Abstracts

[lord_casek]

sure is. 3dsm and photoshop.

 

thanks, btw.

[2006-1984]

[2006-1984]

[-Rage-]

That blue one is really nice.

[Bojangles]

I really like the bottom half of the top pic 2006-1984 posted.

 

I like the Digi-stract too there Casek. Reminds me of an airship landing.

[2006-1984]

Thank you.

 

Your shit is Fire, btw. (Sb)

[lord_casek]

[mariz]

damn abstracts are awesome. bump bojangles

 

there really is a fine line between a good abstract piece and plain scribble shit.

[Theo Huxtable.]

what did people like about jackson pollock?

 

 

[ERIZENO]

what did people like about jackson pollock?

 

For me its process, after a while he began to control his drips and draw with them.

Each painting is hit or miss ... I either love it or am totally indifferent toward it.

 

his older work I dont feel at all.

[heavyLox]

Apparently "Jack the Dripper" captured some aesthetic dimension—some abiding logic in human perception—beyond the scope of his critics. That logic, says physicist and art historian Richard Taylor, lies not in art but in mathematics—specifically, in chaos theory and its offspring, fractal geometry.

 

Fractals may seem haphazard at first glance, yet each one is composed of a single geometric pattern repeated thousands of times at different magnifications, like Russian dolls nested within one another. They are often the visible remains of chaotic systems—systems that obey internal rules of organization but are so sensitive to slight changes that their long-term behavior is difficult to predict. If a hurricane is a chaotic system, then the wreckage strewn in its path is its fractal pattern.

 

Some fractal patterns exist only in mathematical theory, but others provide useful models for the irregular yet patterned shapes found in nature—the branchings of rivers and trees, for instance. Mathematicians tend to rank fractal dimensions on a series of scales between 0 and 3. One-dimensional fractals (such as a segmented line) typically rank between 0.1 and 0.9, two-dimensional fractals (such as a shadow thrown by a cloud) between 1.1 and 1.9, and three-dimensional fractals (such as a mountain) between 2.1 and 2.9. Most natural objects, when analyzed in two dimensions, rank between 1.2 and 1.6.

Read the rest here

[Poesia [ ] T]

Stole this from the .....Untitled Thread........

 

 

This guy has been doing some impressive stuff lately

[Bojangles]

Poesia, who's the artist?

[-Rage-]

Wow, those are awesome.

 

I'm going to have to bite that.

[Poesia [ ] T]

MetalWing

 

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=2384936&MyToken=8af4dfa4-a7db-4db6-b504-385b534793d2

 

Check this Thread as well if you havnt seen it.

 

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119679

[seeking]

i like them in theory, but they seem too...likable, which makes me doubt their honesty.

then again, im so overly critical i'm almost obsolete.

[-Rage-]

Can something be too likable?

[Poesia [ ] T]

i like them in theory, but they seem too...likable, which makes me doubt their honesty.

then again, im so overly critical i'm almost obsolete.

 

I think there are different levels of Art. Im not one to put anyone down but i understand what seeking is saying. These are beautiful pieces, do they have a soul is another question entirely.

[Bojangles]

;5641707']I think there are different levels of Art. Im not one to put anyone down but i understand what seeking is saying. These are beautiful pieces' date=' do they have a soul is another question entirely.[/quote']

 

I was just having this conversation the other day. I know a few artists locally that are amazingly talented, yet their work falls into that "too likable" category. It's more of them pleasing the masses with what is esthetically appealing rather than what they feel personally about making art.

[Raw fish]

Thank you all for this thread

[seeking]

innocuous, neutral backgroud: check

plexiglass overlay to create shadows/depth/kitch: check

industrial silver hardware (which for god knows what reason everyone, myself included, always really likes alot): check

every color in the wheel: check

organic swirls: check

technical, illustrator style bits: check

overspray/drips: check

 

anyone ever seen those mock 'personality profiles' that you read and it seems to nail you to a T, but then you read the background info, and realize that it's intentionally written with such double speak that it would appeal to 95% of the people reading it? thats what stuff like this sort of reminds me of. it's not 'bad' at all. there are definitely parts of it i like alot, but as a whole it does much less for me. its too easy. it comes across (to me anyway) as done to impress people, rather than to express something. i dont have much interest in art that wants to be liked, i'd rather look at art that needed to be made.

[ERIZENO]

Damn Seeks ....

Your rants in this thread as well as the Canvas Thread have been very eye opening for me. Dunno if you give a shit, but thought I would let you know the effort of typing these has effected at least one of the many who visit this site. It has caused me to give more critical thinking to my art as a whole. Good shit !!!!

 

I want to share something other than jocking a stranger ... so here are two paintings from the lead apparel designer at my work.

 

-Fordo

 

[seeking]

i do care, otherwise i wouldnt bother to share my thoughts. i deserve no praise though, my opinions of others are nothing more than the criticisms i have of myself. most of those come as a result of my friendship with, and influence of KOH, joker, beardo, etc. seeing the amount of effort they put into their own work showed me that anything less would be half assing it. i dont have the vision or ability that any of them have, but im tenacious and i know a lot of words, so atleast it reads well on paper. ;)

[Poesia [ ] T]

 

 

Buna

[Bojangles]

Here's something new I was trying the other day.

Mixed media on paper:

[King Of Hell]

I dont know. I have been kind of wanting to post in here for a while, but my hatred of "abstract" is so firey red I feel like i'd spit venom all over the wrong people.

I saw that stuff when I was doing it as an exercise in technique. I never painted so clean and drew so precise as when I stripped things down and simplified. In like...1991 or something I picked up a copy of a black and white magazine called Styles For Miles by this dude AIR GZ out of New york. Just a black and white outline zine. I was so impressed when I looked through it because in this format you had to rely on the perfect nature of your outline to cary you. It had to be good. No fades and colors or photoshop was going to help.

Abstract graffiti was another extension of that to me. More hard ass work. I loved the fact that you just had to be precises from the begining to the end.

The more minimal you got the more blatant your mistakes would be. Heres a way to get better at drawing, painting, planning, a way to cultivate forethought.....

Boston graffiti in the early 90's was so much more about amazingly styled simple pieces than being craaaaazy wild. The abstract minimalist shit appealed to me in a time when I was trying to keep that aspect of my graffiti but to branch out.

Then I had a realisation. It wasn't mine to fuck with. I (and so were the rest of you shitbags...dont front)was starting my theorising where Jokers last few pieces left off and that was about the worst thing I could do. Everyone did that shit. A shit load of people were doing what he worked for years to develop. Stepping all over his toes. Crowding it all out. I dont know exactly how he feels about that, but I can bet it wasn't all that cool. In like a years time a bunch of kids turned one mans hard as work into what the rest of the graffiti world saw as a gimick like 3d styles. Poesia is excluded and so is Kema from this being as they seriously had different feelings to that they did.

As far as abstract fine art? Eh. I could take it or leave it. It depends on how lazy the artist is. And how much lip service they sling along with the painting. I can like the asthetic of a piece but the second I hear the bullshit Im out. Id rather just look at traditional art at this point.

Carravagio, shiiiit William-Adolphe Bouguereau makes everything ever done by anyone a giant pile of dung. Aaron Horkey is the opitome of an true craftsman and artist to me. I dont know.

All I know is Joker is one of my favorite artists ever, ever, ever. Ever. Dude just has it right.

 

Hate on.

[Poesia [ ] T]

Good to hear you chime in KOH, whether it be pro or con. If anyone knows your work they can in good knowledge know it comes from the process not the lip service you talk of.

 

I agree with a lot of what you have said, Joker is and will always be the seed that so many branches roots and leaves of the cliché idea of abstract graffiti was and is. The fact that some have taken it commercialized his style and also progressed it is in my eyes the inevitability of the internet and sharing ones work. When ideas are poured onto walls and websites and pictures are a click away, there is no way to stop the influential wave set in motion. I am not sure how he feels either about it but I guess if it is a negative it will be kept under wraps next time. Its hard to say how I would feel about this. I can go either way. I see it in our culture of graffiti more than Fine Art in general. That influenced artists are getting more exposure than originators.

 

Everyone knows who did what in fine art it is all chronological and documented by scholars or critics. Within Graffiti, its who knew the first commercial hookup and got his art in the public or on some t-shirts or shoes. Then the art shows across the world. But to me that’s art on a Graf level so does it matter in 20-30 yrs on a Graf level. I’m sure that guy will be making typeface and designing corporate logos in 20 yrs. As for Joker and all other original Artists I think Joker will be Joker in 30 years, the founder and originator still an artist and the essence still shining through as authentic as the day he crossed that line.

 

As far as Caravaggio, goes there is nothing more intense. But looking at a modern such as Odd Nerdrum is this New Master just as relevant. These are the many questions that make me love art and the study of it in general. Adolphe Bougheraugh was seen as a phony copyist in his day without merit too academic for his own good lacking soul. But when i walk through a museum his pieces keep me there longer than a lot of others. Its all objective.

 

Back to abstract as when you walk into the room of a Caravaggio, I too am unnerved and in awe when i am underneath a good Rothko, or Overpowering Anselm Kiefer. Its the good critique and constant back and forth that i always enjoyed with transcend that keeps me bound to those early days.

[King Of Hell]

Bouguereau wasn't seen as a copyist, he was adored as the finest artist of his age. Compared to Carravaggio, and Rembrant, until the He was systematically written out of the history books because he was living proof that the techniques used by the old master weren't lost as previously thought. He painted in that style when the "Impressionsts" decided he was out of fashion. He wasn't "New" or "fresh" enough, and the art dealers who decided it was easier to market art made in an hour that a painting made over a year, so up with impressionism and down with tradition.

 

Check this article out. Its one of the better ones regaurding the subject. Lots of images to see also.

http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp

 

On to the abstract conversation. I still very much like looking at certain pieces, but I really have a hard time swallowing most of the newly made abstract work. For one...there seems to be a distinct lack of "work" in alot of the work. One thing that attracted me to Joker's stuff is that it was so labor intinsive in its simplicity. Infact to me, and maybe Im wrong, but the simpler and more refined it got, the more labour intensive it was. I am also still atracted to Klee paintings, and believe it or not, alot of Picasso paintings. He had a great double vision. He made it work even though some of that shit is just plain asscrap.

 

Poesia, I always found your work more motion and liquid than Joker. You had a feeling of like sonic mud within loose parameters, and Joker was all about the rulle of the line..

I love both of your work.

[Poesia [ ] T]

You might be right about Bouguereau, i was trying to get across some artists that are so precisecly correct sometimes through history have been looked down upon during there day as to perfect.

 

Yes i can agree with you on the laziness attributed also to the abstract. I am very guilty of this at times myself. It is really easy to fall into "this is abstract so thats it" mentality. Those that practice or admire the work though can usually see the ungenuine works. Anyone after Pollok can be seen as a follower if all they did was drip paint. It was the little things that artists did that was not happening before. Like pollock taking the painting off the easel and working directly upon the floor, these subleties made him the a master.

 

I appreciate his pushing forward, although i am not a fan aesthetically of his work i respect what he did to further it.

 

I think like any artform non objective abstract to master painters, the constant struggle to build and create something that brings us together. We have the same issues and same struggles even with differenent styles. Thats why i respect your comments even if you arent painting abstract work anymore. Its the same principles. We just work backwords sometimes as you work forwards to perfect a technique of rendering so do i as to creating the idea of order through chaos.

 

A very tricky task.

 

Keep the critique coming. I know its going to get a bit more intense in here so if your submitting work have some thck skin. I have been neutral but i think we have to be honest.

 

And i also agree with you about me and Joker. We are exact opposites and thats why i appreciate what he does so much.

[King Of Hell]

I think thats what made transcend before I got into it a force to be reckoned with. Joker was Joker. No argument there. But you had this real lucid, organic version of abstract. Then Persue...who at that time had fucked with abstract a bit too, but had more root in the LA graffiti letter structure which was a direct pull from the early eighties New York stuff. Plus She one had a completely different abstract approach that was half BANDO half FUTURA and it totally worked, and Carl 123 before he was doing all the funk inspired shit has a real graphic design meets cave painting thing going on. Believe it or not, when I first got into transcend was just doing Boston inspierdoverly simple pieces. I wasn't branching into abstract yet, and it was the influence of the crew and my inability to dilute it and filter it into my version that slowly changed what I was doing into something that wasnt mine. I eventually shrugged it off, and went back to my roots and became far happier, although in the last year or two of painting I have intergrated a few things I took with me that I came up with when I was doing the abstract stuff and applied it to this style. Its such miniscule things but they help in the aplication and they help round things out sometimes.