3 ms·

There are hundreds if not thousands of artists who can recreate some of the most famous and technically difficult paintings of the past 1000 years and yet they'

There are hundreds if not thousands of artists who can recreate some of the most famous and technically difficult paintings of the past 1000 years and yet they're lucky if they can sell their original work at a garage sale. Art has very little to do with reproducing what the eye can see, in fact some of the most renowned art does exactly the opposite. If you're confused by Rothko I hope you never come across Duchamp.

prewett 12y ago
In an age where our pocket phones take excellent pictures, I can see how representative painting does not do well. I never said I was expecting representative art. I'm confused by your statement "some of the most renowned art does exactly the opposite [of reproduction]," though. Could you explain it? I'll freely admit I'm not much of a modern art fan. I'm not sure that colored stripes really clears the bar, even if you make the gigantic (although as another poster said, maybe I need to see them in their intended setting). I feel like just as art is more than simply reproducing a scene, art is also more than just producing a feeling. I looked up Duchamp, yeah, not a fan :) I think I probably understand the works better than Rothko, though.
Alex3917 12y ago
> If you're confused by Rothko I hope you never come across Duchamp. As Seth Godin says, the first guy to install a toilet in a museum was an artist, the second was a plumber.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
If Rothko or Duchamp cause confusion, I think the fault lies with preconception of art. It's not all intended to please the eye or the ear, in case of music. Some of it is intended to inflame the mind. Some of it is intended to amuse the mind. Some of it is intended to amuse the artist and his/her friends. I enjoy art as a special kind of light, in which many people will reveal themselves to me in ways they usually try to hide.

prewett 12y ago

In an age where our pocket phones take excellent pictures, I can see how representative painting does not do well. I never said I was expecting representative art. I'm confused by your statement "some of the most renowned art does exactly the opposite [of reproduction]," though. Could you explain it? I'll freely admit I'm not much of a modern art fan. I'm not sure that colored stripes really clears the bar, even if you make the gigantic (although as another poster said, maybe I need to see them in their intended setting). I feel like just as art is more than simply reproducing a scene, art is also more than just producing a feeling. I looked up Duchamp, yeah, not a fan :) I think I probably understand the works better than Rothko, though.

Alex3917 12y ago

> If you're confused by Rothko I hope you never come across Duchamp. As Seth Godin says, the first guy to install a toilet in a museum was an artist, the second was a plumber.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

If Rothko or Duchamp cause confusion, I think the fault lies with preconception of art. It's not all intended to please the eye or the ear, in case of music. Some of it is intended to inflame the mind. Some of it is intended to amuse the mind. Some of it is intended to amuse the artist and his/her friends. I enjoy art as a special kind of light, in which many people will reveal themselves to me in ways they usually try to hide.