• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most Overrated Artists...

ThatSoundAgain said:
Why would you want a verbal message from a non-verbal medium like painting? Form is a factor, and can be an end in itself.

This will probably not redeem Pollock to you, since the form doesn't speak to you in the first place. Which is fine. But this defining things as "not art" because you don't like them is not productive. You might as well argue that Hungarian poetry can't exist since Hungarian poets apparently aren't using understandable language.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't like Pollock, it's that it conveys nothing. I don't like Kandinski, but at least his work is understandable.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Alright, then what does it convey to you, the fellow standing next to you, and the art critic who saw it first? Can any of you agree?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to mean the same to everyone? What I take from the Mona Lisa is probably not the same as what the person standing next to me takes.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Why does it have to mean the same to everyone? What I take from the Mona Lisa is probably not the same as what the person standing next to me takes.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing the meaning with its representation. It's a portrait of a woman with a landscape in the background. Anyone can see that.

What do Pollock canvases have on them, I ask you?
 
What is the bogus modern definition of art, then?

Mona Lisa is a portrait of a woman with two landscapes: The landscape on the left is different than the one on the right. Also, they are imaginary landscapes.

There is a lot of symbolism (often lost on us today) in paintings. A skull is not necessarily just a skull, but can be a Memento Mori, a Nature Morte, or just for effect.

Clearly, it is not that easy as it looks, just because we can recognize what appears to be.
 
ImaginalDisc;4274475 [I said:
What[/I] do Pollock canvases have on them, I ask you?
Click to expand...

Oh that one's easy- paint.

What is a glass of wine about? What is the content of the grand canyon?

Now the grand canyon is obviously not a work of art, a glass of wine is maybe a bit closer to line.

What's the message in Beethoven's 5th?

A work of art can be enjoyed on that level.

For something to have value and interest, it doesn't need some encoded message. The pleasures of Pollock and Rothko and Kline and Mondrian are to a great extent, visceral. Maybe you could actually read my post way back about how to enjoy Pollock.

The definition of "art" that implies quality and intentional "meaning" is not the one taught in any of the world's leading art schools. I graduated from one of them and have many friends from many others. It is not the one in any dictionary or encyclopedia either.

I personally like Scott McCloud's definition, which is quite popular right now.
"Art ... is any human activity that doesn't grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: survival and reproduction."
Click to expand...
 
In regards to the above definition:

Then what is art that is created with the express purpose of being sold? Like most artists create. Selling art is about survival and possibly reproduction for most artists.
 
I would disagree with McCloud there. If you are not much to look at, but you are an amazing artist, you are going to get more girls (or boys) than if you didn't have such a talent...

:D
 
Cavemonster said:
The definition of "art" that implies quality and intentional "meaning" is not the one taught in any of the world's leading art schools. I graduated from one of them and have many friends from many others. It is not the one in any dictionary or encyclopedia either.
Click to expand...

From Meriam-Webster.

1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>

2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning , scholarship

3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>

4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art

5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful

6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
Click to expand...

Is a Pollock canvas a skill acquired by experience, study, or observation? No. Is it a branch of learning? No. An occupation requiring knowledge or skill? No. The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects? No, it might as well look like that by accident. A skillful plan? Snort

But, "decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter?" Decorative is a matter of taste, so maybe.

I doubt I can solve the philosophical problem of "What is art," but I operate under the principle that if I have to be told it's art, it isn't.

I personally like Scott McCloud's definition, which is quite popular right now.
Click to expand...

Could you share it, please? Google avails me not.

ETA. Oh, oops. I didn't see it the first time.

That's an incredibly vague and useless definition. But, let's accept it for the moment for the sake of argument. Can one reproduce artfully? Can we shift through genes and make a person we want to be our inheritor? Can we raise children one way and not another, making deliberate choices and working with our materials to make something? Can we choose how to survive, whether to roam arid wastes on camel back or build stone edifices in temperate climes, shaping our own method of survival?

If anything besides survival and reproduction is art, including politics, war, and education, why aren't survival and reproduction art? On what basis is the distinction made?
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
If so, then the distinction between art and accident becomes even more vague. I like the look of a tree, but is a tree art?
Click to expand...

It could be, is it a topiary or a bonsai? They are certainly art. Is it a tree or a photograph of the tree... a painting?

I like the idea that art has intent as Gregory said. And I guess, as has been already stated, its not correct to operate under the assumption that because you don't like it; its not art.
 
LawnOven said:
It could be, is it a topiary or a bonsai? They are certainly art. Is it a tree or a photograph of the tree... a painting?

I like the idea that art has intent as Gregory said. And I guess, as has been already stated, its not correct to operate under the assumption that because you don't like it; its not art.
Click to expand...

How many times must I type it?

I don't believe Pollock's canvases aren't art because I don't like them; I think they're not art because they depict nothing, require no skill, and have no discernible meaning.

Please stop making me repeat myself.
 
A Pollock canvas is definitely not just paint thrown on a canvas. He worked very hard to achieve the results.

There is method to the paint. Just because the method isn't understood does not mean it isn't there.
 
CFLarsen said:
A Pollock canvas is definitely not just paint thrown on a canvas. He worked very hard to achieve the results.

There is method to the paint. Just because the method isn't understood does not mean it isn't there.
Click to expand...

He worked very hard to throw paint at a canvas to achieve a result that is indistinguishable from an accident?

Not impressive.
 
Very intelligent people have been arguing over the definition of art or what makes art "art" for hundreds of years. I am hopeful that this great debate will finally be settled in this thread.
 
ID,
Have you spent time with a large Pollock in person, or are you going from images on the internet and in books?

Also, which of the definitions of art listed above mentions that something be depicted, that any content exist at all? I can't seem to find it.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
How many times must I type it?

I don't believe Pollock's canvases aren't art because I don't like them; I think they're not art because they depict nothing, require no skill, and have no discernible meaning.

Please stop making me repeat myself.
Click to expand...

No need to get testy, I'm more interested in the first part anyways.

I didn't really care to comment on Pollock, but since you brought it up, Pollocks paintings most certainly did require a certain amount of skill and imagination. So, well I guess I think you're wrong about that.

You said that art must 'convey' something, maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that. Could you explain what you meant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom