- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man.......i don't understand art at all
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:38 am to tigerdup07
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:38 am to tigerdup07
To me, photo-realistic painting is only interesting in the larger historical narrative of the advancement of the medium. Once we reached the point in art history that we achieved the requisite knowledge and skill to accurately reflect the real world, continuing to do so is no longer pushing the envelope in any meaningful way. At that point, it's less art and more just... technical?
To me, art is anything created with the intent to evoke an emotional response. Good art does so well; bad art does so poorly.
I vacillate between wanting to draw a distinction between art and décor. I've seen stunningly beautiful maps, exploded diagrams, technical drawings, etc, in my lifetime. But that gets into a messy debate concerning whether something must be intended as art, or whether something can become art independent of the intent of the creator.
To me, art is anything created with the intent to evoke an emotional response. Good art does so well; bad art does so poorly.
I vacillate between wanting to draw a distinction between art and décor. I've seen stunningly beautiful maps, exploded diagrams, technical drawings, etc, in my lifetime. But that gets into a messy debate concerning whether something must be intended as art, or whether something can become art independent of the intent of the creator.
5
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:41 am to Bottom9
It doesn’t have to be realism or hyper realism for me to be able to recognize art. It doesn’t need to look like a photograph, although I appreciate it when it does.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:42 am to tigerdup07
Art is mostly about money laundering these days.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:43 am to Joshjrn
I understand what you are saying and actually agree with most of it, but wow do you sound pretentious
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:44 am to Darth_Vader
I’m pretty sure I doodled this in high school in my notebook.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:47 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
I understand what you are saying and actually agree with most of it, but wow do you sound pretentious
If it makes you feel any better, as I was typing it out, I had the thought of "god damn, this sounds pretentious..."
Though in my defense, it's kind of hard to have a discussion about anything esoteric (yeah, yeah...) like art, philosophy, etc, without either sounding like a pedantic a-hole or a caveman. It's really hard to land in between
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:47 am to tigerdup07
quote:
i see a painting that looks like someone gave a 3 year old a can of paint and a brush. then.....i get hammered by someone who thinks it's incredible.
1) Modern Art is a money laundering and bribery scheme. Values are arbitrary, and paintings are a good way of making payments.
2) Modern Art is the product of liberal values, and the rejection of beauty, in any form.
The campaign to normalize obesity is another good example of this. Rather than lift people up, liberalism seeks to denigrate humanity, and wallow in the worst of modernity.
It’s an inherently degenerate philosophy, and way of life.
This post was edited on 4/17/21 at 6:20 pm
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:47 am to Dennis Celery
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:48 am to tigerdup07
The same goes with anything collectible.
People paying millions of dollars for a baseball card. It’s just a photograph on an index card.
Or a collectible car. All cars should depreciate, but some don’t. Like my dad said, they all look the same when you are laying under it and it’s dripping oil in your eye.
Look at all the junk I buy and sell. I know it’s junk, but I also know someone will give me 100x what I paid for it.
People paying millions of dollars for a baseball card. It’s just a photograph on an index card.
Or a collectible car. All cars should depreciate, but some don’t. Like my dad said, they all look the same when you are laying under it and it’s dripping oil in your eye.
Look at all the junk I buy and sell. I know it’s junk, but I also know someone will give me 100x what I paid for it.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:50 am to Joshjrn
quote:
To me, photo-realistic painting is only interesting in the larger historical narrative of the advancement of the medium. Once we reached the point in art history that we achieved the requisite knowledge and skill to accurately reflect the real world, continuing to do so is no longer pushing the envelope in any meaningful way. At that point, it's less art and more just... technical?
To me, art is anything created with the intent to evoke an emotional response. Good art does so well; bad art does so poorly.
I vacillate between wanting to draw a distinction between art and décor. I've seen stunningly beautiful maps, exploded diagrams, technical drawings, etc, in my lifetime. But that gets into a messy debate concerning whether something must be intended as art, or whether something can become art independent of the intent of the creator.
I feel like you took a deep breath of your own fart after posting this
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:51 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Though in my defense, it's kind of hard to have a discussion about anything esoteric (yeah, yeah...) like art, philosophy, etc, without either sounding like a pedantic a-hole or a caveman. It's really hard to land in between
You have that 100% right and I’m glad you saw that I said you sound pretentious and not that you are. Talking about abstract ideas and concept like art almost forces you to speak with an air of condescension
Posted on 4/17/21 at 9:53 am to Joshjrn
I would encourage anyone who thinks abstract modern art is child's play to go try and replicate it, it'll be hilarious.
Listen, I'm not saying it's beautiful or interesting, but most of it is well beyond the capabilities of one of us.
Now, whether it's something the average art school kid can accomplish (in skill, maybe not in vision) is a fair question IMO.
Listen, I'm not saying it's beautiful or interesting, but most of it is well beyond the capabilities of one of us.
Now, whether it's something the average art school kid can accomplish (in skill, maybe not in vision) is a fair question IMO.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:15 am to Dennis Celery
quote:
I’m pretty sure I doodled this in high school in my notebook.
Meh, not my cup of tea, but I still think your post misses the point. Art is about emotion. If no one connects with that piece, it's bad art. If people connect with it, it's good art. If some people connect with it extremely strongly, it might be great art.
I'll give an example:
That's an etching. The original is about three inches tall by two inches wide. It's a self portrait of the artist, created in 1630 in a style he didn't use much at that point, as a study on facial expressions to use in future paintings. From a technical perspective, that etching is at a level of skill that could be replicated by any decent second year art student. But I love that etching. Not because it's beautiful, or because it would be difficult to make. I love it because of how it made me feel one day. I was walking through a museum, I honestly can't remember which at this point, and saw this tiny etching on the wall. And I stopped in my tracks. I squinted a bit and walked up to it (again, 3"x2"). And I beamed a smile. And I just stood there, staring at it. That tiny etching made me feel connected, on a very human level, with a man who lived hundreds of years before I was born. It startled me, it made me happy, it made me think. It made me feel a little more alive in that moment than I had in the moments before.
And that's why, if I could choose to own a single piece from this artist, in spite of it arguably being among the least he ever produced, I would choose this tiny etched self portrait of Rembrandt.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:18 am to Joshjrn
quote:
That's an etching. The original is about three inches tall by two inches wide. It's a self portrait of the artist, created in 1630 in a style he didn't use much at that point, as a study on facial expressions to use in future paintings. From a technical perspective, that etching is at a level of skill that could be replicated by any decent second year art student. But I love that etching. Not because it's beautiful, or because it would be difficult to make. I love it because of how it made me feel one day. I was walking through a museum, I honestly can't remember which at this point, and saw this tiny etching on the wall. And I stopped in my tracks. I squinted a bit and walked up to it (again, 3"x2"). And I beamed a smile. And I just stood there, staring at it. That tiny etching made me feel connected, on a very human level, with a man who lived hundreds of years before I was born. It startled me, it made me happy, it made me think. It made me feel a little more alive in that moment than I had in the moments before. And that's why, if I could choose to own a single piece from this artist, in spite of it arguably being among the least he ever produced, I would choose this tiny etched self portrait of Rembrandt.
Do you hyperextend your pinky finger from stretching it out too far while sipping your afternoon tea?
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:23 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Do you hyperextend your pinky finger from stretching it out too far while sipping your afternoon tea?
It's still morning, and my pinky was elegantly just-so near the base of my cup of coffee.
Try to keep up.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:28 am to tigerdup07
I'm on your side OP. My wife dragged me to "White Linen Night" a few years ago to the so-called "Art District" of N.O. to walk in and out of galleries to look at the art they had on display and for sale.
I fail to understand what makes so much of it even able to be called art, much less what they were asking for the paintings.
One gallery had canvases painted in white and many of them had 3-6 streaks of color on them that criss-crossed each other and they were priced in the thousands.
I'm convinced it took more time for the "artist" to come up with a name for these paintings than it did to actually paint them. The names were the epitome of pretentious, on even par with the asking prices.
I fail to understand what makes so much of it even able to be called art, much less what they were asking for the paintings.
One gallery had canvases painted in white and many of them had 3-6 streaks of color on them that criss-crossed each other and they were priced in the thousands.
I'm convinced it took more time for the "artist" to come up with a name for these paintings than it did to actually paint them. The names were the epitome of pretentious, on even par with the asking prices.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:33 am to Lima Whiskey
I wish I could upvote this again. Leftism is the religion of hate and that’s reflected in modern art.
Posted on 4/17/21 at 10:39 am to CHEDBALLZ
its what you get out of it . i love historical fiction paintings of classical myths
Posted on 4/17/21 at 11:42 am to Oilfieldbiology
Dat arse Doe!
This post was edited on 4/17/21 at 11:43 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News