Re: 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 🙄
What is this? ****ing finger painting? Rock on Van Gogh...