tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post111404023833544037..comments2023-08-29T02:44:37.646-05:00Comments on WORD: An Agitated A*S Monkey.: I Like to Ramble About Art. You?Fist of Truenesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114202688556742182005-04-22T15:44:00.000-05:002005-04-22T15:44:00.000-05:00Dungsta - I will forever, try and interpret whatev...Dungsta - I will forever, try and interpret whatever you say/type to me. I respect your opinions, regardless of spelling mistakes or aristocratic perspective. <BR/><BR/>Respect. Word.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114199823222000832005-04-22T14:57:00.000-05:002005-04-22T14:57:00.000-05:00Sara – I look forward to your interpretation of wh...Sara – I look forward to your interpretation of what ‘art’ is. Again, I am not interested in anyone’s opinion on what is ‘good’ art, or not. That is forever arguable. But I look forward to your insights.<BR/><BR/>Dungmeister – I feel so lost. I want to clear up my word usage. I use the word ‘aesthetic’ in what I consider to be, an academic sense:<BR/><BR/>As aesthetic refers to [visual] beauty and/or taste. I break that down into its simplest parts: geometrics, color, and the baggage of the viewer. Again, none of these things are necessary for something to be art or artistic. <BR/><BR/>By geometrics, I mean: symmetry and use of easily recognized lines/shapes. This, whether anyone admits it or not, appeals to vast majority of people AESTHETICALLY, not necessarily artistically. People like shapes, forms, delineation of some sort. Whether it be painted forms, the ‘rule of threes’ in photographic layout (zzzzzzz) or a standard rhyming scheme. People are drawn to patterns, but that does not make them art. It simply gives them a pleasing aesthetic.<BR/><BR/>By color, I mean: consult a color wheel. Whether it be a movie set, a sculpture, or an oil painting. The majority of people respond to visually complimentary color schemes. But just because the colors coordinate really well, and it looks fabulous above your couch, does not make it art. It is aesthetic, but it is not necessarily art (it may also be art, but not by default).<BR/><BR/>By baggage, I mean: you had a wonderful chocolate lab when you were a kid. You loved that dog. Later in life, you come across a standard ‘starving artist’ paint-by-the-numbers watercolor of a chocolate lab, and you shit yourself because it ‘looks exactly like Puddles, I LOVED her!’. You buy it, and insist on calling it art. But really, you are in love with its aesthetic. You think it is art because of your baggage, not because it actually is. <BR/><BR/>Or, maybe you have a fetish for still life paintings (many people do). You don’t know why, but you just do. Instead of admitting you have an odd fetish, you simply call yourself an ‘art collector’ instead. The truth is, most still life paintings are test pieces. Testing and practicing techniques. Lighting techniques. Shading. Texturing. How to make a water droplet LOOK like a water droplet. That is what they are for. They are an exercise. No concept. Training is not a concept. <BR/><BR/>But, because of your baggage, because you just like to look at (and purchase) still life paintings, you demand that they be called art. Because otherwise, you’d be just weird. <BR/><BR/>That’s what I mean by aesthetic. I don’t know anything about the aristocratic definition.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114180435026623002005-04-22T09:33:00.000-05:002005-04-22T09:33:00.000-05:00Sean – I know that feeling. It is a sort of déjà ...Sean – I know that feeling. It is a sort of déjà vu thing (that’s French, by the way, and I’ve typed it twice today). As if my mind had created this thing (song, painting, scene for a photo, conversation, whatever) and I had lost it before I was born. And then I stumble upon it in a different life or some shit. What a great feeling.<BR/><BR/>And I really like that familiar yet awkward feeling. But I don’t consider that art. I consider it shared consciousness, fate, mildly amusing, fucking crazy, or proof that I should seek some good therapy. Coincidence or looping existence is not art to me. Nature, maybe, but not art.<BR/><BR/>But that painting you linked to there is absolutely breathtaking. Hide and seek? What a GREAT title for it too! On top of that, it is aesthetically pleasing. You can tell that he was well trained, which appears to be a bonus in the art world.<BR/><BR/>Dungmeister – well put my friend. Well put. I know this is a heated topic. And I know you have very strong opinions on the matter. I like #4, a-lot. <BR/><BR/>By “aesthetic” I mean “pleasing aesthetic”, in an almost academic sense. Some combination of the following:<BR/><BR/>The colors are complimentary.<BR/>The composition has good symmetry.<BR/>The subject matter is personal to the viewer (pretty girl, a portrait of your dog, photo of bunnies, whatever).<BR/><BR/>You are right though. Anything and everything has “aesthetics” associated with it.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114119384186803142005-04-21T16:36:00.000-05:002005-04-21T16:36:00.000-05:00To me, art expresses something I've felt and under...To me, art expresses something I've felt and understood (maybe at a pre-linguistic level) but not been able to communicate or create on my own.<BR/><BR/>You know you hear a song that sounds familiar, like it's been in your head for years but you've never heard it before. Then somebody actually makes it, like they read your mind.<BR/><BR/>For example, I had recurring nightmares as a kid that revolved around being lost in my grandparents' back yard. There was a huge thistle in my hand, and the wind would blow all the seeds off at once. My surroundings would start to dissolve so that only the bad things remained. The soft green grass, the ripe vegetables in the garden, my brother and sister, all dissolved away leaving only the dirt, bits of metal and insects.<BR/><BR/>When I was in college, I ran across <A HREF="http://worldart.sjsu.edu/VieO17629$12808*823939" REL="nofollow">this painting</A> by Pavel Tchelitchew.<BR/><BR/>In the lower left there's even a thistle. I was like, "holy shit, that's art"Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02665804009944491315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114117317001573662005-04-21T16:01:00.000-05:002005-04-21T16:01:00.000-05:00Deb - yep. Sometimes I get longwinded. Even my c...Deb - yep. Sometimes I get longwinded. Even my comments are all kinds of epic here.<BR/><BR/>Gwaa - Agreed on that. Nice example too! But I do not want to discount what I believe to be lbm’s perspective on it. I like the whole "ART is a creation that elicits emotion" definition, actually. I really do. It embodies what we all WANT to think of when we define art. We want emotion = art. But it just isn't complete. A square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square. Art does elicit emotion, but not all things that elicit emotion are art.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114114738152698412005-04-21T15:18:00.000-05:002005-04-21T15:18:00.000-05:00"ART is a creation that elicits emotion "When I re..."ART is a creation that elicits emotion "<BR/>When I relieve a full bladder the feeling of pure joy and gratitude that washes over me has been known to practically bring tears to my eyes. And now at last I know that it's because my pee is Art. And it affects me even more profoundly after I eat asparagus. Anybody know where I can get a frame for my toilet?Girl With An Alibihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209257359349550309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114113815682452982005-04-21T15:03:00.000-05:002005-04-21T15:03:00.000-05:00That bit about living in Tikrit and painting your ...That bit about living in Tikrit and painting your whole crib to look like a bullseye: genuis!<BR/><BR/>That wasn't blog, that shit was literature.Debbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17929592729052185224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114107893839359472005-04-21T13:24:00.000-05:002005-04-21T13:24:00.000-05:00gwaa - Van Gogh is fantastic. I got to see a huge...gwaa - Van Gogh is fantastic. I got to see a huge collection of his work at the Van Gogh in Amsterdam. His life story is intriguing as well. I'm a pretty big fan of absinth, so I was relieved to learn that he lopped off an ear from an epileptic-esque fit, rather than an absinthe-fueled fight with himself.<BR/><BR/>MammaLara – I knew someone would say it. Someone had to. “YOU might not think it art, but if someone does, then it's art to them, thus it IS art.” I disagree with that statement entirely. There needs to be standards, otherwise EVERYTHING is art (déjà vu?), which makes NOTHING artistic in nature. There are only opinions after that. Murder would be art (not ‘could be’ or ‘depends’ because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would be art in a world where it is in the eye of the beholder. Duchamp was right to poke fun at that perspective on art. It cannot be in the eye of the beholder.) Again, a punch to the face would be art. 1+1=2 would be art. &&&&& would be art. ____ would be. Torture. Hollow point bullets. Rape. A foot of rope. Raw sewage. Humidity. The sound of a goddamn jackhammer. You see where I am going with this? The definition has to have some boundaries, or it means nothing, and nothing is art or artistic. <BR/><BR/>“ART is a creation that elicits emotion - through act of creation, movement, or justaposition, or the usual "piece" of whatever media. On canvas, sculpture, poetry, dance, stage - beautiful, horrible, hollow.”<BR/><BR/>Sure. That definition sounds fine, but it sure does leave a-lot to interpretation. And please don’t tell me “well, that’s art!” because that isn’t true. Some things are art (Disney’s Fantasia) and some things are not (a bum urinating on another bum because money is owed between them). Both elicit emotion, both may even be viewed as ‘beautiful, horrible, hollow,” but one lacks completely in concept. <BR/><BR/>What I am willing to agree with is that anyone’s INTERPRETATION of anything can be artistic. If I crap on a silver platter, because I have no where else to crap, there is no art there. But if you come along, and INTERPRET the abandoned crap on the platter as some sort of deep statement against our current fetishist/bling-bling-consumerist culture, then I am willing to call your INTERPRETATION artistic. But not the poop. The crap on a tray remains just that. Still not art. But your interpretation is certainly conceptual.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114105119623399832005-04-21T12:38:00.000-05:002005-04-21T12:38:00.000-05:00You are making it waaaayyyy too complicated! And,...You are making it waaaayyyy too complicated! And, yes, YOU might not think it art, but if someone does, then it's art to them, thus it IS art.<BR/><BR/>There is a definition pounded out in a process of many ramblings as a gaggle of mid-youths that I have since found always satisfies me.<BR/><BR/>ART is a creation that elicits emotion - through act of creation, movement, or justaposition, or the usual "piece" of whatever media. On canvas, sculpture, poetry, dance, stage - beautiful, horrible, hollow.<BR/><BR/>Be it a creepy Dali or a Fabrage egg. A bunch of macaroni and glue that to a 4 year old sees as an obvious representation of Spot that he proudly displays to anyone. A costumed ballerina being, through movement, the embodiment of a butterfly is art.<BR/><BR/>"Good" and "bad" is subjective in everything, not just art, from eggplant (yummy to me, not so to some) to S&M (never found the need to go there myself, but some people evidently call it "good").<BR/><BR/>You may think a pile of shit on a silver platter is what it is, some may call it a statement regarding the upper class, or symbolic of the transient state of greenery that becomes digested to shit then fly food then fertilizer to benefit greenery. But, you will (did) form an opinion.<BR/><BR/>I've always tried to keep in mind that my opinion is not "right" to someone elses "wrong" - I get a little frustrated on this when it comes to political discussions, though.<BR/><BR/>To evoke negative emotions - "that load of (figurative) crap" - isn't a bad thing. And everyone has opinions, making the world a lot less boring. <BR/><BR/>Example - Orange Show in Houston - folk art, or mentally unbalanced kook with too much time on his hands?<BR/><BR/>Enjoy your opinions, revel in what makes you revel.<BR/><BR/>lbm<BR/><BR/>p.s. Klimpt, Matisse, Munch and Van Gogh are my masters to ponder, oddly enough their vibrancy and urgency counterpoint my mellow nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114104980536853122005-04-21T12:36:00.000-05:002005-04-21T12:36:00.000-05:00Wow! That was a fantastic discourse on art. And yo...Wow! That was a fantastic discourse on art. And your categorizations make perfect sense. Seriously you should consider doing an article for one of those high-falutin' Art rags. Kick their butts into shape. Seams like most of the dreck that passes for art is legitimized by self-important, self-designated Art experts. <BR/><BR/>As for Artists my favorite is Van Gogh. There is so much drama, fear, anger and distress in most of his works. And then there are these post Abysinth moments of glass-fragile calm scattered throughout. It actually scares me how much I empathize with him. So far I still have both my ears though.Girl With An Alibihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209257359349550309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114098932206393382005-04-21T10:55:00.000-05:002005-04-21T10:55:00.000-05:00Brother – I don’t know if a ‘photo shoot’ is consi...Brother – I don’t know if a ‘photo shoot’ is considered to be an artistic endeavor. I suppose it depends on the purpose and/or subject to be photographed. There is definitely technical skill, and some taught/practiced craft in photography. I still believe that the only true art possible, even in photography, lives within concept. No concept = no art. <BR/><BR/>Misty – I really like Marc Chagall too. “I and the Village” is a really good example of his kaleidoscope-ish style. It tells a story, a story from his life, using a two-dimensional medium. Something he really cared about, and wanted to express using his own mixed perspective. Which is nice, but really, I just like his stuff for the aesthetics (but pretty does not art make). I stared at one of his works, a flying cow of some sort, for almost an hour, admiring how happy he wanted it to be, and how happy it made me. Crazy stuff. Frida was definitely an artist. Almost everything she ever did was done out of extreme emotional or physical trauma. But her stuff, for me, is not very aesthetic. It looks like the work of someone who was never trained in artistic techniques. And it just so happens that she wasn’t trained, and didn’t seem too stressed by that. She just picked up the brush and kicked some ass. She had a shit-load to express, and she did it through her art. And for that, I am impressed with her (rather huge) body of work. Dali is a badass. He’s a bit cliché at this point, but that’s okay. He’s amazing enough to become a cliché. I’m not familiar with Lempika, so I cannot say anything there. Klimt was an artist in my mind for two reasons: he wanted to express things like seduction, affection, and base-level human interaction through his use of wild materials (gold flake and semi-precious stones mixed in with thick-thick-thick paints, very luscious), composition, and subject matter. I believe him to be a fantastic artist, but I think his stuff looks too garish. Too ghetto-fabulous for me. I’m too simple for his stuff.<BR/><BR/>The Mona Lisa? I’m not convinced of its artistic pedigree, but it is a very impressive piece of technical mastery, of oils mastery (but it’s no Van Der Mees). Kinda dark for my taste though. Art? Who knows. It’s an icon at this point. It has transcended art and has entered the realm of pop culture. I’m sure da Vinci used some semi-revolutionary techniques with oils at the time, but I don’t know what they were. Most people consider it brilliant art because of all the weirdness surrounding the subject itself. Is it actually a portrait of Da Vinci, a self portrait of him as a woman? Who is this person? He kept it all… weird. Maybe that was his concept. <BR/><BR/>All I know is that the Mona Lisa was not very attractive. I mean, they usually made their subjects look significantly BETTER when painting the portraits. She must have been a pooch.Fist of Truenesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17539333761513874499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114093399719823212005-04-21T09:23:00.000-05:002005-04-21T09:23:00.000-05:00You know i don't know terms and all the technicali...You know i don't know terms and all the technicalities, stroke names ,etc.etc. - BUT i do la la love art, and i know what i like and what i don't like. I like the blending of colors and how the light hits them. I like my ART to be something i could NEVER ever be able to do my self - i know WEIRD! BUT it makes me mad to see something, called ART and it looks like something i did on the computer using my mouse in the PAINTBRUSH thingy. I NEED TO GET PAID FOR MY DOODLES, hahahah.<BR/><BR/>Another thing I have trouble with is why certain pieces of art are so grrrreat. For example, the Mona Lisa, yes i have seen it up close and personal - it is a portrait, why so great, not so great to me, what makes that dam painting to people so GREAT - tell me Craig. <BR/><BR/>Some of my favs are Marc Chagall, Tamara De Lempika, Frida, some Dali, some Klimt - what do you think of them - i always like to know who other people like.<BR/><BR/>well good topic, sorry i am not "IN THE KNOW" about art enought to have a REAL deep convo with you, hehe.PLAYMISTY4MEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11318738998454470974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114057580763473582005-04-20T23:26:00.001-05:002005-04-20T23:26:00.001-05:00I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself...I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself get lost in translation/definition. I don't believe fifty cell-phones hanging from a ceiling is considered a "brilliant work of art", I see that as someone who was damn bord and had too much fucking time on their hand. Lucky for him, there happend to be a passer-by with shit for brains that said "hey, that's art!". If I placed a lump of shit on a silver platter, would that be considered art? you betcha, it's called symbolic meaning! You know what, forget all the symbolic meaning in art. To me, symbolism, is your own interpretation or you use that for an excuse because you don't know what the hell you did to make it art. <BR/>Yeah, this lump of shit, I don't know what it means, but theres something symbolic about it. I must show the world what I created!<BR/><BR/>brother nick<BR/><BR/>one thing that get to me, is peoples definition of a "photo shoot" Damn mother-fuckin sons of bitches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6824105.post-1114057576662595222005-04-20T23:26:00.000-05:002005-04-20T23:26:00.000-05:00I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself...I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself get lost in translation/definition. I don't believe fifty cell-phones hanging from a ceiling is considered a "brilliant work of art", I see that as someone who was damn bord and had too much fucking time on their hand. Lucky for him, there happend to be a passer-by with shit for brains that said "hey, that's art!". If I placed a lump of shit on a silver platter, would that be considered art? you betcha, it's called symbolic meaning! You know what, forget all the symbolic meaning in art. To me, symbolism, is your own interpretation or you use that for an excuse because you don't know what the hell you did to make it art. <BR/>Yeah, this lump of shit, I don't know what it means, but theres something symbolic about it. I must show the world what I created!<BR/><BR/>brother nick<BR/><BR/>one thing that get to me, is peoples definition of a "photo shoot" Damn mother-fuckin sons of bitches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com