Masculen Titan Male Enhancement 100%...
Food & Drink2 mins ago
Somebody Doesn't Like Salvador Dali's Works.
80 Answers
Now, who could that be ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim; Point taken, but "EL" wasn't asking an honest interpretation by using phrases like "arty gobbledegook" I thought.
However: One of the basic tenets Surrealism might be described as the bringing together of objects, real or imaginary, that you wouldn't normally associate together & placing them in an environment foreign to them both in order to create a new form of imagined reality, e.g. - melting pocket-watches and giraffes in an endless desert plain.
The great 20th century artist, Max Ernst once gave an example of taking just two such disassociated objects; a canoe and a vacuum-cleaner, and placing them in a forest - a fascinating image, n'est pas? but he went on to say even more bizarrely what happened next;
They fall in love !!!
However: One of the basic tenets Surrealism might be described as the bringing together of objects, real or imaginary, that you wouldn't normally associate together & placing them in an environment foreign to them both in order to create a new form of imagined reality, e.g. - melting pocket-watches and giraffes in an endless desert plain.
The great 20th century artist, Max Ernst once gave an example of taking just two such disassociated objects; a canoe and a vacuum-cleaner, and placing them in a forest - a fascinating image, n'est pas? but he went on to say even more bizarrely what happened next;
They fall in love !!!
"Art" is simply a business or industry. It exists to generate money transactions (by buying and selling works, or found objects, or even ideas) and spinoffs, such as reproductions, teacloths, chocolate boxes, and more futuristic things I don't understand. It feeds newspaper and magazine editors, TV and radio producers, advertisers; provides work for college lecturers, and so on and so on.
Not much new art gives me much pleasure. But, it is relatively harmless and is not compulsory, so I would not get angry or indignant or seek to ban it.
Not much new art gives me much pleasure. But, it is relatively harmless and is not compulsory, so I would not get angry or indignant or seek to ban it.
Re. Pollock: A great deal of discussion on earlier say, pre 20th century painting centred around a painter's 'brushwork'.
From a distance a painting may appear an accurate cohesive realistic portrayal of an object or a person, but from close-up it may dissolve into a series of nothing more than blobs & streaks of paint, see Rembrandt close for example.
With the advent of photography in the middle of the 19th century artists started to turn away more from realistic, 'photographic' depiction, see the 'Impressionists'.
In the early 20th century some artists even eschewed any form of representation at all, and concentrated on pure form and colour.
It could be argued that Jackson Pollock in fact returned to the considerations which had surrounded 'brushwork', but without the representation & without the even the BRUSH, -- pure paint and colour applied by gravity alone.
Observers of Pollocks paintings, though there is no overt representation intended, oddly enough, see all kinds of images within marks on the canvas. What can then be a revelation to the open-minded observer is that a painting doesn't have to depict something to have a satisfying appearance (I carefully avoid using the word beauty !)
What can be truly exiting though, is that a person having accepted these criteria may (just may) look then at the world in a different manner, taking pleasure in seeing shapes & colours in say, tangled undergrowth, or the patterns formed by rain on a window pane, things which don't 'represent' anything, they simply ARE.
As with all art forms though, the viewer has to be prepared to give something of themselves to the work in order to gain anything from it.
here endeth the second lesson.
From a distance a painting may appear an accurate cohesive realistic portrayal of an object or a person, but from close-up it may dissolve into a series of nothing more than blobs & streaks of paint, see Rembrandt close for example.
With the advent of photography in the middle of the 19th century artists started to turn away more from realistic, 'photographic' depiction, see the 'Impressionists'.
In the early 20th century some artists even eschewed any form of representation at all, and concentrated on pure form and colour.
It could be argued that Jackson Pollock in fact returned to the considerations which had surrounded 'brushwork', but without the representation & without the even the BRUSH, -- pure paint and colour applied by gravity alone.
Observers of Pollocks paintings, though there is no overt representation intended, oddly enough, see all kinds of images within marks on the canvas. What can then be a revelation to the open-minded observer is that a painting doesn't have to depict something to have a satisfying appearance (I carefully avoid using the word beauty !)
What can be truly exiting though, is that a person having accepted these criteria may (just may) look then at the world in a different manner, taking pleasure in seeing shapes & colours in say, tangled undergrowth, or the patterns formed by rain on a window pane, things which don't 'represent' anything, they simply ARE.
As with all art forms though, the viewer has to be prepared to give something of themselves to the work in order to gain anything from it.
here endeth the second lesson.
Khandro; what gets me, though, is that we went through Rembrandt, Turner, Impressionism, Pointilism, Post-Impressionism, etc and arrived at found objects (urinal), action painting and later on a boxing-ring canvas with bloodsplatters (which saved the artist the bother of splashing paint himself). All seems to be a retreat from (or an avoidance of) painterly skills, so that the only criterion is whether or not the finished product is nice. Art is now very much not painting; it's the making or finding of something that can make money. I doubt if there are any modern artists who starve in garrets - the modern zeitgeist is that money not only talks, but it swears (if you'll forgive the Dylan reference) and what it swears is a belief that money and fame are the ultimate aims in life.
Atheist - // Art is now very much not painting; it's the making or finding of something that can make money. //
Twas ever thus.
No artist would hope forever that his work would be appreciated, but he would never receive payment for it.
No artist would reasonably turn down a chance to make some money for his talent, and why should he?
Art and commerce have gone hand in hand since the Middle Ages when a monarch would bestow patronage on a painter or composer to work for him.
It's no different today.
Twas ever thus.
No artist would hope forever that his work would be appreciated, but he would never receive payment for it.
No artist would reasonably turn down a chance to make some money for his talent, and why should he?
Art and commerce have gone hand in hand since the Middle Ages when a monarch would bestow patronage on a painter or composer to work for him.
It's no different today.
I agree with you AH, but in the olden days the patrons knew what they liked and knew how long it took to make it and paid accordingly. Nowadays, no-one knows what they like until they hear it on social media or decide they've got enough money to take a chance on creating a lucrative market of their own by spending bucks on the work and even more on PR to ensure a return.
Atheist - // Nowadays, no-one knows what they like until they hear it on social media or decide they've got enough money to take a chance on creating a lucrative market of their own by spending bucks on the work and even more on PR to ensure a return. //
I think that is overly cynical in terms of 'no-one knowing what they like until they hear it on social media'.
I think that gives far more weight and credence to the notion of anyone having to take the word of an 'influencer' to guide whether or not they like something.
As for someone taking a punt in the hope of a return, investment in art is as old as currency, so no problem there.
I think that is overly cynical in terms of 'no-one knowing what they like until they hear it on social media'.
I think that gives far more weight and credence to the notion of anyone having to take the word of an 'influencer' to guide whether or not they like something.
As for someone taking a punt in the hope of a return, investment in art is as old as currency, so no problem there.
what do you think of this chap's stuff?
https:/
https:/
I was at school with this chap - John Virtue - who paints almost exclusively in monochrome (black/white/greys). Not my thing - but hey...
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.