Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was having this..."discussion" with a friend.

She something about abstract art not being about telling a story, but bridging a gap between art and another subject.

I said that recognition through art should be earned by TALENT, not by knowing someone that's in the art business, or because they made up some underlying meaning behind their crap painting or whatever. I get frustrated because I practice everyday, learning where to place the line just perfectly, how to shade just the right way, how to make my art come alive with a story, with an illustration that actually means something, and some other doucheface submits a BLANK CANVAS to a museum for $20,000!!!! WHAT THE ****!?

There should be a word for it, but it shouldn't be called "art". It degrades the entire meaning of the word.

I enjoy abstract art
I find that everyone interprets it differently, and that's what I like about it.

I prefer traditional art better though

I agree with arachnoid freak. Abstract just seems like it doesn't take effort to me. I can really appreciate someone who can paint something that looks identical to real life, almost like a picture. It seems to me like that takes more talent. But then again, I don't really know jack shit about art.

I took that into account too. I see it as another perspective and excuse for a crappy painter to say his art means more than it is really worth. I sense that most abstract painters are in it for the money.

$20,000 FOR A BLANK CANVAS!?

Seriously, a toddler can make a painting, have someone call it abstract, and earn insane amounts of money.

i also agree with arachnoidfreak.

but abstract art can also refer to music...

actually this has already happened...a 4 year old girl is becoming a famous artist all over the country for a few painting she did. People are paying good money for her painting. I think she's from upstate NY. The thing is her painting may not depict anything to her, they might just be like random lines but i've seen some online and they are pretty good...

People forget about famous abstract artists. Think about cubiste painting, Picasso and Matisse were both great artist.

Picasso is where I draw the line at still calling it art. I can actually see things in his art. Houses, a moon, stars, I actually SEE things. I'm talking about when douches splash some paint on a canvas, or draw a few really crappy random lines, and sell it for shitloads of money.

I hope everyone can see that there's something wrong when someone can sell a black canvas for $20,000. And no, I probably won't stop bringing that up, because it is probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

Art can be anything that is created or expressed by sentient beings. Dance is art, pen to paper is art, heck, one could fine art in the physical prowess a wide reciever shows as he tightropes down a sideline just barely in control of his momentum, yet still in control.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it is not art.

I hate the pretentiousness of many in the artworld who hide meager talent behind $25.00 words and self serving explanations. But I would never catagorize any form of art as "not worthy of the title art".

I know what I like, but I am not so self indulgent as to say that what I like everyone else should and we should dismiss the rest.

The majority of abstract art is stupid. Just a bunch of crap randomly thrown together so stupid people can be seen as artists. "Oh, I took a shit, that's art, buy my shit, it's art".

O.k. I get the feeling here that alot of people are lumping many different forms of art under the category of abstract art .

Also, we all have our opinions on what we like. But if you are going to discuss "what is art" you should have either a more than passing interest in the subject or a fine arts degree. If you have neither, then your definition of "art" is merely an opinion of what you find aesthetically pleasing, and personal biases are moot in such a debate.

http://www.ubersite.com/m/34682

I think abstract art is great, and traditional art bores me.

But paying for abstract art is absurd. It should be free.

There is crappy abstract art... i dont think anyone will argue against that, but there is also some really good abstract art out there.

Anyone can be an abstract artist.

Some of it is alright, some of it is complete crap that takes absolutely no talent to create. Like the guy who shit in a jar and sold it for some thousands of dollars. Cubism isn't really abstract art, it's just... weird art. But it does depict real things in an aesthetically pleasing way. Not that there's anything wrong with drawing things that don't actually exist, I just think too many people can get away with drawing a few colorful cubes on a canvas and calling it fine art.

Some abstract art is pretty good. Example: J.Pollock:
http://images.google.ro/images?q=Jackson%20Pollock&hl=ro&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi

By the way, is this thread in the right forum ?

This is abstract art that should earn an artist recognition, and $25,000. There's actually something here to discuss, and not just anyone can draw this.

http://www.violafair.com/i/weep.jpg



THIS IS NOT. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!?

http://artbydeater.com/art/dlabc055.jpg

I know what it is, it's ****ing crap.

http://stuff.ubersite.com/10860579365226489/1/ Rubbish%20in,%20rubbish%20out%20does%20not%20apply
%20to%20a%20junk%20Artist.JPG

Well first during the 20th century many painters started with learning how to make a drawing right before they went into abstract art, because being an artist means to know how to draw, sometimes sculpt or deal with different materials. Abstract art is just another way to express something. Art is not just a technique, and many works make sense if you take account of the intention or to the thinking process of the artist.

Nevertheless it is clear that many contemporanean works are questionable : one can really call into question the fact tha a white canvas torn can enter a museum (this has happened here at te Palais de Tokyo ; it is not properly a "permanent" museum but a place where exhibitions are organized all the time ).

The problem of abstract art is that it refers to a larger extent to the artist's personal language or universe than what is here called 'traditional art', which was clearer because you can always refer to something : the actual depicted object. It's no longer the case and that's why it is much more difficult to get into the meaning of an abstract painting, for example. That's also why some people can abuse of this and name "piece of art" what is not. When Marcel Duchamps put a urinal in a gallery, his aim was clearly to explore the relation between an artist and his work, and he was one of the first ones (if not the very first one) to understand this tricky aspect of the role of an artist.

anyone click on the link?

I did. It was priceless.

i usually like abstract art, but obviously some people use it just for money.but i also think you can see when it was done with some work or when someone just threw some colors in a canvas.
Its considered an evolution of Cubism...when some artists started to "hide too much" the real intention of the painting. Even so, i still prefer abstract then Cubist painting, these ones seem to be made by a 2 year child (yeah, i know abstract art CAN be made by a child too).
I have 2 abstract canvas in my room and i can assure that process of making it was way longer then just "throwing some dye on it". And i find them amazing, but, of course, i know this is not common. Most of the artists who choose this kind of art are just lazy.

I was hoping one of my fellow Art loving people were gonna do this, so i wouldnt have to...

This whole ''im learning where to place line perfectly'' thing is just utter bullshit, no offence.

Im a huge fan of abstract art as well as surrealism. I dont consider an awesome talent in drawing something right in front of you - and drawing it exactly as it is. Heck, you can teach yourself to do that. The real talent lies in having the imagination and the ability to draw something out of your own head. Something that you can see in your head and draw it in your own way.

Wassily Kandinsky said

"Of all the arts, abstract painting is the most difficult. It demands that you know how to draw well, that you have a heightened sensitivity for composition and for colours, and that you be a true poet. This last is essential."

heres the painting by him

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kandinsky/ravine.jpg

I do not for a second doubt that you can't go and re-paint this piece by Kandinsky. Seriously, i think you do it in an hour tops.

If that picture above does not require talent, i really dont know what does.

You can go off and re-paint this, but the matter of fact is, you yourself would only have the ability to re-paint someone else's idea - there would be nothing glorious or original about it What would be glorious is if you came up with the abstract idea all by yourself.

When you go away and come up with the painting like or rather better than Kandinsky's, then and only then will you have the right to say that his art is an insult to the word.

You can teach yourself to draw people, cars, landscapes and the likes, but you cant teach yourself to be an artist. You're either talented or you're not.

You can, not like certain kinds of art, but to say that just because you fail to understand that kind of art that its shit and an insult to the word 'art' is a little far fetched and unfair.

I would strongly suggest that you go away and research some abstract artists and look at their work, then honestly ask yourself if you know what you are actually talking about, because i seriously doubt it.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kandinsky/kandinsky.yellow-red-blue.jpg

You apparently skipped that last post I made on the first page. It shows.

Assumptions, assumptions. You ASSUME I draw things that are right in fornt of me. While it is good practice, it's not what I do. The best practice is seeing whether or not I can draw what I want from my own head. To see if I can vizualize and draw the object I want to. Not splashing some color on a canvas, and calling it meaningful art.

I already gave an example of what I'd consider good abstract art, and some peice of shit that any mind****ed retard can do.

Actually, for me everything is on the first page. I view 40 posts per page, therefore no i did not miss you saying ''It was priceless''

However post before that you posted this :

I don't care what kind of argument you make, you're never going to be able to justify someone taking a shit in a jar and calling it art, and actually getting rich off of it.

There are good and bad artist in EVERY FIELD OF ART. Its a commonly known fact i would think, whats your point?

You only mentioned that this syle of art is shit - which is so evidently untrue.

Its like me making a thread about some sureal painting i saw that was crap and saying : ''wow, well surealism is crap because this guy drew something ugly and rediculous''

Obviously that isnt so, since Dali and Giger are both surealist and both my favourite artists, and just because some midnless wonder has drawn something terrible, it doesnt undermine the whole of the surrealism

No you dont, because im right.

So what are we talking about now exactly? I sure as HELL hope you didnt just suggest that taking shit in a jar or making a sculpture of some kind is surrealism?!

It's the same crap. Taking a shit in a jar and calling it art is just as bad as selling a blank canvas to a museum for $20,000. You can't justify either of these. You just can't.

If it's something a ****ing toddler can do, it should have it's own category, it shouldn't be called art.

Different people like different things, as long as you don't pay 20 000 for the "art" I don't see why it shouldn't be called art. I mean maybe the person who bought it felt some sort of connection to it or something

kkd kkie93k ii93k2k9 io0093jn -093j2- j03903jo- -03-20-32-03 IIIIIiloooj93kk



The above is art no worse then some dumbass trying to pass off a piece of fecal matter in a jar or a blank piece of paper as art, gimme money now. I earned it.

I think you all mean you don't like it when some bum on the street takes a chair, puts a tennis shoe on one leg, a piggie bank on the other, a hat with a question mark pinned on it on the seat then puts it on a spinning pedastal with a light show, gets a crowd of people around it going "what does it MEAN?!" and gets paid billions for it.

Below is a painting from an abstract artist "Anna Sea" it's beautiful, not crap, she deserves her money.

Abstract is good, but really fugly... STUPID abstract art is a waste of time.

What we see as abstract may be the norm in the future, I mean I'm sure when such artists as Monet, and Picasso, came out, people probably hated their art, and now a Monet painting can easily sell for millions. It's the time frame it's done it that decides what is classified as art.

Well I hope I'm deep in the cold cold ground before anyone with a brain recognizes a piece of poop in a jar as art.

Agreed. That's just ridiculous.

ew.. yeah.. if some of the shi.tty stuff like the blank canvases with the big black dot in the middle of it is "the monet of our time" then I should get started on my art career now!

*takes out piece of paper, puts line through middle*

in 10 years, that will sell for BILLIUONS!

Art doesn't increase in value till the artist dies
Might as well get started on that too

Hm.... anyone have some arsenic?

That still, unfortinately does not explain to me why did he have a direct go at abstract art?

Just because something is ''shit'' it doesnt automaticly become abstract art.

Second of all, my first reply was to this thread - he was clearly questionning Abstract art - no other art, but only abstract - my point - you cant group things into two groups - stuff that lookg nice and stuff that do not look nice.

People who buy paintings which are by your standart shit, obviously like it, so therefore dont get jealous when some ''toddler'' does something and people like it and he gets the money and you dont - deal with it.

First we get someone whos obsessed with not having nudity in art, now all other art that doesnt look like any objects is shit - great.

BF, i had no idea you were an artist.
*observerves random typing with arms crossed*
its has such energy...almost takes on a life of its own.
i think it symbolises the painful anonymity of a poster on
an internet forum...a great angst which is felt by a generation
of those striving to get their point across online
...ill give you $3000 for that!

anyway, dont blame the artist who shit in a can,
blame the museum curator who called it appropriate to display.
supply meets demand, so you can also blame the tasteless yuppies
who buy this stupid shit.

now, i went to artschool and i realise that art is subjective, that art is a means of expression and not acting as a human camera and simple illustrating objectively. however, i feel the pain of the creater of this thread as i have felt the sting of fine art yuppie culture.

mainstream art has become a culture of structured and refined bullshit.
its not the talent you have, the depth of your peception of the world around you, your feelings, and whatever else you use for inspiration...its just become such a load of bullshit.

to me, a true artist is one who does not need to explain their work. they should not need to say "i painted this because..."
nor should it leave everyone saying "wtf?" in a BAD way.
sometimes in art "wtf" is a good thing, but a can of shit or a blank canvas is a BAD 'wtf'

To me, if it leaves people going ''wtf'' at the art, it has more then well done its job - it provoked the reaction, and thats what all artist want.

Something that is just there and doesnt provoke you in any way - you can argue is not art - everything else - bring it on.

no lil b.

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! is good

WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?? is good

WTF!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!? is good

wtf? is just crap art

imho

So basically anything that envokes a reaction based on shock value is art? So if I went to a museum, went on stage in front of a bunch of people at an art show, and killed a dog with a wrench in front of them, it would be art because it would shock the audience and envoke a reaction. Good to know.


"That still, unfortinately does not explain to me why did he have a direct go at abstract art?"

Because a piece of shit in a jar is catagorized as abstract art to the morons who classified it, so it's the easiest target for a person to single out, because it allows a piece of shit in a jar to be considered absract art.

good point BF

a reaction is easy to get, and you cant guage the value of a piece based on the intensity of that reaction.

e.g. i go to a museum and scream at people who pass me "F*** YOU!!!"
"EAT SHIT!!!!"

now, that could be a valid performance piece, and it would certainly get the biggest 'WTF's imaginable. so does that mean i have achieved greatness?

to get a reaction is not the goal of a great artist. to KEEP that reaction is the goal imho. even if the viewer say "OMFG ITS A JAR OF HUMAN FECESE!!!!" on the first pass, the next pass it would be "oh...there's that jar of shit again "

he wasn't taking a shot at all abstract art FOR THE LAST F.UCKING TIME!

just the really stupid BAD abstract art, if you're point is "Art can't be bad yadda yadda" then you're right, it can't be bad, but in opinions to most it can be unbelievably stupid.

I think there was a thread about this already cause I seem to remember I talked to either finti or BF about this ...

I'll say it again: I don't like abstract art cause some just don't do effort in their work BUT there are exceptions of people that poke fun at this work and i.e. sell crap in golden boxes or a urinoir , that's hilarious

What the hell? Why would there be a stage in a museum filled with people killing puppies?!

It would be an art for me to kill and mutilate someone, but it doesnt mean its legal or moral.


So basically its ok for me to say that all people who live in America are dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks since you allowed Bush as your president so because he's an American the easiset thing to do is to classify ALL Americans as dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks?

Because thats exactly what you said in the reply above.

I'd like to see any sense in abstract art. I don't. I'm not sure why people call it 'art'.

How much of the abstract art have you seen pinsleepe?

Both of my parents has degrees in the history of art. Believe me, many.

I'm sure you have seen some really bad abstract art, as have I. But I've also seen some very amazing abstract art. "La Luz De Jesus" gallery in Hollywood is full of beautiful abstract art.

Don't turn your mind off of it completely just because some of it is really moronic or bad. Don't be ignorant.

-MD

I find that really mind numbing.

Good for you.

I mean that they both are obsessed with art. I live with them, so I used to visit galleries often.

Having my own opinion and visiting a couple of abstract art galleries due to mentally unstable sister i must say, with all respect, ABSTRACT ART DOES NOT, INDEED, HAVE ANY SENSE. And for all those, who can see sense in it, please stop taking LSD, it's bad for health.

Abstract is just another word for shitty talent with no direction.

or people just don't understand it and immediatly claim out of ignorance perhaps that it is shitty

no, abstract art is just people trying to hard. You either have artistic vision or you dont. You can't pretend to.

"What the hell? Why would there be a stage in a museum filled with people killing puppies?!

It would be an art for me to kill and mutilate someone, but it doesnt mean its legal or moral."

Wow...that is lame. So basically anything can be considered art? God damn, people are stupid. How is killing something art? It's killing someone, anyone can do it if they wanted too. People try way to hard to be open minded, and they don't realize how stupid they look. "killing someone can be art". That's a bunch of shit. Art is supposed to take talent, killing someone takes no talent, nor does it take talent to shock a group of people. I'm glad I'm not some stupid new age hippy who thinks anything is art.


"So basically its ok for me to say that all people who live in America are dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks since you allowed Bush as your president so because he's an American the easiset thing to do is to classify ALL Americans as dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks?

Because thats exactly what you said in the reply above."

Really? I could have sworn that I never mentioned Bush or America in any way and that I was talking about abstract "art" and how dumb it is that a piece of shit can now be considered art with some sort of sense of validity. But yeah, you can say that if you want. It's true for the most part, as is the fact that most abstract art is shitty. (Keep in mind I said "most" not all. Just wanted to clearify that to avoid you pmsing at me).

You said it.

You're the one that brought killing puppies in an art gallery (which im nut sure how you even though of) as a subject.

Movies are art, are they not? Movies show murder do they not?





Nothing you say really, can make you avoid me pmsing you, you should really know that by now.

Please re-read the comments by people in this thread, please re-read them and then come back and say that noone is generalizing here.

Second of all, I used America as an example - its the same idea under the different example. Same shit, different pacage.

damn straight girl! *bops head on loud r&b music*

that's it ... gotta stop watching that movie

My statement about killing puppies was a response to your statement that said something along the lines of "if it gets a reaction then it's good art". To that, I said "so if I killed a puppy and called it art, that would be valid, because it would garner a reaction from people who saw me kill an innocent puppy". Get it?

Movies are art, but snuff films are not. Films have meaning and motive behind them, and they take great talent and skill to create. Just because some movies may have a scene where someone dies does not make it the same thing as saying "killing someone can be art.". It's art in the movie because it's simply one part of the whole.




I never said no one was generalizing, I'm not going to defend other people, I said that I was not generalizing, I don't care what other people were doing.

I already accepted your america example, and agreed with it for the most part. You could say most Americans are stupid for electing Bush, of course, that doesn't effect me personally, seeing as I voted for kerry. I never said ALL abstract art was stupid, just most of it.

Also, dave, the whole shitting in a jar thing is not a made up example, someone DID shit in a jar and call it absract art, and it was accepted by whoever decides what is and isn't absract art. Something is fundamentally wrong with a piece of shit in a bottle being called art.

imo, that shit in a jar symbolises how insane some people are and how demented some people are to this "art", ... the statement behind it "shit is also considered art now" is just perfect

But it's shit.... thus, it is not art.

that was his point in the first place... that they think everything is art

Settle down and pay attention.

Art isn't about money. If someone sells a blank canvas for $5 or $5million it doesn't alter it's worth. All posts in this thread that mention money are pointless.

If someone shits in a jar and calls it art - that doesn't have anything to do with any other abstract or surrealist or cubist art. It doesn't devalue it - thats like saying if I take a crappy photo and someone pays me a squillion bucks for it then ALL photography is somehow suspect. If a jar of crap means ALL non representational art is poor then by proxy all art is worthless. All posts mentioning a jar of poop are worthless.

If you are going to discuss art as if it were something that can be good and bad, then you have to talk in specifics and you have to be subjective. Art can't be proven - it's not literal enough.

Saying : "a blank canvas does nothing for me and I cant understand why anyone would pay $XXXX for it" is a reasonable statement.

Saying: "BAH! ABSTRACT A KID COULD DO IT BAH!" isnt an argument - its a tantrum.

All of you bitching about how abstract art isn't "Art" and you can't see trees and the moon and things you recognise and blah blah blah... you have become your parents complaining that the loud "rock" music isn't "real" music. Have a nice warm drink, put on your slippers and go watch TV; you have nothing more to say.

I'm not arguing about what people like. They can like a performance peice of a fat man eating noodles, I don't care.

My point is, there should be a line between calling something abstract ART, and just abstract, period. Picasso, was an abstract artist. That douche who made the color splashes on the canvas, was just being abstract. It wasn't art.

The line between something that is art, and something that isn't has been blurred so much that people don't know when to NOT call something art. People tell me "throwing that football is art, swimming in that pool is art, that family watching tv is art, etc." No, it really isn't. As someone pointed out earlier, a peice of art that you can depict what the artist was trying to portray, without the artist saying "this is what it's supposed to mean" is art. Hell, before I learned to draw, I used to make abstract "art" all the time. Noone could tell what the hell it was that I was drawing, and I had to explain myself every time. I look back on my old stuff and go "Goddamn. I sucked. This really isn't art. What was I thinking?" That "find your own meaning to this peice" isn't art. There should be a name for it, but not art.

Ok, number one - Zero that was one sexy speach. I'll go tell that to myself in a little bit.

Arachnoidfreak, you dont seem to know the basics, which for one is that Picasso wasnt Abstract artist, he was a Cubist.

Should we really listen to you preach to us about what is art and what isnt after mixing up cubism and abstract art?

That just makes my initial generalization stronger. What I thought to be good abstract art wasn't abstrat art at all, and what I thought to be bad abstract art was actually just abstract art. Abstract art=crap, cubism=great.

It still shouldn't be called art.

Yeah!!! - and why do they have to play those guitars so loud - and why dont they get a decent haircut?

Now there is SOME great abstract art, some if it is simply outstanding. It is wrong to claim ALL absract art is bad. The blank canvas, or the shit in the jar, is blatantly stupid and should not by any means be called art of any kind.

I don't get why shit in a jar should be stupid... I think ti was a rather excellent idea ... he makes a statement that some abstract art is really shitty and people will buy anything these days, you can't make it more clear

What the bloody hell is with everyone and the shitting in a jar?! It wasnt even in the original post, and its not even abstract art.

it's my fave

Because it's the stupidest excuse for art that anyone has ever heard of, and according to some people (stupid people) it is art.

I visited the Tate Modern earlier on Sunday, and I my two favourite current pieces have to be:

-Acrylic indigo square with rounded edges.. artist "rejected ideas that art was about expressing emotion" or something to that effect, and "invented" this colour he called IBK

-Two rectangles of grey.. artist said some bullshit about how it was contrasting and nonconformist

There is an actual abstract art, that is art. However, like every other thing we consider art in this present society. The market is flooded, from music, writing, movies, and even painting. About %70 of everything that comes from these mediums is NOT ART. It is a form of art, but expressed in a recycled non talented way. In this day and age everybody is a god damn artist at somthing. you go to colleges across America and ask students what they are, they reply I'm an artist. The title artist is not self proclaimed. Two things make an artist. This is pure talent of a given skill, a skill that you can do better than better than average people. The second thing that makes an artist is vision.

You can be good at drawing or writing, but if you have no vision then you are just an average joe, the same thing if you have vision without raw talent. If you have the idea's but lack the common nack of your skill, you are just an average joe with a good idea.

Now back on the subject of abstract art. There is actual art out there, that is beautifully and masterfully painted or constructed. Dali was a master of what you would call abstract art. By definition he is an abstract artist. However,today, more than the majority of art is nothing more than people clammering to express themselves, and get paid for it. If you go to a modern museum of art, it is filled with shit. Sculptures of macaroni, braken violens glued to a plaque and so on. These people are clearly an example of having vision with no raw talent. they say that we should nurture the artistic side of every child, that's bullshit. A true artist should have to struggle to get their tartwork accepted or shown to people. Struggle will prove the devotion and dedication of an artist.

today if you say your an artist, and have money to go to an art school, you are then titled as an artist.

Goddamit i love how Zero's reply just made all of you contradict yourself.

yeah, i guess you can call that a contradiction, but i wasnt trying to say that their is no such thing as abstract art. I thought i made that clear in my latest post. I was trying to say that modern art that is percieved as abstract is merely un talented artists with no talent that are merely trying to hard to be different. I guess you had to read kind of hard to pick that up. So i'll clerify, modern day abstract art, is nothing but overatted shit that requires no talent, just an idea. I mean picasso, and Monet are abstract artists, and they are arguably the greatest artists to grace the Earth

I couldn't disagree more.

Who else is going to "proclaim" it? The gallery owners that you despise for paying for a jar of shit? Joe Public who hangs weeping clowns and sad puppies on the living-room walls? The universities who trade in artistic "qualifications" as if it's nothing more than a skill-set?

Who do I apply to to pass the artist test? You, who's expert opinion on the subject produces gems like "About %70 of everything that comes from these mediums is NOT ART. It is a form of art ...."

Its not ART but it is a form of Art. Thanks for clearing that up. And I should allow you to decide if what I produce is art? No.

Your opinion has NO WORTH, but is a form of worthlessness of around %70.

Dali was a surrealist. If you want to bicker about something you dont know anything about why dont you go over into the Music section and argue that M&M is a jazz trombonist? Everything you say is wrong and reading this pretentious kiddie shit is giving me a headache.

Holly shit, how could i have mised him calling Dali an abstract artist!

Yeah, hmm. Im getting a lesson in ''what is art'' by people who think Picasso and Dali are abstract atrists. Yeah!!

Whats even scarier is that i already mentioned Dali as a surealist, yet in your minds he remains - abstract somehow.

I gots your back girlfriend! It's all good.

Oh yes!! Sing it sistah!

I can't believe this ****ing thread has been active since Friday and I've been letting these whiny bitches jerk each other off without coming in to slap a few pussy faces.

I am ashamed.

Yeah, you left me here all on my lonesome to fight for the art justice!

But fret not, i feel many more rediculous comments coming on you can reclaim yourself with.

I'm not gonna pretend to know a whole lot about art cause I really don't, but the only problem I have with "abstract art" is people seem to use it as an excuse. I'm not saying all of them do, but it seems like sometimes you will see a piece of art that makes absolutely no sense and is basically just random colors or whatever, so since it isnt actually a picture of anythign they just say its abstract art so then it's ok. Maybe I'm just lacking to see the genius behind that but I don't get whats so talented about splashing random colors on a canvas.

Music , writing, painting and movies are a form of art, just because you partake in these realms does not make you an artist. It is my personal opinion that more than half of everything that comes from these mediums is garbage. In music, or atleast what you would call mainstream music, is nothing more than recycled material from other artists. I am not talking inspiration, i am talking deliberate shadowing of an individuals style. the same goes for movies, and writings alike. If a five year old child finger paints a tree on a piece of paper, he is embracing a form of art, it doesnt mean it is a piece of "art"

In today's society. Everyone declares that they are an artist. they do not live the lifestyle of artist, only the idea of an artist. The lifestyle of an artist is living the skill you obtain, and feel passionately about. Art shouldn't be proclaimed, but realized. I have been to art school, and it is filled with complete arrogance, and average talent. Talk with an art professor sometime. They will tell you that most people coming through art schools are people that just want to live the lifestyle of an artist. An artist already lives it. Going to a school for your art is to merely tone your skills and abilities, not to learn them. Again, the title of an artist should not be given, but realized. I highly doubt you'll understand what i mean by that i am sure you will twist my words again though, so I'll clarify on one of your replies if you dont understand what i mean about it being realized.


Stop trying to pin my opinions on deciding what art is or should be. My opinion is just that. I dont believe modern forms of abstract art is art. I am not trying tell anyone what they should believe art is, just merely my opinion. You obviously have an art for twisting peoples words around, or maybe you are just not that bright. You obviously dont understand that there are many forms of art. Just because you express yourself in these area's doesnt mean you are a talented artist.

Yes, Dali is considered by to be a surrealist, but it is a style using an abstract view of the world. Along with Monet and picasso. By many though, these artists are considered to be genuine abstract artists, and show what abstract art should be. If you want to get into technical conversations about vintage artists and art style's, i will be more than glad to accommodate you.

hahahaha dali...abstract.. hahahahahaha that's good, that is goood.

This is what's going on here: people are saying "ALL ABSTRACT ART IS BAD WAAAHHH WAHHH I'M IGNORANT, SH.IT IN A JAR!" and others are just trying to beat them with a stick explaining that there is good abstract art. It does exist. It's like.. if you read a sh.itty book are you going to assume that every book, every where is a bad book? No! And, if you are then you're a very stupid human and I'd like to put you in electro shock therapy, or put you in a dryer until your hair falls out.

-MD

Woah, woah, woah.. one more thing:

"Yes, Dali is considered by to be a surrealist, but it is a style using an abstract view of the world. Along with Monet and picasso"

No no no no.. Monet? An abstract artist?... are you kidding me? Yeah, he didn't paint like Leonardo or Rembrant, but there is no artist or historian on EARTH who would agree that Monet is an abstract artist! He may paint in blotches rather than streaks but he is no where CLOSE to an abstract artist.. wow..

i didnt think that 'abstract' was an actual category for art

1900's "abstraction" through 1950's " abstract expressionism" if you want the official terminology.

We are talking about nonrepresentational abstract here as opposed to Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Dada & Surrealism because even when these philistines don't know what the hell they are talking about they do seem to agree that if you can make out a horsey shape then it is at least allowed to be called art.

While I was reading Das Kapital today in the library it came to me - Virgo.

Abstract art is one of the great foundations of the world of art as we know it. where would we be with out that, impressionism, cubism, romantic art styles?? very beneficial!!

Originally posted by blackfireinside
Abstract art is one of the great foundations of the world of art as we know it. where would we be with out that, impressionism, cubism, romantic art styles?? very beneficial!!

Abstract expressionism emerged around the 1940's, impressionism from amid 1800's and cubism began early 20th century.

Abstract art did not influence these movements, it followed them.

Never did care for abstract art....

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I was having this..."discussion" with a friend.

She something about abstract art not being about telling a story, but bridging a gap between art and another subject.

I said that recognition through art should be earned by TALENT, not by knowing someone that's in the art business, or because they made up some underlying meaning behind their crap painting or whatever. I get frustrated because I practice everyday, learning where to place the line just perfectly, how to shade just the right way, how to make my art come alive with a story, with an illustration that actually means something, and some other doucheface submits a BLANK CANVAS to a museum for $20,000!!!! WHAT THE ****!?

There should be a word for it, but it shouldn't be called "art". It degrades the entire meaning of the word.

I see what you mean, I don't consider abstract art as art myself.

Your point of view is pretty decent you should read up on what Luhmann (sociologist had to say about art, specifically modern art you'd like it, bit technical tho)

In fact, the whole debate is ridiculous unless people are willing to define what they mean by 'art'.

Not only are there differing theories, but there are additional problems with intention, meaning, interpretation, communication, and so on.

Art must have a quality.

That quality must be subscribed, and also recognised. The problem lies in which of these happenings is afforded more weight.

Some of the early abstract art was good and extremely original, but most of it was and will remain shit. No matter how much you flick your bean for knowing so much about it.


Speaking of shitty overrated art that people like to pretend to enjoy......this is Femme by Picasso. Looks impressive
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/20/P110PICA.JPG

What is this? ****ing finger painting? Rock on Van Gogh...
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/20/V113VANG.JPG