Whatever happened to real art?

[Al B. Sure!]

I think Albrecht Durer had all these impressionists beat by four centuries... allegory all over the place...










thanks

[DinoDoc]

If you're going to be snobish, you could at least post pics from the late 19th and 20th centuries. Something like Lautrec, Seurat, or Eakins. It'd help me while I'm studying for an art history test.

[LTEC!]

From what I see, what you admire is "technique". The bravery of modern art itself is that artists, in spite of having it, they decide that it may very well be pointless to express anything else than the feelings they may have at the moment of grabbing the brush.
That is why there is a difference between monet and pollock. they're different periods.
where monet is an early impressionist and pollock is grouped with abstract expressionism.

[LTEC!]

I used to teach all this crap, btw.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by LTEC!
I used to teach all this crap, btw.

You evil person.

[LTEC!]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[LTEC!]

Ok, now that i stopped laughing.
What is it you're having problems with to do your test?

[DinoDoc]

Too many pieces to memorize and not enough interest in the subject. Some of them are interesting though. I like Le Grande Odalisque by Ingres.

[Ben Kenobi]

LTEC!

Your sig is strangely appropriate for this entire thread.

[LTEC!]

what you have to do is relate the art piece to an event in history that interests you.
for example,
did you know that several impressionist painters lived together in arles because they had socialist inclinations and thought that they were expressing their political beliefs in doing so?
painters who did it?
and which paintings were produced in that period?

[Dis]

Albert has a point here, I'm not sure if he is expressing it properly.

Art should be recognized by it being appreciated by a majority of people. So the more people that like it, the better it should be.

the problem with art in the U.S. is the elitist *******s who control the art industry. Things are considered art by a small group of snobs who have weird notions in their heads. And the pricing and wages the artist earns is based on that. I think the pricing should be related to how the majority of people feel about the art.

[Al B. Sure!]

Dissident:

I was thinking that except by that logic, britney spears is very high art...

i just think art should be understandable to the common man... thats the point of art... expression and the average person can't pick up nothing from these abstract pictures.

[Dis]

well the jury is still out if modern music can be considered art.

I think it has to stand some test of time.

[FrustratedPoet]

And the pricing and wages the artist earns

Artists on high wages?

They only earn money when they sell something, it's not as if they're on a salary. Also, the industry is so much at the mercy of a whimsical and often illogical fashion that an artist can't have any kind of security in their income.

If you want to earn money in a creative field then being a musician, an actor or even a writer would be far more likely to get you big bucks than painting or sculpture (although it's still damn hard).

[monolith94]

"i just think art should be understandable to the common man... thats the point of art... expression and the average person can't pick up nothing from these abstract pictures."

For someone who claims to be a representative of the people, you sure do underestimate them alot... I disagree.

I also disagree that it was Pollock who shifted the artistic credibility from Europe to America, but that's not a big deal.

I wonder what you think of Heironymus Bosch...