Thread: I fail to see how this is art

Indeed.

Bad art is still art I suppose. And just because something is "art" doesn't mean it's good art.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Bad art is still art I suppose. And just because something is "art" doesn't mean it's good art.

Well said.

An art the practice of composing or capturing something while being inspired by creativity. Therefore art is anything and everything inspired by creativity. Anyone can define what art is, but that's it's true meaning. For example, writing is an art, the story is the art. Inventing is an art, the invention is the art, et cetera.

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either; there were blotches of paint inside the square which made the colour uneven.

Now, as a perspective, one of my favourite pieces of art is Kazimir Malevitch's Black Square (if this makes me pretentious so be it) but this red square made me angry. It wasn't even or geometric. It was plain badly done.

Later, I reconsidered my opinion based on what somebody said. Art is meant to make you feel, I would suppose; but nobody says it has to make you feel good. Why do people watch horror movies, otherwise? They may not feel good but they feel strongly, and that's an important feeling. Red is the colour of anger so it accomplished its goal in that I guess

where am I going with this? I don't know. But Nerve, I still need to write you letters.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either

I laughed so fucking hard at this lol
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.

Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.

Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?

Originally Posted by tommo

I laughed so fucking hard at this lol
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.

Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.

Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?

Whoa I totally forgot about this thread but let's come back to the answer

One, I had seen some of the artist's other works, and he could paint realism quite okay. And as he was Russian and in 1919 I didn't get the impression that he was being lazy. It would simply be the wrong time and place to have an art market that could bear that kind of exploitation.

Two, it was (and is) pleasing to me in the way Steve Reich might be. The boundaries are very simple, whether visual or harmonic, but by imposing these inordinately silly boundaries other things are suddenly brought to the fore which might be hard to emphasise in regular artmusic. In the case of this square it was not actually about the square but about the grey on the canvas surrounding it which had been painted far less delicately, with cracks in the oil and brushstrokes visible. It was the contrast against the inhuman perfection of the square.

In the world of computers, mathematically perfect squares and forms are the norm; but in 1919 such things would've not been. The boundary between the black and the grey was a rubicon crossed, a line between our forever imperfect world and Plato's world of forms.

Three, I actually saw the painting. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I repeat. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I'm not sure if the red square everybody is talking about here is Rothko (might be) but he had a similar aesthetic, simple squares and contrasts. But two very important related things about his work do not translate onto computers.

1. They're huge things apparently, ten feet long. There's a physical impact you will not get from a computer screen.

2. In the reduction from this size, all the detail of form will be lost in a crappy tiny .jpeg.

Such things as these are integral to the experience of art. You, audiophile, would not say that an mp3 would lend the same understanding as seeing the band live; so how can a picture in a book be the same as the painting?


So, TL;DR: If you go to an art gallery with a minimalist exhibition and an open mind, give the actual paintings rather than pictures of them a good hard look, and think about it a bit - and still think it's talentless shit - then your opinion is well defined and fair, and I will not try to convince you any further.

'
~i-likethis 5 days ago
Cute ass! Reply

~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
thanks

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply

~i-likethis 5 days ago
You are so welcome!Reply

~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
um thnx

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply

~i-likethis 5 days ago
'


Lmao,
Yeah, deifnitely not art.
Very funny though

LOL, and:

'Deathraven666 Jan 14, 2011
you look grate. I really think you should keep going with the artistic nudes. But that's just meReply

~Sexilexi2845 6 days ago
Well I'll see what I can do.

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.You'

Your Violation Report on deviation 'Looking Back 2'
from $devart
to ~rottingteeth

This is an automated message concerning a deviation which you previously reported, entitled Looking Back 2. A member of staff has reviewed your report and the deviation has been removed.

Thank you for your report.

-- deviantART Staff

oh, look at that, they finally got back to me and they removed the picture. and since deviantART is the final authority on all things art-related, uh, i guess that means I WAS RIGHT

Lol, bet you the rest of em are still there.

Originally Posted by nerve

oh, look at that, they finally got back to me and they removed the picture. and since deviantART is the final authority on all things art-related, uh, i guess that means I WAS RIGHT

I honestly hope that you're joking around otherwise that's a lot of bitter emotions to be carrying around over a picture that isn't hurting you on an art site that people stopped taking seriously long ago...

Arttistic Nude pictures are a form of art for sure, but this.... Indeed seems like a cheap picture on a Dating site. Nothing artistic about it.

I dont know; she sure was able to evoke some sincere, heartfelt emotions from everyone in this thread. Some were moved to anger, some grief, some despair, some lulz... All with a shot at a well poised rump.

Exquisite in execution, no?

I repeat the question I posed earlier somewhere:

who are you to judge what is art and what is not?

Furthermore, who are you to judge what is good art and what is bad art?

I'd say all you can say is whether you personally find something 'oohh pretty' or 'thought provoking' or something. The only thing you can have is an opinion on the piece. Whether the piece itself is art or not lies in the attitude and the intention of the artist (or 'maker' if you prefer).
Or so I'd say..

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

I repeat the question I posed earlier somewhere:

who are you to judge what is art and what is not?

Furthermore, who are you to judge what is good art and what is bad art?

I'd say all you can say is whether you personally find something 'oohh pretty' or 'thought provoking' or something. The only thing you can have is an opinion on the piece. Whether the piece itself is art or not lies in the attitude and the intention of the artist (or 'maker' if you prefer).
Or so I'd say..

And it is obvious that the creator did not intend to create art, but rather get attention from pathetic deviant art users.

But she got people thinking/feeling, even she didn't intend to.

Chances are she didn't intend to. And intention is necessary for it to be called art.

You can throw shit on a wall and call it art.

Originally Posted by tommo

Chances are she didn't intend to. And intention is necessary for it to be called art.

Says who, you?

Intention is irrelevant when pitted against perception.

This is a touchy subject for me. I remember in high school we were doing paintings in art class. We had to do five different ones and I was on my fourth. None of my paintings were horribly good, but I had put effort into them. I had tried, but one morning in class my teacher sat everyone down and started to talk to us about trying to be frugal with the paint since we were running low. Next thing I know he's pulling out the painting I was working on and talking about how stuff like this was a waste of paint and we needed to be taking things seriously.

I can't tell you how humiliated and embarrassed I was. I hadn't signed it or anything so nobody knew it was me, but after that... I just didn't care to try anymore. I've never been a good artist and granted I didn't know where I was going with it, but what he did was uncalled for, and this is why the general creative world annoys me.

I can't see the picture, but regardless of what any of us think unless we can go into that girls head and know what she was thinking (or unless she says so in the comments) when she took it none of us have any right to say that she was just attention grabbing or that she wasn't actually trying to create something. It doesn't matter how apparent it is, it doesn't matter how certain we are all we can do is speculate and claiming otherwise is just arrogance. After all that teacher was certain that I was just wasting paint.

What is art and what isn't, what is good and what isn't, is all subjective. I think people just have a hard time acknowledging their opinions are just that when faced with something they're passionate about.

It kind of reminds me in grooming, sometimes groomers will get very stubborn about the clips they do on certain dogs. Owners will come in with special requests that they'll refuse because it isn't 'proper'. Personally I do whatever the client wants as long as it won't cause harm to the dog. So what if they want their yorkie to look like a schnauzer. I may not like the way it looks, but I'm not the one that has to live with it. If it makes them happy then who am I to tell them what they're doing is wrong or incorrect?

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

I can't see the picture, but regardless of what any of us think unless we can go into that girls head and know what she was thinking (or unless she says so in the comments) when she took it none of us have any right to say that she was just attention grabbing or that she wasn't actually trying to create something. It doesn't matter how apparent it is, it doesn't matter how certain we are all we can do is speculate and claiming otherwise is just arrogance. After all that teacher was certain that I was just wasting paint.

^ This. I dont have a DeviantArt account so the picture doesn't show but according to her profile, she's an aspiring model. It may not have been shallow attention seeking, for all we know she meant for it to be part of her portfolio or w/e.

@ Art class: Ouch. xD

Originally Posted by GavinGill

^ This. I dont have a DeviantArt account so the picture doesn't show but according to her profile, she's an aspiring model. It may not have been shallow attention seeking, for all we know she meant for it to be part of her portfolio or w/e.

@ Art class: Ouch. xD

Not everyone can afford to buy an expensive camera either. Maybe that camera phone is the best she had? You've gotta work within your means after all. If what she's doing doesn't really work, or there are things she could be doing to improve herself I would rather people give her constructive criticism and tell her how she could have made the photo more appealing to her target rather then dismiss her as an attention seeker.

And yeah it wasn't one of my more pleasant moments... one of the many reasons I'm convinced teens should have the option to opt out of high school and go into a trade instead *would have found her calling a lot sooner*

Ok.

Originally Posted by nerve

I WAS RIGHT

HUZZAH!!!

About 100+ similar photos were uploaded to the site during the meantime though.

Whoa they referenced Spongebob's "You like krabby patties, don't you Squidward?" face...

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that

Originally Posted by tommo

Lol, bet you the rest of em are still there.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

HUZZAH!!!

About 100+ similar photos were uploaded to the site during the meantime though.

or that 'Raphael' knew exactly where the fuck that face came from

or 'Blackberryfox's reply that I initially ignored but just noticed, sweetheart your newb is showing I am never serious