Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: What is art and what is not? Where do you draw the line?

  1. #31
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Online
    01-03-2013 @ 08:56 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Mainly Germanic and Gallic
    Ethnicity
    Swedish, French-Canadian, German, Irish, Scottish, English
    Politics
    just be kind to one another.
    Religion
    progressive-minded
    Gender
    Posts
    18
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    ^ Yay, happy trees!

    I feel like art is language via a medium of some sort.

  2. #32
    Individualist Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Svipdag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    04-13-2019 @ 02:25 AM
    Location
    central Connecticut
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian & Yankee
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway Paternal: Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Connecticut
    Politics
    Conservative
    Hero
    Marcus Tullius Cicero and Nikola Tesla
    Religion
    agnostic
    Age
    87
    Gender
    Posts
    3,632
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,883
    Given: 1,005

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    I leave it to the taste of the viewer to draw the line between art and kitsch. For example, I call Thomas Kincaid "Kitschmeister" His work is pleasingly pretty but shallow and, to me, anyhow, insincere.
    "This is not my time; this is not my world; these are not my people." - Martin H. Francis

  3. #33
    Veteran Member LouisFerdinand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Last Online
    03-09-2021 @ 01:23 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic, English
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian and English
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Posts
    2,342
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 601
    Given: 401

    0 Not allowed!

    Default


  4. #34
    Bogdan
    Guest

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Art is a product of creativity to convey a message or emotion. I draw the line at stuff deliberately designed to gain money or grab attention only

  5. #35
    Individualist Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Svipdag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    04-13-2019 @ 02:25 AM
    Location
    central Connecticut
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian & Yankee
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway Paternal: Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Connecticut
    Politics
    Conservative
    Hero
    Marcus Tullius Cicero and Nikola Tesla
    Religion
    agnostic
    Age
    87
    Gender
    Posts
    3,632
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,883
    Given: 1,005

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazimiera View Post
    I ask this question because there have been some posts touching on the subject.

    What do you define as art and what not?

    Why would Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol, for example, be considered as lesser artists that Leonardo da Vinci?

    What makes Neoclassical art, for example, worth more than dadaist art?

    My husband has a degree in Visual Art and Art History and we have had this discussion on many occassions, and argued about it too. In my eyes, Leonardo da Vinci is a greater artist than Andy Warhol. I find Andy Warhol's stuff ridiculously overrated, but that's just my opinion.

    What are your views on the matter? I'm just using Warhol and Da Vinci as an example but there are hundreds of other artists who one can use.

    What makes this art? And not the lower picture?



    I don't think that there is an objective standard, therefore this is just my opinion. However, I have been a landscape painter
    and I have viewed art of many kinds from all over the world, so, my opinion is not exactly uninformed. I consider that a work of art represents SOMETHING which can be recognised. It may represent, however by suggesting
    g rather than depicting. Representing by suggesting, however, is VERY difficult to do.I prefer that my paintings be much more literal and am pleased when a viewer exclaims "I know that place; I've been there !"

    Although beautiful art is much easier to appreciate than ugly art, I don't think that anyone can deny that Goya's painfully bitter depictions of the horrors of the occupation of Spain, unpleasant though they be to behold, are art, and art of a very high order. On the other hand, I do not think that every painting must have a "message" .

    The "message" of one of my landscapes usually is:"What I have shown here is, as I have depicted it, worth looking at because this is how it IS. I found it worthy of attention. Perhaps you will also.
    "This is not my time; this is not my world; these are not my people." - Martin H. Francis

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. High Art vs. Low Art
    By Psychonaut in forum Arts & Culture
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-24-2012, 06:42 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 01:24 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-01-2011, 03:57 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •