perception by some about the erotic nature of Gauguin’s work. So now it’s about language again. — Brett
So in some way I feel that we have to look at art as anthropology — Brett
I mean all of the above. They all have very little to do with artistic creativity. You can have a great technique and still be a lousy artist. Anyone can choose an interesting subject, and a great artist can keep the general style of his predecessors while surpassing them.What do you mean by genre? Do you mean it in terms of subject, or technique, or style? — Brett
Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. — Congau
great artist can keep the general style of his predecessors while surpassing them.
There’s nothing good in itself about new art movements. One genre can never be exhausted anyway and if all artists had continued to explore the classical styles and subjects beyond the 19th century, mankind would now have possessed an even greater treasure of classical art. — Congau
I'm not aware if all this was done deliberately or unknowingly but I bet no artist in his time was ever fully aware that they were being influenced by the anthropoligical factors then active; they were probably just reacting to such influences and were not in full command of their artistic drive. — TheMadFool
So humanity is constrained by consciousness. How odd then that that is what art has always looked at - for all of cultures, and for all of time?
I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials. — Brett
I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.
I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money. — praxis
We have art superstars like Anish kapoor producing soulless works on a gigantic scale to impress. — Punshhh
Meanwhile while all this is going on in the mainstream, thousands of artists like me work in more traditional ways, in the shadows, ignored by the mainstream and widely considered by the establishment as not producing Art, — Punshhh
I don't know the answers to these questions and perhaps it's not for me to answer, as I feel I am fading into art as it was in the past.What exactly are we expecting from art? Anish Kapoor produces his big pieces, or should I say directs the construction of his big pieces, that are really about spectacle and interaction on a larger than life scale. What should we expect from him?
Not that, its rather a sense of sadness that it has come to this. Not that artists like me are fading into souvenir producers, or something like that. You know, like those Red Indian shows that tourists are taken to to give them a taste of what America was like before the white man. But rather what has happened to the art establishment.You seem to feel that he has nothing to do with art, that art is what you and others do, and that groups like communication and media giants should stay away. Because of what? Is their influence any different than the Pope over Michelangelo?
Perhaps we should rescue it from the clutches of exploitation, an exploitation which devalues art aesthetically.What is it exactly that we expect from art?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.