05-22-2016, 10:11 AM
(05-13-2016, 01:11 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR I'll give you the TL;DR version since the video didn't make it clear.
Cubist stuff...not art...it is shit.
Geometical patterns done in a mosque...only kinda art....wood burning with a magnatron....not art, shit.
Mattise...art, bad art but art.
Neo-Classial "trash" as you put it....not only art some of the best art.
Of course this is coming from someone who thinks Thomas Kinkade and Bob Ross are geniuses and Picasso was either scamming you elitist pricks or at the very best he was trolling.
A work by Matisse or Picasso is not a masterpiece simply due to the signature (essentially a trademark). One can debase a trademark by debasing the object to fit a mass market (the analogy is to Marantz stereo equipment, very good into the early 'Seventies before some bean-counters chose to simply slap the name onto some low-end schlock for people living in tiny apartments and having no ear for music). The trademark died, and some have tried to revive it. The new Marantz equipment is pricey stuff apparently for high-end listeners.
Because of an impending transition in life that makes such trips unlikely, I took a journey to the Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art yesterday. I went through its post-1900 wing, and one of the first paintings that I saw was a Matisse, a reclining dancer. A photograph could not do justice to it. One must see the art in person to most appreciate it. Seeing it from a photograph is wholly inadequate for judgment. This is especially so with abstract impressionism. It is possible to paint a canvas in one color and have something interesting, but one must see it oneself.
Yes, I know. "Modern" art can be very bad, and sometimes it isn't very accomplished. I did a few exercises on a small canvas, experiments with brush strokes. Their only virtue is that they show some playfulness. (That's the only satisfying way to learn to do some things -- make play out of it). But it turns out... interesting. There is neither structure nor plan, something that I would never apply until I can achieve some realism. I need to learn some technique so that I can paint something so 'trivial' as a goldfish -- and convince people that the image suggests something more than a goldfish.
It is worth remembering: some of that modern art is now over a hundred years old. It is often as old now as Impressionism was in the 1970s. Thus the Malevich and early Picasso. When it becomes timeless it is no longer 'modern'.
Do neo-classicism badly and you do not have good art. Do cubism well and you might have some very good art. As in music I sometimes
need some Stravinsky or Shostakovich to shake myself. Then it is back to Mozart.
I love art. I want to learn some of the techniques so that (1) I can better appreciate what I see, and (2) I want to be more than a consumer.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
