Where has the art gone - Page 3

Kelvin · 4 Aug 2006, 20:04 (Ref:1673433)

Quote:

Are all these guys engaged in an art form?

They are all getting that 'unique' shot, well at least that's what they will tell the picture editor!!

**dtype38** · 4 Aug 2006, 21:08 (Ref:1673511)

And the one that achieves the perfect balance of composition, lighting, stucture and nipple exposure will get paid a shedfull of money, and we shall call him "artist" and be jealous.

**John Turner** · 5 Aug 2006, 07:37 (Ref:1673754)

Some photographs have artistic merit, some paintings do not. Is that not what most of us are saying? Is that a wrong assessment? There was an inevitability that on this forum, photography would form an element of this discussion, even though the main thrust of Ian's question was clearly motorsport paintings.

Andrew Kitson · 5 Aug 2006, 07:48 (Ref:1673761)

There is no set definition - no rules.
It is all in the eye of the beholder.
If you think it is art, it is.
If you don't, it is not.
There will never ever be a state of pleasing all of the people all of the time.
(Although print sales wise wish that was true!!)
End of story.

Alan Raine · 5 Aug 2006, 12:45 (Ref:1674022)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Kitson

There is no set definition - no rules.
It is all in the eye of the beholder.
If you think it is art, it is.
If you don't, it is not.
There will never ever be a state of pleasing all of the people all of the time.
(Although print sales wise wish that was true!!)
End of story.

Spot On.

I went to an Andy Warhol exhibition while on holiday recently. Some people loved it, others thought it was rubbish.

**dtype38** · 5 Aug 2006, 22:07 (Ref:1674453)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Kitson

There is no set definition - no rules.
It is all in the eye of the beholder.
If you think it is art, it is.
If you don't, it is not.
There will never ever be a state of pleasing all of the people all of the time.
(Although print sales wise wish that was true!!)
End of story.

I beg to differ....

The definition of art is set down by those who create art and those who appreciate it. The rules are created over time and constantly challenged to determine thier boundries and limitations.

If you think it is art, you are entitled to that belief, but it does not meant that your are correct. A belief held by only one person is not a definition, it is simply a personal opinion.

If you think that something isn't art then how do you know if you are qualifed to make that judgement. Perhaps you have insuffient knowledge or experince to appreciate what it is you are looking at. Either way, you would need to explain your reasons and get others to agree with you before being able to justify such a claim.

To claim that there will never be a state of pleasing all of the people all of the time is a well worn quote, but it is based on stereotyping and mass generalisations. It also makes the basic assumption that no matter how good/bad something is there will always be individuals who disagree. You are probably right. There are those who think Picasso paintings are complete rubbish and others that think Constables are just picture postcard renderings of the British countyside. Does this make them correct?

Andrew Kitson · 6 Aug 2006, 08:26 (Ref:1674666)

Like opinions - some have one and some another and therefore disagree. No pleasing everyone all the time however we can try and respect others have opinions as I do yours. Like the fact that some items may be called 'art'.
David Blane sitting in a glass box for days suspended in the air by a crane is art to some people and I respect the fact they think it is. I however just think he's a prat and can't see it.

**dtype38** · 6 Aug 2006, 16:22 (Ref:1675597)

Interesting comparison. I think Mr. Blane is a classic case of someone with enormous talent reading a little too much of their own press. I do believe it may be possible that his final and most impressive feat will be to disappear up his own reputation.

Jaxs · 7 Aug 2006, 11:58 (Ref:1676476)

But, it is more than just opinion, the use of symbols within a painting almost require a guide book, the use of colours and their association will be another key to reading the work. The rules of compositions, the diference between forground and back ground all comply with both historical and psychological patterns,

Within photography, the use of out of focus back ground to accentuate the subjcet was originally used in paintings in the 1400s. So the concepts and the practice within visual art forms have been around for years.

Your own preferences will be a reflection of you, the indiviual, and your life experiences. It also depends on what you want from a painting, drawing or photograph, Is it just a decoration on the wall or a talking point?

And I hope that doesn't sound like defcon 5..

**dtype38** · 7 Aug 2006, 16:48 (Ref:1676756)

More like a peace keeping delegation of the United Nations

Little story:

A good friend and I were visiting the home of a mutual friend. Over coffee the friend I had arrived with commented appreciatively on one of two painting hung on the wall of the room we were in. It was a watercolour of a small stream running through a wood, in an impressionistic style. The artist had definitely caught the idea of light filtering through the trees, dancing on the moving water and reflecting onto the surrounding rocks, and yet there was no harshness or solidity to the way it was done. It was indeed a very accomplished piece. The signature was indistinct and so the artist was inquired upon. Proudly the owner said that it was by his sister who was studying art at college. My friend then turned his attention to the second picture. This was in a much more simplistic style, almost cartoon like, of a bunch of flowers being held in two hands. My friend asked, somewhat less impressed, if this was also by the owner's sister. No, came the reply, that's a Picasso.

Jaxs · 8 Aug 2006, 00:35 (Ref:1677167)

You mentioned Constable, the Hayswain, people are amazed when you explain why the cart is in the river... LOL

Les · 9 Aug 2006, 18:35 (Ref:1678613)

why is it?

Ian Smith · 9 Aug 2006, 19:11 (Ref:1678634)

because the horses were thirsty

Jaxs · 10 Aug 2006, 18:14 (Ref:1679374)

NO, nothing to do with the Horses, it's also another way of sorting the townies from the country lads.

The wheels are wooden with steel rims, especially during the summer the woods dries out and the rims become loose, so,, into the stream and let the wood expand and tighten into the rims.

Ian Smith · 10 Aug 2006, 18:50 (Ref:1679389)

I knew that.

Andrew Kitson · 11 Aug 2006, 11:32 (Ref:1679886)

...and I thought he was going to come out with a detailed explanation why the cart was in the stream, all about placing the cart in the centre to balance the painting composition or something!
Nice one Jaxs.

Jaxs · 11 Aug 2006, 19:18 (Ref:1680194)

all about placing the cart in the centre to balance the painting composition or something!

LOL, if you want the detail critique and a short thumbnail on Constable... no problem..

Psst, the carts not in the centre..

**dtype38** · 13 Aug 2006, 20:32 (Ref:1681489)

I smell the blood in a wicker man

**Snapper Baz** · 13 Aug 2006, 22:06 (Ref:1681611)

Been away for a week trying to see some balloons down in Bristol...reading the above I think Iv'e lost the plot on this thread now!

Jaxs · 14 Aug 2006, 18:09 (Ref:1682435)

As Alexander McQueen said on the Frank Skinner show when Frank didn't understand what was happening... " Whoosh, Gel an' all "