Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:47 pm Posts: 2505 Location: Eastern Europe
davegibson wrote:
( Re: natures art) If my memory is correct Dr Gubelin concluded his speech, at the golden jubilee of the Gemmological Association of G.B with There is no greater artist than nature herself
Aha! So, there is still hope to meet the master, then?
_________________ Vorba multa - saracia omului.[RO]
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 5534 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Quote:
What about the art of nature?
I can't stay out of this. My parents were both artists. They met in Art School. Some of my siblings are artists, and I married one.
We were brought up to believe that:
1) Artists interpret Nature. Photographs record it. The distinction blurs when a real artist uses the camera creatively.
2) Art is nonjudgemental; It tries to say, "Here is another way of looking at this. Disagree if you wish, but this is what I see."
The "Nothing new is Art" only originates because contemporary artists have not yet obtained immortality by tests of Time. The Artist speaks in the language of imagery, and some people understand the language of the artist, and others do not, or consider it madness.
I like Dali, Van Gogh, Homer, Wyeth, among others.
I do not speak Picasso's language, and his works elicit a yawn from me.
His painting "Guitar and Mandolin", in the Gugenheim, for example, produces no feeling in me other than "So What?", yet he is among the most successful artists of the last century. I cannot judge him, because I do not understand what he is saying. My father met him, BTW, so I would prefer to be more appreciative, but it's just not there.
I agree with Gearloose Art can be summed up by that most infamous of sayings "I may not know art but I know what I like" hmmm I think barbra said something like that too ?? Luckyly my art prof is unlikely to see this
_________________ A Chinese proverb says "Gold is valuable, Jade is Priceless."
Which is more artistic, the Lily or the painting of the Lily? Can the artist make the Lily more emotionally absorbing than the actual Lily? Through whose eyes?
The Lily moved the artist. Did the artist's interpretation move you? Have you looked closely at both? Which is art? Can they both not be?
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:24 am Posts: 4997 Location: McDonough GA
JB wrote:
Which is more artistic, the Lily or the painting of the Lily? Can the artist make the Lily more emotionally absorbing than the actual Lily? Through whose eyes?
The Lily moved the artist. Did the artist's interpretation move you? Have you looked closely at both? Which is art? Can they both not be?
Hell, I don't know. I like the Lily or I don't.
This reminds me of an alternate telling of the story of Narcissus.
One day the pond and a cloud were talking and the pond said, "I miss the days when Narcissus came and looked at his reflection in me. I loved him so much."
The cloud asked, "Why did you love him? Was he beautiful?"
"I don't know", said the pond, "I was busy looking at my own reflection in his eyes."
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 5534 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Quote:
Which is more artistic, the Lily or the painting of the Lily? Can the artist make the Lily more emotionally absorbing than the actual Lily? Through whose eyes?
The painting of the lily. Nature, as beautiful and aesthically pleasing as it is, is mostly fractal geometry..Clouds, ferns, trees, mountains, flowers, crystals.
The Artist is a Guest Editor who adds emotional or interpretive commentary.
Nature does what it must do, and the Artist does as they feel.
"I think that I shall never see,
A poem lovely as a...."
..Bifurcation fractal design that maximizes branching and leaf density in a minimal dimensional envelope.
Both have their rules.
Art has rules of harmony, rhythm, and perspective*.
Nature has rules for the tree, and those rules are things like (r*fn(PI*p))
When rules in Nature are broken, the tree dies.
When rules in Art are broken...Well, consider primitive Art.
Palaeolithic cave paintings exploit economy of line, yet can brilliantly convey movement and form.
*Yet, when some recent "Primitive"painters like Grandma Moses ignore perspective, one ends up with utter cr@p not worthy of a second glance..Please buy a Jon Gnagy book and try again.
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 5534 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Quote:
See, I always thought "Art" breaks the rules, changes rhythm, and stretches the perspective. How else could it be interesting?
It is all interesting in the sense it can be entertaining and thought provoking, challenging, or evocative...OR
...It can be interesting in the same sense as walking by a garbage pail on a hot day.
Both get one's attention.
So..what is "Art"? It is subjective.
Years ago I was at an Art Exhibit put on by a local co-op. One artist was attempting to tell his story in the only way he could. He had a message and I guess he had no other way to tell it.
He had many paintings, all done in shocking, lurid fluorescent colors, of a young boy being abused by a priest. They were executed with good talent, composition, technique and impact.
His exhibit succeeded, in that people fled it in horror. Yet, it was Art.
But I doubt he made any sales.
One of the judges at an Art Show at the local museum was depressed. Only paintings in blue and black won that year. My father was alive at the time, and had some interesting commentary that was hilarious..
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 5534 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Quote:
I turn my nose up at that kind of art.
Oh, someone else who does not dig Picasso!
Actually his early sketches were very good. Later he got his gimmick, and that anointed set we see in Art Museums..you know, that pose of deep thought, one arm across their chest, the other holding their chin in profound rapture..had decided that we would be expected to like it.
Or be denounced by them as uncouth Philistines and ignoramuses.
"WARNING: This Art Patron is NOT Elitist Poseur-Approved!"
As with any other field, particularly subjective ones, it has a high Wanker Count.
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 5534 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Quote:
If you're Joe Schmoo, a picture of a melting clock, $400,000.00, means little. Almost laughable.
I'm a Joe Schmoo, and I rather like "the Persistance of memory". But I would not pay $400K for it. His "Christ of St John of the Cross", I would, in part out of perversity over its controversy, but also in admiration of the blend of the Stygian boatman archetype with mastery of perspective.
Quote:
Spend money. It stimulates the economy.
Even if you don't have it...No..Especially if you don't! We can bundle the notes into derivatives, see? And make a killing. It worked before.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum