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.
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
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The title artist is not self proclaimed.
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.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Dali was a master of what you would call abstract art. By definition he is an abstract artist.
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'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.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
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.
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..
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
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.
Seriously? I mean it’s nice that you are willing to get into a conversation about “vintage” artists styles – but since you think that Monet and Picasso are surrealists (in an abstract style) rather than an impressionist and a cubist respectively I can’t help but feel I’d be better off not bothering.
Obviously the trouble here is that you want to weigh in with your opinions on abstract art, but you don’t have a clue what we are talking about. Abstract as opposed to representational. An elephant on stilts is still just that, a cathedral painted in bright blurred colors is still just that. Abstract is not. Can you absorb that?
Tell you what - If you want to help out you could explain to me how if "The title of an artist should not be given." and "The title artist is not self proclaimed." – whom do I apply to to have my abstract art ratified as worthy? How does Abstract art become “realized” because you dont seem to have left a lot of room.
Originally posted by PVS
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.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
Seriously? I mean it’s nice that you are willing to get into a conversation about “vintage” artists styles – but since you think that Monet and Picasso are surrealists (in an abstract style) rather than an impressionist and a cubist respectively I can’t help but feel I’d be better off not bothering.Obviously the trouble here is that you want to weigh in with your opinions on abstract art, but you don’t have a clue what we are talking about. Abstract as opposed to representational. An elephant on stilts is still just that, a cathedral painted in bright blurred colors is still just that. Abstract is not. Can you absorb that?
Tell you what - If you want to help out you could explain to me how if "The title of an artist should not be given." and "The title artist is not self proclaimed." – whom do I apply to to have my abstract art ratified as worthy? How does Abstract art become “realized” because you dont seem to have left a lot of room.
While I was reading Das Kapital today in the library it came to me - Virgo.
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.