PDA

View Full Version : So I always thought people who were into art were weird....but this is too much!


PaintballCLE
05-10-2010, 08:33 PM
http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/07/marina-abramovic-the-modern-art-exhibit-making-everyone-cry/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl4|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2010% 2F05%2F07%2Fmarina-abramovic-the-modern-art-exhibit-making-everyone-cry%2F

Currently on the sixth floor of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the museum is presenting "The Artist Is Present," a retrospective of work by the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic.

There is a busy room providing pictures and videos that make up a cacophonous visual biography -- here Abramovic is eating a raw onion, there she is with a snake on her head -- and there are the interactive pieces. In addition to the live nude performers (many of whom have complained about inappropriate advances by museum-goers), these works help a viewer move from the visual sphere and closer into Abramovic's mind.

This experience of the artist and her work, of course, can only communicate so much, and on the atrium level is Abramovic herself, silently seated within a large cleared square, with football-stadium-style lighting set high up around the quiet enclosure, eliminating shadows. A chair is set across from her, and anyone is invited to sit, likewise silently, and stare. Visitors to "The Artist Is Present" start queuing before the museum opens and patiently wait hours to accomplish this.

However, the experience "is much more than a staring contest," noted Dimitri, seated on line next to me during my more recent visit.



A graphic designer and photographer from New Jersey who'd come ready to wait for the day, Dimitri became interested in "The Artist Is Present" after seeing the live cam online, and subsequently creating his own version with screengrabs.

Dorel, a New Yorker who'd also been waiting since the museum opened that day, was visiting with her 16-year-old daughter. She too was sucked in by the web cam, which her daughter had shown her. It was her third visit to the show. The first, she said, was overwhelming, and on the second visit her daughter was "the one who kind of got it." Now she was back again, but with a bad sunburn, so unsure whether she'd endure the wait for an actual audience with the artist.

What is it about this woman in a chair? In New York City each day, millions of people sit across from other perfect strangers on subway trains. Here, doing just that, the viewers often start to cry. Like the woman shown here; it took her 189 minutes before she broke down in tears. Though others crack much sooner. And they all wait in line to do so.

The sitting becomes part of the experience. I found myself staring at Abramovic from afar, in her long white gown and powerful side braid, wondering trivial thoughts that slowly built up and ran around my brain: Was she beautiful? I couldn't decide. I guess all faces look the same, I thought then, two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Do they look the same to her? Does she have face nausea from looking at too many people?

Sometimes, I noticed, she would close her eyes and bow her head, inducing the current fellow sitter to leave. Did that mean she was tired of that particular person!? Or maybe she was just trying to egalitarianize the line. (There were rumors of a woman who had warmed the chair across from Abramovic for a full seven hours. Hello, therapy!)

With no answer for my own thoughts during the first visit, I started talking to the patient people waiting around me – Kevin, 36, was visiting from Rhode Island and was, like most people I talked to, prepared to stay until closing time. For him, the waiting was part of it – "I've been to MoMA a ton of times, and I've never sat and just people watched, and contemplated," he told me. Abramovic, it seems -- by inducing viewers to watch her -- has also led them to notice each other more.

Of course, there are always exceptions. It was on my second visit, still trying to take my rightful turn in front of the artist, when Isabella Rossellini arrived -- and was promptly ushered in front of the masses for her tête-à-tête. Surprisingly, I wasn't jealous -- or seething. From having spent so much time observing, it was clear that making it into the chair was only one aspect of the piece, and, in her rush, Rossellini may have missed out on one of the most fundamental, and more importantly, rewarding aspects of the work.

For my part, though I never got to stare deep into her eyes, thanks to Abramovic, I studied faces more carefully all the way home. The features, the emotions. The sameness of us all. And the not-sameness, too. Just by sitting, with an empty chair serving as an invite, Abramovic had turned the world into a living museum for the rest of us.


Susannah Edelbaum lives in Brooklyn. She's covered gallery shows for Art Cat and more gallery shows, plus fun fashion stuff, for Gen Art Pulse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? have people completely lost their minds? waiting in line for days to sit in a chair and stare at a person. If people were this dedicated to something productive......this world would be a much better place.

And a side note to the title above......I don't equate all art people with being "weird" but you have to admit there are those that just seem like they are from another planet. Don't lie, you all know what I mean......you see an odd person and then notice they are carrying artwork or an artist.......just something about them is very odd.

I am not posting this to bash on the artsy people, but maybe someone could explain how this is worth lining up for days to see this. ???

atomicbloke
05-10-2010, 09:03 PM
Wish I knew more about art. Maybe they perceive something I don't?

Staring at this person would make no sense to me, but maybe it does to them because they can see some deeper meaning?

Since I am uneducated about art, I guess I can't tell what exactly they see here.

watermock
05-10-2010, 09:48 PM
http://www.artsofinnovation.com/Renoir_party.JPG.

JJG
05-10-2010, 09:57 PM
shock art and performance art are mostly over the top ridiculous. Its often no more than doing something outrageous to get attention and therefore "fame". It seems pretty shallow to me, although Im probably considered a pretty conservative artist by most standards.

Mogulseeker
05-10-2010, 10:01 PM
Wish I knew more about art. Maybe they perceive something I don't?

Staring at this person would make no sense to me, but maybe it does to them because they can see some deeper meaning?

Since I am uneducated about art, I guess I can't tell what exactly they see here.

I love art. One thing I've realized about it over the years: you don't have to get it. It's art, and there's a reason most artists have other jobs.

Modern art/abstract expressionism is more about finding emperical methods of exploring one's consciousness and trying to materialize impressions of subconscience.

Surrealism is more about the use of symbols and metephors (sometimes very deep ones) to express thoughts, in the case of surrealism mostly angst.

Impressionism is about creating something that already exists as one person percieves it.

Some art is dumb, and so you really don't have to get, but there really is some brilliant art out there - look up Salvidor Dali or Bosch. One of my favorite pieces at the Denver Art Museum is simply a giant ashtray with about a million cigerette butts in it. A document off to the side, written by the author explains the piece. And I just though it was a brilliant expression of the artist's thoughts.

Dagmar
05-10-2010, 10:03 PM
http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g001b_pollock_blue-poles.jpg

Mogulseeker
05-10-2010, 10:23 PM
http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g001b_pollock_blue-poles.jpg

Yeah, I never really got Jackson Pollock.

Funny thing is, I accidently set off the alarm at the MFA in Boston by getting too close to a Jackson Pollock painting - I think it might have been this one... did you get that image from MFA?

That said, I'm by no means an art conniseur... just taken a 3 humanities classes in college.

DHallblows
05-10-2010, 10:32 PM
Yeah, I never really got Jackson Pollock.

Funny thing is, I accidently set off the alarm at the MFA in Boston by getting too close to a Jackson Pollock painting.

That said, I'm by no means an art conniseur... just taken a 3 humanities classes in college.

It's really not WHAT he did, but that he was the first one to do it in an artistic way. Or so I learned in ART100. Not my cup of tea for sure

watermock
05-10-2010, 10:37 PM
I love art. One thing I've realized about it over the years: you don't have to get it. It's art, and there's a reason most artists have other jobs.

Modern art/abstract expressionism is more about finding emperical methods of exploring one's consciousness and trying to materialize impressions of subconscience.

Surrealism is more about the use of symbols and metephors (sometimes very deep ones) to express thoughts, in the case of surrealism mostly angst.

Impressionism is about creating something that already exists as one person percieves it.

Some art is dumb, and so you really don't have to get, but there really is some brilliant art out there - look up Salvidor Dali or Bosch. One of my favorite pieces at the Denver Art Museum is simply a giant ashtray with about a million cigerette butts in it. A document off to the side, written by the author explains the piece. And I just though it was a brilliant expression of the artist's thoughts.

A giant ashtray.

If you have to explain it, WTF?


It's an ash tray.

Great art has no ideology unless in period.

watermock
05-10-2010, 10:44 PM
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/studio-images/picasso_and_american_art/picasso_woman_b.jpg

You tell me.

I think it's crap.

U tell me...

watermock
05-10-2010, 10:51 PM
Weird it grow on you..

Very hypnotic.

snowspot66
05-10-2010, 10:59 PM
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/studio-images/picasso_and_american_art/picasso_woman_b.jpg

You tell me.

I think it's crap.

U tell me...

It's not crap and I'll tell you why.

Picasso is only famous to the general public for his works like that. Some of them are very beautiful visually.

Why you can never consider Picasso as crap (well you can, but you shouldn't) is because the man was talented. I'm talking child prodigy talent. At the age of 12 he was as good or better than any other classical artist that you can name.

He was so good he had no interest in doing what had been done before so he explored aspects of painting and art that had never been approached before. For better or worse he was one of the major catalysts for almost every major movement in the 20th century.

snowspot66
05-10-2010, 11:03 PM
Wish I knew more about art. Maybe they perceive something I don't?

Staring at this person would make no sense to me, but maybe it does to them because they can see some deeper meaning?

Since I am uneducated about art, I guess I can't tell what exactly they see here.

As somebody who is educated in art... No. I'm 99.9% certain there isn't anything this particular person perceives that you don't. They may be trying to make a point. But I wouldn't call this art. Theater possibly. I do make a distinction.

Most of this stuff is garbage produced by people who's only talent is emotional baggage and good marketing.

Now classically trained artists I would argue otherwise if they are talented (that they perceive things differently).

Dagmar
05-10-2010, 11:08 PM
http://www.refusingtokill.net/Spain/guernicagood.jpg

sisterhellfyre
05-10-2010, 11:11 PM
I am not posting this to bash on the artsy people, but maybe someone could explain how this is worth lining up for days to see this. ???

My guess would be that it's about the eye contact and the forced confrontation of intimacy. We spend very little time each day in eye contact with another person, even with those we car about, and with prolonged eye contact there's a ... vulnerability that comes, as the layers of of our everyday courtesies and defenses get stripped away.

As a secondary part of the interaction, it's also about the wait to get there, and watching the actions and interactions of the people around you. That just about works as a prelude to the staredown while we watch the others, wonder what they're doing, what they're getting out of it, and (from this account, at least) start to ask ourselves the same questions. I can't say for sure what questions Maria Abramovic had in mind, but for me the "staredown" would pose questions about identity, interaction, intimacy, contact, loneliness and isolation. I think the most interesting part of what she's doing is that she's opening herself up to this experience too: nonverbal communication of that order can't be a one-way street.

There's also an interesting avenue of speculation in her choice of costume for the exercise. The column says she wears a white gown, with her hair braided to one side. As I visualize someone dressed that way, it's a very Olympian look, like one of the Greek gods is in residence. That could add even more questions to what could be an already-potent stew: questions about god (and God), judgement, and our relationship to the divine.

My personal definition of "art" has been that it's an object or a creation that makes a statement, asks a question, or reflects in some way on some part of what it means to be human. It has to do with those questions that we can never answer for each other, and hardly ever for ourselves. What she's doing is a painting without a canvas: what better "canvas" could there be for this artistic exploration than our physical human selves?

(Just IMHO, and worth about what you paid for it.)

snowspot66
05-10-2010, 11:11 PM
I love art. One thing I've realized about it over the years: you don't have to get it. It's art, and there's a reason most artists have other jobs.

Modern art/abstract expressionism is more about finding emperical methods of exploring one's consciousness and trying to materialize impressions of subconscience.

Surrealism is more about the use of symbols and metephors (sometimes very deep ones) to express thoughts, in the case of surrealism mostly angst.

Impressionism is about creating something that already exists as one person percieves it.

Some art is dumb, and so you really don't have to get, but there really is some brilliant art out there - look up Salvidor Dali or Bosch. One of my favorite pieces at the Denver Art Museum is simply a giant ashtray with about a million cigerette butts in it. A document off to the side, written by the author explains the piece. And I just though it was a brilliant expression of the artist's thoughts.

I wouldn't go that far. If an artist doesn't have a job (and is trying to find one) it's because they aren't any good. There are a lot of jobs out there requiring artists. Artists influence pretty much everything we see and do on a daily basis. The packaging for almost every product on a shelf was design by an artist. We're not all a bunch of smelly hippies mad at the world for not getting "it".

atomicbloke
05-10-2010, 11:19 PM
My guess would be that it's about the eye contact and the forced confrontation of intimacy. We spend very little time each day in eye contact with another person, even with those we car about, and with prolonged eye contact there's a ... vulnerability that comes, as the layers of of our everyday courtesies and defenses get stripped away.

As a secondary part of the interaction, it's also about the wait to get there, and watching the actions and interactions of the people around you. That just about works as a prelude to the staredown while we watch the others, wonder what they're doing, what they're getting out of it, and (from this account, at least) start to ask ourselves the same questions. I can't say for sure what questions Maria Abramovic had in mind, but for me the "staredown" would pose questions about identity, interaction, intimacy, contact, loneliness and isolation. I think the most interesting part of what she's doing is that she's opening herself up to this experience too: nonverbal communication of that order can't be a one-way street.

There's also an interesting avenue of speculation in her choice of costume for the exercise. The column says she wears a white gown, with her hair braided to one side. As I visualize someone dressed that way, it's a very Olympian look, like one of the Greek gods is in residence. That could add even more questions to what could be an already-potent stew: questions about god (and God), judgement, and our relationship to the divine.

My personal definition of "art" has been that it's an object or a creation that makes a statement, asks a question, or reflects in some way on some part of what it means to be human. It has to do with those questions that we can never answer for each other, and hardly ever for ourselves. What she's doing is a painting without a canvas: what better "canvas" could there be for this artistic exploration than our physical human selves?

(Just IMHO, and worth about what you paid for it.)

That's deep. Thanks.

Wish I were more in to this. Folks who genuinely understand art get the most out of life.

atomicbloke
05-10-2010, 11:21 PM
As somebody who is educated in art... No. I'm 99.9% certain there isn't anything this particular person perceives that you don't. They may be trying to make a point. But I wouldn't call this art. Theater possibly. I do make a distinction.

Most of this stuff is garbage produced by people who's only talent is emotional baggage and good marketing.

Now classically trained artists I would argue otherwise if they are talented (that they perceive things differently).

The problem is I can't look at a piece of art and make a judgment as to whether its a masterpiece or junk.

watermock
05-10-2010, 11:35 PM
talent. At the age of 12 he was as good or better than any other classical artist that you can name.



Show me then.

watermock
05-10-2010, 11:38 PM
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/moxiepix/a1567.jpg

Spare me.

sisterhellfyre
05-11-2010, 12:00 AM
That's deep. Thanks.

Wish I were more in to this. Folks who genuinely understand art get the most out of life.

Hey atomicbloke -- Not saying at all that I understand or get whatever Abramovic has in mind here. For all I know, she could be a psychic bully and this is her current way of power-tripping. I could be dead wrong. All I'm offering is one possible interpretation, based on projecting myself into that situation with a performance artist and guessing what I might find in it.

I totally understand not getting some forms of art. I don't get Picasso, tho I love Dali. I don't get modern sculpture: a giant polished stone donut is just a giant polished stone donut. (Doooo-nutz...) Even when it comes to the so-called Great Masters, I don't get some of their work either. A bowl of fruit is just that: a bowl of fruit. It might have great craftsmanship, astounding intricacy of brushstroke, utter mastery of materials available at the time, incredible visual depth, and who knows what else. I'll grant "Yup, sure, you betcha" and so on right down the line... but it's still just a bowl of fruit. Unless you put a human skull in the middle of it, as Cezanne did, and then you've got something that catches my eye. (Yah, I'm a sick puppy that way.)

There are SO many different ways to "get" art -- at least as many ways as there are to make art. The central question, I think, is always "what works for you?" It's about whatever and whichever form of art resonates and speaks to you. It could even be architecture, or industrial design, or jewelry, or...

Instead of regretting it that you don't get it, I'd suggest taking a minute next time you see something, any sort of artistic creation, that you DO like. Ask yourself why you like it, and what about that creation works for you. That's always the starting point. :-)

Is it a masterpiece or junk... for you?

Archer81
05-11-2010, 12:09 AM
I have yet to take an art class. I dont think I want to unless I have to. Im more literal, I have a hard time seeing color splotches on white canvas and seeing more than a chaotic mess...unless thats the point. Not knocking people who can stare at a Van Goh and get lost in the beauty they see. Just seems odd to me.

:Broncos:

Mogulseeker
05-11-2010, 12:13 AM
I wouldn't go that far. If an artist doesn't have a job (and is trying to find one) it's because they aren't any good. There are a lot of jobs out there requiring artists. Artists influence pretty much everything we see and do on a daily basis. The packaging for almost every product on a shelf was design by an artist. We're not all a bunch of smelly hippies mad at the world for not getting "it".

But don't you wish you weren't confined to the bounds of marketing all the time? Sometimes art that only the artist gets is a good thing.

Killericon
05-11-2010, 01:19 AM
I liked my visit to the MOMA(Ignoring how cliche it is, Starry Night is my favourite painting), but there's certainly a realm of art for which I have no appreciation. My Roomy loves the best example:

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GfHw4ZU0rYE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Watch all of it.

On the flip side, Dali also painted one of my favourite paintings...

http://www.duiven.org/Worth1000/source-woman-at-window.jpg

watermock
05-11-2010, 01:39 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r074ifr8NtE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r074ifr8NtE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>.

Mogulseeker
05-11-2010, 02:17 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r074ifr8NtE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r074ifr8NtE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>.

Good lord I loved this show. One of these days I'm going to do just like I did with Mad Men - hibernate for a week away from DU in my Grand Lake condo and just watch episode after episode of the Twilight Zone.

Quoydogs
05-11-2010, 02:17 AM
Love Dali, I am looking at one of his photos as we speak. Don't forget MC Escher. Love this photo.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=26556&stc=1&d=1273565942

Killericon
05-11-2010, 02:29 AM
Love Dali, I am looking at one of his photos as we speak. Don't forget MC Escher. Love this photo.

Sorry, but I have NO respect for most of Dali's stuff. It's like he was never introduced to the concept of subtlety. Most of his paintings are just screaming LOOK AT ME, I'M A METAPHOR!

http://www.american-buddha.com/dali.dreambeepomegranate.jpg

:thumbsdow

Talented as ever there were a painter, but he just does nothing for me.

Quoydogs
05-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Dali is just plain good. It's not deep just nice to look at. I love the more you stare, the more you see. http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=26557&stc=1&d=1273566918

Mogulseeker
05-11-2010, 02:38 AM
Love Dali, I am looking at one of his photos as we speak. Don't forget MC Escher. Love this photo.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=26556&stc=1&d=1273565942

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLWm9x8hCz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLWm9x8hCz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Killericon
05-11-2010, 02:40 AM
Dali is just plain good. It's not deep

I know a few people who might disagree with you.

Anyways, like I said, he painted one of my favourites. On the whole he just does nothing for me. His video stuff shows what was being masked in his paintings by how good of a painter he is. Perfect example:

http://allforthegreatergood.com/Salvador_Dali--Geopoliticus_Child_Watching_the_Birth_of_the_New_M an.jpg

Good enough painting, right? But this is what I see:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5A3Oo_zj5c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5A3Oo_zj5c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The guy was a ****ing nutjob who was a REALLY good painter.

Quoydogs
05-11-2010, 03:18 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLWm9x8hCz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLWm9x8hCz4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Nice. LOL

Quoydogs
05-11-2010, 03:21 AM
I know a few people who might disagree with you.

Anyways, like I said, he painted one of my favourites. On the whole he just does nothing for me. His video stuff shows what was being masked in his paintings by how good of a painter he is. Perfect example:

http://allforthegreatergood.com/Salvador_Dali--Geopoliticus_Child_Watching_the_Birth_of_the_New_M an.jpg

Good enough painting, right? But this is what I see:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5A3Oo_zj5c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5A3Oo_zj5c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The guy was a ****ing nutjob who was a REALLY good painter.

Wow that video is messed up. I have that last picture shown. It's one of my favorites

watermock
05-11-2010, 03:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJWSZ_MiHc&NR=1&feature=fvwp.

snowspot66
05-11-2010, 10:04 AM
Show me then.

I will if I can. It's not easy to find images of his traditional work. Nobody cares about it.

gunns
05-11-2010, 10:19 AM
Art is an "to each his own". I can't say something is good or bad except as my own opinion. I'm a Norman Rockwell fan, a realist who captured real life that I don't have to interpret the subtle meanings.

bowtown
05-11-2010, 10:22 AM
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/studio-images/picasso_and_american_art/picasso_woman_b.jpg

You tell me.

I think it's crap.

U tell me...

It's funny, I always picture you kind of looking like a Picasso painting.

snowspot66
05-11-2010, 10:23 AM
But don't you wish you weren't confined to the bounds of marketing all the time? Sometimes art that only the artist gets is a good thing.

There is stuff you do for work and stuff you do for yourself. That's pretty much how it's always been. The most famous and recognizable works before the 20th century were mostly commission work.

As for art only the artist gets. It's extremely subjective. I have issue with the fact that a lot of these people claim the title of artist, put their pile of garbage in a museum, and then expect everybody worship their "creativity". To me art and skill are inseparable. There are plenty of historical painters who had little technical skill but they were so ahead of the curve in concept that they still became extremely important artists. But we've reached the point where there isn't really anything new to do or explore. We understand color, light, form, etc. There's nothing left but ourselves. That makes a convenient escape route for anybody who wants to claim they are an artist and weld together a pile of scrap.

In my opinion the contemporary artist has to show skill at a highly competent level (in addition to concept where applicable) in order to be able to claim the title of artist. The title itself implies skill. Because if there is no skill what else is there when everything else has been done?

If somebody wants to claim that what they do isn't art and they aren't artists then I won't have issue with that at all. That would just be a making a point or statement. But it shouldn't instantly justify it as "art".

55CrushEm
05-11-2010, 10:52 AM
I liked my visit to the MOMA(Ignoring how cliche it is, Starry Night is my favourite painting), but there's certainly a realm of art for which I have no appreciation. My Roomy loves the best example:

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GfHw4ZU0rYE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Watch all of it.



What............the...........****?

Arkie
05-11-2010, 10:59 AM
J. M. W. Turner

http://www.artandperception.com/v01/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jm1-450.jpgThe Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last berth to be broken up
http://www.william-turner.org/Rain,-Steam-and-Speed-The-Great-Western-Railway--1844.jpgRain, Steam and Speed - The Great Western Railway
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fDPn2lwus6s/SuHBUM8lLnI/AAAAAAAAAaM/pK6ENzUpsMA/s400/jmw+turner+snowstorm.jpgSnowstorm
http://fmpoetry.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/chichester_canal_jmw_turner1.jpgChichester canal

OABB
05-11-2010, 11:01 AM
Remember that idiot pippa bacca who put on a wedding dress and hitchiked through turkey? Now that's art.

sixtimeseight
05-11-2010, 12:23 PM
I don't know if there is anything as unintentionally hilarious as a bunch of middle-aged, overweight, completely mediocre in every way cubicle jockeys calling some of the greatest artists and artwork of all time "crappy" and "dumb."

It's all just so hilarious and ironic. People who are going to die and be forgotten in 10 years because they are so completely worthless and average, talking **** about Picasso and Dali. Seriously, I can't even begin to tell you people how funny you are to me.

Dagmar
05-11-2010, 12:32 PM
Jasper Johns

http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/05/jasper-johns-flag.jpg

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/%7Edebora/jasper_johns_false_start.jpg

Miro
http://www.mcs.csueastbay.edu/%7Emalek/miro5.jpg

Mondrian
http://schools.bvsd.org/whittier/artsite/famousartimages/piet_mondrian1.jpg

Sowa
http://26.media.tumblr.com/6SpjmwIPhmvkt96q8LIUh7OYo1_400.jpg

55CrushEm
05-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Jasper Johns

http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/05/jasper-johns-flag.jpg

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/%7Edebora/jasper_johns_false_start.jpg

Miro
http://www.mcs.csueastbay.edu/%7Emalek/miro5.jpg

Mondrian
http://schools.bvsd.org/whittier/artsite/famousartimages/piet_mondrian1.jpg

Sowa
http://26.media.tumblr.com/6SpjmwIPhmvkt96q8LIUh7OYo1_400.jpg

Wow.....that Mondrian one looks REALLY tough to do. ::)

Dagmar
05-11-2010, 01:39 PM
Right, because that is the point. ::)

Killericon
05-11-2010, 01:40 PM
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/images/wyeth.christina.lg.jpg

Andrew Wyeth. I love this painting.

Oh, and just to see what kind of reaction this gets out of you guys:

http://www.helhet-kroppogsjel.no/files/2007-09-25-mark-rothko-no-14-1960-7893.jpg

Mark Rothko.

DHallblows
05-11-2010, 01:59 PM
I prefer Rothko's Broncos themed one:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/ARG/20288.jpg

MagicHef
05-11-2010, 02:10 PM
http://www.allartclassic.com/img/Claude_Oscar_Monet_MOC110.jpg

Rouen Cathedral in Morning Fog, Monet

I saw it in person and it was amazing. It commanded the entire room, it was as if all the other paintings may as well have been blank wall.

sixtimeseight
05-11-2010, 02:37 PM
Wow.....that Mondrian one looks REALLY tough to do. ::)

Oh man, I was so close to making a sarcastic post pretty much just like this one to insult all the mouthbreathers like 555CrushedEm, but luckily enough I didn't even have to.

DHallblows
05-11-2010, 02:57 PM
It's a tough call here. On one hand, I actually understand the artistic aspects of the more abstract painters (Mondrian, Dali, Picasso etc...) and really like some of their work. On the other hand, 6x8 agrees with me and he is constantly an idiot. I'm torn. I may have to change my opinion...

sisterhellfyre
05-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Remember that idiot pippa bacca who put on a wedding dress and hitchiked through turkey? Now that's art.

Ended up dead in a ditch for her trouble, too. Now that's sacrificing for your art.

sisterhellfyre
05-11-2010, 03:53 PM
Andrew Wyeth. I love this painting.

Oh, and just to see what kind of reaction this gets out of you guys:

Mark Rothko.

Love the Wyeth, but I'd walk right past the Rothko without a second look. So sue me. [shrug]

broncosteven
05-11-2010, 03:59 PM
There is good art and bad art just like music.

Everyone would be more complete if they took some time to visit a museum and just experience it.

Play2win
05-11-2010, 04:59 PM
I've been to The Dali.

The impressive thing about Dali is the SCALE of some of his works. Some of his paintings are over 10'-15' tall...

That being said, I'm not really a fan. I think he's kinda cliché and Kitsch. But that might be because surrealism and Dali was everywhere when I was growing up, I just got sick of it.

Dali was also so much the continuous self-promoter, which just rubbed me the wrong way.


One of my favorite Dali's:

Velázquez Painting the Infanta Margarita with the Lights and Shadows of His Own Glory

Its much more impressive in person...

http://www.harkeyahh.com/harkgall/Salvador%20Dali/Salvador%20Dali%20-%20valequez%20the%20infanta%20margarita%20with%20t he%20lights%20and%20shadows%20of%20hi.jpg

Arkie
05-11-2010, 05:04 PM
http://vclass.mgt.psu.ac.th/~parinya/MM/artlessons/cave_painting_l.jpg

Play2win
05-11-2010, 05:07 PM
http://www.allartclassic.com/img/Claude_Oscar_Monet_MOC110.jpg

Rouen Cathedral in Morning Fog, Monet

I saw it in person and it was amazing. It commanded the entire room, it was as if all the other paintings may as well have been blank wall.

I have also seen Monet in person. Probably the best Art I have actually seen in person.

Did you know he painted those Cathedral doors countless times, in all sorts of different lighting, weather conditions, and times of day and year. He wanted to see the affects the environment had on his different subjects, and in the end on his paintings. And, thus, a whole movement was started...

Play2win
05-11-2010, 05:09 PM
http://vclass.mgt.psu.ac.th/~parinya/MM/artlessons/cave_painting_l.jpg

Did you know you can't (or only select people) can actually see the original. They recreated it, Not to far from the original, which is where the public can see the cave paintings.

Play2win
05-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Art is just as much about Linguistics and Meaning, as it is about artistic expression, but you must have talent.

Picasso had all these things.

DenverBrit
05-11-2010, 05:51 PM
Dali is fine, but if you want really surreal, then H Bosch is the man.

15th Century fun.

http://www.follydiddledah.com/images/hieronymus_bosch.jpg

http://aubreynicole.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/delightd.jpg

http://czechabsinthe.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hieronymus_bosch1.jpg

Play2win
05-11-2010, 07:34 PM
Yeah, especially if you take a close look at The Garden of Earthly Delights... ;D

I heard it was all the rage for the kids to have in their dorm rooms back in the '70s (before my time...)

Archedamian
05-11-2010, 07:39 PM
I worked in a chemistry laboratory and in the lunchroom there was a print of Picasso's Guernica. I never could understand why it was there, except to make me depressed every time I ate lunch.

OABB
05-11-2010, 07:40 PM
Ended up dead in a ditch for her trouble, too. Now that's sacrificing for your art.

That or being incredibly stupid for attention.

azbroncfan
05-11-2010, 08:00 PM
You should go to burning man.

DenverBrit
05-11-2010, 08:30 PM
Yeah, especially if you take a close look at The Garden of Earthly Delights... ;D

I heard it was all the rage for the kids to have in their dorm rooms back in the '70s (before my time...)

It was indeed very popular. I couldn't find the left panel.....so here's the full triptych. Up close and personal. ;D

A great work.

http://squeakytoy.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/the-garden-of-earthly-delights.jpg

snowspot66
05-11-2010, 10:52 PM
Wow.....that Mondrian one looks REALLY tough to do. ::)

Actually at the time it was something pretty hard to do as it wasn't even something people could really comprehend in order to put down on canvas. He had a very specific goal and methodology in exploring color and form. At this point in history art was attempting to break down every component into the simplest forms. It all sounds very easy now but think of it as trying to writing an entire dictionary while still learning the language at the same time while simultaneously having most of the general population saying "you're doing it wrong".

snowspot66
05-11-2010, 10:54 PM
Oh, and just to see what kind of reaction this gets out of you guys:

http://www.helhet-kroppogsjel.no/files/2007-09-25-mark-rothko-no-14-1960-7893.jpg

Mark Rothko.

I'm not a fan of Rothko as an artist. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. However his works are interesting from a psychology point of view. They are quite literally massive and can't really be discussed or viewed properly other than in person.

Que
05-11-2010, 11:28 PM
Back to the OP... I hear ya but performance art is easy to shake your head at because it seems so idiotic when described in the unforgiving black and white of text. You really have to experience it to understand if it has any artistic value to you. I think you would be surprised if you visited it. It is kinda like installations. Anyhow I am headed to NYC shortly and will have to drop by the MOMA. Some resonate some don't.

Killericon
05-11-2010, 11:35 PM
I'm not a fan of Rothko as an artist. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. However his works are interesting from a psychology point of view. They are quite literally massive and can't really be discussed or viewed properly other than in person.

I enjoy them aesthetically, which is really my primary consideration. I don't get much intellectually, but then again, I'm no genius. He does great things with colour, though. I just put it up cause people were mocking Picasso.

Dr.5280
05-11-2010, 11:56 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2010/03/08/100308_audioslideshow_abramovic

broncocalijohn
05-12-2010, 12:05 AM
Best comment from that site:

Being with another while looking into the others eyes, we realize we are One.The tears release our fears, our feelings of isolation and loneliness in a world where human emotions are something to manipulate, coerce and commercialize for capitol gain.

To that I say, "Shut the **** up bitch!" Anyone that waits in line to look into her eyes and then cry is a ****ing bleeding heart lib. I mean, come on people. If I sat across from her, I would try to make her laugh her ass off.

broncocalijohn
05-12-2010, 12:11 AM
I'm not a fan of Rothko as an artist. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. However his works are interesting from a psychology point of view. They are quite literally massive and can't really be discussed or viewed properly other than in person.

i can make a comment on it. Seems some people bought that piece of **** for tons of money. Good for the artist. There is a sucker born every minute and are ready to be as fruity as possible to buy that. People that try to go to deep into things can be annoying. It is a red square. You want to get deep into that, go for it. I will be over at my kids finger painting table admiring something with feeling.

Mogulseeker
05-12-2010, 12:19 AM
It was indeed very popular. I couldn't find the left panel.....so here's the full triptych. Up close and personal. ;D

A great work.

http://squeakytoy.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/the-garden-of-earthly-delights.jpg

Bosch was incredible.

DHallblows
05-12-2010, 12:32 AM
Yeah, Bosch was hilarious. Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church! ROFL!

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 12:35 AM
i can make a comment on it. Seems some people bought that piece of **** for tons of money. Good for the artist. There is a sucker born every minute and are ready to be as fruity as possible to buy that. People that try to go to deep into things can be annoying. It is a red square. You want to get deep into that, go for it. I will be over at my kids finger painting table admiring something with feeling.

The size of a wall with it's own viewing bench.

I don't know how I feel about Rothko as an artist. I don't know enough about him, his skills and talent, what he was trying to do, and the context of the time period.

Killericon
05-12-2010, 12:40 AM
The size of a wall with it's own viewing bench.

I don't know how I feel about Rothko as an artist. I don't know enough about him, his skills and talent, what he was trying to do, and the context of the time period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/%27Proto-Form_%28B%29%27%2C_oil_on_fiberboard_work_by_Josep h_Albers%2C_1938%2C_Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture _Garden.jpg

Joesph Albers was very similar. For me, some of the stuff is very visually appealing, some of it isn't. None of it makes me question the meaning of life or anything, but it can be nice to look at, and that's most of what I ask out of art. Albers did the same design over and over, experimenting with different mixtures and blends of colours.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2490/3770698531_889b3a3776_o.jpg
http://www.epdlp.com/fotos/albers2.jpg
http://www.scottzagar.com/arthistory/images_gallery/182_albers2_t.jpg
http://www.jaimetreadwell.com/022joseph-albers2.jpg

uplink
05-12-2010, 12:56 AM
Bosch was incredible.

yeah Bosch's work is exceptional, hadn't been aware of it till these posts.

I wonder why there hasn't been a major hollywood film made about Dali. What a character, and he moved to the U.S. to explote the unbounded commercial nature of the country. Maybe people can't figure out how much of his persona was an act and how much was his true pyschology.

Play2win
05-12-2010, 12:56 AM
Joesph Albers was very similar. For me, some of the stuff is very visually appealing, some of it isn't. None of it makes me question the meaning of life or anything, but it can be nice to look at, and that's most of what I ask out of art. Albers did the same design over and over, experimenting with different mixtures and blends of colours.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2490/3770698531_889b3a3776_o.jpg


Thank you. I was trying to think of Joesph Albers's name. I saw the exhibit he did of the different hues/colors boxes inside boxes in person. They were all screen printed, and if I remember correctly there were over 50 PIECES !!!


He was playing with subtlety of shades, hues and values. He finely controlling the color contrast between the different hues. I spent a while in the gallery. It was really interesting to see so many hues/colors that were ever so slightly different.

It was real interesting to see in person.

Play2win
05-12-2010, 01:01 AM
yeah Bosch's work is exceptional, hadn't been aware of it till these posts.

I wonder why there hasn't been a major hollywood film made about Dali. What a character, and he moved to the U.S. to explote the unbounded commercial nature of the country. Maybe people can't figure out how much of his persona was an act and how much was his true pyschology.

I think pretty much all of it was an act. But that was his deal, so there you go...

Killericon
05-12-2010, 01:02 AM
yeah Bosch's work is exceptional, hadn't been aware of it till these posts.

I wonder why there hasn't been a major hollywood film made about Dali. What a character, and he moved to the U.S. to explote the unbounded commercial nature of the country. Maybe people can't figure out how much of his persona was an act and how much was his true pyschology.

It'd be a boring movie.

Man, I just cannot stop ragging on that guy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Dali_Allan_Warren.jpg

Thank you. I was trying to think of Joesph Albers's name. I saw the exhibit he did of the different hues/colors boxes inside boxes in person. They were all screen printed, and if I remember correctly there were over 50 PIECES !!!


He was playing with subtlety of shades, hues and values. He finely controlling the color contrast between the different hues. I spent a while in the gallery. It was really interesting to see so many hues/colors that were ever so slightly different.

It was real interesting to see in person.

I'm jealous. While I'm going to avoid commenting on him as an 'artist', what he does with colour is very interesting, and shows off the subtlety and nuance of it.

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 01:07 AM
yeah Bosch's work is exceptional, hadn't been aware of it till these posts.

I wonder why there hasn't been a major hollywood film made about Dali. What a character, and he moved to the U.S. to explote the unbounded commercial nature of the country. Maybe people can't figure out how much of his persona was an act and how much was his true pyschology.

Have you seen Destino?

Killericon
05-12-2010, 01:07 AM
Since this just seems to be a thread wherein we post art and talk about it, here's another favourite of mine:

http://www.artbeat123.com/marymac/OKeeffenSteiglitz/okeeffe_night.jpg

'City Night' by Georgia O'Keefe.

Play2win
05-12-2010, 02:11 AM
It'd be a boring movie.

Man, I just cannot stop ragging on that guy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Dali_Allan_Warren.jpg



I'm jealous. While I'm going to avoid commenting on him as an 'artist', what he does with colour is very interesting, and shows off the subtlety and nuance of it.

Exactly.

Its amazing the amount of different colors we can see. Staring a computer monitors all day, you get used to things a certain way, but you go to an exhibit like this, it can be eye opening.

Play2win
05-12-2010, 02:15 AM
Since this just seems to be a thread wherein we post art and talk about it, here's another favourite of mine:

http://www.artbeat123.com/marymac/OKeeffenSteiglitz/okeeffe_night.jpg

'City Night' by Georgia O'Keefe.

Wait a second, are you sure that is by Georgia O'Keefe... it doesn't look like a big, uhm... flower... ;D

DenverBrit
05-12-2010, 08:07 AM
Yeah, Bosch was hilarious. Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church! ROFL!

You look at a masterpiece and and that's what you see?? Interesting. 8')

Generally, his work is described as a warning against lust, and the central panel as a representation of the transience of worldly pleasure. In 1960, the art historian Ludwig von Baldass wrote that Bosch shows "how sin came into the world through the Creation of Eve, how fleshly lusts spread over the entire earth, promoting all the Deadly Sins, and how this necessarily leads straight to Hell".[88] De Tolnay wrote that the center panel represents "the nightmare of humanity", where "the artist's purpose above all is to show the evil consequences of sensual pleasure and to stress its ephemeral character".[89] Supporters of this view hold that the painting is a sequential narrative, depicting mankind's initial state of innocence in Eden, followed by the subsequent corruption of that innocence, and finally its punishment in Hell. At various times in its history, the triptych has been known as La Lujuria, The Sins of the World and The Wages of Sin.[38]

Bosch's imagery struck a chord with Joan Miró[102] and Salvador Dalí[103] in particular. Both knew his paintings firsthand, having seen The Garden of Earthly Delights in the Museo del Prado, and both regarded him as an art-historical mentor.

in contrast to Bosch's two other "true" triptychs, The Last Judgment (after 1482) and The Haywain (completed in 1490), God is absent from the central panel. Instead, this panel shows humanity acting with free will and engaging in various sexual activities. The right hand panel is believed to show God wreaking vengeance for these sins in a Last Judgment hellscape.[22]

the general view is that the extreme subject matter of the inner center and right panels make it unlikely that it was intended to function in a church or monastery, but was instead commissioned by a lay patron.[10]

Dagmar
05-12-2010, 09:09 AM
yeah Bosch's work is exceptional, hadn't been aware of it till these posts.

I wonder why there hasn't been a major hollywood film made about Dali. What a character, and he moved to the U.S. to explote the unbounded commercial nature of the country. Maybe people can't figure out how much of his persona was an act and how much was his true pyschology.

There is one on Pollock with Ed Harris. It is excellent.

http://www.popentertainment.com/pollock.jpg

Also stars the wonderful...

http://www.topnews.in/files/jennifer-connelly-4545.jpg

Rohirrim
05-12-2010, 09:16 AM
I love still lifes.

This is my favorite. By Zurbaran
http://americandigest.org/stilllifelemons.jpg

Que
05-12-2010, 09:27 AM
Wait a second, are you sure that is by Georgia O'Keefe... it doesn't look like a big, uhm... flower... ;D

Ya but the penetrating motif is still there... Of the city skyline I mean....

TheReverend
05-12-2010, 09:29 AM
http://i44.tinypic.com/29fa1l5.jpg

Quoydogs
05-12-2010, 11:06 AM
http://i44.tinypic.com/29fa1l5.jpg

This chick is so hot. I don't know what her name is but I know that if you sing good enough you can see her "O" face.:thumbs:

DHallblows
05-12-2010, 04:31 PM
You look at a masterpiece and and that's what you see?? Interesting. 8')

Hahaha yeah, what a dirty mind I have! How could I have possibly gotten orgies out of that?! ;D

Houshyamama
05-12-2010, 04:55 PM
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/studio-images/picasso_and_american_art/picasso_woman_b.jpg

You tell me.

I think it's crap.

U tell me...

My question is why are the yellow dots on the red chair so obviously misaligned with the geometry of the chair? That bothers the hell out of my OCD.

hookemhess
05-12-2010, 05:26 PM
I looked through the artist's flickr gallery of the people who sat across from her here http://www.flickr.com/photos/themuseumofmodernart/4584470410/in/set-72157623741486824/

and saw Jennifer Carpenter (from Dexter) at Day 49, Portrait 12.

DenverBrit
05-12-2010, 05:50 PM
Hahaha yeah, what a dirty mind I have! How could I have possibly gotten orgies out of that?! ;D

It's your comment:
Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church!
that was curious. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"the artist's purpose above all is to show the evil consequences of sensual pleasure and to stress its ephemeral character"
....this panel shows humanity acting with free will and engaging in various sexual activities. The right hand panel is believed to show God wreaking vengeance for these sins in a Last Judgment hellscape.


I guess one has to think it through first.......or just knee jerk. ;)

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 06:34 PM
My question is why are the yellow dots on the red chair so obviously misaligned with the geometry of the chair? That bothers the hell out of my OCD.

Because the geometry of the chair is misaligned. Assuming it is a chair of course.

What you see is the chair represented from a front view, side view, and any other view he may have wanted to paint it from. The female face is also painted with multiple perspectives. One in profile (the left side) and one at full or 3/4 (the right side). That's why the forms sometimes feel like they have volume even though you are looking at something that is very flat.

Taco John
05-12-2010, 06:34 PM
It's not crap and I'll tell you why.

Picasso is only famous to the general public for his works like that. Some of them are very beautiful visually.

Why you can never consider Picasso as crap (well you can, but you shouldn't) is because the man was talented. I'm talking child prodigy talent. At the age of 12 he was as good or better than any other classical artist that you can name.

He was so good he had no interest in doing what had been done before so he explored aspects of painting and art that had never been approached before. For better or worse he was one of the major catalysts for almost every major movement in the 20th century.

A lot of Picasso's work seems to me like a guy coasting on his reputation. That's not to say it wasn't art. I think he might have played along with it, and put together stuff that he knew was terrible but would draw raves just for his namesake. I could be wrong.

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 06:39 PM
It's your comment:
Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church!
that was curious. How did you arrive at that conclusion?



I guess one has to think it through first.......or just knee jerk. ;)

Unfortunately the works of that time period could be highly symbolic with what was on the canvas and most of that has been completely lost on us today. A person back then would be able too look at it and understand it right away.

The way they tried to cram all of that stuff in a single painting can make it feel more like a Where's Waldo? book. You have to be educated specifically in that artistic time period to even begin to understand and remember a fraction of the symbols.

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 06:44 PM
A lot of Picasso's work seems to me like a guy coasting on his reputation. That's not to say it wasn't art. I think he might have played along with it, and put together stuff that he knew was terrible but would draw raves just for his namesake. I could be wrong.

I would be shocked if there weren't a few pieces he just banged out in a day or two for cash.

He and another artist (forget the name) sparked most of the movements in the 20th century so he obviously became incredibly famous. He probably could have sold his used toilet paper if he wanted to.

He was a bit different for an artist in a lot of ways though. He didn't really have a style he stuck too. He picked one up and put another down as he pleased. He floated through the different movements, going back and forward, for most of his career. He never really faded away like most of the other historically important artists in the 20th century. He just did what he wanted to do.

Houshyamama
05-12-2010, 07:03 PM
Because the geometry of the chair is misaligned. Assuming it is a chair of course.

What you see is the chair represented from a front view, side view, and any other view he may have wanted to paint it from. The female face is also painted with multiple perspectives. One in profile (the left side) and one at full or 3/4 (the right side). That's why the forms sometimes feel like they have volume even though you are looking at something that is very flat.

Ah, I kind of see it. Kind of. Regardless, it is interesting to look at and holds my attention... which is saying something.

DenverBrit
05-12-2010, 07:54 PM
Unfortunately the works of that time period could be highly symbolic with what was on the canvas and most of that has been completely lost on us today. A person back then would be able too look at it and understand it right away.

The way they tried to cram all of that stuff in a single painting can make it feel more like a Where's Waldo? book. You have to be educated specifically in that artistic time period to even begin to understand and remember a fraction of the symbols.

Absolutely. Bosch was unique.
Nothing like his work had been seen before his was discovered.
He was basically unknown in the 15th century, and art historians have debated the meaning of his works for centuries.
And some debate has taken place as to who commissioned it and where the masterwork was hung.
The Bible conjured up horrific images in the Medieval period, as did the actions of those who lived during those times.
Bosch appears to have captured Eden, then decadence then retribution in an original work appropriate for the period.
As someone pointed out earlier, it became very popular in the 70's, as did surrealism and a lot of drugs.
Bosch created the genre and has influenced surrealists ever since.
I had originally posted the piece because of the Dali interest.
I'm still trying to figure out where the 'orgy on a church altar' came from. Hilarious!

Mogulseeker
05-12-2010, 09:11 PM
The controversial "Piss Christ" - the artist received $15,000 from the national endowment for the arts to pee in a jar, put a crucifix in it, then take a picture of it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg

snowspot66
05-12-2010, 09:11 PM
Ah, I kind of see it. Kind of. Regardless, it is interesting to look at and holds my attention... which is saying something.

Honestly that's the best way to view Cubist paintings. They weren't intended to be a blocky Rorschach test.

Mogulseeker
05-12-2010, 09:11 PM
Absolutely. Bosch was unique.
Nothing like his work had been seen before his was discovered.
He was basically unknown in the 15th century, and art historians have debated the meaning of his works for centuries.
And some debate has taken place as to who commissioned it and where the masterwork was hung.
The Bible conjured up horrific images in the Medieval period, as did the actions of those who lived during those times.
Bosch appears to have captured Eden, then decadence then retribution in an original work appropriate for the period.
As someone pointed out earlier, it became very popular in the 70's, as did surrealism and a lot of drugs.
Bosch created the genre and has influenced surrealists ever since.
I had originally posted the piece because of the Dali interest.
I'm still trying to figure out where the 'orgy on a church altar' came from. Hilarious!

I wrote my senior honors humanities thesis in High School on Bosch

sixtimeseight
05-12-2010, 10:41 PM
A lot of Picasso's work seems to me like a guy coasting on his reputation. That's not to say it wasn't art. I think he might have played along with it, and put together stuff that he knew was terrible but would draw raves just for his namesake. I could be wrong.


I don't know if there is anything as unintentionally hilarious as a bunch of middle-aged, overweight, completely mediocre in every way cubicle jockeys calling some of the greatest artists and artwork of all time "crappy" and "dumb."

It's all just so hilarious and ironic. People who are going to die and be forgotten in 10 years because they are so completely worthless and average, talking **** about Picasso and Dali. Seriously, I can't even begin to tell you people how funny you are to me..

Killericon
05-12-2010, 11:11 PM
A lot of Picasso's work seems to me like a guy coasting on his reputation. That's not to say it wasn't art. I think he might have played along with it, and put together stuff that he knew was terrible but would draw raves just for his namesake. I could be wrong.

I get that feeling with Pollock. The first piece Pollock did was genius. After that, well...

.

This is the same logic you hear sometimes about sports. "You couldn't do any better, so shut the **** up."

Give me a break, dude. I think the artists we're criticizing would want us to criticize rather than blindly accept that it's good because someone else thinks it is.

Also, damn. Way to be a ****ing prick.

Mogulseeker
05-12-2010, 11:32 PM
I get that feeling with Pollock. The first piece Pollock did was genius. After that, well...


Honestly, I feel as if that is the case with a lot, if not most, artists.

I remember agreeing with my humanities professor my freshmen year of college - What did Andy Warhol honestly contribute to the art world? Why did Alan Ginsburg honestly contribute to the literature world?

Quoydogs
05-13-2010, 12:33 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=26569&stc=1&d=1273732277

This is some of the best art I have seen in my life. It can make me happy, sad or pissed off, but It is always good to look at.

DHallblows
05-13-2010, 10:32 AM
It's your comment:
Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church!
that was curious. How did you arrive at that conclusion?



I guess one has to think it through first.......or just knee jerk. ;)

I really don't understand what you're getting at here...there's a huge orgy occurring the the middle panel of an altarpiece. It was an easy conclusion to come to. That's the same conclusion everyone had when the piece first came out, it was very poorly accepted because there were naked people in the middle panel. There's nothing knee-jerk about me stating what everyone said when this piece was shown

the general view is that the extreme subject matter of the inner center and right panels make it unlikely that it was intended to function in a church or monastery, but was instead commissioned by a lay patron.[10]
The beauty of historical paintings (and art in general) is different opinions. I personally learned in class that it WAS commissioned by a church, but that source could be mistaken.

If you were following this thread you would have noticed that I understand art, specifically it's history. I'm not one of the guys saying this picture is sweet cuz it has nekid ppl on it!!1!!!11!

To sum up. Bosch is hilarious because he put an orgy in the middle of an altarpiece. And I like the back of the altarpiece better anyway:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3975809776_0e6f4fb05b.jpg
"God Creating the Earth"

Tombstone RJ
05-13-2010, 10:42 AM
I'm no art history major, but even I can see Bosch's point in that three piece work he did: sexual immorality leads to hell.

DenverBrit
05-13-2010, 11:09 AM
I really don't understand what you're getting at here...there's a huge orgy occurring the the middle panel of an altarpiece. It was an easy conclusion to come to. That's the same conclusion everyone had when the piece first came out, it was very poorly accepted because there were naked people in the middle panel. There's nothing knee-jerk about me stating what everyone said when this piece was shown


The beauty of historical paintings (and art in general) is different opinions. I personally learned in class that it WAS commissioned by a church, but that source could be mistaken.

If you were following this thread you would have noticed that I understand art, specifically it's history. I'm not one of the guys saying this picture is sweet cuz it has nekid ppl on it!!1!!!11!

To sum up. Bosch is hilarious because he put an orgy in the middle of an altarpiece. And I like the back of the altarpiece better anyway:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3975809776_0e6f4fb05b.jpg
"God Creating the Earth"

It's the 'Altar' piece that I'm curious about. If you were taught it was for an church that's not the conclusion that most art historians arrived at when considering the period and the content of the work. Of all scenarios, it was the most unlikely. That's why I question why you were so certain it was meant for a church instead of it being just a work of art.

I wasn't questioning if you understood art, I was questioning you about the function of the piece,. The work itself is self explanatory.

DenverBrit
05-13-2010, 11:18 AM
I wrote my senior honors humanities thesis in High School on Bosch

Excellent choice. I'm sure you enjoyed the research. :thumbsup:

DHallblows
05-13-2010, 11:41 AM
It's the 'Altar' piece that I'm curious about. If you were taught it was for an church that's not the conclusion that most art historians arrived at when considering the period and the content of the work. Of all scenarios, it was the most unlikely. That's why I question why you were so certain it was meant for a church instead of it being just a work of art.

I wasn't questioning if you understood art, I was questioning you about the function of the piece,. The work itself is self explanatory.

Well it is an altarpiece. I realize that doesn't necessarily mean it's for a church, but it's a painted, folding, 3 piece object. If we disagree on the definition of an altarpiece, that's an entirely different story I guess

DenverBrit
05-13-2010, 12:05 PM
Well it is an altarpiece. I realize that doesn't necessarily mean it's for a church, but it's a painted, folding, 3 piece object. If we disagree on the definition of an altarpiece, that's an entirely different story I guess

Not disagreeing with you on the triptych, but that it was meant for a 'church.'
"Nothing like putting orgies on an ALTER for a church!"

Not all triptychs are altarpieces let alone meant for display in a church.
In Medieval times, the commissioning of religious works was common amongst the wealthy.
The garden of earthly delights was considered to be such a piece.

This painting was probably made for the private enjoyment of a noble family

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/

snowspot66
05-14-2010, 12:38 AM
Honestly, I feel as if that is the case with a lot, if not most, artists.

I remember agreeing with my humanities professor my freshmen year of college - What did Andy Warhol honestly contribute to the art world? Why did Alan Ginsburg honestly contribute to the literature world?

I ****ing hate Warhol. A grade A douche bag with good marketing skills. Didn't even make most of the **** to come out of his workshop. Had a bunch of lackeys to make it for him.

snowspot66
05-14-2010, 12:42 AM
Somebody uploaded Destino. If you guys haven't seen this then do so as soon as possible. Disney takes these down really fast.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GU_f2vqEgGM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GU_f2vqEgGM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

It's a Dali/Disney collaboration that never got made. They found the concept work and other materials for the production and took it through to production in the 90's I believe. Never been released to the public as far as I know. They keep teasing it as being released on upcoming collections but always pull it out and delay it for some reason.

hookemhess
05-14-2010, 12:57 AM
I don't know if there is anything as unintentionally hilarious as a bunch of middle-aged, overweight, completely mediocre in every way cubicle jockeys calling some of the greatest artists and artwork of all time "crappy" and "dumb."

It's all just so hilarious and ironic. People who are going to die and be forgotten in 10 years because they are so completely worthless and average, talking **** about Picasso and Dali. Seriously, I can't even begin to tell you people how funny you are to me.

http://mises.org/images4/snob.jpg