+ "> " /> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
+ "> " /> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Do we just post things we think qualifies as art?
Last edited by miniPhil; 06-14-2011 at 08:23 AM.
This is a Sig. It's horribly out of date.
wow.
I far as I know painting is indeed a form of art...so am I missing something, am I supposed to post something elts that I consider to be art?
The proud owner of the FIRST EVER self-perpetual neko gyroscope!
THIS I can respect. That looks like it took creativity, skill, effort, and has a definitive context too it.
I can not stand modern abstract crap though. Things that look like the artist just dipped their genitalia into the paint bucket and slapped it all over the canvas (which they may have done) does not qualify as art in my book. That stuff is retarded.
You need to understand the context in which the "modern abstract crap" was painted in order to have some chance of appreciating it, which means having a reasonable grasp of modern art history (and ideally an idea of what came before it). Without knowing the context of abstract art today, you're -- to make a TV analogy -- picking up the 73rd episode of Lost without having seen anything before it and going "What the hell is this crap?! Doesn't make any sense at all!"
Last edited by Eris; 06-15-2011 at 08:56 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
Wow. I dunno about about one else but I found this to be inspiring o.o. I just wanna go draw something now! >D
On the other hand am I the only one that thought "Dang, I want a boyfriend who would paint with me! D;"
I would like to apologize ahead of time for my poor English. I'm sorry u.u;
Point taken. To each their own, I guess. :\
However, your case leaves me with a lingering dilemma. I’ve watched the video above, and can appreciate the work without having any prior knowledge of who painted it, why they did, how they did, nor a complex knowledge of the history of art to come before it.
Why is it I can appreciate the work above, without being pre-informed, yet must be properly educated to “have some chance of appreciating” modern art that is supposedly very sophisticated in its nature? Doesn’t this notion imply that without its background, the work has little or no value as art?
Anyone could look at the Mona Lisa and see the quality of it without needing to knowing anything else about it. (and they'd still be in their right to think it garbage)
To recycle your TV analogy: I could go back and watch every episode of Lost to fully understand the context of the plot, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t still consider it rubbish.
I know I'm treading dangerously around the endless discussion about the definition of art, but I wouldn't mind some further explanation.
That's really awesome. o_o
Where did they do it? Who are they? How long did it take them?
Daaaang.
I clicked on this thread half expecting some sort of THIS IS SPARTAAA joke. Unfortunately there weren't any. I am very disappoint.
THAT... Was really boring.
[CENTER]You're all n00bs to me.[CENTER]
^ lol wat a noub
I am not a troll.
Well I digress, it's pretty nice. O_o;
This takes a great amount of time to do so, and it's one of those arts to decorate walls of a building.
I once saw couple of college students painting just like this on the outside and inside of the building where I used to go folk dance and stuff.
I saw it on a room decorating show, where it said that you have to go arts school to learn how to paint like this.
Nesh (nɛʃ) dialect adj. - sensitive to the cold
Set made by me
''Do your best, no matter how many times you fail!.''
It doesn't really take that much to appreciate it. You need to realize that the art scene, especially in the 20th century, is largely a series of reactions to previous art movements. I'm not going to recount all of modern art history in this post, but I'm going to roughly outline the evolution of modern art in a roughly chronological order (while leaving out significant chunks). It's probably not going to be 100% correct, as I'm writing this largely from memory.
A lot of this stuff developed in the first two decades of the 20th century, when Europe was politically dominated by strong nationalist ideals. Art was very authoritarian in that everything that didn't portray the official state truth was considered degenerate. There were a couple of reactions to this Dadawiki embraced irrationality, leading to Surrealismwiki which rejected reality, and Cubismwiki which rejected even resembling reality. If you take Cubism a step further you end up at Abstract Expressionismwiki (so called modern abstract crap.), leading to Pop Artwiki which gave up even having a meaning.
Early modern art outright rejected the official ideals, but towards the middle of the 20th century it drifted more towards discussion what -is- art, how much can you take away before it ceases to be art? Does it have to have a meaning? And similar questions.
In the context of this dialogue, abstract art corresponds to the position of rejecting the notion that art must depict a person, a landscape, or some form of reality in order to be art.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
All I'm saying is that if you're going to have something be esoteric, then expect people not to understand or appreciate it. I don't really have a problem with any type of art, but I do dislike snobs criticizing others for their subjective tastes. It's no one's responsibility to change their tastes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks