4 ms·
But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't. But to your point about the effect that some building has on p
by ericmay 20d ago
But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't.
But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market.
> You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art.
Well it's ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) in part because of the poor quality and craftsmanship. It's poor art because it fails to express meaning in a way that, for example, you can clearly see if you are to compare it to Woman with a Towel. There is much more depth. Individual brushstrokes, intent.
Popular and modern art today lacks the ability to evoke meaning and depth in the same way. This is measurable. There's a reason that IKEA sells Andy Warhol prints and not Women with a Towel prints - yet many more visit and covet visiting the great masters. Modern art requires an industry to convince you that it is art and worthy of praise while the others draw people in without needing marketing. One is a faucet of the degradation of modern culture post-World War I/II (which we can rebound from of course) and is easily made and easily reproduced. The other, isn't.
> If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view.
No, your view is incorrect and absurd.
- hardbass 20d agoBansky is simply not modern art at all. This is not a personal opinion, it is simple objective fact. Banksy is not remotely modern or abstract art. You are absolutely absurd in thinking so. Pop art is representational and not remotely abstract. If he didn't brush it how on earth did you think he painted it? If it turns out it was not done with brushes but was painted with airbrushes it is still a painting. Unless you mean to say airbrushes are not art. There is no "intent" behind individual brushstrokes, its crap you made up, just like you accuse fans of newer art movements to make up meanings. If you disagree, list me each brushstroke, their coordinates and meanings. Its also absurd to try to compare visitor count for Bansky against a museum piece. People go to a museum because that is the only place they can physically see the painting. Banksy's work is done in public spaces so footfall would be whatever millions traverse it over the years. Unless you can mind read and tell me exactly which of them are and aren't fans of the painting how can you compare numbers of people who like it?
- ericmay 20d agoSo now we're arguing that there are objective facts in art? Interesting. You can't simultaneously say that there are no objective facts and then argue with my interpretation of the art which is subjective opinion, just like yours. You're just proving my point here.
- hardbass 20d agoIts as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all. Its objectively absurd and wrong to claim so. The only way such a mind bendingly absurd statement can be made is if someone is only looking at the date stamp not the pictures. Still waiting for the coordinate by coordinate breakdown of brushstrokes. You still didn't tell me who those buildings glorify by the way. Why didn't you answer that question?
- ericmay 20d ago> Why didn't you answer that question? ... Its as objective as it gets in art as eg saying the Space Needle building is not a Roman style building. Idk I didn't find it important or interesting. Even in your case of the Space Needle one could simply argue it's a continuation of western civilization in which Rome and Athens were the founders and stewards of. Maybe the Space Needle is just a big Egyptian Obelisk that the Romans were so fond of. Who is to say it's not a Roman style building? > Banksy clearly does not belong to any 20th century abstract or modern movement at all. I think Banksy is very abstract, the specific nature of whether it's more close to some arbitrarily defined time period isn't all that relevant, plus there's some overlap as styles emerge. But I would actually argue it's pretty close as an offshoot. Most of the 20th century art movement is the result of the post-war psychosis that many experienced. Girl with a Balloon is very similar, in my view, even if it's slightly different stylistically. Regardless of what it is, it's very mediocre as far as artwork goes. It lacks attention to detail, and where one may want to ascribe importance and meaning it is done so through a lens of modernism (like brutalism) that is still reeling from bunkers and trenches in World War I/II. You're focused on the style, but I'm focused on much bigger things. My point anyway was that pretty much everything after around 1950 or so is bad. Whether we call certain styles 20th century or modern or post-modern is important for catalog purposes but ultimately unimportant to me. Civilization in the west stopped trying, and you can see that reflected in this shit art.