Art

[seany boy]

In essence, the art is about explaining the reason for the art.

Well put.

 

[Dskize]

In essence, the art is about explaining the reason for the art.

I disagree that your random paint splatters on a canvas don't constitute art. If someone paints a picture of a train, your enjoyment of that picture is down to the artist's ability to paint a train. If your artist throws some paint onto a canvas and calls it a train, and you have to define it for yourself then the art isn't just the picture the art is the artist making you come to your own conclusions as to how it's a train. (IMO)

C'mon dude that's not art that's just Inkblots..

 

[Kat]

What about (top of my head) HR Giger? Not particularly beautifully aesthetic pieces, but technically brilliant. Where does that fall?

You honestly don't find Geiger beautiful? I find Geigers alien and "L.I" some of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

 

[Kat]

I love bit different, something that takes more than just skill but a sort of greater understanding, Jullian Beever is AMAZING with his 3D street art, google him but if you're too lazy the link below is a personal fave...

http://www.grand-illusions.com/images/articles/opticalillusions/beever/mainimage.jpg

I also love anatomy, so 'Body Worlds' appeals to me, and I find it 'artistic' but some find it sick. I disagree. Just missed out on seeing it

http://www.visitlondon.com/bodyworlds/exhibition/what-youll-see

Dali is a personal love of mine, nemesis of narcissus and elephants and swans are great, got to see the exhibition in London once.

I'm not a fan of rubbish like Matisse or Pop art (as anything more than novelty t shirts and man bags for emos) but that's just opinion.

 

[Mario]

Bob Ross Bitches...

 

[Buddha 3]

My definition seems to be along the lines of Cook$.

Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder. To me, most things I consider art are things that touch a nerve or transmit an emotion. This can be a lot of different things though.

 

[spangley_special]

curious as to people's opinions on martin creed?

 

[RoryM]

By my own view, something is art if it takes a skill or ability that others cannot replicate to create.

The old masters were named so as they created stunning pieces that were not only visually stunning, but fantastically complex to create. The cistine chapel probably being the best example of thi, but Michaelangelo did not do all the work himslef, lets not forget!

Some of the works we see today, and the price people are willing to pay for it seem a little skewed. People will buy it because of the artist and not necessarily the piece, and this is what sends the artworld into a different place to reality.

If you or I could re-create the piece, what then makes it art? (tracy emine pieces spring to mind)

 

[spangley_special]

The old masters were named so as they created stunning pieces that were not only visually stunning, but fantastically complex to create. The cistine chapel probably being the best example of thi, but Michaelangelo did not do all the work himslef, lets not forget!

actually very few of the "masters" did the whole piece even when they're just simple portraits instead they had many apprentices who would do the bulk of the work with them kind of directing the portrait and doing details.

they also did (for the most parts) us optics to project the image of their subject onto the canvas which they then painted over...

 

[mophead]

I think even things that aren't aesthetically pleasing can be considered art,

for example the 'angel of the north' big rusty jumbo jet size waste of money ... some think it as art