Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

CoffeeSaint · Apr 19, 2007, 10:24 pm

Maybe you guys won't believe me, but I think that abstract piece is more interesting than the Brom painting. I think I'm just bored with seeing "Hot chick in weird armor" paintings, having been a fantasy/sci-fi fan for so many years. (saweet card, though. I have a black/white deck that would go beautifully in . . .)

Here's the de Kooning I made fun of:
Collection Search Record

Who's with me on that one?

**Jack** · Apr 19, 2007, 11:02 pm

Quote:

Here's the de Kooning I made fun of:

All I can say is, :eek: I'm not even fond of the colors.

I'll tell you what's fun. Stand in front of a totally abstract painting and begin to describe to your partner what you see. Make it a long and florid tale, with lots of gory details. Stretch the story out for as long as you can keep a straight face.
For instance, the blue painting LC used as an example. It reminds me of my days in VietNam. There...I see a burning hut and the dead family laying in the tall grass behind it. And there's a bridge like the one we blew up to destroy the resupply convoy. And look, you can see where the artist included B-52s dropping their payload on an unsuspecting village celebrating the harvest by a river. Etc, etc, etc.

Be polite when they ask you to leave the gallery. Go have a beer and laugh about it.

The Bacon Guy · Apr 20, 2007, 04:20 am

Quote:

Quote by: Lullaby

Oh, I know. I even said that I would not doubt that many abstract artists are very emotional when painting or creating.. in fact I would assume they're more emotional when painting than other artists. I imagine them pouring their soul into the art, crying, shouting, sweating, etc. I just feel that regardless of how much emotion they have when creating their art, it is hardly more than random strokes of paint. And that it takes very little skill to create an abstract piece of art.. especially compared to other forms of art.

That's probably very true, but it doesn't matter to me really. As far as I'm concerned, if it looks nice, I'm sold. I suppose for some people, appreciating art could involve appreciating the skill involved in producing it. Depending on your criteria for appreciation, skill could then be a factor. It's all subjective after all.

Compugasm · Apr 20, 2007, 06:09 am

The same discussion happens in comics. On one hand, there are those that swear by hand lettering the dialog for hours. On the other, some use standard Windows fonts, and just have "something" that eludes everyone else who tries to make comics. As proof, Lullaby Chainer posted a comic called Happiness and Cyanide a while ago:

There is part of me that can't figure out why this comic is popular. Because the coloring is bad, the artwork is bad, and simply defies everything that comic book artists define as a "comic strip". Yet, 99% of the people who read comics, probably had no idea comics even had rules to begin with.

ericsp23 · Apr 20, 2007, 09:48 am

Quote:

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer

I just feel that regardless of how much emotion they have when creating their art, it is hardly more than random strokes of paint.

Just because it looks like random strokes of paint doesn't mean that it is. You shouldn't make that assumption. I think I can illustrate this with a musical example, which is an art form I know more about. There was a composer by the name of Anton Webern, he lived in the early to middle part of the 20th century. Many people who hear his music and who are not familiar with his style claim that most of his music sounds like random noise. The truth is that behind that "random noise" is an unbelievable amount of mathematical structure. One of my music professors in college wrote his entire doctoral dissertation on an analysis of one of his pieces, a piece of music that was only about 3 or 4 minutes long.
The point is that just because you can't see the structure in something that someone else created doesn't mean that there is no structure there.

phoenix_fire · Apr 20, 2007, 02:49 pm

Technical ability factors in somewhat for me. But the biggest thing is whether or not I feel it is an expression of the artist's soul. (Brownie points if it resonates with mine!) Some works of art are just manufactured. And a lot of times, you can tell. Especially if you're viewing it in person. At least...I can. Art is self-expression. But unfortunately, it can be faked.

Compugasm · Apr 20, 2007, 03:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

Art is self-expression. But unfortunately, it can be faked.

I'm sure you guys have heard of the "somethingawful" website by now. In that community, there is a guy there called Schmorky who is well known, in that corner of the internet that is. Anyway, Todd Goldman IS somewhat well know for his art, namely creating T-Shirts for the Hot Topic stores. Well, Todd has been stealing stuff from Schmorky and many others, slapping on different color, even tracing some works, and selling "his" version of art for thousands. Needless to say, people are pissed.

BionicArmofDeth · Apr 21, 2007, 03:50 pm

Well, sometimes I am guilty of putting together something which is 100%pretentious... just because it doesnt make sense its somehow deep and intellectual. I think abstract art is indicative of the fact that contemporary artists are just plain out confused people. They could be on to something, but only like 10% of the time.

Osborn F Enready · Apr 23, 2007, 07:10 pm

All art has meaning, and it is different to almost all individuals based on their experience, their values, their intrests, etc, when they view the piece and the emotion it provokes.

nkariem · May 11, 2007, 05:01 pm

i see abstract art in this way (for example): the artist is trying to portray some sort of emotion or atmosphere and a lot of thought goes into how he/she is going to portray this in such a way that it has the desired effect. All those splashes of paint, using the correct colours and patterns and type of splashes, etc might do the job.. just one incorrect splash somewhere on the canvas, can easily ruin the whole effect.. ??
just a thought.
but i agree with most, that it really is the individuals interpretation or lack thereof, that matters at the end of the day. how you see it and feel when you see it..
its amazing to see abstract art that immediately creates certain feelings or a kind of atmosphere within an instant.

FinalDragon · May 11, 2007, 07:22 pm

I never really thought of abstract art as having no meaning. Any time something has no meaning, it usually means that one is not thinking hard enough, but that's just in my opinion. Art is very comparable to an inside joke a lot of times, in the sense of you don't realize what was so great about it until you have it explained to you, yet it's never the same as if you had figured it out on your own.

Take for example the Mona Lisa. Beautiful piece, as I've always heard, but I always thought it looked old and dim.Until it was explained to me the mystery behind it, and the nifty eyes that follow you like some other pieces have, I thought it was a worthless painting that couldn't compare to the next artist. I may still think that, though not with as much contempt, but that's because I couldn't figure it out on my own, and the piece wasn't motivational enough to me to make me think at that level when I was that young. Not meaning to criticize youth at all ofcourse, as that would give me the feeling of betraying my favorite Ender series.

It's nearly the same for modern art though, with the seperation that since there's so much of it around us, we have more of a chance of figuring it out ourselves. Something that clicks with us, bringing you back to a place in your memories you thought you'd forgotten. Each piece has it's own theme, while it may not be completely obvious. If you look at English, or read a book and talk about it with friends, everyone gets something different out of the literature. While I may see a rebellious attitude towards what art is becoming, another might see it as a reach towards childish youth. Struggling to master how to paint like a child again after stuggling so hard to gain control.

A lot of artists aren't just random names off the street; Don't discredit work just because you haven't taken up the study. The art critics that get paid for doing such work are often trained to look for composition, use of color theory, 'flow' of the art, and the thought process that might've gone into it. The latter of which is hardest to judge, as the first three have effects on it. If you can create such a balanced work, using a steady hand, and brag about how easy it was, that's fine. Some people have naturally good senses of composition.

But, that's just might be because after reading a book about the thought process behind comics, I realized that everything humans are and do, reflects back as an art. Letters, math, science, literature, comics, art, architecture, and so on until you can't think of any other possible things humans have made are all forms of art that shouldn't be discarded just because one believes someone can be inferior in the field and still duplicate a similar result. They're all the same, they only require different thought processes.

Sorry if I've repeated anything, I didn't exactly read the whole topic. I was anxious to post.

Apr 19, 2007, 10:24 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
CoffeeSaint Moral Turnip Location: Oregon, US Posts: 2,283	Maybe you guys won't believe me, but I think that abstract piece is more interesting than the Brom painting. I think I'm just bored with seeing "Hot chick in weird armor" paintings, having been a fantasy/sci-fi fan for so many years. (saweet card, though. I have a black/white deck that would go beautifully in . . .) Here's the de Kooning I made fun of: Collection Search Record Who's with me on that one? "Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?" "Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth. Knowledge is my candy."

Apr 20, 2007, 06:09 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,889	The same discussion happens in comics. On one hand, there are those that swear by hand lettering the dialog for hours. On the other, some use standard Windows fonts, and just have "something" that eludes everyone else who tries to make comics. As proof, Lullaby Chainer posted a comic called Happiness and Cyanide a while ago: There is part of me that can't figure out why this comic is popular. Because the coloring is bad, the artwork is bad, and simply defies everything that comic book artists define as a "comic strip". Yet, 99% of the people who read comics, probably had no idea comics even had rules to begin with. Death to Videodrome! Long live The New flesh!

Apr 20, 2007, 02:49 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Technical ability factors in somewhat for me. But the biggest thing is whether or not I feel it is an expression of the artist's soul. (Brownie points if it resonates with mine!) Some works of art are just manufactured. And a lot of times, you can tell. Especially if you're viewing it in person. At least...I can. Art is self-expression. But unfortunately, it can be faked. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Apr 23, 2007, 07:10 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,877	All art has meaning, and it is different to almost all individuals based on their experience, their values, their intrests, etc, when they view the piece and the emotion it provokes. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 21, 2007, 03:50 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
BionicArmofDeth Molten Ash Posts: 53	Well, sometimes I am guilty of putting together something which is 100%pretentious... just because it doesnt make sense its somehow deep and intellectual. I think abstract art is indicative of the fact that contemporary artists are just plain out confused people. They could be on to something, but only like 10% of the time.

May 11, 2007, 05:01 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
nkariem Smartie Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 34	i see abstract art in this way (for example): the artist is trying to portray some sort of emotion or atmosphere and a lot of thought goes into how he/she is going to portray this in such a way that it has the desired effect. All those splashes of paint, using the correct colours and patterns and type of splashes, etc might do the job.. just one incorrect splash somewhere on the canvas, can easily ruin the whole effect.. ?? just a thought. but i agree with most, that it really is the individuals interpretation or lack thereof, that matters at the end of the day. how you see it and feel when you see it.. its amazing to see abstract art that immediately creates certain feelings or a kind of atmosphere within an instant.

May 11, 2007, 07:22 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
FinalDragon Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	I never really thought of abstract art as having no meaning. Any time something has no meaning, it usually means that one is not thinking hard enough, but that's just in my opinion. Art is very comparable to an inside joke a lot of times, in the sense of you don't realize what was so great about it until you have it explained to you, yet it's never the same as if you had figured it out on your own. Take for example the Mona Lisa. Beautiful piece, as I've always heard, but I always thought it looked old and dim.Until it was explained to me the mystery behind it, and the nifty eyes that follow you like some other pieces have, I thought it was a worthless painting that couldn't compare to the next artist. I may still think that, though not with as much contempt, but that's because I couldn't figure it out on my own, and the piece wasn't motivational enough to me to make me think at that level when I was that young. Not meaning to criticize youth at all ofcourse, as that would give me the feeling of betraying my favorite Ender series. It's nearly the same for modern art though, with the seperation that since there's so much of it around us, we have more of a chance of figuring it out ourselves. Something that clicks with us, bringing you back to a place in your memories you thought you'd forgotten. Each piece has it's own theme, while it may not be completely obvious. If you look at English, or read a book and talk about it with friends, everyone gets something different out of the literature. While I may see a rebellious attitude towards what art is becoming, another might see it as a reach towards childish youth. Struggling to master how to paint like a child again after stuggling so hard to gain control. A lot of artists aren't just random names off the street; Don't discredit work just because you haven't taken up the study. The art critics that get paid for doing such work are often trained to look for composition, use of color theory, 'flow' of the art, and the thought process that might've gone into it. The latter of which is hardest to judge, as the first three have effects on it. If you can create such a balanced work, using a steady hand, and brag about how easy it was, that's fine. Some people have naturally good senses of composition. But, that's just might be because after reading a book about the thought process behind comics, I realized that everything humans are and do, reflects back as an art. Letters, math, science, literature, comics, art, architecture, and so on until you can't think of any other possible things humans have made are all forms of art that shouldn't be discarded just because one believes someone can be inferior in the field and still duplicate a similar result. They're all the same, they only require different thought processes. Sorry if I've repeated anything, I didn't exactly read the whole topic. I was anxious to post.