LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-25-2003, 04:34 PM   #1
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,414

Rep: Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967
traditional art vs modern art


hurrah a Vs. thread!

This week I went to two art museums in Dublin, firstly the IMMA - Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Irish National Gallery. so on one side we have some broken bits of wood and old shoes, and the other we have 1000 pictures of a rich person with a silly wig and gown on. No contest to me really, wood and shoes win hands down....

Am i missing something or can someone explain why highly detailed and skillful, yet very very boring, pictures of kings are good? To me, painting is a means to capture a scene which was uncapturable in any other way at the time.... i cameras were around then, surely they would have used them? and looked pretty damn similar, just a little bit fatter, and wouldn't have been able to remove that scar below his eye.... would people look at them?

Everyone complains abuot how rubbish modern art is, and i jst see it from the other way round. sure it's easier to physcially create, but there's so much more depth than any great master ever had.

Everyone says "that's easy.. i could do that" well then.. go do it. that's the point. Anyone could learn to paint perfect portraits too... there's just no point!

Off down to london to the Tate Modern and the Saatchi galleries in the next few months. somehow i don't expect to visit the British National Gallery again.... Van Gogh can bite my shiny metal ass!

rah rah rah
 
Old 10-25-2003, 05:29 PM   #2
schatoor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: a tiny place caled hendrik ido ambacht in the netherlands
Distribution: SuSE, debian, slackware, lfs
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
Well, what can I say, every one is a critique.
What I belief art in general should be, is an expression of something abstract. Something that every one immediately sees what it's about, despite it being very comprehensive to just understand like that. It should reflect the emotion and thoughts of the artist.
You are right, good art doesn't need to be very difficult to create in the sense that you would need a very precise hand and eyes to make it. Poets are artists to (at least some are ) but any retard can copy an poetry. It's about coming up with the idea that counts, and that can be very hard.
 
Old 10-25-2003, 05:56 PM   #3
ceedeedoos
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Distribution: Slackware 10.0, Mandrake 10.1
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: 34
Re: traditional art vs modern art

Quote:
Originally posted by acid_kewpie
Everyone says "that's easy.. i could do that" well then.. go do it. that's the point. Anyone could learn to paint perfect portraits too... there's just no point!
couldn't agree anymore ... the times I tried to explain someone that instead of complaining how "easy" modern art is, they should just make some of their own ... uncountable.

the way I see it is that the "masters" of yore were mere photographers(lacking cameras, but their job contained exactly what a photographer does. There's no deeper side to the portrait of whoever painted by grandmaster Rubens), producers of a piece of prestige for those capable of affording it.

and that's why modern art will always have an edge to me at least there it's a creative mind at work, not someone "blindly" (so to speak) copying what he sees.
 
Old 10-25-2003, 08:06 PM   #4
Kurt M. Weber
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 335

Rep: Reputation: 31
See, I view abstract "art" as despicable.

Art is a representation of the artist's view on Life, the Universe, and Everything (even if it's not 42). Abstract "art" is essentially nothing, meaning the artist views life as nothing--as meaningless.

And to hold life to be meaningless is the foulest act of depravity there is.
 
Old 10-25-2003, 08:10 PM   #5
Baldorg
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: GMT (-5)
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 31
I'm very fond of Baroque. It's Classical yet a bit abstract...
 
Old 10-25-2003, 08:40 PM   #6
trickykid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,133

Rep: Reputation: 199Reputation: 199
As I can say I don't understand most art or some art, I am fascinated with most and can appreciate any type of art that someone puts effort into. Art is way for someone to express themselves or at least most.

I'm just kind of mad myself as I use to draw and paint all the time but at times I really just can't find the time or money to do any of that, but hopefully soon as my girlfriend has been pestering me to do more.
 
Old 10-25-2003, 08:49 PM   #7
Kurt M. Weber
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 335

Rep: Reputation: 31
In general, the best art of all media was produced in the Romantic era. From painting to music to literature, so much was created that painted a view of man as fundamentally good, fundamentally powerful, fundamentally ABLE.
 
Old 10-25-2003, 09:08 PM   #8
spurious
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu
Posts: 558

Rep: Reputation: 31
Great thread. acid_kewpie: you may want to check out a book called "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger. Part of his thesis is that art was historically produced as a way of projecting power; churches used art to reinforce the power of religion, and nobility used art as propaganda.

Kurt M. Weber: you should really read "Bluebeard" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a fairly short book. You should bear in mind that modern forms of art such as cubism and abstract expressionism were attempts to break free of perceived creative tyranny that earlier schools of realism had imposed on artists. Artists in general like to break taboos and explore boundaries.

It's ironic, but if you've ever seen early sketches from Picasso, you'll see that he was more than capable of rendering photorealistic art; he helped create cubism precisely because he needed to communicate ideas that weren't possible in other forms.
 
Old 10-26-2003, 03:28 AM   #9
Megamieuwsel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Haarlem , the Netherlands
Distribution: VectorLinux SOHO 5.1
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 35
To me , Art has to fit one single criterium:
Does it provoke an emotion in me?
If it does ; I consider it Art
If it doesn't , it's rubbish.

That said ; My all-time favorites Are Jeroen(Hieronymus) Bosh ,Leonardo da Vinci and Salvador Dali.
 
Old 10-26-2003, 10:44 AM   #10
Kurt M. Weber
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 335

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by spurious
Kurt M. Weber: you should really read "Bluebeard" by Kurt Vonnegut.
Actually, I read it just this summer. The main character's magnum opus was a very non-abstract work.

Incidentally, Armenian names are cool.
 
Old 10-26-2003, 02:47 PM   #11
2k.
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Exeter - UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 45

Rep: Reputation: 15
i was lucky enough to see the Dali exhibition in london last year and it was awsome

i'm hoping to go to the tate modern later this year also. though i do have issues with artists such as Damian Hurst, i would rather see his work than some old paintings of the rich and powerful.
 
Old 10-26-2003, 06:35 PM   #12
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,414

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967Reputation: 1967
well i think dear old damian has put a few too many animals in boxes now....

I have noticed that so many modern artists have the same recurring theme's again and again... damien and his formaldehyde, Rachel Horn seems obsessed with sticking large things to ceilings, Bill viola keeps doing work with people falling into water....

i'm sure other mroe traditional artists had this too, but it can be a thin line between recognisable interpretations of a theme, and trading on a gimmick....

and dali has always kicked ass... he was the first modern artist i got into, but since then i have started leaning more towards even more abstract stuff.
 
Old 10-26-2003, 06:47 PM   #13
2k.
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Exeter - UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 45

Rep: Reputation: 15
even Dali had his melting clocks though.

but yeah Dali did kick arse
 
Old 10-26-2003, 07:01 PM   #14
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
Some of the old masters had amazing technical skill. There was a BBC documentary some months back where they tried to recreate some of the more 'realistic' paintings - the ones which really do look like photos. They found that (and I have a really poor memory, btw) that the artists were using what was, in effect, a very early camera - it had to do with projecting an image onto the canvas and then drawing over the image.

And then, just when I feel like saying "I don't like modern art", I see something like Bridget Heyward(?) some of her stuff is fantastic.

I may not know what I like, but I like art.
 
Old 10-27-2003, 02:12 AM   #15
Megamieuwsel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Haarlem , the Netherlands
Distribution: VectorLinux SOHO 5.1
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 35
A recurring theme is not that bad ; It's when the artist becomes a One-Trick Pony la Giger . the appeal is going to wear thin.

This certainly applies towards the "Old Masters".
I mean ; Masters in what?
In Art?
In Art , the way I see it ?

No.

Most of them , Like Rembrant , Frans Hals , Vermeer were masters of a i]CRAFT/i]
A craft , they were very good at , but a craft nonetheless.
It's the difference between being able expressing emotions and provoking them.

t least ; It is to me.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
aRt had to restart martincho Linux - Software 1 03-28-2005 08:08 PM
FC CD Art pembo13 Fedora 0 11-17-2004 12:15 AM
wallpapers and art monohouse General 21 11-05-2004 10:34 AM
linux art? alaios Linux - General 5 06-03-2003 03:52 PM
circuits as art? acid_kewpie General 1 06-04-2002 11:50 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration