Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Art you hate or can't pass

  1. #21
    Super Senior Member Outcast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    (・ω・`)
    Posts
    2,424
    "let's splatter paint on a canvas" it's just so boring.

  2. #22
    One Thousand Member toast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    the preakness
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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?!?!

  3. #23
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    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.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 01-18-2012 at 12:02 AM.

  4. #24
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    If its upon the viewer does it mean that the author had no idea what he was doing?

  5. #25
    Super Senior Member Celestial-Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunny View Post
    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 furryyiffy. 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.
    Last edited by Celestial-Fox; 01-18-2012 at 12:06 AM.

  6. #26
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial-Fox View Post
    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 furryyiffy. There's totally nothing wrong or even sexual about being in the furry fandom. (Both links are SFW)
    *looking at the user name*

  7. #27
    Super Senior Member Celestial-Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,113
    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.

  8. #28
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by ClockHand View Post
    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?



    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.

  9. #29
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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?



    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?



    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.

  10. #30
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,452
    Abstract art sucks unless it looks like Tron

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •