4 ms·

I don't think the size of any painting can make it better. Especially if it's something a 2 year old can and will paint. As an artist myself, I've always dislik

I don't think the size of any painting can make it better. Especially if it's something a 2 year old can and will paint. As an artist myself, I've always disliked and never understood why people like modernist artworks. Picasso's best work was his early work, before he gave up on painting life. That some people think they get this crap artwork is just hilarious and just goes to show you can hock anything if you pretend it's high minded. And your statement "Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't." That's probably because noone wants to paint like a child and wants to be considered a good artist not a joke. Believe me, in 1000 years no one will care about Modernist artwork.

graemeo 7y ago
What a sad and myopic take on art, especially coming from a self-proclaimed artist. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but why make such bitter sounding absolutist statements about what other people create or enjoy? There's enough negativity in this world already. Additionally, the fact that you're judging the relative worth of a piece of art based on it lasting for 1000 years is pretty sad, in my opinion. What is wrong with art being created for a specific time and place? Life is ephemeral, and there is beauty in that.
- puranjay 7y ago
  The irony is that the 1000 year old 10th century art we do care about today looks like it was drawn by a child.
- thedaemon 7y ago
  You make very good points and I'd have to agree with you if this was anything other than "modern art". Modern art is not art in the sense it's not a highly crafted work. It's minimum effort. The time frame was given to acknowledge the fact that we think this is "art". In the future we will know this is junk and not art. I really dislike most pop art, but at least it's art. A big yellow square canvas in no way should constitute artwork.
  - puranjay 7y ago
    You're conflating craftsmanship with art. There are literally factories in China where painters paint replicas of classic art works at scale. They paint hundreds, even thousands of such pieces every year. They're undoubtedly very skilled painters. But would you call their work "art"? How much time and effort something takes has no bearing on whether or not it is art. Something that takes 5 years to make isn't automatically better than something done in 5 minutes. Painters like Picasso and Matisse were also classically trained and had all the skills to paint like the painters of old. They just chose not to.
    - thedaemon 7y ago
      I would call their work art. You don't call it art? Now you are being just like me. Exactly my point about Picasso, his early work was awesome. What everyone likes from his is terrible.
puranjay 7y ago
Imagine you're a wealthy man in late 19th century Europe. You own a nice neo gothic home in the fancy part of the city. Like other wealthy men, you too dabble in collecting some art. You own a few romantic pieces with exceptional craftsmanship. You proudly display them in your living room amid all your fancy, ornate furniture. But something is amiss. All your artwork starts looking the same. And why wouldn't it - all these artists have honed their craft at similar art schools. They look good but they've started looking a little repetitive. Like something out of a factory. You have to see artists like Matisse in this context. Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone from their period. Realistic art was dead because there can't truly be any further innovation in it (and the camera would make it obsolete anyway). The themes, the styles, even the figures had been all tried and put on canvas over the last several centuries. A Matisse in this context is very new, very exciting, and very full of life. It's bright blue in dimly lit 19th century homes. It's a yellow dancing figure in a room that has only see scenes from the Bible and Greek myths painted. This is the reason why its art. "Looking pretty" is just craftsmanship. If it makes you feel something - even acute hatred - its art.
- thedaemon 7y ago
  "if it makes you feel something, it's art" is not correct at all. This is what I'm trying to state. Art is craftmanship then to you, since you can't understand that art requires skill or talent.
  - puranjay 7y ago
    My man saying that someone like Picasso did not have skill or talent is just the height of absurdity. All of these guys went to some of the most prestigious art schools around. They had all the raw skills to paint like any of the classicists, but they didn't because that was boring and dated.

graemeo 7y ago

What a sad and myopic take on art, especially coming from a self-proclaimed artist. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but why make such bitter sounding absolutist statements about what other people create or enjoy? There's enough negativity in this world already. Additionally, the fact that you're judging the relative worth of a piece of art based on it lasting for 1000 years is pretty sad, in my opinion. What is wrong with art being created for a specific time and place? Life is ephemeral, and there is beauty in that.

puranjay 7y ago
The irony is that the 1000 year old 10th century art we do care about today looks like it was drawn by a child.
thedaemon 7y ago
You make very good points and I'd have to agree with you if this was anything other than "modern art". Modern art is not art in the sense it's not a highly crafted work. It's minimum effort. The time frame was given to acknowledge the fact that we think this is "art". In the future we will know this is junk and not art. I really dislike most pop art, but at least it's art. A big yellow square canvas in no way should constitute artwork.
- puranjay 7y ago
  You're conflating craftsmanship with art. There are literally factories in China where painters paint replicas of classic art works at scale. They paint hundreds, even thousands of such pieces every year. They're undoubtedly very skilled painters. But would you call their work "art"? How much time and effort something takes has no bearing on whether or not it is art. Something that takes 5 years to make isn't automatically better than something done in 5 minutes. Painters like Picasso and Matisse were also classically trained and had all the skills to paint like the painters of old. They just chose not to.
  - thedaemon 7y ago
    I would call their work art. You don't call it art? Now you are being just like me. Exactly my point about Picasso, his early work was awesome. What everyone likes from his is terrible.

puranjay 7y ago

Imagine you're a wealthy man in late 19th century Europe. You own a nice neo gothic home in the fancy part of the city. Like other wealthy men, you too dabble in collecting some art. You own a few romantic pieces with exceptional craftsmanship. You proudly display them in your living room amid all your fancy, ornate furniture. But something is amiss. All your artwork starts looking the same. And why wouldn't it - all these artists have honed their craft at similar art schools. They look good but they've started looking a little repetitive. Like something out of a factory. You have to see artists like Matisse in this context. Try placing yourself in the shoes of someone from their period. Realistic art was dead because there can't truly be any further innovation in it (and the camera would make it obsolete anyway). The themes, the styles, even the figures had been all tried and put on canvas over the last several centuries. A Matisse in this context is very new, very exciting, and very full of life. It's bright blue in dimly lit 19th century homes. It's a yellow dancing figure in a room that has only see scenes from the Bible and Greek myths painted. This is the reason why its art. "Looking pretty" is just craftsmanship. If it makes you feel something - even acute hatred - its art.

thedaemon 7y ago
"if it makes you feel something, it's art" is not correct at all. This is what I'm trying to state. Art is craftmanship then to you, since you can't understand that art requires skill or talent.
- puranjay 7y ago
  My man saying that someone like Picasso did not have skill or talent is just the height of absurdity. All of these guys went to some of the most prestigious art schools around. They had all the raw skills to paint like any of the classicists, but they didn't because that was boring and dated.