Modern art: your thoughts? (Also another person died)

[AlexanderDitto]

Impetus: Andrew Wyeth, kickass realist painter, died today. Chances are you know at least one of his paintings: Christina's World, one of the best known images of the 20th century.

I didn't want to make another "this person died!" thread when there's like a gazillion of those and I don't want this forum to fill up with them. Chances are this guy's passing won't touch you as much as Khan or someone else, but I was rather sad. I knew who he was, and liked his paintings.

So, let us take this as an opportunity to talk about art. What do you like? What don't you like? What is art to you? I mean, where do you draw the line between art and not art? Is Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (the upside down urinal) art? How about Roy Lichtenstein's giant blowups of single panels from cheesy 1960's comic books? Dan Flavin's lightbulbs?

Personally: I do not think the lightbulbs are art. I think minimalism is crap made by whiny artists who just wanted to argue with abstract expressionists for no reason.

[Metcarfre]

I don't often say this; I absolutely love that painting. I received a neat kids' art book when I was younger and that was one of the images in it. The perspective in it is so cool.
As for art, I'm of the "I don't know it, but I know what I like" school.
For art I can actually identify, I'm a big fan of The Group of Seven, a group of prominent Canadian artists from the twenties. I saw an exhibit of their work at the Vancouver art gallery some time ago. Good stuff.

[The Hitman]

I think Duchamp is really fun, like a lot of other Dada artists and writers. Stuff like Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 is actually fantastically well done, and obviously the Fountain is pretty funny.

I also really enjoy Surrealism: Dali, Ernst, Magritte etc. I like my artists talented enough to produce really good work and crazy enough to every so often make something inexplicably weird.

[CommanderKeen]

It's art if people will buy it. Anything else is crap.


I look at art and look at the skill required to create something like it. Which is why i regard sculpture with stone (eg: Michelangelo's David) to be more impressive then say a painting of a soup can.

More pressing example. LRR's comedy shorts. People are buying shirts, because they appreciate LRR's work. I look at it and say, hey, that's a lot work put into those videos and they're funny too.

[The Hitman]

Considering that painting of a soup can sold two years ago for 11.8 million dollars, I actually have no idea what the point you are trying to make is.

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with Worthington's Law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

[CommanderKeen]

the first sentence is what the public thinks of art and whether or not it's good.

I was more talking about my own opinion of art with the third sentence, Any art student can use a grid method of enlarging an photo or whatever, however it takes a following and a media machine to make it worth something.

[masamune]

money has nothing to do with it. that just makes the artist "professional". totally meaningless. art is an expression, thus art can be and is basically everything. you can make art intentionally or unintentionally, traditional or modern. viewing art is just viewing from another perspective. if you can't be bothered looking into what makes a square art to the artist, then it will always just be a square to you.
the whole opinion on what is art and what isn't is completely irrelevant and, quite frankly, just going to 'cause yet more pointless arguments in this forum.
suck my art.

[Lord Chrusher]

I enjoy representative art more than conceptual art but I still consider it art. I do not consider a dead shark in formaldehyde to be good art but it still is art.

On the other hand this is the sole item in my art collection.

[Hakaryu]

Zdzislaw Beksinski is one of my favorite surreal artists.

I'd also say HR giger is a genious to.

[korri]

I think if the person who created the work, created it as art and believes in it as art, then I respect that. There is definitely art that I don't enjoy or really like, but it is still art regardless of whether i like it or not.

[Tensen01]

This is a very dangerous topic for me, as I have very specifics about what I consider art... Probably being an artist myself and knowing how much time and effort I not only put into a single piece but also put into becoming the artist I am today...

So, I think I'll stay out of this conversation as I know for a fact my opinion is rather antagonistic.

[Yukikaze]

Probably being an artist myself

What, you don't know!?

[The Hitman]

I had Eagleton's book on literary criticism where the best definition of literature he could come up with was "Literature is anything which is read as literature."

I think art is pretty much the same way. Short of leaping out of an alley with a handgun and a print of On White II and demanding someone appreciate Kandinsky or die, you can't exactly tell other people what they should and should not find artistic.

[tak197]

Wyeth lived in Chadds Ford, not too far from where I live when I'm not in school. Interesting.

I took an introductory drawing class, and had to research an artist and try to imitate their style. My artist? Frida Kahlo. I have to say though, as fuckin' crazy as her life was, her art was passionate and colorful, even when it was dark and depressing. This made my art project pretty easy to do.

[Yukikaze]

I had Eagleton's book on literary criticism where the best definition of literature he could come up with was "Literature is anything which is read as literature."

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Jillers]

I'm very weird when it comes to art I like: there's usually an interesting color palette, and you can see the technique in it. My favorite painting, ever, is "La Grande Jatte" by Seurat, which combines both an interesting color palette and excellent technique.
I'm not a fan of abstract art and "modern art" in general. I have a hard time letting randomly placed lines, or a black canvass speak to me, and don't think a crushed VW bug is all that creative, whatever the artist was trying to say. Of course, I don't make it a hard rule, because I believe that the art has to somehow connect with you,and you never know when making a hard rule about things like that will lead to cognitive dissonance.

[The Hitman]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Tired joke is tired.

[Metcarfre]

I have an addendum to my previous post. An actual opinion on art (I know!). It is thus; "That which is created solely for commercial purposes is not art".
This is why I think no video game can be art.
Discuss.

[Yukikaze]

Myst, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Gears of War, and Odin Sphere.

The defense rests.

[Master Gunner]

I have an addendum to my previous post. An actual opinion on art (I know!). It is thus; "That which is created solely for commercial purposes is not art".
This is why I think no video game can be art.
Discuss.

Many significant pieces of Art throughout history were made on commission. Michelangelo and Leonardo were both well known in their time, and made plenty of money off of their work, which they may have not otherwise produced if they had not been commissioned for it.

[The Hitman]

I have an addendum to my previous post. An actual opinion on art (I know!). It is thus; "That which is created solely for commercial purposes is not art".
This is why I think no video game can be art.
Discuss.

How about freeware?

[Metcarfre]

If it's freeware, it's not made solely for commercial purposes. Therefore it can be art QED.

Myst, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Gears of War, and Odin Sphere.

The defense rests.

Just because it's pretty, doesn't make it art.

Many significant pieces of Art throughout history were made on commission. Michelangelo and Leonardo were both well known in their time, and made plenty of money off of their work, which they may have not otherwise produced if they had not been commissioned for it.

I would concede that this is the major argument against my thought. However, I would contend that often the works were not "solely" created for commercial purposes. Often they were crafted with layers of meaning, occasionally making fun of the ones who had commissioned the work. For example, Leonardo painted "The Last Supper" to convey his knowledge of the secret son of Jesus (Christ, that is) therefore making fun of the Catholic Church. [/sarcasm]

[Metcarfre]

Myst, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Gears of War, and Odin Sphere.

The defense rests.

Sorry, double post.

Gears of War? GEARS OF WAR as ART?!? Seriously. Kids these days.

[The Hitman]

I would concede that this is the major argument against my thought. However, I would contend that often the works were not "solely" created for commercial purposes. Often they were crafted with layers of meaning, occasionally making fun of the ones who had commissioned the work. For example, Leonardo painted "The Last Supper" to convey his knowledge of the secret son of Jesus (Christ, that is) therefore making fun of the Catholic Church. [/sarcasm]

So if an artist is remunerated for making art, as most successful artists are, that is still a-okay, but video games in general cannot be art, because they are made for the sole purpose of making money.

Do you... have anything to back up the rather wild claim that all people who make video games care only about money?

[The Hitman]

Also, to continue the tradition of double posts, Gears of War is pretty silly.

I'm not saying it isn't art in the same way that if I draw a picture of a cow on a napkin, that is probably art in some sense, but I don't think it's particularly good or meaningful to watch Captain Buff McSquarejaw chainsaw people to death.