porque Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 ...there exists a distinct difference between so called high art and low art...this distinction originally arose during the sixties with the advent of the 'outsider artist'...a term used mostly to define work done by someone that wasn't brought up through the institution of art (...i.e...university study)...this work, while recognized for what it was, was degragrated as basically art that 'didn't count' in the realm of the grand pursuit of Art..this divide has continued and grown to encompass differnt meanings...there are now 'undergound' artists and a whole system of galleries that show their work, while they are kept out of so called 'high art' galleries...the line has become much more blurred becasue many of these artists have been brought up through the art institution, yet the divide clearly exists...as people in school with me put it, "there are juxtapose artists...and there are art forum artists"...few are able to break through the divide, and since most of the artists spotlighted in this forum belong to the 'juxtapose' realm, i am curious about some of your views on the topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseguy Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 woah, i just made a thread on art brut "outsider art" and your talking about it too... crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 there is a kickass museum in my city that is only for "self-taught" artists. they've had a lot of really amazing exhibits. american visionary art musuem http://www.avam.org/ i am a self taught artist, i think art school and the art community can be very helpful in critique, in shaping the ideas that form ones work, but it also makes for a very purposeful, self concious style of art i think. one can easily be homogenized by the art world. i enjoy the whole outsider art thing a lot, except for classic artists like da vinci and picasso, etc, who i have spent plenty of time checking out at big art galleries. i like it all if it doesn't suck haha.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IzacFour Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 High end art is wanky and ambiguous. Low brow sucks but its the lesser of plenty evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Priest Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Low brow or No brow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusheskill Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 low art is becoming the new high art. or is it? hmmmmmmmm... art worlds exists within differnt cultures or social scenes. one persons low art could be another high arts. this is one of those if a tree falls in the middle of the woods topics. you can go on forever and make lots of good points but there will always be a substantial response to counter what was just said. art is tight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porque Posted December 23, 2004 Author Share Posted December 23, 2004 ...one of the issues is that this is not a question of personal taste or opinion...whether something is regarded as high or low is a direct result of the gallery it exists in and the context that surrounds it...education and the institution no longer have anything to do with it either...jeff koons is a self-taught artist, so was warhol...neither of them are 'outsider artists'...some of the most respected critics out there right now never went to a university and studied art either...this is what i mean by the line becoming blurred... ...as far as i can tell...the difference comes from the perspective of the artist, which shapes the context that the work is read in...an artist interested in self exploration and their personal view of what art is ususally degraded as an 'outsider'...these artists are not concerend about the context of their work that is relevant to the grand history of Art...inferences and critiques that place their work alongside movemnets driven by ideas concerning the nature of Art (...abstract expressionism...minimalism...popart...etc...) are completely irrelevant...The work is viewed in complete isolation, it exists outside of 'the pale of art history'...the viewer is presented only with what they see before them...someone that has seem a thousand shows and some one that has only seen one will most likely each read the work the same way...the work only exists in relation to the artist that created it...this perspective of art making is much more inviting for the viewer that is not educated on the history of art, it is easier to handle, and while still being eliteist (...becaseu quite frankly the pursuit of making, showing, or viewing art is absolutely an elitest activity...) it is alot less elitest than the pretentious pursuit of 'Art'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I may be completely off..... but high brow seems like it's all been done. The format isnt pushed because curators and patrons want to know what to expect. But then there's the whole elitest mindset of the art world. take for example Ken Danby. He's a hyperrealist painter that has no problems selling as much as possible. He releases mass printings and a lot of the 'respected art community' shuns him because they see him as a 'sell out'. He releases in larger batches and has a different idea of reprints then they do. Is his art not technically up to par? Certainly not. Has the art world decided that only they can be the judge? Yep. some examples: ^ you can see he's painting to a level that nears photography, and a lot of the respect world doesnt like it. Amazing skill or not, they want their art to be done their way or it just doesnt matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 art is subjective and always will be. some art that is high art was once considered low art..ie Van Gogh. its gonna constantly change. I do think that certain high art galleries are able to exert too much force and essentially make or break some artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 this is long and stupid. dont bother reading it. everyone could write a book about their life, but very few would be interesting to read. art is the same way IMO. anything can be art, but not everything can be 'good' art. high brow stuff that relies on a paper pedigree to carry it's weight is horse shit in the same way that low brow art that relies on a lack of pedigree to redeam it is. it's like doing 'girl push ups'. sorry homie, you're art is bitch made. i dont care what your background is, if you cant make interesting art that challenges the viewer or evokes emotion, then you are a shitty artist and you should stop. if you spent 8 years going to college for it, you should have asked me 7 years ago, i could have saved you a whole lot of time and money. ive never been a part of an academic art world, nor have i ever been part of an underground art world. i know people in both, but i myself am neither...primarily by choice. this makes me completely qualified to pass judgment on both. last weekend i went to an art show featuring a graffiti crew. they're all good writers, nice guys, and im sure great artists, but attending an 'art show' in someones loft is one of the lamest experiences of my fucking life. i'd rather have my stuff silently hanging in a coffee shop to zero fanfare than to have to endure standing around in someones expansive bedroom acting as if it's an accomplishment. it's a joke. it's like being in a band and playing someones halloween party. that's not a 'concert' homie, that's a waste of the effort it takes to unload the bass cabinet from the van. just stop. at the same time, a 'high brow' art show held in some stuffy gallery with a bunch of uptight pole smokers all dressed in black speaking with phony accents is just as fucking homo and ridiculous. i always secretly wish that they would get mugged on the way to their car. that would teach them. mostly i guess i just hate art. i like individual pieces and individual artists, but i have no use for any 'art world', be it counter-culture or otherwise. they're both just some bullshit paramaters that keep their inhabitants locked inside some pre-determined world of fucking lameness. the people i like and the people i respect are the ones who exist in both. who have the technical skill and ability to make 'high brow' art, but also have the emotion and passion to make 'low brow' shit. i like cats like dephect and abuse. fools that are so talented it makes your teeth hurt, but still get gully. seeks/skip to the end. seeks/this was the best critique ever written on art in the history of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I skipped to the end end but I stopped to laugh at the idea of pole smokers getting mugged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 the wonderful thing about my low brow art is that I do it for me. I really could care less if anyone else likes it. Seriously. The stuff hangs on my own walls. Sure, I'd take the compliment and even better I'd sell pieces, but all in all...I really just like doing it for myself. I keep at least one of everything I do...sometimes I flip out and destroy them all or start all over again and paint over them. As far as the pole smokers dressed all in black or the ones that look "artsy"...I pretty much hate anyone that thinks they're better than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 my area is filled to bursting with those pole smokers..... only they rock babe and own chomper dolls. no offence to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kidlugz Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't even know what to say about the 'art world'. At times I regard it as a pulsating mass of artificial personalities gathering under the guise of 'appreciators of art'. Art openings function solely as social event where like minded rubes can gather to discuss the latest in "who fucked who" or whatever inane issue may be hot at the moment. But when i supress the cynic from within I begin to see some value in these events. Sure, many attendees are probably insecure, needy humans desperate to latch onto some kind of identity, but many are surely just as disgusted with the superficiality as i am. I think it's a matter of simply detaching yourself from the fluff and seeing only what you want to see. Many creative scenes/intimate communities are the same. Participants share a common interest, but many enjoy the human interaction more than whatever brought them together in the first place. This shit used to really get me down (I think I had a Holden Caufield complex), but now I just laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing. "pre-determined world of lameness" Oh, and I'm stealing this phrase ^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kidlugz Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by <KEY3>@Dec 23 2004, 07:55 PM my area is filled to bursting with those pole smokers..... only they rock babe and own chomper dolls. no offence to anyone. Quoted post You're from T.O yes? what are chomper dolls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 yes. the Kaws chomper was a muchly debate object around here. I used it to paraphrase 'trendy hipster toys' * and there's a store on my block with one in the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kidlugz Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 i see. thanks for hipping me to the chomper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 no problem. here's some of the 12oz debate: http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45664 http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=46007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AW Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 It seems to be a Low Brow artist, you have to be into Hot Rods and Tiki's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by AW@Dec 29 2004, 01:51 AM It seems to be a Low Brow artist, you have to be into Hot Rods and Tiki's Quoted post And rip off anything Robert Williams has done or does. I hate this subject... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Those ken danby joints look fake as fuck...the clouds on the first one...the dark side of the wave on the second..the overall flatness on the third...bad painting imo. On the other hand you have Gerhart Richter..now thats painting that reaches photography and on top of that his whole body of work was made for a reason, under an idea, with a comment for society..served well with honesty...totally respected by the art world for obvious reasons. Ending that subject is impossible so i just wanna say that the big different between art and ART, if we have to take it this far, is the thin line between appealing-decorative and innovative-important yeah, that sucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
test pattern Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by seeking@Dec 23 2004, 07:15 PM it's like being in a band and playing someones halloween party. that's not a 'concert' homie, that's a waste of the effort it takes to unload the bass cabinet from the van. just stop. Quoted post this doesn't work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataguy Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 There is that discussing of art within the context of how you have been exposed to it. Whether it is within a school, institution, or for self-interest. Art is safe inside the paradigm of the university and within the context of “low art”. Outside of the safety of school and experimental community, I am convinced art falls within the paradigm of fashion and entertainment whose underlying motivation is profit. Dead animals, themes of masturbation, at some point become frivolous and overbearing. A distinguished and reputable art gallery is nothing more than a store in which to buy goods. A museum is a place that rides the boundary between this concept of Entertainment to sell tickets and to give money to fund its own defined Concepts of what it wants to curate and the facade of safety that art school provides. In school you can receive feedback and critiques. You are allowed to try on styles like one tries on clothes. But at some point, economics rears its head and dollars are what the world defines as success (or is it.) I think of low art as the experimental beginning of art where the raw concept is born. Much as conservative politics has taken credit for implementing ideas that originally came from liberals or those in discontent from the contemporary situation, “high art” has sometimes come from “low art”. Where is art going now? (where does anyone want to take it? Whether you trust trends is whether you think big galleries dictate style or will your own genius be realized. Does one chase the world or do you take a stand and let the world find you. Everything is false create a god from your seven devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.urkaleeno Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ...one of the issues is that this is not a question of personal taste or opinion...whether something is regarded as high or low is a direct result of the gallery it exists in and the context that surrounds it...education and the institution no longer have anything to do with it either...jeff koons is a self-taught artist, so was warhol...neither of them are 'outsider artists'... Note: Warhol was not self taught, he went to Carnegie Mellon were he studied pictoral design, and later worked as a corporate illustrator in NYC. The delema that you are confronted w/ when talking about Low art and High art is that you are looking at art in terms of $$$ and collectable worth, not it's contribution to society and it's ability to communicate ideas in a unique and iteresting way. Many dealers only look at the bottom line...$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 everyone should stop talking about it, and go out and create something. these distinctions only exist as airy-fairy ideas. make something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillysiphilis Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Originally posted by Tesseract@Dec 29 2004, 09:35 AM Those ken danby joints look fake as fuck...the clouds on the first one...the dark side of the wave on the second..the overall flatness on the third...bad painting imo. On the other hand you have Gerhart Richter..now thats painting that reaches photography and on top of that his whole body of work was made for a reason, under an idea, with a comment for society..served well with honesty...totally respected by the art world for obvious reasons. Ending that subject is impossible so i just wanna say that the big different between art and ART, if we have to take it this far, is the thin line between appealing-decorative and innovative-important yeah, that sucked Quoted post Gerhard Richter is an amazing artist, I'm glad you brought his work up. His focus on photorealism is not executed with the same intent as the photorealism movement of the 1960's. He is more interested in the objective/subjective duality and adresses the latter with his 'abstract bild' paintings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POIESIS Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 tesser is on point, and gerhard is fucking awesome. as far as 'artists' that paint near photorealistic nature scenes.. in my view they are empty artists..i think it's commendable to want to make something as incredible as nature, but flat out painting a perfect ass nature scene injects nothing from the artist..no style, no humanity, nothing cerebral, no ambiguity.. it's almost a cheap shortcut.. this, from what i can tell, is why certain artists, like dude above, and people like robert bateman get no love in the art world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
some pittsburgh flavor Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 ...and the same reason Monet and Cailebotte do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillysiphilis Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by POIESIS@Feb 6 2005, 06:19 PM tesser is on point, and gerhard is fucking awesome. as far as 'artists' that paint near photorealistic nature scenes.. in my view they are empty artists..i think it's commendable to want to make something as incredible as nature, but flat out painting a perfect ass nature scene injects nothing from the artist..no style, no humanity, nothing cerebral, no ambiguity.. it's almost a cheap shortcut.. this, from what i can tell, is why certain artists, like dude above, and people like robert bateman get no love in the art world. Quoted post well actually thats exactly what the Photorealists aimed for; if you ever wondered why Ralph Goings or Robert Cunningham chose the most banal of objects or scenes to paint (i have never seen a photorealist of the original movement paint nature scenes, nor would they have any reasons for it. Unlike the photorealists, the Richter nature scenes aimed to depict deceptive/false beauty), its because they intended to have as much of an objective eye on the world as possible, hence depicting even the most mundane of scenes. The style chose was one of no style, once again aiming towards complete objectivity, to the point were the paintings appeared soulless, detached, and manufactured, not crafted (similar in intent of the pop artists of the same decade). It seems as if existentialist thought, with all its pessimism (imagine WWI and WWII in France and Germany) was picked up by the art world a generation too late, and in a totally new country (U.S.) with all its naive optimism, but the art movement still made an impact nevertheless, limited almost exclusively to the U.S. Like the atheistic existentialists proclaiming the death of God, the photorealists proclaimed the death of painting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataguy Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 photorealism was necessary, but it is the most boring art in the world. we don't need to draw like cameras thats what we have printers for. Concept before craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.