bonsaiTALK Community - View Single Post - Bonsai isn't art- defined.

gonzo -

Forgive me for making assumptions about your viewing of Rothko. Clearly we place values different forms of art. I used to be under the same impression, so I must ask you, why does art have to be representational of something? Why does expressing something have to include the human figure, or something immediately tangible? Why does art need to be beautiful to be good? Why do you value artwork based on the amount of time put into it? Is there an amount of time that is required if anything is to be considered art? A certain amount of detail?

More importantly, if someone were to do a master's copy of one of those two pieces, would that be art?

I'm curious as to why you didn't object to the other artists I mentioned under the Conceptual/Philosophical tone. (Wassily Kandinsky , Willem de Kooning , Nam Jun Paik , Marcel Duchamp ) Did you simply choose the more well known artists, and your opinions on the others are thus the same? or do you consider the other artists I've mentioned artists in your mind?

When did artists stop being artists in your eyes? Romanticism? Impressionism? Post-Impressionism? Fauvism? Expressionism? Cubism? Futurism? Dada? Surrealism? Abstraction? (all of which are considered 'Modern Art' - which you've so vehemently denounced)

When you boil them both down by the pieces you gave as examples, Michelangelo and DaVinci were purely illustrators, painting stories or scenes from the bible. There are plenty of people who are incredibly skilled at painting and drawing and scene composition, but that doesn't make them good artists.. Anyone can pick up a pencil and paper and with enough practice learn how to draw the human figure from observation, and place a hudred or so of them in a scene.

You seem to place all your value on the skill of the artist to represent something visually, the technical skill. This seems closeminded to me as in my opinion and experience art is just as much about representation as it is about expression, impression, and evolution.

What i meant by the "my kid could paint that" statement is that many (ignorant) people take a look at modern, postmodern, abstract, and contemporary artwork, and write it off as simple, unskilled work. This is because they are unaware of the depth of thought behind it, and they place value on virtuosity, overlooking substance and emotion. When you look at the "Last Supper" can you honestly say that the artist is trying to express something greater than a part in the bible? Can you honestly say that DaVinci's emotion and personal issues are translated through the illustration? If you say yes to any of these two, I'd say that you've been seriously duped.

15-Mar-2008	#56
zombat bonsaiTALK Neophyte Join Date: Dec-2007 Posts: 4	gonzo - Forgive me for making assumptions about your viewing of Rothko. Clearly we place values different forms of art. I used to be under the same impression, so I must ask you, why does art have to be representational of something? Why does expressing something have to include the human figure, or something immediately tangible? Why does art need to be beautiful to be good? Why do you value artwork based on the amount of time put into it? Is there an amount of time that is required if anything is to be considered art? A certain amount of detail? More importantly, if someone were to do a master's copy of one of those two pieces, would that be art? I'm curious as to why you didn't object to the other artists I mentioned under the Conceptual/Philosophical tone. (Wassily Kandinsky , Willem de Kooning , Nam Jun Paik , Marcel Duchamp ) Did you simply choose the more well known artists, and your opinions on the others are thus the same? or do you consider the other artists I've mentioned artists in your mind? When did artists stop being artists in your eyes? Romanticism? Impressionism? Post-Impressionism? Fauvism? Expressionism? Cubism? Futurism? Dada? Surrealism? Abstraction? (all of which are considered 'Modern Art' - which you've so vehemently denounced) When you boil them both down by the pieces you gave as examples, Michelangelo and DaVinci were purely illustrators, painting stories or scenes from the bible. There are plenty of people who are incredibly skilled at painting and drawing and scene composition, but that doesn't make them good artists.. Anyone can pick up a pencil and paper and with enough practice learn how to draw the human figure from observation, and place a hudred or so of them in a scene. You seem to place all your value on the skill of the artist to represent something visually, the technical skill. This seems closeminded to me as in my opinion and experience art is just as much about representation as it is about expression, impression, and evolution. What i meant by the "my kid could paint that" statement is that many (ignorant) people take a look at modern, postmodern, abstract, and contemporary artwork, and write it off as simple, unskilled work. This is because they are unaware of the depth of thought behind it, and they place value on virtuosity, overlooking substance and emotion. When you look at the "Last Supper" can you honestly say that the artist is trying to express something greater than a part in the bible? Can you honestly say that DaVinci's emotion and personal issues are translated through the illustration? If you say yes to any of these two, I'd say that you've been seriously duped.