First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Is this art?
660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 8/19/13 , edited 8/19/13
I don't think there's any boundaries in art, if you think it's art it may as well be a piece of art. If I had poured 20+ min into that paint scribble, I guess I could upload it to deviantart and say how I visioned a deep meaning in rain drops hitting the surface of a puddle, and how deep would that be. People might actually pay for that stuff
40416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 8/19/13 , edited 8/19/13

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


How would you value the subjective?
What's the most you would pay and why so much / why not more?


Also, forgot to ask, is this piece titled? Because, if the title is along the lines of "circles with parts filled in with ms paint" I'm going to go ahead and make a guess that it was meant more as practice with ms paint than as art (although it could still be art as I've defined it).


I call it "circles".


Clever. Right up there with "untitled."

I thought about what I would name it had I been the one to come up with it, and "Rationality" came to mind. The basic structures are clear and easy to construct -- circles, filling in spaces, black and white -- everything is very clear and understandable at the outset, much like logic (you insert values for the variables and the result comes out "true or false" or "black or white") However, also much like logic, it can lead you to something that is nearly incomprehensible or otherwise difficult to understand. Everything is either black and white, but unless you look at each individual piece, it's difficult to know at once what is white and what is black. It fits what I see in that image.

A name is incredibly important with this type of work, as without any sort of background, you don't really know where to go with your mind. A name can ignite the imagination, but I'm afraid "circles" doesn't quite have that sort of an effect on me, which sort of makes it "unartful" to me. A good name is a big part of how "artful" or valuable we deem the more abstract type stuff, as it acts as sort of a peek at what the artist was thinking, which was "circles" in this case. I'm not really sure I find circles all that interesting.
12687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 8/19/13

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


tf2pyros wrote:
...Microsoft Paint, (if you made this in that program, maximum offense!)


I like ms paint. It's such a challenge.


Did you really make that? I feel bad now .
21215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/19/13 , edited 8/19/13


I like circles, they represent the unending and intertwining lives of people's interactions with each other.
The black and white irregular shapes shows a clear contrast of random elements that fit together perfectly to make up a person's life as they go about their daily routine.


Don't worry about it, it took me like a minute.
7131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/19/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

Looks more like an optical illusion to me.


Art is like music and poetry, some people get it and some don't.


A lot of people say a 5 years old can make the same art that professional artists make, this like saying beating two pans together can make music.



The five year old banging two pans together can make music. But the five year old has no idea what he's doing, most of the time. Professional artists, and by this I mean a creator of art through any medium, have conscious knowledge of what they're doing. Ultimately, thats the only difference between the child and an artist who makes apparently chaotic or simplistic works.
40416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 8/19/13 , edited 8/19/13

Sir_jamesalot wrote:



I like circles, they represent the unending and intertwining lives of people's interactions with each other.
The black and white irregular shapes shows a clear contrast of random elements that fit together perfectly to make up a person's life as they go about their daily routine.


Fair enough -- there is such a thing as art that only the artist understands. If it caused you to play around with ideas a bit and work through a conclusion, then I'm satisfied. For me though, the question itself seems a bit more artful than the picture (more than a bit, to be honest). You're more of an "artist of forum threads" I guess.
27813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 8/19/13
It just gives me a headache.
19723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / A winter wonderland
Offline
Posted 8/19/13
Yes, I'd say it's art. There are many different kinds and interpretations of art.

However, I wouldn't pay a dime for this. It's too plain, and I'm not into abstract pieces.
7835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 8/19/13
I would pay 50 cents for this........and expect it to be a decoration on a bag of Cheap Corner store Candy .......not even name brand some kind of knock off like "Bittles or R&R's"
4825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
USA
Offline
Posted 8/19/13 , edited 8/19/13
Yes I consider it art, but I wouldn't pay a lot of money for it. In fact, I don't want that drawing. It's too vague.
50343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/20/13

Atheyon wrote:
The five year old banging two pans together can make music. But the five year old has no idea what he's doing, most of the time. Professional artists, and by this I mean a creator of art through any medium, have conscious knowledge of what they're doing. Ultimately, thats the only difference between the child and an artist who makes apparently chaotic or simplistic works.


In my opinion, even chaotic works from a professional would involve some sort of rule and technique. Those are other differences.
Even a chaotic musical score needs a rhythm (rule) and even free verse poetry needs a technique and rhythm.
23133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Offline
Posted 8/20/13 , edited 8/20/13
Yeah probably, no I wouldn't pay a dime

In music, I know the modern art is to play as obscure as possible, add dissonance everywhere, fill with time signature changes that make no sense. Kills the feels, so I no longer consider it art.

I blame Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, gave modern musicians bad ideas like, super complex and obscure means good...

Stravinsky did it right though, great piece


GayAsianBoy wrote:


Atheyon wrote:
The five year old banging two pans together can make music. But the five year old has no idea what he's doing, most of the time. Professional artists, and by this I mean a creator of art through any medium, have conscious knowledge of what they're doing. Ultimately, thats the only difference between the child and an artist who makes apparently chaotic or simplistic works.


In my opinion, even chaotic works from a professional would involve some sort of rule and technique. Those are other differences.
Even a chaotic musical score needs a rhythm (rule) and even free verse poetry needs a technique and rhythm.


The problem is they overrule it, they use all their knowledge they learned in years of university and experience into one piece. Thing is it might appear chaotic but its super technical, actually over technical.
If they just toned it down, it might be amazing to everyone rather than those that just studied it.

Artist will never tone down their art though, they're too arrogant or elitist
50343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/20/13

pandrasb wrote:

The problem is they overrule it, they use all their knowledge they learned in years of university and experience into one piece. Thing is it might appear chaotic but its super technical, actually over technical.
If they just toned it down, it might be amazing to everyone rather than those that just studied it.

Artist will never tone down their art thoug
h, they're too arrogant or elitist


That part is true...
The second part is somewhat true... but I don't think it applies to all artists. Maybe some of them just want to be themselves, and if that involves overusing a particular technique......
33268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Kentucky
Offline
Posted 8/20/13
Art is subjective. I wouldn't pay anything for that cause when I look at it... All I see is a bunch of circles and some shaded areas. Must not be able to see what the artist saw while drawing it... If they even saw anything.
23133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Offline
Posted 8/20/13 , edited 8/20/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


pandrasb wrote:

The problem is they overrule it, they use all their knowledge they learned in years of university and experience into one piece. Thing is it might appear chaotic but its super technical, actually over technical.
If they just toned it down, it might be amazing to everyone rather than those that just studied it.

Artist will never tone down their art though
, they're too arrogant or elitist


That part is true...
The second part is somewhat true... but I don't think it applies to all artists. Maybe some of them just want to be themselves, and if that involves overusing a particular technique......


Artist really want to prove to the world that they are amazing, it's not just about being true to themselves. They study to be famous and known for their talents and ability in art.

It's probably not overusing a technique, but using many or all techniques in a big mesh. It is amazing, but difficult to understand for others.
Art for artist.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.