Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Thoughts on making art  (Read 19484 times)
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2011, 12:41:18 PM »
ReplyReply

RSL
"Now you're getting the picture, Gemm. But you're right. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's why talking about what makes art art is such an absurdly futile passtime.

But sometimes it can be a lot of fun."

I think I'm the one who was getting the picture from the very beginning!  Wink As I stated, art as is with beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  And I agree, telling somebody what is and isn't art is not just futile but also arrogant, because no single person can determine what the rest of the world sees or feels.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 02:15:23 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2011, 12:45:42 PM »
ReplyReply

"Ahhh... That one was created by The Creator."

I suppose that would be an entirely different subject?

"RSL - Maybe you just don't get it. You don't seem to consider that possibility at all. Do you have any sense of humility, or do you just reckon you have all the answers?"

I think it's possible he is now getting it, it just took some time.  Wink

Arrogance is generally a sign of ignorance, because a person who believes they have all the answers is not knowledgeable but rather ignorant.  Nobody can determine what is art and nobody can say if you understand art.  

Real simple

Art is in the eye of the beholder and if you don't believe that then you are arrogant which means you are.............................................................
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 12:54:42 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
ChrisS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2011, 01:24:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I was thinking specifically of RSL's response to Warhol, and more generally of his response to fine art. The less we polemicize these things, the more chance there is of finding understanding, I think.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2011, 01:53:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, Thanks for joining in. Why don't you give us your slant on the question instead of just sputtering?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 01:58:42 PM by RSL » Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2011, 02:06:36 PM »
ReplyReply

"I was thinking specifically of RSL's response to Warhol, and more generally of his response to fine art. The less we polemicize these things, the more chance there is of finding understanding, I think."

I think it's possible RSL is just being pugnacious just for fun, nobody can be that arrogant.  There are a lot of people who like Warhol and I believe it's possible that once one has an understanding of Warhol his artwork becomes interesting.  I don't know because I'm not there yet, but that's what happened with me regarding Van Gogh.  It's sort of like a treasure hunt with clues, until you figure out the clues you can't locate the treasure!
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2011, 02:16:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Gemm and Chris, Tsk, tsk... You guys aren't being careful readers. As I said when I agreed with Gemm: "It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's why talking about what makes art art is such an absurdly futile passtime." But you two seem quite willing to jump in and discuss it anyway. So, have at it. It was fun, but enough tweaking.
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2011, 02:41:36 PM »
ReplyReply

"That's why talking about what makes art art is such an absurdly futile passtime."

I believe my first comment was Very old question, why one ponders it with such fervor is beyond me.

My comments were directed towards your initial posts, which you now have seemingly retracted.  If everybody agrees that art is in the eye of the beholder, that discussion is over.  If one wants to discuss a specific artist, then let's do that? 

Anybody here like or appreciate Warhol's art?  Just curious?  If you do, why?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2011, 03:31:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Gemm, Probably you didn't notice the equivalence:

"Kicks you in the solar plexus" ≈ "huge reaction to what the eye of the beholder sees."
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2011, 03:53:01 PM »
ReplyReply

"Either something "kicks me in the solar plexus", or I am not interested; the world can play this "is it art?" game till the end of times, I will just move along."

So the only art you consider "art" has to kick YOU in the solar plexus?  Therefore "Art is in the eye of the beholder"  And if I'm understanding what you are saying, you only consider it "art" if it in fact kicks you in the solar plexus?  Art is easily defined for you and it is or isn't?  Are there any levels?  I'm assuming not all art hits you equally in the solar plexus?

The "World" doesn't play any games, the individuals living in the world determine what is art to them. 

Oh, no! I was not trying to tell anybody what is and what is not art, I leave that task to wiser minds; I just consider as art anything created with the intention of being art. What I was trying to say is that this "what is (not) art" discussion seems a bit pointless to me. If something "kicks me in the solar plexus", it "kicks me in the solar plexus", and it can or cannot be art, but I will be interested whatsoever. But if I find something boring, it will bore me whatever the experts determine about its artistic qualities. I approach art with my heart, not with my mind.
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2011, 04:14:46 PM »
ReplyReply

RSL,

I believe I stated above I like the statement "kicks you in the solar plexus" however I don't
believe all art will do that to you.  IOW there are Levels of art and only the greatest art kicks you in the SP.
I don't believe you originally stated art was in the eye of the beholder?  I believe you said it was only art
If it kicked you in the SP?  

"I approach art with my heart, not with my mind."

That's interesting
« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 06:17:07 AM by Gemmtech » Logged
jwwbrennan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2011, 10:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

What makes art for me is a shared spark of recognition of the somehow familiar unknown. Art seems to give glimpses into an invisible world around us, we all imagine it differently and from that it is different for everyone. Art is not determined by decree or method but rather by sharing something interesting that defies further description of its essence. Ideally, at least for me, it delves into that oddly familiar world without absolutes - no time, no space - of which we have no knowledge but yet an extraordinary sense of being. When a photographer, painter, musician, chef, welder, actor, writer, etcetera photographs, paints, plays, cooks, welds, acts, writes or...well...etceteras the results have a potential to be art. I am not certain the person capturing the expression is in the best position to bestow the title artist upon himself or art on his work and I am absolutely certain 'art experts' serve no greater purpose than their own. Judging, defining, categorizing, determining, evaluating are words of accountants, lawyers and sportscasters having no other purpose for art than to bolster egos and assist in marketing.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 10:45:32 AM by jwwbrennan » Logged

Jim Brennan
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2011, 03:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Art is the manipulation of a medium in order to create something that makes the viewer/listener feel something.

So a picture does tell a thousand words. In terms of art, they're not tangible words you understand or even hear, but you feel it. It's silent emotion.

When making art always ask yourself...what does this make me feel? It always helps if you have something you want to say.

For this reason, a good artist is not only in tune with themselves but also the world and society around them.

You don't need to understand yourself to be in tune with yourself...just let it out and react to it.

In general, I think photography is the process of Observe. Interpret. React.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 03:15:32 PM by DeeJay » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2011, 03:01:50 PM »
ReplyReply

You don't need to understand yourself to be in tune with yourself...just let it out and react to it.

In general, I think photography is the process of Observe. Interpret. React.


Speaking about how it works for me, it's more dependent on what's wanted from the photography.

In general, the practical bit works like this: I see something vaguely interesting and I may not know quite why it interest me, I then shoot around it, and sometimes I get something and other times I don't. That's when it's being done for me. If somebody else pays, I try to imagine what they really want and then do it. In both cases, sometimes it's art and others it's not. I recognize the difference in my own stuff.

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2011, 09:45:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Art is the ability to lie convincingly. Most art, novels, operas, paintings, or arty-farty photographs, are attmepts to elevate the humdrum experience of reality into a surrealistic presentation that may inspire us in some way.

The obvious example is the alluring model who has been photoshopped, or just photographed on the best side of her face.

We live in a world of delusion and illusion, make-believe and pretense.

True art, in my view, is that which penetrates this world of illusion and gives us a glimpse of reality.
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2011, 03:59:52 PM »
ReplyReply

You people with your paragraphs filled with nothing should be considered artists!   Grin  Though not very good ones! 
Seriously, do you guys believe 1/2 the BS that you write?  1/2 the crap written here is contradicted within the same sentence or paragraph.  Such foolishness, continue.........................................

I'm going to sit in the back of my RR and eat some Grey Poupon!  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:03:12 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
Lonnie Utah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2011, 02:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mom_and_Pop_Art
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad