PDA

View Full Version : Art you hate or can't pass



ClockHand
01-16-2012, 12:59 PM
We all have our taste on art, some people love realism while others love cubism. There is nothing bad or wrong in like or dislike, but I want to know what you hate. This is not like "I dislike abstract art", this is "I can't pass abstract art". And it will be even more to tell us why do you hate it.

This also can work with style or certain decisions the artist chose that you hate.


I personally hate when the artist chose a childish style or over humanized animals, with a content of violence and sex. Like I can't stand a chibi character with six pack, trying to look manly or something like that. I can't even think what kind of person would do something like that (what do he/she have in his head to do such a thing?).

toast
01-16-2012, 01:50 PM
You forgot boring paintings of horses and landscapes..fuck all of that. Boring paintings painted by boring people.

CypressDahlia
01-16-2012, 02:39 PM
Guro

Matt
01-16-2012, 03:18 PM
I like how the first thing you use as an example of what people might hate is abstract.

I think I feel the same way about furries as you do. Tails and Sonic/the game Overgrowth are fine, catgirls/bunnygirls (with just the ears and/or tail) are fine, but it's the area in between that just gets creepy. The people who draw it are usually all right (once you get past their desire to be their fursona, anyway)--I just hate the style. I wouldn't say I hate chibi styles with sex and violence, but a chibi with a six-back just doesn't click for me either.

Also, inflation. Not just chubby people--huge, balloon-like inflation. Again, I'm not about to nag at the people who draw it, but I hate the content.

Clock, you must really hate Panty and Stocking. Chibi sex and violence throughout.

GunZet
01-16-2012, 04:18 PM
Anthro.

Bacon_Barbarian
01-16-2012, 04:25 PM
Oh God. Inflation pisses me off.

ClockHand
01-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Toast@ I fucking hate horses, no doubt about it. But I can understand the person behind that, while in the other cases I just can't understand their psychology.

Matt@ The uncanny valley. Well, not really, Soni and Tails are not bad, because they are cartoons, their whole design is to be childish, innocent but at the same time being heroes and take actions (they are for kids and they stand something). While a furry that is sexualised or over humanized is not for that, and it can cross a line in design that it really creeps me out.

Fenn
01-16-2012, 05:07 PM
I don't really enjoy the paintings in the times of...was it Byzantine? When children were depicted as tiny adults. Seeing an adult face on a tiny body disturbs the hell out of me, let children be children.

Also I'm not a big fan of elongated bodies (super tall, super thin but realistic). I find them utterly inhuman.

Sunny
01-16-2012, 05:32 PM
I am a furry. I do love furries.

Frankly, I just like drawing animals, and they are easier to draw, in some respects. But, it's really just the fact I like animals.

But what I DO hate about furry art is the people doing all the kinky/effing creepy stuff. -Shudder!!!- Frankly, I dislike sex art/porno/kinky things in general. YUCK.

Also, I really don't like abstract art. Frankly, most of it is just ugly.

toast
01-16-2012, 07:00 PM
Actually, a lot of abstract art is awesome. Like for example, this stuff fantastically done:
http://www.photosofabstractart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Famous-Abstract-Art-Paintings.jpg
http://www.pictureofabstractart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Geometric-Abstract-Art-Images.jpg

and pretty much everything this guy does (his art has awesome use of shapes and colors, it just oozes creativity): http://cerque.deviantart.com/gallery/

GunZet
01-16-2012, 07:29 PM
Not to mention your own art.

Evil_Cake
01-16-2012, 07:36 PM
monochrome

Bacon_Barbarian
01-16-2012, 08:21 PM
What do you mean, actual monochrome or grayscale?

Evil_Cake
01-16-2012, 08:24 PM
this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome_painting

Sunny
01-17-2012, 03:17 PM
I don't particularly care for the lion, but I like the first one. :_

ClockHand
01-17-2012, 03:43 PM
I think there is a misconception about abstract art, people believe it just squares and circles with nothing in particular, or just random lines.

About panty and stocking. I really don't find them disturbing, because their design is not made for kids. What I do find disturbing is when the design is made for kids but it has a sexual or violent connotation, think it as Tails, which have a child design but adding violence or sexual content to it. It's disturbing.

Matt
01-17-2012, 05:38 PM
Sorta like all that Sonic vore on Deviantart?


guro
After the usual hentai/nude mod talk, I saw some people discussing bloody fatalities in Vanguard Princess. Just thought I should throw that out there. Don't think anything's gonna come of it, though--probably for the better.

Captain_Neko
01-17-2012, 07:14 PM
Spots lacking thought. And sexual/nudity. Furries just irritate me out of personal taste.

ClockHand
01-17-2012, 07:21 PM
Yeah like that thing (sonic vore).

I have nothing against sex or nudity, hentai or illustrated porn are great, no one get hurt with it. But when I see something that have a design made for kids with sexual or violence, I can't handle, its like -who in his sane mind would do that?-

CypressDahlia
01-17-2012, 07:44 PM
Bloody fatalities need to stay in Mortal Kombat. They're extremely cheesy and anyone who thinks they'd work with VP probably jacks off to 300 or is twelve, when blood and gore still evoked "cool". But yeah nothing will come of it considering VP is made by a single guy and his tastes are just not that.

Also, there are no misconceptions about abstract art. The reason people dislike abstract art is because they don't want to pretend something is there that isn't there. Representational art is far more communicative and you don't have to be a hipster to "get" it.

Outcast
01-17-2012, 09:23 PM
"let's splatter paint on a canvas" it's just so boring.

toast
01-17-2012, 11:20 PM
Also, there are no misconceptions about abstract art. The reason people dislike abstract art is because they don't want to pretend something is there that isn't there. Representational art is far more communicative and you don't have to be a hipster to "get" it.

oh cypress, you crack me up!

I mean shit, you're right. I mean it's not like people put any thought in abstract art. like, lol, what is composition and color usage? its so easy! I can do it in ms paint! abstract artists have been suckering people for YEARS! right guys?!?!

CypressDahlia
01-17-2012, 11:52 PM
Yeah that's totally what I said.

take it from a person who has attended multiple art history and art appreciation seminars at modern art exhibits. If you ask 10 different people about the "composition" and "color usage" of an abstract painting, you'll get 10 different answers. Often times they'll look at each other and go "I didn't see that" or "where do you see that?" Why? Because there is no standard. There's nothing to compare it to. The worth of abstract art on a compositional level is entirely up to the viewer. So to say abstract art uses composition and pretty colors is kind of an empty statement. Maybe I think Pollack is a genius for splattering purple paint in certain areas. But how do I know that's "good" composition? Is there a standard for paint splattering? If it's not supposed to LOOK like anything, there is no way to judge how accurate it is.

At best we can give them credit for basic color theory. Ohhhh orange works well with blue GJ GJ.

ClockHand
01-18-2012, 12:00 AM
If its upon the viewer does it mean that the author had no idea what he was doing?

Celestial-Fox
01-18-2012, 12:01 AM
I am a furry. I do love furries.

Frankly, I just like drawing animals, and they are easier to draw, in some respects. But, it's really just the fact I like animals.

But what I DO hate about furry art is the people doing all the kinky/effing creepy stuff. -Shudder!!!- Frankly, I dislike sex art/porno/kinky things in general. YUCK.

Can this please be quoted for truth until the end of time?

I'm not a furry, but I know for a solid FACT that furry (http://darknatasha.deviantart.com/) ≠ yiffy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yiff). There's totally nothing wrong or even sexual about being in the furry fandom. (Both links are SFW)

And blagh, I've got no real opinion on Abstract art. I like some of it. I don't like some of it. It's subjectivity. But incidentally, even with non-abstract art, some people like some of it and they don't like other parts of it. It's just that in our particular society, representational art has taken a precedence over abstract, for sure. That's just my opinion on why, though. I don't have a scientific backup or whatever. But yeah, different strokes for different folks. I'm not really one to argue the value of abstract art vs. representational art, because I really don't know a whole bunch about abstract, admittedly.

ClockHand
01-18-2012, 12:03 AM
Can this please be quoted for truth until the end of time?

I'm not a furry, but I know for a solid FACT that furry (http://darknatasha.deviantart.com/) ≠ yiffy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yiff). There's totally nothing wrong or even sexual about being in the furry fandom. (Both links are SFW)

*looking at the user name*

Celestial-Fox
01-18-2012, 12:06 AM
Uhhh, lolwat. I'm totally not a furry. Surely that is obvious.

Is Blu Fox a furry?
Is Spidergoth a furry?

Animals in usernames ≠ furry.

CypressDahlia
01-18-2012, 12:09 AM
If its upon the viewer does it mean that the author had no idea what he was doing?

Even if the artist knew exactly what he was doing, if the viewer can't compare it to anything, there is no way we can appreciate it without having someone explain it to us. And even then, we might feel differently. That's why I'm saying that it's not a "misconception" that abstract art sometimes looks pointless because accuracy is not something that can be reflected in a non-representational format. There's no way for the viewer to judge if it "looks right" or "looks wrong". Is the composition of this piece okay?

http://slowmuse.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/jackson.jpg

Who the fuck knows except the guy who made it. Only he knows what he was truly trying to create with that. The viewer can only guess. And sometimes people don't want to sit there and guess and pretend like there is some grand scheme behind it when they can't plainly see it.

ClockHand
01-18-2012, 12:20 AM
Even if the artist knew exactly what he was doing, if the viewer can't compare it to anything, there is no way we can appreciate it without having someone explain it to us.

That's the whole critique against over abstracted art, that they alienate symbols. But there is abstract art that keep symbols and make a clear dialogue with the viewer.


And even then, we might feel differently. That's why I'm saying that it's not a "misconception" that abstract art sometimes looks pointless because accuracy is not something that can be reflected in a non-representational format. There's no way for the viewer to judge if it "looks right" or "looks wrong". Is the composition of this piece okay?

http://slowmuse.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/jackson.jpg

Who the fuck knows except the guy who made it. Only he knows what he was truly trying to create with that. The viewer can only guess. And sometimes people don't want to sit there and guess and pretend like there is some grand scheme behind it when they can't plainly see it.

The example work as a over abstracted art work, but what about one that keep symbols?

http://www.pictureofabstractart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Geometric-Abstract-Art-Images.jpg

The whole argument you are doing, is right when we deal with over abstracted work, pieces that can't be read by anyone, but if the artist chose to keep symbols so the work can be understood, and it also delivery it in a abstract format. I think then Abstract art can work as a piece of work with meaning that people can read.

I take this in a bad abstract art and good abstract art, where pieces that keep symbols as they are, are good, while the ones that are just a expression of random lines, are bad abstract art. That's why I believe there is a misconception of Abstract art, and the reason why people believe abstract art is just your example, while there are other examples of abstract art, completely different and understandable.

Sylux
01-18-2012, 12:25 AM
Abstract art sucks unless it looks like Tron

CypressDahlia
01-18-2012, 12:26 AM
Of course there is good and bad of everything. I'm not saying all abstract art is //all// bad. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why people might be put off of it. And also that it's simply impossible to judge an abstract piece because there is no absolute example of what it's supposed to look like. We just have to take for granted that it's abstract and appreciate it on that really ambiguous level. And we have to pretend like the artist carefully crafted this thing in front of us, like every stroke was exact and calculated, even though we do not know for sure if that's even true. And some people don't like to do that because it's...well...pretentious.

jaidurn
01-18-2012, 12:27 AM
Abstract art is pretty cool. I mean, it's like doing drugs without the drugs.

ClockHand
01-18-2012, 12:39 AM
Of course there is good and bad of everything. I'm not saying all abstract art is //all// bad. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why people might be put off of it.


Also, there are no misconceptions about abstract art. The reason people dislike abstract art is because they don't want to pretend something is there that isn't there. Representational art is far more communicative and you don't have to be a hipster to "get" it.

I think you said it very clear and blunt.


And also that it's simply impossible to judge an abstract piece because there is no absolute example of what it's supposed to look like. We just have to take for granted that it's abstract and appreciate it on that really ambiguous level. And we have to pretend like the artist carefully crafted this thing in front of us, like every stroke was exact and calculated, even though we do not know for sure if that's even true. And some people don't like to do that because it's...well...pretentious.

I think you are wrong, because as I said, there are symbols. If the symbols maintain their cognitive structure, they can be pointed, and so the watcher can make the comparison of "what it's supposed to look like". And obviously you can go deeper, you can use try to understand the symbol through a cognitive level of the author, trying to make reference to a structuralist brain theory, which mean you can be able to understand what he was trying to say and even more you can use another approximation of psychology or sociology to understand what the symbol means.

The thing is that you are never going to be sure what the whole paint mean, or what the symbol is making a reference, but that is the joke of it. It's a detective game, where you have pieces of someone's mind and you try to figure out what was he thinking. It's an interactive way of art, that have symbols, it can be read and it can go as deep as you want. I don't see why its bad?

CypressDahlia
01-18-2012, 12:48 AM
A large part of it is guess work. Even with the lion picture you provided, we can't compare it to a real lion. We have to assume that most of the creative process in that painting was entirely abstract. We have to assume that the artist accomplished exactly what he wanted to, and, in the process, bring ourselves to appreciate things that might have very well been unintentional, a mistake, or even a fluke. We force the assumption that the artist did a perfect job in putting his idea on canvas. Because we can't very well say they didn't. We don't know exactly how it was "supposed" to be.

Whereas if I tried to draw a representational lion and the proportions were bad, the perspective was bad, etc, etc. you could very well say I didn't do a good idea of putting my vision on paper. You can't say that about abstract art. You just have to assume that it is perfectly rendered as it is, and some people don't like that. We don't like to sit in front of a painting and make up reasons why it's perfect. We like measurable, solid critiques.

And I don't understand the point of the first two quotes. I never said abstract art is bad, not even once. I said that the reason people don't like abstract art is not based on "misconceptions". It's very reasonable, in fact.

ClockHand
01-18-2012, 12:50 AM
yeah you can do a bad abstract art, if you didn't recognize the lion, then the artist did a bad job. But he didn't, you recognized the lion, which mean he did a good job making abstract art keeping the symbols so you can understand.

It's less about technique and more about perspective and appreciation (and it have a base of deconstruction).

jaidurn
01-18-2012, 02:15 AM
Abstract art is really hard to do wrong. I mean, almost anything goes.

Now some art I really can't get around is those people who draw yaoi fanart. Some of them are good people and all, but it just ruins the characters for me. :\

Inksprout
01-18-2012, 06:02 AM
As far as abstract art goes I think the quality of it depends a lot on the artist's intentions. I know that some work that gets classified as 'absract art' is probably done with very little consideration. However I agree with clock, when artists work hard to including symbology but in an abstract form and incorporate thoughtful meaning into the symbology, colour choices and even the techniques used to apply paint then they are creating art, which can and should be appreciated. Although 2 people might look at the work and think of 2 different things it can represent I think this is true of all art and as long as the painter was deliberately trying to create a certain feeling/atmosphere/meaning into his painting I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with viewers interpreting it differently.

As far as furries go I think the art style is cool when they are well done but I feel that the anatomy they are drawn with is often unrealistic and made to cater to people who find them sexual more than anything else. For example a full dog women, but who has human breasts covered in fur. It implies that they are not proper breasts but just the shape of her body, they are anatomically pointless and only their to make the image sexual. It creeps me out when people are obssessed with furries and find them sexual because of the implication that they are unhappy being humans. It seems to me that there is some sort of disconnect with reality when people are really obssessed (not just artistically but on a deeper level that spills into art)

Also like clock I hate the idea of people sexualising what was originally a thing aimed for kids. It makes me sad that so many shows and games for kids are parodied in a sexual way.

CypressDahlia
01-18-2012, 09:55 AM
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people interpreting it differently, I'm saying there's something wrong with there being no particular way to interpret it. that's why you get high art cooks who make mountains out of little abstract molehills and glorify crap like "white on white".

Regantor
01-18-2012, 10:33 AM
The furry fandom has a long history of drawing oversexed and badly drawn nonsence, but really, I'm adimant that it can be art when you scratch the surface. There is so much moe-styled, borderline preverted, loli artwork and american-styled 'shouldn't work but does' mecha out there, that people from this sort of fandom can hardly afford to be so elitist about things. Fantasy stories without at least one of these species generally result in a "Where's the fantasy?" reaction from me personally, too. But yeah, that's another story entirely.

As for the 'fine' art thing, I agree with Cypress. Infact, it's pretty much the entire problem with modern art. There is a differance between having the skill to reprosent your inspirational source, and just telling other people what it's supposed to make you think of. The value of abstract art is still determined equal parts by it's skill level along with originality of inspirational source, then, IMO. A painting of an abstract lion is thus equal in merit to a bog standard, realism painting of a lion. Without further meaning, it just is what it is.

toast
01-18-2012, 05:03 PM
A large part of it is guess work. Even with the lion picture you provided, we can't compare it to a real lion. We have to assume that most of the creative process in that painting was entirely abstract. We have to assume that the artist accomplished exactly what he wanted to, and, in the process, bring ourselves to appreciate things that might have very well been unintentional, a mistake, or even a fluke. We force the assumption that the artist did a perfect job in putting his idea on canvas. Because we can't very well say they didn't. We don't know exactly how it was "supposed" to be.

Whereas if I tried to draw a representational lion and the proportions were bad, the perspective was bad, etc, etc. you could very well say I didn't do a good idea of putting my vision on paper. You can't say that about abstract art. You just have to assume that it is perfectly rendered as it is, and some people don't like that. We don't like to sit in front of a painting and make up reasons why it's perfect. We like measurable, solid critiques.

You actually can, if (like clock said) the idea wasn't represented well. But if you don't enjoy thinking too much about a painting, then that's fine. There is no "right" opinion on this subject. That is the point of art, just like music and films. Everyone has a different taste. For example, I believe mona lisa is extremely boring compared to http://tars.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/popova.jpg

I don't think it makes sense to compare figurative and abstract art on matters like this, however. Obviously one will criticize a bad figurative drawing more because it is based on real life and the point of criticizing it is to help it look more like real life. Abstract is different. You still criticize abstract art in terms of composition, color, etc, but when it comes to meaning, the point is to understand or have a personal meaning after looking at all of the characteristics. Maybe some people don't want to have to do that, but it's pretty ignorant for someone to dismiss anything with the title abstract art and call it hipster.

I don't believe all abstract art is good, just like not all representational art is good.

Hamachi
01-18-2012, 06:23 PM
I'm pretty cool with most forms of art except the ones that feed on shock quality. Namely, for example, pieces that are excessively disturbing but may or may not be well made.

It's like how Lady Gaga makes her music. No, just... no.

CypressDahlia
01-18-2012, 06:35 PM
Toast I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. I have no issues with thinking about art. I have issues with the glorification of art based on things that might or might not actually be there. As a previous example, I said I might think Pollock is a genius for splattering purple paint in certain places. But how do I know that's even intentional? How do I know he didn't just spill some as he was walking by the canvas? That's just it, I DON'T. So it would just be me gassing up Pollock for something that he might not have even meant to do. That's why I think it's friggin hipster for kids to sit in front of a black square and talk about how it has "profound meaning" when the meaning is not expressed through the piece, nor are we made aware of the artist's intentions. Ultimately, all they're doing is talking up their own opinions.

Regantor
01-19-2012, 12:07 AM
This is what I was trying to say about the artist's abbility to depict his inspiration being the important part... Even if it's just a strange formation of shapes; ideas, scale, emmotion can still be reprosented depending on the individual's perticular skills.

Let's take this classic Frantisek Kupka painting for example.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1971.111.jpg

It doesn't matter if you pick up on the metropolitian themes of this or not. What matters is his skill of depiction. It's not a bunch of guys paid to run around the halls of the manchester museum (Yeah, that really happened.), it's not paint simply thrown at a canvas, it's not an overly simplified peice blatantly asking you to create your own version of the masterpeice inside your brain... In my humble opinion, that's the precise differance between "Art" and "Not Art."

CypressDahlia
01-19-2012, 02:18 AM
Exactly. All art should be self-meritorious to some degree. An artist should be able to instill a minimum amount of credibility in his work that is evident to all viewers, not just some. If all art was valued based solely on the conjurations of its viewers, then literally anything could be considered art, thus defeating the purpose of the craft. We'd have to change the name of the Smithsonians to the Smithsonian Museum of Anything and Everything You Might Personally Think Looks Remotely Profound.

Hamachi
01-20-2012, 11:35 PM
I left a huge pile of art in the bathroom this morning

ram
01-21-2012, 10:21 AM
I can see a lot of guys in this site hates my style of art....
I do love lolis but I don't really like big breast loli or chibi macho or anything of the sort.

Still the style I'm trying to achieve is like a hot sexy body with a baby face moe character like(in girls)
-I'm talking about the first posts not the modern art topics...

Edit: I also like cat girls but haven't drawn one and I'm not really planning to...
But only cat girls and nothing else

Matt
01-21-2012, 12:17 PM
How about bunny girls? (http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy339/roxsnow25/77f5db34741b99850855e042b2b648bc147.jpg)

Celestial-Fox
01-21-2012, 05:07 PM
It's always bothered me when people say they hate anthropomorphism, but they like mythology, Winnie the Pooh, or even Beauty and the Beast. Heck, even the Brave Little Toaster is anthro.

Joosh
01-21-2012, 05:39 PM
I really hate generic manga styles tbh.

Like the type you look at thats okay, but nothing close to a "Wow".

ITS GOT TO BE UNIQUE
NONE OF THAT HUGE EYES + WEIRD HAIR COLOR CRAP

ClockHand
01-21-2012, 06:08 PM
It's always bothered me when people say they hate anthropomorphism, but they like mythology, Winnie the Pooh, or even Beauty and the Beast. Heck, even the Brave Little Toaster is anthro.

I think its a mater of style, rather than the subject. I don't think people hate anthropomorphism but they have a image in their heads in how those look like, so they are obviously going to say they hate it.

Again, the same with abstract art.

saboten55
01-21-2012, 06:57 PM
I really hate generic manga styles tbh.

Like the type you look at thats okay, but nothing close to a "Wow".

ITS GOT TO BE UNIQUE
NONE OF THAT HUGE EYES + WEIRD HAIR COLOR CRAP

i agree with u Joosh!! :cat_whyyou:
thats why i wanna argue everytime ppl say that
Manga = moe or has shonen jump-like battle...

my favorite is the style of Shigeru Sugiura, Mitsuteru Yokoyama
or other classic manga artists, cause they're
more energetic and expressive than
(MOST OF, not all) current day's main stream ones that make
fangirls or fanboys scream :cat_sigh:

CypressDahlia
01-21-2012, 07:22 PM
I hate when people draw fanart of characters and they make them really fat.

ClockHand
01-21-2012, 08:23 PM
i agree with u Joosh!! :cat_whyyou:
thats why i wanna argue everytime ppl say that
Manga = moe or has shonen jump-like battle...

my favorite is the style of Shigeru Sugiura, Mitsuteru Yokoyama
or other classic manga artists, cause they're
more energetic and expressive than
(MOST OF, not all) current day's main stream ones that make
fangirls or fanboys scream :cat_sigh:

Can we be friend and do a lawful organization about all this =3?

saboten55
01-21-2012, 11:01 PM
Can we be friend and do a lawful organization about all this =3?

YEAH I'M ON IT!!! :ascii_gambate:

ClockHand
01-21-2012, 11:39 PM
http://www.mangatutorials.com/forum/showthread.php?1890-Anti-Moe-Organization-(AMO)&p=69538#post69538

Anti moe thread done. Our organization needs support now.

pandasayori
01-24-2012, 10:08 AM
@CypressDahlia: Fat fan-art really creeps me out...either that, or they make them waaay to skinny...

I like realism...but...sometimes i just gets too creepy...especially when mixed with the manga style..but that's just me ^^;;

chappy888
01-24-2012, 10:21 AM
I dun like horror art or anything that has to do with Horrifying looks =_=

pandasayori
01-24-2012, 11:32 AM
I dun like horror art or anything that has to do with Horrifying looks =_=

I get like that..sometimes.... >.> only sometimes

Peteman
01-24-2012, 12:28 PM
I agree with what Cypress says abour abstract art, but my particular beef is whith sculpture or 'object placement' abstract art, such as using ones bedroom as it is normally is put it in a gallerly and calling it 'art.' Where there is no evidence of actuall effort or a display of technical skill.

Edit: I just had a thought, in bashing 'mainstream' manga are we not being just like the hipsters whom we critisize as posers; who in turn, turn there noses up at 'the mainstream.' To say something is not 'good' (qualatively) because lots of people like it seems counter productive.

ClockHand
01-24-2012, 02:09 PM
That kind of abstract art, is art by space not art by itself. It's actually something to discuss (specially if you like industrial design and architecture), but as I see, if your piece of art have a value by the space where it's placed, then it's not art per se. But also as a spectator you must be aware that some times the piece of art can take the space and make it art for itself, which mean that it was art, and it made the space "an art form", this happens constantly with architecture and industrial design.

Dunno, taking a cup and putting it in a museum is retarded, but making a abstract sculpture in a fountain, with a literacy of movement resembling the water, it can create a "space of art" by itself and be art.

Also as uncle Federico said (my avatar), any piece of art on the street is well appreciated.