Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _gonzo_
[QUOTE=zombat] The Conceptual artist spends as much time thinking about and analyzing his art as the Traditional Artist does observing and drawing or painting their art.
Examples: Pollock, Rothko...QUOTE]
Zombat, it's not clear to me, did you come up with this?
If you did, I believe you have been seriously duped!
|
Came up with it myself, yes. I do not believe myself to be duped.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _gonzo_
One only has to compare Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel to Mark Rothko‘s “Orange and Yellow” for instance. Then check out Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” vs. Jackson Pollack’s “Lavender Mist” to see a glaring and intentional misrepresentation.
|
I am unsure of what you seek to expose by comparing these works to one another. I don't understand how the comparisons show intentional misrepresentation. I feel as though you've misunderstood why Rothko and Pollock are famous, considered innovative, and worth remembering artists.
Clearly you're thinking along the lines of "My kid could paint that" and no doubt he could, but your kid didn't present that as art before Rothko or pollock did. As mindcrime said, they did something that was completely new to the art world, they broke out of the bounds of painting.
I feel as though I wasn't particularly clear in explaining the differences between formal and conceptual artists. Let me try to clarify:
Consider music - one can appreciate a musician who is exceptional at playing the instrument, a virtuoso, with perfect pitch, who can play 16th an 32nd notes across multiple octaves. Being a virtuoso doesn't quite make you a musical genius however, as you're only considering the instrument you play when it comes to music. A composer, on the other hand, considers an entire orchestra or band when he or she creates music, in an attempt to evoke a mood or feeling.
The Virtuoso would be the Formal Artist, while the Composer would be the Conceptual artist.
While both are important to music, many of the great musicians are those who are both exceptional at their instruments, as well as composing music and songs. Similarly, to be a successful Captiol-A Artist I believe you must combine both Formal and Conceptual tones in the work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _gonzo_
Rothko printed what amounts to the same thing over and over thousands of times. Since the print was around well before Rothko, the only “innovation” I can see was that he changed colors from time to time. If you have ever seen one “Orange and Yellow” (of hundreds) you are already well on your way to knowing everything you will ever need about his work. Ditto for Pollack dribbles by the hundreds.
|
Rothko didn't simply paint large color fields of color for the sake of doing it and saying "There! um, this is art!" His paintings were purposefully large, and he intended the viewer to stand close to the painting, as he wanted to evoke a sense of intimacy and awe. There's looking at a Rothko in a magazine or online, and then there's standing in front of one.
Its not just a square of color ... when you stand in front of Rothko painting, you're swallowed up but nothing than two or three colors, and if you let it, it blurs reality and consumes you.
As with most abstract, or as I have labelled, conceptual artwork, the artwork is meant to be viewed in person, whereas Formal and Utilitarian art can be reproduced and observed in other manners.
Additionally, before his 'multiforms,' Rothko was a surreal, myth-influenced painter, who restlessly switched between styles ... all which were relatively boring and "done before" and for that reason we don't quite remember much of his work before the color fields.
With most artwork, particularly of the Conceptual tone, you either like it or you don't.
My first encounter with Bonsai Trees was at a small museum, when I happened to stumble across the outdoor exhibit. I stood transfixed, stunned and consumed by the beauty of the trees on display. I couldn't move, even as the rain began to come down and soak my clothes. For twenty minutes I was lost in that garden, completely transported away from reality.
Meanwhile my brother had walked past me, not giving the stunning collection more than 2 minutes of his time. He's a conceptual artist, and his values are placed on the nature of the artwork, so it wasn't ultimately surprising that he saw the trees as little more than just 'Bonsai' - a 'potted plant'.
As an Illustrator I sometimes find myself in similar situations of awe when looking at representational and utilitarian artists, like Sargent and Mullins. And while I don't always fall for conceptual art, as most of it feels like pretentious bullshit, though some of it hits me in the same way as those first trees did.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _gonzo_
As for bonsai, I believe this type of "conceptual artist" actually DOES take the required time and effort to analyze.
|
Yes much time is spent thinking about the way the plant will look, but it seems to me that the approach bonsai artists take is a very formal, very traditional or illustrative approach.
Take your favorite tree, look at it and ask yourself "What is the theme that I'm exploring with this tree? what am I trying to say? What is the expression? Am I simply making it look as aged as possible and pleasing to the eye? Or is there a greater theme i'm trying to explore and question, using this tree as a medium of communication?"
In adhering the the aesthetics and laws of Bonsai, are you simply a virtuoso? if, as you say 'there is no requirement that a story be told or comment be made in order to classify something as art' what then makes a tree in a pot a Bonsai or not?