• 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...

Sefarst said:
You and I can both read Macbeth and have different interpretations of certain scenes and lines. However, without having someone explain to us all of the finer details, we could walk away with the same general idea about the plot and general purpose behind the work.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Henry V can be interpreted in two contradictory ways without anyone having to explain the finer details to us. Depending on the interpretation to it it can be seen as propaganda or anti-war. My argument still stands.
 
Last edited:
Sefarst said:
But Babe Ruth is independently famous and talented without that baseball. The baseball is valuable because it was hit by a famous, talented guy. The guy was famous because he could play a game well.
Click to expand...
No, the baseball is valuable because people are prepared to pay lots of money for it. It's the same with art or indeed anything that somebody is trying to sell. The value of an object for sale is determined entirely by how much money your customers are prepared to pay. Take cars for instance. If it costs you $10,000 to make a car, putting a sticker on it saying $11,000 won't make you $1,000 profit if your customers are only prepared to pay $9,000.
 
Picasso.

As for most underrated, I'd go for French revolutionary and painter Jacques-Louis David, most famous for The Death Of Marat and Napoleon Crossing the Alps
 
Piss Christ actually looks really pretty to me.
You must admit - although he may be a bit odd, he's a good photographer.
 
technoextreme said:
Wrong. Henry V can be interpreted in two contradictory ways without anyone having to explain the finer details to us. Depending on the interpretation to it it can be seen as propaganda or anti-war. My argument still stands.
Click to expand...

You must be deliberately obtuse. Henry V is a play with characters anyone can percieve, has a structured plot anyone can understand, and events anyone can grasp. The meaning behind those is subject to interpretation, but the basics of the play are easily accessable. A muddled, incoherent plot is the sign of a muddled, incoherent writer.

If two people see Henry V and neither can agree on whether it's bird feces on a canvas, or a colorful spaghetti dinner thrown on the floor, then your comparison would be valid.

There is a difference between a work's meaning being open to interpretation and being entirely meaningless.
 
You must be deliberately obtuse. Henry V is a play with characters anyone can percieve, has a structured plot anyone can understand, and events anyone can grasp. The meaning behind those is subject to interpretation, but the basics of the play are easily accessable. A muddled, incoherent plot is the sign of a muddled, incoherent writer.
Click to expand...
I quote this:
However, without having someone explain to us all of the finer details, we could walk away with the same general idea about the plot and general purpose behind the work.
Click to expand...
So I'm not being obtuse more than I am reading what you are writing and countering what you say. So by your very admission you just contradicted yourself.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
Nope. I actually read the play. Your wrong. The play is actually muddled.
Click to expand...

You're making this up. The events of the play are as plain as day.

Interpreting wheter it supports war or criticizes war, or indeed, both, is open to debate. What happens in the play is not. It's unambiguous.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You're making this up. The events of the play are as plain as day.
Click to expand...
Ehhh never mind. Reread your post. It makes perfect sense to me now. Sorry about that.:) If the art is to portray a specific idea it should do that clearly without any intervention by the artist.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
And yet according to your definition they are subject to interpretation which means that Shakespeare was a horrible artist:
Click to expand...

I thank you not to wildly mistate what I have said. The play is perfectly understandable. It's a play about King Henry V and his invasion of France, as opposed to a Pollock "painting" which is a confused mass of crap. What those events mean is subject to debate. That it depicts them is not.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It's a play about King Henry V and his invasion of France, as opposed to a Pollock "painting" which is a confused mass of crap.
Click to expand...
Is a Pollock painting supposed to convey something though? It doesn't help that I really don't mind that style of art if you don't take it to the extremes.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
Is a Pollock painting supposed to convey something though? It doesn't help that I really don't mind that style of art if you don't take it to the extremes.
Click to expand...

Pollock's work is definately extreme crap. If it's not supposed to convey something, even some nebulous mood, it's not art.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Pollock's work is definately extreme crap. If it's not supposed to convey something, even some nebulous mood, it's not art.
Click to expand...
First of I was right in using Shakespeare then. Either you are using the moving goalposts or you have no clue as to why I went off that tangent on plot. Plot doesn't elicit emotion. Plot is boring. The plot to Henry V is:
Henry gets provoked into fighting a war. Henry fights war. Henry wins war. *Snooze*
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
First of I was right in using Shakespeare then. Either you are using the moving goalposts or you have no clue as to why I went off that tangent on plot. Plot doesn't elicit emotion. Plot is boring. The plot to Henry V is:
Henry gets provoked into fighting a war. Henry fights war. Henry wins war. *Snooze*
Click to expand...

Your poor taste is not my problem. Your comparison of a clear and unambiguous plot to a senseless scrawl of paint without form or reason is my problem.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Your poor taste is not my problem. Your comparison of a clear and unambiguous plot to a senseless scrawl of paint without form or reason is my problem.
Click to expand...
You know nothing about basic literature. Your the one who started off about artistic theme being clear which does not consist entirely of plot in literary works. I assumed that most people knew that but apparently I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
You know nothing about basic literature. Your the one who started off about artistic theme being clear which does not consist entirely of plot in literary works.
Click to expand...

I know what Henry V is about, and so do you. I have no idea what the vast majority of Pollock's. . .canvases are about unless I am told. That is the difference.
 
Art has to 'convey' something for it to be art? Can't it just be nice, or interesting to look at?

I think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom