Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Basstronomer · Post by **Basstronomer** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:10 pm

jorge wrote:Its kind of like asking is electronic music really music

agreed

Laszlo · Post by **Laszlo** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:22 pm

garethom wrote:
Laszlo wrote:
garethom wrote:
Laszlo wrote: At what point does a picture become worth so much.
When somebody wants it that much I guess.
Of course, I just find it a ridiculous facet of humanity.

Take Mondrian for example - started off doing 'normal' paintings with, imo, artistic skill. Finished up doing lines and blocks of colour.
And which ones sell for the most, can you guess?

I suppose it's just a matter of context, you know, as far as the evolution of 20th century art is concerned. I just don't get it.

Give me a Turner, Constable or Botticelli any day!
Get what you're saying, but could play devil's advocate and say that landscapes, etc. are just paintings of shit that anyone can see. Mondrian had to imagine those lines and squares into being from nowhere. (mondrian is shit though, i do h8 him)

Guess it's like, when people criticise art and say stuff like "that's easy, I could do that, etc." it's like, yeah, but you didn't and they did, so there.

Yeah BUUUT, anyone can see those landscapes but not many can create a vivid representation on canvas.
Also, and i'm not 100% on this, Mondrian just went through a regression of detail. Started with 'legit' paintings and as his career went on he just used less and less detail. The bit i'm not sure of is his final works - were they imagined from nowhere as you suggest or were they just a reduction of a real life physical object. If the latter does that make him shitter in your opinion?

Obviously no one is right or wrong, we're just talking ay.

garethom · Post by **garethom** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:25 pm

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you in the most part dude, just playing a very simplified devil's advocate to the situation. There's no easy or hard, etc. there is just what has been done.

scspkr99 · Post by **scspkr99** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:27 pm

Do you consider Picasso's changing styles regressive or just part of a process where an artist continually explores that which interests them.

I think the thing with detail is that it qualifies talent to a degree, it shows that the artist can do the stuff that people expect artists to be able to do. Outside of that I don't know how important it is to a piece.

d-T-r · Post by **d-T-r** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:28 pm

all art is art.

blame this ;

Forum · Post by **Forum** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:29 pm

kidshuffle · Post by **kidshuffle** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:21 pm

scspkr99 wrote:I don't think the ones you've posted are even close to controversial to be honest.

+

danny scrilla wrote: no...if it's abstract ART, then it's art. if not, it's just abstract something. i guess everyone decides for themselves what is art and what isn't.

some pieces are really good, while others are just trash (just like in any style of art). plus, abstract in itself is just so subjective that it can pretty much just boil down to being "art" or not.

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:35 am

Yes though Damien Hirst is a tnuc.

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:36 pm

That is one of the most hilariously awesome pieces of art I've ever experienced in a museum.

I didn't get it either - until that day

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:38 pm

COME ON PEOPLE!!! THE LOBSTER WAR PHONE!!!

This thing is funny in about 15 different ways...

southstar wrote:

lovelydivot · Post by **lovelydivot** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:41 pm

You know - I really want to explain ...

But part of their genius - Is when you have finally lived and thought enough to get it...

That epiphanous moment when your own mind reveals something really funny in the driest way...

scspkr99 · Post by **scspkr99** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:42 pm

Dali disapppoints

magma · Post by **magma** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:08 pm

Laszlo wrote:
garethom wrote:
Laszlo wrote:
garethom wrote:
Laszlo wrote: At what point does a picture become worth so much.
When somebody wants it that much I guess.
Of course, I just find it a ridiculous facet of humanity.

Take Mondrian for example - started off doing 'normal' paintings with, imo, artistic skill. Finished up doing lines and blocks of colour.
And which ones sell for the most, can you guess?

I suppose it's just a matter of context, you know, as far as the evolution of 20th century art is concerned. I just don't get it.

Give me a Turner, Constable or Botticelli any day!
Get what you're saying, but could play devil's advocate and say that landscapes, etc. are just paintings of shit that anyone can see. Mondrian had to imagine those lines and squares into being from nowhere. (mondrian is shit though, i do h8 him)

Guess it's like, when people criticise art and say stuff like "that's easy, I could do that, etc." it's like, yeah, but you didn't and they did, so there.
Yeah BUUUT, anyone can see those landscapes but not many can create a vivid representation on canvas.
Also, and i'm not 100% on this, Mondrian just went through a regression of detail. Started with 'legit' paintings and as his career went on he just used less and less detail. The bit i'm not sure of is his final works - were they imagined from nowhere as you suggest or were they just a reduction of a real life physical object. If the latter does that make him shitter in your opinion?

Obviously no one is right or wrong, we're just talking ay.

I'm no expert on Constable or Botticelli, but I'd argue that Turner's main strength was his abstraction. His ability to paint a sea-scape that looked nothing like how anyone else in the world would design a sea-scape yet for it to hit you in the eyes with all the emotion and movement of looking out from a stormy headland is utterly inexplicable. He saw colours in water and rain that nobody else even notices...

Unnnggfffffhhhh. It's so perfectly correct that it's arguably abstract... it's like he draws light in the form it hits the optic nerve, not after it's been processed by the brain.

I just wanted to talk to someone about Turner.

murky21 · Post by **murky21** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:11 pm

magma wrote: I'm no expert on Constable or Botticelli

Son, I am disappoint

magma · Post by **magma** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:12 pm

SCHOOL ME

murky21 · Post by **murky21** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:17 pm

haha I'm just pulling your leg. sure u know more about those dudes than most (certainly me)

That turner is a beaut. Definitely a heavyweight of the abstract game.

Rain Steam and Speed is also a percy

Forum · Post by **Forum** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:20 pm

The difference with those last two is that you clearly see the talent involved, much harder to judge the worth of urinal/soup cans

particle-jim · Post by **particle-jim** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:27 pm

southstar wrote:The difference with those last two is that you clearly see the talent involved, much harder to judge the worth of urinal/soup cans

Talent isn't the only factor in determining good art though, in music for example punk is no less valid an art form than prog-rock despite the fact that there are arguably more "talented" musicians in prog in terms of pure technical ability

garethom · Post by **garethom** » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:00 pm

murky21 wrote:haha I'm just pulling your leg. sure u know more about those dudes than most (certainly me)

That turner is a beaut. Definitely a heavyweight of the abstract game.

Rain Steam and Speed is also a percy

that's a banger painting man, big up.

Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Re: Do you think abstract art should be considered art?

Who is online