What do you think of Jackson Pollock?

[spertia]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

They make those arrows in PowerPoint also.

You're hilarious.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

They make those arrows in PowerPoint also.

Honest question: Why do you keep posting in threads about topics that obviously do not interest you in the least, where you have nothing specific to say aside from some childish derisive comments and no basic knowledge of where the designer/artist is coming from? Thom Browne springs to mind. I mean we all do it from time to time but I'm not going to seek all possible golf threads to joke about geriatric loosers wearing pastel polos who consider walking on grass and sometimes hitting a ball a sport. Once might be okay but all the time make it look like you have issues...

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I tend to agree. It's all art. It's just that there's a lot of really bad art. Even here, Sturgeon's law holds true: 90 percent of everything is crud.

I'll agree to that.

Jon.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Honest question: Why do you keep posting in threads about topics that obviously do not interest you in the least, where you have nothing specific to say aside from some childish derisive comments and no basic knowledge of where the designer/artist is coming from?

Why are you so sensitive on this subject?

It was an observation but honestly is it art to copy arrows that are commonly used in PowerPoint?

At what point does something so simple really become art?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Why are you so sensitive on this subject?

It was an observation but honestly is it art to copy arrows that are commonly used in PowerPoint?

At what point does something so simple really become art?
He doesn't seem sensitive to me. On the contrary, he seems ot be reacting to a whole slew of semi-braindead posts in this thread. If you want to learn about art, take an art history class. If you want to make inane comments about it, expect responses like this one or the one Fuuma gave.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by j

Not every painting done by a high school student is art, though, is it? I could dig out some of my own work that is definitely not, even though I was "trying" (putting some effort and attempting some meaning), and paradoxically I could show some stuff I did for fun (especially photography) that others have claimed had some meaning in it where I put/intended none. It's sometimes a little frustrating to me, coming from a very artistic family, that I really don't "get" "art". I have pretty good technical skill and aesthetic sense, but I usually don't see any deeper meanings in anything. I haven't devoted much time to trying to learn though.
I'm in a hurry ,or lazy, and didn't read the whole thread but I'll risk it and throw in my own two cents. That you don't get art, and don't see deeper meanings may mean your already there as an artist. Being an artist is about processing information. Delivering the conscious and unconscious message with the medium is like channeling. Once your done, it's either there or not. The deeper meaning and mystery is more on the viewer side. Most of this thread is discussing the patron viewpoint not the artist viewpoint. Myself, I consider the first criteria of art to be that the object is an original and not a facsimile. What it's dollar value becomes is a second issue, then it develops a new separate life as a trade item. At that point it suffers as art as it becomes enslaved to a system that oppresses it's inner light. I've watched bronze sculptures being constructed in Tesuque, N.M. from paper maquettes. I think the real art is the paper maquette.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I agree with her that horology is not art. It is high craft.

Please forgive me, no one could consider me an art expert, but what does this mean? What is high craft? How does it differ from art?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Brad

Please forgive me, no one could consider me an art expert, but what does this mean? What is high craft? How does it differ from art?
It really doesn't mean anything. What I was trying to say is that building a useful machine, almost always in a series of greater than one is very, very skilled labor, but its utility and serial production make it different from art.

 

[Willsw]

Originally Posted by iammatt

It really doesn't mean anything. What I was trying to say is that building a useful machine, almost always in a series of greater than one is very, very skilled labor, but its utility and serial production make it different from art.
I believe you mentioned a beautifully made cabinet earlier as an example of High Craft, and not art. If the craftsman (or in this example, the artist) created the cabinet in order to show the beauty of the material, the possibilites it holds; or if they made a replica of an historically significant cabinet in a different, or even the same, material in order to make a statement concerning whatever made that cabinet historically significant, the cabinet would be art. Basically, if they made the cabinet for other reasons besides storing things. As far as serial production discounting something as art, were the minimalists, especially Judd, interested in their pieces' ability to be made industrially and in number? Of course, most furnitiure, etc. that you're speaking of is High Craft, but I thought I would point out that you cannot discount a pretty (or ugly) cabinet as being not art because it is a cabinet. Art is intention.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by iammatt

It really doesn't mean anything. What I was trying to say is that building a useful machine, almost always in a series of greater than one is very, very skilled labor, but its utility and serial production make it different from art.
This sounds right. Functional items, like a cabinet or a vase, used to be referred to as decorative arts. Usually made in series by artisans. A cabinet might become art if made by a single maker and he or she, glues the doors and drawers shut making it non-useful. I think this tread is talking about fine art, yes?

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by iammatt

If you want to learn about art, take an art history class. If you want to make inane comments about it, expect responses like this one or the one Fuuma gave.

Well for a thread asking about our opinion on Jackson Pollock, it doesn't seem there's room to have an opinion that makes fun of modern art.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by iammatt

It really doesn't mean anything. What I was trying to say is that building a useful machine, almost always in a series of greater than one is very, very skilled labor, but its utility and serial production make it different from art.

I can understand that, but I don't think two similar things are ever exactly alike.

Maybe I don't understand Pollock, which is entirely probable, but I don't care for his work that I've seen in person. I'm fortunate enough to live by one.

On the other hand, I enjoy Rothko and don't know why. Maybe it's the depth of color.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Well for a thread asking about our opinion on Jackson Pollock, it doesn't seem there's room to have an opinion that makes fun of modern art.
There is certainly room to make fun. We are making fun of you for your opinion, no?

 

[Willsw]

Artisan fan, I think you should take a look at the FAQs at www.goodart.org . I think you'd like it there.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by iammatt

There is certainly room to make fun. We are making fun of you for your opinion, no?
`

If someone could explain why those arrows are art then maybe we could understand.