4 ms·
I'm fairly wary of this sort of analysis, seems very woo-y. That being said, I'm ready for my art to be taken into the MOMA representing my mental health. Its
by NikolaeVarius 5y ago
I'm fairly wary of this sort of analysis, seems very woo-y.
That being said, I'm ready for my art to be taken into the MOMA representing my mental health.
Its a Standard A4 piece of paper with the word "fuck" 2/3 to the right side of the page and 1/4 down. It shall be titled "**"
Glory and riches come to me.
- dkural 5y agoI thought as far as this type of thing goes I thought it was analytical and closely following the development of the artist. I would've never realized the flag structure inherent in this final painting by myself!
- advrs 5y agoThis is extremely cynical - do you find all abstract art to be unimpressive?
- dougmwne 5y agoI've never been particularly impressed, though I enjoy a lot of other art.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoI'm kind of the opposite. I've never been all that impressed by photorealistic painting, myself. Oh, sure, I get that a lot of time and technique goes into these things, and I can certainly appreciate them as a technical achievement. But, much like overclocking a processor to 6.3Ghz by using LN2 cooling, I don't really see the point of it, especially since a digital photo can capture the same thing far more easily and faithfully. Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't. SFMOMA had a piece on display at one point that was simply a giant, all red canvas. It was quite an unassuming piece at first, situated at the very entry of the gallery exhibit it was featured in. But, the more I stood and just took it in, the more in awe of it I became. I could never imagine feeling that while standing in front of a painting that very well could have been a photo. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
- jevoten 5y agoTake your favorite digital camera, and take a picture the likes of https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-2/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-... or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_D...
- actually_a_dog 5y agoThose are not examples of photorealism.
- jevoten 5y agoCorrect. Rejecting modern/abstract art does not limit you to photorealism. In fact, even less stylized classical works rarely strived for mere photorealism, or were judged solely on that basis. For example, I have never seen a photo that looks like https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-temple-of-dendera-upper-egypt-roberts-david/NgGpL7xaOwL0Vw https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-temple-of-dender... And is a random photo taken by a tourist in Egypt as "good" as that painting? It's more photorealistic, after all!
- actually_a_dog 5y agoYou're confused. I never said I rejected abstract art, and I never claimed that if you reject abstract art, you must love photorealism. Please reread what I wrote.
- jevoten 5y ago"Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't." and the rest of your post heavily implied that the only options are abstract art or photorealism, and doesn't even mention the many different traditional styles. But you are correct that you never say so explicitly.
- giraffe_lady 5y agoPlease allow me to keep the woo in the art. It has been successfully excised from nearly everything else and I don't know where it would be permitted, if not here.
- nate_meurer 5y agoExcised from where you say?
- TacticalCoder 5y ago> Its a Standard A4 piece of paper with the word "fuck" 2/3 to the right side of the page and 1/4 down. It shall be titled "*" That's in the spirit of Sol LeWitt! He literally did art like that, where the art is the text describing the concept itself, not the resulting piece: "Ten Geometric Figures (including right triangle cross X, diamond) with three-inch parallel bands of lines in two directions". And some do look really good.
- falseprofit 5y agoIn my opinion, the art is both the text and the resulting piece. You agree that they look good, so why not call them art? My experience at MASS MoCA involved going back and forth between the description and the piece, so I could trace out the logic of the instructions on the wall. This even more so for pieces with the most detailed descriptions and most minimal appearances.
- burntoutfire 5y agoLast time I was in MOMA NY, there was series of blurry photos taken from first person perspective. In each of those photos, the woman author was giving a finger to the skyline of a different megacity. I don't know, your works seems a little derivate of that to me.
- ivanbakel 5y agoHas someone besides Ai Weiwei really done that idea? His version is famous.
- burntoutfire 5y agoI don't remember the "artist", it's a blurry memory from 10 years ago. Quite possibly I'm misremembering the gender of the hand on the pictures.
- unixhero 5y agoLike that pepsi logo analysis by an ad agency.
- groby_b 5y agoGlory and riches fairly rarely come to artists. Neither do MOMA exhibitions. And as for the analysis, it's not woo-y. It's "simply" very cerebral art, with much less of a visceral impact. The downside of that kind of art is that it only makes sense in a much larger context, of both what the art world was thinking, and what the world at large was thinking, at the time you painted it. (So does representational art, but at least the first or second layer is immediately accessible) Your picture's analysis will likely speak of the constant pressures of a pandemic and an inequal society, as well as a rampant, population-wide anti-intellectualism that at a very deep level was upset by artists getting lost in their mental landscape instead of being more direct and expressive. Maybe you should make that art piece.