Curtis1973
Android Expert
His style and at least in my mind abilities changed as he got older.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
His style and at least in my mind abilities changed as he got older.
D
Deleted User
Guest
@lunatic59 are you an artist then? Can you submit some of your work for assessment by the AF art critic panel? 
@lunatic59 are you an artist then? Can you submit some of your work for assessment by the AF art critic panel?
While my education was fine art and art history, I make my living as a graphic designer (kinda art-like
) the most i do any more is some figure drawing as a local art school. Here's some stuff (NSFW ... nudes, but tasteful 
) https://goo.gl/photos/PBhZvSY7GakNKpsW7
M
Member243850
Guest
I deeply admire artists... such brilliant works... truly unique... I sometimes wish I had the patience and talent or natural gift that so many incredible artists have... I like to make my own so called "versions" of art but they seem so off or sad... or not me... I sometimes look at something and my predefined notions of beauty seem to always be prepared and thought through... but then I realize that what is beautiful is not predetermined or planned... but the unexpected... I have won this through hard won experience in my crazy ass life...
Like this is something I made on my own... I would love to paint it but my painting skills are worse than an amoeba's...
M
Member243850
Guest
I also wanted to make a painting of my own memory of when I almost took my own life... I wanted to call it "Ambages" as I struggle to even remotely understand this crazy riddle called life and how mad everything truly is and how I struggle to make sense of it all... a total enigma...
It would be a painting of a me with a gun to my head struggling to stay... struggling to understand all the pain in this world screaming it's lungs out with a mad look in the eye.
Art is truly a tasteful, personal and totally unique thing.
It's essence seems to remain and only some may understand it where as others might laugh... depending on the caliber of the individual or audience involved... some brighter than others...
I must say... I love art... love it to bits... something I really do appreciate...
This I find for example is an outstanding work of art:
Beautiful...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
It would be a painting of a me with a gun to my head struggling to stay... struggling to understand all the pain in this world screaming it's lungs out with a mad look in the eye.
Art is truly a tasteful, personal and totally unique thing.
It's essence seems to remain and only some may understand it where as others might laugh... depending on the caliber of the individual or audience involved... some brighter than others...
I must say... I love art... love it to bits... something I really do appreciate...
This I find for example is an outstanding work of art:
Beautiful...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
Dngrsone
Android Expert
LOL... I'm not quite that bad, but I do make my wiring nice and neat when I'm building test equipment, even though it's highly likely that no one will ever see the inside.
I was just pondering creating a thread about the art in ugly: I just finished hacking a shelf onto my toolbox (the shelf was designed for a similar model, which happens to be deeper and a different color), and the end result is an operational rig that is pretty ugly: red shelf on a black toolbox, with the lip of the lid on that one side all bent up (almost mangled) so the lid would close.
Most of the time, I like to make my hacks look like an OEM installation, but this is so very redneck and Punk that I'm thinking of ways to make it even uglier.
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
I'm late to the party (as usual), but dearly hope this thread is still active......Love it, everyone come back please, so much to be said!
For the moment, and with a significant, (but hardly awe inspiring) background in fine art, I'll say only the following fifty or sixty things.
(And at the risk of sounding wishy-washy, pedantic, or pandering), there is some truth to everything, everyone has said here to date; And much of it is rubbish.
Later edit: Far closer to what I intended above: "There is much truth to everything everyone has said here to date, and some of it is rubbish." Significantly different from the kinda' insulting way I put it first, without intending.
More than enough blah, blah, blah for now.......But I hope everyone else comes back, (I know I will); Great thread, @LV426, food for the soul, thanks to everyone who has had anything to say to date.
Am headed next to @Kaat72 thread for music memorabilia, and blah, blah, blah there about Dire Straits for a while......bring yer' friends!
For the moment, and with a significant, (but hardly awe inspiring) background in fine art, I'll say only the following fifty or sixty things.
(And at the risk of sounding wishy-washy, pedantic, or pandering), there is some truth to everything, everyone has said here to date; And much of it is rubbish.
Later edit: Far closer to what I intended above: "There is much truth to everything everyone has said here to date, and some of it is rubbish." Significantly different from the kinda' insulting way I put it first, without intending.
Yes, there is a lot of crap out there in the art world, some of the artist's themselves would likely admit it, over a few beers. And they might have no explanation themselves, for how a particular work came to such fame. But both beauty and crap are in the eye of the beholder.
If you elect to read further, play this in the background......Dire Straits' commentary on the art world and the success that eluded their friend.
Sometimes, you may see an individual painting that leaves you cold......Who cares about that? But any time you have the opportunity to see a major retrospective of a big name artist, organized by a large museum that has the horsepower to bring together dozens of famous works by a single artist, from private collections around the world.......GO AND SEE IT.
Even if you decide you don't like any of their stuff, you will gain an entirely new appreciation for all of their stuff when. you see so much of it gathered together, side by side, in chronological context. You will likely come away feeling "I may not like it, but this guy painted his ass off, was not f*c**g around......He pursued this line of interest, decade after decade, he/she evolved and changed over the years, but there is a core sensibility that flows throughout all of it. And you will then feel that much more comfortable saying "I do like this, I don't like that......And here is why."
Yeah, the money thing is very difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes it truly is just the "jerk-bait" factor. Sometimes however, it truly is the "This is a cultural treasure with unlimited value to humanity, I want to be the one who cares for it for the next 20 years, and I have the disposable income to ensure its safety." thing at work.
There was an article in the NY Times recently; Alec Baldwin is embroiled in a huge art scandal. He paid tens of millions of dollars for a painting that was not what it claimed to be; It was an original work, by the original artist, very similar to the one he wanted, (maybe) nobody claimed it was "the real" one, (maybe) he saw something he wanted to see.......All very ugly business, all over (IMHO) a very ugly painting, and more shades of legal and ethical grey than one could imagine......Fascinating!
Yes, much of it appears as though a four year old could have done it. (And there are often many imitators of the originators, operating on that four year old level, and cashing in). But often there is much more to it.....Much more. And having the idea is always the first step.
It's one thing to see a "tiny little" Jackson Pollock painting in a book, spend three seconds, and just flip the page, going......"Meh, my kid could do that". But when you see one of those ten or twelve foot canvases in person........Next to one or two other twelve foot canvases painted a year earlier, and a year later......And ask yourself all of the questions....... How did he pay attention to the big picture, while still doing so much work just within this square meter of the canvas? How did this summbitch make this one single fluid gesture that goes back and forth....and seems to span four or five arm lengths? And how did he make that gesture flow over these other three, yet somehow under this fifth stroke......which seems to go underneath the first two?
There was a nice piece written in the NY Times recently on Chuck Close; Interesting guy, great body of work. I'm (wildly) paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect of: I see all of this work, done over the years by other artists, spanning centuries, that I love; And I think to myself, I like that; And even if I can't do that myself, at least I can figure out how this guy did that.......... But I look at a Vermeer, and I simply can't figure out how that MutherF'r put the paint on the canvas that way. **(Emoji for fall to your knees and weep with joy)**
Praise from Caesar, and a larger metaphor for life and the creative process, to be sure.
If you elect to read further, play this in the background......Dire Straits' commentary on the art world and the success that eluded their friend.
Sometimes, you may see an individual painting that leaves you cold......Who cares about that? But any time you have the opportunity to see a major retrospective of a big name artist, organized by a large museum that has the horsepower to bring together dozens of famous works by a single artist, from private collections around the world.......GO AND SEE IT.
Even if you decide you don't like any of their stuff, you will gain an entirely new appreciation for all of their stuff when. you see so much of it gathered together, side by side, in chronological context. You will likely come away feeling "I may not like it, but this guy painted his ass off, was not f*c**g around......He pursued this line of interest, decade after decade, he/she evolved and changed over the years, but there is a core sensibility that flows throughout all of it. And you will then feel that much more comfortable saying "I do like this, I don't like that......And here is why."
Yeah, the money thing is very difficult to wrap your mind around. Sometimes it truly is just the "jerk-bait" factor. Sometimes however, it truly is the "This is a cultural treasure with unlimited value to humanity, I want to be the one who cares for it for the next 20 years, and I have the disposable income to ensure its safety." thing at work.
There was an article in the NY Times recently; Alec Baldwin is embroiled in a huge art scandal. He paid tens of millions of dollars for a painting that was not what it claimed to be; It was an original work, by the original artist, very similar to the one he wanted, (maybe) nobody claimed it was "the real" one, (maybe) he saw something he wanted to see.......All very ugly business, all over (IMHO) a very ugly painting, and more shades of legal and ethical grey than one could imagine......Fascinating!
Yes, much of it appears as though a four year old could have done it. (And there are often many imitators of the originators, operating on that four year old level, and cashing in). But often there is much more to it.....Much more. And having the idea is always the first step.
It's one thing to see a "tiny little" Jackson Pollock painting in a book, spend three seconds, and just flip the page, going......"Meh, my kid could do that". But when you see one of those ten or twelve foot canvases in person........Next to one or two other twelve foot canvases painted a year earlier, and a year later......And ask yourself all of the questions....... How did he pay attention to the big picture, while still doing so much work just within this square meter of the canvas? How did this summbitch make this one single fluid gesture that goes back and forth....and seems to span four or five arm lengths? And how did he make that gesture flow over these other three, yet somehow under this fifth stroke......which seems to go underneath the first two?
There was a nice piece written in the NY Times recently on Chuck Close; Interesting guy, great body of work. I'm (wildly) paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect of: I see all of this work, done over the years by other artists, spanning centuries, that I love; And I think to myself, I like that; And even if I can't do that myself, at least I can figure out how this guy did that.......... But I look at a Vermeer, and I simply can't figure out how that MutherF'r put the paint on the canvas that way. **(Emoji for fall to your knees and weep with joy)**
Praise from Caesar, and a larger metaphor for life and the creative process, to be sure.
More than enough blah, blah, blah for now.......But I hope everyone else comes back, (I know I will); Great thread, @LV426, food for the soul, thanks to everyone who has had anything to say to date.
Am headed next to @Kaat72 thread for music memorabilia, and blah, blah, blah there about Dire Straits for a while......bring yer' friends!
Last edited:
Interesting that you mention Chuck Close. What most people don't realize is that in 1988 he had a medical problem that left him paralyzed and yet he has continued to paint, sometimes with the brush strapped to his hand and with the aid of pulley's, scaffolding and various elevator type lifts to maneuver himself (or the canvases) around so he can work on large works.
I am a big fan of Close's work (and almost the antithesis of Rothko in results, but the two are VERY similar in concept) and you can see the change in his work after is incapacitation. My question (as rhetorical as always) is does his condition make it any more or less art? If his artistic purpose or intent is unchanged between the two stages of his career, then are the different results from physical limitation a factor in his (and any other artists') art?
Claude Monet, considered to be one of the greatest impressionist painters, in his later years had debilitating arthritis in his hands and often times had to have brushes bound to his hands in order to paint ... which he did until his death.
As for the creative process ...
There are times when I step back from something I've just done and I think "how the hell did *I* do that?"
I am a big fan of Close's work (and almost the antithesis of Rothko in results, but the two are VERY similar in concept) and you can see the change in his work after is incapacitation. My question (as rhetorical as always) is does his condition make it any more or less art? If his artistic purpose or intent is unchanged between the two stages of his career, then are the different results from physical limitation a factor in his (and any other artists') art?
Claude Monet, considered to be one of the greatest impressionist painters, in his later years had debilitating arthritis in his hands and often times had to have brushes bound to his hands in order to paint ... which he did until his death.
As for the creative process ...
There are times when I step back from something I've just done and I think "how the hell did *I* do that?"
More art please. "Outsider" maybe? Amazing the prices that style brings when you see the product.
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
Yeah, been there....Talk about mixed emotions!
Dang I'm good!........But I couldn't do that again, if my life depended on it.
Yeah, I spent quite a bit of my career as a (lowercase "m") machinist; Admiring and reproducing parts which other masters had produced. There were many occasions when I would hold a part in my hand, and just be awe struck by its beauty. Lots of racecar parts from the '20s and '30s.
(Thinks to self) Yeah, I can make one of these........But how did this guy do it back then, with the tools and techniques that were available to him at the time? And why did the guy go to sooooooo much trouble to leave that little island of material, or raised web behind......How did he do it, and why........Other than to strut his stuff.
Well, ya' got my attention, old man.
Definitely more to say on Chuck Close, trying to find the article, read it again to refresh memory. My memory is that Chuck really dislikes the term "photorealism", bristles at the notion that he "just took a picture, then painted a copy of it."
Phil - (1969)
(hardly one of his obscure works
, but a good starting place.)
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
@rootabaga posted this Just shut up. Stop your whining.about 2 years ago; It didn't get much traction as a thread back then, but deserves a second look. A few of the works in particular are quite striking, and I would think qualifiy as outsider art, @dontpanicbobby
No clue if I'm creating the right kind of link here, we shall see what happens when actually posted.
Considering a username change to "The Dredge"........Am mining some pretty old posts here, finding quite a few worthy of a second life; Keeps me from cluttering up the works starting threads of my own, coming up with any original ideas.
To finish a few thoughts on Chuck Close @lunatic59 :
(Excerpt) "This impression of detail, where no actual detail can be found on the canvas is mesmerizing and confounding. What you are seeing isn't really there."
P.S. Having spent much of my upbringing "behind the scenes" of museums, I was always keenly aware that one of the functions of museum guards was to observe the public, and report on how partons moved through the space, what drew their attention, which text panels were consistently ignored, etc. How future installations might be improved. I heard a piece on the radio today which suggested that the average length of time most museum patrons spend in front of any single work.........8 seconds. Sigh.
No clue if I'm creating the right kind of link here, we shall see what happens when actually posted.
Considering a username change to "The Dredge"........Am mining some pretty old posts here, finding quite a few worthy of a second life; Keeps me from cluttering up the works starting threads of my own, coming up with any original ideas.
To finish a few thoughts on Chuck Close @lunatic59 :
The piece I was thinking of was quite recent; NY Times Magazine, July 17 this year, perhaps you saw it. The only way to read it IMHO is print, but that's a separate rant entirely. Seriously, able to read text, immediately view an image when it is referenced, compare to a second and third image at will.......No need to scroll up and down, page back or forward.....Long live print, for many reasons.
A few interesting things the article addresses: One, the very nature of "the story", "the interpretation" (of any work of art,) "what is the true account of history"?..........All moving targets.
Article gives a sense (of something you likely already know). There seldom is one single, simple answer, and even they change over time.....As does the artist himself, and even his relationship to his own work. Not to challenge you, but the article calls some of the conventional wisdom surrounding the man and the arc of his career into question; Makes a compelling case, without claiming to represent absolute truth. Suggests that without a doubt his health issues in 1988 were a defining event; It may be more difficult, however to make a case that the works can be easily divided into Pre and Post categories.
Also very interesting to me, (and not unique to C. Close,) but particularly relevant given his well documented technique of dividing the canvas up into grids, and treating each sector as an independent abstract work. When all are viewed from a distance, they somehow take on a new character entirely. Up close, there is very little information within any single sector on the canvas to care about. But viewed from a distance, stunning detail and character reveals itself.
Seriously, able to read text, immediately view an image when it is referenced, compare to a second and third image at will.......No need to scroll up and down, page back or forward.....Long live print, for many reasons.A few interesting things the article addresses: One, the very nature of "the story", "the interpretation" (of any work of art,) "what is the true account of history"?..........All moving targets.
Article gives a sense (of something you likely already know). There seldom is one single, simple answer, and even they change over time.....As does the artist himself, and even his relationship to his own work. Not to challenge you, but the article calls some of the conventional wisdom surrounding the man and the arc of his career into question; Makes a compelling case, without claiming to represent absolute truth. Suggests that without a doubt his health issues in 1988 were a defining event; It may be more difficult, however to make a case that the works can be easily divided into Pre and Post categories.
Also very interesting to me, (and not unique to C. Close,) but particularly relevant given his well documented technique of dividing the canvas up into grids, and treating each sector as an independent abstract work. When all are viewed from a distance, they somehow take on a new character entirely. Up close, there is very little information within any single sector on the canvas to care about. But viewed from a distance, stunning detail and character reveals itself.
P.S. Having spent much of my upbringing "behind the scenes" of museums, I was always keenly aware that one of the functions of museum guards was to observe the public, and report on how partons moved through the space, what drew their attention, which text panels were consistently ignored, etc. How future installations might be improved. I heard a piece on the radio today which suggested that the average length of time most museum patrons spend in front of any single work.........8 seconds. Sigh.
$2600
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
Is any photography truly "Art" (with an uppercase "A")?
For decades after its "invention" it was thought by many "true artists" to be little more than a vulgar insult to their craft. And certainly the ability to make a near infinite number of identical copies didn't help the photographer's case either.
Not sure how I feel about it, at the end of the day. On the one hand, If I were a painter or sculptor, I might see their point......Where is the craft, the physical skill needed to qualify as true art?
On the other.........You can't tell me that photographs , don't sometimes require the same kind of vision to create / capture, and can't evoke the kind of emotional response that "fine" art does.
One of my favorites, one which I (and zillions of others) come back to year after year is by Henri Cartier-Bresson. One of his books, first printed in 1952 was entitled (in some markets) "The Decisive Moment", and he certainly nailed it here. The image likely doesn't scale well on your device, but it is just stunning in its combination of composition and good fortune.
An instant earlier, and he is just some schmoe jumping into a puddle. An instant later, and his heel has broken the plane of the water, that perfect reflection is gone forever.
I'm paraphrasing another's words, but read something to the effect of: "(Setting aside the question of where is he going, what was the plan?).........He is about to be wet, forever."
About to be forever.
Always will, yet never actually shall.
A permanent record of a moment frozen in time, the consequences of his actions postponed forever.
Trapped for all time in a state of inevitable wetness......which will never arrive.
For decades after its "invention" it was thought by many "true artists" to be little more than a vulgar insult to their craft. And certainly the ability to make a near infinite number of identical copies didn't help the photographer's case either.
Not sure how I feel about it, at the end of the day. On the one hand, If I were a painter or sculptor, I might see their point......Where is the craft, the physical skill needed to qualify as true art?
On the other.........You can't tell me that photographs , don't sometimes require the same kind of vision to create / capture, and can't evoke the kind of emotional response that "fine" art does.
One of my favorites, one which I (and zillions of others) come back to year after year is by Henri Cartier-Bresson. One of his books, first printed in 1952 was entitled (in some markets) "The Decisive Moment", and he certainly nailed it here. The image likely doesn't scale well on your device, but it is just stunning in its combination of composition and good fortune.
An instant earlier, and he is just some schmoe jumping into a puddle. An instant later, and his heel has broken the plane of the water, that perfect reflection is gone forever.
I'm paraphrasing another's words, but read something to the effect of: "(Setting aside the question of where is he going, what was the plan?).........He is about to be wet, forever."
About to be forever.
Always will, yet never actually shall.
A permanent record of a moment frozen in time, the consequences of his actions postponed forever.
Trapped for all time in a state of inevitable wetness......which will never arrive.
Now hear this!
Any digital manipulation, any action beyond minor alterations to contrast or color range.......Immediately places an image into a new category. It is now a "picture" no longer a "photograph", IMHO. And while it may yet possess some artistic merit, it shall be excluded from consideration as fine art.
That is all.
Any digital manipulation, any action beyond minor alterations to contrast or color range.......Immediately places an image into a new category. It is now a "picture" no longer a "photograph", IMHO. And while it may yet possess some artistic merit, it shall be excluded from consideration as fine art.
That is all.
Last edited:
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
Last edited:
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
(Just puzzling through this myself), making it up as I go along......
@Dngrsone
What are we calling "traditional methods?"
Sigh. (So many shades of grey, in any argument)
And only shades of grey,
'cause if it's color photography, it 'aint worth lookin' at.
Later Edit: Seriously? That's all you took from the original post? The opinionated blah, blah blah at the very end?
@Dngrsone
What are we calling "traditional methods?"
Sigh. (So many shades of grey, in any argument)
And only shades of grey,
'cause if it's color photography, it 'aint worth lookin' at.Later Edit: Seriously? That's all you took from the original post? The opinionated blah, blah blah at the very end?
Last edited:
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
So I have been thinking about this off and on for almost a month now......
And I've decided I'm not any more certain of anything today than I was a month ago, and certainly no brighter; So I might as well just start banging on the keyboard.
Would Andy Warhol himself have considered anything he did to be "Fine art"? I honestly have to wonder. He certainly had a sense of the disposability / superficiality / questionable significance of life and culture, and the whole notion of 15 minutes of fame for everyone, at one time or another.
I'm sure he took what he did very seriously; The pursuit of creating art.....All artists seem to be quite serious when following whatever that creative drive is inside them........But did he take the finished product that seriously?
The notion of "Pop-art" was well established by Warhol's most productive years. An entire designation created to make it somehow distinctly, and deliberately separate from "Fine-art"?...........And now with historical perspective, could one argue that "Pop-art" has been brought back into the fold? The under appreciated or bastard child, returning home to be welcomed under the roof of the (now broader, more enlightened?) definition of "Fine-art".
Probably, it just isn't "Traditional" Fine-art!........fine-art with a lowercase "f "? Perhaps it is just "Famous-art", and therefore "feels" like Fine-art?
What say you?
And obviously it's very difficult to separate the money out of the discussion. I don't really understand the hyper dollar figures in the art world, but I do completely relate to the sense of certain things having incalculable worth, enormous value to humanity. No individual work Warhol ever made spins my propellor that hard..... But I get, that in the context of his contribution to the world of "Art", much of his stuff will be highly "valued"......And the dollars will follow.
But I don't think that the huge dollar figures were the thing that caused people to look around and change their mind about whether or not it was "Fine-art"; And the mere change in designation from one category to another didn't drive the prices up, either. People saw for themselves that it was interesting, had some engaging, thought provoking quality, and an element of craftsmanship. In short, it walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck........If it does exactly what a duck does, clearly it qualifies as "Art".
With regard to photography, and to return to the earlier question; I don't pretend to know my Warhol well enough to say anything for sure, but my gut tells me: Andy wasn't primarily a photographer, the stuff he is most well known for, isn't photography. In some cases, he started with photographs, (perhaps not even his own) and then manipulated them in any number of ways.....But the final work IMHO would be more properly described as collage, or "mixed media", perhaps even a "multi-media experience". He conspicuously dabbled in a lot of areas, and was very self consciously a "photographer", aspiring to be an "art photographer". (Heck, a significant portion of his artistic output was molding his own self image; He intended for himself to be the art): Which opens the door to the fascinating world of "Conceptual-art"? Most of his photographs which I am aware of are deliberately playful or provocative, and definitely more than just a snapshot. A few of the ones I am aware of deserve a spot in the "big book of photography", but none of the ones I am aware of deserve a spot in "the big book of art", IMHO. So my sensibilities about "is it art" lead me to kinda' go......"Okay, he's definitely an artist.....He was definitely an art photographer; I just don't think much of that segment of his portfolio, so he's a "lesser" art photographer. But if he were in a room full of nothing but huge names from the art world.......would they think of him as a photographer? would they hold that segment of his portfolio in higher or lower regard than I do? (Welcome to my nightmare.)
What say you?
By sheer coincidence, I was halfway through this post, when the paper arrived; New "evidence" literally landed on the table in front of me. Today's LA Times (10/2/16), front page of the Arts & Books section. The entire top half of the section is an aerial photograph of Dodger stadium. It's a very striking image, and I found myself thinking "Gee, that's a really nice picture". "Gee, the paper's editors got lucky with that picture". "Gee, for disposable, newspaper journalism, that's a really nice picture".........."Gee, this picture is almost a work of art, it's so bloody nice!!!!"
Well duh! Beneath the fold is the caption explaining; The picture is "Dodger Stadium"- (1967). Part of Ed Ruscha's "Thirtyfour Parking Lots" series of images. (I know very little of Ed Ruscha's work, have you any thoughts, anecdotes, or opinions, @lunatic59 ?)
Well duh! This picture wasn't just a picture, some undignified "snapshot".... it was clearly a Photograph. And this photograph wasn't just a photograph, it was clearly Art. Case closed, I was done talking to myself about this!
So many grey areas......Is photography "Art"? I personally would say "yes, of course", but it definitely wasn't always the case......At some point the definition of the term "art" had to expand to welcome something new. Just as it would later expand to incorporate "pop-art"......(If you agree that it has properly done so.)
And obviously not all photographs are art, some are just pictures. And not all "Warhols" are "Art" either......Some of 'em are just pictures he maybe took at a friends wedding, filed away in a drawer. Some days he must have just been just a guy, living a day of his life; Not everything he touched was a work of art, or intended to be so; But history and the "cult of personality" plus enormous dollar signs lead us to think differently about things over time.
I got a good lesson a few hours ago, a reminder of a time honored standard I bet we can all agree upon. I picked up that section of the Times, and thought to myself: "I don't know what art is, but I know it when I see it"!
P.S. No "Art" is likely to scale well on your device; The printed photograph of Dodger Stadium I see in front of me is (almost) stunning in its detail at aprox. 12 X 16", in print......But I suspect still not even a close substitute for standing in front of the real thing.
And the same is absolutely true of a Lichtenstein, several of which appear on page two of the same section. Without studying one "up close and personal", it is difficult to appreciate the level of painstaking work required to create many of his pieces....Thousands of little dots of colored material, painstakingly laid upon one another to create a texture, which obviously has a very different effect on the viewer when he or she backs up 12 feet. And BTW, they actually look better on a device, than they do in print. So much fun!
I'm sure he took what he did very seriously; The pursuit of creating art.....All artists seem to be quite serious when following whatever that creative drive is inside them........But did he take the finished product that seriously?
The notion of "Pop-art" was well established by Warhol's most productive years. An entire designation created to make it somehow distinctly, and deliberately separate from "Fine-art"?...........And now with historical perspective, could one argue that "Pop-art" has been brought back into the fold? The under appreciated or bastard child, returning home to be welcomed under the roof of the (now broader, more enlightened?) definition of "Fine-art".
Probably, it just isn't "Traditional" Fine-art!
........fine-art with a lowercase "f "? Perhaps it is just "Famous-art", and therefore "feels" like Fine-art?What say you?
And obviously it's very difficult to separate the money out of the discussion. I don't really understand the hyper dollar figures in the art world, but I do completely relate to the sense of certain things having incalculable worth, enormous value to humanity. No individual work Warhol ever made spins my propellor that hard..... But I get, that in the context of his contribution to the world of "Art", much of his stuff will be highly "valued"......And the dollars will follow.
But I don't think that the huge dollar figures were the thing that caused people to look around and change their mind about whether or not it was "Fine-art"; And the mere change in designation from one category to another didn't drive the prices up, either. People saw for themselves that it was interesting, had some engaging, thought provoking quality, and an element of craftsmanship. In short, it walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck........If it does exactly what a duck does, clearly it qualifies as "Art".
With regard to photography, and to return to the earlier question; I don't pretend to know my Warhol well enough to say anything for sure, but my gut tells me: Andy wasn't primarily a photographer, the stuff he is most well known for, isn't photography. In some cases, he started with photographs, (perhaps not even his own) and then manipulated them in any number of ways.....But the final work IMHO would be more properly described as collage, or "mixed media", perhaps even a "multi-media experience". He conspicuously dabbled in a lot of areas, and was very self consciously a "photographer", aspiring to be an "art photographer". (Heck, a significant portion of his artistic output was molding his own self image; He intended for himself to be the art): Which opens the door to the fascinating world of "Conceptual-art"? Most of his photographs which I am aware of are deliberately playful or provocative, and definitely more than just a snapshot. A few of the ones I am aware of deserve a spot in the "big book of photography", but none of the ones I am aware of deserve a spot in "the big book of art", IMHO. So my sensibilities about "is it art" lead me to kinda' go......"Okay, he's definitely an artist.....He was definitely an art photographer; I just don't think much of that segment of his portfolio, so he's a "lesser" art photographer. But if he were in a room full of nothing but huge names from the art world.......would they think of him as a photographer? would they hold that segment of his portfolio in higher or lower regard than I do? (Welcome to my nightmare.)
What say you?
By sheer coincidence, I was halfway through this post, when the paper arrived; New "evidence" literally landed on the table in front of me. Today's LA Times (10/2/16), front page of the Arts & Books section. The entire top half of the section is an aerial photograph of Dodger stadium. It's a very striking image, and I found myself thinking "Gee, that's a really nice picture". "Gee, the paper's editors got lucky with that picture". "Gee, for disposable, newspaper journalism, that's a really nice picture".........."Gee, this picture is almost a work of art, it's so bloody nice!!!!"
Well duh! Beneath the fold is the caption explaining; The picture is "Dodger Stadium"- (1967). Part of Ed Ruscha's "Thirtyfour Parking Lots" series of images. (I know very little of Ed Ruscha's work, have you any thoughts, anecdotes, or opinions, @lunatic59 ?)
Well duh! This picture wasn't just a picture, some undignified "snapshot".... it was clearly a Photograph. And this photograph wasn't just a photograph, it was clearly Art. Case closed, I was done talking to myself about this!
So many grey areas......Is photography "Art"? I personally would say "yes, of course", but it definitely wasn't always the case......At some point the definition of the term "art" had to expand to welcome something new. Just as it would later expand to incorporate "pop-art"......(If you agree that it has properly done so.)
And obviously not all photographs are art, some are just pictures. And not all "Warhols" are "Art" either......Some of 'em are just pictures he maybe took at a friends wedding, filed away in a drawer. Some days he must have just been just a guy, living a day of his life; Not everything he touched was a work of art, or intended to be so; But history and the "cult of personality" plus enormous dollar signs lead us to think differently about things over time.
I got a good lesson a few hours ago, a reminder of a time honored standard I bet we can all agree upon. I picked up that section of the Times, and thought to myself: "I don't know what art is, but I know it when I see it"!
P.S. No "Art" is likely to scale well on your device; The printed photograph of Dodger Stadium I see in front of me is (almost) stunning in its detail at aprox. 12 X 16", in print......But I suspect still not even a close substitute for standing in front of the real thing.
And the same is absolutely true of a Lichtenstein, several of which appear on page two of the same section. Without studying one "up close and personal", it is difficult to appreciate the level of painstaking work required to create many of his pieces....Thousands of little dots of colored material, painstakingly laid upon one another to create a texture, which obviously has a very different effect on the viewer when he or she backs up 12 feet. And BTW, they actually look better on a device, than they do in print. So much fun!
Is a Lichtenstein fine art, or just a blown up comic book, @LV426 ?
Sorry
.....[/ BLAHBLAH]
D
Deleted User
Guest
Yes. To me his stuff shows considerably more artistic talent than the work which started off this thread.
Besides, a lot of comic books are amazingly good
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
Don't know enough about Comics / graphic novels to really have any serious thoughts;
But studied "V - For Vendetta" under a professor I adored. A "comic book" being taught in a college level course, and taken seriously enough to devote the better part of a week to it. No problem seeing art there, looking forward to following both of your leads to check out something new to me.
But studied "V - For Vendetta" under a professor I adored. A "comic book" being taught in a college level course, and taken seriously enough to devote the better part of a week to it.
No problem seeing art there, looking forward to following both of your leads to check out something new to me.
Lichtenstein is art because of the content. Human emotion caught on media. Not many people can find the gold in the dross.
basic 101 user
Android Enthusiast
P.S. I'm a big fan of Robert Williams, don't hesitate for a moment to call it art, and could gas on about it 3X any of my previous.
I imagine much appears patronising if you are already familiar, but comments always aimed a those who have yet to be exposed to a particular subject and might enjoy.
Among his books is Malicious Resplendence, that one in particular is fairly complete, and large enough format to almost do them justice. As ever, with art there is no substitute for standing in front of originals.
He's deeply influenced by and speaks to "California culture"; Hot rods, skateboarding, rock and roll, as well as psychotic behavior.....all speaks directly to me. Also love the sense of humor; Every piece has three titles. First, the "museum wall" title. One to four words, kind of obvious and plainly descriptive. Then the "Museum catalog title", and the "Colloquial title". Each more humorous, delightfully perverse, and overwrought than the previous.
"Timmy's last surprise" (Norman Rockwell it ain't)
AKA
"With the grace of ignorance, a pre-pubescent human conductor can momentarily distinguish the difference between voltage and amperage by attempting to ground out the mighty dynamos"
AKA
"High voltage, sphincter-winking, livewire laxative"
Forgive formatting errors, other weirdness; The system seems a little grumpy today, yes?
I imagine much appears patronising if you are already familiar, but comments always aimed a those who have yet to be exposed to a particular subject and might enjoy.
Among his books is Malicious Resplendence, that one in particular is fairly complete, and large enough format to almost do them justice. As ever, with art there is no substitute for standing in front of originals.
He's deeply influenced by and speaks to "California culture"; Hot rods, skateboarding, rock and roll, as well as psychotic behavior.....all speaks directly to me.
Also love the sense of humor; Every piece has three titles. First, the "museum wall" title. One to four words, kind of obvious and plainly descriptive. Then the "Museum catalog title", and the "Colloquial title". Each more humorous, delightfully perverse, and overwrought than the previous.
"Timmy's last surprise" (Norman Rockwell it ain't)
AKA
"With the grace of ignorance, a pre-pubescent human conductor can momentarily distinguish the difference between voltage and amperage by attempting to ground out the mighty dynamos"
AKA
"High voltage, sphincter-winking, livewire laxative"
Forgive formatting errors, other weirdness; The system seems a little grumpy today, yes?
Last edited: