art is cool ... discuss..

[adorefaith]

that thought is what i call 'intent'...that there is some reason(in every sense of the word) or purpose behind the piece...

absolutely..i think this is an important point..
but again this is a bit problematic..because surely there are pieces made with intent...with purpose and reason and a desire to communicate or express...that we would still think are "bad"....and that many would still say dont deserve to be called "Art"..

and then what about a child's art...does this intent have to be conscious?...
do we have to be self-aware enough to know what it is that we're wanting to communicate and then know how to do this?..can a child do this?...and if not, does that mean what they create is not art, but something else?..

i also think a lot of people 'read into' art...whether or not it is always justified, i dont know..
and i think gg mentioned this with the whole "vomit on a canvas" thing..and people ooh'ing and aah'ing....sometimes they see purpose and intent where perhaps there was NONE...or none that the artist was aware of anyway..

i'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here...and throwing some thoughts / questions around..

..

 

[softgrey]

i dont' know anything about a child blah blah blah...

*but that reminded me of when i was in 1st grade...
and we were given an assignment...
basically we were told to sort of scribble in black swirls or something ..
and then colour in the spaces created by the swirls...


i remember very clearly that my teacher got all excited about mine and called my parents to tell them i was very talented and put the thing up out in the hall for the whole school to see...

*and i was just sitting there thinking
'what the heck is she talking about?...it's JUST scribbles'......

...


so who knows...
i def had NO intent...except to scribble some flowy swirls and pick pretty colours...
but i guess the other kids REALLY scribbled and picked UGLY colours?...
i dont' know...

i still have no idea how you could tell from that that i had any talent...
but she was very experienced at looking at these sorts of thing so maybe her eye was 'trained' to see something i couldn't see at the time...
???...

maybe it was just that i coloured inside the lines so perfectly....

 

[gius]

great points..

actually it's what i'm wondering about, myself
the intent
does it have to be about something deep to be called art ?

or can it just be.. your purpose being to create a nice arrangement of lines, dots, colours...
isn't that what they were going after in the mid 20th century ?
i can't really say for sure
but i know it was a sort of revolt against this old art.. 'art for art's sake' ... being able to imitate reality ... something like this

it all sort of molds together

but i understand what you mean by someone just slapping something together and calling it art, softgrey
and some work which can be labelled as folk art or decoration

 

[masquerade]

I think it is a very fine line. and where do we draw the line between "bad art" and "not art"? Can something simply be art and be bad art? It seems like people in this thread are talking about good things as "art" and things that are bad or derivative or whatever as "not art". i don't know if that makes any sense

and if art has to be deep, where does that put Pop Art. or is pop art the deep analysis of superficial things and therefore ok?

 

[luckyme]

above all, art has purpose. whether it's intent is to satiate or provoke it always has purpose. artwork is created with skill, the understanding of positive and negative space, technique, form, perspective, color and balance etc.... having talent is one thing but making use of that talent to create "cool art" takes a skilled artist so it represents the purpose.

 

[gius]

in my opinion there is no such thing as talent
you grow into it

and the skill part, well that can be studied

 

[pucci_mama]

I think art can be everywhere.. you do not need to go to a gallery to get a new point of view, but it helps.

Not all people can be open to new thoughts and ideas people have to some degree understand where the artist is coming from or the art will not move you nor be understood.

For anyone in London I just went to see the [SIZE=-1]Louise Bourgeois instalment at the Tate Modern, I strongly recommend it! That women is deep mysterious.. seeing her art.. you become almost like a voyeur.

I just like going to galleries... it is a sort of escapism for me.. I'm also jst putting thoughts out there now.
[/SIZE]

 

[Multitudes]

...
for those of us not fluent in 'multi'speak...
would you mind translating this into english sir???...


...

English is not my first language! ...
I'll try but you're running the risk that I might complicate matters further!
I tend to do so! ...

If we explore the distinction, I made between constant and becomings, in relation to the novel. many novels are constructed in the manner of a diarist or journalist: one reports observations, feelings, opinions; one relates situations one has encountered and people one has met. Such novels express the significations and subjectivity of the author, especially when they are not explicitly biographical. For the leading character, or subject of the statement, is constructed as a constant subject even if this character is not double of the author. The implicit presuppositions of such work become clearly stated constants. For a novel to become a "work of art", however, the implicit presuppositions must be constructed at the same time as the text, and through the construction of the text, Art has to attain an immanent plane of composition, where the assemblage of components is determined not by some pre-established code or territory, or a set of implicit presuppositions, but by experimentations of desire in the form of becomings.

Moreover, there is a difference in kind between the materials that support a work of art, such as paint, canvas, film, stone, sound-waves etc. and the work itself.. Art only attempts to fashion a material object, having a finite duration, so as to create a being of sensation, which is preserved in itself for an eternity that coexists with the short duration of the material. This bloc of sensations, standing up alone or positioning itself, contains the working, sensations and forces of the work.




You may move my posts to the
"Teach me your language I teach you mine" thread! ...

 

[masquerade]

^Multitudes, i'm so sorry but if you could break it down to the "art theory for dummies" version

 

[gius]

i think i see what you want to say, multitudes
he's only comparing the writing of novels to the making of an art work.
that they both require design --the composition, the colours, lines, etc. Each has a part to play in bringing out the idea of the artist

 

[gius]

ooh ! let's make a comparison

Would you consider all of these art ? Why/why not

Piet Mondrian

Giorgio di Chirico

Chloé

/ paintings.name / ninoricci / style /

 

[Jadee]

ooh ! let's make a comparison

Would you consider all of these art ?

OooOh ! This remind me me of the art and design thread where people had a long and interesting discussion about art and design, about what is art, wether fashion is art ect ect...
you might want to read it

And this thread is so great ! I want to join in but I have to go back to my studies ... finals ain't cool but I'll be back !

 

[gius]

^We try not to sink our feet in to the subject of fashion too deep
That Chloe picture is just for trickery

Come back soon!

 

[ChrissyM]

i feel like i would call the first two images art and the chloe i would call "art-inspired"

 

[BerlinRocks]

i think i see what you want to say, multitudes
he's only comparing the writing of novels to the making of an art work.
that they both require design --the composition, the colours, lines, etc. Each has a part to play in bringing out the idea of the artist

this is mostly classic art....and modern art...
but not contemporary....

i just wish i could talk good english....and understand well english...

I think it is a very fine line. and where do we draw the line between "bad art" and "not art"? Can something simply be art and be bad art? It seems like people in this thread are talking about good things as "art" and things that are bad or derivative or whatever as "not art". i don't know if that makes any sense

and if art has to be deep, where does that put Pop Art. or is pop art the deep analysis of superficial things and therefore ok?

talking about what is bad art is kind of complicated (to me)...
it's a critic excercice...not too easy...
if you can argue on what is good and what is bad... it's ok...
what is art now is a contemporary question... pretty difficult to answer to it...
Fine Arts are over... We are in a Plastic Art system, now... so a lot of things can be called art (it starts in the 1970s, non?)...

About Pop Art, I think you can get a lot of informations on google... or books...
But I guess this is a reflexion about what is kitsch? about the new medium' (medias') iconography...
will a collage of ad drawings, comics heroes etc. work? Does it have a sense?
i think i opened a thread about english pop art...

 

[masquerade]

I would not call the Chloe bag art. It was created as a product. Art and fashion really go hand in hand and are connected, as are all the decorative arts and fine arts. But still, there is a difference. Just like there is a difference between a piece that was commissioned as an alter piece in a church and something that was created for arts sake. I don't want to go as far as to say it is simply craft, that is insulting, but its not the same. Maybe art vs Art.

Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie Woogie" is one of my absolutely favorite pieces ever,

 

[luckyme]

i feel like i would call the first two images art and the chloe i would call "art-inspired"

I completely agree, couldn't have said it better my dear...

the first two have the components I spoke of earlier to be classified as "art" the last has a purpose I suppose but not in the realm of artwork.

 

[gius]

this is mostly classic art....and modern art...
but not contemporary....

i just wish i could talk good english....and understand well english...

why would you say not contemporary?
i think i understand
i think the focus is placed on the concept nowadays, not the appearance anymore
which is quite strange since art is visual
sometimes i have my 'art experience' ruined just because i can't appreciate a work on a superficial level

 

[gius]

ok good replies, guys
i guess it brings it back to intention really
it seems as though you all mean art is something to be displayed on a wall ?

although if i make a piece like that necklace by Chloe, i would treat it the same way as Mondrian's painting... it's based on squares and composition
it's possible to convey 'feeling' in design as well, i think
it's possible to also make a necklace with the same ideas that motivated Giorgio di Chirico's painting

if i were to make a shirt, i don't necessarily think of it as a 'product', as something to sell

 

[softgrey]

There are certainly people who make 'shirts' intended as art---
which are not intended to sell...

but those people are NOT working at Chloe......



..


plus that thing is truly U-gly.....



* and i still have no idea what mulititudes is ON about...