language. With that, we have successfully covered "form."

Content, now, gets a little more tricky. Content is idea-based and means:
What the artist meant to portray,
what the artist actually did portray and
how we react, as individuals, to both the intended and actual messages.

Additionally, content includes ways in which a work was influenced--by religion, or politics, or society in general, or even the artist's use of hallucinogenic substances--at the time it was created. All of these factors, together, make up the content side of art.

Returning to the Goya example, you might comment on the fact that the shootings were an actual event. Napoleon had invaded Spain, at the time, and subjected it to six years of war and revolution (political and social influences). There had been a revolt by citizens of Madrid, and they were summarily executed (historical context). Goya, obviously, didn't think this was good and recorded the stark horror for all posterity. (He was successful at conveying that which he meant to convey.) We react to the painting in our different ways--usually with mixed feeling of revulsion, anger and sorrow.

Again, we are discussing content using one picture as an example, but the same parameters apply to any piece of art.

The first section of this article is applicable when defining art, with infinite variations, up to and including, "The way my girlfriend puts on her eyeshadow is art."
Just be sure that when you define art, your main argument includes "Art is form and content."

ftldave wrote:I remember an eastern European fellow who couldn't understand why Americans painted pin-up gals on war birds, was over his head, couldn't grasp the concept.

That's an interesting thought really. Why do we or perhaps I should say did we paint beautiful women on the sides of "Birds of Death"? I can understand shark teeth, dragons or other predators or birds of prey but why hotties? Or even cartoon characters for that matter? Hmm...

Hawkeye07 wrote:

ftldave wrote:I remember an eastern European fellow who couldn't understand why Americans painted pin-up gals on war birds, was over his head, couldn't grasp the concept.

That's an interesting thought really. Why do we or perhaps I should say did we paint beautiful women on the sides of "Birds of Death"? I can understand shark teeth, dragons or other predators or birds of prey but why hotties? Or even cartoon characters for that matter? Hmm...

The "Femme Fatale" sindrome is very occidental, not from eastern Europe at all I understand very well painting them on fighters & bombers, after living with certain female companions... in War & in Love, same rules apply makes you appreciate life to the full (when you survive it).

ftldave wrote:Fact is, you didn't take the time, didn't make the effort to do it. The artist did. That's why they're artists and we're not.

Very very strange: I have lived & survived on a couple of ocassions as a painter, taking all my time & not much of an effort, because I was born drawing: for me, it's a natural thing that everybody can do. NEVER did I consider myself an "artist" (those are for theater, movies & videos) but as a PAiNTER, since I use drawing & painting materials to obtain an image. This drawing I made (on a school block & common cheap pencil) after watching the struggle for survival of a worn out shrimp boat, running paralel to Zicatela beach, from the main beach of Puerto Escondido to the Point (less than 2 miles), back & forth. The captain had to calculate how much time for the engine to rest after overheating, and restart before being a wreckage under the 12 foot waves paunding the shoreline (no surfers on those days: they are crazy but not suiccidal). AND AFTER 3 DAYS & NiGHTS, HE DiD iT!! We applauded from the bar (aptly named "The Crows Nest") where we were watching, when that shrimp boat took to the Seas again, on a glorious after storm sunset & disappearing with the Sun.



I survived delivering beers on that bar, since I speak 3 languages, and paid my hammack working at nights... People that watched me drawing, bought my sketches and that allowed me to eat & party. I was terminal & just waited not waking up. But I stopped smoking 3 packs of cigarretes a day... & my liver restarted being operational again, like any PC!! Now, I have stopped tobaco for 20 years... & still addicted. (or maybe the doctor was wrong )

The sultry Lauren Bacall!.... ...!

....Its the; "come hither" kink in her eyebrows, that does it for me!... ....

Loving wife of Humpty Gocart!... ...!

Paul...Play it again, Sam... ....!

Fozzer wrote:The sultry Lauren Bacall!.... ...!
....Its the; "come hither" kink in her eyebrows, that does it for me!... ....
Loving wife of Humpty Gocart!... ...!
Paul...Play it again, Sam... ....!

She still makes my heart skip a beat.

I hang out with artists all the time and what I saw in the article is rather facile.

In other words, a lot of crap.

Shadowcaster wrote:I'm no expert on art although, I do like the odd turner painting, but is this stuff what passes for art.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38212014

Cheers
Rich

Thanks, Rich.

I don't know how to describe "good art", but now I know how to describe bad, pointless, art.


Lets take the point that art is art, just because someone went through the effort to do.... Well, do something.

You then have to extend that all fields. Like the thug who does "surgery" on someone who didn't give him their wallet fast enough.

We shouldn't judge his surgical abilities because we haven't gone through the effort to cut someone open?

It's all too common for some artists to think that their "art" has great value in this world, because they put a lot of emotion into it. I emote, therefore I am, so to speak. They show off their angst as proof of their value.

If you think that her "work" has value, help her by buying, or commissioning, some of it. Words of praise are cheap.


Personally, I think that Pyotr Pavlensky showed more talent in Red Square. Now THERE is an artist worthy of the name.

"The performance can be seen as a metaphor for the apathy, political indifference and fatalism of contemporary Russian society," Pavlensky said in a statement.

Oh well, we each have our like and dislikes. Room for everyone.

Thanks for the replies chaps, it's an interesting debate to be sure.

Jean that is an excellent drawing, to me it does portray the situation perfectly.

Cheers
Rich