Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Is art dead?

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:09:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Let me begin with this. I find this painting - http://art.newcity.com... - to be a bit more profound than this MoMA masterpiece - http://vip-artfair.com...

So. Can art die?

Socially, I would say that the art produced has become progressively less appreciated over time - thus leading to less and less people pursuing creative ideas. Therefore, less people who are skilled and creative are creating what is in their mind. Socially? Perhaps. Art has become, to most, a source of a bunch of pseudo-sophisticates to try telling you that the lines in front of you are actually a representation of the hardships of war. Is that unfair? Probably.

Art, as we know it, can never really die - so long as people are attempting to make it. Whether in the form of sculpture or painting or music (which is really undervalued as art, in my humble opinion): you can lessen the level of participation and competition in the arts - but you can never kill it as a practice so long as people are aware of it. Art classics, all things considered, are seen as timeless. Timeless things, too, cannot die.

---

Disagreements? Thoughts?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
BlazingRodent
Posts: 1,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 1:50:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:09:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Let me begin with this. I find this painting - http://art.newcity.com... - to be a bit more profound than this MoMA masterpiece - http://vip-artfair.com...

So. Can art die?

Socially, I would say that the art produced has become progressively less appreciated over time - thus leading to less and less people pursuing creative ideas. Therefore, less people who are skilled and creative are creating what is in their mind. Socially? Perhaps. Art has become, to most, a source of a bunch of pseudo-sophisticates to try telling you that the lines in front of you are actually a representation of the hardships of war. Is that unfair? Probably.

Art, as we know it, can never really die - so long as people are attempting to make it. Whether in the form of sculpture or painting or music (which is really undervalued as art, in my humble opinion): you can lessen the level of participation and competition in the arts - but you can never kill it as a practice so long as people are aware of it. Art classics, all things considered, are seen as timeless. Timeless things, too, cannot die.

---

Disagreements? Thoughts?

Art comes in different forms though. People don't focus on painting masterpieces anymore because we have the technology to make other stuff we would rather do like digital art, 3D art, etc
Vaarka
Posts: 7,631
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 2:39:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:09:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Let me begin with this. I find this painting - http://art.newcity.com... - to be a bit more profound than this MoMA masterpiece - http://vip-artfair.com...

So. Can art die?

Socially, I would say that the art produced has become progressively less appreciated over time - thus leading to less and less people pursuing creative ideas. Therefore, less people who are skilled and creative are creating what is in their mind. Socially? Perhaps. Art has become, to most, a source of a bunch of pseudo-sophisticates to try telling you that the lines in front of you are actually a representation of the hardships of war. Is that unfair? Probably.

Art, as we know it, can never really die - so long as people are attempting to make it. Whether in the form of sculpture or painting or music (which is really undervalued as art, in my humble opinion): you can lessen the level of participation and competition in the arts - but you can never kill it as a practice so long as people are aware of it. Art classics, all things considered, are seen as timeless. Timeless things, too, cannot die.

---

Disagreements? Thoughts?

I do have something to respond with to this, but I don't have much time to type it, so it'll take me a while to type it all (give me a couple hours or whenever I actually finish).
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Vaarka
Posts: 7,631
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 6:32:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:09:58 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Let me begin with this. I find this painting - http://art.newcity.com... - to be a bit more profound than this MoMA masterpiece - http://vip-artfair.com...

So. Can art die?

Socially, I would say that the art produced has become progressively less appreciated over time - thus leading to less and less people pursuing creative ideas. Therefore, less people who are skilled and creative are creating what is in their mind. Socially? Perhaps. Art has become, to most, a source of a bunch of pseudo-sophisticates to try telling you that the lines in front of you are actually a representation of the hardships of war. Is that unfair? Probably.

Art, as we know it, can never really die - so long as people are attempting to make it. Whether in the form of sculpture or painting or music (which is really undervalued as art, in my humble opinion): you can lessen the level of participation and competition in the arts - but you can never kill it as a practice so long as people are aware of it. Art classics, all things considered, are seen as timeless. Timeless things, too, cannot die.

---

Disagreements? Thoughts?

First off, you need to understand a bit of art history for this. Several stages/ages of new art have often had "critics" or viewers asking if art was dying, or something similar. While I'm sure it easily existed before, the first time I'll talk about was around the 19th century, when photography was starting to come into existence. This new technology was focused on what art previously had been: Accurate rendering of the subject (realism). This was the common theme before, but there were some people that didn't like the idea as much. Thus, impressionism came in.

Some impressionistic artworks can include works such as this: https://www.ibiblio.org...

At the time, art critics were against this, calling it unfinished art, and the public hated it at first (eventually growing to like the idea of impressionistic art). However, impressionism was the base for many different art styles that eventually led to what we have today.

After impressionism came post-impressionism. This was a little bit of a different style, and included artists such as Van Gogh, Seurat, Gauguin, and Cezanne. From Post-impressionism, we got Fauvism, which was a more wild style of multiple, clearly visible brush strokes and wild, bright colors, like "a pot of paint had been thrown into the audience". Along with that, Cubism, keeping the geometric-viewed shapes of Cezanne, which had the goal of capturing the essence of an object from multiple points of view. And finally, Expressionism, such as German Expressionism, which was less about the art and more about mocking authority, addressing social injustices, or expressing despair.

This would all lead to subjects such as Dada and Surrealism, as well as Abstract Expressionism. Dada was an anti-art and anti-war movement, which is what we would probably recognize as works like this: http://www.artlex.com...
However, while intended to insult the public, they found it comical and assumed it was directed towards other people. Dada art helped create many art techniques that we all know today, such as Collage(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...), Photomontage(http://www.newstatesman.com...), Assemblage(http://www.moma.org...), Readymades(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...), and Auto(-arthttps://p2.liveauctioneers.com...).

Surrealism was more of the idea of drawing from the subconscious on the mind (like closing your eyes and just drawing).

Abstract Expressionism came around in the early 20th century, though it didn't become well known until about 1946, which was mainly influenced by the idea of Surrealism. This is more around when the idea of making art based on what the artist feels and the wanted mood. It was mainly just a bunch of shapes, and separated into two groups: action and color field. -- "Modern art to me is nothing more than the expression of contemporary aims of the age that we"re living in"the modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb in the old forms of the Renaissance or of any other past culture. Each age finds its own technique." - Jackson Pollock

Next came Pop art, which was basically making art of everyday things, like a carton of milk, or a road sign(https://sites.google.com...). It was something that anybody could recognize whenever they saw it. Despite that it wasn't meant to be offensive, the many people actually found it offensive, believing it was making fun of their common lives. They found it hard to believe this kind of art was being made (this was back when copyright images weren't a problem, so people weren't sued for things like this). After pop art came op art, which was the kind of style that hurts your eyes when you look at it too long(https://lmpta.files.wordpress.com...) (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...) (I actually got a migraine while finding pictures as examples...). Optical illusions, basically.

That about leads us to now, which I'm sure has an obvious theme starting: digital art. It's becoming much more common, as you can look around almost anywhere on the internet and see it. At least, that's what I assume.

A thank you to my art app teacher for making these notes for me to copy down over the previous semester.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya