You should hear me pronounce 'debacle'. 's the problem when you read before you hear people speak various words.
Anyone here who hasn't might enjoy registering a point of view on Edgar's Poll/thread about The Scream. Back with a link in a minute.
There -
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31988&highlight=scream
Letty, while I think Duchamp was little more than a mischief maker (which may be all he intended to be), he had far more talent (e.g., Nude Descending....) than did Warhol.
I say San Sanz, and
day-bach-l,, Osso.
Lightwizard wrote: Of course, Duchamp has imitators today, Jeff Koons being just one of them.
However, one can only do that twisting of our visual perception once, maybe twice. After that, it gets into the realm of ad nauseum
that is why I find a great deal of conceptual art so unsatisfying - it so often leaves me saying ..... and ? so? ....
Exactly, Vivien. And once you've experienced the "thought" there's no need to return to it. Not that way with aesthetic art: you must return on a regular basis, as with a symphony by Beethoven or Dvorak.
Besides, the thoughts of conceptual art are MOST OFTEN not good enough to express in written discursive form. The ideas of Goya, Daumier and Kollowitz, on the other hand, are significant and aesthetic.
i agree. i don't think art is about making philosophical or political statements, it is about making beauty. if its not aesthetically pleasing, it's not good.
In a search for the painting, Joseph the Carpenter, I found Georges de La Tour. I had always thought that de La Croix painted that picture. I loved it and became transfixed with the light shinning through Jesus small hands as he held the candle.
Hey, stuh. good to see you in this category. I had sworn to myself that I would get into something new, if not comfortable. <smile>
I find Jeff Koons to be disposable exhibition art but I return constantly to Duchamp's imagery for it's sly and intelligent wit. His off-the-wall reidentication of objects is still inspired.
Well, I confess I have not given much serious thought to Duchamp. I do have a book on him. I think it's time to read it.
to disagree somewhat with the general 'drift' here; i find that 'good' conceptual art has an emotional message to convey, and, like any art must be well conceived, and executed to bring that message across.
Warhol was, in my opinion, a great innovator, and great communicator, and great artist! As was Duchamp, and many of the competent conceptual artists currently working ('Christo', umbrellas, and bridges, for example).
[Also though, in any field of endeavour, there are good competent works being done, and crap being produced - one still has to differentiate!]
Hey, Bo. Glad to see you back after a brief hiatus. I appreciate your input, but I'm afraid that Duchamp is still a relative unknown to me. His estate will be very shaken by this fact, I'm certain. Mr. Wizard is rather persuasive, no?
NO ONE ...NO ONE answered my response about those other two guys. grrrrrrrr.
JLNobody wrote:Exactly, Vivien. And once you've experienced the "thought" there's no need to return to it. Not that way with aesthetic art: you must return on a regular basis, as with a symphony by Beethoven or Dvorak.
Besides, the thoughts of conceptual art are MOST OFTEN not good enough to express in written discursive form. The ideas of Goya, Daumier and Kollowitz, on the other hand, are significant and aesthetic.
JLN, you would just -love- my art school (sarcasm.) I agree with you, and I don't think that "Historical art" has any less merit by being old than what some kook is doing nowadays. Welcome to the frustrations of my life. I'm getting 8 years of training by teachers who (some of which are very good) most of which are ignorant trend-huggers with minds that have been fried to the size of peas by acid. God forbid I want to actually learn how to make the art rather than just talk superficially in tidbits about it.
For example, I'm taking an intro to watercolor class about which (in a smug voice) the teacher declared, "This is a thinking class, not a technique class." Also, with the contemporary trendsters history doesn't extend beyond Van Gogh. Anything earlier is the cave paintings in France.
I agree with a statement made on another thread that art is an enigma. As such, most of what I say about it, as with love, Reality and all the other imponderables, must be taken with a grain of salt. One of my major complaints about the intellectualization of art (by most cognitive "artists", and some historians and critics) is their unwillingness to recognize the mystery before them; they seem too quick to reduce it to fine formulas. We should, for the most part--not completely or absolutely--react to art, as the Chinese Taoists have done toward "Ultimate Reality," with silence. It's just that that is no fun. We'll always analyze art and make pretentious assertions about its "true nature." I know I will--but with a grain of salt and apologies.
JLNobody wrote:I agree with a statement made on another thread that art is an enigma. As such, most of what I say about it, as with love, Reality and all the other imponderables, must be taken with a grain of salt. One of my major complaints about the intellectualization of art (by most cognitive "artists", and some historians and critics) is their unwillingness to recognize the mystery before them; they seem too quick to reduce it to fine formulas. We should, for the most part--not completely or absolutely--react to art, as the Chinese Taoists have done toward "Ultimate Reality," with silence. It's just that that is no fun. We'll always analyze art and make pretentious assertions about its "true nature." I know I will--but with a grain of salt and apologies.
I think that people should have opinions and express them. I believe in objective reality, but art itself is a construction of humans - not something that can be observed in concrete definate ways related to merit and other emotional attributes. Art doesn't have any absolute truth any more than a work of fiction does - it is a concoction of visual communication made by the artist. But there is benefit to forming opinions and discussing it - it allows for a better understanding of the work itself, and of those who look at it. I think there are degrees of correctness, and "soundbyte" summaries have little to do with appreciation or art and everything to do with ego.
[quote="Portal Star. Art doesn't have any absolute truth any more than a work of fiction does - it is a concoction of visual communication made by the artist. .[/quote]
a good analogy - it is visual communication, a language - and some art is shallow, like Mills & Boon romances or cheap westerns and some is deep and multi layered and sustaining like good literature.
I know what you mean about the tutors Portal! towards the end of my degree the tide was definitely turning and there was a wider range of styles and some really good painting going on, both abstract and representational. Tutors like the ones you quote are the dinosaurs and are on their way out.
It's encouraging to hear Vivien and Portal criticize their teachers. If artists are not rebellious, they are doomed to hackdom.
By the way, Portal, here's a soundbyte for you. You said that you believe in objective reality, but that art itself is a construction of humans. Art, you say, doesn't have any absolute truth any more than a work of fiction does - it is a concoction. I say that no human assertion about reality is absolute truth; we don't have to turn to art or fiction to find human concoctions. We find it everywhere. You say you believe in objective reality; I believe in subjective reality. This does not mean that I reject the existence of whatever there is that makes possible the process by which we create our subjective worlds. Don't be shocked. My wife believes in neither objective nor subjective reality. Gasp!
Hey, artists. Do you realize what this thread has become?--a little inner circle of wine tasting, cheese and crossiants; a good old boy's club, so to speak. Is that really what art is about? I don't think so.
JLNobody wrote:It's encouraging to hear Vivien and Portal criticize their teachers. If artists are not rebellious, they are doomed to hackdom.
By the way, Portal, here's a soundbyte for you. You said that you believe in objective reality, but that art itself is a construction of humans. Art, you say, doesn't have any absolute truth any more than a work of fiction does - it is a concoction. I say that no human assertion about reality is absolute truth; we don't have to turn to art or fiction to find human concoctions. We find it everywhere. You say you believe in objective reality; I believe in subjective reality. This does not mean that I reject the existence of whatever there is that makes possible the process by which we create our subjective worlds. Don't be shocked. My wife believes in neither objective nor subjective reality. Gasp!
What, dear JLN, does your wife believe in? I don't know what choices are left after that!
Letty, I feel it is best to encourage all levels of conversation. It is refreshing for me to converse with people who have a great deal of art experience, it is why I came to A2K. Having a learned conversation doesn't make us snobs and there is nothing wrong with it, just as there is nothing wrong having a more simple conversation.
letty, that's my beef about art-- rich ladieswith time on their hands volterring as docents at their local mmuseums.
i like duchamp because he took the elements of cubism and redefined it all in the one painting, "nude descending".
he really didn't give a ****, his ready-mades took the preciousness and pretensions out of the art world-- what was the world to make of a urinal installed in a museum?
and then he discarded painting for a life of chess playing.
Portal Star. Do you realize the etymology of SNOB? It's not very flattering. The thing that plagues humanity today is cloistered chambers.
I started this thread, and not one person here bothered to explore my question about the artists of whom I was interested. I stated in the beginning that I was no expert, and I will never apologize for being deficient in that respect. It is not in my nature to be contentious, but when I view the planet on which we desperately cling and see little star chambers spring up, I get, if not angry, frustrated.
