3 ms·
> "Art is not what I think when I'm painting. It's what you feel when you're looking." I love this definition of art and it's why some of the recent knee-jerk
by emptybits 4y ago
> "Art is not what I think when I'm painting. It's what you feel when you're looking."
I love this definition of art and it's why some of the recent knee-jerk rejection of AI-generated artwork (sometimes citing its inhumanity or lack of human backstory) is premature IMO.
More importantly, that's beautiful art. Thank you for sharing, OP.
- neogodless 4y agoI came here to discuss this pair of statements. To me, it seems like the artist at least has this particular sentiment in mind - if not while doing the physical act of painting, at least at some time before or after, or while sharing the works of art themselves. To me, I often sense I don't "get" art, because I don't feel anything looking at it, and I am wholly preoccupied with wondering why the artist created what they did, and what they had in mind at the time. To me... that's what art is. Wholly contradicting what this particular artist defines it as. Who is right?
- hemmert 4y agoI once read that art gets our brain hemispheres into a discussion. This could be it? ;)
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago>More importantly, that's beautiful art. // When you say "that" you appear to disagree with the quote.
- emptybits 4y agoI like his art and his definition of art.
- hemmert 4y agoThank you for your comment and the appreciation of that definition - and the paintings! I also don't know what to think about AI-generated art yet, either. All of my paintings, I just keep painting until I have the feeling that they're finished. But: in my head, don't I simply remix previous things I saw and found beautiful, pigment and scratch movements that worked well, and all these things? Where's the difference? :-) (I enjoy the act of smearing paint on canvasses, which makes a lot of difference for me – and there is no prompt.)