...a general discussion...

[porque]

...there exists a distinct difference between so called high art and low art...this distinction originally arose during the sixties with the advent of the 'outsider artist'...a term used mostly to define work done by someone that wasn't brought up through the institution of art (...i.e...university study)...this work, while recognized for what it was, was degragrated as basically art that 'didn't count' in the realm of the grand pursuit of Art..this divide has continued and grown to encompass differnt meanings...there are now 'undergound' artists and a whole system of galleries that show their work, while they are kept out of so called 'high art' galleries...the line has become much more blurred becasue many of these artists have been brought up through the art institution, yet the divide clearly exists...as people in school with me put it, "there are juxtapose artists...and there are art forum artists"...few are able to break through the divide, and since most of the artists spotlighted in this forum belong to the 'juxtapose' realm, i am curious about some of your views on the topic...

[wiseguy]

woah, i just made a thread on art brut "outsider art" and your talking about it too... crazy.

[!@#$%]

there is a kickass museum in my city that is only for "self-taught" artists. they've had a lot of really amazing exhibits.
american visionary art musuem

http://www.avam.org/


i am a self taught artist, i think art school and the art community can be very helpful in critique, in shaping the ideas that form ones work, but it also makes for a very purposeful, self concious style of art i think.

one can easily be homogenized by the art world.

i enjoy the whole outsider art thing a lot, except for classic artists like da vinci and picasso, etc, who i have spent plenty of time checking out at big art galleries.

i like it all if it doesn't suck haha..

[IzacFour]

High end art is wanky and ambiguous.

Low brow sucks but its the lesser of plenty evils.

[High Priest]

Low brow or No brow.

[brusheskill]

low art is becoming the new high art. or is it? hmmmmmmmm... art worlds exists within differnt cultures or social scenes. one persons low art could be another high arts. this is one of those if a tree falls in the middle of the woods topics. you can go on forever and make lots of good points but there will always be a substantial response to counter what was just said. art is tight

[porque]

...one of the issues is that this is not a question of personal taste or opinion...whether something is regarded as high or low is a direct result of the gallery it exists in and the context that surrounds it...education and the institution no longer have anything to do with it either...jeff koons is a self-taught artist, so was warhol...neither of them are 'outsider artists'...some of the most respected critics out there right now never went to a university and studied art either...this is what i mean by the line becoming blurred...

...as far as i can tell...the difference comes from the perspective of the artist, which shapes the context that the work is read in...an artist interested in self exploration and their personal view of what art is ususally degraded as an 'outsider'...these artists are not concerend about the context of their work that is relevant to the grand history of Art...inferences and critiques that place their work alongside movemnets driven by ideas concerning the nature of Art (...abstract expressionism...minimalism...popart...etc...) are completely irrelevant...The work is viewed in complete isolation, it exists outside of 'the pale of art history'...the viewer is presented only with what they see before them...someone that has seem a thousand shows and some one that has only seen one will most likely each read the work the same way...the work only exists in relation to the artist that created it...this perspective of art making is much more inviting for the viewer that is not educated on the history of art, it is easier to handle, and while still being eliteist (...becaseu quite frankly the pursuit of making, showing, or viewing art is absolutely an elitest activity...) it is alot less elitest than the pretentious pursuit of 'Art'...

[<KEY3>]

I may be completely off.....

but high brow seems like it's all been done.
The format isnt pushed because curators and
patrons want to know what to expect. But then
there's the whole elitest mindset of the art world.

take for example Ken Danby. He's a hyperrealist painter
that has no problems selling as much as possible. He releases
mass printings and a lot of the 'respected art community' shuns
him because they see him as a 'sell out'. He releases in larger
batches and has a different idea of reprints then they do.
Is his art not technically up to par? Certainly not.
Has the art world decided that only they can be the judge? Yep.

some examples:
http://www.robertwittig.com/techimages/bali_mist.jpg
http://www.kendanbyart.com/paintings/breakers.jpg
http://www.kendanbyart.com/paintings/pond_reflections.jpg

^ you can see he's painting to a level that nears photography,
and a lot of the respect world doesnt like it. Amazing skill or not,
they want their art to be done their way or it just doesnt matter.

[SteveAustin]

art is subjective and always will be.

some art that is high art was once considered low art..ie Van Gogh.

its gonna constantly change. I do think that certain high art galleries are able to exert too much force and essentially make or break some artists.

[seeking]

this is long and stupid. dont bother reading it.


everyone could write a book about their life, but very few would be interesting to read. art is the same way IMO. anything can be art, but not everything can be 'good' art. high brow stuff that relies on a paper pedigree to carry it's weight is horse shit in the same way that low brow art that relies on a lack of pedigree to redeam it is. it's like doing 'girl push ups'. sorry homie, you're art is bitch made. i dont care what your background is, if you cant make interesting art that challenges the viewer or evokes emotion, then you are a shitty artist and you should stop. if you spent 8 years going to college for it, you should have asked me 7 years ago, i could have saved you a whole lot of time and money.

ive never been a part of an academic art world, nor have i ever been part of an underground art world. i know people in both, but i myself am neither...primarily by choice. this makes me completely qualified to pass judgment on both.

last weekend i went to an art show featuring a graffiti crew. they're all good writers, nice guys, and im sure great artists, but attending an 'art show' in someones loft is one of the lamest experiences of my fucking life. i'd rather have my stuff silently hanging in a coffee shop to zero fanfare than to have to endure standing around in someones expansive bedroom acting as if it's an accomplishment. it's a joke. it's like being in a band and playing someones halloween party. that's not a 'concert' homie, that's a waste of the effort it takes to unload the bass cabinet from the van. just stop.

at the same time, a 'high brow' art show held in some stuffy gallery with a bunch of uptight pole smokers all dressed in black speaking with phony accents is just as fucking homo and ridiculous. i always secretly wish that they would get mugged on the way to their car. that would teach them.

mostly i guess i just hate art. i like individual pieces and individual artists, but i have no use for any 'art world', be it counter-culture or otherwise. they're both just some bullshit paramaters that keep their inhabitants locked inside some pre-determined world of fucking lameness. the people i like and the people i respect are the ones who exist in both. who have the technical skill and ability to make 'high brow' art, but also have the emotion and passion to make 'low brow' shit. i like cats like dephect and abuse. fools that are so talented it makes your teeth hurt, but still get gully.


seeks/skip to the end.
seeks/this was the best critique ever written on art in the history of the world.

[<KEY3>]

I skipped to the end end but I stopped to laugh at the idea of pole smokers getting mugged.

[SteveAustin]

the wonderful thing about my low brow art is that I do it for me. I really could care less if anyone else likes it. Seriously. The stuff hangs on my own walls. Sure, I'd take the compliment and even better I'd sell pieces, but all in all...I really just like doing it for myself. I keep at least one of everything I do...sometimes I flip out and destroy them all or start all over again and paint over them.

As far as the pole smokers dressed all in black or the ones that look "artsy"...I pretty much hate anyone that thinks they're better than me.

[<KEY3>]

my area is filled to bursting with those pole smokers.....
only they rock babe and own chomper dolls.

no offence to anyone.

[kidlugz]

I don't even know what to say about the 'art world'. At times I regard it as a pulsating mass of artificial personalities gathering under the guise of 'appreciators of art'. Art openings function solely as social event where like minded rubes can gather to discuss the latest in "who fucked who" or whatever inane issue may be hot at the moment.

But when i supress the cynic from within I begin to see some value in these events. Sure, many attendees are probably insecure, needy humans desperate to latch onto some kind of identity, but many are surely just as disgusted with the superficiality as i am. I think it's a matter of simply detaching yourself from the fluff and seeing only what you want to see. Many creative scenes/intimate communities are the same. Participants share a common interest, but many enjoy the human interaction more than whatever brought them together in the first place.

This shit used to really get me down (I think I had a Holden Caufield complex), but now I just laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing.

"pre-determined world of lameness"

Oh, and I'm stealing this phrase ^^^^

[kidlugz]

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Dec 23 2004, 07:55 PM
my area is filled to bursting with those pole smokers.....
only they rock babe and own chomper dolls.

no offence to anyone.
Quoted post



You're from T.O yes?

what are chomper dolls?

[<KEY3>]

yes.

http://www.actiontoys.de/catalog/images/choper-kaws.jpg

the Kaws chomper was a muchly debate object around here.
I used it to paraphrase 'trendy hipster toys'

* and there's a store on my block with one in the window.

[kidlugz]

i see. thanks for hipping me to the chomper.

[<KEY3>]

no problem.

here's some of the 12oz debate:

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45664
http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=46007

[AW]

It seems to be a Low Brow artist, you have to be into Hot Rods and Tiki's

[Joker]

Originally posted by AW@Dec 29 2004, 01:51 AM
It seems to be a Low Brow artist, you have to be into Hot Rods and Tiki's
Quoted post



And rip off anything Robert Williams has done or does.

I hate this subject...

[imported_Tesseract]

Those ken danby joints look fake as fuck...the clouds on the first one...the dark side of the wave on the second..the overall flatness on the third...bad painting imo.
On the other hand you have Gerhart Richter..now thats painting that reaches photography and on top of that his whole body of work was made for a reason, under an idea, with a comment for society..served well with honesty...totally respected by the art world for obvious reasons.

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-054-Kerze.jpg

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-061-BesetztHaus.jpg

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-080RichterDomeck.jpg


Ending that subject is impossible so i just wanna say that the big different between art and ART, if we have to take it this far, is the thin line between appealing-decorative and innovative-important

yeah, that sucked

[test pattern]

Originally posted by seeking@Dec 23 2004, 07:15 PM
it's like being in a band and playing someones halloween party. that's not a 'concert' homie, that's a waste of the effort it takes to unload the bass cabinet from the van. just stop.
Quoted post

this doesn't work

[whataguy]

There is that discussing of art within the context of how you have been exposed to it. Whether it is within a school, institution, or for self-interest. Art is safe inside the paradigm of the university and within the context of “low art”. Outside of the safety of school and experimental community, I am convinced art falls within the paradigm of fashion and entertainment whose underlying motivation is profit. Dead animals, themes of masturbation, at some point become frivolous and overbearing. A distinguished and reputable art gallery is nothing more than a store in which to buy goods. A museum is a place that rides the boundary between this concept of
Entertainment to sell tickets and to give money to fund its own defined
Concepts of what it wants to curate and the facade of safety that
art school provides. In school you can receive feedback and critiques. You are allowed to try on styles like one tries on clothes. But at some point,
economics rears its head and dollars are what the world defines as
success (or is it.) I think of low art as the experimental beginning of art where the raw concept is born. Much as conservative politics has taken credit for implementing ideas that originally came from liberals or those in discontent from the contemporary situation, “high art” has sometimes come from “low art”. Where is art going now? (where does anyone want to take it? Whether you trust trends is whether you think big galleries dictate style or will your own genius be realized. Does one chase the world or do you take a stand and let the world find you. Everything is false create a god from your seven devils.

[s.urkaleeno]

[quote=porque,Dec 23 2004, 06:34 PM]
...one of the issues is that this is not a question of personal taste or opinion...whether something is regarded as high or low is a direct result of the gallery it exists in and the context that surrounds it...education and the institution no longer have anything to do with it either...jeff koons is a self-taught artist, so was warhol...neither of them are 'outsider artists'...


Note: Warhol was not self taught, he went to Carnegie Mellon were he studied pictoral design, and later worked as a corporate illustrator in NYC.



The delema that you are confronted w/ when talking about Low art and High art is that you are looking at art in terms of $$$ and collectable worth, not it's contribution to society and it's ability to communicate ideas in a unique and iteresting way. Many dealers only look at the bottom line...$$.

[bodice_ripper]

everyone should stop talking about it, and go out and create something. these distinctions only exist as airy-fairy ideas. make something.

[sillysiphilis]

Originally posted by Tesseract@Dec 29 2004, 09:35 AM
Those ken danby joints look fake as fuck...the clouds on the first one...the dark side of the wave on the second..the overall flatness on the third...bad painting imo.
On the other hand you have Gerhart Richter..now thats painting that reaches photography and on top of that his whole body of work was made for a reason, under an idea, with a comment for society..served well with honesty...totally respected by the art world for obvious reasons.

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-054-Kerze.jpg

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-061-BesetztHaus.jpg

http://www.slutzky.de/02_richter/02_bilder/Ri-080RichterDomeck.jpg


Ending that subject is impossible so i just wanna say that the big different between art and ART, if we have to take it this far, is the thin line between appealing-decorative and innovative-important

yeah, that sucked
Quoted post

Gerhard Richter is an amazing artist, I'm glad you brought his work up. His focus on photorealism is not executed with the same intent as the photorealism movement of the 1960's. He is more interested in the objective/subjective duality and adresses the latter with his 'abstract bild' paintings.

[POIESIS]

tesser is on point, and gerhard is fucking awesome.

as far as 'artists' that paint near photorealistic nature scenes..
in my view they are empty artists..i think it's commendable to
want to make something as incredible as nature, but flat out
painting a perfect ass nature scene injects nothing from the
artist..no style, no humanity, nothing cerebral, no ambiguity..
it's almost a cheap shortcut..
this, from what i can tell, is why certain artists, like dude above,
and people like robert bateman get no love in the art world.

[imported_some pittsburgh flavor]

...and the same reason Monet and Cailebotte do....

[sillysiphilis]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Feb 6 2005, 06:19 PM
tesser is on point, and gerhard is fucking awesome.

as far as 'artists' that paint near photorealistic nature scenes..
in my view they are empty artists..i think it's commendable to
want to make something as incredible as nature, but flat out
painting a perfect ass nature scene injects nothing from the
artist..no style, no humanity, nothing cerebral, no ambiguity..
it's almost a cheap shortcut..
this, from what i can tell, is why certain artists, like dude above,
and people like robert bateman get no love in the art world.
Quoted post

well actually thats exactly what the Photorealists aimed for; if you ever wondered why Ralph Goings or Robert Cunningham chose the most banal of objects or scenes to paint (i have never seen a photorealist of the original movement paint nature scenes, nor would they have any reasons for it. Unlike the photorealists, the Richter nature scenes aimed to depict deceptive/false beauty), its because they intended to have as much of an objective eye on the world as possible, hence depicting even the most mundane of scenes. The style chose was one of no style, once again aiming towards complete objectivity, to the point were the paintings appeared soulless, detached, and manufactured, not crafted (similar in intent of the pop artists of the same decade).

It seems as if existentialist thought, with all its pessimism (imagine WWI and WWII in France and Germany) was picked up by the art world a generation too late, and in a totally new country (U.S.) with all its naive optimism, but the art movement still made an impact nevertheless, limited almost exclusively to the U.S.
Like the atheistic existentialists proclaiming the death of God, the photorealists proclaimed the death of painting

[whataguy]

photorealism was necessary, but it is the most boring art in the world. we don't need to draw like cameras thats what we have printers for. Concept before craft.

[porque]

...photorealism is inherently linked to concept...the term photorealism is itself an oxy-moron...the photo is not real...it is an image of three demensions portryed in two...therefore painting a photo instead of reality becomes an ironic gesture meant to comment on the realtionship between reality and the idea of reality...but i will certainly admit that once you get it, you get it...and it becomes redundant...

...Richter on the other hand did something differnt...he worked hard to over emphasize the role of the camera in distorting the image...dilleberatly using subjects that were out of focus...this being one of the most distinguishing features of photography vs reality...the human eye sees at an instantly and infinitely changing focal length, while the camera can only use one focal length at a time...Richter translated this most effectively in painting with his series of works that depicted abstract paintings 'out-of-focus'...this is were most wmphatically we can see his idea of object vs reality...

...s.urkaleeno...i am well aware that Warhol studied design in school...but design and high Art are two completely different things...

[sillysiphilis]

While his abstractions may have been executed with that intent in mind, his representational work (in my mind) seem to address the issue of subjective reality more didrectly.

For his representational pictures, Richter's images were often deliberately blurred, a method that he coined as 'unpainting.' A double meaning was iintended with the used of this technique; one being a bit more metaphorical while the other being a bit more palpable. The blurred down effect was the archetypal statement of a non-objective reality and it also came to symbolize the elusiveness of reality in pictures (by making an elusive picture)
Porque...although Jeff Koons was not initially an artist by name, I wouldn't call him a self taught artist. He studied under Ed Pashke (RIP-2004) at the Art Institute of Chicago.. Hate to refute, but it's the truth.... I don't even really like Koon's work that much.

[IzacFour]

To me, low end art includes any artist without formal training (and some with). That means every one on this board. If you dont like low brow art you can go fuck yourself.

[seeking]

well that was insightful.

[IzacFour]

Sorry, I just thought too many people were making this into an issue of chompers, bape, and derek hess. While I admit lowend art has become a tad stagnant, that is no reason to hate on a genre that is quite varied.

[seeking]

i havent read everything, but i dont remember anyone really hating on an entire genre, and if they were, then your totalitarian decree of 'fuck yourself' is hardly going to change anyones mind, but whatever, have at it.

[IzacFour]

I was having fun. I dont really want to turn everything into a lengthy debate.

[ERIZENO]

Back to the discussion.

This is a thought I have been playing with for a few days and I wanted to bounce it off a few other minds. Lets discuss.

I'm thinking that Pop Art has never ended, and will never end.
I understand when considered as a movement it’s over, yet looking at it as the trends in what’s marketable and sells in galleries its not. It's ever changing with what’s cool at the moment. Graffiti and Street Art are just the current trend for those that consider themselves in the know about art. So in the end I see most outsider art as the Popular Art right now. So we are seeing POP ART not changing its dynamic(showing images from pop culture) just what’s cool and what’s selling(as pop culture changes).

[Mr. Peanut]

http://www.sfmoma.org/images/ma/collections/recent_detail/duchamp_fountain.jpg

[carlojensen]

a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work.

a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work.

whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences?

peese

[sillysiphilis]

Originally posted by ERIZENO@Mar 1 2005, 03:12 PM
Back to the discussion.

This is a thought I have been playing with for a few days and I wanted to bounce it off a few other minds. Lets discuss.

I'm thinking that Pop Art has never ended, and will never end.
I understand when considered as a movement it’s over, yet looking at it as the trends in what’s marketable and sells in galleries its not. It's ever changing with what’s cool at the moment. Graffiti and Street Art are just the current trend for those that consider themselves in the know about art. So in the end I see most outsider art as the Popular Art right now. So we are seeing POP ART not changing its dynamic(showing images from pop culture) just what’s cool and what’s selling(as pop culture changes).
Quoted post

I kind of hope you're right. I noticed a lot of things lately are a lot less 'esoteric' or so fucking conceptual you've got to read the artists biography before entirely understanding the work.
Art Forum just had an issue about the new pop art a couple of months ago. I don't think I got the chance to read it. Art brut does seem growingly popular. There is that movie that just came out about Henry Darger, and atleast locally, I have noticed a rise in appreciation of outsider work. There are even a couple of galleries fully devoted to it, the Intuit the Center for Intuitive & Outsider Art and the jsaslow gallery is pretty much all outsider. Graffiti and street art also seems to be gaining the same recognition it had during the 80s, with that 'beautiful losers' exhibition, and, atleast locally, theres been atleast three galleries that I know of that have had graffiti exhibitions.
I don't know enough about the current state of pop art to directly reply to your comment though

[sillysiphilis]

Originally posted by carlojensen@Mar 3 2005, 06:28 AM
a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work.

a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work.

whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences?

peese
Quoted post

yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense.

[carlojensen]

[/quote]
yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense.
Quoted post
[/quote]

true. i just had to write an essay on the nature of contemporary art. i guess no one ever really knows the motifs and inspirations of a peice of art unless its their own, or has a detailed story behind it on display with it. a red canvas splattered with blue paint could be expressing the artists deepest feelings, and i guess if its expressing something, pornography or not, it can be classified as art. it just sucks for the other people.

then there's the whole argument of shock art and its place in the art world...

[porque]

Originally posted by sillysiphilis+Mar 4 2005, 08:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sillysiphilis - Mar 4 2005, 08:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-carlojensen@Mar 3 2005, 06:28 AM
a friend of the family went to art school. her major prac. was a series of delicatly sculpted ceramic works, all very intricatley designed and hand crafted. took her months to complete. poured her heart and soul into it and scored a B- for her work.

a fellow student decided that for her prac. she would take photograph's of herself fucking her partners brains out whilst she was menstruating, and in turn recieved an A+ grade due to the "revealing" nature of her work.

whether or not this has anything to do with this thread, i just wanna know if anyone has had any similar experiences?

peese
Quoted post

yea that sucks, but it doesn't strike me as surprising. Today's art world prefers concept over craft, and value it even more so if its shocking. Concept should be what defines an artist as a 'fine artist', but shock art is such an easy way to make a quick buck. I'm sick if it. The value of shock artists' work is always contingent on those who oppose it, and that doesn't make any fucking sense.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]


...just because someone makes really intricate, delicate, handcrafted work that they pour their heart into doesn't make it good...i've seen people work really hard at really bad work...
...and just becasue something has an element of shock in it doesn't mean that that's the only thing going for it...
...your story sounds more like it was retold from someone that was pissed and jealous cuz no one liked her ceramic pieces of crap...

[porque]

...pop art is definately still a dominant force in the contempary art world...and that art forum issue is pretty good...lots of essays...

[carlojensen]

well i saw the pieces for myself and i, along with other people thought they were actually quite beautiful. alot 'better' than 25c porn photos.

i wont try and start 'discussions', the title of this thread, if your gonna turn them into aggressive bitch sessions and criticize work you've never seen. it was one case, i never said it applied in general.

peace

[porque]

...your tone, to me, sounded like you were trying to make a broad generalized statement about the atmosphere of the institutional art world...

...grades don't make art good or bad either...

...but this is completely off of the original topic...

[seeking]

personally, the idea of the photos seemed a whole lot more interesting to me than a delicate ceramic sculpture. maybe the sculpture was really sweet and the photos were really contrived, neither would surprise me at all, but as dude said, just because someone tries real hard, that doesn't mean it's good. for instance, i have a figure drawing class this semester. first time i'd ever tried to draw a figure in my life. at the end of the first class, as we handed in our drawing, i realized that i was better than almost all the second year students (it's a split class) and i had absolutely no training. i had never even heard the word gesture' before that night. now i'm sure they poured their hearts into it, but fact is that they just aren't very good. they can try as hard as they might, but theres always some asshole like me that can step in and effortless serve them (and i'm not even that good at all.)

now, maybe your friends work is awesome and the teacher is a total putz, it's totally possible, but ceramic work has been around for thousands of years...it's really hard to make something new and interesting. unfortunately, that's the inherent problem with something as subjective as art.

pop art = popular art. it's meant to be a transient medium. what's cool now will not be in 5 years, but might be again in 20. who cares? it's like bitching about pop music? there is art that moves you and art that doesnt. who gives a shit?

[santa_claws]

personally, the idea of the photos seemed a whole lot more interesting to me than a delicate ceramic sculpture.
could that possibly be because of the nature of the photos? :haha:

[carlojensen]

i guess my main point was that it seems odd that in the art world effort can mean nothing. i guess its a spur of the moment type thing. who am i to judge, i've been interested in art for about 4 months. it all seems a bit messy, no matter what you do you are offending someone, being criticised or causing discussions on internet forums...

isnt that what its all about?

[seeking]

effort is relative, and if all you have is 4 months of interest in art under your belt, you're really in no position to be judging anything. i mean, you're welcome to judge it, but if you actually intend to understand, you've got a long way to go. art is about emotion and what it evokes in the viewer. something 'shocking' will always get more of a response than something refined. it's just the way of the world. it's something your friend is going to have to learn to accept if she wants to continue in traditional avenues like this.

the other factor, which i didnt mention, is why is the ceramics teacher also teaching photography? does she go to college in a one room barn?

[carlojensen]

clarification:
1. i never judged anything, i simply said effort CAN mean nothing, and said quote, "who am i to judge"
2. my 'family' friend is almost 50 years old
3. her work was marked by an art school moderator, not her teacher

why is everyone on this site so aggressive?
no wonder the world is so fucked

[seeking]

conversely, why are you being such a pussy?
j/k
i'm not 'aggressive', i'm just not into coddeling when it comes to art. i don't want to be treated that way, and i refuse treat others that way. the way i look at things, is that there are two people; those who want to improve, and those who want to impress their friends. i have no use/interest in the second group. if all you want is to be a mediocre hobbyist, that's perfectly fine, there are plenty of mediums that i dabble in just for the hell of it, but i'll also never complain about why i'm not taken more seriously, or bitch about why someone gets something i'm not. and i'm not saying you approached things like that carl, i'm just saying, it's how i view things as a whole. i don't like smoke being blown up my ass. i want the truth. if you take that as aggressive then thats on you. in either case, it's the internet, why do you care?

[ERIZENO]

I have a personality like Carl there ... easy going, don’t need shit in the way. So I think I see where he is at. However I have learned a lot from seekings posts on this board, every time I see feathers ruffled it kind of bumms me out and I think man that was harsh. But when it comes down to it someone needed to say it and bring the full reality of it to light. I have been able to do a lot of reflection on my art by being around this stuff. So thanks …. That impress your friends vs. improve thing hit home for me.

There is no one reason the world is so fucked … well maybe just humans in general but that’s a whole new debate. We are where we are and we do or we don’t. If you have passion for art, listen to things outside your realm of thinking and learn more so you can grow and evolve your art.

[seeking]

i always approach it like i was coaching sports. you're not going to have the same expectations/criticisms of a kid playing t-ball, as you would a major league pitcher. i treat my criticisms the same way. if it's someone who just dabbles for fun, i'll give simple advise. if it's someone who is more serious but open to criticism, i'll be a little harsher but still with kindness. but if it's someone who thinks they're the shit and on some next level, i'll speak as if they were on the 'next level', because i know that anything less will be a complete waste of time. those people never reply favorably at first, but eventually, it always seeps in.

[s.urkaleeno]

In regards to art: I think Love and Hate are the same thing. Not caring enough to have a strong opinion is probably the worst criticism you can give some one.

that's my randomness for the month.

Oh yeah and "the Contender" is the dumbest show on TV...at the moment. None of those guys could last 5 rounds w/ Taylor

[carlojensen]

true, aggressive was the wrong word, and im not trying to disrespect you here or anything seeking, but i think its on you to realise that not all of us here as highly evolved/educated/whatever as you are in the art world, and therefore your criticisms, although mostly truthful come as a shock. im sure if you dont do it intentionally, but it seems you make it a struggle for anyone 'new' to the area to express their opinions cos you tend to splurt out some sort of comment or criticism, (which is usually truthful, educated and progressive) shutting them down. human nature = defensive reaction.

back to art, i think its more of a personal area to understand, hence experience being irrelavent. if a photograph makes you feel happy/angry/suicidal, thats your interpretation, and thats what you get out of it, your understanding, four months or forty years.

either im completely wrong or we just do it differently where im from...

peace

[seeking]

if you go back and read my comments, the first was not at all 'agressive' or even a criticism in the least. it was just explaining [my take on] why the teacher would have found more in the photos. if anything, i think i went out of my way to be diplomatic. the second, with the expection of me pointing out your limited experiences with art, was just a bit more blunt of an explanation, given because after reading all the replies from you and others, it seemed that you weren't really wanting to accept the 'simple' truth. i'm sorry if i offended you, it wasn't my intention, i just wanted you to understand why the photos, which you see as being cheap porn, are more interesting to some people.

i totally understand you're comments about me, and unfortunately, i have to agree. i know it can be 'intimidating/frustrating' to hear things as i present them (right or wrong) but i've found no real effective alternative. i've spent too long watching joker play 'nice guy', trying to help people only to have them shit on him and take nothing from it. my approach might not always make friends, but it will always force them to look at their work in a different way.

i'm kind of an 'ends justify the means' sort of person i guess.

[seeking]

"i guess my main point was that it seems odd that in the art world effort can mean nothing."


Originally posted by carlojensen@Mar 15 2005, 08:36 PM
...i think its more of a personal area to understand, hence experience being irrelavent. if a photograph makes you feel happy/angry/suicidal, thats your interpretation, and thats what you get out of it, your understanding, four months or forty years.
Quoted post



you just answered your own question. people with absolutely no knowledge of art can relate more to photos such as those, than to a piece of pottery. it's a much more graphic image. one way or another, it's going to make you feel something. when i said you lacked the experience to really understand, what i meant is that i felt you lacked the experience to understand the nuances of the different genres. if you didn't know this woman, i assume you would have probably over looked her piece as well...everyone would. you can't compare the two things, which is what you were trying to do...trying to 'make sense' of art, which is kind of an oxymoron.

anyway, i hope that makes sense. i'm very hungry.

[carlojensen]

true, very true.

seeking: 1
me: 0

im hungry and i hate computers

[seeking]

no, there is no score card, is just discussion.

i like computers, it's art that i hate.

[ERIZENO]

gotta love it before you can grow to hate it.

and these discussions are great ... better than an open forum at an art school would ever be able to have !!!

in the end its subjective and medium to medium the discussion changes ... its great.

[porque]

...one thing that anyone who ever had a crit class with me learned is that if your work sucks, i'm not gonna say shit...but if i think it's on the verge of something, i'm gonna criticize the hell out of it...because nodding and agreeing with someone isn't going to do shit, but telling 'em how shit is will...art isn't as subjective as most of you think...go to art school for four years and you'll learn this real quick...

...personal story...i was making work that i really felt strongly about...poured my heart into...and one of my professors called me out, and said my stuff sucked...at first i was mad...then i realized they were right...my work got a lot better after that...if all people do is stroke your dick and tell you how awesome you are, you'll never get better...

[ERIZENO]

Originally posted by porque@Mar 18 2005, 05:45 AM
...one thing that anyone who ever had a crit class with me learned is that if your work sucks, i'm not gonna say shit...but if i think it's on the verge of something, i'm gonna criticize the hell out of it...because nodding and agreeing with someone isn't going to do shit, but telling 'em how shit is will...art isn't as subjective as most of you think...go to art school for four years and you'll learn this real quick...

...personal story...i was making work that i really felt strongly about...poured my heart into...and one of my professors called me out, and said my stuff sucked...at first i was mad...then i realized they were right...my work got a lot better after that...if all people do is stroke your dick and tell you how awesome you are, you'll never get better...
Quoted post


I don’t think you need 4 years of art school to teach you that if you are open enough to see it going on and are exposed to places like this.
Plus I have heard so many stories of people needing to UN-learn things art school taught them. It all depends on your intent on where you want your art to go, if I wanted to get gallery play and sell my shit via that type of avenue I would go the school route ... not for the teaching but the networking. That’s what it takes to get into the gallery scene. imho .....
What if it’s just a lifestyle to have an outlet for your passion ...fuck trying to fit a mold or beak the mold to sell the work or get it in a museum?
Like the Futurists standing in front of the museums yelling to burn them down!!!!!!

[sillysiphilis]

God don't even start talking about the futurists
those guys fucking scare me
talk about being militantly idealistic...I pretty much equate them with the nazis
read their manifesto and you'll know where Im coming from

[porque]

...wow...somehow we actually got back to the original topic...kinda...

...it's true that you don't need to go through school or show in galleries to make work...you can sit at home by yourself and 'express' yourself all you want, but that doesn't mean thta what you are doing is Art...it's more like a hobby...Art is a game...you're either playing it or your standing on the side doing something that looks kinda like Art but isn't...kinda like standing in a playground kicking a basketball at a fence, you're not exactly playing basketball...but what i said is that Art is not as subjective as you may think and exposure to lots of works and critical dialouge about work over the course of study makes this very apparent...

...and please don't try to use the futurists or any other 'anti-art' movement as an example of anything...that stuff is just as Art as picasso...you can tell because it's now in the very same museums they were all trying to protest against...

...i can't believe i missed that gem about your family friend being in their fifties...that makes the story that much better...and me that much more certain that those photos were way more intresting than their ceramics...

..i probably sound like an asshole...

[seeking]

i've written 5 different, complete replies to this thread, but none of them really say what i want. which makes me think it doesn't need to be said.

mostly i just agree with porque...art isn't really subjective. anyone who preaches that lovey-dovey bullshit is a shitty artist who needs to widen the spectrum of aceptibility in order to fit their horse-shit projects through it.

[LOReSeVeNTeN]

i believe good art is percieved by the artist and the artists intended audience with that in mind i think the difference between hi and low art is based on the time, place, and social setting

[modelboy]

I think this thread is an amazing read, very interesting things being said/discussed.

Low brow is on the rise as becoming a more accepted form of art right now. Public art is on its way to reaching its status as it did in the eighties, there are more and more shows being organized world wide, more companies are giving writers/street artisits contracts to design clothes with "cool" "hip" and "trendy(graffiti is currently heading to a peak)" a few years back only third rail was doing graff shirt prints now stussy, insight and numerous other co.s are following suit.

Once something becomes popular and trendy(the two are essentially the same) it hits a peak and then falls. I think that within the end of this decade another form of self expression will take the limelight, graffiti will take a backseat and possibly another lowbrow/outside art form will take hold...Hell maybe everyone will be a expressionist painter! who knows.

Whenever i head to art openings in general, high or low, i always hope to have a conversation with some important person who has power and can push me ahead without me having to do anything. Sure i would expect more powerful people to be at high art openings, and most of the time they are there because its high society. The rich and powerful stick to their own, once they reach that level it would be pointless to fall back down.

High and Low art could very well be compared to heaven and hell(open to interpratation). Once you are up in the clouds you dont want to fall and end up in a hole of hell. High/heaven is wonderful, your colligues are rich and powerfull so your life is easy because you know money aint a problem. Life is easy, once you are established as being "high-class" everyone will want a piece of you because of the hype. You could be a decent painter but impress that one person who could give you everything in the world, and then you may gain some confidence and become the next monet or rembrandt...life is out of your hands.

Low/lucifero is terrible. Its overcrowded with people that could decide they hate art and quit but take up space for those that truely enjoy art. There is no money as a result, the competition is too stiff. Youve got people that decided to pick up a pencil one day and be an artisit; youve also got people who have been creative since the day they were born and strive to head up to the clouds in high heaven.

I think high art is just a vip of artisits who have shown and proved they deserve to be in heaven.

We all start out in hell.

[8onus]

i think a balance of the two is the best,
i find that a little guidance as far as technical aspects, either from a mentor or a teacher is a good thing. but i believe my personal love for art and whatever talent i may have is streetbred, i look up to the people who take risks with thier work and really dont give a fuck, streetbred artists do it for the love of creation and not for the ends, the final product is merly a keepsake, the process is what makes everything worth it.
my teacher/mentor told me the other day
"you're gonna get mugged if you keep taking photos in back alleys and crack houses" i told her
"yeah, but i'll kick my own ass if i ever end up doing landscapes and gallery safe bullshit"

eh..just my take on it all.

*edit..still cant spell

[IzacFour]

Whats the difference between high end art and all other art?





Money.

[modelboy]

Originally posted by IzacFour@Apr 14 2005, 03:42 AM
Whats the difference between high end art and all other art?





Money.
Quoted post


Yep yep yep.

High class, high society, high art are based around success which usualy means having means to make ends......

just look at basquiat for example.
crossed over from low to high with no art training, dude never finished high school. Became mega famous because of his hype and uniqueness, met the right people, became a member of high society basically coming off the streets.

If you saw his art (not all of it but a lot of it) and had never heard of him you would think he was handicapped or insane.

Suprised nobody gave an example of him earlier, he is actually this conversation in a person.

[sillysiphilis]

I always had a different understanding of low art. The Pop artists were fairly low brow, only because the work was not that conceptual. That doesn't stop them from associating with the elite.