deviantART: where ART meets application!
I just caught it on dA's main page and was thoroughly offended. seriously, does anyone consider this art? a profile pic on a dating site, maybe. but art? no. :/
Printable View
deviantART: where ART meets application!
I just caught it on dA's main page and was thoroughly offended. seriously, does anyone consider this art? a profile pic on a dating site, maybe. but art? no. :/
Just some attention whore. There is nothing artistic about it. If anything you should report it.
Lol. I'm not logged in so the mature content filter's on, but I really don't want to see it now. x3 They should be embarrassed.
I reported it but I don't expect them to do anything, because anything can be considered art now. but if the staff has any respect for real art then they'll delete it, hopefully (along with the rest of her gallery which is the same garbage)..
Puffin, sorry, I didn't realize it was mature. I don't think it's that bad really it's just a chick in a bikini thong holding up a camera, using a bathroom mirror to take a picture of her sticking her butt out u_u
it's not even a quality picture, it looks cell phone quality. like a shitty profile pic.
I'm baffled that camera companies can get away with making actual compact cameras with absolute shit quality. It's all about the megapixels these days. Doesn't matter if it's grainy and filled with colour noise. A lot of it is also due to people being terrible photographers, but still, A cellphone from 2006 could produce better quality than that camera.
I'd be disappointed if they did. Sure most people won't consider that art, most likely even the girl herself is only doing it for the attention. Still it "could" be an art attempt, and there's nothing to gain from going around deleting whatever is not deemed worthy of being called art.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
It bothers me whenever people get offended and file complains about things that don't affect them in the least. Nobody is being forced to visit her page, why can't you just ignore it?
Ha, usually "mature content" is supposed to hide much more explicit stuff. But it's beyond me as to why someone would consider making themselves look egotistical and shallow through a... get ready for it... ART site.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
SB: I respect art, and that image is a disgrace. if you really think that could possibly be a sincere attempt at art then you have to be mental.
she should consider moving her "gallery" to "hotornot" because apparently that's what she thinks deviantart is.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...oll/omgart.jpg
look at this magnificent work of art I just made! it's totally sincere. and totally art. it took a whole 5 seconds of planning. plus I had to change my shirt, and angle the camera (phone).. I might do some more but it took a lot out of me. I'm too exhausted from the mental preparation right now so maybe later.
no but you're right, bikini chick is probably for real.
I don't, read my post again. It's a matter of principle, also it doesn't hurt anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
peeing on a grave doesn't hurt anyone. burning books doesn't hurt anyone. painting graffiti on a building doesn't hurt anyone. it's about respect. it's about class.
Hardly valid comparisons..
I agree that your photo there isn't really art Nerve, but you're a lot more beautiful than that girl on DeviantArt :)
Actually I feel bad that she's trying so hard
BTW, I really need to put my adult content filter back on DA, I was trying to look up flower references and my eyes burned
Can't really complain about what's art or not though. I agree with you on this particular point, but if you censor one shitty photo of a chicks ass you have to censor them all.
And then what about the retards who upload their awful fursona or "if I was an anime" sketches all the time?
I don't think that's art but I just skip past it.
This
http://images.encyclopediadramatica....emozeroXxX.jpg
is just as bad as the image you posted, only difference is the medium.
But you can't be exclusionary.
all art is terrible/anything can be considered art
that is, if someone considers it art, it is.
it's also become artistic to point something out
as long as it's done
artfully
ps nerve is hot
I KNEW you were a fucking girl!
At least I think I can see signs of breasts there.
I agree with you too. Of course this shit should be deleted. I mean, I could come up with a reason like "they are making a statement about modern western culture and our obsession with" bla bla bla. But THEY are not doing that. Therefore it is attention-whoring and should be deleted. But deviantart is a shit site now anyway. And I think they don't delete this shit just so they can say "LOOK! We have 38398384738702982 MEMBERS!!!!!!"
Is this some secret internet rule I haven't heard of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearsy
This isn't some government that has to be fair to everybody. DeviantArt is a website with its own admins and moderators and they can do what ever they want. Just because they delete this picture, doesn't mean they have to delete all other pictures with girls showing their ass.
ps nerve is a dude
DeviantART is a website full of tracers, wannabes, and girls who want attention. There are very few things (notice I didn't even bother saying artwork) there that are good. I like a lot of their Photoshop brushes though. :3
The real problem with deviantart is bad tagging. I make a search for "realism" and a ton of anime drawings turn up. THAT is something the mods should do something about.
I'm not buying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by no-Name
wow! that's a dude?
an artsy dudeQuote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
- To discourse upon the contexts, frames of reference and points of observation which would determine the origin, nature, and meaning of data if one had any. To present evidence of an understanding of form in the hope that the reader may be deceived into supposing a familiarity with content. :undecided:Quote:
Originally Posted by no-Name
I'd tap that.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
I'm not too fond of those kinds of things either, but still, one question:
who are you to decide what's real art? :o
Not that I believe the picture to be anything more than attention-whoring, myself, but calling it "not art" is nothing more than a declaration of a lack of understanding of what art is. (No offense.) For instance: I can't stand a lot of modern art. I find much of it to be minimalist, pretentious, and lacking any real skill in its application (not to mention, just plain ugly, most of the time). However, it is still art.
One person's "David" is another person's "dude with his schlong hanging out."
In that respect, they are both still "art." This concept doesn't change, no matter the medium.
I still do not see how the photo linked to can be considered art. Therefore, it is my personal opinion, that it is not art. I think everyone has a right to decide for themselves what is art and what isn't. Painting a huge red square on canvas is NOT art, and I don't give a shit who says otherwise.
I'm trying with all my might not to change my avatar to a red box, and use this as a sig.....must maintain....composure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
If you can convince someone " to spend as much money as possible on a huge red square then it is indeed art. There is an art to making someone see something they know isn't really there.
Are we going to have a problem, sir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akono
No dear, everything's fine. The troops are having a blast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
If you define art so that it includes stuff like this, it's art.
If you define art so that it doesn't include stuff like this, it's not art.
End thread, hurpa dur, all hail me.
If you define dolphins as elephants then dolphins are elephants.
It's true, and a pointless argument.
Good, please don't make it in future.
Isn't this the same guy who was complaining that art today is too pretentious? Yeah, way to break the cycle, pal.
I feel awkward just jumping into the conversation like this, but oh well. Good "art" is supposed to be inspired and be creative. Therefore taking a photo of yourself by holding a camera out in front of you does NOT qualify as true art.
hold up. on just what authority do we base our decisions? I really despise all that postmodern, "the truth is what you make it" bullcrap. I think it's reckless and counter-productive. if we allow a thing to be anything anyone claims it to be, as tommo succinctly illustrated, then we rob its term of meaning. if everything is art, then nothing is. but apparently there is such a thing as "art," otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. the lines therefore must be drawn somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
even me? ;_;Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
actually I would have completely agreed with you, until recently when I felt moved to paint things similar to works like those that I'd previously trashed. like this:
http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/w..._solipsism.jpg
it's supposed to be something like a diagram of solipsism. that's how I see it in my head, and although its simplicity may give the appearance of apathy to some, it's actually quite sincere and has depth. as for the red square, maybe what the artist had in mind was something like what I did, an illustration of some abstract concept- and maybe they saw that as the best way to express it. the problem with art like this, though, is when artists think that offering it for sale at markedly steep price ranges is acceptable. this is my opinion, anyway. when they do this, it creates the oppurtunity for any slick con artist (lol literally) to cheat people out of loads of money for works that aren't even genuine. but then again, even these "fake" works can move someone just the same as something made by a true artist; the person may see something in it regardless of whether or not the creator did. so if they want to pay the price for it, then oh well. I guess, as they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." still, and again this is opinion, I think when an artist makes especially simplistic works they should price it accordingly. I think ideally prices should be determined strictly by time, effort and detail. for example if I were to offer that painting I did up for sale, I'd probably ask for no more than $40- which is hardly above the cost of the materials. now, if someone comes by and they offer an artist a considerably large sum for a very simplistic work, that's different. but just painting a big red square and asking $400,000 dollars for it is forthrightly offensive.
Yea, but, you actually make it believable.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
Congratulations. You now understand the concept of "art." (And I mean that in sincerity, not sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
Calling your creation "art," while calling many other pieces (that you would not have considered art) "not art," would be hypocrisy.
A ridiculous price for a simplistic piece of art does not make it "not art." It just makes people likely to label it as such. Pretentious pricing makes me disgusted too. I actually put a great deal of effort into my artwork, but I still bend over backward to offer honest, reasonable prices. But a price tag has nothing to do with whether or not something is art.
Ok perhaps I need to be more clear about the problem I have with the goddamn red square.
WHY IS IT IN MY ART HISTORY BOOKS!?
That's all I want to know.
I flip through pages and pages of a thousand years of art history and enjoy true masterpieces of creative expression. Until I get to the modern art section. And I want to tear the pages out and rip them up into tiny pieces. In fact...I'm going to do this right now. *rip rip rip*
I mean, I guess the whole point of it being historically and artistically significant is in the preschool like simplicity of it. I get angry when people try to teach me that THIS is modern art...and it's REALLY AMAZING ART. Amazing enough to be side by side with true masterpieces in the pages of history. I'm sorry, but who the hell decided that it was significant enough to even deserve a single page in art history? If you can't tell, sometimes I have a real problem with the shit taught to us in schools.
Art History was without a doubt my favorite subject, until it came to the last 50 or so years. Then it turned into the biggest disappointment ever. nerve what you painted is certainly and without a doubt art. And yeah, someone can paint a red square or a fucking purple square on a canvas and hang it on their wall and I'd say, "hey, nice artwork" ...but that doesn't mean I think it's worth the paper its printed on in the pages of history.
Now we're getting somewhere. Heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
I completely agree with everything you said, above.
However, nerve was saying that he didn't understand how such simplistic things can be called art. As much as I hate to say it, it is. It seems like we cheapen the word, when we include such effortless works, I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still, basically, art.
With that technicality out of the way, though, I have a great distaste for minimalist art as well.
Indeed.
Bad art is still art I suppose. And just because something is "art" doesn't mean it's good art.
Well said. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
I want to know why art history books have a conspiracy against all forms of fantasy art and try to tell us something boring and useless like a red square is art :pissed: Four years of art history and I'm still not convinced!
An art the practice of composing or capturing something while being inspired by creativity. Therefore art is anything and everything inspired by creativity. Anyone can define what art is, but that's it's true meaning. For example, writing is an art, the story is the art. Inventing is an art, the invention is the art, et cetera.
Question.
Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?
I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either; there were blotches of paint inside the square which made the colour uneven.
Now, as a perspective, one of my favourite pieces of art is Kazimir Malevitch's Black Square (if this makes me pretentious so be it) but this red square made me angry. It wasn't even or geometric. It was plain badly done.
Later, I reconsidered my opinion based on what somebody said. Art is meant to make you feel, I would suppose; but nobody says it has to make you feel good. Why do people watch horror movies, otherwise? They may not feel good but they feel strongly, and that's an important feeling. Red is the colour of anger so it accomplished its goal in that I guess
where am I going with this? I don't know. But Nerve, I still need to write you letters.
I laughed so fucking hard at this lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Lseadragon
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.
Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.
Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?
'
~i-likethis 5 days ago
Cute ass! Reply
~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
thanks
--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply
~i-likethis 5 days ago
You are so welcome!Reply
~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
um thnx
--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply
~i-likethis 5 days ago
'
Lmao,
Yeah, deifnitely not art.
Very funny though
LOL, and:
'Deathraven666 Jan 14, 2011
you look grate. I really think you should keep going with the artistic nudes. But that's just meReply
~Sexilexi2845 6 days ago
Well I'll see what I can do.
--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.You'
I have absolutely nothing to do with postmodernism and what tommo said had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If we called green 'blue' and blue 'green' there would be absolutely zero difference in meaning, because words do not have objective existence; it certainly does not mean that green is blue. We learn words by somebody pointing to various different scenarios in which the object is present and saying the word, and after a while we understand that the word is to be correlated with the thing common to those scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
If you don't start by drawing the lines yourself and grounding the term 'art' in reality, how the hell do you ever expect to resolve this? Everything you accused me is actually what you are doing and I am not. The word 'art' did not create itself.
So again; if it follows from your definition of art that these works are art, then they are art. If it does not, they are not.
Get it?
No I said the exact same thing you did.
Words are just sounds we apply to an object or idea.
Art is an idea. Which is basically what you were saying. But so is anything fundamentally. The idea of an Elephant, an Elephant is not a real thing. It's just a lot of atoms working together. Someone else not from this society might say an Elephant (or whatever their word is for it) is only the body, but the head is a "cromo" or something.
But not to argue about an analogy...
Art should have some sort of definition. A lot people have suggested some.
But there is always some correlations. Usually, a method of communicating an idea.
Whether it is visual art, auditory art or whatever. Even talking.
It also is usually defined as being creative. Figuring out a solution to a problem also.
A picture of a naked chick on a fucking mobile phone does not portray any of this.
Unless of course they are self portraits, communicating the aspects of her personality which include whorish, low self-esteem, desperate for attention and stupid.
In that case, very creative.
Hate to digress, but is an elephant not a real thing, or rather the idea of an elephant that has no objective existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Also, it's kind of cute how this thread spawns from:So cute and timely, I might call it art.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Roger Dean.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
amirite???
Arttistic Nude pictures are a form of art for sure, but this.... Indeed seems like a cheap picture on a Dating site. Nothing artistic about it.
I dont know; she sure was able to evoke some sincere, heartfelt emotions from everyone in this thread. Some were moved to anger, some grief, some despair, some lulz... All with a shot at a well poised rump.
Exquisite in execution, no?
I repeat the question I posed earlier somewhere:
who are you to judge what is art and what is not?
Furthermore, who are you to judge what is good art and what is bad art?
I'd say all you can say is whether you personally find something 'oohh pretty' or 'thought provoking' or something. The only thing you can have is an opinion on the piece. Whether the piece itself is art or not lies in the attitude and the intention of the artist (or 'maker' if you prefer).
Or so I'd say..
And it is obvious that the creator did not intend to create art, but rather get attention from pathetic deviant art users.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryoDragoon
But she got people thinking/feeling, even she didn't intend to.
Chances are she didn't intend to. And intention is necessary for it to be called art.
You can throw shit on a wall and call it art.
This is a touchy subject for me. I remember in high school we were doing paintings in art class. We had to do five different ones and I was on my fourth. None of my paintings were horribly good, but I had put effort into them. I had tried, but one morning in class my teacher sat everyone down and started to talk to us about trying to be frugal with the paint since we were running low. Next thing I know he's pulling out the painting I was working on and talking about how stuff like this was a waste of paint and we needed to be taking things seriously.
I can't tell you how humiliated and embarrassed I was. I hadn't signed it or anything so nobody knew it was me, but after that... I just didn't care to try anymore. I've never been a good artist and granted I didn't know where I was going with it, but what he did was uncalled for, and this is why the general creative world annoys me.
I can't see the picture, but regardless of what any of us think unless we can go into that girls head and know what she was thinking (or unless she says so in the comments) when she took it none of us have any right to say that she was just attention grabbing or that she wasn't actually trying to create something. It doesn't matter how apparent it is, it doesn't matter how certain we are all we can do is speculate and claiming otherwise is just arrogance. After all that teacher was certain that I was just wasting paint.
What is art and what isn't, what is good and what isn't, is all subjective. I think people just have a hard time acknowledging their opinions are just that when faced with something they're passionate about.
It kind of reminds me in grooming, sometimes groomers will get very stubborn about the clips they do on certain dogs. Owners will come in with special requests that they'll refuse because it isn't 'proper'. Personally I do whatever the client wants as long as it won't cause harm to the dog. So what if they want their yorkie to look like a schnauzer. I may not like the way it looks, but I'm not the one that has to live with it. If it makes them happy then who am I to tell them what they're doing is wrong or incorrect?
^ This. I dont have a DeviantArt account so the picture doesn't show but according to her profile, she's an aspiring model. It may not have been shallow attention seeking, for all we know she meant for it to be part of her portfolio or w/e.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberryfox
@ Art class: Ouch. xD
Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Not everyone can afford to buy an expensive camera either. Maybe that camera phone is the best she had? You've gotta work within your means after all. If what she's doing doesn't really work, or there are things she could be doing to improve herself I would rather people give her constructive criticism and tell her how she could have made the photo more appealing to her target rather then dismiss her as an attention seeker.
And yeah it wasn't one of my more pleasant moments... one of the many reasons I'm convinced teens should have the option to opt out of high school and go into a trade instead *would have found her calling a lot sooner*
oh, look at that, they finally got back to me and they removed the picture. and since deviantART is the final authority on all things art-related, uh, i guess that means I WAS RIGHTQuote:
Your Violation Report on deviation 'Looking Back 2'
from $devart
to ~rottingteeth
This is an automated message concerning a deviation which you previously reported, entitled Looking Back 2. A member of staff has reviewed your report and the deviation has been removed.
Thank you for your report.
-- deviantART Staff
Lol, bet you the rest of em are still there.
Says who, you?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Intention is irrelevant when pitted against perception.
Ok.
I honestly hope that you're joking around otherwise that's a lot of bitter emotions to be carrying around over a picture that isn't hurting you on an art site that people stopped taking seriously long ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
HUZZAH!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
About 100+ similar photos were uploaded to the site during the meantime though.
http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/1...png?1300519945
Whoa they referenced Spongebob's "You like krabby patties, don't you Squidward?" face...
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kv...i2jro1_500.jpg
I don't know what's funnier, the fact that
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
or that 'Raphael' knew exactly where the fuck that face came from
or 'Blackberryfox's reply that I initially ignored but just noticed, sweetheart your newb is showing I am never serious
Soooooo you do see this (the stunning photography) as a masterpiece.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...pike_troll.png
of course
jacked straight from the mind of Kricfalusi; Hillenburg: Thieving bastard for life!
See for yourself
..though I believe there is a secret alliance :cheeky:
Oh sugarcube that's not my newb showing that's just me. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by nerve
"sugarcube", hahahaha that's fantastic, I like you ;u;
Easy there, nerve. You don't wanna scare her away, play it cool. About 20% cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
i didn't mean like THAT
i like boys anyway
pshh, obviously.
That's a little too cool but I like the enthusiasm, I'm sure Blackberry will too. You're getting the idea, you just need to take it down a notch. The whole "aloof" thing you've got going on is great - girls love that - but if you completely ignore her, her swooning self might move on thinking you're not interested. You wanna keep her at arm's length.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
Not to worry, nerve, your wingman's got you.
Only the artist can ever know for sure if what they have created is art. Art appreciation is nothing more than a subtle game of attempting to call the artist's bluff.
would you say that there is no art without a conscious creator?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Heh.. That was art.Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
Gavin, nerve I think you guys just became my two favorite people on this board. Whatever you're doing keep it up because it's working. xD
Look at my new hit digital gallery. It's a statement about art itself.
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/24/artb.png
*GOOD NEWS* High Quality Laser Prints are now available. Send all enquiries to my private message inbox. The price is $5.95 per print and $5 flat rate shipping on up to 60 prints. US only. Printed at 600x2400 DPI with ultra high quality laser toner on 24 lb. grade 96 brightness 8.5" x 11" white paper.
Here is a sample of my quality prints hanging in my quality print gallery:
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/1475/dscn0077d.jpg
Critics are raving.
Quote:
[20:27] <A^Roxxor> I will pay you
[20:27] <A^Roxxor> $80,000 for those pieces
[20:27] <A^Roxxor> After you ahve been dead
[20:27] <A^Roxxor> for 25 years
Quote:
[20:27] <jamesisdreaming> $125,387!
[20:27] <jamesisdreaming> BRUTAL SIMPLICITY
Quote:
[20:27] <%zebrah> simplistic
[20:27] <%zebrah> but infinite
[20:27] <%zebrah> orgasmic
:facepalm:
I lol'd
My life finally feels complete. =DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blackberryfox
It's black and white... what are you trying to pull, Vertebrate? D:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertebrate
-----
Since we've covered visual art, how do you guys feel about music? What makes a "good" song? Do you guys take the same stance on that as you would for a painting?
That was the joke :armflap:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Does Friday count? It has 88 million views. The random guy in a car didn't just repeat combinations of days of the week, "fun," and "partying."Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Is the grand canyon art, or merely a magnificent sight to behold?Quote:
Originally Posted by no-Name
I asked you first!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Well, I would say it is not art no matter how beautiful it is. Art is an attempt at expression of a particular perspective. If there is no (conscious) perspective, there is no expression. The grand canyon isn't trying to convey to you what it is like to be vast, it just is.
So there is no art without intention. You cannot unintentionally create art. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Beauty in the eye of the beholder, meaning in the mind of the constructor.
Beauty is in many things, but not all that is beautiful is art (and not all art is beautiful). The answer to your question depends on your definition of intention. Not all expression of one's perspective is art, but one can try to express themselves and end up doing it in an artful way without intending to. One cannot create art without expressing their perspective to others, but one can still unintentionally express themselves, in which case the way that they unintentionally express themselves can be art.Quote:
Originally Posted by no-Name
This thread should be re-named to "Argue Pointlessly Over the Definition of Art" and put in it's own sub-forum with "Argue Pointlessly Over the Definition of Atheism".
oh my god i laughed so hard at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
and Vertebrate has an American Psycho avatar
oh i love Ellis' novels
Suck on these apples: anyone who defines art doesn't get it.
I got what you need to suck, right here
I can only assume you're pointing to a pile of apples D:Quote:
Originally Posted by nerve
Was Rumpelstiltskin a troll? There was a lot of good art in that book, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artelis
http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/w...sGO/apples.png
yes, go for the one in the middle
under the zipper
I have inspired such creative gestures.
Nerve, I have to say that you do in fact have an outstanding taste in apples. The photograph is like a statement about expression itself and how the nuances of everyday conversation coalesce into a complex system of non-deterministic outcomes that can only be fully described through this brilliant maxim: "Art."
That's what they call me in irc. Art.
I fail to see how you are Art.
That's what I have been thinking of for this entire conversation. From the second I saw your first post in this thread I was grinning to myself: "hehehe... people call him Art"Quote:
Originally Posted by Artelis
Completely off-topic here but:
Is it strange that online nicknames have come to the same degree of identity for me as my actual name? Like, saying my own name feels weird. Calling other people with my name by our same name feels... weird. Some of my many online nicknames, as strange as they may be, have approached this same level of identity for me. Like, if somebody were to shout "VERT!" I would automatically turn my head.
Not really, I usually continue to call someone by their screen name even after they've told me their real one. "Eric" or "Courtney" just doesn't sound right after calling them "CoochieCommando" for so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertebrate
bunch of nerds
I've been Artelis online for about 8 years. I'm pretty locked into it.
I. Am. Art. Ultimate nerd.
good thing you didn't say greenQuote:
Originally Posted by Aquanina
Green by Ellsworth Kelly:
http://www.moma.org/collection_image...CRI_182620.jpg
Whoa I totally forgot about this thread but let's come back to the answerQuote:
Originally Posted by tommo
One, I had seen some of the artist's other works, and he could paint realism quite okay. And as he was Russian and in 1919 I didn't get the impression that he was being lazy. It would simply be the wrong time and place to have an art market that could bear that kind of exploitation.
Two, it was (and is) pleasing to me in the way Steve Reich might be. The boundaries are very simple, whether visual or harmonic, but by imposing these inordinately silly boundaries other things are suddenly brought to the fore which might be hard to emphasise in regular artmusic. In the case of this square it was not actually about the square but about the grey on the canvas surrounding it which had been painted far less delicately, with cracks in the oil and brushstrokes visible. It was the contrast against the inhuman perfection of the square.
In the world of computers, mathematically perfect squares and forms are the norm; but in 1919 such things would've not been. The boundary between the black and the grey was a rubicon crossed, a line between our forever imperfect world and Plato's world of forms.
Three, I actually saw the painting. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I repeat. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I'm not sure if the red square everybody is talking about here is Rothko (might be) but he had a similar aesthetic, simple squares and contrasts. But two very important related things about his work do not translate onto computers.
1. They're huge things apparently, ten feet long. There's a physical impact you will not get from a computer screen.
2. In the reduction from this size, all the detail of form will be lost in a crappy tiny .jpeg.
Such things as these are integral to the experience of art. You, audiophile, would not say that an mp3 would lend the same understanding as seeing the band live; so how can a picture in a book be the same as the painting?
So, TL;DR: If you go to an art gallery with a minimalist exhibition and an open mind, give the actual paintings rather than pictures of them a good hard look, and think about it a bit - and still think it's talentless shit - then your opinion is well defined and fair, and I will not try to convince you any further.