Fun Stuff > MAKE
As abstract as you can stomach
KharBevNor:
I'm not that big a fan of abstract sculpture, except for the odd Anish Kapoor piece (especially the big ones: I saw Marsyas when it was up in the turbine hall at the Tate Modern and it impressed by its sheer scale and ambition) and Andy Goldsworthy, who is really just a whole different kettle of fish.
That said, I don't see quite what the point is about sculpture: 'art' comprises everything from installations, interventions, video art, sculpture, motion graphics, photography and typography to painting/drawing etc. Sculpture is just a form that's hard to reproduce.
Not that relevant to this thread, but I was recently drawing up a list of things I would really like to do in life, and number three was:
'Buy a Rothko painting, then put up a live web-feed of me meticulously overpainting it with a pre-raphaelite woodland scene. When it comes to court, I will say that I thought ?500,000 was a bit much for an old piece of canvas someone had tested their paint-rollers on.'
Rothko was, to coin a phrase, a fucking hack. And yes, I've seen his work in the gallery. A pretentious art theorist tricking the avant-garde in to thinking he was on to something, a talentless wanker whose works could be replicated by a chimpanzee. Pollock too.
To put this into context, I think Marcel Duchamp was a genius.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 20 Jan 2007, 06:57 ---I'm not that big a fan of abstract sculpture, except for the odd Anish Kapoor piece (especially the big ones: I saw Marsyas when it was up in the turbine hall at the Tate Modern and it impressed by its sheer scale and ambition) and Andy Goldsworthy, who is really just a whole different kettle of fish.
That said, I don't see quite what the point is about sculpture: 'art' comprises everything from installations, interventions, video art, sculpture, motion graphics, photography and typography to painting/drawing etc. Sculpture is just a form that's hard to reproduce.
Not that relevant to this thread, but I was recently drawing up a list of things I would really like to do in life, and number three was:
'Buy a Rothko painting, then put up a live web-feed of me meticulously overpainting it with a pre-raphaelite woodland scene. When it comes to court, I will say that I thought ?500,000 was a bit much for an old piece of canvas someone had tested their paint-rollers on.'
Rothko was, to coin a phrase, a fucking hack. And yes, I've seen his work in the gallery. A pretentious art theorist tricking the avant-garde in to thinking he was on to something, a talentless wanker whose works could be replicated by a chimpanzee. Pollock too.
To put this into context, I think Marcel Duchamp was a genius.
--- End quote ---
That's a peculiar perspective. I think Rothko and his contemporaries certainly had a lot more going for them than the dullness of the pre-Raphaelite brotherhood.
Something about ready-mades catches your eye but careful painting doesn't? Please explain.
Alarra:
I've never been a big fan of abstract work, at least not until lately when I've become more enamored with the quality of the painting than with the subject. That being said, i do respect abstract art as an art form, and having tried my hand at abstract painting myself, realize the amount of time and emotion and symbolism that can go into those types of pieces. I've also found that of late, I'm drawn more and more to the abstract pieces when I visit museums. I can truthfully say, that, at least for me, abstract works require more time, thought, energy, and emotional involvement than regular paintings. I am of the opinion that abstract works are for the artist, and society isn't necessarily supposed to understand it. That being said....I can't stand Rothko.
TheFuriousWombat:
idk, duchamp and i don't get along. i'm not a huge fan really...
that being said i think rothko is pretty interesting. i can see your complaint with him but i don't really agree with it. same with pollock, whom i like quite a lot. i tend to prefer more abstract paintings to begin with though. i saw a show at the guggenheim on spanish art and most of it was very traditional portraits by all the "greats" and most of them bored me to tears. the only part of the show i actually enjoyed was picasso's work (luckily there was a lot of it). when i was in italy we saw quite a lot of rather uninteresting "masterpieces." some of them i loved, some of them in the many museums i went to were just....meh. when it comes to painting i like the more out there work to the more traditional.
Alarra:
I like Duchamp a lot, and Joseph Cornell is one of my favorite artists of the moment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version