Whatever happened to real art?

[Ben Kenobi]

and the old forms don't hold much attraction to restless modern youth.

Well, I like scupture.

I'd rather see some of these than go to the usual hollywood movies that are churned out.

So where do I fit?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer

i hope i made my point...

Nope. Your examples show your bias. You choose an exquisite piece of older art, but an unknown piece of modern art. Why not compare with a piece of modern art that is generally regarded as genius?

Craftsmanship and hard work are one thing, but they do not necessarily make great art. Art is first and foremost about expression. While a finely-detailed ship model that is accurate down to the rivet might be result of incredible attention to detail, skill and hard work, it doesn't make the model have artistic value. Think of the models used in Titanic. They meet all the criteria you listed, but were then used as movie props, blown apart, etc. They weren't art in the highest sense.

Would you disparage Monet? Picasso? Pollock? I think the artistic merit of "Geurnica" is on the same level as anything done by any artist. Who are you to judge that it isn't?

I'd encourage you to visit a modern art gallery. At least do some detailed research into modern art with an open mind before you make such generalizations.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why not compare with a piece of modern art that is generally regarded as genius?

Like this?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Like this?

Certainly. What's wrong with Dali?

[monolith94]

Dali is a god. Personally, if I could have a painting of any genre, it'd be pop-art (I'm a huge Lichtenstein fan). But if I wanted sculpture, I'd want something older - that one of Moses is great.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's wrong with Dali?

Nothing. Why would you even suggest such a thing?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Whatever happened to real art?

It went the way of real work.

[Giant_Squid]

I've never considered pretty pictures to be art. For me, art has to have some meaning, or invoke emotions or thoughts. Not just "aw, that's pretty".

What if George Orwell, instead of writing 1984, just wrote a pamphlet saying "totalitarianism is bad, stay away from it"? What if T.S. Eliot, instead of writing The Wasteland, had written some essay about modern culture? Art isn't just prettiness and it isn't just message. It's combining prettiness and message into a form where they both reinforce one another and present a message beyond what you can put into words (at least not prose). A lot of modern art seems to me like someone thinks something like "I'm going to create something that makes the statement I Don't Like Crass Commercialism", and then they make that statement into some pseudo-artistic form like that all-green canvas, which is meant to make exactly the statement "I Don't Like Crass Commercialism", which means that all the time that that painting took beyond the amount of time it would have taken for the artist to go onto the street and say "Hey everyone, I don't like crass commercialism!" is wasted. The only difference between the two is that you probably won't understand that's what the painting is trying to say unless someone tells you. If a painting doesn't make you feel anything at all, like that red monstrosity Speer posted, then it can't convey any message except what the art gallery person tells you it's there conveying. (Maybe somewhere in Paris there is a man who will one day be moved to tears by the revelation the beautiful red sculpture gives him about the bitterness of life. I don't know. I doubt it.)

Of course, there are some really brilliant modern artists, but when random jumbles with brilliant meanings behind them sell for millions, it's pretty obvious that somewhere along the line people are just going paint the jumbles, forget the hard part about the meaning, and con it off on the rest of us for those millions of dollars, which it seems a lot of people are doing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Would you disparage Monet? Picasso? Pollock?

How dare you mention Jackson Pollock in the same breath as Monet and Picasso?

[monolith94]

Jackson Pollock is pretty damn good.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pollock is garbage. It's an insult to real artists like Monet and Picasso to lump him in with them, IMO.

[FrostyBoy]

Albert, Art is very subjective, that is something you must understand first.


If you believe that art must be hard to create, then you do not understand what art actually means.


What I am seeing here is that YOU prefer hard work and patience into creating an art piece. However, others may find their liking in simplicity more than effort.

Art is the very thing that divides how each of us see the world. Without a diverse art, we are nothing but an equilibrium.

Art will make drastic changes throughout time, in the future, it will be holographic art or VR Art. But this does not mean that all forms of art will die out. No, artists today still create art the way artists did in ancient times, simply because that is the type of art they like.

I do not like that red sculpture either, but there are ppl out there who will.

Btw, I like Alex Ross's work too. He captures Superman in a really "Superman" kind of way.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Nothing. Why would you even suggest such a thing?

I didn't suggest it, AS did!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Pollock is garbage. It's an insult to real artists like Monet and Picasso to lump him in with them, IMO.

Why? Why is Pollock somehow garbage where Picasso isn't?

I think Pollock's works have amazing color in them. I can't think of a better example of Abstract Expressionism. He was also responsible for putting American artists on the map in terms of the forefront of art. Until he hit the scene, America was scene as a backwater in the art world, full of anachronism. Pollock was the one who broke this stereotype and helped usher in a vibrant American modern art culture.

Is this garbage?

[LTEC!]

You would have to understand that in order to really be able to appreciate "art" you have to put yourself in the context of which the artistic piece was created.
Art in itself is a reflection of what the artist perceives through his
life and experiences, and its an expression of whatever is good or bad in it.
History is written by the conquerors and the ones that have more influence and means. Art history is as well written and preserved by those who so desire to keep it alive or hidden, but art is also commercial.
The reason why there are so many paintings and statues of kings and emperors and biblical figures is because they were the ones that commission the pieces of art.
In this day and age few pieces of art are "commissioned" and art is by itself morphed to go with the times.
If you believe the "art" that surrounds you is crappy. It is probably because the period you're living in is crappy as well.