What means this "Artist"? BluedemonX
« on: 11. Jul 2002 at 11:56 »
"Art" is such a slippery thing to try to define, but I'll have a bash at it.
What's the difference between a portrait of someone by a portrait photographer (some of whom are very much artists!) and a record of someone's likeness taken for a driver's license? A world of difference. The latter really is a photocopy of sorts, whereas the first is usually lit, photographed, exposed and developed with great care. Judicious use of lenses and filters can erase lines or make a face grittier and linier, for example, and makes an attempt to describe who the person IS, not just what he or she looks like.
Mr. Antonov's still lives are not Polaroids of an inventory - he chooses carefully the composition, chooses colors that will be pleasing together, and creates a picture that evokes a response in the viewer.
The fact that he doesn't "suggest" the still life by hurling paint willy-nilly at the canvas, or choose to paint the still life in shades of bright orange and green, doesn't make him a craftsman dutifully pounding out a likeness rather than an artist.
Mr. Antonov is trying to get craftsmanship back into art - because art without craftsmanship is mere dilletantism. Anyone can pour paint in random patterns on the floor a la Pollock - in fact, any studio usually has some surface daubed about that way. We're free to agree and or disagree as to what makes art - but let's put it this way. When Joe Sixpack looks at a canvas that's nothing but a few streaks of gray paint, and says "my child can do that" while shaking his head, it's the child exposing that the Emperor is naked. You shouldn't have to be conditioned into understanding that that grey paint really is the quintessence of Neo-primitivist post-modern serigraphy, and appreciate the juxtaposition of form and content (for further B.S. please consult any university common room)
Name one other art form where a complete lack of skill is rewarded. Musicians have to at least play in tune, in concert, even if it is a three-chord punk number - and the drummer has to keep a tempo, even if it is the simplest time-keeping beat. Noone reads a book by an illiterate. A dancer who cannot move gracefully or even in rhythm is asked to leave. Whereas we pay good money in the art world to some ponce in a beret who thinks just because he's a communist and dresses in black he can pass off any old thing as art because it suits his "lifestyle".
jnettiejones
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #1 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 11:58 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think being an artist means having an unquenchable fire in your soul to create art. Being so moved by something that you have to capture it. The difference between a photocopier and an artist is the photocopier has no soul.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #2 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 12:06 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's look at the other side of the coin.
It is ENTIRELY possible to create something that is too "crafty" for its own good. You often see this in music - some esoteric jazz, for example, or some of the less-travelled roads in classical music. The best example I can think of is the metal guitarist "Yngwie Malmsteen". The man is gifted as a guitarist - he can play notes on the guitar so fast it makes "Flight of the bumblebee" sound like slow motion. However, after fifteen seconds of 128th notes blistering up and down the fretboard, you go from "hey wow, this guy is very skilful" to "ok, that's annoying." People in the bass world rave about Jaco Pastorius - but few people outside bass players have heard of him.
In short - people listen to music because they want to hear something pleasant (or unpleasant in the case of punk, industrial etc). They DON'T want to hear someone showing off. They even less want to listen to something jarring and quirky - they don't understand the cleverness of the transfer between the aeolian mode to the phyrigian mode while the counterpoint dips to the third fifth while using Pythagorean tuning on a seven string guitar - all they hear is something that deep down they realise is some engineering feat, but in terms of soul, it does nothing.
The truly remarkable artist/craftsman is the one who can nail them both - Paganini could play some FIERCE runs up a violin - but then back off and play some slow, soulful parts to mix it up a bit. Mr. Antonov can execute a still life with extreme skill, but also present a window into an atmosphere with an accompanying emotional response.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #3 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 12:13 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Personally, I think being an artist means having an unquenchable fire in your soul to create art. Being so moved by something that you have to capture it.
You also have to have the skill to create a work that passes on that inner feeling. My definition isn't as rigorous as others' - I will accord that it is ENTIRELY possible to come up with a surrealist, impressionist or whatever canvas that can stir a reaction out of a viewer. However, what I refuse to accept is that "creativity" is the only measure of art. You need the skill to realise the vision. Also, people have a tendency to use the term "creative" to apply to situations where the word "novel", "unusual", "unorthodox" etc. would do.
Yes, it's quite novel to paint an orange using green paint so that it's green. So what?
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #4 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 12:20 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me add something else - if you're going to evoke a response in the viewer, you also need to do it in a way that the viewer can actually think about or process what he's responding to.
This is the most difficult part of my definition.
There were "gore artists" in England in the 70s who would throw up on the floor and then eat it - eject milk and other substances out of themselves after pumping them into themselves with enema bags - egest (look it up) food all over the floor and eat it - nail themselves to crosses, drink vomit etc.
Congratulations - they got a response. But did they really say anything constructive with all of this? Or did they just repulse the audience? Their statement was that they were challenging the audience's responses and inhibitions - an intellectual, sorry-I've-no-other-skill way of justifying completely random performance art pieces that tug at the hindbrain.
Look at two horror films - some slasher flick without artistic merit that's just people being chopped up, that evokes shocks and scares. Now, go and watch "Psycho" - that tells a story about the kind of person, the circumstances, and the mindset of someone who WOULD go out and carve people up. The actual violence in "Psycho" is limited - the bulk of the movie describes the lives of the characters AROUND that. And Psycho is also a scary film. Who's used the emotional reaction of fear to make the better statement? I could discuss the psychology of Norman Bates for hours. I could sum up the motivations of the guy in the hockey mask with the chainsaw in four words.
jnettiejones
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #5 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 12:39 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think having the fire in your soul to create art in the first place, means having the desire to perfect your skills and move forward. Of course, not everyone is going to have the same skill level, but are they not artists just because you don't like what they do? Why is it when artists are critizied they think they're not an artist just because someone doesn't like their work! A singer is still a singer, a writer is still a writer and an artist is always an artist! It is what you were born for.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #6 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 12:59 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Of course, not everyone is going to have the same skill level, but are they not artists just because you don't like what they do? Why is it when artists are critizied they think they're not an artist just because someone doesn't like their work!
Arnold Schwarzenegger once said that the moment someone picks up a dumbbell for the very first time he or she is a bodybuilder, regardless of what he/she looks like. And I would tend to agree. However, you do NOT see people who aren't large and scary up on the stage at Mr. Olympia.
Likewise, you will NEVER see a guy playing a Kazoo playing down at the Philharmonic.
Why is it that those arts have standards, yet gallery space is often preferentially given to people whose net skill level is "painting large flat blobs of paint"?
jnettiejones
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #7 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 14:07 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with you, that standards in the art world have long since been tossed out the window.
I don't think it's fair the crap they show in galleries and call art, but they are still artists and d****it so am I. One time I went to the Ringling student exhibit and one of the artists (name long since forgotten) exhibit was a pile of rocks, I felt angry and cheated that they considered a pile of rocks worthy of gallery space. The problem is if you start pointing fingers and say you aren't a real artist if you paint abstract, then they start pointing fingers and say realism isn't a worthy art. I'm not an accomplished artist, I'm not where I would like to be, and I will probably will never be satisfied with my art, but I will never stop calling myself an artist just because I haven't met anyone standards of an artist. It's what I do, I might not be good at it, but it's what I do.
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #8 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 14:49 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting topic.
I think I fall under "Joe Sixpack"
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #9 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 14:58 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: I completely agree with you, that standards in the art world have long since been tossed out the window.
Correct.
RE: I don't think it's fair the crap they show in galleries and call art, but they are still artists and d****it so am I.
Sure, but unless there's some degree of standards being upheld in galleries, in homes and in the public, what's the lure in producing decent works? I'll refer you back to my kazoo argument. Who am I to say that my eight month old banging on tin pans with a wooden sthingy isn't "music"? But try and book him at any concert hall. Sadly, the same isn't true of art galleries. One PRIZE WINNING ARTIST provided an EMPTY ROOM with a light switch.
RE: The problem is if you start pointing fingers and say you aren't a real artist if you paint abstract, then they start pointing fingers and say realism isn't a worthy art.
No. Even abstract art has to do something useful. An abstraction of a still life is not the same as hurling a bunch of paint around and calling it "expansion #4".
And hey, for every Matisse there were fourteen other frenchmen dabbing paint around trying to get fame and fortune out of the new style, but they didn't succeed at capturing a mood, the light reflecting off linen, whatever.
RE: I'm not an accomplished artist, I'm not where I would like to be, and I will probably will never be satisfied with my art, but I will never stop calling myself an artist
Correct. However, you're an artist because you STRIVE to express yourself through skill, just as someone struggling to get the right note out of a violin is ALSO a musician. Someone who throws a pan around to hear it clatter is not. Someone who throws random daubs of paint around because it complements his beret-wearing lifestyle is more than welcome to continue doing "openings" and kissy faces and eat little pieces of cheese on sticks. Just leave the canvases out of it
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #10 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 15:05 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: acting
First off, Tom Hanks is NOT a good actor - he's an OK actor who's chosen roles particularly well. Leonardo DiCaprio is an EXCELLENT actor whose roles and films I don't care for, but appreciate his skill nonetheless.
Second of all, the standards there have really gone downhill, too. Used to be, in order to act, you took courses, studied Stanislavsky, polished your art on a STAGE, and then dabbled in film. You worked out your moment before, your motivation, sources of conflict, backstory, etc. for each and every scene.
Nowadays, they just hire someone good-looking with bleached teeth and tight abs.
Easy Rider was not a movie full of bikers - it was a movie full of actors portraying bikers. If it had been made now, Easy Rider would have been cast in the local Hells' Angels joint - with people with subnormal acting skills (but with the all-important right "look") massacring the dialogue.
Something interesting to consider - the original choice for "John Rambo" in "First Blood" was not Sylvester Stallone - it was Dustin Hoffman. Imagine THAT movie having been made. THAT would have been art.
TheDuke
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #11 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 15:36 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just like to draw..
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #12 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 16:40 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see John Rambo saying in the heat of an action scene: "I need some Underwear - Fruit of the Loom - Only at K-mart... need underwear from K-mart... yeah"
That would have been hilarious.
lets see...
I think Blue demon has a point though.
one problem I see is simply that of art reflecting society's thinking.
Mix all the colors together and you have mud.
Somehow if there was a way to convince people that mud belongs the fields and not on the walls, then, I suppose we might have a start.
I feel this way with just about everything there is to be seen and heard today. be it household goods, education, the idea mixing all the religions, politics etc etc etc..... looks like mud to me.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #13 on: 11. Jul 2002 at 17:06 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not talking about intellectual snobbery - for example, a classical violinist sneering at a fiddler, even though the fiddler is faster, has better technique, and is a more competent violinist than our soloist in the black tails.
Tom Waits, for example, would NEVER be invited to sing with Pavarotti in an opera - but he has a skill in what he does to do some pretty emotional blues.
However, Tom Waits, like Pavarotti, is SKILLED.
I look at a GOOD impressionist pastel, like a Degas, and realise that he's capturing a ballet rehearsal in a way that really captures the mood and lighting of a ballet rehearsal. I look at BAD impressionist work and see nothing.
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #14 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 09:42 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Rembrandt's day, an artist was no different than a photographer.
However, with time, the definition of "artist" took on subliminally different take.
This subliminal difference was caused by Marketeers.
A perfect case in point:
A "Michelangelo" drawing was recently "discovered" - what was once before considered a Perino del Vaga (1501-1547). Del Vaga, is worth a measily $60 but a Michelangelo is worth $10-12 million.
What is wrong with this picture?
I am not scholar of art history, but if history repeats itself, then, what we now have is perhaps the reason the rebelling impressionists took precedence over the masters and the succeeding generations of styles that had followed.
The original Master's set the working standards for all artists to follow and improve upon, but marketeers and greedy men of royalty and papacy, corrupted the standard, by placing a value unattainable by the average individual for works by men long since dead. This disregard and act of placing value on people in turn caused a unfortunate but deeply ingrained hatred of the masters with inflamed jealousy within the hearts of those "pioneering" artists who had difficulty in selling their work to their contempory market, as that market considered the masters as valuable and all others as "also ran" minors let alone unknown.
This behavior fostered by the kings of the earth (anyone in or around the ruler's circle) is going on to this very day. This simply perpetuates the "original sin" (for lack of better words) and has polluted society to such a point that a pile of fecal matter is considered "art".
So, from a Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Vermeer, Rembrandt to fecal matter anything is considered today, art, as art is an expression of whatever.
It is my opinion that people who earnestly strive to photorealistically and emotional artistically produce work should pull together and create a counteracting living artist's guild whereby a reestblishment of the standards of old, be made known, and reintroduced today to society - not as a Michelangelo and the like, but as ourselves. Living human beings.
I have always felt that art should be pleasing to the eye, and aesthetically compliment the room that should spark a world of imagination to the inhabitants to behold beauty -
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but if that beholder knows not beauty, how then can the same behold it?
Art is a gift of God
By Deception, man hates God, therefore he despises his Creator. What better way to convince the world that it is worthless to all, than to excrement God's gift?
I cannot stand the powers that be!
BTW, if you ever sell a work, charge no less than minimum wage - otherwise you are devaluing yourself - just as the pope, politicians and kings would have it to be.
Art is art - the "Michelangelo" is a name - someone says: "It's Michalangelo, and not that other lowly scum of the earth who name is minor!"
You see?
Same drawing, two names, one made famous, other relatively unknown. Nevertheless $60 becomes $10 mil.
Artist's - regardless of medium, live in poverty, their work valued only after they are gone. When the following generation needs to eat.
Thank the snobs, thank the pope, thank the kings, thank the politicians, thank the puppetmaster, the power that be.
sorry for the ramble-on
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #15 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 10:36 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: In Rembrandt's day, an artist was no different than a photographer.
Not necessarily true - many artists were hired to create religious works with the deliberate idea of "inspiring the masses". That's why you have so many religious works with incredible sensitivity and emotional content.
RE: However, with time, the definition of "artist" took on subliminally different take.
This, I'll agree with.
RE: I am not scholar of art history, but if history repeats itself, then, what we now have is perhaps the reason the rebelling impressionists took precedence over the masters
The Impressionists were tired of lighting objects in dark studios and painting them. They wanted to capture sunny days, afternoons out on the lawn. Most painters up to that point painted indoors, even if they were painting landscapes. They considered the "slather with brown sauce and add dim colors over it" method (their term) as lethal to the bright, spontaneous paintings they were producing. And, keep in mind, pigment science took quantum leaps forward - they had hues and colors unknown to human science - the bright yellows, the vibrant reds, the deep blues we now take for granted. They had new tools, and they wanted to push the envelope.
RE: The original Master's set the working standards for all artists to follow and improve upon, but marketeers and greedy men of royalty and papacy, corrupted the standard, by placing a value unattainable by the average individual for works by men long since dead.
Correct. However, considering that an artist is dead, his output is at that point limited. As calamity claims a work or two, supply dries up even further, raising the price.
Actually, the decay came about when artistry became a business in and of itself. When that kind of change starts getting hurled about, people want in. And after the post-Impressionists decided that three stripes of color was worth 1.4Million CDN, you suddenly started with the beret clad minions, hawking canvases smeared with any kind of paint in any kind of pattern. It's like dot coms. One went through the roof, suddenly anyone who wanted to get rich just had to start a dot com. Talent? Business plan? Feh! That's old school - this is the new way.
RE: So, from a Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Vermeer, Rembrandt to fecal matter anything is considered today, art, as art is an expression of whatever.
Well, the argument's made that now that we have cameras, why do we need art that looks like something.
RE: It is my opinion that people who earnestly strive to photorealistically and emotional artistically produce work should pull together and create a counteracting living artist's guild whereby a reestblishment of the standards of old, be made known, and reintroduced today to society -
Dude, you're looking at it. That, and other pockets of resistance. Frank Covino has his acolytes, and there are others. Mr. Antonov is sharing his skills, as is Mr. Hillberry. I've posted art and asked for comment, and so have others. We unite, we strengthen.
RE: I have always felt that art should be pleasing to the eye, and aesthetically compliment the room that should spark a world of imagination to the inhabitants to behold beauty -
Now, most people ask if the painting is available in other shades, to match the couch in the living room.
RE: BTW, if you ever sell a work, charge no less than minimum wage - otherwise you are devaluing yourself - just as the pope, politicians and kings would have it to be.
As opposed to putting it in the "gallery quality art! Come on down to the Holiday Inn this Saturday and get gallery quality art! Only 99c a pound!" exhibition?
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #16 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 12:00 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue,
What I meant by photographer was simply the fact the artists of the day, were forunners of photographers -
You know, I have friend who believes that driving a truck is art.
I drove for ten years, never saw any art to speak of. Skill yes, Art? no.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #17 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 12:12 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben, I agree. Totally. But keep in mind that in addition to "paint me a picture of my wife" or "can I have some bowls of fruit or something" pics, artists produced some really stirring emotional pieces of religious artwork, heaven and hell, Elysium, etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #18 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 13:06 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone were to ask me to paint a picture of his wife.... well.... It may look like his ex.
Not wanting to change the subject, but as I write there is a showing on the "Home Shopping Channel" on tv.
They are selling an area rug measuring 8' x 10'
they are claiming that it is hand made.
They are selling it at a "special" price of $319.00
Regular price is $398.00
Retail Price is $799.00
View it here:
http://www.hsn.com/cnt/prod/default.aspx?pfid=240259&sz=12&cat=& amp;dept=&sf=HM&o=-RI
One big problem I have is this:
How much did the hand that made this, get paid!!
We need to remember how much materials had cost, the original cartage of the item, and now the sale on cheap tv.
I am appalled at the slave labor, people so brazenly disregards.
IF in fact that rug is "hand made" those hands were brutally robbed, likely unknowingly.
This is what happens in art - REAL PEOPLE working their hearts outs, while know nothing marketers get rich.
It is wrong!
« Last Edit: 12. Jul 2002 at 13:12 by Ben » 67.243.234.75
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #19 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 13:23 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
srivarey,
I think regardless what actor/actress you like someone else will not - goes without saying.
I don't blue is really trying to wage war, but simply attempting make a point he feels needs to be made.
One thing I noticed about bulletin boards is that of miscommunication is easy to do - in person, the message would have been understood differently.
IMHO, We have to be careful about taking a few words in a paragraph and forget the rest of what someone is saying.
This, I think, is where forum misunderstandings begins.
srivarey
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #20 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 14:14 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you ben that we should take the overall opinion rather than sentences,so I retreated from discussion. Being a big fan of Tom hanks I couldn't refrain my self from responding. Keep the discussion going. I think it's a good topic to discuss. In my opinion talent in any art form(movies or drawing) cannot be calibrated that easily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate of edification is directly proportional to the initially realized ignorance
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #21 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 14:21 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not being aggressive:
nor am I badmouthing Tom Hanks. He's an OK actor, I said. His skill lies in choosing really good roles in good ensemble films. I respect and admire him for that.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #22 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 14:23 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: We need to remember how much materials had cost, the original cartage of the item, and now the sale on cheap tv.
Cost is a relative measure. It might be that the "cost" to make it is near zero in a country where the materials are cheap, and labor relatively inexpensive because food, housing etc is cheap.
RE: I am appalled at the slave labor, people so brazenly disregards.
IF in fact that rug is "hand made" those hands were brutally robbed, likely unknowingly.
Not necessarily. It's like what I do for a living - the pay rates are three times what they are here in California and/or New York City, but it costs three times more to live in California and/or New York City.
This is NOT to suggest that slave labor or underpaying is OK.
srivarey
I love carbon
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #23 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 14:32 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got your point Blue, thanks. I also think selection of subjects is very crucial for any artist to succeed !!!
63.201.26.216
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate of edification is directly proportional to the initially realized ignorance
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #24 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 14:55 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue,
It said that it was imported.
Likely China, as with everything else these days.
That modern age. I don't see how we can keep this up.
Anyway, so far as a photocopier being an artist goes, IMHO, a photocopier isn't an artist - if that were true, then Xerox copy machines make a Rembrandt every day.
I think an artist originates his work. If you are copying, then your not original.
That is not to say your no good, but if you can make twin of an original, then, I would say it is time to become original, and do your own work.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #25 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 15:19 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Blue,
It said that it was imported.
Likely China, as with everything else these days.
I was offered a job in China. $5,000CDN per year. That's below the poverty line in the least expensive of cities - but in China, will get you a large house, servants, etc.
Once again - "Oh my gosh, they're only paying them $10 a day!" yeah, well, maybe $10 a day pays the bills very nicely in that part of the world.
The bigger economic threat is that the US is sending billions to China, who are SITTING on that money, using it to underwrite the RMB and producing some minor investments.
RE: Anyway, so far as a photocopier being an artist goes, IMHO, a photocopier isn't an artist - if that were true, then Xerox copy machines make a Rembrandt every day.
It's the compositor who is the artist - who decides what is copied. A photographer can be an artist - so long as he uses a skill to evoke a response.
RE: That is not to say your no good, but if you can make twin of an original, then, I would say it is time to become original, and do your own work.
Mm. Well, that's why every school of art has chosen some kind of "filter" to apply to their work. The Classicist paints to an "ideal" - compositions being mathematically designed, with certain colors and elements (drops of water, etc). The Romantics sought power and expression through content and wilder, looser styles. And so on and so forth. What we all rail against is the completely useless dreck that passes for art - no thought, no expression behind it.
For more information, please see the "Voice of Fire"
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #26 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 15:21 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This painting was purchased by the Canadian government for $1.8 million. Their argument was, it was cheaper than paying to rent it year after year.
http://www.home.istar.ca/~melandre/voicefire.html
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #27 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 15:24 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pic on the web site inverts the colors so as to avoid copyright issues - the real painting has the red stripe in the middle, with the two side ones as the blue.
It led to a lot of anti-art jokes - the "Car of Fire" (a car painted with the three stripes), the "paint your own two million dollar masterpiece kit" (a paint roller with three heads, three cans of paint, and a bill ready to submit to the Canadian National Art Gallery for 2.1 million) , political cartoons about people with white canes and guide dogs working for the gallery, etc.
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"? 1.jpg
« Reply #28 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 16:20 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darn it, Fired voice gets wet
« Last Edit: 12. Jul 2002 at 16:28 by Ben » 67.248.5.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #29 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 16:34 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a phenomenal painting in which our sensory experience of the work is stripped of external references, and through which the emphatic qualities of purely coloured form are able to flood our consciousness with a sublime sense of awe and tranquility.
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #30 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 16:59 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you like that one, I can perhaps paint something for you - I have a few minutes spare. What colors do you most prefer? Do you have $1.8 million waiting for me when I finish?
BluedemonX
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #31 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 17:02 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make matters worse:
Now people are enthusiastically supporting BAD art.
http://glyphs.com/moba/
Ben
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #32 on: 12. Jul 2002 at 17:35 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No thanks, but it would make nice grease rag.
Sombody over at that voice of fire site has his colors confused -
john, aka Dermott!
To make matters worseRe: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #33 on: 28. Jul 2002 at 21:47 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: To make matters worse...
Be sure that the day will come when a computer or a photocopier will be able to do EXACTLY the same as you or I.
That raised the spectre of what are we all here for?
Surely the value of art is that we each value each other's inate abilities, and not just the end product in itself?
Discuss please.
Regards.
absolute
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #34 on: 16. Aug 2002 at 15:37 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic is interesting and funny to me,cause i have always thought the same thing,ive seen paintings that were so strange i would not know wich way i should hang them up,and nobody else would know either,but still the people that do these kind of paintings are seen as "Gods of the art world"...id like to see them create something like J.D Hillberrys work..they couldnt do it.,..nor could i either,...but at least people that strive for realism challenge themself everytime they create something....ive literally seen elephants paint as good as some of these big time artist that paint ...who knows what?..only they know....LOL...but just in my own personal opinion...realism is art to me....give me a jd hillberry..or a boris vallejo..or julie bell....now thats art....
and where i hope to be someday.
Joe_L_Lovett
I look forward to sharing and learning from all.
Re: What means this "Artist"?
« Reply #35 on: 09. Sep 2002 at 14:52 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also seen the painting elephants and I agree with you,
yes the scam artists are to blame for the down fall of art but the
true criminals in the art world are the dealers and the uneducated
art snobs.
Thats why this site is so great and I hope people like yourselves
continue to share, and allow me to learn.
Joe L Lovett
