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.

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

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.

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 :

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
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.

THIS IS NOT. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!?

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

👇

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.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
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.

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

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
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.

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?