Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60

Thread: Art you hate or can't pass

  1. #31
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    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.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 01-18-2012 at 12:29 AM.

  2. #32
    999 Knights Member jaidurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,690
    Abstract art is pretty cool. I mean, it's like doing drugs without the drugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conversation
    Seefy: QUICK HIDE YO KIDS
    Sylux: WHAT ABOOT MY WIFE?
    Seefy: QUICK HIDE JAI

  3. #33
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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.
    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.
    I think you said it very clear and blunt.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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?

  4. #34
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    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.

  5. #35
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    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).
    Last edited by ClockHand; 01-18-2012 at 12:53 AM.

  6. #36
    999 Knights Member jaidurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,690
    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. :\
    Quote Originally Posted by Conversation
    Seefy: QUICK HIDE YO KIDS
    Sylux: WHAT ABOOT MY WIFE?
    Seefy: QUICK HIDE JAI

  7. #37
    Devilish Member Inksprout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    756
    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.

  8. #38
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    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".

  9. #39
    One Thousand Member Regantor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,896
    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.

  10. #40
    999 Knights Member toast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    the preakness
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    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.

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
  •