It's in the arts

  • 42 Replies
  • 13916 Views
?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2009, 08:24:02 AM »
I can see why you would not be engaged by these paintings. I didn't have an appreciation for them until I started to paint in earnest. That is when I started noticing something special in them. I wouldn't have saw anything in Albers until I read a book he wrote on color theory. http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Color-Joseph-Albers/dp/B000OSBLTC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257264485&sr=8-1-spell I started seeing color as opposed to rectangles. His mind was obsessed with colors and much of his work has transposed to things like textiles and interior design. He had a great impact on how color is used. I would call him a 'color philosopher.' If you read Albers book and then compare what he was doing to what Sean Scully was after, you will be very aware that they are very distinct from each other.

But I agree with you totally about the amount of money that gets flung around in the art world. Paintings initially cost quite a lot to make but not how much they can be sold for. A lot of collectors view art like investing in a commodity or like rich people beanie babies. But I assure you that most abstract painters earn a more modest amount. Art like any trade is subject to economic hoo ha.

It also helps to see some of these in person. Sean Scully's paintings are about the size of your bedroom floor at least! It leaves quite a different impression on you for sure. Also it helps to get rid of the idea that viewing art is a passive activity. The painting exists independent of you but your experience of it is your own. The creative part of art has two dimensions. One is the creating of the art and second is the viewer creating the experience of the art. Most people, including me, seem to attack art as if they are Sherlock Holmes as if the painting will lead you to the free mason's national treasure. Visual art is not called visual for laughs. Generally it's a good idea to limit the brain from thinking in words while looking at art. When you stop trying to label things as symbols in your brain, you begin to notice spacial things more clearly. Looking at a painting is not like reading a thesis paper. I think it would be good to describe it this way:

look at this word-
WORD

Okay, now that you have looked at the word you might find you didn't look at it. You might have looked at it and saw it said word which is a symbol with a particular meaning. But it's also a visual thing that is pronounced by lines and negative space. You might have also neglected color all together!

Now look at it again. Try to see it in a purely visual way in which it is devoid of it's literal meaning. Try to notice visual parts of it like the curve of the 'd' and the angles of the 'w'. I think that this visual approach is a better way to view abstract art if you wish to get anything from it at all:
WORD



The more I see images, the more I am confused by what brutalist architecture means. Where did you hear that term? The building seems very similar to buildings from the 'modern' era. The only difference seems to be that some of the decorations are not vital parts of the buildings structure which that doesn't seem to happen that much. The structure itself seems to be really neat though.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 08:43:04 AM by grogberries »
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2009, 02:12:49 PM »
One person's treasure is another's trash I suppose. I'm not one who disregards colour and the play of light, the one piece there which had me standing in awe in front of it was a seascape of the English Channel by John Brett, it's a stunning 7 or 8 foot wide painting which is just alive with glimmering light and dancing shadows and the sense of awe-inspiring scale cast by the tiny boats floating in it.

To me this used form and colour more powerfully than any of the abstract pieces and showed talent many times over most of the abstract stuff

you can't really appreciate it on this scale.

So much architecture these days hides the true working of the structure and the surfaces behind facades and cladding.
Brutalist architecture is very raw, it doesn't try to hide, it deliberately sticks out on the landscape with it's jagged edges. Sharp squares and rectangles clash against the natural environment

Brutalism is opposed to that, exposed concrete is displayed proudly as well as the pipes and ducts inside which keep the building working, it's unashamedly ugly and reflects it's roots as the reconstruction of Britain in the post-war period. Brutalism is sticking two fingers up to conventional architecture and smashing a beer glass over those who say architecture should be more about form than function.

Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2009, 02:36:15 PM »
I follow Aristotle's definition of art: Anything that is not made by nature. Some art is more interesting than others. What do you think?

About art, Aristotle, or Aristotle's lame definition of art?
"The only thing more pathetic than someone who needs to validate his thoughts by quoting someone else is someone who needs to validate himself by quoting his own."

-Robert Palmer

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2009, 08:45:31 PM »
I follow Aristotle's definition of art: Anything that is not made by nature. Some art is more interesting than others. What do you think?

About art, Aristotle, or Aristotle's lame definition of art?

I agree with you that you think Aristotle's definition of art is lame.
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2009, 08:52:36 PM »
One person's treasure is another's trash I suppose. I'm not one who disregards colour and the play of light, the one piece there which had me standing in awe in front of it was a seascape of the English Channel by John Brett, it's a stunning 7 or 8 foot wide painting which is just alive with glimmering light and dancing shadows and the sense of awe-inspiring scale cast by the tiny boats floating in it.

To me this used form and colour more powerfully than any of the abstract pieces and showed talent many times over most of the abstract stuff

you can't really appreciate it on this scale.

So much architecture these days hides the true working of the structure and the surfaces behind facades and cladding.
Brutalist architecture is very raw, it doesn't try to hide, it deliberately sticks out on the landscape with it's jagged edges. Sharp squares and rectangles clash against the natural environment

Brutalism is opposed to that, exposed concrete is displayed proudly as well as the pipes and ducts inside which keep the building working, it's unashamedly ugly and reflects it's roots as the reconstruction of Britain in the post-war period. Brutalism is sticking two fingers up to conventional architecture and smashing a beer glass over those who say architecture should be more about form than function.

Yus even representational paintings can rely heavily on abstract tendencies. Abstract painting didn't just get invented. Painting is abstract no matter which way you approach it.

I suppose brutalism sounds great. But good architecture doesn't come out of ideals. Saying a building follows these guidelines makes it great is somewhat superstitious. Visual Art is visual not purely an idea.
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7082
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2009, 08:57:56 PM »
Yves Klein:


Is this really considered art?
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2009, 09:15:20 PM »

Is this really considered art?

You have to actually see that painting, not an online attempt at reproducing it, for it to grab you. It's also rather large.  It's in the MOMA (I think that's where I saw it) and the intensity of the blue is really startling.  As to whether that falls under great art or great technique is arguable but that painting did grab me. 

?

Proleg

Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2009, 11:48:05 PM »
The older I get, the more annoyed I am by "abstract art". If all that turns you on is curves, angles, and funky colours, go gaze into a landfill for a while.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2009, 12:48:07 PM »
 ;D   Oh lord, that idea will probably get you an invitation for a "Proleg Garbage Art" show at some trendy gallery.  We'll all come and sip wine and make unintelligible remarks about your genius.  I'm reminded of Woody Allen movies.


*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2009, 01:41:29 PM »
The older I get, the more annoyed I am by "abstract art". If all that turns you on is curves, angles, and funky colours, go gaze into a landfill for a while.


You should read Don DeLillo's Underworld.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2009, 12:04:48 PM »
I follow Aristotle's definition of art: Anything that is not made by nature. Some art is more interesting than others. What do you think?

About art, Aristotle, or Aristotle's lame definition of art?

I agree with you that you think Aristotle's definition of art is lame.

STOP DOING THAT!

It leaves me nowhere to go.
"The only thing more pathetic than someone who needs to validate his thoughts by quoting someone else is someone who needs to validate himself by quoting his own."

-Robert Palmer

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2009, 10:09:57 AM »
What about Aristotle's definition do feel is inadequate?
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: It's in the arts
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2009, 10:26:28 AM »
Color is obscure and can not be separate from shape. Meaning this, we don't perceive color in isolation. We can think about pure red only in an idealistic way. Pure red is totally imagined. So while color is given certain qualities and venerated as it's own thing, surely it is not a thing but is a trait of something. So lets pretend that your favorite color is red. It's doubtful that any red swatch of paint will please you. I do not mean that your favorite color isn't red even though you say it is. You may have a preference to redness, but you also have a preference to the container of the red which is the shape. You are being truthful when you say that your favorite color is red, but I also think that you are being incomplete.

Color can be charted on a spectrum and it seems easily explained. But scientific theory about light isn't very useful in art. I am saying this very lightly. But lets say light is just a wave of some sort. Light would seem to be quite a separate thing from shape. But this is not how we see the world. A painting isn't like projected light from a computer screen. You can't take a prism to a painting and reduce it to the basic spectrum of light. Light isn't projected in pure wavelengths straight to your eye. The light that is hitting the painting is bouncing all around the paint and and through it and reflected back again. A painting is a complicated jungle gym for light.

So many abstract artists have taken up this funny thing about shape and color. Many people that dislike abstract art maybe understate the significance of what they are looking at. Sure it may be a collection of shapes and color and doesn't look like anything, but often abstract art is stripped bare to the fundamentals of human sight, and the subject matter is color and shape itself. Some abstractions are done trying to answer questions about sight. Other abstractions are philosophies painted in a dialectic manner and to which there are no answers but only questions.
 
Think hard. Think Flat.