3 ms·

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

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

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.