|
Post by Archagon on Dec 30, 2004 15:16:29 GMT -5
Why else would people have bothered perfecting perspective, and the ability to paint well? I don't know what our expert would say on the matter, but I, for one, would find it very gratifying to learn how to transcribe the world onto paper. There is a certain beauty in rearranging that which is already "perfect" (in quotes because nature's perfection is only an idea). Also, photographs did not exist back then, so accurate records needed to be kept through other means. But in a way, I suppose, Ali's right. A book I'm reading right now describes art as a three way process - creation, performance, and comprehension - and without even one of these facets it loses its beauty. Modern art, it seems, often fails in the latter category, thus becoming a collection of simple lines and shapes on canvas to the critical observer. You have to be at a certain level of artistic comprehension in order to understand such paintings, and even then they're not for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Dec 30, 2004 16:37:56 GMT -5
People can get away with a lot of crap in art and say that they are trying something new, that's my only problem with modern art. I think it is an interesting art movement, but I find that I dislike a lot of the paintings. Yes, that means I do like some.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 30, 2004 19:36:17 GMT -5
well... Everyone surely likes some piece of modern art, because it is so broad. For example, my two favorite artists are modern artists (magritte and Escher) but, in general, I despise modern art.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 30, 2004 20:48:25 GMT -5
Most modern artists that are currently considered great were not liked in their time. Modern art began around the 30s with the new pessimistic outlook on the country.
I don't know. I find it very coherant. I guess either I'm crazy or whatever. I just tend to get very upset about this topic because people have implied that I listen to false-intellectual BS because I like modern art and find it moving and thought provoking.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Dec 30, 2004 21:41:04 GMT -5
I don't like Escher that much, not because i don't think his artwork is well done, but the oposite. It's too perfect, and almost inhuman. It also reminds me of all those little nonsensicalities (I think I made up another word) in mathematics and physics, like how you can prove .9 repitend = 1. Very good artist, but I don't like him.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Dec 30, 2004 21:55:39 GMT -5
Aww, Nick is jealous.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Dec 31, 2004 20:12:34 GMT -5
Aww, Nick is jealous. I know you're joking, but I'll say this anyway. I don't like the idea of perfection or anything that resembles it. It doesn't make much sense to me. If something is perfect, then it makes the efforts of those trying to be creative in vain. In a perfect world, there would be nothing to compare anything to, and perfection is based around something being the absolute best, i.e., comparison, and it would colapse. You cannot have good without evil, or you wouldn't know that it's good. Of course, Escher isn't perfect, but his work is discouragingly good.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Dec 31, 2004 21:03:25 GMT -5
Not necessarily; technical perfection only helps to facilitate the message of a work of art. It doesn't measure the abilities of an artist or his or her creation.
Then again, these are just my opinions. Take them as you will.
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Jan 1, 2005 4:59:55 GMT -5
One thing I have learned in life is that if you try to find perfection, you will always end up sad and unhappy. It may seem cliche or whatever, but it certainly is true...
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Jan 1, 2005 5:55:40 GMT -5
You humans see perfection too narrowly. Imperfection is in itself perfect, because flaws may become advantages. Mistakes can lead to great discoveries, harmful genetic traits may actually be beneficial and so on.
What is prefection? Never making mistakes? The rules may change so that you have to make mistakes. Perfection is too limiting to be useful.
Also I agree with Nick, you cannot have good without evil.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 3, 2005 3:19:40 GMT -5
Perfection is a human creation, it can't really refer to the laws of nature and such. When I said it, I was reffering to technique, as Escher uses unbelievably tiny and well placed strokes. Just to tedious and inhuman. Things are never that exact unless done by a machine.
As for Archagon, I disagree with your statement, but like you said it is quite a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Jan 3, 2005 4:16:44 GMT -5
We might have to move this thread to the philosophy board...jk. But really, some modern art is really good. I like a lot of at, I just hate the BS. Though, that tends to exist everywhere, so... Not saying that modern art is BS...
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jan 3, 2005 14:00:04 GMT -5
Perfection is a human creation, it can't really refer to the laws of nature and such. When I said it, I was reffering to technique, as Escher uses unbelievably tiny and well placed strokes. Just to tedious and inhuman. Things are never that exact unless done by a machine. As for Archagon, I disagree with your statement, but like you said it is quite a matter of opinion. Well thats because of his practice with Wood prints. When you do wood prints you have to use unbelievably tiny and well placed strokes in orded to create any kind of shading and make it look fairly realistic. Otherwise you could always allow your wood prints to have a traditional blocky look to them, but thats not what he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 4, 2005 22:22:16 GMT -5
I understand, but his are unbelievably perfect (by that I mean close to perfect).
|
|