Art
I think an active art thread is in order http://www.cuneo.us/tesmw/browse.php?img=picture.jpg&dir=Twitch
Sorry its my only place to upload and I suppose it doesnt like "direct linking" if that what that is called
bump......it has to be one of Murphys laws that all the threads in the forum get replied to just as youre posting a new topic
ugh....bump
Bump for an artist.
Jim
Gaeltach
10-04-2004, 01:49
Not bad, but it's kinda light and hard to distinguish any details.
Is that you? Nice sketch! :)
Not bad, but it's kinda light and hard to distinguish any details.
heh....I never said I was very good I just started the thread in hopes that someone whos better than me would come by and hijack it.
Gaeltach
10-04-2004, 01:56
lol...nice
Is that you? Nice sketch! :)
Nope not me just some random black guy.......black people are easier to draw because the shading adds realism......and thay have lots of it
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 02:33
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 02:59
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
I'm not reading about him. Quite frankly, I don't know who Mr. Pollack is. But art history's only interesting with ancient and mideival art if you ask me.
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:06
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:06
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
What's so great about "old" art?
Please explain.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:07
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
I'm glad Pollock is dead he has already ruined art enough.
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:08
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
What's so great about "old" art?
Please explain.
It's not that old art is interesting, it's that new art isn't. Although some modern artists like Andre Bottero and John Currin are very interesting :D .
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:10
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
Incertonia
10-04-2004, 03:10
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:11
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
What's so great about "old" art?
Please explain.
It's not that old art is interesting, it's that new art isn't. Although some modern artists like Andre Bottero and John Currin are very interesting :D .
Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say: "I don't find modern art interesting" instead of making a statement that is obviously wrong?
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:12
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
I live in upstate New York. Any galleries nearby that have his works, that you know of?
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
They take no talent and no matter what he leads you to believe they have no emotion.......I could see this as alright if it was meant to be painted on peoples walls but it is not art.......its paint thrown on canvas
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:13
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
:shock:
Relax, I misread a bit.
But both still hold true, he's dead and he never used cheese
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:15
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
They take to talen and no matter what he leads you to believe they have no emotion.......I could see this as alright if it was meant to be painted on peoples walls but it is not art.......its paint thrown on canvas
You seem to have your own definition of art pretty much nailed down: So, what is art?
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:15
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
:shock:
Relax, I misread a bit.
But both still hold true, he's dead and he never used cheese
Ok. It's just that, at other times, I know you say something just to make me angry. But I'll forgive you this time.
Incertonia
10-04-2004, 03:16
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
I live in upstate New York. Any galleries nearby that have his works, that you know of?There was a showing at the NY MOMA last year, and I think they show some of his work in their regular rotation. That would be the first place I'd suggest checking out.
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
They take to talen and no matter what he leads you to believe they have no emotion.......I could see this as alright if it was meant to be painted on peoples walls but it is not art.......its paint thrown on canvas
You seem to have your own definition of art pretty much nailed down: So, what is art?
I do not have a definition of art I just dont like it when people make a mockery of people who have spent years to make things that convey a message and are beautiful or horrible and then they get fame for this.....forgive me if I get angered by this.
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:18
I'm reading a few books related to art history. First, the Da Vinci Code, which I'm reading. I'm only a few hundred pages in it, but I've learned things about his paintins I never knew. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the horizon is slightly lower on the left than the right of her. Or another thing, it may be an anagram of Amon L'isa. Amon is the Egyptian god of fertility. Isis is the goddess of fertility, but her Latinized name is L'isa.
Just make sure you stop reading the Art history when it gets to Jackson Pollack......its downhill from there
What's so great about "old" art?
Please explain.
It's not that old art is interesting, it's that new art isn't. Although some modern artists like Andre Bottero and John Currin are very interesting :D .
Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say: "I don't find modern art interesting" instead of making a statement that is obviously wrong?
I love being oxymoronic.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:19
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
:shock:
Relax, I misread a bit.
But both still hold true, he's dead and he never used cheese
Ok. It's just that, at other times, I know you say something just to make me angry. But I'll forgive you this time.
I assure you, I don't say things just to make you angry... But since this thread isn't about politics, let's keep it civil, shall we? :D
So, back on topic:
Pollock isn't really "contemporary", he was part of the pop-movement, which is pretty much in the past (except for guys like Julian Opie).
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:20
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
I live in upstate New York. Any galleries nearby that have his works, that you know of?There was a showing at the NY MOMA last year, and I think they show some of his work in their regular rotation. That would be the first place I'd suggest checking out.
I just went to New York last February. We didn't want to go to MOMA because their main location in Manhattan is being renovated. They're in Queens right now, and that's too far from Manhattan to go to. But I did go to the Whitney. I hope he wasn't there, because I missed him if he was.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:20
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
They take to talen and no matter what he leads you to believe they have no emotion.......I could see this as alright if it was meant to be painted on peoples walls but it is not art.......its paint thrown on canvas
You seem to have your own definition of art pretty much nailed down: So, what is art?
I do not have a definition of art I just dont like it when people make a mockery of people who have spent years to make things that convey a message and are beautiful or horrible and then they get fame for this.....forgive me if I get angered by this.
Do you have an example of art that you like?
Do you have an example of art that you like?
Yes actually I like Goings Durer Da vinci Raphael Michaelangelo Flack Dali Rembrandt Renoir........thats enough I could list more but the bottom line is I have respect for almost all artists because I know they are far more skilled than I am but people who throw things without any meaning or emotion are no artists.
Purly Euclid
10-04-2004, 03:25
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
:shock:
Relax, I misread a bit.
But both still hold true, he's dead and he never used cheese
Ok. It's just that, at other times, I know you say something just to make me angry. But I'll forgive you this time.
I assure you, I don't say things just to make you angry... But since this thread isn't about politics, let's keep it civil, shall we? :D
So, back on topic:
Pollock isn't really "contemporary", he was part of the pop-movement, which is pretty much in the past (except for guys like Julian Opie).
Agreed. It's remaining civil. Anyhow, pop art did produce some great artists, like Andy Warhol. I got the honor of going to a private gallery, and saw one of his famous Marilyn Monroe photos. They look like a positive or a negative, depending on what angle you look at it from. Then there's other paintings of his, like a Campbell's can, a statue of a bull with M&Ms painted on it, everything. Very eye apealing, and a good use of realism.
But other than that, pop art has pretty much died. Pop music's also pretty much dead. So what's there left with popular culture? It's dying, it seems.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:30
Do you have an example of art that you like?
Yes actually I like Goings Durer Da vinci Raphael Michaelangelo Flack Dali Rembrandt Renoir........thats enough I could list more but the bottom line is I have respect for almost all artists because I know they are far more skilled than I am but people who throw things without any meaning or emotion are no artists.
Well, my opinion is that the invention of the camera made many of these guys unnecessary since they paint "photoreality".
As for Dali...You can make much better images that convey "surrealism" by using photoshop, so why bother with painting at all? (and why bother with surrealism anyway)
Art is in my view communication, I don't see why it has to be all about "craftmanship", sure it's nice to have the skill...But that old stuff has been explored allready (most of it about a 100 years ago) and it's time to evolve.
I'm not a huge fan of Pollock either, but I wouldn't be so full of self-importance to declare that his work isn't art.
Anything you like can be art, but it doesn't have to be "good" art.
Do you have an example of art that you like?
Yes actually I like Goings Durer Da vinci Raphael Michaelangelo Flack Dali Rembrandt Renoir........thats enough I could list more but the bottom line is I have respect for almost all artists because I know they are far more skilled than I am but people who throw things without any meaning or emotion are no artists.
Well, my opinion is that the invention of the camera made many of these guys unnecessary since they paint "photoreality".
As for Dali...You can make much better images that convey "surrealism" by using photoshop, so why bother with painting at all? (and why bother with surrealism anyway)
Art is in my view communication, I don't see why it has to be all about "craftmanship", sure it's nice to have the skill...But that old stuff has been explored allready (most of it about a 100 years ago) and it's time to evolve.
I'm not a huge fan of Pollock either, but I wouldn't be so full of self-importance to declare that his work isn't art.
Anything you like can be art, but it doesn't have to be "good" art.
Things created in photoshop arent art? And superrealism is incredible just to see how incredibly texture can be recreated.......and the "old stuff" showed emotion and artistry and it is something that can be proudly displayed. And I like hamburgers........is that art?
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:38
this is Jackson Pollocks work
http://www.wcpn.org/spotlight/jazz/images/jackson-pollock.jpg
Why do I even bother? I should just throw paint on a canvas.....
He must be very recent. I've seen weird art like this before. One man made something similar so you could see it from a plane (might have been Pollack). Then again, other forms of art are rather unconventional. This one artist I once saw on some TV show threw 6 different melted cheeses all over a hotel suite. The cleaning cost was $22,000.
Pollock is dead and he always used paint, not cheese.
Can you ever make an intelligent remark?
:shock:
Relax, I misread a bit.
But both still hold true, he's dead and he never used cheese
Ok. It's just that, at other times, I know you say something just to make me angry. But I'll forgive you this time.
I assure you, I don't say things just to make you angry... But since this thread isn't about politics, let's keep it civil, shall we? :D
So, back on topic:
Pollock isn't really "contemporary", he was part of the pop-movement, which is pretty much in the past (except for guys like Julian Opie).
Agreed. It's remaining civil. Anyhow, pop art did produce some great artists, like Andy Warhol. I got the honor of going to a private gallery, and saw one of his famous Marilyn Monroe photos. They look like a positive or a negative, depending on what angle you look at it from. Then there's other paintings of his, like a Campbell's can, a statue of a bull with M&Ms painted on it, everything. Very eye apealing, and a good use of realism.
But other than that, pop art has pretty much died. Pop music's also pretty much dead. So what's there left with popular culture? It's dying, it seems.
Well that's one thing I like about the USA, there are many interesting artists that come from there.
There is alot of pop-culture still, advertizing, packaging...etc (one could even argue that the internet is pop-culture)... But lately the trend has been to revolt against it (for example: The "Andre the Giant" guy and Banksy) not to embrace it like Andy did.
I really like many of the pop-artists, but I guess pop-art simply doesn't have relevance to people anymore, it's too subtle (in my opinion).
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 03:57
Do you have an example of art that you like?
Yes actually I like Goings Durer Da vinci Raphael Michaelangelo Flack Dali Rembrandt Renoir........thats enough I could list more but the bottom line is I have respect for almost all artists because I know they are far more skilled than I am but people who throw things without any meaning or emotion are no artists.
Well, my opinion is that the invention of the camera made many of these guys unnecessary since they paint "photoreality".
As for Dali...You can make much better images that convey "surrealism" by using photoshop, so why bother with painting at all? (and why bother with surrealism anyway)
Art is in my view communication, I don't see why it has to be all about "craftmanship", sure it's nice to have the skill...But that old stuff has been explored allready (most of it about a 100 years ago) and it's time to evolve.
I'm not a huge fan of Pollock either, but I wouldn't be so full of self-importance to declare that his work isn't art.
Anything you like can be art, but it doesn't have to be "good" art.
Things created in photoshop arent art? And superrealism is incredible just to see how incredibly texture can be recreated.......and the "old stuff" showed emotion and artistry and it is something that can be proudly displayed. And I like hamburgers........is that art?
Why aren't things created in photoshop art?
Yeah, photorealism is alot of work but quite unecessary.
Why aren't things created in photoshop art?
Yeah, photorealism is alot of work but quite unecessary.
Art in general isnt necessary its meant to be interesting and I find photorealism to be very interesting.......its the closest man can get to mocking god.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 04:09
Why aren't things created in photoshop art?
Yeah, photorealism is alot of work but quite unecessary.
Art in general isnt necessary its meant to be interesting and I find photorealism to be very interesting.......its the closest man can get to mocking god.
:roll:
So you want to see the hands painstakingly painting for months on end to get a photoreal result.
Assuming there is a god, why is photoreal painting any closer to mocking god than photoshop?
I mean: Photoshop creates perfect pictures of whatever you want. You want a hippo in a tutu? Photoshop does it in less than an hour, painting it takes months.
I just don't see the difference, the brush is a tool, the camera is a tool and the computer is a tool. But you claim that only the brush can be used to make art?
Why aren't things created in photoshop art?
Yeah, photorealism is alot of work but quite unecessary.
Art in general isnt necessary its meant to be interesting and I find photorealism to be very interesting.......its the closest man can get to mocking god.
:roll:
So you want to see the hands painstakingly painting for months on end to get a photoreal result.
Assuming there is a god, why is photoreal painting any closer to mocking god than photoshop?
I mean: Photoshop creates perfect pictures of whatever you want. You want a hippo in a tutu? Photoshop does it in less than an hour, painting it takes months.
I just don't see the difference, the brush is a tool, the camera is a tool and the computer is a tool. But you claim that only the brush can be used to make art?
I never said that....but a brush is just as good as any other media.....I cant explain why I enjoy photorealism I just do.
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 04:31
Why aren't things created in photoshop art?
Yeah, photorealism is alot of work but quite unecessary.
Art in general isnt necessary its meant to be interesting and I find photorealism to be very interesting.......its the closest man can get to mocking god.
:roll:
So you want to see the hands painstakingly painting for months on end to get a photoreal result.
Assuming there is a god, why is photoreal painting any closer to mocking god than photoshop?
I mean: Photoshop creates perfect pictures of whatever you want. You want a hippo in a tutu? Photoshop does it in less than an hour, painting it takes months.
I just don't see the difference, the brush is a tool, the camera is a tool and the computer is a tool. But you claim that only the brush can be used to make art?
I never said that....but a brush is just as good as any other media.....I cant explain why I enjoy photorealism I just do.
Yes, the brush is as good as any other media. We all enjoy things like photorealism because it's got that "wow he did that with a hairy stick and some paint" feeling. But to me, that's all it's got. Art can be much more than that, it can be thought provoking as well as beutiful, and thought provoking and ugly at the same time. It's also, alot of the time, about thinking outside the box, like Yoko Ono's work (she published instructions about how to build the "artwork" from scratch) or Darko Maver (the artist that never existed: http://0100101110101101.org/home/darko_maver/index.html )
Here is a suggestion: You should look at some of Marcel Duchamp's work, and not just look at his work, but read what he wrote and what others have written about him and his work. It changed my view of art forever.
These are only suggestions though...I'm not telling you what "art is" or what to do...
But it never hurts to keep an open mind, yes?
I like your drawing (mind the proportions though, do you measure?), are you thinking of going to artschool? How old are you?
No I didnt measure its just a sketch I used to open this thread it took like 20 minutes to draw (though the blending took time) yeah I might go to art school and you only want to know how old I am to hunt down my family
Tumaniaa
10-04-2004, 04:41
No I didnt measure its just a sketch I used to open this thread it took like 20 minutes to draw (though the blending took time) yeah I might go to art school and you only want to know how old I am to hunt down my family
Good luck with the artschool, I encourage you to try it (I have a BA in visual arts) and I hope you keep drawing, it is a valuable skill.
And yes: I asked about your age so I can travel halfway across the globe to hunt down your family.
Revival......artistic license....
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
Finally some support......and a bump......doesnt anyone else on here draw stuff? paint stuff? whatever?
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
I have taken art history and gone from cave paintings to modern art and compared to some of the dribble that I see in our local art galleries Pollock’s art is first rate stuff. If you look at more then just one piece of his art you can see that he has a style and energy that is all of his own I can pick his art out of a line up of other copy cats because he has style and composition. That is what makes it art. It is not the fact that it doesn’t copy the real world. Art is all down to style and composition
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
I have taken art history and gone from cave paintings to modern art and compared to some of the dribble that I see in our local art galleries Pollock’s art is first rate stuff. If you look at more then just one piece of his art you can see that he has a style and energy that is all of his own I can pick his art out of a line up of other copy cats because he has style and composition. That is what makes it art. It is not the fact that it doesn’t copy the real world. Art is all down to style and composition
It has no composition it has to style its chaos it has no meaning and it has no value....and yes I have looked at several Pollock paintings......by the 3rd or 4th I wanted to kill myself but I kept looking.
Go see a Pollack in person and you'll understand what he was trying to do--internet pictures can't do his work justice because he worked on huge canvasses--8 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet tall, quite often. They are overpowering works, without question, when you see them in person.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
I have taken art history and gone from cave paintings to modern art and compared to some of the dribble that I see in our local art galleries Pollock’s art is first rate stuff. If you look at more then just one piece of his art you can see that he has a style and energy that is all of his own I can pick his art out of a line up of other copy cats because he has style and composition. That is what makes it art. It is not the fact that it doesn’t copy the real world. Art is all down to style and composition
Pollock's work shows nothing which could apply in reality and therefore cannot be called art. I would like a better explanation as to how Pollock's work has style and composition. In terms of style, what is Pollock's work trying to express? That he can violently throw paint on a canvas? How does random throwing of paint make it a composition?
Purly Euclid
12-04-2004, 04:54
hmmmm.....bumptastic
Ok. I got a new thing to discuss. Anyone have any feelings about John Currin? In case you don't know him, he's the most popular American painter today. And I find his artwork a little, shall I say, disturbing.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
First of all, a lot of people seem to confuse art with illustration; the purpose of art isn't to accurately depict the subject matter. Art does not necessarily even need a subject matter. Just because you do not recognise the form, does not make it unrecognisable
The purpose of art is not to 're-create' something. Still life and portraits are not art. They are just pictures.
With the works of Pollock, it is as much about the passion and motion that went into the creation of the painting, as it is about the final product. Even though his methods were rapid and spontaneous, his compositions are visually complex and have an odd pattern to them, as well as a general aesthetic appeal (depending on preference, obviously). I think you will just have to cope with the fact that you don't get it. If it makes you happy, he was a complete madman, and usually painted while drunk.
Never mind. You can go look at a Rembrandt, while the rest of us appreciate Pollock.
Are you saying that the size of the work makes it art? Pollock's works have no recogniseable form. It re-creates nothing. All it shows us is that the artist threw a whole bunch of paint on a canvas and mixed it up. It embodies nothing. The only message his works conveys is one of mockery: the art is garbage yet it hangs in a museum and Pollock got millions of dollars for it.
First of all, a lot of people seem to confuse art with illustration; the purpose of art isn't to accurately depict the subject matter. Art does not necessarily even need a subject matter. Just because you do not recognise the form, does not make it unrecognisable
The purpose of art is not to 're-create' something. Still life and portraits are not art. They are just pictures.
With the works of Pollock, it is as much about the passion and motion that went into the creation of the painting, as it is about the final product. Even though his methods were rapid and spontaneous, his compositions are visually complex and have an odd pattern to them, as well as a general aesthetic appeal (depending on preference, obviously). I think you will just have to cope with the fact that you don't get it. If it makes you happy, he was a complete madman, and usually painted while drunk.
Never mind. You can go look at a Rembrandt, while the rest of us appreciate Pollock.
I think its more about the brainwashing of our people......all these Mensa people who think theyre cultured because they enjoy Pollock its absolutely ridiculous its paint thrown on a canvas not art thank you Euclid this subject needs to be changed
hmmmm.....bumptastic
Ok. I got a new thing to discuss. Anyone have any feelings about John Currin? In case you don't know him, he's the most popular American painter today. And I find his artwork a little, shall I say, disturbing.
I like it actually.....he is obviously good but he doesnt take himself too seriously which is a problem a lot of artists have.