| Last Cereal: Message Board: posting |
| re: To continue... |
| [5814] by "0magus" (adsl-63-206-120-159.dsl.snfc21.p) on Sun 16 Sep 2001 23:20:18 [ reply ] |
|
i was establishing the extremes. where Crap Art, or its new and as yet unseen brethrein Error Art lie is hard to say.
I am not saying that we shouldnt value the asthetic, nor am I saying that pretty art is bad. I suspose what im saying is that, prior to the invention of the camera, just painting anything with technical accuracy could earn you a living. But technical accuracy is NOT ENOUGH! look at the works of leonaro, donnitelo, raphial and michilangial (and yes, i only remember their names together thanks to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). they went beyond being great technical artests into a realm of meaning. thats why we remember them. but, thats 4 names out of thousnads of years of human art. What about all the other renisouce names? sure, we know them, we might even know what they did and why its good. but its a pitiful number of artests compared to the number actually working during this time. go to any big musium in europe (the loove in Paris comes to mind) and walk through it. 90% of it is landscapes and portrates of dead white guys. of cource, thats my personal opinion. but still, it seems like a lot of artests were painting PHOTOS and not ART. Now, enter the camera. now, painting a picture that looks exactly like life is no big deal, becuase we can now create a picture thats even (technicly) better than any artest. So now, if you want to do landscapes your going to have to do a lot better than a picture. you have to paint in feelings with the image. but why stop at a landscape with feeling? I see the invention of the camera as being the beginning of the modern art movement, wherein art was sepperated from physical form due to lots of people suddently seeing that the camera made realistic painting moot. if anybody can go out and take a picture that looks nice, even a picture that has meaning, then the artests are going to have to kick it up a notch, right? so you have modern art, art without an emphisis on realistic painting. unfortunatley, with that benchmark thrown out we have no real way of telling whats "good" art. hence you see people heeping praise on art thats not really good, just confusing. a monotone canvas is something, yes. and it will make you think. but is it really art? and of cource, the inevitble comment is that modern art could have been done by anybody. yet, while anybody COULD have done this thing, only one person DID. ergo, its art. I think that modern art that requires a paragraph to explain it to the viewer isnt good art. good art can tell you what its about. I think that art, combined with its title, should be able to stand on its own. like any field, eventually the tools to create a that field will become powerfull and easy enough to use that anybody who wants to so something in said field, can. this is inevitible. see tobot, with his homemade music. see andria, with ___ homeade comics. i think anybody can become an artest in this day and age. we are not playing on the same stage as artests were 300 years, so why should we keep tripping over their props? i dont want to sound aggressive or rude, these are just my thoughts and I am happy to hear what you think. i didnt really edit this, and im sure it shows. |