Kitchandro Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 So who decides whether someone is expressing something - and whether it is of any merit? You? Not the would-be artist, presumably, to judge from your comment. Is there some official or expert body that decides whether someone is expressing something and whether it is art? Is it the market? If so, buyers or non-paying consumers? Jaded cynicism is easy but gets us nowhere. You've dismissed my suggestion that art is about expression and can be produced in any field...... What is your alternative suggestion? Returning to the OP: some very good art among the images presented - variable in quality and partly a matter of preference, as ever, but some are outstanding. Well you can't just say everyone who claims to be expressing themselves is producing art. it's not about the field necessarily either. Do you really think someone who throws paint at a piece of paper and frames it should be considered an artist just because he spouts some made up rubbish about how it represents his insanity or the chaos of the world or some bollocks? (And I'm not even being colourful there, if you'll excuse the pun, I went to one of the museums in Leicester a while ago and there was a painting that was literally just that; a splodge of red paint and a splodge of blue paint. But they wrote that it expressed something.) I mean you tell me, how shit and pointless does something have to be before it's considered not art? Or are we just to accept what any moron who's trying to con everyone is saying? The first picture on this thread - what if the painter said that it didn't express anything, I just wanted to paint something. Is it not art then?
Alf Bentley Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 Well you can't just say everyone who claims to be expressing themselves is producing art. Yes, I certainly can. Doesn't mean that it is art that I hold in high esteem, of course. Personally, I don't think that the work of Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin is great art, as it does not move, affect or inspire me to any extent - but I certainly wouldn't dispute that it is art. Many think that "Stairway to heaven" is a pinnacle of musical art; I think it's shallow, pretentious garbage...doesn't stop it being art. I notice that you haven't yet defined "art" yourself or said who you think defines its merit. I have the impression that you think that a potential work of art has to be recognised as being of merit by some official body of opinion before it can be deemed art.....please explain! it's not about the field necessarily either. Do you really think someone who throws paint at a piece of paper and frames it should be considered an artist just because he spouts some made up rubbish about how it represents his insanity or the chaos of the world or some bollocks? (And I'm not even being colourful there, if you'll excuse the pun, I went to one of the museums in Leicester a while ago and there was a painting that was literally just that; a splodge of red paint and a splodge of blue paint. But they wrote that it expressed something.) Because something is simple does not mean that it cannot be art. Because something is complex does not mean that it is art. If you throw a couple of splodges of paint at paper and it expresses something to you, then that is an artistic statement on your part. If I see it and it moves, affects or stimulates me in some way, then it is expressive art to me. I mean you tell me, how shit and pointless does something have to be before it's considered not art? Or are we just to accept what any moron who's trying to con everyone is saying? If someone expressed their ideas/emotions/perceptions or whatever, I'd consider that to be art. If it was shit and pointless, I'd consider it to be poor art, but still art (and that would just be my opinion - e.g. I find "Stairway to heaven" to be shit and pointless, many would disagree). By the way, you really do seem to be a bit paranoid - as if the world is full of pretend-artists seeking to con you personally! The first picture on this thread - what if the painter said that it didn't express anything, I just wanted to paint something. Is it not art then? A very good question. Personally, if their work unintentionally inspired ideas, emotions or perceptions, I would see them as an unintentional artist. At the other extreme, if someone produced something expressive but nobody ever saw/experienced it, then it would still be art, in my view. Quite where this leaves my belief that art is about expression, not communication, I don't know... Bedtime!
ozleicester Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 "What is art?", an eternal question.... "Expression" would be a close synonym, I'd say What would your 5m shit express? If it expressed something, then it could indeed be art, I think (not that the particular definition matters - it's the effect, or is it even the effect....is it the expression, even if nobody ever sees the "art"?) Spot on! Technique, draughtsmanship, whatever is a skill and not one to be dismissed, but it is a different thing from art. Most mid-70s prog-rockers were great technicians and lousy artists, as their technique expressed nothing of worth but bombast and hubris at their own technical expertise... Anyone can call themselves an artist, but who decides who is an artist? Artists themselves may know that they are artists, because they are expressing something (but does it have to be effective expression - which comes first, expression or communication?) - or others may recognise them as artists, whatever their field.... Absolutely... Absolutely again....and so can anyone in any field (including a football field....are the very best footballers not described as artists?) pretty much this. Art (to me) is something that exists for a reason other than just functionality. A bridge can be a lump of wood stretched over a river, start carving, shaping or colouring the wood, its still a bridge but now it has an artistic side also. Now take that bridge, place it over a pile of spread out copies of "The Sun" in a gallery... and (possibly, or in my opinion at least) it has become art. If it is created to make you think.. its art, but all art is opinion and thats all it is. The most absurd things in the world are the amounts paid for works of art, Van Gogh's "Irises" sold for $53 MILLION, i can buy a reproduction for $20 and 99% of the world would be none the wiser. In the early 90's "Banksy" was a graffiti-est and basically a criminal, his art was free and valueless.. this year, one of his pieces is expected to sell for more than half a million dollars, the art hasnt changed.
davieG Posted 4 July 2013 Author Posted 4 July 2013 Everything is art, nothing is art. That's my contribution to art. I can't separate art from skill, if a piece of 'art' doesn't require any skill to produce then it has little or no appeal to me other than for decorative purposes as in a colour scheme.
Alf Bentley Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 I can't separate art from skill, if a piece of 'art' doesn't require any skill to produce then it has little or no appeal to me other than for decorative purposes as in a colour scheme. Why, then, do we refer to "art and craft", using 2 different words? Both usually involve skill, but are subtely different, surely? Many things involve great skill, like compiling a complex set of accounts or designing and constructing a traffic flow system, but does that make them art? In one sense of the word, yes...."the art of making a great cheese toastie is..." I'd agree that most great art involves great skill - or imagination, I'd say, sometimes imagination not skill - but surely it also expresses something, which may be aesthetically pleasing, emotionally moving, intellectually stimulating etc? Anyway, probably better to stop analysing and just get on with appreciating - including the fine set of images you posted.
davieG Posted 4 July 2013 Author Posted 4 July 2013 A three-year-old artist has become a global phenomenon after her story appeared in the Leicester Mercury. Autistic youngster Iris Grace Halmshaw's gift for impressionist-style artworks has been featured on websites around the world, and orders for her paintings have flooded in. ​ Three-year-old artist Iris Grace Halmshaw has been making the news around the world She has appeared on the websites for the China Times, Italian newspaper La Repubblica and German tabloid Bild, which described the youngster, from Harborough, as "ein kleiner Monet", or "a little Monet". Her parents said dozens of people from across the globe have inquired about buying prints and all of her original paintings were sold, one for as much as £1,500. Her father, Peter-Jon, 43, said people in 203 countries had read the story since the Mercury first wrote about her last month. He said: "We're still going through all the orders and they keep on flooding in. We are amazed at the response and are very thankful for all of the supportive e-mails that have been coming in from other parents of autistic children. "In the days after the Mercury article appeared we had up to 14,000 page views on Iris Grace's website each day. Then the story started cropping up in the nationals and publications as far away as Taiwan picked it up. "We had a piece in the Daily Mail and after that we had a quarter of a million page views one day." He said Iris Grace had been "mesmerised" to see her story appear in print, as well as online. He said: "I think she has an inkling of what's happening. Whether she could understand people in 200 countries are reading about her, I don't know." She was two when diagnosed with autism. She rarely made eye contact with her parents and, fearing she was slipping away from them, they tried different therapies. She started painting as part of her home-schooling with her mother, Arabella, who said: "With the help of many therapists, she changed dramatically in a short space of time. We still have a long way to go with her social skills and speech, but have many more good days." The money from the art sales will help pay for her therapies, which cost more than £7,000 per year. But the family's main aim in publicising their daughter's story was to share a positive view of autism and to inspire other parents. http://www.irisgracepainting.com
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 They are all (bar one) incredible, must take a hell of a lot of patience and skill to achieve that level of depth The one I didn't rate was number 9 by Christina K - how the hell did that make the list? I've seen more impressive stuff than that achieved at GCSE level
Zingari Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 This has reminded me of the Blackadder episode with the Bishop of Bath and Wells http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhTIoIXoTI
purpleronnie Posted 4 July 2013 Posted 4 July 2013 Everything is art, nothing is art. That's my contribution to art. I can't separate art from skill, if a piece of 'art' doesn't require any skill to produce then it has little or no appeal to me other than for decorative purposes as in a colour scheme. That pretty much sums it up for me too.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.