porque Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 ...photorealism is inherently linked to concept...the term photorealism is itself an oxy-moron...the photo is not real...it is an image of three demensions portryed in two...therefore painting a photo instead of reality becomes an ironic gesture meant to comment on the realtionship between reality and the idea of reality...but i will certainly admit that once you get it, you get it...and it becomes redundant... ...Richter on the other hand did something differnt...he worked hard to over emphasize the role of the camera in distorting the image...dilleberatly using subjects that were out of focus...this being one of the most distinguishing features of photography vs reality...the human eye sees at an instantly and infinitely changing focal length, while the camera can only use one focal length at a time...Richter translated this most effectively in painting with his series of works that depicted abstract paintings 'out-of-focus'...this is were most wmphatically we can see his idea of object vs reality... ...s.urkaleeno...i am well aware that Warhol studied design in school...but design and high Art are two completely different things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillysiphilis Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 While his abstractions may have been executed with that intent in mind, his representational work (in my mind) seem to address the issue of subjective reality more didrectly. For his representational pictures, Richter's images were often deliberately blurred, a method that he coined as 'unpainting.' A double meaning was iintended with the used of this technique; one being a bit more metaphorical while the other being a bit more palpable. The blurred down effect was the archetypal statement of a non-objective reality and it also came to symbolize the elusiveness of reality in pictures (by making an elusive picture) Porque...although Jeff Koons was not initially an artist by name, I wouldn't call him a self taught artist. He studied under Ed Pashke (RIP-2004) at the Art Institute of Chicago.. Hate to refute, but it's the truth.... I don't even really like Koon's work that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IzacFour Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 To me, low end art includes any artist without formal training (and some with). That means every one on this board. If you dont like low brow art you can go fuck yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 well that was insightful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IzacFour Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Sorry, I just thought too many people were making this into an issue of chompers, bape, and derek hess. While I admit lowend art has become a tad stagnant, that is no reason to hate on a genre that is quite varied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 i havent read everything, but i dont remember anyone really hating on an entire genre, and if they were, then your totalitarian decree of 'fuck yourself' is hardly going to change anyones mind, but whatever, have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IzacFour Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 I was having fun. I dont really want to turn everything into a lengthy debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Back to the discussion. This is a thought I have been playing with for a few days and I wanted to bounce it off a few other minds. Lets discuss. I'm thinking that Pop Art has never ended, and will never end. I understand when considered as a movement it’s over, yet looking at it as the trends in what’s marketable and sells in galleries its not. It's ever changing with what’s cool at the moment. Graffiti and Street Art are just the current trend for those that consider themselves in the know about art. So in the end I see most outsider art as the Popular Art right now. So we are seeing POP ART not changing its dynamic(showing images from pop culture) just what’s cool and what’s selling(as pop culture changes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peanut Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work. a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work. whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences? peese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillysiphilis Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 Originally posted by ERIZENO@Mar 1 2005, 03:12 PM Back to the discussion. This is a thought I have been playing with for a few days and I wanted to bounce it off a few other minds. Lets discuss. I'm thinking that Pop Art has never ended, and will never end. I understand when considered as a movement it’s over, yet looking at it as the trends in what’s marketable and sells in galleries its not. It's ever changing with what’s cool at the moment. Graffiti and Street Art are just the current trend for those that consider themselves in the know about art. So in the end I see most outsider art as the Popular Art right now. So we are seeing POP ART not changing its dynamic(showing images from pop culture) just what’s cool and what’s selling(as pop culture changes). Quoted post I kind of hope you're right. I noticed a lot of things lately are a lot less 'esoteric' or so fucking conceptual you've got to read the artists biography before entirely understanding the work. Art Forum just had an issue about the new pop art a couple of months ago. I don't think I got the chance to read it. Art brut does seem growingly popular. There is that movie that just came out about Henry Darger, and atleast locally, I have noticed a rise in appreciation of outsider work. There are even a couple of galleries fully devoted to it, the Intuit the Center for Intuitive & Outsider Art and the jsaslow gallery is pretty much all outsider. Graffiti and street art also seems to be gaining the same recognition it had during the 80s, with that 'beautiful losers' exhibition, and, atleast locally, theres been atleast three galleries that I know of that have had graffiti exhibitions. I don't know enough about the current state of pop art to directly reply to your comment though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillysiphilis Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Originally posted by carlojensen@Mar 3 2005, 06:28 AM a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work. a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work. whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences? peese Quoted post yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense. Quoted post true. i just had to write an essay on the nature of contemporary art. i guess no one ever really knows the motifs and inspirations of a peice of art unless its their own, or has a detailed story behind it on display with it. a red canvas splattered with blue paint could be expressing the artists deepest feelings, and i guess if its expressing something, pornography or not, it can be classified as art. it just sucks for the other people. then there's the whole argument of shock art and its place in the art world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porque Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Originally posted by sillysiphilis+Mar 4 2005, 08:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sillysiphilis - Mar 4 2005, 08:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-carlojensen@Mar 3 2005, 06:28 AM a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work. a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work. whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences? peese Quoted post yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense. Quoted post [/b] ...just because someone makes really intricate, delicate, handcrafted work that they pour their heart into doesn't make it good...i've seen people work really hard at really bad work... ...and just becasue something has an element of shock in it doesn't mean that that's the only thing going for it... ...your story sounds more like it was retold from someone that was pissed and jealous cuz no one liked her ceramic pieces of crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porque Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 ...pop art is definately still a dominant force in the contempary art world...and that art forum issue is pretty good...lots of essays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 well i saw the pieces for myself and i, along with other people thought they were actually quite beautiful. alot 'better' than 25c porn photos. i wont try and start 'discussions', the title of this thread, if your gonna turn them into aggressive bitch sessions and criticize work you've never seen. it was one case, i never said it applied in general. peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porque Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 ...your tone, to me, sounded like you were trying to make a broad generalized statement about the atmosphere of the institutional art world... ...grades don't make art good or bad either... ...but this is completely off of the original topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 personally, the idea of the photos seemed a whole lot more interesting to me than a delicate ceramic sculpture. maybe the sculpture was really sweet and the photos were really contrived, neither would surprise me at all, but as dude said, just because someone tries real hard, that doesn't mean it's good. for instance, i have a figure drawing class this semester. first time i'd ever tried to draw a figure in my life. at the end of the first class, as we handed in our drawing, i realized that i was better than almost all the second year students (it's a split class) and i had absolutely no training. i had never even heard the word gesture' before that night. now i'm sure they poured their hearts into it, but fact is that they just aren't very good. they can try as hard as they might, but theres always some asshole like me that can step in and effortless serve them (and i'm not even that good at all.) now, maybe your friends work is awesome and the teacher is a total putz, it's totally possible, but ceramic work has been around for thousands of years...it's really hard to make something new and interesting. unfortunately, that's the inherent problem with something as subjective as art. pop art = popular art. it's meant to be a transient medium. what's cool now will not be in 5 years, but might be again in 20. who cares? it's like bitching about pop music? there is art that moves you and art that doesnt. who gives a shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santa_claws Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 personally, the idea of the photos seemed a whole lot more interesting to me than a delicate ceramic sculpture. could that possibly be because of the nature of the photos? :haha: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 i guess my main point was that it seems odd that in the art world effort can mean nothing. i guess its a spur of the moment type thing. who am i to judge, i've been interested in art for about 4 months. it all seems a bit messy, no matter what you do you are offending someone, being criticised or causing discussions on internet forums... isnt that what its all about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 effort is relative, and if all you have is 4 months of interest in art under your belt, you're really in no position to be judging anything. i mean, you're welcome to judge it, but if you actually intend to understand, you've got a long way to go. art is about emotion and what it evokes in the viewer. something 'shocking' will always get more of a response than something refined. it's just the way of the world. it's something your friend is going to have to learn to accept if she wants to continue in traditional avenues like this. the other factor, which i didnt mention, is why is the ceramics teacher also teaching photography? does she go to college in a one room barn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 clarification: 1. i never judged anything, i simply said effort CAN mean nothing, and said quote, "who am i to judge" 2. my 'family' friend is almost 50 years old 3. her work was marked by an art school moderator, not her teacher why is everyone on this site so aggressive? no wonder the world is so fucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 conversely, why are you being such a pussy? j/k i'm not 'aggressive', i'm just not into coddeling when it comes to art. i don't want to be treated that way, and i refuse treat others that way. the way i look at things, is that there are two people; those who want to improve, and those who want to impress their friends. i have no use/interest in the second group. if all you want is to be a mediocre hobbyist, that's perfectly fine, there are plenty of mediums that i dabble in just for the hell of it, but i'll also never complain about why i'm not taken more seriously, or bitch about why someone gets something i'm not. and i'm not saying you approached things like that carl, i'm just saying, it's how i view things as a whole. i don't like smoke being blown up my ass. i want the truth. if you take that as aggressive then thats on you. in either case, it's the internet, why do you care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I have a personality like Carl there ... easy going, don’t need shit in the way. So I think I see where he is at. However I have learned a lot from seekings posts on this board, every time I see feathers ruffled it kind of bumms me out and I think man that was harsh. But when it comes down to it someone needed to say it and bring the full reality of it to light. I have been able to do a lot of reflection on my art by being around this stuff. So thanks …. That impress your friends vs. improve thing hit home for me. There is no one reason the world is so fucked … well maybe just humans in general but that’s a whole new debate. We are where we are and we do or we don’t. If you have passion for art, listen to things outside your realm of thinking and learn more so you can grow and evolve your art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 i always approach it like i was coaching sports. you're not going to have the same expectations/criticisms of a kid playing t-ball, as you would a major league pitcher. i treat my criticisms the same way. if it's someone who just dabbles for fun, i'll give simple advise. if it's someone who is more serious but open to criticism, i'll be a little harsher but still with kindness. but if it's someone who thinks they're the shit and on some next level, i'll speak as if they were on the 'next level', because i know that anything less will be a complete waste of time. those people never reply favorably at first, but eventually, it always seeps in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.urkaleeno Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 In regards to art: I think Love and Hate are the same thing. Not caring enough to have a strong opinion is probably the worst criticism you can give some one. that's my randomness for the month. Oh yeah and "the Contender" is the dumbest show on TV...at the moment. None of those guys could last 5 rounds w/ Taylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 true, aggressive was the wrong word, and im not trying to disrespect you here or anything seeking, but i think its on you to realise that not all of us here as highly evolved/educated/whatever as you are in the art world, and therefore your criticisms, although mostly truthful come as a shock. im sure if you dont do it intentionally, but it seems you make it a struggle for anyone 'new' to the area to express their opinions cos you tend to splurt out some sort of comment or criticism, (which is usually truthful, educated and progressive) shutting them down. human nature = defensive reaction. back to art, i think its more of a personal area to understand, hence experience being irrelavent. if a photograph makes you feel happy/angry/suicidal, thats your interpretation, and thats what you get out of it, your understanding, four months or forty years. either im completely wrong or we just do it differently where im from... peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 if you go back and read my comments, the first was not at all 'agressive' or even a criticism in the least. it was just explaining [my take on] why the teacher would have found more in the photos. if anything, i think i went out of my way to be diplomatic. the second, with the expection of me pointing out your limited experiences with art, was just a bit more blunt of an explanation, given because after reading all the replies from you and others, it seemed that you weren't really wanting to accept the 'simple' truth. i'm sorry if i offended you, it wasn't my intention, i just wanted you to understand why the photos, which you see as being cheap porn, are more interesting to some people. i totally understand you're comments about me, and unfortunately, i have to agree. i know it can be 'intimidating/frustrating' to hear things as i present them (right or wrong) but i've found no real effective alternative. i've spent too long watching joker play 'nice guy', trying to help people only to have them shit on him and take nothing from it. my approach might not always make friends, but it will always force them to look at their work in a different way. i'm kind of an 'ends justify the means' sort of person i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 "i guess my main point was that it seems odd that in the art world effort can mean nothing." Originally posted by carlojensen@Mar 15 2005, 08:36 PM ...i think its more of a personal area to understand, hence experience being irrelavent. if a photograph makes you feel happy/angry/suicidal, thats your interpretation, and thats what you get out of it, your understanding, four months or forty years. Quoted post you just answered your own question. people with absolutely no knowledge of art can relate more to photos such as those, than to a piece of pottery. it's a much more graphic image. one way or another, it's going to make you feel something. when i said you lacked the experience to really understand, what i meant is that i felt you lacked the experience to understand the nuances of the different genres. if you didn't know this woman, i assume you would have probably over looked her piece as well...everyone would. you can't compare the two things, which is what you were trying to do...trying to 'make sense' of art, which is kind of an oxymoron. anyway, i hope that makes sense. i'm very hungry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlojensen Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 true, very true. seeking: 1 me: 0 im hungry and i hate computers 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.