I painted a picture

[JCF]

Originally Posted by tabs

An icon from the art of industrial design

I was going to say the same thing if Snipe had forced me to answer first.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

While I might agree about the running shoes & the clothes peg as rather pointless, the painting of those boots is different. There is a story there & the viewer can't help wondering what that story is . . .

Ian

Which painting of which boots? The one JCF posted, or the one i posted?

The one i posted is a picture that someone took of a bum's feet. And if that's art, is it the Bum's feet that are the art, or does it suddenly become art when you take a picture of it?

Clearly a painting of the bum's feet would be art, but a picture of feet?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by tabs

An icon from the art of industrial design

No, literally, it was a pair of discarded sneakers with the background taken out and replaced by a solid white background.

That's not art, it's trash. Literally.

Now if someone painted had those sneakers on a canvas, or a wall, or even tatooed it on another person's body, then it's art.

Originally Posted by JCF

Now that's better - Christ, you don't have to make it seem like pulling teeth.

It's what i do.

And who says i haven't made it as an artist? My poems are quite well received, and i do say, they absolutely make the ladies swoon. I think they're corny (seriously), but the girls just eat them up.

I've spent a couple hours today chatting up a PhD in Virginia thanks to my poems. Now if a blue collar rough around the edges dude like me scooping up a sexy ebony doctor lady from hundreds of miles away isn't art, there is no such thing.

[JCF]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

No, literally, it was a pair of discarded sneakers with the background taken out and replaced by a solid white background.

That's not art, it's trash. Literally.

Now if someone painted had those sneakers on a canvas, or a wall, or even tatooed it on another person's body, then it's art.


It's what i do.

And who says i haven't made it as an artist? My poems are quite well received, and i do say, they absolutely make the ladies swoon. I think they're corny (seriously), but the girls just eat them up.

I've spent a couple hours today chatting up a PhD in Virginia thanks to my poems. Now if a blue collar rough around the edges dude like me scooping up a sexy ebony doctor lady from hundreds of miles away isn't art, there is no such thing.

True dat.
That's what poetry was invented for.

I tell you what, you post some of your poems and I'll post some of my paintings and stuff.

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Which painting of which boots? The one JCF posted, or the one i posted?

JCF's old boots.

I guess I am more demanding of 'modern' art. For 'classical' art, they were our photographers of the day, so I can accept the mundane. For 'modern' art, I want something of interest. I can go look at a pair of used sneakers in my closet, or a clothes peg in my laundry so they hold zero interest for me. Ditto Pollack's paint splatters or Miro's squiggles.

But Colville makes me ask . . .



Ian

[Jim Horton]

Art? Or trash?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by JCF

True dat.
That's what poetry was invented for.

I tell you what, you post some of your poems and I'll post some of my paintings and stuff.

I'll PM you a few if you like.

[mjohnson]

Originally Posted by JCF

Why so different ?
Those discarded shoes could have been worn by some bum - maybe a bum that was once somebody. Who maybe was a homeless Vietnam Vet. Or maybe someone who once had a good, "normal , unspectacular" life that went all to hell.
Maybe nothing so dramatic - just an old pair of shoes worn out from many a fun game of basketball.

I am reminded of Pig Pen talking about dust....
Charles Schultz was also a Vet - WWII, heavy combat and haunted by it.

...

I wonder about the need to consider the artist's background.

Shouldn't an image (or whatever) stand on its own? I think of course that you should include an artist's previous work, and that of their peers, so as to view each work as a phrase in an ongoing conversation or progression. But where does "background" become "branding"?. Millions were affected by Schultz's work without thinking of WW2, no matter how much it shaped him.

Does it matter if the source material was those years in the orphanage, flashbacks from wars' battles, the first sunrise after your daughter's birth or the stars you saw hitting your head on the porcelain during last night's blackout?

mike (likes mid 20th abstract art that makes him laugh for some reason, like agnes dewitt)

[island911]

Originally Posted by Jim Horton

Art? Or trash?

If it was the first urinal ever designed/built, then it certainly is an interesting Artifact.

geez... not even the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

[island911]

I'lll just add, that the "art" is in the design, and NOT in some dooffus putting it on an art gallery pedestal. (incorrectly mounted, at that)

...unless he's looking for a laugh, at all those who decide to stop and ponder "the meaning."

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by island911

...unless he's looking for a laugh, at all those who decide to stop and ponder "the meaning."

You don't know, do you? Of course you don't. Because you know nothing about art or art history, probably never heard of Marcel Duchamp and have no interest in learning anything. You just know what you like.

This thread is amusing. Dipso posts a painting he did for the fun of it and, with the exception of a very few posters who are educated to one degree or another on the topic, it results in 14 pages of condemnation and ridicule of that which the posters have no knowledge of beyond "knowing", in their subjective opinion, what art is.

What's so amusing is that so many here so readily and flagrantly flaunt their ignorance while not exhibiting the slightest bit of curiousity about that which they obviously know little or nothing and asking no questions above the level of maturity of "You call that POS art?"

[m21sniper]

I have no doubt that many artists deliberately 'create' pieces to mock portions of their fan base or the industry that they do not approve of.

No doubt.

[imcarthur]

Artis Snobius has spoken. Art is no longer subjective. Who knew?

Ian

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Artis Snobius has spoken. Art is no longer subjective. Who knew?

Ian

Nothing snobbish about me.

If one considers art history a bogus field of study and considers anyone with an interest in art and its history a snob...oh well; their loss (whether they ever wake up and realize it or not).

[Jim Horton]

Originally Posted by DARISC

You don't know, do you? Of course you don't. Because you know nothing about art or art history, probably never heard of Marcel Duchamp and have no interest in learning anything. You just know what you like.

This thread is amusing. Dipso posts a painting he did for the fun of it and, with the exception of a very few posters who are educated to one degree or another on the topic, it results in 14 pages of condemnation and ridicule of that which the posters have no knowledge of beyond "knowing", in their subjective opinion, what art is.

What's so amusing is that so many here so readily and flagrantly flaunt their ignorance while not exhibiting the slightest bit of curiousity about that which they obviously know little or nothing and asking no questions above the level of maturity of "You call that POS art?"

I think Marcel Duchamp would have found this whole thread a hoot.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Jim Horton

I think Marcel Duchamp would have found this whole thread a hoot.

I think he'd have quit it before he finished reading the first page.

[m21sniper]

If only you had too.

LOL...

[Jim Horton]

Originally Posted by DARISC

I think he'd have quit it before he finished reading the first page.

PM sent

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Jim Horton

PM sent

Got it.

[Jim Horton]

The subject of “what is art?” has fascinated me for a long time, though I make my living as an engineer. Something I read that seemed to relate to some of the issues and artists covered in this thread was the following “categorization” of art types:

Graphic/commercial art - conveying info that promotes a product, event, etc.

Crafts - ceramics, weaving, glass blowing, etc. Objects made primarily to serve a purpose or function.

Decoration - eye candy.

Design - applicable to all the above and judged by how effectively/elegantly/aesthetically it is embodied in the product.

The area of crafts is problematic for some who might say, "That's a tapestry to hang on the wall to look at, it has no other function, it's art". Yes, but its essence is that of craft; it's a weaving. The artist/craftsman (as opposed to the basic craftsman, whose basic focus is on his craft as utilitarian) chooses to be constrained by the medium of his choice and when judging his work the aesthetic/artistic aspects of the work are penultimate to the quality of the craft.

A fine artist may in fact be a lousy craftsman and the choice of medium is dictated by the statement he wants to make. I've never heard or read reference to the quality of the "craft" in Van Gogh's paintings for example. Truth is, he was driven by images which he attempted to put on canvas as quickly as he could, even at one point when he was institutionalized, rapidly making a painting then immediately scraping off the paint and making another and another. His focus was on his visions, not so much with the craft involved in realizing them.

Fine art, whatever the medium - serves no purpose or function other than to make whatever statement the artist wishes to make. It, by definition, has no utilitarian value. And, it is cutting edge, pushing the envelope, avant garde, however one wants to describe it. Most often it is not possible to judge its historical importance immediately. Some is not, as is generally realized, able to be judged until varying amounts of time has past, after which great/historically significant art can be recognized in the greater context that only accumulates over time.

What most people stumble over is the differentiation between the avant garde and the academic. They tend not to recognize that "creativity" is not the ability to paint like Rembrandt, Renoir, Picasso or Pollock - that ability is a craft. The creative work was done by Pollock - to repeat what he did is craft and one who may be able to do it well is an "artist" craftsman, an academician, because that which has become recognized as creative and important is thereafter academic - creative art moves on.

Thoughts?