[eyewoo]

Love this guy's work - Cy Twombly. I am actually in awe of it. You really need to see his work live to appreciate it. The pictures are huge. Understanding it -- what's to understand, just enjoy.

The Philadelphia Museum of Art had a room devoted to his work. Haven't been there for awhile, so I'm not sure it is still there.


"The Italians" 6.5 feet x 8.6 feet


"Leda And The Swan" 6.2 feet x 6.5 feet


"Untitled" 11.4 feet x 13.3 feet
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Kad1]

First off, the reason most people will do super simple artwork is to shock people I think and it has worked, look at this thread, it is 3 pages long already when great art gets passed by on here all the time with a single reply.

Second, Those who are putting up crappy jpgs with three color blocks with distorted edges made in adobe look like crappy jpegs with three color blocks made in adobe. not artwork. i respect peoples opinions of things. tell me you don't like stuff, but dont knock someone who is creating stuff. because everything is art if its being created.. atleast in my eyes. If it makes someones day to paint a giant canvas all gray than so be it and if someone wants to buy it then hell yeah.

If you want to criticise this type of art, go out and buy a 6' canvas ( which unlike what someone said above will cost alot more than $19.99) and paint like what these guys paint. someone at my school did a 12' x8' painting. it was simple basic colors which when photographed would look more dull and also on the smaller scale you didnt see the great little variations in the brushstrokes or the subtle changes in color. not to mention a painting that big with the right light on it is overwhelming.

and as for me i am a fake artist who does both realistic ( my real love) and abstract color works ( i love the emotions in color), but i am just saying, if its something you dont like then fine, but atleast give them respect for doing it.
_________________
Mike Bielaczyc - aradani.com

[Drunken Monkey]

I respect opinions of some of you like the gospels. That�s what brought me to Sijun - to learn from you. But having being told that my stuff looks like its been drawn by a machine because its realistic in the first art class I�ve ever taken at local community college and then having some other piece next to it on the wall made out as �having more soul� even though it just lacks any technical merit pisses the living shit out of me. That�s the catalyst for art renewal attitudes. Thought I�d just point this out. Snobbism vs. snobbism like Enayla said. I won�t be participating in another thread like this.

[balistic]

Modern art is beneficial to artistic progress because it examines the very roots of our aesthetic sense. As Craig wrote, it is an exploration of the mechanics of art . . . someone had to do what Pollock and Klimt and Mondrian did . . . it's the natural progression of human curiosity.

Here's one of my favorite pieces of modernism. It's called "Nude Descending A Staircase" and was painted by Marcel Duchamp. Now, Duchamp did some more outrageous things in his later years, such as canning and selling his own shit, however this piece, painted in 1912, despite having a palette that looks like shit, is a gem:



This was painted decades before the advent of commercial animation, yet the concept of keyframing is already present in its entirety.

I also like a lot of Pollock's stuff, though being a country boy from the sticks, I've never seen any of it in person.

I highly recommend the "Pollock" movie that Ed Harris directed/starred in a few years back . . . he's not a particularly likable guy, but I think every serious artist can relate to him on some level.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint

[sparth]

hpx said it all i guess. two extra words.

first of all, looking at dann82's flag, i can't help but think about jasper johns. controversy?, maybe, but he belongs to american art history anyway. i don't think i've seen his name in the thread, so here it is.

also there's one word i wanted to add: minimalism. looking at a piece of modern abstract art, understanding the typographic structures of buro destrukt, without any cultural artistic background is like listening to techno, drum&bass or ambient, or even philip glass, without having previously heard and understood the path that led to these musical expressions. the important factor is not abstraction itself, but the path artists have chosen in order to reach these extremisms.
in other words, minimalism is a concept that allows artists to reach the core, to go straight to the point. it's a philosophy.


hpx: u rule mate.
_________________
sparth.com - art on Flickr

[Cicinimo]

[tayete]

Cicinimo...you got him.
_________________
_ _ _____ _ _
http://tayete.blogspot.com

[Matt Ryan]

correct me if i am wrong, but Piet Mondarian's later artworks were not about moving people. what he was trying to achive was complete balance within the picture frame through use of line wieght, color and relative size of each color mass. his designs were an experimental use of abstraction. his final products are sucessful in my eyes, and i am 'moved' by them in a way; for me they enstill a sense of calmness.
_________________
http://mryan.epilogue.net

[Drunken Monkey]

I understand and agree. I'm sorry i ever said anything. It was stupid.

[brainwash]

I read the whole topic and I know as much about abstract art as I did before: Nothing. To me it seems that this is something "that you can't understand but have to feel" you know? I am asking my self if something you cannot explain DOES exist, or you just have to believe in it.

Can you compare abstract art with a lousy and crappy but chartbraking commercial Britney Spears song (no offense), who plays in millions?

If someone could explain how to start understanding abstract art, that would be nice.

[edit]What Eyewoo posted is quite confusing. The second one, could be called to have a nice composition I think, but if we did something like in the third picture in school, we had to sweep the school yard for a quite week.[/edit]

[AliasMoze]

brainwash, I don't think Britney Spears is a good analogy for abstract paintings. Her stuff is anything but abstract, the opposite of I'd say. A better musical analogy is maybe really experimental jazz, where the musicians play unheard of chords and in what sounds like chaos.

Also, expressing what cannot be explained is probably the whole point of art. IMO good art fills in the feelings we have no words for nor other definitions. That said, most abstract stuff is too far out for me, though I suppose cartoons could be considered abstract, right down to the lowly stick figure.

[glody]

art can be everything and nothing at that same exact instance.....it just depends upon who is making that observation.

i have other opinions...but i enjoy reading what you all have to say regarding the world/history of art.....great thread so far ladies and gents.

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

a short answer here. yesterday, i've read all the new posts and i have a lot of things to say and some replies to make.
i'm going to develop further tomorrow, coz i badly need some sleep (i'm back from my birthday ). big subject so let's try to take it step by step.
i'll just make a small digression for now :

why do we have to respect all forms of art ?

you can like a painting or not, that is TASTE. and it's a GOOD thing to have opinions, of course.

what i'm saying :

I prefer to live in a world where we are free to say : 'i don't LIKE this piece of shit',
than living in a world where I would be FORCED to say : 'i love this because there is nothing else to love or hate'.

why is he saying that you wonder ?
i'll continue where Spooge decided to STFU ! (thanks to YOU man ! you know why)
i've read some awful lot of crap. i won't flame, i'll just quote some stuff:

first is the intro at Artnewal.org :

"ARC is the Eye of the Storm, at the core, hub and center of a major cultural shift in the art world. With a growing body of experts, we are setting standards of ARC Approval for artists, art schools, systems of training, museum exhibitions and historical scholarship, to bring guidance, direction, goals and reality to an art establishment that has been sailing rudderless for nearly a hundred years.
(...)
Nothing has been more restricting and debilitating than the theories of modernism, which eliminated these tools, along with the skills to employ them. We are providing a forum for artists, scholars, collectors and the public to appreciate great art, and to recognize that they're not alone in their suspicions about the emptiness of modern and postmodern art.These suspicions are fully justified by the overwhelming body of evidence and historical facts."

next is the quote from a man :
"From the pictures sent in for exhibition, it is clear that the eye of some men shows them things other than they are---that there are men who on principle feel meadows to be blue, heavens green, the clouds sulfur yellow. Either these 'artists' do really see things in this way and believe that in which they represent---then one has to ask how the defect in vision arose, and if it is hereditary the Minister of the Interior will have to see it that so ghastly a defect shall not be allowed to perpetuate itself---or, if they do not believe in the reality of such impressions but seek on other grounds to impose them upon the nation, then it is a matter for the criminal court."
that man is Adolf Hitler, stated on the House of German Art's inauguration.

"This connection of "degenerate art" (nazis called modern art that way) and physical disability was best linked by Paul Schults-Naumberg's book, Art and Race published in 1928. This book paired up modern paintings and sculpture with photographs of diseased and misshapen people. A film was made in 1936 on this principle and shown in almost every city." (i forgot my source here, sorry)

(>dann82, i hope now you understand why your statement that "abstraction is a process from sane to nutso" can be a little bit harsh to take (don't think i'm saying you are a nazi, not at all, i'm just trying to explain what your words made me think of at first and why my first reply to you was so short, now i think that maybe you didn't know about these historical facts))

now, taken from Hitler.org (! O_o !) :
"(...)
The classical style of these artists (talking about Arno Breker and Adolf Wissel, official artists from the nazis) stood against the world trends in art at the time, such as cubism, surrealism, impressionism, expressionism, dadaism, and modernism in general. Rather than censor these modern styles of art, Hitler decided it was better to gather the work from trendy modern artists and provided exhibits of "degenerative art" where citizens could see for themselves what this style was about and compare it to classical art. (...)
Hitler believed that modern art was in conflict with the eternal values of beauty and therefore could only lead to a decline of civilization. Modern art separated people from identifying with the positive expressions of art because it was incomprehensible. In addition, modern art had obliterated the concept of beauty and consequently stood as an enemy of life itself because it preferred nothingness or the ugly to the beautiful."

now a list of Artists banned by the Third Reich:
Pablo Picasso, van Gogh, Felix Mendelssohn, Gustav Mahler, Max Beckmann, Wassily Kandinsky, Emil Nolde, George Grosz, Marc Chagall, Arnold Schoenberg, Lovis Corinth, Otto Dix, Alexej von Jawlensky, Paul Klee, Ernst Barlach, Bertold Brecht,...

i just hope these quotes makes some of the references in my former posts clearer (and i guess spooge refered to the same things, correct me if i'm wrong).

i'll be yelling now :
I'M NOT SAYING THAT SOME OF YOU ARE NAZIS OR FASCIST (i love this forum and the diversity of ppl in it, like i love the diversity in art).
i'm saying : BE CAREFUL, coz in the recent past, some shortening statements i've read here leaded to some CRAZYFUCKEDUPSHIT.

also, i'm NOT saying that hitler disliked modern art so modern art is good.
i'm NOT saying that hitler liked old masters so old masters are shit.
i'm NOT saying that abstraction is better than classicism or popart or comics, i think they are all important to society and that we always need to widen our perspectives (for those who wonder, i don't prefer a style to another, i just have favorite paintings and some of them are abstract, others are popart, some are graffitis others are "old school" hehe)

i'm afraid this post only covers a 1/100e of what i wanted to talk about at first, but i just want to sleep right now...
my next post will be more constructive and shorter i hope.
thanks to the people who managed to understood what i'm clumsily trying to explain
_________________
Wet tentacles, horny chixxx & scary designs
www.hpx1.com

[dann82]

oo) hpx: that's cool, man - i hold no one in spite. i realize that many of the posts here are personal opinions - many of which have been stated in at least partial ignorance (ie. i had no idea about the whole hitler thingy). (oo

i agree mainly with one opinion stated, though - that 99% of 'modern' art is just junk that someone is trying to make money off. for instance, a woman was re-decorating her house and one of the workers dumped her old sink out the second floor window - she glues the pieces back together in random order, paints it blue and sells it for several thousand dollars. now, this is art to be sure - the art of ripping off some dumbass. could've done it yourself for 50 bucks - the cost of the sink, paint, and glue... that's not skill, it's a bad habbit.

there are actually quite a few abstract/modern art pieces that i like, but they are typically at least a little understandable. i think interpretation is a bunch of crap. yeah, i'm sure that little black dot symbolizes the fall of the soul during fornication... if it was supposed to mean that, why didn't the artist write a little user's manual? for the most part, to me anyway, art is just eyecandy - and if it doesn't please my TASTE, i don't want to spend all day trying to figure out why its such a P.O.S.

*ahem* i hope no one took offense to this. it is my opinion, however, so i thus stated it.
_________________
Life is what you make of it. Mine's a bowl of ice cream.

[eyewoo]

[zaar]

Spooge Demon, HaRdC0rePixxX and eyewoo: Since we don't have the eatpoo beer emoticon here, I'll just give you a big hug. Thank you for being so sensible. This thread sure has helped a lot of people (at least in my eyes) make fools out of themselves. I hope they take their time and read your replies.

So often when people discuss modern art, they say: "I could have done that myself". Yeah, so what? With enough time and effort most people could copy any work of art. It's like those bazillion monkeys with their bazillion typewriters who will eventually, by pressing random keys, will have written the bible, Shakespeares collected works or what ever book you want them too type. Does that make them Shakespeare? No, of course not. It's the deliberate act and purpose that "counts" in most people's eyes (usually measured in ICAP, Internationally Certified Art Points... just kidding ). Although you can of course do something random as a deliberate act. Tough copying that random act will be worth less. Now this is not entirely true because the act of copying can be a deliberate act. I wish I had a good reference to some famous artist, but I've got none. So I would like to tell an interesting story I heard once.

In a radio show some years ago I heard the Swedish artist Ernst Billgren talk about his years as a student at the royal university college of fine arts. He said that he was obsessed by the thought of being free as an artist, to be able to create what ever he liked, without being affected by the convention at the current time. Not being constrained or affected by the surrounding would be the highest state of being an artist, to be free.
This is easy, just do whatever everyone else doesn't do, right?
But he soon realised that the convention not only decides what the convention is, but also what is not the convention. So even if he did the opposite of everyone else, he would still be controlled by the convention. What to do now?
I don't remember exactly how he reached this decision but anyway, in school he started to copy the art of the other students. He looked at what the person sitting next to him was doing, and did the same. It drove them nuts and what reaction did he get? "Hey, you can't do that!!!" and he answered, "yes I can, because I'm completely free as an artist"

One thing I've thought a lot about is, whether or not simply being first to do something is enough? Does that automatically make it "good art" (whatever that is)? I'm not sure yet but I think timing is more important, to do something as the next step in the process.

I hope this long post was worth reading and that I've made some sense or even proven a point if I'm lucky, not sure what point that would be thought...

[edraket]

I am thinking it might be fun to start a specific thread and discuss one artist together. Or even seperate threads to discuss seperate artists.
Maybe by arguing about it some people might learn to appreciate art. Just arguing it's great is not going to do the trick. Like just telling that stinky mouldy bluecheese is a delicacy will not convince people, you need to eat it a few times to appreciate it.

[tayete]

Well, I don't really know what is the deal with Hitler about this. HARD. That only proves that he was a quite good watercolourist that hated modern art, with enough power to ban it. He did the same with the Jews, the gipsies and many other things. If instead of a classic watercolourist he had been a cubist one, then traditional fine art should have been forbidden. If he hadn't liked ARTRENEWAL their webmaster should be gased now.

Well, that only proves he was crazy, the same as Stalin who thought the same about modern art, but doesn't mean that thinkin that modern art is just crap is bad (as you say later in you post).

What I think now is that we are going the other way: now what isn't abstract or modern isn't suppossed to be good. Another guy told before in this thread what happenned when he hanged his realistic pictures near some brush strokes of another guy. His wasn't "artistic" enough was the general thought.

Why? Because moder art is in fashion, and those that don't let theirselves be swept by the flood are "skilled" but "unartistic". Now it is classic art what's censored by our culture.

Here in Spain, the Academia of Bellas Artes (where Picasso and Dali studied) teaches fine art mostly focused on modern art. The days when perspective and composition where you guiding light are gone, now the "idea" and expressing yourself is what's worth.

And Zaar,

[balistic]

[Drunken Monkey]

The point is in not how obscure it is but if it points out any new ideas/directions etc. Yes 99% of it is good for firewood. Like was said above its abstract research, and 99% of research is failure and is often complete nonsense. But the things that came out of 1% did introduce some ideas that are next to revolutionary. And those which didn�t sometimes end up touching people personally.

I also don't understand a single of those paintings Eyewoo posted. To me they look like crayon doodles of a 4 year old. But that�s just me. Someone might need them to see the profound something and maybe use that something in a more realistic way. Or maybe they are simply looking for a new pattern for their living room wallpaper. Or maybe it brings out memories/feelings that are very dear. Who knows� let it be. I personally wouldn�t pay a dime for those things.

For me it finally clicked into gear when someone said those square/line pictures were about finding balance. They are indeed very well and amazingly balanced. No question. You can't communicate those ideas in a realistic way, it just won�t be understood. Sometimes I wish these paintings would be presented in a more instructional way - because that�s what they seem to be, but that too wouldn�t work. So they had to be shown as works of art.
These people were looking for patterns that exist in the world and can be applied anywhere. They are researchers. Some succeed, most don�t. Good luck to them.

There are those of course that hide out in the abstract group with a complete lack of any talent, or visual knowledge of the world. Those people are useless hacks that would rather debate about various bullshit and draw attention to themselves than produce something worthwhile for anyone.
In that art class I mentioned above they showed us an hour long video of Picassos working process. When it was over part of the class thought the guy was a lunatic others applauded. Larger part of those who applauded later revealed themselves to be annoying loudmouths who turned that class into art debate sessions when they couldn�t draw and shade a cube for the life of them.

The negative attitudes of both groups are a result of one attacking another. I can see where art renewals attitude comes from. It�s from virtual dominance of modernism today. Realists are scared of being instinct and that transforms into a holy Jihad to some people. They got to fight to survive. Some take it to the extreme as such attitudes are very primal. That too is understandable.
It doesn�t have to be that way of course as in the end everything always balances out. That�s why I will basically pay attention to everything without prejudice now. Well everything except �pieces� with feces and menstrual blood or the likes.

When abstract and realistic is crossed by someone who is well versed in basics the results can be very intoxicating. Like www.braid.com � those guys rock.

P.S.
When will I stop posting to this thread!?

[dann82]

that braid.com is some way cool stuff! i like it because it takes creativity, vision and skill... i think that's what i was originally trying to get at. complete randomness is just completely random, and that's it.
_________________
Life is what you make of it. Mine's a bowl of ice cream.

[zaar]

[[666]Flat]

Yeah right you are convincing to say teh least. I've printed that tv test screen out and I told ma homiez to take a look at it or I'd be wasting their asses and they said W00t plz dun be no playa hata k so wassup wit dat shit? And they went like what teh fuck teh suckage is strong in this one and I said no, it is not, it's actually inderdiscplinary fine art and chances are teh pet munkeys did that and pet munkeys pWn big time so plz stfu you damn fagg0ts. And they went like ok maybe it does not suck bullox but we've seen more artistic passion on muthafuckin goatse and I told them to stick to wash my car and stfu for all I care coz that's all those morons could ever do right with teh exception of donating their worthless a$$es to support experimental neurosurgery maybe. But I'm gonna take care of this anyway cos I need teh $ to have my frickin' car airbrushed wit nekkid gurls. Peace, yo! And keep dat shit tite.
_________________

[Serg]

Funny thread. I think, I will never buy something like this, I think, it's not abstraction.
_________________
My epilogue gallery
My second gallery

[AliasMoze]

This is an inspirational thread, and maybe it calls for a session. Who can name a subject for an abstract painting? Maybe a sneeze? Or waking up (no, too cliche)? How about an image that expresses the feeling of falling down the stairs? I'm serious!

Or, if like eyewoo suggest, abstract is best left as composition, how about the things you see from the corner of your eye?

Or does this suggestion just confirm that I'm an idiot? I admit my main desire is to see Spooge's or Flushy's abstract stuff.

[Serg]

These 3 colors remind me "The black square" of Malevich( black square oil on canvas ). I don't think that it's visual art. I think it's art, but of another sort. Can't say more clear.
_________________
My epilogue gallery
My second gallery

[gezstar]

have you guys heard of tracy emin? her most infamous work was 'unmade bed', which was quite literally that, an actual bed with cigarette butts in it. it was nominated for the (already controversial) turner prize here in england, which provoked a national outcry, at least from the tabloid press. now to be honest my kneejerk reaction was 'what a load of shite'. however, the more i thought about it, i was intrigued... why did she feel that this was worth making? why did she consider it art? in fact, did she herself even consider it art?

looking into her background, it dawned on me that her artwork was an expression, as far as i could make out, of her troubled past. don't get me wrong; i'm not saying that 'unmade bed' is acceptable because of what she went through (rape, among other ordeals). what i'm saying is this: in my eyes, there are two things that tend to provoke a negative reaction among some representative artists, and fans thereof, when they are presented with such works...

first is that such works undermine a shared sense of aesthetic value, and a sort of nominal camaraderie that artists seem to seek amongst each other and their audience, as can be evidenced in the obvious pleasure members of this forum feel when they successfully communicate through their work with other members; when i first saw 'unmade bed', i thought 'how can this be considered art when tracy emin's motivations for creating differ so greatly from my own and from those i respect?'

the second 'upsetting' factor for me was that, having spent hours of blood, sweat and tears studying and getting to grips with figurative drawing, the effect of light on the human body, how best to represent the beauty we see in nature, etc., it was galling to see someone who had apparently done none of this, and whose only technical effort had consisted of procuring a bed and messing it up, getting such recognition and financial rewards.

these are the main reasons i, for one, felt upset. and, to be honest, i still feel slightly upset by it. however, this in no way is going to lend me the arrogance required to dismiss it as art. it is not 'good' in my eyes - and maybe i still have to do some thinking about this - but i recognise it as being an expression of what is within another person. just because that person is poles apart from me, and has different values, does not make what they produce any the less valid.

[Lunatique]

I want to say thank you to everyone that posted in this thread. This topic is not new, and it's made appearances not only at sijun, but many other art forums as well, but this time, it really hit home for me. I credit this mostly to the passionate posts by HaRdC0rePixxX, Spooge, and others.

I think in the last couple of years I've changed--a lot or a little is debatable. I have to say that being exposed to all kinds of perspectives, arguments, and passionate debates over a variety of subjects on internet forums has a lot to do with my change(of course, living in China is a big factor too).

I've said it before in another thread, and I'll say it again here:

The older I get, the harder I find it to climb onto a high horse.

Call it maturity, call it wisdom, call it experience or whatever it might be--as long as you don't call it laziness or failing physical health. I think part of growing up is learning empathy and broadening your horizon. Everyone is allowed their own opinion, but to absolutely deny the opinion of others is just not right. No one can possibly understand the broad scope of every little detail or fact involved for any given topic. Sometime one single tiny fact could change your entire outlook and disposition.

The smartest thing to do is to assume that you know nothing. It's like this: If you are a treasure chest, and you want to fill yourself with precious items(knowledge), could you attain any precious items(knowledge) if you felt like you are already filled? The only way you could attain any more is if you always assume that the chest still has space left--and idealy, that space is perpetually there, no matter how much precious knowledge you've acquired.

Just some thoughts from a guy who's a bit depressed that he just turned 30.

[ken]

[sleepwalker]

I really dont mind about the technique, I just have to feel it...I feel alot of the abstract stuff I have seen in museums, And I really really love when you see stuff made 60 years ago influencing todays jpg benders!

But cmon, 30 million, that is a big pile of cash they could been used for much better things...And sometimes it feels like some of these abstract artists are like these actors saying "ooh, someday I will be busted, and people will realise I actually dont have a clue what im doing" not all of them but some!

But I must say that I take Monets or Zorns paintings every day before Mondrians!