Artistic Expression

sQueef · February 25, 2008 06:35 AM

Well I don't know where the fuk to make this thread so suck my lovely ass if you don't want it here ok? Im sorry for snapping at you like that.

Anyway;

What are your thoughts on Artistic Expression and how far it should be allowed to go? I barely consider things like Photography and "Abstract" artwork to be... Artwork. Well, what are your opinions?

Reasons why I don't think Pollock is or ever was a great artist (this applies to any abstract art), because I really don't think it requires talent to put a canvas on the ground and toss paint at it. Sure it may have some "purpose" behind it that is beyond me but what ever you could put a monkey in a room with some organic paint (so he doesnt eat it and die) and he'll produce fucking abstract art.

Surrealism however is something I am really into, I love surrealism.

Photography I don't consider an artform, I think it requires more talent than any abstract bullshit, but I think it should more or less be considered a craft not an artform.

But thats just my opinion. So again I ask, what are your opinions?

rtil · February 25, 2008 06:51 AM

the difference between pollock and the monkey is that pollock had real emotion behind his work. but once it reaches the audience, the interpretation is left up to the individual. this basically means there is no true definition to art, and no one has a right to say what is art and what isn't. not very fair, but it is true i think.

sQueef · February 25, 2008 06:54 AM

I didn't say that Abstract art shouldn't be considered art, because I know full well that behind it all if you try to constrict art you are defeating the very purpose of art! Or something like that.

I am just saying... c'mon... Emotion or not its fucking paint. Thrown on a canvas... It just boggles my mind. But then again a lot of people seem to really enjoy abstract art so to them I say, more power to you! We all have preferences I just wanted to know what some of yours were.

Interesting to me how Dadaism ended up becoming an artform in a way...

rtil · February 25, 2008 07:20 AM

you said you barely considered them (and photography) art. photography isn't art when you're taking pictures of other things that were already considered art. turning ordinary objects into fascinating subjects makes for great photography. i just think it can always be done more powerfully with artistic mediums other than a camera.

artistic expression can go as far as to a point until it's harming people. and there are people out there that consider death a form of art.

if someone is fascinated by a slab of paint on a canvas, then more power to them. some of it i find quite intriguing, but with other pieces i don't. it's no different for realists, cartoonists, or any other form of expression - it's a matter of taste.

Thor · February 25, 2008 07:36 AM

Last year was my first real exposure to contemporary conceptual art. The first museum my class went to was PS1 for their into me/ out of me exhibits.

I've since come to condemn most conceptual art. I'm still pretty scarred from that whole experience too (think: a whole museum dedicated to work the quality of 2 girls, 1 cup).

But we've all seen the two ends of the spectrum. On one hand, you can paint a beautiful, photorealistic still life, but it's boring because it's shallow and has no meaning. And then you can have a piece that can enlighten viewers as to the secret of happiness/living/life/whatever, but no one is going to pay attention to it if it looks like a 3 year old could've done it. Art should really be more than just being able to draw or paint, imo.

As a hideous analogy, I sort of think of those who can draw/paint but have no conceptual capacities like body builders. "...Well... I pick something heavy up.... and then I put it down." They can't explain WHY they drew it a certain way, and they don't know what makes something striking. They only know the mechanics of it and nothing else.

(shameless plug for a project I did last year)

Yeah it's interesting to look at, but the best thing is that there's a meaning to it. And I can explain why I did what I did beyond the idea that it "looks cool."

....that being said, I absolutely rue most performance art pieces. Playing a piano with an axe (PROCESS IS ART LOLOLOL) or throwing trash into a courtyard from the 2nd and 3rd stories of a condemned building may be art, but it's pretty freakin stupid if you ask me (I'll hit up my art history book eventually for some examples. Golly gosh darn gee willickers, I absolutely detest pretentious, talentless conceptual performance artists. They give the rest of us a bad name.)

sQueef · February 25, 2008 07:37 AM

yea ok ur rly gay!@!

dont ban me please ;(

rtil · February 25, 2008 07:54 AM

it doesn't even matter what the artist thinks their piece means. in fact, it's disenchanting to find out at times. either way, once you release it to the world, your intentions on the meaning of the piece are irrelevant. the viewer is the controller of that, now.

MRat · February 25, 2008 08:14 AM

I think anything you do with passion, and conviction where you make it your own, and express yourself, leaving part of you vulnerable and open to the outside world can be art.

That means, poetry, writing, anything really, as long as you do it from your 'soul' and heart. It's sappy, but just mindlessly throwing something out there doesn't count, but if you do it with love, so to speak, then you can make it art.

I generally don't enjoy most abstract art. Well, that depends. To me, surrealism is going to be abstract art. But I love it. It's my favourite movement of art.

Even elaborate maths can be artistic to me. I've been around some super math geniuses, and they way they handle the stuff is as lovely and moving as watching some painters work. It's all relative.

What I don't think is art is people resigning themselves to what'll pass, and not what's going to push forward. You can't be shy about your art. You need to take risks, and throw all caution to the wind.

Thor · February 25, 2008 08:17 AM

Quote from: rtilit doesn't even matter what the artist thinks their piece means.

hahahhaha.

So I got to see Ann Hamilton speak at Mt. Holyoke college last year. She has some pieces that are awesome.

My favorite one was an installation piece at Mass MoCa where there were I think 20+ machines mounted to the ceiling of a LARGE room that released blanked pieces of paper. I found the piece to be quite inspirational and I took it as a metaphor for ideas and creativity.

Ms. Hamilton said that the piece represented the human body (....wait, what?)

sQueef · February 25, 2008 08:29 AM

Quote from: MRatasdf

I agree with a lot of what you had to say even if it may not seem like I would judging from my original post. And it's funny you bring up mathematicians because I was thinking that, or should I say I tend to think that the way Mathematicians or scientists go about their work is so methodical and caring sometimes that it does touch you at an emotional level.

I consider abstract art, art, because that is what it is, but I still don't consider any talent was put into it. But there is that level of open-mindedness when you realize that not everybody has to be the best artist technically speaking so long as they are creative and energetic about their artwork. But then again it boils down more to me thinking Pollock wasn't even creative with his pieces, at least Picasso seemed to try and invent new ways to create art, and at least Dali tried to be very creative (and to me the breadth of Dali's work is incredibly creative). It just seems to me that Pollock got drunk all the time and decided to take out his depression and shame at himself on a canvas and while it may be art I personally detest Pollock and all of his "creations".

But once more, I must say, that is just my opinion and my opinion in the grand scheme of it all is highly irrelevant and unimportant.

MRat · February 25, 2008 08:33 AM

Have you ever seen Dali's film, Un Chien Andalou? That is something I've always looked back at for inspiration as an artist.

rtil · February 25, 2008 08:34 AM

Quote from: Thor
Quote from: rtilit doesn't even matter what the artist thinks their piece means.

hahahhaha.

So I got to see Ann Hamilton speak at Mt. Holyoke college last year. She has some pieces that are awesome.

My favorite one was an installation piece at Mass MoCa where there were I think 20+ machines mounted to the ceiling of a LARGE room that released blanked pieces of paper. I found the piece to be quite inspirational and I took it as a metaphor for ideas and creativity.

Ms. Hamilton said that the piece represented the human body (....wait, what?)

what does that have to do with anything i just said

sQueef · February 25, 2008 08:38 AM

Quote from: MRatHave you ever seen Dali's film, Un Chien Andalou? That is something I've always looked back at for inspiration as an artist.

No but I have wanted to see another film that he helped write I believe it was titled nevermind I just used wikipedia. Heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%82ge_d%27or

Its got a 120 day orgy! Awesome. Too bad religious fuckwits had to go and get all uppity and trash a bunch of Dali's promotional artwork for the film

MRat · February 25, 2008 08:39 AM

I've seen that too, actually. Who I'd compare it too now would be Jim Jarmusch... but on acid.

sQueef · February 25, 2008 08:41 AM

Quote from: MRatI've seen that too, actually. Who I'd compare it too now would be Jim Jarmusch... but on acid.

See now here is where I wish I had all your years of experience with the "THEATREEE" because you've totally lost me here, and also I envy the fact that you have seen at least 2 Dali movies whereas I have seen 0.

Perhaps they have them at my local library!

MRat · February 25, 2008 08:47 AM

I've seen this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destino, and this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellbound_%281945_film%29 too.

sQueef · February 25, 2008 08:53 AM

Quote from: MRatI've seen this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destino, and this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellbound_%281945_film%29 too.

ok now you are being gay ;(

although I heard of Destino before...

...I'd venture to guess you don't fancy yourself a good anime now and again do you?

Well if you feel up to it I would highly suggest you see the movie "Paprika" directed by Satoshi Kon, famous for animated series' such as "Paranoia Agent".

(yes I like anime, and no I don't see why a lot of people seem to despise it. Other than stupid chibi gayfag shit and those annoying ass >w< types emoticons... I guess I only like good anime.)

MRat · February 25, 2008 08:58 AM

I've seen Paprika a number of times.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a film I haven't seen honestly. Well, post 50s there's alot I haven't seen, but I've seen all the big ones I think.

And I love a good anime, but good anime is hard to come by. Miyazaki's work I've seen all over, hell studio Ghibli I've seen all of. I love the Metropolis anime.

Dead leaves is awesome.

I could go on and on. I've seen paranoia agent as well.

sQueef · February 25, 2008 09:05 AM

Well im glad to know you aren't a close-minded douchebag who follows the crowd. Okay here's one for you, have you seen the two episodes they made of Alita Battle Angel? Not technically a movie though so I guess it's out of your realm if you haven't seen or heard of them...

Good anime isn't that hard to come by. It's just that there also is a lot of really shit anime.

Sky Blue kicks ass, Appleseed (done in 3d/cell shaded and is surprisingly good even though 3d characters are so stiff and ... not lifelike...) Akira obviously, Steamboy, yeah yeah you've probably seen all of them. If you've seen Sky Blue I'll just give up and say that you've seen everything you cinema-fanatic. ;P

MRat · February 25, 2008 09:10 AM

Quote from: SqueefWell im glad to know you aren't a close-minded douchebag who follows the crowd. Okay here's one for you, have you seen the two episodes they made of Alita Battle Angel? Not technically a movie though so I guess it's out of your realm if you haven't seen or heard of them...

Good anime isn't that hard to come by. It's just that there also is a lot of really shit anime.

Sky Blue kicks ass, Appleseed (done in 3d/cell shaded and is surprisingly good even though 3d characters are so stiff and ... not lifelike...) Akira obviously, Steamboy, yeah yeah you've probably seen all of them. If you've seen Sky Blue I'll just give up and say that you've seen everything you cinema-fanatic. ;P

I've seen all that except Alita Battle Angel.

I actually really hated Appleseed. Like, alot. I find it hard to even look at. The colours stung my eyes, and the cel shading was really amateurish I found. It had so much potential too.

Steamboy is great for what it is, but I'd never watch it a second tim.

Sky Blue is beautiful. A little too detailed for my tastes, but I've seen it a couple times.

Tekkon Kinkreet is something recent that I watched a number of times. Aachi & Ssipak I saw at the national animation festival here, and was blown away. I really want to get a DVD of it.

Also: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v574075gp4wMZeg This is fucking awesome.