Art?




Posted by Drewboy64

I'm pretty artistic, I think. I can draw pretty good and I usually understand the depths of paintings and such.
But sometimes, I come across a painting in a museum and wonder, why is that this is displayed? It's just a canvas covered in one color, or a canvas that someone dumped paint on. I mean, I understand you could argue it has a whole level of abstract meaning, but why wouldn't my painting get displayed if I did the same thing?




Posted by Linko_16

I think I can be so bold as to say I have an artistic mind... it's just not my forte to transfer my thoughts to canvas/keyboard/musical staff/whatever. At least it helps me really appreciate the art of others', though.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

You have to take into consideration a lot when looking at a piece of art. For example, though the name escapes me, the painting of different coloured squares (everyone has seen it) is really nothing special. It's simple that, squares coloured blue, red or yellow. But, I believe, it was painted in a time of war when nothing was certain and many peoples' lives were in utter chaos. Thus, a painting like that means much to those that experienced it, giving the art deep meaning. It showed order and beauty when there was none.

And that's the thing with art, it's not just what you see that encompasses the meaning behind it.




Posted by keyartist

It helps if you dead to.




Posted by maian

Well, I can call myself a talented artist. I really need to upload my drawings, as I've finally finished a sketchbook. I've painted a few things. If I do go for the deep "find symbolisym in this!" style, I draw hands.

As for finding meaning, any painting or picture can have meaning, depending on what your mindset is. As Vampiro pointed out as well, it's not just the painting itself, but other things such as the painter, the time, etc.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

Okay, so here's a painting by Rudolf De Crignis, c2002 (oil on canvas):

[IMG]http://www.charlottejackson.com/images/decrignis/01-39.jpg[/IMG]

And here's a painting by La Ecks, c2006 (pixel on jpeg):

[IMG]http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/846/untitles4eq.png[/IMG]

I ask... What's the difference?




Posted by Fate

The intent.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X


Quoting Fate: The intent.

What's his intent, then? According to the website, he spent six months 'layering on three shades of blue', then done another one. I appreciate that some visually 'crap' paintings have deep intentions, but not every blue canvas is a masterpiece.



Posted by GameMiestro

[quote=The X]What's his intent, then? According to the website, he spent six months 'layering on three shades of blue', then done another one. I appreciate that some visually 'crap' paintings have deep intentions, but not every blue canvas is a masterpiece.

Wait... who is "la ecks"?




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X


Quoting GameMiestro: Wait... who is "la ecks"?

He's a modern artist, known mainly for his visionary works.

:cool:



Posted by Xenos

I'm not quite interested in certain modern art - but I'll admit, some of them are really interesting. I'm not too sure if you consider surrealism modern art or not - but check out Dali's works.




Posted by Fate


Quoting The X: What's his intent, then? According to the website, he spent six months 'layering on three shades of blue', then done another one. I appreciate that some visually 'crap' paintings have deep intentions, but not every blue canvas is a masterpiece.


He spent his time on it. Perhaps to him, time spent on art is art itself. You don't have to see it, but understand it. His intentions were portrayed in artistic lighting. That is what makes the .jpg obsolete.