PDA

View Full Version : Do you consider yourself an artist?



Pages : [1] 2

starbase1
04-30-2007, 11:32 AM
Poll! Do you consider yourself an artist?

Lightwolf
04-30-2007, 11:37 AM
No way, not even close.
Then again, I only consider a hand full of people that I know as being artists, I'm picky though ;)

Cheers,
Mike

TSpyrison
04-30-2007, 11:40 AM
How about "Artist Wannabe"

I don't consider myself skilled enough to call myself an artist

Ztreem
04-30-2007, 11:49 AM
I'm a designer, where the heck is the designer option? :D

Tzan
04-30-2007, 11:50 AM
Yes
An apple for the poster:
http://home.comcast.net/~davidaburke/images/Apple.jpg

omeone
04-30-2007, 11:50 AM
All artists are quite useless
hmmm... I must be getting closer than I thought then ;)

colkai
04-30-2007, 12:38 PM
Me no artist, me just do stuff. :)

Elmar Moelzer
04-30-2007, 01:00 PM
nope, I am a craftsman that is skilled at reproducing existing and non existing items in 2d and 3d graphics software.
I am lacking the inspiration and the unresistable force to bring my ideas into a medium (paper, film, video, linnen canvas, clay) that a real artist has.
So I end up using my skills for doing viz and motion graphics and every now and then, when I feel really, really inspired I change the intensities of the lighting- setup that I have been using for the past 50 projects or so ;)
CU
Elmar

starbase1
04-30-2007, 01:20 PM
For the record, I answered 'sometimes'...

Most of what I do I am happier to call graphics, certainly if you look at it by numbers, a lot of it does not take much effort. Which is not to says it's not pretty, or heavily used for CD covers...

But there are maybe three or four images a year I produce that I really am proud of, that are in some way emotional for me, and them i am happy to count. (They are mainly of astronomical subjects. They are also VERY hard work! I tend to apply 'its too easy to be art' to myself as well as others!)

Nick

Wonderpup
04-30-2007, 01:40 PM
I voted yes. I would define an artist as anyone who pulls meaning out of nothing.

I know people who have no desire whatsoever to 'make' anything- they are genuinely happy to be consumers of other peoples ideas, imaginations and creations. I'm the opposite- for me creation is a compulsion- the room I'm sitting in now is full to bursting with paintings, writings, CG software, sculpy- anything that can be used to 'make' something- it's a disease!

There is one other deceptive type, those who want to be seen as 'Artists' because they love the idea of being an artist- they don't want to actualy create anything, they just want to be an artist. I knew a guy who spent a fortune on art materials- canvas, paint, easels sketchbooks- his studio looked like a windsor and newton photo shoot. But- he never actualy painted any pictures- things just kept getting in the way, the time was never right. For him it was enough to have the props to hand- why spoil all that lovely potiential by actually doing something?

SplineGod
04-30-2007, 03:01 PM
Im whatever my employer pays me to be ;)

shrox
04-30-2007, 03:11 PM
Yes, I am. My only jobs (other than delivering pizza) have been as an artist.

Captain Obvious
04-30-2007, 03:24 PM
Im whatever my employer pays me to be ;)
So you're a prostitute, then? :p

(Just kidding.)

I'd say "sometimes." Mostly, I'm just a craftsman.

RedBull
04-30-2007, 03:46 PM
So you're a prostitute, then? :p


Anyone who does something they don't like for something they do, in my opinion is exactly that......

No wonder it's worlds oldest professional, it's the worlds only profession, we are all effectively prostitutes or working class whores.

So in answer the question, Yes I'm a high class hooker, err, umm, Artist!!!!! (All working girls are calling themselves artists these days) :)

Intuition
04-30-2007, 03:47 PM
I'm a designer, where the heck is the designer option? :D

I consider my 3d skill set along the lines of the Design ethics of thought.

I do have traditional art skills (spoken with my very bad napolean dynamite impersonation) but I think if 3d more as design.

It has elements of color and shape that apply more to the design mindset then the art mindset in my own opinion. Yet that would also depend on how you approach your output. There are renders I've seen that I would definitely put in the "Art" catagory.

Weepul
04-30-2007, 03:56 PM
I'm an artist, but rarely with my 3D work - with that I'm most frequently an artisan. My artwork is mostly photography. I ought to change that, and do more artwork with 3D graphics as the medium...

Stooch
04-30-2007, 08:36 PM
I am a fartist.

Mr Maze
04-30-2007, 08:59 PM
One of my friends likes to say, "I'm like a monkey with a laser. I just push buttons until something happens I like."

I voted yes, but if we wanted to quibble I think that the majority of us are Creatives - people who know how to use the creative part of their thought process to solve problems. I wish that most of the problems I have to solve would be visual, though...

Although I do like Stooch's answer.

Silkrooster
04-30-2007, 10:05 PM
I put sometimes. As i believe that the people who see your work are the ones who will say wow how did you do that? or what on earth is that suppose to be? lol.
I am my own worst critique, therefore I am always trying to improve my skills. I also know that I wish that I could one day possess 1/2 of the talent I find on this forum.
Silk

jameswillmott
05-01-2007, 12:32 AM
Artist!!!!! (All working girls are calling themselves artists these days) :)

Artist looks better on a resume. :)

DogBoy
05-01-2007, 01:24 AM
Designer. Illustrator. Never been an artist (unless you count p*ss artist ;) )

starbase1
05-01-2007, 04:10 AM
I'm a designer, where the heck is the designer option? :D

Actually that was deliberate - I figured once you started classifying it would end up with all sorts of stuff - e.g. illustrator, graphic artist, fine artist, viryual sculptor. whatever.

I take it you chose the 'quible' option???
:D

Ztreem
05-01-2007, 04:21 AM
I see my self as a designer and artist so I voted for 'I'm an artist', I have both design and fine art training and I have a big urge to create things of my own. :)

Lew
05-01-2007, 06:07 AM
I said sometimes because sometimes when on a project something comes to me that is beyond the scope of what was contracted for, and I just go ahead and add that extra whatever it is. At those times, I at least feel artistic.

bobakabob
05-01-2007, 06:27 AM
http://www.carryonline.com/carryonline/images/castandcrew/portrait-williams.JPG

Great poll.

Anyone remember Kenneth Williams in his photographer sketch with Tony Hancock? "Snaps? SNAPS? I PAINT WITH LIGHT!" :D

If you're freely expressing yourself through your art, either pressing buttons, pushing a graphite pencil or slapping paint on canvas you're an artist.

If someone's paying you to do their bidding you're more likely an artisan. Not that one's necessarily any better than the other.

However many artisans balancing work with expression such as Michaelangelo are now considered artists. Just to confuse matters ;)

mattclary
05-01-2007, 07:12 AM
Im whatever my employer pays me to be ;)

Agreed. "Catholic schoolgirl? Roger that. Just leave the cash on the nightstand." ;)

jasonwestmas
05-01-2007, 08:14 AM
I'm an artist when I create from my heart, otherwise I'm a laborer.

3dworks
05-01-2007, 08:19 AM
definitely not. i consider myself as a media artisan - an artist for me is more someone radically devoting his existence to art. all the others are probably wannabe artists (or hobby artists)... but of course it's always very difficult to define what art is and an artist would be.

markus

Skinner3D
05-01-2007, 08:40 AM
I voted no, but just for grins I typed 'definition artist' into google and here are the results. Somehow I think the third one down describes all of us.:D ;D

# a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Artist is a subjective term which describes a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, their endeavors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist

# A practicing fine artist who is not necessarily a resident of the Kansas City metro area. Generally recognized by critics and peers as a professional of serious intent and ability .The artist may not be a member of the project architectural firm.
www.bluespringsgov.com/Default%20Page%20Links/Art%20Commission/art_commission_definitions.htm

# refers to a person who creates one of a kind objects that communicate information concerning the creator and the context.
www.kuce.org/isc/previews/vae530INT/concepts.html

# "Artist" means a practitioner in the arts, generally recognized as a professional by critics and peers, who produces works of art and who is not the architect or an employee of the architectural firm retained by the contracting agency. [1989, c. 912, §2 (amd).]
janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/27/title27sec452.html

# Performer or performing group.
www.cd.gov.ab.ca/artsbranch/touring/glossary/index.asp

# As a dream symbol, an artist is a character who creates or builds the new. Seen as a very creative influence, artists are often spiritual in nature and can bring profound messages in dream form. The type of art being created, the medium used, colors, shapes, etc., all provide insight into the nature of the new world being built.
www.katiestanley.com/resources/dd/a.htm

# Person who created an original artwork and the person empowered to control copies of the original artwork.
www.studioof5rings.com/GalleryTermsandFees.htm

jasond
05-01-2007, 10:22 AM
"Artist" is a loaded term. I went to traditional art school and slopped around real media for a long time. After 5 years of art college and 10 years of professional design (most of that self-employed) I don't know what "artist" means anymore.

What's the ideal in the premise of that label? Is it entirely subjective? Where do motivations fit in? How much creative autonomy does one enjoy to be an "artist?" In a society so absolutely saturated with both talent and financing (neither of which were so abundant in bygone eras) has the concept of "art" or "artist" really retained any value?

For my college jobs I was night security in a couple of museums. Sometimes I thought there was more art in the verbose, rambling justifications of the work than the work itself.

Wonderpup
05-01-2007, 10:39 AM
Sometimes I thought there was more art in the verbose, rambling justifications of the work than the work itself.

That's as perfect a critique as I've ever seen. The reality is that most modern art needs to propped up with ******** because it simply cannot stand on it's own merit. When I see the work of Da Vinci and Michalangelo I don't need words to understand what I'm looking at- I can see it.

Matt
05-01-2007, 11:26 AM
I am indeed an artist, because I am artistic. I'm also a designer, because I design things. To top it all off, I am a great bloke too!

So modest! ;)

warrenwc
05-01-2007, 11:27 AM
I aspire to be an artist, but it seems a lot of people who define themselves as "Artist" are not role models for me.
I do what I love, when I can.:D

bobakabob
05-01-2007, 12:07 PM
"Artist" is a loaded term. I went to traditional art school and slopped around real media for a long time. After 5 years of art college and 10 years of professional design (most of that self-employed) I don't know what "artist" means anymore.

What's the ideal in the premise of that label? Is it entirely subjective? Where do motivations fit in? How much creative autonomy does one enjoy to be an "artist?" In a society so absolutely saturated with both talent and financing (neither of which were so abundant in bygone eras) has the concept of "art" or "artist" really retained any value?

For my college jobs I was night security in a couple of museums. Sometimes I thought there was more art in the verbose, rambling justifications of the work than the work itself.

Yep, have you read "The Critic as Artist" - a funny ironic essay by Oscar Wilde. The premise is that critics are more creative than the actual creators..!

Is the job of an art critic to 'enlighten' - or spin fanciful impressive sounding theories using academic jargon?

IMO Critics have their place and everyone is entitled to have a view. But when I was at uni most of them couldn't draw for toffee :D

jasond
05-01-2007, 12:27 PM
Yep, have you read "The Critic as Artist" - a funny ironic essay by Oscar Wilde. The premise is that critics are more creative than the actual creators..!

Is the job of an art critic to 'enlighten' - or spin fanciful impressive sounding theories using academic jargon?

IMO Critics have their place and everyone is entitled to have a view. But when I was at uni most of them couldn't draw for toffee :D

No, I missed that one, I'll check it out. Probably another existing work with all my original ideas in it already... :)

I "loved" how they tell the viewer that the work is "transcending" something, or that it was having a formulated effect on the viewer. They must be up long nights twisting their bowels about for those assertions.

This isn't to trash all abstract work. Some I really enjoy, but for the most part spare me the copywriter in the curator office.

Actually, I should work on getting that job. That'd probably solve a lot of professional frustrations.

parm
05-01-2007, 04:32 PM
"artist?" In a society so absolutely saturated with both talent and financing (neither of which were so abundant in bygone eras) has the concept of "art" or "artist" really retained any value?

Yeah. With the shortage of money and talent in bygone eras. Makes you wonder how they managed to build so many grand Cathedrals. And furnish them with all that intricate decoration, sculpture and astounding stained glass. Not to mention all the rich palaces, castles, chateaux and Villas. It's quite amazing, that there is enough jewelery, glassware, earthenware, paintings and sculpture from bygone eras, to fill countless museums across the world. Haven't even touched the Music and literature from bygone eras yet.

How far bygone would you like to go?

animotion
05-01-2007, 09:14 PM
I wish I could DRAW a better paycheck! :D

jasond
05-01-2007, 10:35 PM
Yeah. With the shortage of money and talent in bygone eras. Makes you wonder how they managed to build so many grand Cathedrals. And furnish them with all that intricate decoration, sculpture and astounding stained glass. Not to mention all the rich palaces, castles, chateaux and Villas. It's quite amazing, that there is enough jewelery, glassware, earthenware, paintings and sculpture from bygone eras, to fill countless museums across the world. Haven't even touched the Music and literature from bygone eras yet.

How far bygone would you like to go?

I can't imagine, though, that anyone would seriously equate the volume of creative work post WWII with anything before. Population, capitalist markets, global corporations, etc. are historically unprecedented and are driving simply astounding volumes of creative output. I only questioned whether the concept of "art" or "artist" retains any of the old value in this environment of creative over abundance. I did not denigrate the creative efforts of the previous eras.

parm
05-02-2007, 02:19 AM
I can't imagine, though, that anyone would seriously equate the volume of creative work post WWII with anything before. Population, capitalist markets, global corporations, etc. are historically unprecedented

That's true. The human population of the world has increased beyond recognition. It's what, doubled in the past 40 years or so? Consequently, the quantity of everything generated by human activity is unprecedented.


and are driving simply astounding volumes of creative output.

And yet, the volume of genuinely surprising output. Work that is original and insightful, remains proportionally rather small.


I did not denigrate the creative efforts of the previous eras.

I know you're not denigrating the creative efforts from previous eras. But you do seem to be somewhat dismissive of the contribution that artists from our own. And immediately preceding eras have made.


I only questioned whether the concept of "art" or "artist" retains any of the old value in this environment of creative over abundance.

That would depend on what kind of art and what kind of artist you are talking about.

meshpig
05-02-2007, 03:16 AM
It's a stupid question really.

-Art and Artists belong to the 19C. where the Art market was borne out of non -Inflationary economies.

I'm happy to be an Artisan: skilled in my trade, happy to get manual. Not too networked into the institutional environment.

M

starbase1
05-02-2007, 10:57 AM
It's a stupid question really.

M

Then don't waste time replying...

Stooch
05-02-2007, 03:26 PM
Yeah so im starting a new movement, fartism and im a fartisan. or a fartiste. mmm fartiste, has quite a ring to it...

Sande
05-02-2007, 03:46 PM
Im whatever my employer pays me to be ;)
Hah, couldn't have said it better. :)
I'm quite fond of red wine and known for my boheme lifestyle, so maybe I got hope... (hope for being an "artist" someday, I mean.)

PS. Hmmh, my job description says "artist", so I guess I have to be one. Wow. ;)

theo
05-02-2007, 04:16 PM
I am an artist, without question. If I HAD a question about this particular personal status then maybe I wouldn't really be an artist, would I?

t4d
05-02-2007, 07:06 PM
Artist here

an artist is anyone who creates.. well anything. ( Paintings, Furniture, film, sound, anything .. )

value or admiration has nothing to do with art at all.

many Many artist have died and the market saw it's value when they were dead.
Does that mean that were NOT artist when they were alive ?

I don't think so.

art is anything that anyone ( including the artist ) feels something for.

when it comes to $$$ value well that's a totally different subject.

toby
05-02-2007, 11:52 PM
Hell no I'm not an artist!
If I had actually studied art, and/or had the drive to create my own pieces, then I would consider myself one. I can see the talent and experience of what I consider real artists, and I haven't made the effort they have.

I is a production artist, but that has little to do with being an artist, in fact it's the opposite in some ways -

DiedonD
05-03-2007, 02:02 AM
I havent studieed art neither. But since the final outcome from the scraps of free time that I get from using LW, is movies, then I guess I do movies. Call this what you like.

Bog
05-03-2007, 06:36 AM
I think the "sometimes" option's a bit of a cop-out, to be honest. If you ever get the overwhelming urge to create something, when you're got something on your inner eye thaty you have to get out, in whatever medium, then you're an artist. Good at it, bad at it, only get bit by the bug once in your life, then you're an artist.

What you then do with that is entirely up to you. Study it? Develop it on your own? Choice. Not studying it doesn't make you stop being an artist, any more than not studying colour stops you being a redhead. Make a living from it, persue it as a hobby? Choice.

There's a trend these days to over-analyse everything, to wallow in semantics. To split hairs to the point of molecule's thickness. It's also far too easy to take things far too seriously - so for my five cents, I say accept that you're an artist, and concern yourself with enjoying it, and deciding on the direction you want to take it. Sorry, I slipped into homily mode there... :)

tommymamn
05-03-2007, 07:02 AM
Whenever one of my renderings shows up in a newspaper it always says, "an artist's rendering." So...I guess I must be although I can barely draw more than stick figures... :)

theo
05-03-2007, 07:05 AM
There's a trend these days to over-analyse everything, to wallow in semantics. To split hairs to the point of molecule's thickness. It's also far too easy to take things far too seriously - so for my five cents, I say accept that you're an artist, and concern yourself with enjoying it, and deciding on the direction you want to take it. Sorry, I slipped into homily mode there... :)

Interesting.

The internet, in all its wonders, has made folks, by the ten gallon drums, pathologically specific and a bit rigid. Sounds odd, this last sentence (more yoda verbage).

I am very comfortable leaning towards a much looser definition of an artist if said artist ISN'T FARKING UP THE CREATIVE MARKET.

There are different strains of artistic talent that fit fine within different social genres.

For example: grandma artists. Who doesn't know a sweet semi-talented grandma who paints an infinity of dappled brooks and vases overflowing with field flowers.

Another example: children. Who doesn't bear a child and doesn't think at least once at some point in this kid's beginning throes that he/she is a single embodiment of a slew of Impressionist painters.

There are many circumstances where it is ideal to just appreciate a person's choice about what they ARE or WANT to be whether or not it is truly what you honestly believe.

Here's my caveat to the previous gushmess: BUSINESS. If an "artist" is working within the confines of selling his/her services for profit and are engaged in the necessary competitive wrestling match to do so this individual better be qualified at some level because the competitive environments of business, often, will be the vehicle of "artistic" evaluation, shall we say.

DiedonD
05-03-2007, 07:45 AM
Interesting.

The internet, in all its wonders, has made folks, by the ten gallon drums, pathologically specific and a bit rigid. Sounds odd, this last sentence (more yoda verbage).

I am very comfortable leaning towards a much looser definition of an artist if said artist ISN'T FARKING UP THE CREATIVE MARKET.

There are different strains of artistic talent that fit fine within different social genres.

For example: grandma artists. Who doesn't know a sweet semi-talented grandma who paints an infinity of dappled brooks and vases overflowing with field flowers.

Another example: children. Who doesn't bear a child and doesn't think at least once at some point in this kid's beginning throes that he/she is a single embodiment of a slew of Impressionist painters.

There are many circumstances where it is ideal to just appreciate a person's choice about what they ARE or WANT to be whether or not it is truly what you honestly believe.

Here's my caveat to the previous gushmess: BUSINESS. If an "artist" is working within the confines of selling his/her services for profit and are engaged in the necessary competitive wrestling match to do so this individual better be qualified at some level because the competitive environments of business, often, will be the vehicle of "artistic" evaluation, shall we say.

Bussiness I believe is what is the source of the problem in art today. How can bussiness vehicle art! Well I know how, but it shouldnt have. Everyone knows that with the "Payed well" technique any artist can accomplish alot. But you do have these very skillful people that do great artistic bussiness but arent artists, and dont want to be called like artists (I wont mention names, you can step forward if you choose to). So what do you call that? I believe bussiness ruins art by compromising the artists inner most precious choices and ways to create in two ways.

For instance you have dreamed of this rocket with one firegun and shooting flames. It just is THEEEE most perfect idea you can think of about a space vehicle lets say. Theres somthing about the design, that at either viewport you look at, its you all over it. Its perfect. But the money man says thats far too little, and do it with 5 guns and shooting "pratotonic nuclear plasma" instead. If you obbey youve just compromised your true intentions. And thats not the holly direct soul to soul communication with your audience, is it?

Secondly, bussiness compromises that original inner idea of yours by exactly what you say, competition. How on earth can a single rocket with a single fire gun with flames survive the hyped market with laser guns, lightning speed, and god knows what latest imaginable technology. So you try to keep up, and you compromise the inner idea, for the benefit of an indirect one, at the cost of beeing out there, at best, (if you dont remove the whole thing out of the picture) but sacrificing direct communication with the viewer.

So I say, be true regardless of concequences. Thats what we should aim for, whoever much we can.
Now I can understand people saying, a mans gotta eat? So you sell your skills for food and stuff, but it should end there. And not the whole thing beeing looked from the other side, like the whole art bewing ruled by bussiness. Otherwise you have all sort of nonsense like we have today in the media.
What we need is a true uncompromised by bussiness, or by any other factor, kind of art. Art above all. To communicate inner most directly to the massess, at best, or to your nearest people the least. And not bussiness oriented/compromissed. Cause its alot likely it wont be you.
And Id rather have it bad but by me directly, than be wonderfully beutiful, but compromised with who knows how many people by the time it renders. But this is just me, on the other side of the coin from yours.

theo
05-03-2007, 08:06 AM
Bussiness I believe... from yours.

It's all bluster buster. But your bluster, I do concur with (god, I can't stop yodaling), to a certain extent AND extant.

Um, well, the problem, my romantic diedondian, is that as much as we artists like to pontificate and expound on the virtues of staying hopelessly true to the inner human teddy bear, this pays few bills for most lifetimes.

Unless you know Oprah Winfrey or some rising super-starlett or rub shoulders with the Steve Wynn's of the world (software company A.E.'s sugar daddy), chances are you WILL "sell out" to provide for your family and work at a level, sometimes, that will leave you less than fulfilled.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, my friend.

jasonwestmas
05-03-2007, 09:41 AM
PURITY is BANKRUPTCY. It shouldn't be that way but it is in this world. :(

*Pete*
05-03-2007, 10:00 AM
Im an artist, but not a very talented one :)


imho..everybody is an artist, we all can see dreams when we sleep, our imagination can create the most fantastic things...this goes for all mankind.

the only problems arise when we are about to recreate what we see within our mind, as our inner vision is not always easy to show to others.

by closing my eyes, i can see "the david" by michelangelo..wearing womens clothing :D ...i create that vision as fast as i can imagine it.

but unfortunately i lack the technical talent to use the tools available (cant paint, sculpt or modell well enough) to show it to others....but does it make me any less of an artist???....i dont think so, Einstein was considered to be a genious for theories that he only "imagined" to be in a certain way.

today thousands of scientists are spending huge amounts of time to prove him wrong, as there are thousands and thousands of scientists trying to prove him right:screwy:

but if Einstein is a genious for something he imagined, and wasnt really able to prove...so i can be an artist, seeing artistic visions without being able to show them to you all....:D

talent, or technical skill...is something else though...its not art by itself, but it can be used to show your dreams/others dreams in a visual way, to others.

jasonwestmas
05-03-2007, 10:06 AM
Im an artist, but not a very talented one :)


imho..everybody is an artist, we all can see dreams when we sleep, our imagination can create the most fantastic things...this goes for all mankind.

the only problems arise when we are about to recreate what we see within our mind, as our inner vision is not always easy to show to others.

by closing my eyes, i can see "the david" by michelangelo..wearing womens clothing :D ...i create that vision as fast as i can imagine it.

but unfortunately i lack the technical talent to use the tools available (cant paint, sculpt or modell well enough) to show it to others....but does it make me any less of an artist???....i dont think so, Einstein was considered to be a genious for theories that he only "imagined" to be in a certain way.

today thousands of scientists are spending huge amounts of time to prove him wrong, as there are thousands and thousands of scientists trying to prove him right:screwy:

but if Einstein is a genious for something he imagined, and wasnt really able to prove...so i can be an artist, seeing artistic visions without being able to show them to you all....:D

talent, or technical skill...is something else though...its not art by itself, but it can be used to show your dreams/others dreams in a visual way, to others.


Like I said earlier, if your ideas come from your heart, you're an artist. If your ideas come from only your sweat and for the pleasing of others you are a laborer. Nothing wrong with either.

JReble
05-03-2007, 10:52 AM
Aw gheesh....haven't you all heard. Everybody's an artist, just ask them. :foreheads The words art and artist are irrelevant as they apply to one's self. Only a complete *** hat would declare themselves an artist. The real question is.. "are you any good at what you do?"

jasonwestmas
05-03-2007, 10:59 AM
Aw gheesh....haven't you all heard. Everybody's an artist, just ask them. :foreheads The words art and artist are irrelevant as they apply to one's self. Only a complete *** hat would declare themselves an artist. The real question is.. "are you any good at what you do?"

haha, we talked about this on the other thread. GOOD is a relative term you realize.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67749&page=5

Bog
05-03-2007, 12:42 PM
I am an ***-hat!

I mean artist!

Oh both. Whatever ;)

theo
05-03-2007, 01:24 PM
I am an ***-hat!

I mean artist!

Oh both. Whatever ;)

Oh my god, I'm not only an artist but an A$$hat too! Hmmm, I do see dollar signs in my A$$hat word here... could mean something... or nothing... guess I'm only an A$$hat artist so what do I know...?

Maybe this thread should have been titled "Do you consider yourself an A$$hat?"

rqe3bc
05-03-2007, 03:49 PM
I have a piece of paper somewhere that says I'm an artist, but that doesn't help me much with 3D modeling

DaveLEWIS
05-03-2007, 03:58 PM
Oh yes indeed:)

Well I am:)

theo
05-03-2007, 04:42 PM
I have a piece of paper somewhere that says I'm an artist, but that doesn't help me much with 3D modeling

Practice, practice, practice, and a little bit more practice. Probably the same action you engaged in to get that paper.

Iain
05-04-2007, 04:47 AM
It's interesting how many threads you see like this on CGI related forums. What is art? Are we artists etc etc. It's obviously a source of great insecurity for our community.
Many well informed individuals who have studied art will tell you that you can't possibly understand it without the benefit of their level of education but this elitist view really misses the whole point.
Art describes a huge range of topics and mediums all of which are aimed at one audience: everybody.
Some of it pleases the senses, some of it challenges our views and tastes but it is still art, good or bad.

Inevitably when we discuss art, the old debate of craftsman v. artist arises and usually Michaelangelo (as a sculptor at least) is cited as being the successful merger of both, a skilled and well trained craftsman who produced great works of art.

It's up to you whether or not you want to seperate the two.

Wonderpup
05-04-2007, 05:26 AM
The insecurity thing is a big issue- also the curious notion that anything that makes money cannot be classified as art. People forget that artists of the past had patrons who paid them and dictated what they did-Michalangelo was a freelancer in his day.

I once approached a gallery with some paintings and asked the owner if they would be interested in selling my 'product'- they were shocked that I described it in those terms, but the way I see it they run a store and I supply a product- a product that happens to be art.

v1u1ant
05-04-2007, 05:27 AM
Ive same thing going on as rqe3bc.

So that means i did some exams and stuff. Waste of time that was, just ended up with a heap of debt and robbed me of my ambition for a few years.

There was a piece of work i saw once in Holland (cant remember who made it) it was made of neon lights and was layed out in a spiral with the sentence :
" The purpose of the true artist is to reveal the mystical in life" following the spiral.



LW pretty mystical sometimes;)

Bog
05-04-2007, 05:32 AM
Hum. I never saw the "purpose" of an artist as being any different from the "purpose" of any human being.

Life your life. Try to find meaning in it. Try to share that meaning in others. Try to make today better than yesterday was.

gerry_g
05-04-2007, 05:47 AM
Art in the traditional sense was dead and buried with the advent of the camera, after all what was it's primary function but to capture the likenesses of person or place, it's been reduced to little more than a traveling freak show ever since, sawing sharks in half, making likenesses out of frozen human blood, gnawing sculptures from slabs of chocolate by the artists own teeth........ Art needs a function and a purpose, has to be part of society, embraced by society, you only have to go to movies, play a video game. open a magazine to see that real art has moved on, embraced the now, why because we artists have made it so, while 'Fine Art' suffocates in a vacuum real art has prospered capturing person and place for the digital age. Besides, 'Artist' and 'Art' were always tags for posers anyway, if you don't know what your looking at without having to reading the tags, you never really had any idea what your were looking at in the first place.

jeremyhardin
05-04-2007, 06:19 AM
I said yes, and not just because it's in my email sig (though that was a factor).

I create and long to create. As a result I can approoach other creations with an aesthetic appreciation and critical eye.

Whether I create art at work or not is debateable though, as creative moments are unfortunately not synonymous with working in art. As toby said, production artist would probably be more applicable there.

parm
05-04-2007, 06:42 AM
It's interesting how many threads you see like this on CGI related forums. What is art? Are we artists etc etc. It's obviously a source of great insecurity for our community.

Is it insecurity? or is it curiosity?

The majority of people who have taken part in this poll so far, consider themselves to be artists. It seems natural to me, that anyone who takes what they do seriously. Would want to have as broad and deep a knowledge of their chosen subject as possible. Computer art is a very large part of contemporary art practice now. And not everyone that is using computers to make art. Is using them in a clearly defined industry role, like: modeller, Lighting artist, rigger or an architectural visualiser, for example. So, for some, it is interesting to know what exactly the state of CG Art is. How does it fit in? Does it have a role, a future as a serious Art medium? And if so. What shape or form might it take?


Inevitably when we discuss art, the old debate of craftsman v. artist arises and usually Michaelangelo (as a sculptor at least) is cited as being the successful merger of both, a skilled and well trained craftsman who produced great works of art.

It's up to you whether or not you want to seperate the two.

Yes that is an old debate. And it has been resolved. As you quite correctly point out. It is up to ourselves. So on that at least, no debate is necessary, no need to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

Besides. The skill aspect in CG Art has been well and truly nailed. I'm sure you would agree. The evidence of great skill, (up there with the likes of Michaelangelo in some cases), in most CG forum galleries, is plain to see. The interesting question is: Where can it go from here. :)

DiedonD
05-04-2007, 07:04 AM
It's all bluster buster. But your bluster, I do concur with (god, I can't stop yodaling), to a certain extent AND extant.

Um, well, the problem, my romantic diedondian, is that as much as we artists like to pontificate and expound on the virtues of staying hopelessly true to the inner human teddy bear, this pays few bills for most lifetimes.

Unless you know Oprah Winfrey or some rising super-starlett or rub shoulders with the Steve Wynn's of the world (software company A.E.'s sugar daddy), chances are you WILL "sell out" to provide for your family and work at a level, sometimes, that will leave you less than fulfilled.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, my friend.

Or you could have a separate job to sustain you, until one of the true U's gets out there!

A part from 8 or more hours beeing eaten away doing something completely different (which is tragic), or something related to computers but not it (which is ironic, too), a part from that, its a win win situation. Your sustained by a job, while theres a greater potential to earn even more with your projects, true ones, that builds up sideways. If it must end by money that is. And if you never make it, you havent lost much neither, as you were sustained by a separate job. But if you do make it..............

(The points up there are only limited to the readers imagination)

rqe3bc
05-04-2007, 08:49 AM
Ive same thing going on as rqe3bc.

So that means i did some exams and stuff. Waste of time that was, just ended up with a heap of debt and robbed me of my ambition for a few years.


Sorry to hear that, although I'm of the opinion that any formal (or informal) art training does teach some valuable skills that are transferable to many media. I come from a 2D art background but classes like figure drawing are quite helpful to understand anatomy when creating 3D characters, and of course, painting, printmaking, photography, etc. are invaluable when it comes time to create textures, layout and lighting. What the heck, even "Art Theory and Criticism" classes can help define a work and give it some context.

Funny thing was, when I was accepted into the Masters program they made a mistake and had me down as a Scupture major - if I had been smart back then I would have left it ;)

parm
05-04-2007, 09:01 AM
you only have to go to movies, play a video game. open a magazine to see that real art has moved on,

I agree up to a point with the video games part. Immersive, interactive 3d environments are indeed, a very interesting and radical new departure for Art.
But I do fail, to see the advantages of 'most shoot em ups' or 'platform games', In enjoyment terms, over traditional real world games like 'pin ball' or 'table football'. There's just more choice that's all.

As for the movies and magazines, I'm not convinced. Sure the technology is more advanced, the effects more convincing, (until you know how they're done that is). Are they more entertaining or informative? Do they offer anything new? I'm not getting that. You'd have to give examples.

The kind of CG animation used to illustrate complex scientific and mathematical concepts. The special spatial, non linear nature in much of that, is very interesting. And has no parallel in any other medium as far as I know. so that is also new.

What about the software itself? Could that be considered a new kind of Artwork. And that using the software is a new way of engaging with Art?

If one of the aims of Art is to heighten the viewers aesthetic and creative sensibilities by the experience. Doesn't using software do this? but in a much more active way, that makes the user as much an artist as the creator/s of the artwork/software.

I'm thinking of things like Groboto, Bryce or knotplot, where in very little time with the interface the user is able to achieve a great deal of satisfaction of creative input. The same could equally be said for more complex software like Lightwave. It's just the user needs to devote a lot more time in research and study to get more out of it.

Iain
05-04-2007, 09:06 AM
I remember reading that David Hockney started using acrylics because oils were "too easy" then he moved on to using a computer to paint.

With regard to computers in art that seemed an interesting path to me since most people view anything done on computer as being easier.

theo
05-04-2007, 09:09 AM
Frankly, living life is an art.

We all survive to 78.4 years. Almost all that time is spent on an evolvement continuum. Nothing stops. Nothing.

Sure, you sit for twenty seconds but you are still on a timer.

So the space between the end and the beginning is all about the wonder of intense realization.

Yea....this life-thing is an art.

To sum up my mind: I think that artists are closest to the intensity of life; which would include all who those who have chosen to share ponderable maxims in this thread.

jasonwestmas
05-04-2007, 09:15 AM
The fact that we are in fact all on a "timer" is an art and a philosphy and beyond. ooooooo :)

Wonderpup
05-04-2007, 09:45 AM
I remember reading that David Hockney started using acrylics because oils were "too easy" then he moved on to using a computer to paint.

There is a nice story about the fact that hockney used really low grade acrylics that quickly began to deteriorate- but no one in the gallery noticed because every night the cleaning lady would dutifully sweep up the little pile of flakes that had accumalated on the floor under the paintings.

Probably urban legend- but I just love the image of these valuable artworks slowly being transported to the bin one dustpan at a time- there's a metaphor there somewhere!

theo
05-04-2007, 09:46 AM
The fact that we are in fact all on a "timer" is an art and a philosphy and beyond. ooooooo :)

You have just realized intense realization.

Now, if we could only figure out how to set the blasted timer BACK several hundred years... :D

Cageman
05-04-2007, 10:10 AM
I voted "Sometimes"...

Where I work, I'm told what to do and I have very little artistic input in the product; there are others that decides what should be done, and frankly, I have 100% confidence that the right people are at the right position in my team (I am NOT bitching here, I enjoy working where I work). The minimal freedom I have at work makes it hard to be "artistic" in more than making good choices about timing when doing animation or working out a process on how to achive this or that effect etc, etc.

My definition of artists would be people that have the freedom to express themselves without boundaries... very much like what I can do in my sparetime. That's why I voted "Sometimes".

oDDity
05-05-2007, 03:26 AM
You're wrong, the definition of an artist is someone who wants to embody some sort of pretentious message in their work. Another definition is 'a flouncing egotist'.
A lot of people in the past have therefore been wrongly accused of being artists rather than craftsmen.
Tracey Emin is very definitely an artist. In fact, she's worse than that, she's an artiste (always written and pronounced with emphasis to differentiate themselves from the vulgar form of flouncing, pretentious egotist, these people take flouncing egotism to it's ultimate state)

starbase1
05-05-2007, 07:36 AM
Tracey Emin is very definitely an artist. In fact, she's worse than that, she's an artiste (always written and pronounced with emphasis to differentiate themselves from the vulgar form of flouncing, pretentious egotist, these people take flouncing egotism to it's ultimate state)

Hmmm... Bit of an easy target, picking on Tracy Emin, a bit like picking George W Bush as an example of a western politician, and tarring the rest with the same brush...

Nick

Bog
05-05-2007, 09:05 AM
Hmmm... Bit of an easy target, picking on Tracy Emin, a bit like picking George W Bush as an example of a western politician, and tarring the rest with the same brush...

Nick

That's a really good anaology. Emin and Hurst illustrate, to me, what's been misused with the term "Artist". It's a bit like the term "hacker". A hacker was a term for someone who tried to get the most out of the computers they had access to, trying to get them to do cool or unexpected things, trying to get the very peak of performance from the hardware. These days, "Hacker" has been so suborned by the press and by abusers of technology to basically mean "virus-writing electronic terrorist skript-kiddie". To my mind, someone like Ron Mueck - whose sculptures are both technically brilliant and highly evocative - even unsettling - is fastly more "An Artist" than Emin or her ilk.

The term's been suborned. The choice is ours to acquiesce to the term "artist" meaning "purveyor of impenetrable pointless pretention", or to take it to mean what we - as artists - want it to mean. The same way calling George Bush a statesman or Harold Shipman a doctor is technically accurate whilst missing out the massively pertinant prefix of "Bloody Awful". ;)

Andyjaggy
05-05-2007, 10:20 AM
I don't consider myself an artist. Maybe a few of my photographs might be considered such but most of them are just pretty pictures of stuff I saw.

When it comes to 3D I consider myself a craftsman. Which is fine by me. Artists typically starve and go insane anyway :)

Cageman
05-05-2007, 11:39 AM
You're wrong, the definition of an artist is someone who wants to embody some sort of pretentious message in their work. Another definition is 'a flouncing egotist'.

Well what have we here? ;)

Welcome back oDDity... you were gone for a while.. :beerchug:

Oh, well... I'm not going to argue with you... you probably know much more than I do about those sort of things...

:jam:

IMI
05-05-2007, 01:55 PM
I'd like to consider myself an artist, but it's more like I'm a UV-mapping, texture-painting slave. ;)

theo
05-05-2007, 02:38 PM
Webster's II New Riverside-

artist: 1) A creator of artistic works, esp. a painter, sculptor or musician.
2) One who performs one's work as if it were an art.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition two probably encompasses far more talent than we realize on the existing skill gradient.

Iain
05-10-2007, 02:20 AM
Hmmm... Bit of an easy target, picking on Tracy Emin, a bit like picking George W Bush as an example of a western politician, and tarring the rest with the same brush...


I kind of see what you're saying there. She is a repugnant individual and for some reason is everywhere a vocal artist is required in the media. Hirst is equally annoying-I have trouble seperating him from Jamie Oliver in my head.

At the same time though, I can't think of many well known artists who are really appealing individuals (Rolf excepted of course.)
Peter Howson seemed pretty normal when he first appeared on the scene but I read a few interviews during and after his war correspondence stint and completely changed my mind.

It seems the personality has to match the difficult, tortured preconception of the artist if you want to make it.

Now politicians-that's different. There are many, many wonderful individuals in politics like erm, erm, Churchill?

DiedonD
05-10-2007, 03:49 AM
What it bothers me is to see artist beeing pushed into craftsmanship just so as they can sustain themselves financially. If your doing someone elses wish, the term artistry starts blurring out. So what Im saying is:

Why sell out the most precious artistic skills that you may have, when you can beat financial sustainment in its own game, by selling out less important facets that one may have.

Now since you already are doing LW, I assume your smart. Smart as in capable of doing some math, some common sense, some other thing, that some company may need you for. So you can go about and sell that for sustainment, and leave your precious artistery intact. And do em both. Sustain financially, and do art THATS PURELY YOURSSS!!

In that way you'll be at peace and at a win and win situation. Nothing to loose then. Appart from 8 or so hours that the other job takes away. But I guess thats the price to pay these days. Until potentially one gets out there the least.

jasonwestmas
05-10-2007, 08:34 AM
What it bothers me is to see artist beeing pushed into craftsmanship just so as they can sustain themselves financially. If your doing someone elses wish, the term artistry starts blurring out. So what Im saying is:

Why sell out the most precious artistic skills that you may have, when you can beat financial sustainment in its own game, by selling out less important facets that one may have.

Now since you already are doing LW, I assume your smart. Smart as in capable of doing some math, some common sense, some other thing, that some company may need you for. So you can go about and sell that for sustainment, and leave your precious artistery intact. And do em both. Sustain financially, and do art THATS PURELY YOURSSS!!

In that way you'll be at peace and at a win and win situation. Nothing to loose then. Appart from 8 or so hours that the other job takes away. But I guess thats the price to pay these days. Until potentially one gets out there the least.


That's great, and it makes sense logically, but really, both sides of our creativity takes a lot of time to get anywhere both personally and professionally. One of those sides has to die, at least until you win the jackpot or are able to retire. COMPANIES are the ones who contol how much you make and how much time they demand of you for you to redeem your paycheck. Freelance is a different story where you need a solid reputation and in an industry as small as it is (getting larger) that's hard to do.

DiedonD
05-11-2007, 04:18 AM
That's great, and it makes sense logically,
1) but really, both sides of our creativity takes a lot of time to get anywhere both personally and professionally. One of those sides has to die, at least until you win the jackpot or are able to retire.
2)COMPANIES are the ones who contol how much you make and how much time they demand of you for you to redeem your paycheck.
3) Freelance is a different story where you need a solid reputation and in an industry as small as it is (getting larger) that's hard to do.

1) What sides are you talking about? Financial sustainment and True Artwork, right? Well then I say no. No side needs to die. You can allow a side to die, but thats up to you. But its not necessarily. No need for jackpot or retirement neither. Your at a win win situation as it is. You already have a job that pays you, and the other time you invest in artwork. Thus you have a chance to do the real you. Weather one of your artworks goes out there its a completely different story. But it will be true.

2) In which case? When you sell your artistic skills, or your other skills? (Other skills meaning the ones that are good enough for a job/paycheck, and that it doesnt has to be a CG related job neither. In fact the nearer to CG the more Ironic it gets by not doing your artwork, but the further away from CG the more painfull the time goes by. That couldve been used otherwise)

3) Freelancing or when you work on a huge media company its all the same in this case. Just whenever you do someone elses wish. For however much money, artistry gets blurry by the compromises that you make to fit the bossess, clients, co workers, coleagues, ideas. The more of their juice and the less of yours, the less of artistry of you will be involved in a project. If you go all the way, you'll have that if everything is someone elses idea and your doing it. Than your just a craftsman.

jasonwestmas
05-11-2007, 10:28 AM
diedond, this is a complicated subject, there are many factors at play here and I could write a book about why I think the way I do. But I probably won't at this moment ;) I pray that we all can be freed from ideas that do not comply with our own, especially the ones in the corprorate world.

Bog
05-11-2007, 04:24 PM
Living free won't happen until we have cheap, easy-build fusion plants, home energy generators, and when the last king has been garotted with the entrails of the last priest.

Until then, we do the best we can. ;)

jasonwestmas
05-11-2007, 04:39 PM
Yeah when you gotta pay the pauper, then truly there is no COMPLETE freedom. Even in the world where people actually pay you large sums of money for your own ideas you are enslaved to someone elses wishes socially and financially.

Bog
05-11-2007, 04:41 PM
You're free in your skull, Jason, and you're free in your creative medium of choice. That's a lot more than our forebears had. Let's use it well, while we work to free our home and loved ones, eh?

We're a lot better off than we've ever been. Let's not waste energy bemoaning what we've never had, and put a shoulder to seeing that we - or those who come after - do have it.

jasonwestmas
05-11-2007, 04:50 PM
oh yes, Bog, I was only speaking financially :) We are free in all other rights and things change over time. It's also not always a bad thing to be bound to certain types of folks. It can be rewarding.

bobakabob
05-11-2007, 07:14 PM
Re: Emin and Hirst

It's just too easy to slag them off.

At least they provoke a genuine reaction from a pretty wide audience. Be it shock, surprise, disgust, laughter, indifference.

It's just lazy thinking to condemn their work as 'hype'.

Pretentious? They work in a different field to CG artists making polygonal dolls for computer games.

In some ways, Hirst's giant ashtray says more about real life than any kitsch cyberbabe image.

http://www.heartfineart.com/Images/hirst-plate.jpg

jasonwestmas
05-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Hirst's giant ashtray says more about real life than any kitsch cyberbabe image.

http://www.heartfineart.com/Images/hirst-plate.jpg

That's like comparing a shoe to a hat.

T-Light
05-11-2007, 08:16 PM
bobakabob -

At least they provoke a genuine reaction from a pretty wide audience. Be it shock, surprise, disgust, laughter, indifference.
Yes, have to say I like that. :thumbsup:

Art can be anything to anyone. Personally, I like to think of it as something that can drive a response. Take that any which way you like :)

I took a girl back to her parents place a lot of years ago, she was off to law school and her parents were rather stuck in their ways, Her dad LOVED Remrandt, He had some posters (prints in frames) on his wall. I was asked to look at them and tell him what I thought, I said his colour was brilliant but the composition didn't do anything for me, give me a Turner any day.

Needless to say, it was the last time I saw Her :D

I see some crap dawbed as genius by 'Artists' that I personally find flat and boring, then I'll see something by a graphic artist that I think is brilliant.

Each to their own I suppose.

Bog
05-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Each to their own I suppose.

You could put that down as the answer to "What Is Art?" It's such a personal thing, and driven so much by one's own feelings, that attempting a conclusive definition is pretty pointless.

oDDity
05-12-2007, 08:07 AM
Re: Emin and Hirst

It's just too easy to slag them off.

At least they provoke a genuine reaction from a pretty wide audience. Be it shock, surprise, disgust, laughter, indifference.

It's just lazy thinking to condemn their work as 'hype'.

Pretentious? They work in a different field to CG artists making polygonal dolls for computer games.

In some ways, Hirst's giant ashtray says more about real life than any kitsch cyberbabe image.

http://www.heartfineart.com/Images/hirst-plate.jpg
What does it 'say' about real life that we didn't already know.
What has any artists work ever told anyone that they didn't already know, and therefore, what was the point in making it.

parm
05-12-2007, 09:34 AM
What does it 'say' about real life that we didn't already know.
What has any artists work ever told anyone that they didn't already know, and therefore, what was the point in making it.

If you could fully express that in words, there would be no point in the visual arts either.

Wonderpup
05-12-2007, 02:29 PM
If you could fully express that in words, there would be no point in the visual arts either.

But the weakness of almost all modern visual art is exactly it's dependance on words to explain itself.

I was checking out the websites of some contemporary art galleries recently and found the verbige about the artists work took up at least twice as much screen space as the image it described.

The basic fact is that if you took most contemporary artworks out of the supportive environment of a gallery and tried to sell them in a boot fair you could not even give them away- their value is totaly contextual- they have no intrinsic aesthetic value as objects.

The purpose of most modern artworks is to give the artists and galleries something to sell, the buyers something to buy and the critics something to criticise- everybody gets what they want and nobody actualy cares that the objects at the centre of this farce are for the most part worthless trash.

toby
05-12-2007, 02:57 PM
But the weakness of almost all modern visual art is exactly it's dependance on words to explain itself.

I was checking out the websites of some contemporary art galleries recently and found the verbige about the artists work took up at least twice as much screen space as the image it described.

The basic fact is that if you took most contemporary artworks out of the supportive environment of a gallery and tried to sell them in a boot fair you could not even give them away- their value is totaly contextual- they have no intrinsic aesthetic value as objects.

The purpose of most modern artworks is to give the artists and galleries something to sell, the buyers something to buy and the critics something to criticise- everybody gets what they want and nobody actualy cares that the objects at the centre of this farce are for the most part worthless trash.
You do realize how many people can't tell the difference between crappy cg and Pixar, don't you? Does that mean that all the extra skill and effort Pixar puts into cg is worthless? There are even 3d artists who can't tell the difference between Finding Nemo's quality and Shark Tales'. So just because something doesn't appeal to the general public, or even people with some knowledge of art, and, as pointed out before, just because there's no aesthetic value doesn't mean it's worthless trash.

oDDity
05-12-2007, 05:24 PM
Well put, Wonderpup.

toby
05-12-2007, 05:36 PM
:bangwall:

jasonwestmas
05-12-2007, 05:43 PM
All I know for sure is that if I don't see something that was meant to be seen, it doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe I just wasn't looking at it from the right perspective. Maybe I need a nudge in the right direction.

In art there are a lot of occassions that there is nothing much to be seen and the writting about the object is not helping and doesn't enhance anything about my perspective. To take one side and say that abstraction is pure gold but representational is trash or vice versa is a total falsehood either way. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

parm
05-12-2007, 06:10 PM
But the weakness of almost all modern visual art is exactly it's dependance on words to explain itself.

I don't agree that this is any more true for modern art as it is for art from any period or culture. The words are not there so much for explanation. ( It's practically impossible to explain art satisfactorily). They are usually more by way an interpretation, or at least a suggested interpretation.


I was checking out the websites of some contemporary art galleries recently and found the verbige about the artists work took up at least twice as much screen space as the image it described.

It's not possible for anyone else to judge this without a link of some kind. As it is, this is just hearsay.


The basic fact is that if you took most contemporary artworks out of the supportive environment of a gallery and tried to sell them in a boot fair you could not even give them away- their value is totaly contextual- they have no intrinsic aesthetic value as objects.

Is this a criticism? That is what Art is; A Human activity that exists in a social, political and cultural context. I mean, when was the last time a drawing by Raphael turned up at a boot sale, with a price tag of two and a half million?


The purpose of most modern artworks is to give the artists and galleries something to sell, the buyers something to buy and the critics something to criticise- everybody gets what they want and nobody actualy cares that the objects at the centre of this farce are for the most part worthless trash.

Not the only purpose

bluerider
05-13-2007, 02:31 AM
http://www.carryonline.com/carryonline/images/castandcrew/portrait-williams.JPG

Great poll.

Anyone remember Kenneth Williams in his photographer sketch with Tony Hancock? "Snaps? SNAPS? I PAINT WITH LIGHT!" :D

If you're freely expressing yourself through your art, either pressing buttons, pushing a graphite pencil or slapping paint on canvas you're an artist.

If someone's paying you to do their bidding you're more likely an artisan. Not that one's necessarily any better than the other.

However many artisans balancing work with expression such as Michaelangelo are now considered artists. Just to confuse matters ;)

I love the film Hancock does where he steals a younger chaps paintings and pretends they are his. Great p*ss take of contempory part of the time.

bluerider
05-13-2007, 02:34 AM
If you could fully express that in words, there would be no point in the visual arts either.

Yes....I think we should all be force to use sign language to express ourselves

Wonderpup
05-13-2007, 08:57 AM
Channel 4 tv in the uk sponsored an exhibition of work by new artists which was well received by the critics until it was revealed that the artists in question were in fact chimpanzees.

How is it possible that art experts could fail to distinguish between the work of men and that of apes? And how many people are likely to confuse the work of Da Vinci with that of a chimp?

I just feel that elevating random daubings to the status of high culture is basicly absurd and no amount of intellectual gymnastics is going to convice me otherwise.

Wonderpup
05-13-2007, 09:28 AM
There are even 3d artists who can't tell the difference between Finding Nemo's quality and Shark Tales'. So just because something doesn't appeal to the general public, or even people with some knowledge of art, and, as pointed out before, just because there's no aesthetic value doesn't mean it's worthless trash.

I don't think quality is the issue here. To talk about quality implies the existance of a common standard by which things can be judged- in the case of contemporary art there is no such standard- any mark on any surface,no matter how it is created can be presented as art.

That is why there is so much concern in the modern art world with biographic evidence- it's not about what you do, it's about who you are. So long as you have attended the right school of art then any marks you make are thereafter defined as 'art' ( presumably this extends to the use of toilet paper?)

parm
05-13-2007, 09:30 AM
Channel 4 tv in the uk sponsored an exhibition of work by new artists which was well received by the critics until it was revealed that the artists in question were in fact chimpanzees.

How is it possible that art experts could fail to distinguish between the work of men and that of apes? And how many people are likely to confuse the work of Da Vinci with that of a chimp?.

This is often held up as the clincher in the arguments about Art. But what exactly does it prove?
Except, hat if you set out to deceive, and are careful enough with your set up. You will succeed. It is funny, and can be quite clever. But it's just a con trick.

Besides this sort of thing is part and parcel with all Art. Fakes and 'lost works' are, and have always been rife in the art world. No doubt many fake Da Vincis have fooled enough experts, past and present.


I just feel that elevating random daubings to the status of high culture is basicly absurd and no amount of intellectual gymnastics is going to convice me otherwise.

There's nothing at all wrong with being skeptical. As long as it's a healthy skepticism. And no one ever said that you have to like everything :)

toby
05-13-2007, 01:31 PM
I don't think quality is the issue here. To talk about quality implies the existance of a common standard by which things can be judged- in the case of contemporary art there is no such standard- any mark on any surface,no matter how it is created can be presented as art.

That is why there is so much concern in the modern art world with biographic evidence- it's not about what you do, it's about who you are. So long as you have attended the right school of art then any marks you make are thereafter defined as 'art' ( presumably this extends to the use of toilet paper?)
No, quality is not the issue. The issue is that just because you don't see something doesn't mean there's nothing there.

But as a matter of fact there are people who have your attitude about quality, I've worked with quite a few. They think that quality that's higher than theirs is a waste of time, and anyone who makes a suggestion is just being a showoff.

bluerider
05-13-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by Wonderpup
I don't think quality is the issue here. To talk about quality implies the existance of a common standard by which things can be judged- in the case of contemporary art there is no such standard- any mark on any surface,no matter how it is created can be presented as art. -----------

Well contmpary Art is a very generic statement, to imply the whole swath of contempory art does not have a "canon" is not "asolutely" true.

Are you talking about the fine arts, current thoughts on Architecture etc. Lets narrow what catergory of contempary art we are critiquing here so we can get into some socratic debate. :)

Wonderpup
05-13-2007, 03:53 PM
The point about the monkeys is this- the fact that such a deception is even possible in itself demonstrates that there is no way to distinguish between a lot of modern painting and the work of chimpanzees.


No, quality is not the issue. The issue is that just because you don't see something doesn't mean there's nothing there.


Suppose we devised a 'Turing Test' for modern abstract painting, wherein works are shown along with another group of artworks that have been created by animals- the test being that the observer must be able to distinguish clearly between the two-

The simple fact is that very many modern paintings would fail such a test.

Now I have no problem with people making marks on canvas for pleasure, but I cannot accept the proposition that just because a group of people with a strong vested interest define these marks as meaningful, that makes them so.

I see no compelling evidence that the marks made by many modern artists have any more validity than those made by animals who are given access to the same opportunity to make such marks themselves.

I'm sure those chimps had something in mind when they made their paintings, just as I am sure that modern artists have something in mind- but both groups fail because they are expressing themselves incoherently.

jnddepew
05-13-2007, 04:06 PM
I say people can say anything is art. splashing paint randomly on canvas can be called art--depending on how you define it, but anyway, that doesn't require any effort or skill beyond being able to pick up a paint can and moving it in a way that will make the paint splash out. You may call it art, but as wonderpup said, and elephant or a chimpanzee can do the same.
What I call good art is art that actually takes a higher-than average deal of skill to create.
I really don't see why someone would want to buy a 1000-dollar original piece of modern art while it would be just as easy to make it themselves and for a lot less money.

Basically, i think that people can call anything art if they want, they just shouldn't idolize modern artists because they can do what anyone else can do.

Wonderpup
05-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Are you talking about the fine arts, current thoughts on Architecture etc. Lets narrow what catergory of contempary art we are critiquing here so we can get into some socratic debate.

I'm really talking about the more abstract type of paintings that claim to have meaning- but one only visable to the elite who have trained themselves to detect such meanings, who, by a curious coincidence, stand to make a great deal of money by propogating the idea that such meanings exist.

It's actualy a perfect con because anyone who claims no such meanings exist is instantly invalidated as an observer on the basis that they are too stupid to detect them!

parm
05-13-2007, 05:24 PM
The point about the monkeys is this- the fact that such a deception is even possible in itself demonstrates that there is no way to distinguish between a lot of modern painting and the work of chimpanzees.

I would strongly dispute that that was the work of Chimpanzees at all. The Chimps didn't go to the Art suppliers and buy painting equipment. Brushes, paints and canvases. They didn't rent studio space or dream up any concept. The whole thing was orchestrated by Humans. (People who were trying to prove a point). Brushes, paint and canvas were put in the path of Monkeys. The result was exhibited and made into a television program.

But that point was flawed. In fact was completely bogus. Because what they ended up creating, was actually valid Art. You must realize that Chimps or any animal other than Humans. Do not, left to themselves, make paintings.
Whether it's good art or bad in this case, doesn't interest me. It's old news, in art historical terms.

Spectacular own goal in my view.


I'm really talking about the more abstract type of paintings that claim to have meaning- but one only visable to the elite who have trained themselves to detect such meanings, who, by a curious coincidence, stand to make a great deal of money by propogating the idea that such meanings exist.

I wish I could find this funny.

Do you really think that artists choose to paint because they think they will make lots of money from it?

Money is what jobs were invented for.

Painting. Art in general, is a compulsion. Driven by curiosity, fascination, awe and love.

toby
05-14-2007, 01:13 AM
The point about the monkeys is this- the fact that such a deception is even possible in itself demonstrates that there is no way to distinguish between a lot of modern painting and the work of chimpanzees.

Suppose we devised a 'Turing Test' for modern abstract painting, wherein works are shown along with another group of artworks that have been created by animals- the test being that the observer must be able to distinguish clearly between the two-

The simple fact is that very many modern paintings would fail such a test.

Now I have no problem with people making marks on canvas for pleasure, but I cannot accept the proposition that just because a group of people with a strong vested interest define these marks as meaningful, that makes them so.

I see no compelling evidence that the marks made by many modern artists have any more validity than those made by animals who are given access to the same opportunity to make such marks themselves.

I'm sure those chimps had something in mind when they made their paintings, just as I am sure that modern artists have something in mind- but both groups fail because they are expressing themselves incoherently.
Who was it that said something like "it took me the rest of my life to learn to paint like a child"?

Anyway, you have no way of knowing whether a bunch of splotches are meaningful to the artist or not. You also don't seem to realize that you're trying to form a logical conclusion using evidence which is nothing more than your opinion - "they are expressing themselves incoherently".

You think we don't know that there are posers and wanna-bes in the art world? What you're doing is using these types to paint the entire genre. You can do that with any field of interest, 'cuz there's posers everywhere.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 01:57 AM
Money is what jobs were invented for.
-----------------------------------------


-------------------------------

Painting. Art in general, is a compulsion. Driven by curiosity, fascination, awe and love.
--------------------------------
And sometimes very smelly art students, I know I was that soldier.

BL= PMSL, I love this quote about why jobs where invented, it's a keeper :D

bluerider
05-14-2007, 02:21 AM
I'm really talking about the more abstract type of paintings that claim to have meaning- but one only visable to the elite who have trained themselves to detect such meanings, who, by a curious coincidence, stand to make a great deal of money by propogating the idea that such meanings exist.

It's actualy a perfect con because anyone who claims no such meanings exist is instantly invalidated as an observer on the basis that they are too stupid to detect them!

Well here is a definition of Utility of art

One of the defining characteristics of fine art as opposed to applied art is the absence of any clear usefulness or utilitarian value. However, this requirement is sometimes criticized as being class prejudice against labor and utility. Opponents of the view that art cannot be useful, argue that all human activity has some utilitarian function, and the objects claimed to be "non-utilitarian" actually have the function of attempting to mystify and codify flawed social hierarchies. It is also sometimes argued that even seemingly non-useful art is not useless, but rather that its use is the effect it has on the psyche of the creator or viewer.
-----------------------------------

My own views on Abstract art and critiqing it is that its such an open ended subject. If we give it our subjective view from the perspective and canon of a classically trained artist then its more likely we'll be very negative about the usefulness of this catergory of art.

Generally I hate the stuff, not always, sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. My views are that of a very narrow minded proventialist. So one of my art teachers told me over 20 years ago. I'm actually quite flattered by that catergorisation now, not slighted.

My approach to art is very pragmatic in that I measure things in literal terms i.e if I don't see the artwork to a competend level of craftsmanship I'm them trying to access the age and experience of the artist and take it from there. If I think the artist is being escoteric then I usually feel sleepy about the whole visual experience and just want to take a nap or relieve my bladder in the toilet/ restroom.

It's how I feel about Rothko or warhole, Damein Hirst or that Tracy Character, I feel numbness and boredom settling on me. However thats a personal opinion that is not very relavent to others :D .

I think its important to seperate our own personal reaction to these works and try and understand what the purpose of their work is from their perspective and not ours.

P.S.I really dislike Warholes work but I love his explaination about how hes aware of the superfical nature of much of the fine art inteligencia.

parm
05-14-2007, 11:22 AM
And sometimes very smelly art students,

That would be the Patchouli oil.

Iain
05-14-2007, 02:39 PM
Who was it that said something like "it took me the rest of my life to learn to paint like a child"?


Picasso. It was his drawing he was talking about.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Picasso. It was his drawing he was talking about.

Winston Churchil said of Picasso " if I saw him walking down the road I'd cross over to him and kick up the backside". In the USA backside would translate to fanny.

I don't endorse this by the way, I quite like Picasso's works. :)

Iain
05-14-2007, 03:38 PM
But then Churchill was an artist too. He famously commented on how scary a blank canvas was.

That probably resulted in some latent jealousy of the greatest artist of the time.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 03:46 PM
Iain,
I honestly think Churchill had such a conservative view of the fine arts that Picasso probably appeared like a degenerate. Its just a hypothesis of course but I don't think Churchill was jealous of him. I love Picasso draughtsmanship, he was incredible.

I saw his early works in a museum in Barcelona many years ago and was intranced by the chaps mastery of the classical foundemental skills he'd achieved at seventeen. I was really jealous and my excuse was, "dam thats not fair, his dad was an Art teacher". :D

Iain
05-14-2007, 03:49 PM
Yeah I agree. It just feels like a bit of social justice that an aristocrat like Churchill should be jealous of someone's talent.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 03:55 PM
Yeah I agree. It just feels like a bit of social justice that an aristocrat like Churchill should be jealous of someone's talent.

Churchill basically painted these boring landscapes. Which is ironic in some ways because that chap from Austrian had similar boring tastes. I think Churchill would have been jealous of his painting which I find equally as dull. Lord Longleat has the biggest collection of "shoot yerself in the head, bunker guy" painting. :help:

Again some people might really like his painting and thus be offended by my comments.....apologies in advance.

Wonderpup
05-14-2007, 05:54 PM
Anyway, you have no way of knowing whether a bunch of splotches are meaningful to the artist or not.

I have no doubt that if I gave a monkey a loaded brush and he dragged it across a canvas the gesture would be meaningful to the monkey- the problem is it would mean nothing to anyone else.

'Art' that is only meaningful to it's creator is no more than intellectual masterbation- a private affair that cannot be said to belong in the public realm, let alone be revered there. A work of 'art' that fails to coherently communicate to others is without meaning- literally meaningless.

OrvilleB
05-14-2007, 08:37 PM
I wish I were an artist like I assume most of you are. I couldn't draw a straight line. I am just fascinated by 3d software, so after I retired, I purchased Lightwave and am learning it to keep my brain from rotting.

toby
05-14-2007, 10:15 PM
I have no doubt that if I gave a monkey a loaded brush and he dragged it across a canvas the gesture would be meaningful to the monkey- the problem is it would mean nothing to anyone else.

'Art' that is only meaningful to it's creator is no more than intellectual masterbation- a private affair that cannot be said to belong in the public realm, let alone be revered there. A work of 'art' that fails to coherently communicate to others is without meaning- literally meaningless.

Maybe I should have written that more descriptively so as not to exclude *everyone* except the artist himself, but I didn 't think it was neccessary, and I'd like to have found a way to write it so that you'd stop dragging up the monkeys over and over again - it's an inaccurate comparison, and we've already made that case.

In response to this latest monkey argument, I'll point out that monkeys/animals don't make decisions about composition, color, what meaning certain objects may have, and they don't decide what to keep and what to scrap. So even if it is only meaningful to it's creator, it's valid art.

Lastly, you're making too many assumptions. You assume that if you don't understand it that no one does. And no one here is saying it's all great art or needs to be revered either.

CMT
05-14-2007, 11:13 PM
I think many here are assuming that art is meant to be viewed by others other than it's creator. Some may actually consider it part of the definition of art. But if so, why do some people create their own art, yet do not want to show it others? They may create drawings that they may think isn't as good as they would like (we all know that feeling) yet they are too embarassed to show it. Or maybe someone paints something just for themselves to view and understand. It happens.

So when the monkey creates his masterpiece, do we need to understand it in order for it to be art? Not really, I guess.

But then again,.... If asked what is art, can a monkey answer it? I think you need to have your own definition of art to be able to create it.

jasonwestmas
05-14-2007, 11:26 PM
Definition is something a monkey does not comprehend. I would have to agree.

Wonderpup
05-15-2007, 04:51 AM
Can we then define anything a monkey does as art?

Iain
05-15-2007, 05:00 AM
No, don't be ridiculous. Only the work of the proboscus monkey can truly be defined as art.

Wonderpup
05-15-2007, 05:54 AM
You assume that if you don't understand it that no one does.

No- my point is that there is nothing to understand. There is just no evidence to support the idea that abstract painters are speaking to us in a code that can be read by some and not by others. You could take the same painting and show it to a dozen experts and get a dozen different interpretations.

We're not talking here about a secret language that can be learned and understood, no such language exists.

Really, the whole thing is about a group of people with too much money, time on their hands and a desire to elevate themselves above the common herd by laying claim to a sensitivity that sets them apart from the rest of us.

What depresses me is how this group have effectively hijacked the idea of art to the point where anyone who might want to try and create anything that is not ugly or shoddy is likely to find themselves excluded and mocked.

The one thing money cannot buy is talent, and how frustrating that must be to those who could afford to pay for it. I sometimes suspect that the entire edifice of contemporary art is an attempt to negate that simple reality. In age where money can buy just about everything else, maybe it's too painful to accept that you can't create beauty with a credit card.

bluerider
05-15-2007, 07:05 AM
I wish I were an artist like I assume most of you are. I couldn't draw a straight line. I am just fascinated by 3d software, so after I retired, I purchased Lightwave and am learning it to keep my brain from rotting.

Its excellent you can't draw straight lines. Its just that natures possesses so many archs and curves theres no need for you to draw straight line.

I try to bend all my straight lines in LightWave with that weight map and subD tool.

bluerider
05-15-2007, 07:12 AM
Maybe I should have written that more descriptively so as not to exclude *everyone* except the artist himself, but I didn 't think it was neccessary, and I'd like to have found a way to write it so that you'd stop dragging up the monkeys over and over again - it's an inaccurate comparison, and we've already made that case.

In response to this latest monkey argument, I'll point out that monkeys/animals don't make decisions about composition, color, what meaning certain objects may have, and they don't decide what to keep and what to scrap. So even if it is only meaningful to it's creator, it's valid art.

Lastly, you're making too many assumptions. You assume that if you don't understand it that no one does. And no one here is saying it's all great art or needs to be revered either.

The Monkeys made some catchy tunes in the 60's though. I assume though they probably were not any good at painting hence why they play musical instruments and sung.

sorry I won't mention Monkeys on the thread again, I just couldn't resist but I grew up watching the banana Splits on Saturday mornings. :)

By the way your reasoning arguement about art is good. I love you countering the "Marsupial" quips. :thumbsup:

bluerider
05-15-2007, 07:16 AM
Definition is something a monkey does not comprehend. I would have to agree.

I think we should remove the animal from the equation by feeding it a poisoned banana :thumbsdow

bluerider
05-15-2007, 07:18 AM
No, don't be ridiculous. Only the work of the proboscus monkey can truly be defined as art.
PMSL

parm
05-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Can we then define anything a monkey does as art?

Until we can reliably communicate with monkeys. The answer has got to be no.

Once a creature is taken out of it's natural environment. And becomes dependent on humans for it's food and well being. How can we know for sure, it's motivation. Is it trying to communicate? does it reflect on it's own condition? or has it merely learned to do the bidding of it's keepers? in return for a prompt reward.

There's no evidence for anything like the ancient cave paintings, of our ancestors. From any other section of the animal kingdom. So the chances are that art is an exclusively human activity.

Who knows. Once they isolate the gene for speech. Maybe our idea of what constitutes art will have to expand once again :)


No- my point is that there is nothing to understand.There is just no evidence to support the idea that abstract painters are speaking to us in a code that can be read by some and not by others. You could take the same painting and show it to a dozen experts and get a dozen different interpretations.


It is possible to express meaning in ways other than speech or code.

Let me put it this way: Maybe you have a close friend or a loved one. Who has a particular mannerism, a look or a type of smile. That when you see it, you know just what it means. You recognize exactly what's going on there. But if you were to try and explain it to someone else, who doesn't know them at all. You might find it very difficult to do. It's at that level of non-verbal communication that I think a lot of artists operate. It relies very much on resonance and feeling.

I don't get your point about different experts giving different interpretations for a painting. I'm not sure why you see that as a negative. I'm also not sure it's even true. That their interpretations would be so wildly different. It would have to be tested.

I would certainly expect some consensus, on where the work is coming from. Abstraction in art has been with us for more than a hundred years now. And most contemporary abstract work. Fits into one category or another. Of the various modes of abstract art practice that have arisen between then and now. Your use of 'Abstract Art" in general terms is a bit too loose to be useful.

Wonderpup
05-15-2007, 12:18 PM
Maybe you have a close friend or a loved one. Who has a particular mannerism, a look or a type of smile. That when you see it, you know just what it means.

What you describe here is non verbal communication amplified by an intimate familiarity with the subject. Non verbal communication is a shared system of signals that is hard wired into our biology ( albeit modified by culture)

So here's the thing. An artist at his easel steps back onto a tube of paint that squirts out onto a canvas. Likeing the pattern created by his mishap the artist passes the 'artwork' on to his gallery for sale.

A customer comes into the gallery, and standing before the accidental painting experinces a profound sense of melancolic nostalgia. So impressed is he with the artist's ability to evoke such feeling he immediately purchases the painting and leaves a happy man.

Does the fact that the artist's mishap evokes an emotional response in the mind of the buyer mean that the accidental painting is indeed art?

Or is something more required before it can be defined as Art?

And if so, what?

bluerider
05-15-2007, 12:34 PM
Mmmm.....well another hypothesis is that the Monkeys are actually using mind control through our superior digit motor skills to paint through us. So Earth is actually called Planet of Monkey Puppet Masters. A bit like the mice in Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy.

Ok....I promise never to mention Monkeys on this thread again. Could we seriously drop the monkey caper. I like th art stuff though :beerchug:

parm
05-15-2007, 12:50 PM
What you describe here is non verbal communication amplified by an intimate familiarity with the subject. Non verbal communication is a shared system of signals that is hard wired into our biology ( albeit modified by culture)

Yes, that's right. The point being that some things are not easily expressed directly in words. Other more indirect means of communication. Like poetry, music or the visual sensations found in abstract painting are possibly more appropriate.


So here's the thing. An artist at his easel steps back onto a tube of paint that squirts out onto a canvas. Likeing the pattern created by his mishap the artist passes the 'artwork' on to his gallery for sale.

A customer comes into the gallery, and standing before the accidental painting experinces a profound sense of melancolic nostalgia. So impressed is he with the artist's ability to evoke such feeling he immediately purchases the painting and leaves a happy man.


The scenario is so far outside my experience, it seems a little far fetched to me.


Does the fact that the artist's mishap evokes an emotional response in the mind of the buyer mean that the accidental painting is indeed art?

It wouldn't be the first time that something of great value was discovered completely by accident.

CMT
05-15-2007, 01:04 PM
Mmmm.....well another hypothesis is that the Monkeys are actually using mind control through our superior digit motor skills to paint through us. So Earth is actually called Planet of Monkey Puppet Masters. A bit like the mice in Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy.


I knew oDD's talent came from somewhere! JK , oDD! :D

Seriously though, as for the hypothetical scenario, if that person who bought the mishap painting thinks it's art, he's welcome to it. But as for it being "art", I would day no. The artist didn't have any intentions while creating said "art". No message to get across, no feeling to provoke. He just stepped on it and sold it as is.

Now, if he liked what he saw and was inspired by the shape, formulated a coherent idea or concept and created something new, that would be different and goes along with 99.9999% of how real artists work.

bluerider
05-15-2007, 01:18 PM
I'll be serious now. :)

So in some ways its perhaps fair to say that some artist are not creating art, but are just monkeying around...................OK thats it, I promise.

toby
05-15-2007, 03:57 PM
No- my point is that there is nothing to understand. There is just no evidence to support the idea that abstract painters are speaking to us in a code that can be read by some and not by others.
What 'evidence' is there that traditional painters speak some language that we all understand? Or just some of us? The concept is non sequitur.


You could take the same painting and show it to a dozen experts and get a dozen different interpretations.
Sure, just like you could do with Mona Lisa's smile.



We're not talking here about a secret language that can be learned and understood, no such language exists.
We're not talking about text-book art either. I feel sorry for you if you're unable to enjoy a composition of shapes and colors just because they don't form recognizable, accurate shapes.



Does the fact that the artist's mishap evokes an emotional response in the mind of the buyer mean that the accidental painting is indeed art?
No, I call that an accident. But part of an artists' talent is knowing what looks good, whether it's an accident or not. The entire visual industry is full of 'happy accidents', some say my whole career is one big... wait... nevermind.

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:27 PM
toby=. No, I call that an accident. But part of an artists' talent is knowing what looks good, whether it's an accident or not. The entire visual industry is full of 'happy accidents', some say my whole career is one big... wait... nevermind. ====

Your career has been one big Serendipideous adventure?

Sorry, i thought this was a special quizz of some sort :D

TripD
05-15-2007, 04:38 PM
Interesting thread.

The way I see it, art exists on multiple pallets simultaneously. The artist has a vision, (the pallet in his/her mind). The artist takes a journey of projecting this idea onto a physical pallet. An onlooker sees the physical pallet and if by chance is compelled, then a whole new experiential pallet takes shape in the viewers mind/ heart. If a large enough crowd gathers, a pallet of appreciation is created. If the artist is compelled by this, he/she may begin to create a verbal pallet to share his own insites into the work. Or maybe this pallet may have a wholly different purpose, you know, to market the work.

Pardon me while I mix up more 'blah blah blah' for my pallet.

Also, to steal from Bog's earlier post. I think the poll should have a new category more suited to my abilities: Hack-ist

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:41 PM
TripD= Also, to steal from Bog's earlier post. I think the poll should have a new category more suited to my abilities: Hack-ist
--------------------------

OK Hack-ist is a posh way of saying Hacker. So you and Bog are chaps who constantly kick people in the leg during a soccer match.

Lightwolf
05-15-2007, 04:47 PM
So you and Bog are chaps who constantly kick people in the leg during a soccer match.
Nah, I'm sure the play cricket... and enjoy the tea breaks more than the game ;)

I can just see them munching cucumber sandwiches.

Cheers,
Mike - who wonders if that was an artistic vision, or just plain daft?

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:52 PM
http://tabretts.co.uk/works/Inshaw/CricketMatchIII_W700.jpg

Lightwolf,
Thats my favorite cricketing artistic vision. I love some of this artists works. His work appears serenine but there is somehow a disturbing edge. Off course, thats just my opinion

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:56 PM
The cricket match is based on a real place in the West of England. I think maybe Somerset.

Wonderpup
05-15-2007, 05:55 PM
No, I call that an accident.

So in order to be considered art there must be some intent involved in the process- some control exercised by the creator.

So at it's most basic level, in order to qualify as art, a painting is a two stage process.

Stage one: the artist at the canvas manipulates the paint to embed a meaning or emotional trigger

Stage two: The viwer of the work then extracts the intended meaning or emotional effect from the canvas in the gallery.

So we can see that the canvas and paint are a medium through which the artist hopes to transmit meaning and /or emotion.

But abstract painting is defined by the absence of shared frameworks of meaning- that's why it's called abstract- because it contains no recognisable symbols.

The entire concept is a self contradiction. Unless the intent of the creator can be faithfully transmitted to the viwer, the exercise is futile- but the very concept of 'abstract art' disallows the use of shared symbols of any kind.

The idea of abstract art is as absurd and self contradictory as the idea
of non stick glue- no such thing can exist.

mattclary
05-15-2007, 07:48 PM
Wonderpup, great points! If you think it's great art and it was really done by a monkey, you need to find a new hobby/line of work.

Wasn't there an "artist" who would give himself paint enemas and then expel it onto canvas? Now THAT'S some freaking artistic skill! :thumbsup:

nerdyguy227
05-15-2007, 07:56 PM
ehhhhhh....I hated art class but love LW...then again art class wasn't really as much art as it was completely stupid "throw it together" projects

I think the real meaning of art has been degraded in some sense. Its like music these days; people without talent or creativity can be considered as much of an artist as someone who really puts effort into their work.

Still not sure.

CMT
05-15-2007, 08:48 PM
So in order to be considered art there must be some intent involved in the process- some control exercised by the creator.

So at it's most basic level, in order to qualify as art, a painting is a two stage process.

Stage one: the artist at the canvas manipulates the paint to embed a meaning or emotional trigger

Stage two: The viwer of the work then extracts the intended meaning or emotional effect from the canvas in the gallery.

So we can see that the canvas and paint are a medium through which the artist hopes to transmit meaning and /or emotion.

But abstract painting is defined by the absence of shared frameworks of meaning- that's why it's called abstract- because it contains no recognisable symbols.

The entire concept is a self contradiction. Unless the intent of the creator can be faithfully transmitted to the viwer, the exercise is futile- but the very concept of 'abstract art' disallows the use of shared symbols of any kind.

The idea of abstract art is as absurd and self contradictory as the idea
of non stick glue- no such thing can exist.

I think you're thinking too much about it. Art doesn't have to communicate some complex emotion or message. It can be a simple feeling or even just a glimpse of recognition of something within the art.

Abstract art isn't absent of shared frameworks of meaning, otherwise we wouldn't know anything about what we were looking at. There are plenty of those shared "frameworks". We wouldn't know what colors were in it if we didn't already know what colors were (see, there's one. And colors have meaning and artistic value and when used correctly can evoke strong emotion) There's also usually recognizable shapes within abstract art (hey, another one!) See where I'm going with this?

Abstract art contains all the visual fundamentals you'd expect of an artwork. Balance, contrast, direction, movement, pattern, proportion, proximity, repetition, rhythm, texture, purpose, tone, and unity (I may have missed one somewhere). Maybe not all done with en expert eye, but abstract art has these to some degree of skill. These are all used in some way to help express an idea or try to evoke a simple feeling from the viewer.

Personally, I don't care much for abstract art because most of it I've seen is done seemingly as random unrecognizable patterns. Although there's a few pieces I've seen that I thought were very cool. But mainly it seems most abstract art is like a study in graphic design rather than trying to create something a bit more.... meaningful. Most abstract art I see just looks like they worked on using color to make it look like the piece has some depth or maybe they worked on using contrast and color to achieve a visual balance. It's still art because that's the intent. I really don't care about the intent of pieces like that, but it happens.


Wasn't there an "artist" who would give himself paint enemas and then expel it onto canvas? Now THAT'S some freaking artistic skill! :thumbsup:

You couldn't pay me to hang one of his paintings on my wall.....

TripD
05-15-2007, 09:10 PM
TripD= Also, to steal from Bog's earlier post. I think the poll should have a new category more suited to my abilities: Hack-ist
--------------------------

OK Hack-ist is a posh way of saying Hacker. So you and Bog are chaps who constantly kick people in the leg during a soccer match.

Huh, well I was thinking more of just a hack.....but see how you use your own pallet to experience my hack?! :question:

Also, I've only ever kicked people between me and the beer garden. You know..... where we buy the tea and watch cricket on the big screen!

TripD
05-15-2007, 09:21 PM
Wasn't there an "artist" who would give himself paint enemas and then expel it onto canvas? Now THAT'S some freaking artistic skill! :thumbsup:

There was a band in Chico long ago called Vomit Launch. I walked by the show one night to witness the lead singer puking into the airstream of a weed blower onto who could only have been his girlfriend. Now that's sacrificing for someone else's art! :screwy:

mattclary
05-15-2007, 09:49 PM
There was a band in Chico long ago called Vomit Launch. I walked by the show one night to witness the lead singer puking into the airstream of a weed blower onto who could only have been his girlfriend. Now that's sacrificing for someone else's art! :screwy:

ROTFLMAO! Oh my god... Can we get a puke icon?

toby
05-15-2007, 10:21 PM
So in order to be considered art there must be some intent involved in the process- some control exercised by the creator. In my opinion, yes.


So at it's most basic level, in order to qualify as art, a painting is a two stage process.

Stage one: the artist at the canvas manipulates the paint to embed a meaning or emotional trigger

Stage two: The viwer of the work then extracts the intended meaning or emotional effect from the canvas in the gallery.
No, stage 2 is not neccessary. Are you skipping posts? This was covered.



But abstract painting is defined by the absence of shared frameworks of meaning- that's why it's called abstract- because it contains no recognisable symbols.

The entire concept is a self contradiction. Unless the intent of the creator can be faithfully transmitted to the viwer, the exercise is futile- but the very concept of 'abstract art' disallows the use of shared symbols of any kind.

The idea of abstract art is as absurd and self contradictory as the idea
of non stick glue- no such thing can exist.
Hm, or maybe it's just called 'abstract' because the images are undefined, or it's just called that because that's what it looks like at first glance. Just like this point of the argument may be called "grabbing at straws", based on the fact that you're trying to make a point by defining a word the way you want to.

parm
05-16-2007, 01:23 AM
But abstract painting is defined by the absence of shared frameworks of meaning- that's why it's called abstract- because it contains no recognisable symbols.

Abstract is the term commonly given to non-representational painting. Which is actually a more accurate description. Because all paintings are abstract. They only differ in the arrangement of the marks on their surfaces. The fundamental nature of metaphor is abstraction.

I'm curious to know what you think of the new kind of abstract cg art, we're seeing more of. like the ones in this thread (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65490)

Iain
05-16-2007, 02:49 AM
I'm curious to know what you think of the new kind of abstract cg art, we're seeing more of. like the ones in this thread (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65490)

To be honest it does nothing for me. The concept is interesting and these programs are fun to play with but I don't see any inspiration in it or feel any awe from viewing it.

Wonderpup
05-16-2007, 03:58 AM
No, stage 2 is not neccessary

So in order to be defined as art a work need only have meaning for its creator- there is no requirement for that meaning to be passed on to the veiwer?

Then what is the point of an art gallery? Why hang these private acts in public spaces. If the works have no discernable meaning to anyone but their creators then they are meaningless to everyone else- which I agree with.

So we have both come to the same conclusion from different directions- that contemporary abstract art is pointless because it fails the most basic test of any communication system- a shared framework of meaning.

Wonderpup
05-16-2007, 05:22 AM
I'm curious to know what you think of the new kind of abstract cg art, we're seeing more of. like the ones in this thread

It's interesting just how little impact all the new digital creation tools have had on the fine art world, you'd think the damian hurst brigade would have been delighted by all these new ways of creating visual effects.

I think for all their talk about 'the shock of the new' the fine arts establishment is just as entangled in their own mythologies and traditions as every other institution- CG art represents a threat to their established norms so they simply ignore it.

Iain
05-16-2007, 05:29 AM
I'm not sure that's what it is. I think a lot of artists believe that to create is to physically create and that cg art is too virtual, too intangible.

parm
05-16-2007, 01:34 PM
It's interesting just how little impact all the new digital creation tools have had on the fine art world, you'd think the damian hurst brigade would have been delighted by all these new ways of creating visual effects.

I think for all their talk about 'the shock of the new' the fine arts establishment is just as entangled in their own mythologies and traditions as every other institution- CG art represents a threat to their established norms so they simply ignore it.

You are kidding aren't you?

Don't make any allowances for how young and immature the medium and technology still is. It hasn't really been all that accessible for long.

Never the less take a look here (http://www.dam.org/intro.htm)
You might be surprised at just how long, some Fine Artists have been exploring the medium. There are quite a few other Digital fine art resources, but you'll have to look for them yourself.

Wonderpup
05-16-2007, 02:14 PM
Thanks for the link Parm- interesting stuff.

But it's still true to say that the people who run the galleries seem to have real issues with digitaly created work.

For example, one of the biggest art shows in the Uk, the affordable art fair. attended by 50 contemporary galleries each showing about five of six artists each- yet I can't find a single example of a digitaly created image- it all seems to be the traditional media- take a look at this link http://www.affordableartfair.co.uk/exhibitors.html

Also take a look at the web sites of the two biggest publishers of fine art prints in the uk- between them they represent hundreds of artists - but again not a single computer generated image.

http://www.demontfortfineart.co.uk/

http://www.washingtongreen.co.uk/

So there is a prejudice here against artists using non traditional techniques.

What's funny is that these people would point at a brilliantly rendered CG image and say "that's not Art" and then turn to some incomprehensible mess created by a brush wielding visual illiterate and say "Now, that's art!"

It's all ******** really- and if you doubt it take a look at some of the 'paintings' listed in the affordable art fairs exibitors pages- what a joke.

Wonderpup
05-16-2007, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure that's what it is. I think a lot of artists believe that to create is to physically create and that cg art is too virtual, too intangible.

I feel the same way- I still paint using Acrylics because I really want that final tangible object at the end. But I wonder if this is more a generational thing?

For instance some of the digital images posted on the CG Talk website are breathtakingly beautiful- as good as anything created by the old masters- yet those artists seem happy to work in a purely digital way- maybe it just feels more natural if you've grown up with the technology?

toby
05-16-2007, 02:25 PM
So in order to be defined as art a work need only have meaning for its creator- there is no requirement for that meaning to be passed on to the veiwer?

Then what is the point of an art gallery? Why hang these private acts in public spaces. If the works have no discernable meaning to anyone but their creators then they are meaningless to everyone else- which I agree with.

So we have both come to the same conclusion from different directions- that contemporary abstract art is pointless because it fails the most basic test of any communication system- a shared framework of meaning.

Is this some kind of joke? Because this is getting really stupid. Do you actually think I said that every piece of contemporary art has no meaning to anyone but it's creator? How about fine art that's never been displayed? Is that also worthless drivel that belongs in the garbage? Where do you get this rigid notion that art has to be seen in public and have meaning for anyone and everyone who sees it, in order to be valid?

My point, which you still haven't gotten even though it's been repeated, is that just because YOU don't understand a piece of art doesn't invalidate it. YOU, or a THIRD of the viewers, or HALF the viewers, or 9 out of 10 of the viewers, right on down to 'no one' but the artist. None of that invalidates it as art. You haven't even presented an argument to the contrary, you've just concocted hypothetical questions and repeated that "no meaning exists", without backing it up.

parm
05-16-2007, 05:11 PM
But it's still true to say that the people who run the galleries seem to have real issues with digitaly created work.

For example, one of the biggest art shows in the Uk, the affordable art fair. attended by 50 contemporary galleries each showing about five of six artists each- yet I can't find a single example of a digitaly created image- it all seems to be the traditional media- take a look at this link http://www.affordableartfair.co.uk/exhibitors.html

Well the commercial end of things is a different issue altogether. I've been to a few of these art fairs. I really can't stand them. Although I'm pretty sure that galleries like these, are fairly agnostic when it comes to art. It all boils down to what they can sell.

As you pointed out in your previous post. There is nothing about the imagery in lots of CG artwork that would be out of place, in many commercial galleries.

The problem is to do with the issue of authenticity. You see, People don't go to these places to buy posters or even pictures that they like. They want an investment. And it's the job of the commercial gallery, to convince the punter that buying what they have on offer, will be just that.

There are a number of ways they can do this. The most relevant factor, I think, for Cg art. Is the issue of rarity. This is an especially important selling point for young or unknown artists.

It goes like this:

Paintings on canvas are the most expensive. Needless to say, they're one-off and unique items.

Next is drawings, paintings and monoprints on paper.

Then printmaking: Etching and Stone Lithographs are the best. Because there is a very limited number of consistent quality prints. That any one plate or stone can produce. After that, you have hand silk screens and woodcuts.

Any print that comes in editions of 500 plus is basically junk, and should be relatively inexpensive. Unless it's by a proven big name, collectible artist.

So, how do you convince the art buying public, (whoever they might be), that buying a printout of your image will be a good investment?

parm
05-16-2007, 07:09 PM
To be honest it does nothing for me. The concept is interesting and these programs are fun to play with but I don't see any inspiration in it or feel any awe from viewing it.

You don't rate the imagery. That's fair enough. The program's fun to play with though.

I find the images quite interesting. In as much as that kind of mathematically driven abstraction, is very distinctive. Quite different to any non computerized abstract art.

I get what you're saying though. I can't make up my mind whether it's the program itself that is the art or the images made by the end user.

I remember a video game that allowed you to make music tracks, with a Dolphin that collected hoops or something. I can't remember clearly. But it does strike me as being a kind of computer game for making pictures.

Wonderpup
05-17-2007, 03:18 AM
Where do you get this rigid notion that art has to be seen in public and have meaning for anyone and everyone who sees it, in order to be valid?

So you think that art that is seen by no one and has no meaning is Valid?

As far as I am concerned the only reason to create a work of art is to communicate something- be it a thought, feeling, idea whatever.

So by that measure, a work of art that fails to accurately communicate the intended thought ,feeling or idea is invalid.

In the case of Abstract paintings, they are called abstract because they do not contain recognisable symbols or icons of any kind- they reference no shared communication system- hence 'abstract'

My point is really very simple- a work that by definition cannot reference a shared system of communication cannot accurately transmit the intent of the artist and therefore is invalid.

Iain
05-17-2007, 03:22 AM
See attachment.

Wonderpup
05-17-2007, 03:25 AM
The problem is to do with the issue of authenticity.

I think there's more to it than that. If you look at Photography they've somehow managed to define what they do as fine art, despite the fact that you can make many copies from a single negative.

I think it's really a prejudice against the tools rather than the output.

Wonderpup
05-17-2007, 03:29 AM
See attachment.

Can anyone show me a funny abstract picture?

Iain
05-17-2007, 03:45 AM
Can anyone show me a funny abstract picture?

Most of them are quite funny, especially if you're in church and your Brother is pulling funny faces behind your Dad's back.

Bog
05-17-2007, 04:59 AM
I find it amusing that the poll entry for "I want to quibble about the definition of art" is the smallest voted for, yet the biggest amount of bandwidth used in the thread :D

parm
05-17-2007, 06:03 AM
Can anyone show me a funny abstract picture?

Depends on what mood you're in. If your arms are folded then it's unlikely :)

Well I find the work of my dear friend David Tebbs (http://sleepingmonsters.blogspot.com/) very amusing.

Anyone following this thread. Please take a look. I'm sure you won't regret spending a few minutes over there.

Wonderpup
05-17-2007, 12:14 PM
The funniest thing about abstract art are the people that stand in galleries staring at it and waiting for the 'meaning' to manifest itself, when for all they know the guy that created it might have subcontracted the job out to his cat.
http://www.monpa.com/wcp/

riderx
05-17-2007, 09:58 PM
hehe..

hi im new here n this is my 1st post i guess...

well i also consider my self as an artist, this is because i ave good art n design foundation, i love painting, sculpture, details and im very2 picky about my working style..

for now im working as an animator, 3d modeler, designer, art director, art management staff and conceptual post production leader..guess im some kinda artist so then..lol

toby
05-17-2007, 11:15 PM
So you think that art that is seen by no one and has no meaning is Valid?
Did I say art with "no meaning" is valid?? You really need to stop manufacturing this junk. (I didn't say it was invalid either, for the record.)

For the hundredth time, just because something has no meaning FOR YOU does NOT mean that it has no meaning to anyone else. THAT is the simple concept that I'm trying to get across to you. Is poetry that's written in Chinese not poetry, because YOU can't read it?


As far as I am concerned the only reason to create a work of art is to communicate something- be it a thought, feeling, idea whatever.
And it's impossible for a composition of shapes and colors to invoke feelings?

In the case of Abstract paintings, they are called abstract because they do not contain recognisable symbols or icons of any kind- they reference no shared communication system- hence 'abstract'
"A trend in painting and sculpture in the twentieth century, Abstract art seeks to break away from traditional representation of physical objects. It explores the relationships of forms and colors, whereas more traditional art represents the world in recognizable images."
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

"an abstract genre of art; artistic content depends on internal form rather than pictorial representation"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

I'm not seeing anything about "they reference no shared communication system".


My point is really very simple- a work that by definition cannot reference a shared system of communication cannot accurately transmit the intent of the artist and therefore is invalid.
As a matter of fact, shapes and colors ARE a "shared system of communication". Ask any psychologist. Straight lines create a different mood than curved lines. Blue invokes a different mood than red, etc. I'm surprised you don't know this.

DiedonD
05-18-2007, 04:13 AM
Each time I read the title "Do you consider yourself an artist?" it sounds more to me like:

YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ARTISTS!!!

lol

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 06:47 AM
Is poetry that's written in Chinese not poetry, because YOU can't read it?

Suppose I wrote a poem in a language I invented that nobody understood but me- is that a valid thing to do? Or would that be absurd?

Your quote above does not negate my point but affirms it because it depends upon the assumption that Chinese is a shared communication system in which both the writer and reader agree as to the meaning of the symbols used.

Abstract painting has no such agreed symbolic consenus- on the contrarary it prides itself on not having one, as your quote here shows:


It explores the relationships of forms and colors, whereas more traditional art represents the world in recognizable images."

But exactly the same thing could be said about wallpaper designers- do they not also "explore the relationships of forms and colours" So in what way is an abstract painting different from wallpaper?

Your problem lies in the fact that Abstract Painters and their followers want to claim that their work can encapulate complex meanings and ideas, that it is indeed more than mere 'decoration' but the symbolic infrasctructure that would allow such meanings to be encapsualted is the one thing they have specificly chosen to avoid.

The entire concept is a self contradiction.

Lightwolf
05-18-2007, 06:58 AM
But exactly the same thing could be said about wallpaper designers- do they not also "explore the relationships of forms and colours" So in what way is an abstract painting different from wallpaper?
Are we back at the beginning of the thread again?
In what way is a kitschy photoreal CG monster (or to exagerate: Poser render) different from a painting by Raphael? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 07:13 AM
The problem is that Abstract Painters are not content to be seen as mere decorators or illustrators- they want to imbue their work with a mystique that is simply not supported by the facts.

Abstract paintings in fact by strict definition cannot mean something. because a 'meaning' is a signpost that points to something beyond itself. ( As in the word Dog- the word is not the dog)

Abstract paintings cannot reference anything beyound themselves because they do not utilise any shared symbolic system, and while they may be seen as interesting examples of the decorative use of shapes and colours on a canvas, there is no evidence at all that they can convey the complex and subtle meanings claimed by their advocates.

Lightwolf
05-18-2007, 07:23 AM
Abstract paintings in fact by strict definition cannot mean something. because a 'meaning' is a signpost that points to something beyond itself. ( As in the word Dog- the word is not the dog)

Been there, done that, Magritte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magritte) ;) (one of my favourites)


Abstract paintings cannot reference anything beyound themselves because they do not utilise any shared symbolic system, and while they may be seen as interesting examples of the decorative use of shapes and colours on a canvas, there is no evidence at all that they can convey the complex and subtle meanings claimed by their advocates.
Erm, it depends. It depends on the cultural context, where you have a lot os meaning even in simple symbols. Any educated graphic designer should be able to spend hours explaining those to you - they are the basis of modern design.
I'd even venture out and say that what we consider modern, day to day design started out as "fine art" initially ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Lissitzky - which in turn reminds me a lot of more recent package or product design).

Cheers,
Mike

parm
05-18-2007, 07:59 AM
But exactly the same thing could be said about wallpaper designers- do they not also "explore the relationships of forms and colours" So in what way is an abstract painting different from wallpaper?

Obviously one is a painting and one is wallpaper. They both could be used to cover up stains on a wall I suppose.

Why stop at wallpaper when you're on the right track? Textiles , Graphic Design, Product Design, Architecture, Interiors and just about every area of design in existence. Take there cues and are fed by the aesthetics brought into existence by the development of Abstract Art.

The benefit for us all, even the ones who don't like abstract art, or art in general for that matter. Is a visually interesting world, that changes from generation to generation.

Edit: yes, just like what Lightwolf just said


Abstract paintings cannot reference anything beyound themselves because they do not utilise any shared symbolic system, and while they may be seen as interesting examples of the decorative use of shapes and colours on a canvas, there is no evidence at all that they can convey the complex and subtle meanings claimed by their advocates.

Well, where do you think that new meanings and new shared systems of symbols come from?

We owe a lot to Artists from all ages. Not least to the pioneers of abstraction. Even the way we are able to think has been changed. Could you imagine anyone from the Renaissance, ancient Greece or the Victorian era. Able to interpret the patterns generated in X-ray Crystallography, or the tracks made by Sub Atomic Particles. Even the beautiful satellite images of the Earth we all take for granted. Would seem like nonsense to most people only a few generations ago.

So. if you are looking for meaning in Abstraction look around yourself. But in a slightly different way


Abstract paintings in fact by strict definition cannot mean something. because a 'meaning' is a signpost that points to something beyond itself. ( As in the word Dog- the word is not the dog)

So for you, the best kind of art, the only real art. Would be something like the wordless illustrated instructions you find in a condom packet, or the assembly diagrams for Ikea furniture. Anything that's very literal and unchallenging :thumbsdow

Lightwolf
05-18-2007, 08:21 AM
Edit: yes, just like what Lightwolf just said
Not as eloquently as you did though ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 10:58 AM
What I want to know, and no one so far seems able to really tell me is what it is that defines one selection of Abstract shapes and colours as Art, and another as wallpaper, or wrapping paper ect.

If the distiction lies in the intent of the creator, then it is vital, is it not, that the creator's intent is accurately transmitted- but I see no agreed system of symbols in abstract painting that would allow for that transmission.

Is it really as simple as this- a work of art is that which is defined as a work of art by those who control the infrastructure of galleries and institutions that make up the art world- anyone who dares to challenge this group is immediately subject to personal attack and ridicule ( hi Toby:D ) as the antibodies of the system rush in to defend the fragile structure from the infection of independant thought.

This Emporer has no clothes.

jasonwestmas
05-18-2007, 11:12 AM
What I want to know, and no one so far seems able to really tell me is what it is that defines one selection of Abstract shapes and colours as Art, and another as wallpaper, or wrapping paper ect.

If the distiction lies in the intent of the creator, then it is vital, is it not, that the creator's intent is accurately transmitted- but I see no agreed system of symbols in abstract painting that would allow for that transmission.

Is it really as simple as this- a work of art is that which is defined as a work of art by those who control the infrastructure of galleries and institutions that make up the art world- anyone who dares to challenge this group is immediately subject to personal attack and ridicule ( hi Toby:D ) as the antibodies of the system rush in to defend the fragile structure from the infection of independant thought.

This Emporer has no clothes.


It's sounds like you are interpreting color, shape and space as something that can be measured and "transmitted" precisely in an EMOTIONAL way. Art can never do that from person to person "Precisely". Does that mean that no one can be in the same general "location" emotionally when viewing the same piece of artwork? I tend to disagree.

I will agree that some pieces of artwork are so ambiguous that two people are viewing it from two opposite sides of the emotional spectrum. One person is in China and the other is in North America. There are others though that at least bring two people into the same emotional ball park if not closer. yes I am defending some types of abstract, conceptual, non-representational art as being a ligitimate form of communication. :)

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 11:31 AM
So for you, the best kind of art, the only real art. Would be something like the wordless illustrated instructions you find in a condom packet, or the assembly diagrams for Ikea furniture. Anything that's very literal and unchallenging


What I object to are the pretentious morons who have elevated ugliness and incompetnce to the level of Art by virtue of their economic power, and then try to retrofit a justfication in the form of absurdly overblown textual epics that explain why a given collection of shapes and colours is a vitaly important cultural artifact- when in reality it's not about Art or aethetics it's about power, control and status.

There's nothing 'challenging' about abstract painting, it is exactly what it appears to be- patterns of colour applied to canvas. It references nothing beyond itself- no hidden depths to be plumbed, or secret meanings to be discovered- just paint, canvas and a mountain of literature written by people who love not the art but the verbige, that endless mind numbing stream of ******** that seeks to convice us that somehow all these ugly meaningless things deserve our reverence- why? Because they say so.

jasonwestmas
05-18-2007, 11:47 AM
Because they say no? Not hardly. It's not hard to feel something when looking at it. That's all it is, communication, pretentious or not.

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 01:10 PM
Because they say no? Not hardly. It's not hard to feel something when looking at it. That's all it is, communication, pretentious or not.


I appreciate what your saying here, and it's true that certain colours and shapes do evoke similar responses in most people. So most will agree that blue is a cool colour and red a warm one- the origins of these common assumptions are easy to identify -snow is cool, fire is hot.

The problem is that this kind of ' communication' applies just as well to wallpaper design - but does that make it Art?

Read this description written by an an abstract painter about her work:


To me as an abstract artist, all the formal aspects of painting, brush marks, colours, tones, layers of paint, surface texture, become means of making discoveries about the world, contemporary life and the human predicament..

Now, with best will in the world , no cunning arrangement of paint on canvas is capable of carrying that much freight- how could an abstract design even begin to explain 'the world, contemporary life and the human predicament' it's utter nonesense.

Yet the very concept of Abstract art is predicated on its capacity to deliver this level of complexity. Otherwise it really is just wallpaper.

Lightwolf
05-18-2007, 02:05 PM
how could an abstract design even begin to explain 'the world, contemporary life and the human predicament' it's utter nonesense.

If you read the quote again, the art is not trying to explain anything (and I think any kind of art would fail at that level - that would be an illustration).

all the formal aspects of painting... become means of making discoveries...
Sounds more like meditation to me than anything else...

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-18-2007, 03:43 PM
So in what way does creating coloured shapes on a canvas enable anyone to make;


... discoveries about the world, contemporary life and the human predicament..

The claim that a medium as crude as paint on canvas could be used to explore complex metaphysical ideas is pure fantasy. Bearing in mind that this same meduim apparantly lacks the resolution to allow us to distinguish between the work of men and that of monkeys.

jasonwestmas
05-18-2007, 04:05 PM
I would say the composition of color and shape can envoke an experience. The experience is nothing more than an experience. This experience is discovered or uncovered or presented, I wouldn't say that there is anything spiritual in it but it is metaphysical and emotional communication. If people think that emotions and feelings are a very limited pallette because they are not based on science, math or logic then they will never see this type of art. You might as well ask what the experience of the color Red is.

Lightwolf
05-18-2007, 04:34 PM
The claim that a medium as crude as paint on canvas could be used to explore complex metaphysical ideas is pure fantasy.
A medium is just that... a medium. It transports an idea, but by no means needs to contain it.
Speaking of pure fantasy... another way to explore complex metaphysical ideas - and it doesn't even have a physical medium.

Cheers,
Mike

toby
05-19-2007, 02:27 AM
Suppose I wrote a poem in a language I invented that nobody understood but me- is that a valid thing to do? Or would that be absurd?Yes, it would be completely valid. If you didn't take care in what you were doing, or had little talent or practice, it would probably be a 'bad' poem, but it would be a poem.

I'd really like to hear what makes you think that art absolutely has to be an accurate system of communication, and must be so to 'most' people, in order to be valid. This is not science or math we're talking about.


it's true that certain colours and shapes do evoke similar responses in most people. So most will agree that blue is a cool colour and red a warm one- the origins of these common assumptions are easy to identify -snow is cool, fire is hot.

The problem is that this kind of ' communication' applies just as well to wallpaper design - but does that make it Art?

No one ever said that wallpaper can't be art, nor that art can't be used as wallpaper. So this is yet another hypothetical question that's completely moot.

And not to pick on you, but snow is white, not blue, and roses are red, not fire - but roses aren't hot... can you explain this better, or could this explain a little about why you don't undestand abstract art?

How about you address something that's been brought up, which you've ignored previously - if colors and shapes can be a "shared system of communication" ( a link to where you found this 'requirement' would be nice too ), and can invoke feelings, why are they invalid as art?

Wonderpup
05-20-2007, 10:18 AM
Hi Toby,

I have a feeling we're a bit like two drunks fighting in the street here long after the party is over- but it's been fun.


No one ever said that wallpaper can't be art

So there is no distinction in your mind between wallpaper and abstract painting?

Here, at last, is something we can both agree on- I share that view- to me abstract art is as meaningless and non mystical as wallpaper- it's purely an exercise in shape and colour and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if that is so, why is it that so many people insist that Abstract paintings can allow artists to make;
"... discoveries about the world, contemporary life and the human predicament.. "

Wallpaper just can't do things like that- it just sort of hangs there.

You see my problem? You cannot manipualate complex metaphysical concepts using symbols as crude as colour shapes- they are simply not able to do the the job- they are not granular enough.

When I asked someone to post an Abstract image that was funny nobody, including you, took me up on the challenge. So even a concept as basic as humour is beyond the ability of Abstract art to convey, let alone
discoveries about the world, contemporary life and the human predicament..

The idea that coloured shapes on canvas could even begin to address such ideas is so ludicrous I'm amazed anyone dares to even suggest it.

So if you want me to agree that certain arrangements of shapes and colours on canvas can evoke common responses on an emotional level- that I will concede.

What I cannot accept is that any abstract arrangement of colours and shapes could even begin to address the kind of complex metaphysical issues that some people claim it does- the language of shape and colour is simply not adequate to do this- that is why books on Philosophy are written in words rather than random blobs of colour. Even this discussion could not have taken place if we were reduced to communicating through the arrangement of coloured shapes.

So the basic premise of the entire Abstract art movement is fataly flawed.

In fact I think what we have here is actualy a semantic confusion between the concept of Abstract, as in non representational, and Abstract as in metaphyisical.

The basic problem seems to be that Abstract painters think they're Philosophers when they are in fact Decorators.

parm
05-20-2007, 12:23 PM
When I asked someone to post an Abstract image that was funny nobody, including you, took me up on the challenge. So even a concept as basic as humour is beyond the ability of Abstract art to convey, let alone

I did. Didn't you even look?

And what's it supposed to prove anyway? Abstract painting isn't very entertaining perhaps? What of it, there's no shortage of entertainment in the world.



The basic problem seems to be that Abstract painters think they're Philosophers when they are in fact Decorators.

Be honest. You're just being a bit of a wind up merchant now, aren't you?

You can't claim to know what abstract painters think. All of them. Don't you think that many, if not most. Just see themselves as painters. Some, no doubt, are philosophers, primarily interested in ideas. Others may indeed have aesthetic concerns, that are purely decorative. And are quite happy to be seen that way. Artists, like the one in the example you posted earlier. Use painting as a cognitive tool. It's their way of making sense of existence.

Before writing off Abstraction in Art. It's worth reflecting, that arguably the highest most powerful form of Art, (Music). Is the most comprehensively abstract in nature. Luckily some artists realised that shapes, colours and textures. Can have a similar effect to musical sound on our psyche. A lot of things have been made possible because of it.

jasonwestmas
05-20-2007, 03:40 PM
highest most powerful form of Art, (Music). Is the most comprehensively abstract in nature. Luckily some artists realised that shapes, colours and textures. Can have a similar effect to musical sound on our psyche. A lot of things have been made possible because of it.

Great Comparison! Color and shape have tonality just like sound does:hey:

gerry_g
05-20-2007, 03:54 PM
So if you can describe the abstract in terms of 'common nouns' 'verbs' and 'adjectives' it can be said to have substance and tangibility .....................but you could imply anything has substance on this basis – George Bushes policy in Iran, the existence of Gods, real time radocity based rendering in our life time ??

Wonderpup
05-20-2007, 05:25 PM
I totally accept that music can create emotional responses, and that colored shapes painted on canvases can also create emotional responses-

But- Abstract artists do not claim to be dealing only in emotion they claim that somehow, by means unknown, their paintings can elucidate complex abstract ideas- like the meaning of life, or the current state of the 'human condition.'

This, I'm afraid, is patent nonsense. The reason that every book on metaphysics ever written has used words is because a book whose pages contained random collections of colored shapes would mean nothing to anyone.

And I did look at the link, Parm, but what I need is a truly abstract image that is also genuinely funny, no symbols allowed- I have yet to see one.

The reason this is important is because if Abstract painting cannot even manage to communicate a basic concept like humour, what chance does it have of expressing the higher reaches of metaphysical thought claimed by its supporters?

jasonwestmas
05-20-2007, 06:45 PM
I totally accept that music can create emotional responses, and that colored shapes painted on canvases can also create emotional responses-

But- Abstract artists do not claim to be dealing only in emotion they claim that somehow, by means unknown, their paintings can elucidate complex abstract ideas- like the meaning of life, or the current state of the 'human condition.'

This, I'm afraid, is patent nonsense. The reason that every book on metaphysics ever written has used words is because a book whose pages contained random collections of colored shapes would mean nothing to anyone.

And I did look at the link, Parm, but what I need is a truly abstract image that is also genuinely funny, no symbols allowed- I have yet to see one.

The reason this is important is because if Abstract painting cannot even manage to communicate a basic concept like humour, what chance does it have of expressing the higher reaches of metaphysical thought claimed by its supporters?

Finally we are on the same page. . .This is true, of course we wouldn't need words if all the meaning in the world was communicated through random shapes and colors in and of themselves. Words communicate values and judgement in precise/specific ways, they tend to tie the literal in with the metaphorical properties of our personal values. Colors and shapes do the same thing but only in a loose emotional kind of way that can be interpreted differently. The visual gives only a general sense where words go beyond that. So to say that visual art is the same as words is a falsehood. I think incorporating both together makes better communication, they are reliant upon eachother I believe.

toby
05-20-2007, 07:15 PM
So there is no distinction in your mind between wallpaper and abstract painting?
No, in my mind:
No one ever said that wallpaper can't be art, nor that art can't be used as wallpaper.
That's what I said, that's what I meant. Don't re-interpret things I say just to twist them into something you can use.

Since I have to simplify it for you, if only so that you can't re-interpret it:
It's possible for art to be used as wallpaper, and it's possible for someone to design wallpaper with artistic intention, effort, talent, and/or skill.

This whole comparison between art and wallpaper is merely another attempt of yours to insult a medium which you just personally don't like. And it's a ridiculous comparison because it relies on the idea that wallpaper can't be art, or that it's an insult for art to be used as wallpaper. That's why I said "this is yet another hypothetical question that's completely moot", and it still is.



When I asked someone to post an Abstract image that was funny nobody, including you, took me up on the challenge. So even a concept as basic as humour is beyond the ability of Abstract art to convey,

I didn't respond to that because it's another ridiculous example. Show me some Fine art that's funny. And if anything is completely subjective, it's humor. But I have seen imagery that made me laugh, and it wasn't comedy. Images that are really intense make me laugh at my own reaction and surprise at how powerful they are. So if I show you those, that will suffice, right? Yea, right.

And YOU haven't met MY challenge, for the second time -

How about you address something that's been brought up, which you've ignored previously - if colors and shapes can be a "shared system of communication" ( a link to where you found this 'requirement' would be nice too ), and can invoke feelings, why are they invalid as art?

so let's hear it.



So if you want me to agree that certain arrangements of shapes and colours on canvas can evoke common responses on an emotional level- that I will concede.
Why should it have to do anymore than that?? Emotion is one of the most important things in art! More often than not, an artist is creating something out of emotion.



What I cannot accept is that any abstract arrangement of colours and shapes could even begin to address the kind of complex metaphysical issues that some people claim it does- the language of shape and colour is simply not adequate to do this- that is why books on Philosophy are written in words rather than random blobs of colour. Even this discussion could not have taken place if we were reduced to communicating through the arrangement of coloured shapes.

So the basic premise of the entire Abstract art movement is fataly flawed.

Uh... ok, why does art have to "address complex metaphysical issues", or be practical in discussion to qualify as art? It's your interpretation that's 'fatally flawed', no one but you said it's the "basic premise of the entire Abstract art movement".


The basic problem seems to be that Abstract painters think they're Philosophers when they are in fact Decorators.
And you think I'm attacking you? I'm not the one who's concocting excuses and ignoring reasonable discussion in an effort to trash peoples' entire life's work.

Stooch
05-20-2007, 07:43 PM
Ok....I promise never to mention Monkeys on this thread again. Could we seriously drop the monkey caper. I like th art stuff though :beerchug:

yes. besides, i have always been fascinated by the arrangements of my cats litter box. I think snickers has a bit of feng shui in him.

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 02:38 AM
Uh... ok, why does art have to "address complex metaphysical issues",

Personaly, I don't think it does, or even can- But this is what Abstract painters claim to be doing, and it's this claim that I find no evidence to support. What I want somebody to explain, without resorting to subjective criticisem of my personal lack of wit, is this-

How to we get from coloured shapes on a piece of canvas to

"... discoveries about the world, contemporary life and the human predicament.. "

What is the mechanisem that allows this to be achived? How is it possible for arrangements of colour on a canvas to address these issues?

Lightwolf
05-21-2007, 02:45 AM
But this is what Abstract painters claim to be doing, and it's this claim that I find no evidence to support.
I don't see any painter claiming that either, at least not from your initial quote.
So, where is your argument?

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 02:51 AM
And YOU haven't met MY challenge, for the second time -

How about you address something that's been brought up, which you've ignored previously - if colors and shapes can be a "shared system of communication" ( a link to where you found this 'requirement' would be nice too ), and can invoke feelings, why are they invalid as art?

I totaly accept ( and have said so above) that both music and colour are valid forms of communication- but I have yet to hear a convincing, rational, explination of how a 'language' as crude as coloured shapes can be used to communicate complex metaphysical ideas, as claimed by the Abstract art establishment.

I note that you do not choose to post your replies in the form of coloured shapes, but instead choose words- why is that?

Lightwolf
05-21-2007, 02:56 AM
....but I have yet to hear a convincing, rational, explination of how a 'language' as crude as coloured shapes can be used to communicate complex metaphysical ideas, as claimed by the Abstract art establishment.
Is that really claimed? How do you define communicate? How do you communicate the feeling you get by looking at a starry sky? By painting it?
Cann looking at some right dots on a black canvas evoke complex metaphysical thoughts? Does that mean it communicates them as well?

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 03:12 AM
Well, there's this:


Q: Metaphysics is a broad term that is generally defined as: "The investigation into how and why the Universe began. Metaphysicists normally theorize on the origins of the Universe but sometimes, scientific fact is the basis of an argument."
Your artwork is self-described as "Metaphysical Paintings." Using this train of thought, your work seemingly deals extensively with ideas on "Creationism." Generally, the scientific community accepts the "Big Bang" and Darwinist theories. Judeo/Christian ideas paint yet another story that has some scientific basis with the discovery of monogenist theories that describe "Eve" mitochondria. Those who promote New Age doctrine often refer to the Sumerian and Hopi records that surprisingly resemble each other a great deal. Truthfully, there are too many such theories for me to list here.

Through painting, you've been able to elaborate on these specific ideas. Is it possible that you can further describe your metaphysical beliefs here using words instead of paint? (Perhaps using examples from your paintings). I am curious how you as an artist define Metaphysics.

A: As an artist, my work is based in metaphor. The formulation or even the illustration of a metaphysical theory, complete or otherwise, is beyond the scope of my work as an artist, which work is essentially of a poetic nature. As such, art evokes and rhymes; it suggests and ponders; it expresses and demonstrates; but it does so lightly, without holding too tightly to the philosopher's, or the cosmologist's, or the theologian's propositions, which are predicated on certainty: whether divined, reasoned, or supported by evidence.
I do not see myself as a philosopher, a cosmologist nor a theologian whose work is involved with logic and reason, or with the proposition of theories based more or less on the scientific method, or on theological doctrine. The game for philosophers, cosmologists and theologians is to know and define objective truths to their best ability, commensurate with the limits of their respective disciplines. Art makes no pretense --in my view, should make no pretense-- to give us truths, objective truths, and suffers when trying. Art, at its best, is centered on the absolute freedom of pure creation, with inspiration, imagination, play, humor, and even whimsy for methodologies. However, let seriousness not be equated with depth, nor lightness with vice, for paradoxically in art's playfulness and disregard for reason lie deep truths about our true natures and God's.
I use the term "metaphysical" in my work to signal my concern with matters unlimited, and in particular, unseen. I use the term in the sense that Aristotle meant "wisdom," "theology," or "the first philosophy," a discipline "to deal with the first causes and the principles of all things," including, in addition to material things and abstractions, "immovable substance," as well as the eternal, immutable and immaterial, and the divine presence.
I mean the term to include, as well, spirituality in general and all "subjective" inner experience: feelings, thoughts, intuitions, mystical or inspired knowledge and experiences, as well as "being as being and the attributes that belong to being in virtue of its own nature," mind and idea, the soul, fantasy. In a broader context I also include under metaphysics other non-physical, conventionally unexplainable phenomena: magic, miracles, synchronicity, telepathy, teleportation, discarnate and extra-terrestrial beings, crop circles, mediums and channelers, these things falling more or less beyond the boundaries of scientific understanding.
Link:
http://www.mateo.net/Intervue1.htm


Does anyone really believe that blobs of colour on a canvas is an adequate language to deal with this kind of material? Or could even begin to do so- really?

jasonwestmas
05-21-2007, 08:56 AM
Wonderpup,

Even though I agree with "some" of what he says,
Color, shape and optical values cannot show what that person has described. If one could do such a thing he would be writting in a language which is not what painting is usually. Art without language can evoke a complex experience, they do not evoke a higher level of consciousness like language can. If you put art along side textual element however, the two complement eachother and give greater meaning.

BTW, I would have to hear what this guy says about each piece individually to really know if he is for real or not, from what I've seen he's not really reflecting profound statement with that work.

Lightwolf
05-21-2007, 09:06 AM
Does anyone really believe that blobs of colour on a canvas is an adequate language to deal with this kind of material? Or could even begin to do so- really?
To be quite honest, I don't see anything in the quoted statement that comes close to what you are saying.
You expect a certainty in art which is simply not there... and is hard enough to have in words.
Looking at the interview, the artists says so himself (Sheesh, I don't even like his stuff).
This is a bit like (he mentions poetry) a poet that you do not understand... but is still a poem (Dada comes to mind here).

Cheers,
Mike

theo
05-21-2007, 10:10 AM
To be quite honest, I don't see anything in the quoted statement that comes close to what you are saying.
You expect a certainty in art which is simply not there... and is hard enough to have in words.

Exactly. Implied certainty is the apex of artistic thought projection.

The idea projectionist is literally quite limited at this stage on what I call the evolvement continuum.

The only way we can assimilate and integrate, in its purest and most undiluted form, an idea that is being projected into us is to literally BECOME the creator of the projection. Not possible, of course.

So, we are left with an implication of certainty. This implication is parsed by our own cognitive patterns and translated into an alternate mental form. This process is the crux of why artistic reality abstractions serve something of a genuine purpose.

Here's the crux:

Abstractions (even visually beautiful ones) tend to leave something to be desired in their FINAL state.

To capture and interpret, into a FINAL physical state, a mental climax is the holy grail of abstract thought projection.

The abstracted art is the clumsy culmination of this cognitive eruption. The projectionist is seeking vainly to recreate the un-recreatable, which is his/her own state of heightened certainty.

parm
05-21-2007, 11:20 AM
I totaly accept ( and have said so above) that both music and colour are valid forms of communication- but I have yet to hear a convincing, rational, explination of how a 'language' as crude as coloured shapes can be used to communicate complex metaphysical ideas, as claimed by the Abstract art establishment.

Actually, I don't think the language of painting is crude, at all. As a form, it'sbeen with us of tens of thousands of years. It's one of the most versatile mediums ever devised. Certainly just about the most persistent. It has kept up and changed, with every single advance of human understanding. In some cases, has led those advances. It can provoke incredibly subtle nuances of emotion, and evoke the most visceral of sensations. Crude is certainly not an appropriate word to describe it. I'd agree with subjective, or evocative but not crude. That's not to say that paint cannot be used in a crude way, though.


And I did look at the link, Parm, but what I need is a truly abstract image that is also genuinely funny, no symbols allowed- I have yet to see one.

So, you don't think that my friends paintings are abstract? Interesting.


I note that you do not choose to post your replies in the form of coloured shapes, but instead choose words- why is that?

For the same reason a Chemist or Mathematician wouldn't reply in the form of equations. Colours and shapes are not an appropriate form for this type of discourse. I would have thought that was obvious.

Finally, I don't know who or what the 'Abstract Art' establishment is. But, in 25 years, I have never met a single artist, who claims to be able to transmit precise ideas to another person, through shapes and colours. It's not even possible to do this through figurative Allegorical painting. The only kind of visual artwork I can think of that can do this. Is as I have already said, a certain type of very dry instructional illustration.

CMT
05-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Well, actually David Tebbes has some nice stuff. 90% of abstract art is lousy IMO because I never detect any skill or design sense within it. I only looked through pretty quickly , but Tebbes has good design sense, which is more than I can say for the metaphysical nonsense of the other painter. I can (somewhat) understand abstract art like Tebbes, but art that takes no technical skill, or doesn't convey anything except confusion, or when it is lacking any design sense, is just a waste of canvas. And Mateo.... doesn't seem to have any of these. It's too far removed from what my everyday experiences are for any of it to have any meaning to me. Design-wise there seems to be no rationale for 95% of his Mateo's work. And it looks as though a 3 year old created it.

I'm not bashing abstract art at all. As I've stated before, I like some of it when it's well done, but I can see where Wonderpup is coming from when looking at this stuff. I just think he's looking at the worst possible examples of it.

theo
05-21-2007, 11:56 AM
I just think he's looking at the worst possible examples of it.

Well... according to you and Wonderpup, that is.

"Worst possible examples" is codeword for one purely subjective and categorical state of perception.

Ah, the subjectivating conundrums rear their ugly heads...:D

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 12:53 PM
Colours and shapes are not an appropriate form for this type of discourse. I would have thought that was obvious.

Exactly! Colours and shapes are not the appropriate form for exploring complex metaphysical ideas. I've got nothing against colours and shapes personally- some of my best freinds have both colour and shape- but you can't use such a simple language to describe profound philosopy. I would have thought that was obvious.

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 12:59 PM
You expect a certainty in art which is simply not there

I'm not the one making all kinds of extravegent claims for what art can and cannot deliver- another quote from our abstract freind:


My work since 1978 has been concerned with, well...metaphysical ideas, usually centered on questions of Creation, such as: the metaphorical correspondence between artist and Prime Creator, and between art and natural creation; the creation of something out of nothing --that is, absolute, rather than derived or evolved creation; the process of development and continued creation beyond first impulse; the nature and origins of the creative impetus; the issues of absolute freedom implicit in creation, and the implicit problem of choice; the role that art may play, as a microcosmic metaphor for cosmic creation, in informing us about the methods or "mechanisms" of natural manifestation; and the contemplation of the process of creation in terms of its ability to reveal the Creator, or to enable the Creator to know itself through its creations.

All of that, from coloured shapes on a canvas???

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 01:09 PM
This is a bit like (he mentions poetry) a poet that you do not understand... but is still a poem

Poets, even obscure ones, still operate within a shared vocabulary- their art is to re arrange that shared understanding in new and unexpected ways.

Interestingly cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but not write poetry.

Lightwolf
05-21-2007, 01:15 PM
Poets, even obscure ones, still operate within a shared vocabulary
That's why I mentioned Dada - with an invented vocabulary (by the individual artist)


Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
05-21-2007, 01:35 PM
That's why I mentioned Dada - with an invented vocabulary (by the individual artist)

I guess a poem in a made up language is the literary equivelent of an abstract painting. For me, unless meaning can be propagated it's kind of meaningless.

CMT
05-21-2007, 01:39 PM
Well... according to you and Wonderpup, that is.

"Worst possible examples" is codeword for one purely subjective and categorical state of perception.

Ah, the subjectivating conundrums rear their ugly heads...:D

And you're right obviously! :) It's totally just my opinion. Didn't mean to offend anyone who really likes Mateo's stuff.

And some may really like it. But do you see it? All that profound meaning about the universe and creation in Mateo's art? I can't. Not even a little. I dunno. Maybe it's all me... maybe my mind just doesn't think that abstractly. But I don't see how a few colored lines can remotely convey an idea about the creation or the universe.

parm
05-21-2007, 02:12 PM
But do you see it? All that profound meaning about the universe and creation in Mateo's art? I can't. Not even a little. I dunno. Maybe it's all me... maybe my mind just doesn't think that abstractly. But I don't see how a few colored lines can remotely convey an idea about the creation or the universe.

To be honest CMT. What I read of it, didn't come across as an interview at all. It seemed more like someone thinking out aloud, so to speak.

I certainly didn't get any impression, that the artist was trying to convey those ideas to anyone through the paintings. But was more a commentary of what was on their mind while making the paintings.

parm
05-21-2007, 02:21 PM
Interestingly cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but not write poetry.

I don't know, stick a monkey on a typewriter and see. Or try reading a song or a poem to some old generation speech recognition software. It's quite surprising how coherent the computers totally incorrect rendition can be.

But. Yes, monkeys,cats and jet engines. Can be made to make marks with paint. But as far as we know, only Humans can respond to those shapes and colours in an aesthetic way.

starbase1
05-22-2007, 12:21 AM
To be honest it does nothing for me. The concept is interesting and these programs are fun to play with but I don't see any inspiration in it or feel any awe from viewing it.

As the person who did it, I have to agree! It's an area I find a lots of fun, but I don't take it very seriously...

A lot of it feels to me a lot more like finding something attractive rather than creating something attractive...

Nick

starbase1
05-22-2007, 12:29 AM
Thanks for the link Parm- interesting stuff.

So there is a prejudice here against artists using non traditional techniques.

What's funny is that these people would point at a brilliantly rendered CG image and say "that's not Art" and then turn to some incomprehensible mess created by a brush wielding visual illiterate and say "Now, that's art!"


I suspect that one factor may be the number of people producing images in relation to the number buying...

Kind of like there are so many people producing reasonable or even good photographs that the professional photographer is a dying breed. If you look at the numbers on some of the digital online gallery sites (where anyone can submit), I think it's pretty close to a 'write only' medium in some areas...

After all, we all appreciate this digital stuff, but I'd be surprised if many of us have bought any prints of a digitally created work.

Nick

starbase1
05-22-2007, 12:32 AM
I find the images quite interesting. In as much as that kind of mathematically driven abstraction, is very distinctive. Quite different to any non computerized abstract art.

I get what you're saying though. I can't make up my mind whether it's the program itself that is the art or the images made by the end user.



With progs like Groboto and Xenodream I generally twiddle the knobs until I find something I like. Great fun, but not art - to me I only think of my own stuff as art if I start with something definite in mind, and feel I succeed in creating it.

Nick

Lightwolf
05-22-2007, 01:42 AM
For me, unless meaning can be propagated it's kind of meaningless.
So, where is the meaning on non-abstract art then? What story does the Mona Lisa tell you?

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
05-22-2007, 03:37 AM
This is probably the worst possible place to say this, but a few days ago I bought a painting done by dolphins... (seriously)

v1u1ant
05-22-2007, 08:54 AM
lol......hmm

interesting thread. seems to be more concerned about the artist being able to justify what theyve done and for the viewer to see inside the artistis head, rather the arguement should focus around 'what it is' that makes a piece of art a piece of art and not wallpaper (for example). Its the understanding of aesthetics, of why 'something' (artists always talk in the abstract anyway;))seems ugly to one person and not to another or why some people find a painting of a cow pulling a guy on a trailer through a stream more appealing than say a bunch of coloured dots. Its that understanding that is the real challenge in art. Once you understand why you like or dislike something the closer you are to understanding art and therefore what makes good art.

Sure plenty of todays art, especially the Brit pack have been made 'famous' by such people as charles saatchi and the current tate director.......Surl is it his name? cant remember. Who push there own personnel tastes onto the masses just because they can. Personnally i find Hirsts work very refreshing, but thats about it. But he deals with the same subject matter that all big artists in the past have dealt with, death, love, mortality, all serious stuff. He just finds new ways to do it, or has found new ways to do this, maybe he doesnt anymore. But that also points to something, that artists over time, even abstract artists build up a code or way of communication of their own.

Sure it can seem when you get into this area that art becomes pretentious, but artists need some kind of refuge to be able to discuss seriously what lines, colours, textures etc are capabale of beyond being colour, lines and textures. thats something most people would find boring but is an essential part for some artists understanding of their profession.



Like i said i did a degree in art and that robbed me of my inspiration for a couple of years, purely because the way the 'school' was teaching art was to think about 'the mark on canvas' before you made it. That just meant that id deconstructed the initial idea and binned it before i even got started. Very tricky to get out of. My art became cerebral.

Interestingly CG saved my bacon because it was something that was beyond my (by then gone) art tutors comprehension and that allowed me to justify more easily to myself what i was doing. I wouldnt class CG art on the same level as Fine art though, well not in their purest forms, although there certainly are mixtures of this going on. CG is too ......hyperreal for me, if you know what i mean. maybe thats something to do with seeing alot of CG through a flat screen.


there is a lot said about words being needed by artists to explain their art. To most artists, words are an abstract in themselves. Characters, if you look at them are symbols, therefore (or before they were named as such) words would have been a form of art in that they are a visual representation, just one that society has deemed fit to adhere some standards to.

Peter Weibel has some really good ideas about words in art, some of his art uses only words. I would also recommend the ZKM museum in Karlsruhe, South Germany for a place to see new media in art (including a number of permanent CG pieces) they have a great cabinet full of classic old computers on the top floor aswell. bit of a pain to get too for some but if your passing well worth the an afternoons visit.


See now i feel like i did after university, talked alot of **** and got no work done.

jasonwestmas
05-22-2007, 09:03 AM
This is probably the worst possible place to say this, but a few days ago I bought a painting done by dolphins... (seriously) I dunno, I would think it would be kind of like getting the signature of a dolphin.Do they use their nose or fin. :) It sounds like a reflection of the dolphin's. . .something. I think it's the mystery of why animals paint that intrigues people more than what the painting is saying about the animal or if it's aestheticly pleasing.

theo
05-22-2007, 09:34 AM
And you're right obviously! :) It's totally just my opinion. Didn't mean to offend anyone who really likes Mateo's stuff.

And some may really like it. But do you see it? All that profound meaning about the universe and creation in Mateo's art? I can't. Not even a little. I dunno. Maybe it's all me... maybe my mind just doesn't think that abstractly. But I don't see how a few colored lines can remotely convey an idea about the creation or the universe.

Good grief CMT- no one's going to be offended that you don't like Mateo.

CMT
05-22-2007, 09:51 AM
Good grief CMT- no one's going to be offended that you don't like Mateo.

Don't worry about it. I wasn't loosing any sleep over it.

starbase1
05-22-2007, 10:00 AM
I dunno, I would think it would be kind of like getting the signature of a dolphin.Do they use their nose or fin. :) It sounds like a reflection of the dolphin's. . .something. I think it's the mystery of why animals paint that intrigues people more than what the painting is saying about the animal or if it's aestheticly pleasing.

Actually they just stick a brush in the dolphins mouth, the dolphin wags its head, and they press the paper against the brush. (It was actually for my wife, who was completely enchanted at the dolphinarium!)

bluerider
05-22-2007, 10:03 AM
I think in regard to most CGI art I see both 2 and 3D there are measurable criteria in reagrd to whats good and bad

parm
05-22-2007, 04:42 PM
I think in regard to most CGI art I see both 2 and 3D there are measurable criteria in reagrd to whats good and bad

Would you mind elaborating a little?

toby
05-22-2007, 05:01 PM
Poets, even obscure ones, still operate within a shared vocabulary- their art is to re arrange that shared understanding in new and unexpected ways.

Interestingly cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but not write poetry.
You may as well say that they can communicate, but they can't drive cars downtown. One does not invalidate the other.

Cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but they can't compose them.

theo
05-22-2007, 05:15 PM
Cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but they can't compose them.

Sure they can... it just depends on how one defines "compose".

toby
05-22-2007, 05:32 PM
You'd have to define it so loosely that you could say they can drive cars in traffic too. I prefer not to define things that loosely because words start to lose any definition.

But put it this way; they don't say to themselves "this area needs to be a reddish-orange, and some paralell lines over there..." etc.

Wonderpup
05-22-2007, 05:55 PM
So, where is the meaning on non-abstract art then? What story does the Mona Lisa tell you?

I don't claim that any art has meaning, in the sense of pointing to something beyond itself. The Mona Lisa is simply a beautiful artifact created by a master craftsman.

Danic101
05-22-2007, 05:58 PM
I consider myself a "creative whore" I will do anything for a buck.

theo
05-22-2007, 06:31 PM
You'd have to define it so loosely that you could say they can drive cars in traffic too. I prefer not to define things that loosely because words start to lose any definition.

But put it this way; they don't say to themselves "this area needs to be a reddish-orange, and some paralell lines over there..." etc.

If only it were that simple, even for a human abstractionist. I think that abstractionists will actually work to avoid the conscious behavior you outline above in favor of subliminal interaction with the work.

The animal may be "composing" as a sterile functionary, of sorts, by applying color and variation based on a combination of random and instinctual thought patterns and responses.

A sort of instinctual chaos, shall we say. The chaos gets captured, this is all that matters.

It could be argued that contemporary art production may fall into a similar process.

bluerider
05-22-2007, 08:26 PM
Would you mind elaborating a little?

I do mind elaborating, because it was actually a flippant remark and did not think anyone would call my bluff.

But OK, I will Endeavour to stick my neck out :hey:

OK the thread has really concentrated on the fine arts. I think in terms of people looking for direction in CGI art whether 2D or 3D its probably best looking at the appreciation of aesthetics through a classical traditional perspective. Here we have a "canon" or established way of critiquing a piece based on a number of fundamental aspects. Such as , good composition, anatomical observation, good silhouettes etc.

Any major film studio, Games Company are looking for artists with a good fundamental knowledge that’s has a classical traditional foundation. With this foundation we have an individual who can adapt to the requirements of a particular stylization of a project.

The best way to measure these fundamental skills is usually through life drawing. The level of expertise is easy to measure with those who have good experience in these skills, or an individual who has acquired a good palette of discernment for the discipline. Also with their use of color, composition etc. The fine art establishment usually see this approach as prescriptive and to “artisan” or acronistic. As their criterian is different, this is irrelevant for people who are endeavoring to seek employment in the entertainments industry. I am not however dismissing the importance or many connections there are to the fine arts and its important influences that effect and contribute to the classical arts and visa versa.

Now these ways of measuring artistic merit are no different when translating to Polygons, the principles are the same. So in regard to 3D modeling/ animation for those interested in a career or path in the area of entertainment, Games development/ film etc having a classical approach is of great value.

bluerider
05-22-2007, 08:38 PM
If only it were that simple, even for a human abstractionist. I think that abstractionists will actually work to avoid the conscious behavior you outline above in favor of subliminal interaction with the work.

The animal may be "composing" as a sterile functionary, of sorts, by applying color and variation based on a combination of random and instinctual thought patterns and responses.

A sort of instinctual chaos, shall we say. The chaos gets captured, this is all that matters.

It could be argued that contemporary art production may fall into a similar process.

Your far to clever for your own good, stop the fancy Vocabulary.

P.S. could you edit my crappy grammer . Just kidding, what an affliction that would be.

theo
05-22-2007, 08:42 PM
Your far to clever for your own good, stop the fancy Vocabulary.


Hehe... you are far too naughty... :D

Bluerider must not reveal theo's inner workings. :D

Iain
05-23-2007, 02:20 AM
Your far to clever for your own good, stop the fancy Vocabulary.

P.S. could you edit my crappy grammer . Just kidding, what an affliction that would be.

Well, if someone wanted to appear really clever, they could actually point out errors in the grammar of that quotation but what purpose would that serve?

Iain
05-23-2007, 02:25 AM
As the person who did it, I have to agree! It's an area I find a lots of fun, but I don't take it very seriously...

A lot of it feels to me a lot more like finding something attractive rather than creating something attractive...

Nick

I was impressed with this guy's gallery for a while........

http://www.evolution-of-genius.de/3d/

Fun and difficult to do but as a viewer, the novelty soon wears off. That's not to say it's not art, however, and if someone said it was I wouldn't argue wiv em.

meshpig
05-23-2007, 03:15 AM
Poll! Do you consider yourself an artist?


Well, for all the fuss... Why exalt the Artist these days without specifying?
I mean in the realm of so called "Art".

WTF are they usually but those who have shrewdly turned a Tertiary education into a Career? Zombie Culturalists?

-"Art" is a false concept and so what of Art and Artists without being not only "picky" but absolutely specific?

- As Francis Bacon (the painter not the Elizabethan) once remarked;"Art is a boring way of making money".

M

jameswillmott
05-23-2007, 05:04 AM
You may as well say that they can communicate, but they can't drive cars downtown. One does not invalidate the other.

Cats and monkeys can paint abstracts, but they can't compose them.

Our vet has a painting of some flowers in his office. It was painted by an elephant. :D