Fun Stuff > MAKE
As abstract as you can stomach
magnanimusman:
Honestly the problem I have with most of the non-objective contemporary art is the need for context. These pieces in general have greater difficulty in standing alone. If you look at Brancusi sculptures e.g. bird in flight(comma) although the piece is most definitly minimalist i also stands alone without context as brilliant. Many of these pieces are only really comprehensible to somebody who already knows or understands the artist and I believe that in the long term (e.g. fifty years from now) so much of the context will be lost that these pieces will lose much of their impact. For the reasons of longevity I believe that art in order to be truly great needs to be able to stand independent from explanation as well as from the era of its creation and its creator.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: magnanimusman on 24 Jan 2007, 05:40 ---Honestly the problem I have with most of the non-objective contemporary art is the need for context. These pieces in general have greater difficulty in standing alone. If you look at Brancusi sculptures e.g. bird in flight(comma) although the piece is most definitly minimalist i also stands alone without context as brilliant. Many of these pieces are only really comprehensible to somebody who already knows or understands the artist and I believe that in the long term (e.g. fifty years from now) so much of the context will be lost that these pieces will lose much of their impact. For the reasons of longevity I believe that art in order to be truly great needs to be able to stand independent from explanation as well as from the era of its creation and its creator.
--- End quote ---
As I've said before, if you're not going to read what's already been said in this thread, why bother posting? Good "abstract" or "modern" art (indeed, the art regarded as "famous") needs no context. Art is and always will be standalone.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 24 Jan 2007, 01:43 ---I'm not asking you to find my argument convincing. I am simply stating that while the pretty lady in the boat with the plants is sort of neat in the sense that the artist has demonstrated his ability to paint such a thing, he has painted a boring picture.
--- End quote ---
Except he hasn't. He's painted a picture which glows with a heavenly luminosity and is alive with depth and emotional meaning. Even if you don't know the poem, the picture is probably even better. Why is the woman in the boat, where is the boat, what is she looking at, what is she feeling? It's entirely real and yet entirely unreal at the same time, the kind of thing an imaginative mind can get lost in for hours.
I do not believe that Rothko is good, or that Rothko can effectively stand alone. Can you please quote me one example of anyone you know who likes Rothko who does not have a good knowledge of the arts? Most, if not all the people I know who have ever expressed their love of Rothko to me have been artists, art lecturers, art students or art connoisseurs. Rothko has no appeal outside the insular circle of the arts, a criticism I have of a large number of modern artists. Rothko and Pollock are jokes to the large masses of people. Fucking Banksy is a better artist than Rothko.
Lines:
--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 24 Jan 2007, 07:09 ---
--- Quote from: magnanimusman on 24 Jan 2007, 05:40 ---Honestly the problem I have with most of the non-objective contemporary art is the need for context. These pieces in general have greater difficulty in standing alone. If you look at Brancusi sculptures e.g. bird in flight(comma) although the piece is most definitly minimalist i also stands alone without context as brilliant. Many of these pieces are only really comprehensible to somebody who already knows or understands the artist and I believe that in the long term (e.g. fifty years from now) so much of the context will be lost that these pieces will lose much of their impact. For the reasons of longevity I believe that art in order to be truly great needs to be able to stand independent from explanation as well as from the era of its creation and its creator.
--- End quote ---
As I've said before, if you're not going to read what's already been said in this thread, why bother posting? Good "abstract" or "modern" art (indeed, the art regarded as "famous") needs no context. Art is and always will be standalone.
--- End quote ---
because he felt he had something to add? no offense, but anyone can post if he/she feels like it, whether you think he/she should or not.
and what khar said is right. i have many friends who aren't all that artistic and they don't get or like rothko. even a lot of the art students i know don't like a lot of abstract work like that. i like his color, but other than that, he's not my cup of tea. i'm not going as far as khar's views, but there are other things i'd honestly rather look at. i like rothko's color, but others use color as well, such as kandinsky, van gogh, monet, as well as many contemporary artists who produce works that i find much more interesting to look at than rothko. (yes, i saw a rothko in person, but the one experience was enough. i've seen one. it was big and colorful. but i can't sit in front of it for hours like i can one of Monet's water lily paintings.)
just because you think Lady is "boring" doesn't mean it is. if you want something that's boring, go to the st. louis art museum. there's a bunch of steel plates on the floor. boring.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 Jan 2007, 07:54 ---
Except he hasn't. He's painted a picture which glows with a heavenly luminosity and is alive with depth and emotional meaning. Even if you don't know the poem, the picture is probably even better. Why is the woman in the boat, where is the boat, what is she looking at, what is she feeling? It's entirely real and yet entirely unreal at the same time, the kind of thing an imaginative mind can get lost in for hours.
I do not believe that Rothko is good, or that Rothko can effectively stand alone. Can you please quote me one example of anyone you know who likes Rothko who does not have a good knowledge of the arts? Most, if not all the people I know who have ever expressed their love of Rothko to me have been artists, art lecturers, art students or art connoisseurs. Rothko has no appeal outside the insular circle of the arts, a criticism I have of a large number of modern artists. Rothko and Pollock are jokes to the large masses of people. Fucking Banksy is a better artist than Rothko.
--- End quote ---
I present two possibilities. Firstly, perhaps those people inclined to learn more about the arts are those with the depth of feeling and emotion necessary to enjoy a Rothko. Secondly, maybe your strictly scientific method of determining what sorts of people like and don't like Rothko is flawed.
I think it's fair to point out I haven't accused anyone of being uncultured or dim for not enjoying Rothko, but maybe the term "hack" is a little presumptuous. Isn't it?
Dear iamyourpirate,
Of course one man saying something is boring does not absolutely make it so, but I am allowed to express my opinion, right? Additionally, thought I've never been to St. Louis, I can imagine at least two configurations of steel plates that would make an interesting art piece. Now, painters you should check out! They smear oil and minerals on cloth and call it art!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version