All right, the one word posts have been fun, but enough is enough. Time for a thread with content. Many of us are of an artistic mind, so here's my question:
How do you feel about the curent state of fine art these days? This covers visual, musical, dance, you name it. I am personally perplexed by the attitude of the art community that only something shocking, disturbing, or rebellous is considered "fine art" anymore. If you make something just plain enjoyable, you're not taken seriously.
I think there will always be a place for controversy in any artistic medium, I dont think contoversial should become the norm or the mainstream.
Art is so subjective that although there are criteria for what defines a certain school of thought or element of an artistic medium....it ultimately is something that has to resonate with an individual...something that touches each individual in a unique way.
Are you saying that you have to make your corrugated board cut-outs controversials for your clients to like them?
I mean I understand that for example musicans take it to a new low - ie Christian Aguliara's Dirty Video - what the heck was she thinking?
But not all art has to be controversial to work. I agree w/ Dylan. It just has to touch people in a unique way.
Then there's for example Warhol who got so famous that he could pee on metal and they hang it in a museum. I mean that's just power right there. "hey, look how cool this guys pee is?" People pee in the snow all the time. No one hangs that in a museum.
So that's my perspective. The bear was just for fun and of course to boost the old number. What you don't think I want to beat ?
At any rate, I think the only art that gets attention anymore is the radical stuff. Basically, the media centers on sensationalism. Also, the challenge to get your art noticed is to do something different.
I went to an art fair last weekend and saw some really great stuff. One booth had a quote that said: Good art doesn't match your sofa. I agree. I think that art is greatly underappreciated anymore.
What I cannot stand is the academia behind art, and art theory. For example if I draw this painting called "ME" . there it is. a dot. But the art theorists would say "this is a juxtaposition of alienation in a white field of pure light; the light of reason and awareness. This is brilliant. Its like bs! Shut up its a dot you egg headed moron!!!
Art is to move you through beauty or truth. ANYTHING else is a bunch of talentless POOOP!!!!
__________________
"And like Web, I enjoy throwing JR under the bus. Problem is, it's usually under the special bus that I ride every day". Ghostdancer 12-18-09
On a similar topic, does anyone have a favorite and/or least favorite artist? My favorite, other than my uncle, would either be HR Giger or MC Escher (I just now realized how close those two names are!). My least favorite artist is Jackson Pollak. He's a lazy person who didn't have enough peices done in time for an exhibition, so he slapped paint on canvases.
That's a little harsh, Mz. He did take awhile to "slap" that paint on. And it was a new technique that he invented.
My favorite - well, I actually do really like Mr. Pee-on-Metal! I was just really impressed w/ his museum in the burgh. But there are other artists I like - VanGogh, Dali. The Chicago Art Museum is really something. You can get lost in that place.
As for least favorite...I'm sure I have one but it's not coming to mind at the moment.
I think JD hit a very important point, academia got their mitts on art and analyzed the snot out of it. They can find meaning in the most useless stuff. But if you do something purely for the sake of creating beauty, they say you've sold out. What they fail to realize is that the average person is willing to pay money for something that matches their sofa! I'm all for pushing the edges and keeping the vision of art expanding, but don't sacrafice quality for uniqueness.
Star, Christina A. is a good example. She has a beautiful voice! But if she doesn't shake her nasty for the camera, the record companies won't promote. And as far as what we create in the CORRUGATED industry, price is king. They just keep stripping an idea down until it fits their budget.
To answer you MZ, some favorites are MC Escher, Georgia O'Keefe, and the guy who did most of your avatars, Larry Elmore.
Its interesting what we apply the term "art" to. The term raising something to "an artform" suggests there is an elevation to a status of beauty or perfection or ease of execution.
I Like JD's point of overanalyzing something to the point of being ludicrous, whether it is academia, the media or anyone with a vested interest.
Shock value proponents also would appear to have a dubious agenda and motivations of questionable origin when pushing the envelop just for pushing the envelopes sake.
Pure and simple...art, whether it is a visual, audio or a performance based medium, is a quest for truth. It achieves greatness only when that truth resonates universally
I refer to another great Red Green proverb, "If she doesn't find you handsome, then at let her find you handy."
Which gets to the heart of the discussion. Whatever you do, if you do it well and with passion then you are creating something with basic artisitic value. It may not be what falls under the heading of "art", but that is more a matter of following your skills. Point is, if you have done it well, you have released the very essence of art. Why then are there so many people who have been gifted with "artistic" talents and opportunity that chose to trade quality for flash/shock?
I'll tell you, these days I'd rather review an exquisitely laid out tax spread sheet than the latest Brittany Spears video. Apologies to her fans, but she's a hack.
This is a perfect point to join this converstion, Star. Defend Mrs. Federline, explain her appeal. What puts her in your CD collection along with all the others?
I guess when it comes to Britney it's not really a matter of art but sometimes I just want something to run around the house and shake my a$$ to. It makes me feel young.
I understand that her image is created to be marketed.
And actually I can relate to some of her songs. It's true.
On the cd that I have that has I'm a slave for you - there is this song about how she was a cinderella but cinderella's gotta go. It reminds me of how my ex treated me. So don't underestimate Britney!
ah yes britiney, the next Maddona wanna be , why her agents think she has to keep up with the tramps of the world(think hilton) is beyond me, i guess its the only way to get on t.v. these days , id like to think theres a mom out there saying enuff is enuff to her 12 yr. old daughter. and if there is , id like to meet her. i mean im not perfect but still, you gotta draw aline in the sand somewhere.
A good example to bring into this is Mariah Carey. When she first hit big the emphasis was on her pipes, not the pipe casing. Granted, her hubby/manager was a control freak, but her marketing was solid. She then tripped down the tramp road and her music, carreer, and life all slid. Her latest release has her back to the singing and it is being well recieved. Gots to keep it real, people. 'Ol Brittney can do it to if she focuses on those songs that touch truth, as Dylan stated. Hopefully motherhood will awaken the muse.
Mariah Carey, when she came on the scene with 'Visions of Love', just had such a dynamic voice with almost operatic range. What potential!
It isnt a mystery that sex sells everything from cars to cola, but female singers that hope to have any longevity should take the harder road of talent alone. Youth is fleeting, but a lasting legacy is built on a body of work and not just a body.