Contemporary art
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2011, 05:16 AM
Contemporary art
First a short summary of what i know of art. You can just skip to what's underneath the line, if you don't want to read that much since it's not really necessary to understand what I mean.


the definition of Art has changed a lot true these years.
It started out as a word that described expertise and craftsmanship, art was a word that praised someone's technique and vision.

Later on during the neo-classical period creativity was repressed and artists that wanted to have a living were forced to copy compositions and (religious) concepts of previous artists.

Impressionism had a hard time of getting through, but eventually it did. Their idea of creating art that showed the colours of a moment during the day, with more simplistic techniques finally got accepted. However, this was the beginning of an evolution of art towards simplicity.

Neo-abstractionism or Post-painterly-abstraction are probably two of the best examples of extremely simplistic art. Art was also no long for everyone, only the ones that "understood" it went to expositions. Art also became an even bigger source of investment. "Quality" lost it's meaning in art.

If even simple coloured figures could be art, that would mean that "anything" could be art. Through pop-art and post-modernism we finally came to contemporary art. Contemporary art any piece of work, as long as the artists have ideas that support their work, can be called art. This leads to both extremely simplistic but also very complex art or art of an enormous scale.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I had a lot of problems with contemporary art. I was frustrated with how critics often stared at a painting with a single red line on it, praising the artists vision and the esthetics of a painting. While I was a big fan (still am btw) of Bruegel and Bosch who made these large, conceptually intriguing paintings.

At this point my view on contemporary art has changed. I've seen a lot of works that were actually very impressive and often very creative. Though I still prefer looking at older art and still think that paintings of a single line are not worthy of being called art, I think there's a lot contemporary art that deserve their praise.

To me the only thing that a work requires to be called art, is that it has to be impressive. That's why i detest works of Pollock or Mondrian, which are way too simplistic and simply not impressive in my opinion.

So what is your opinion on contemporary art and what it does it take for a work to deserve the title of art in your opinion?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 06:01 PM
RE: Contemporary art
Most art is bullshit in my opinion.

To me art is skill to create something beautiful, not the ability to put a globe in a fridge and make £30,000 in less than a day.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 01:52 AM
RE: Contemporary art
(06-05-2011 06:01 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  Most art is bullshit in my opinion.

To me art is skill to create something beautiful, not the ability to put a globe in a fridge and make £30,000 in less than a day.
Bullshit indeed, we have this guy here (Wim Delvoye) in Belgium that made "the cloaca". It's a machine that literally defecates. And people can buy it's packed turds for quite the price. If that doesn't prove most art is shit, i don't know.

Still i was surprised how much art there was that wasn't comparable to this. For example there are the "Strandbeesten" (literally translated as: Beachbeasts) from Theo Jansens. Complex wind powered wooden machines that almost seem to live because of the movement they make.
Take a look at them here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_eY22R0TWE
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 02:58 AM
RE: Contemporary art
I'm not a fan of art, but those Strandbeest's are awesome.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary art
(07-05-2011 02:58 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  I'm not a fan of art, but those Strandbeest's are awesome.

Indeed Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 03:15 PM
RE: Contemporary art
Art, artist and artisan are related and mean the presence of a skill. If a skill isn't involved it isn't art. Someone had an exhibit at a museum here with one display that was a crucifix in a jar that he urinated in. This is a statement, but it is not art.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 04:18 PM
RE: Contemporary art
(07-05-2011 03:15 PM)No J. Wrote:  Art, artist and artisan are related and mean the presence of a skill. If a skill isn't involved it isn't art. Someone had an exhibit at a museum here with one display that was a crucifix in a jar that he urinated in. This is a statement, but it is not art.

I don't fully agree that skill is a necessity, as long as the concept is interesting and the completed work is impressive. Though in most cases skill is needed to make the completed work impressive, sometimes patience or insight suffices. For example here's something any of us could do with the right amount of patience and time: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1tcr8X/www...ds-of-salt
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: