- 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: The great masters have more in common with Thomas Kincaid than Basquiat
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:13 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:13 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Same with visual art. The problem though is sometimes there just isn’t something going on beneath the surface (which is perfectly fine), instead of just saying “it is what it is and I felt like making it” the art world compels them to make up a lot of nonsense about it so it’ll sell.
Art should make you feel something. That will be something different for various people. Even the Kincaide painting makes me feel good. Not anything deep, not really introspective but relaxed, inviting and warm.
1
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:17 am to Zappas Stache
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/31/18 at 9:21 am
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:20 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Art should make you feel something. That will be something different for various people. Even the Kincaide painting makes me feel good. Not anything deep, not really introspective but relaxed, inviting and warm.
Which is fine and I guess my point being that sometimes you legitimately do have to did a little deeper to get the feels. The art world has become extremely lazy with the concept though
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:22 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
The art world has become extremely lazy with the concept though
I agree. But pop culture and art culture in general is pretty damn shallow right now across the board.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:25 am to DavidTheGnome
This post was edited on 3/31/18 at 9:28 am
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:29 am to UGATiger26
quote:
I’ve always loved Bill Wattersons strips that poke fun at the modern art world.
Calvin & Hobbes - the GOAT comic strip. Way more impactful than Kincaid or Basquiat.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:30 am to Bison
Bison,
Is that oil or acrylic or something else?
Is that oil or acrylic or something else?
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:31 am to RogerTheShrubber
But look how innovative! It makes you feel something! No one had ever dunked a crucifix in urine before! Genius!
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:33 am to iAmBatman
quote:Why don't you add something of value instead of being a little twat?
ITT: people that don’t know anything about art talking about art
You retards have no idea what you’re talking about
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:37 am to mdomingue
I agree and listen to both. I do not discount one over the other. I see something creative and stuff that doesn't appeal to me.
The point was, I don't necessarily like Nirvana but they get credited for turning the music industry on its head. Pollack pretty much did the same thing in the art world to the point it's still being discussed 60 years later on message board. It's not like Pollack wasn't a trained artists before hand either.
Even Rothko wanted to write a book at the time comparing the art of children and the work of modern painters. I believe he even felt his work being bought up by the elitists was bullshite.
Look at Robert Mueck's work. He's modern. Is pretentious or bullshite? I would say it's better than any classical sculpture.
The point was, I don't necessarily like Nirvana but they get credited for turning the music industry on its head. Pollack pretty much did the same thing in the art world to the point it's still being discussed 60 years later on message board. It's not like Pollack wasn't a trained artists before hand either.
Even Rothko wanted to write a book at the time comparing the art of children and the work of modern painters. I believe he even felt his work being bought up by the elitists was bullshite.
Look at Robert Mueck's work. He's modern. Is pretentious or bullshite? I would say it's better than any classical sculpture.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:39 am to biglego
quote:
I meant, is something “innovative” just Bc it’s never been done before? Some things have never been done before Bc they are stupid.
Take Pollack for instance. I don't like his art, but it probably was innovative. I couldn't care less about art that doesn't move me. But the great ones are typically innovative.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:45 am to biglego
quote:
But look how innovative! It makes you feel something! No one had ever dunked a crucifix in urine before! Genius!
I assume that's a photograph. And if you didn't tell me that was urine or get all caught up in whatever "meaning" someone was trying to say by using it, I'd say that photo is kinda neat.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 9:47 am to Cdawg
quote:
Would you rather listen to Mozart or pretentious radiohead?
There's considerable selection bias here. Any music we know today from Mozart's period was the very best of its time. It was good enough that people still listen to it. There was plenty of garbage back then that is forgotten.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 10:01 am to foshizzle
I'm not saying either is right or wrong but more of what do you prefer? There's a lot of garbage music being consumed. Why would you prefer to listen to that over the great classics?
Posted on 3/31/18 at 10:04 am to DavidTheGnome
Tinfoil theory: “Modern Art” is just a cover for money laundering and trafficking contraband around the world. They use big crates of “art” to ship drugs and sell “art” for rediculous sums to make the drug or sex trafficking sales seem legitimate. The entire art scene is just a cover for sinister activity.
This post was edited on 3/31/18 at 10:06 am
Posted on 3/31/18 at 10:58 am to Zappas Stache
quote:
This is a sad statement. For as long as man has creted art, a basic background knowledge has been necessary to understand it.
Says who? I think some of Basquiat's stuff looks cool, but knowing he was a heroin addict that used to bang Madonna doesn't make me understand it any better.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 11:28 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
assume that's a photograph. And if you didn't tell me that was urine or get all caught up in whatever "meaning" someone was trying to say by using it, I'd say that photo is kinda neat.
Yeah, it’s a photograph. On it’s face, it could look neat. But it’s the famous controversial photo titled “Piss Christ” and the urine and “meaning” are the reason it was made.
Sure, it’s original. Probably no photographer had thought to do that previously. But is it innovative? Was it made with skill? What is the reason it’s considered (by many) worthwhile art? Is it art Bc it makes the viewer “feel” something? Things can offend without being art.
Posted on 3/31/18 at 11:31 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
I assume that's a photograph. And if you didn't tell me that was urine or get all caught up in whatever "meaning" someone was trying to say by using it, I'd say that photo is kinda neat.
But if it were some photography by a random Flickr poster, would you even pay attention to it?
Posted on 3/31/18 at 1:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
But if it were some photography by a random Flickr poster, would you even pay attention to it?
It was a random photo on TD to me and I thought it looked neat.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News