Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10 - mrswagly (08/17/2013) [-]
People who call themselves artists when all they do is abstract work with just meaningless shapes that you cannot make anything out at all from. Honestly I think the artists that made art like that in past were idiots too. Pic related, it's ******** .
User avatar #131 to #10 - boydaranga **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
abstracts arent about trying to make people think and arent made to be deep and inspiring.
It's all about techniques and using what tools you have cleverly to create a beautiful piece of work.


It's the same as making music without lyrics, or a form of dance, or an arcade game etc etc etc.
#53 to #10 - agenttwox (08/17/2013) [-]
Its not about the image. its about the motion. Its about making it. See what the artist did to it to put it in that form. as simple as that looks, it really isn't all that easy. but you know what they say. beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
#37 to #10 - thecommittee (08/17/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, but that picture is actually awesome.
#166 to #37 - wtfduud (08/17/2013) [-]
The problem is that anyone could have made that. Despite how pretty it looks, it's just random colors splashed across a painting.
#213 to #166 - wtfduud (08/18/2013) [-]
That is true, but if you've ever tried painting random colors in a random pattern on paper and then drenching it in water before the paint is dry, it will look similar to the picture in question.
#211 to #166 - thecommittee (08/18/2013) [-]
Not really. The colors flow well and the shapes create an illusion of motion. Sure anyone could just splash some colors on a canvas, but it wont have the same intent as this particular picture; It would probably look like a Jackson Pollock, aka Jack the dripper.
#214 to #211 - wtfduud (08/18/2013) [-]
The reply to my own comment was supposed to be a reply to you.
User avatar #65 to #37 - urfunnyman (08/17/2013) [-]
looks like something that a typical white american family that live in a suburbs would have on their wall in the living room
#69 to #65 - thecommittee (08/17/2013) [-]
I think I just have painting of cabbages in my house, so there is no real perspective on my part. Also, just because it fulfills a certain cliche, that dose not mean I cant think that it looks flipping awesome.
User avatar #71 to #69 - urfunnyman (08/17/2013) [-]
Agreed and when i was saying what i said in the comment before i forgot to put "a typical 1970's white american family in the suburbs" (as a joke) but ya i'd hang it in my apartment for alittle flare in the room
User avatar #188 to #71 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
Don't know why your above comment got thumbed down - i'll thumb it to level the playing field ^_^

i guess that's the problem with having a serious conversation, on a joke oriented site. It's like the how sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet XD

User avatar #219 to #188 - crazycatzlady (08/19/2013) [-]
Exccccuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssseeee MEEEEEE !!! Hi, sarcasm on the internet or any written form relies on special punctuation and liberal use of capitals and astrisk * and so on. Such as speaking in dialect, thus : Hi ya'll, 'ows it 'angin' ..... (or) if you want to say sarcastically that your friend just did something outrageous, you put: "O NO U DIN'T" ore to say Congrats sarcastically would be "conGRATz" with the capitals serving as emphasis markers. Thus, "I am SOOOO glad it was you that won" or "yeah, you're the WIENER" instead of Winner, also works well for sarcasm expresion. I'm REALLY glad you got me involved in this question, lol. Now fak off. * kiss indicating joke, also works.
User avatar #199 to #188 - urfunnyman (08/18/2013) [-]
well ya when you read a text you can't tell if its sarcasm or not
#11 to #10 - fulltimepoptimist (08/17/2013) [-]
i'm sorry that anything with anything not completely straight-forward bothers you.
maybe one day you'll have some depth.
#24 to #11 - reginleif (08/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
found the art major.
#17 to #11 - sketchysketchist (08/17/2013) [-]
**sketchysketchist rolled a random image posted in comment #5476558 at Bronysexuals **    
I think the majority of artists agree that abstract art is just an excuse to tell people that they don't like it because they don't get it which is total bullcrap.   
Art doesn't have to be straight forward, but it can still show that the artist is a competent artist.   
Look at surrealism. You know what you're looking at because of all the detail, but you don't know what it all means and why the artist drew this which actually makes you think even though it's not meant to make sense.    
While abstract art is just some random pattern that is the equivalent of children's finger painting yet we're told it should sell.
**sketchysketchist rolled a random image posted in comment #5476558 at Bronysexuals **
I think the majority of artists agree that abstract art is just an excuse to tell people that they don't like it because they don't get it which is total bullcrap.
Art doesn't have to be straight forward, but it can still show that the artist is a competent artist.
Look at surrealism. You know what you're looking at because of all the detail, but you don't know what it all means and why the artist drew this which actually makes you think even though it's not meant to make sense.
While abstract art is just some random pattern that is the equivalent of children's finger painting yet we're told it should sell.
#21 to #17 - fulltimepoptimist (08/17/2013) [-]
Why does art have to be difficult? What makes a competent artist?
User avatar #75 to #21 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
thats the thing - art doesn't have to be difficult - that's where abstract art came from.
But then again, that doesn't necessarily mean making art is also easy, art should be idea driven IMO.

I mean look at Picasso; he could very easily produces realistic pieces, and he did. But what made him known were his dysfunctional and childlike portraits because they were a response to the strict art culture of the time. He had a more liberal idea of art which wasn't the same as the one he was surrounded by.

Really it depends on how you define art - which is purely subjective, hence beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's basically an umbrella term with other things below it which people never bother with...

Generally people accept art, loosely, as being a form of expression; music, writing, even speeches can be artful. High art is different.

And at this point, its just about what you like or dislike. If a person doesn't like it (i as an fine art student personally don't) that doesn't inherently mean it's not art. But i'd suggest that that's something for the artistic community to decide - not someone who is writing off a whole field of study on the basis of what they like or dislike of one specific part (prejudice).
#29 to #21 - alexthecanadian ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
Abstract art is not art. It is a canvas to clean your brush on after painting a TRUE work of art (ie. Mona Lisa).
#137 to #29 - creepycreeper (08/17/2013) [-]
*OPINION ALERT* I don't get what the big deal about Mona Lisa is. For me to call it a masterpiece feels like the time I called this one kid a admin just because the big kids told me to and I thought it would make me cool. It's a nice painting and all, but I keep getting bothered by the weird 'Male Pattern Baldness' she has going on.
User avatar #77 to #29 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
So is that to say you only appreciate the classical sense of art? an archaic realism that was meant only as a means of earning money through commision? is that only real art? that's a very narrow idea of art you have their...

What about Francis Bacon, Matisse, the surrealist movement, the dada movement, impressionism, the performance art movement? what about plays, novels, fashion, movies, videogames, speeches? are they not art as well?
User avatar #212 to #77 - alexthecanadian ONLINE (08/18/2013) [-]
That is not the only form of art. I just used it as an example. The amount of detail and precision in this piece is magnificent, and requires talent. Where as Abstract art requires a working arm, an open paint can, and a canvas. (Throw the paint onto a canvas, and there you have Abstract art...).
User avatar #217 to #212 - mornanddusk (08/18/2013) [-]
Okay - i understand where you're coming from now (it just seemed one sided from that post alone)
User avatar #215 to #212 - mornanddusk (08/18/2013) [-]
I was always taught (i'm an art student) that a 'good' work of art should be idea driven, and that the appearance the piece takes will always become a sheer matter of opinion.

so the way i see abstract art is: if the idea behind it is solid and good - then that qualifies the piece as good. If it's just been made out of laziness (without a solid idea), then it's just lazy art, and by extension 'bad'.
User avatar #216 to #215 - mornanddusk (08/18/2013) [-]
(obviously the appearance of the piece should correlate with the idea as well - otherwise it's just nonsensical)
#134 to #77 - eivomt (08/17/2013) [-]
allthough your point is somewhat valid you come off just as ignorant yourself. While you are right, there is alot of fine art to be found in impressionism, expressionism, cubism etc. you should probably reconsider your view on what you call classical art. You call it "an archaic realism that was meant only as a means of earning money through commision" that seems somewhat ironic to me, considering you´re writing it as a reply to a picture of the Mona Lisa. You see, the Mona Lisa never sold, Da Vinci carried it with him wherever he went for reasons unknown though multiple theories exist. While we are on the subject of Da Vinci, you do ofcourse know that he probably is the most intelligent man ever to walk the earth. His contribution to subjects reaching from art to medicine and millitary engineering was about 400 years ahead of his own time? Or maybe you would rather talk about Michelangelo who did the sistine chapel for free? Or maybe we should travel further back in history to the dark ages when artists consistently challenged the strict policy on depictions of biblical figures? maybe the hellenistic era? perhaps the egyptian social perspective?

tldr
show some goddamn respect for the classical masters aswell
User avatar #187 to #134 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
i'm sorry i came off as ignorant myself - that was most definitely not my intention - i got the wrong impression of you from the way you expressed your opinion.

- i was actually just referring to the general (main) commercial purpose of art at the time, to record and as a luxury, in order to address a view that some people have about art being useless. I do know and appreciate that art has many various different purposes. what struck me as somewhat ignorant about your post was the way in which you neglect abstract art all together, nothing else (i did not mean it as a personal stab either). But considering now that you've explained you realise the other purposes of art i think that's been cleared up ^_^

I think you'll find where actually on the same page here, considering my main point was about how multi-faceted art is and how these are prevalent in our everyday lives. Wouldn't you agree?

btw I do know of the individual cases like those you have mentioned and i;m actually a big fan of Michelangelo, da Vinci, Raphael and the like.
User avatar #78 to #77 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
there* >.<
User avatar #27 to #21 - sketchysketchist (08/17/2013) [-]
No one said it had to be difficult.
It needs to require a great amount of creativity and it has to be genuine.
An artist shouldn't have just stab a canvas and tell people it means something.
Art is like a joke, if you have to explain it then there's no joke/art.
It requires you to put your feelings onto a canvas and making it so that anyone who looks at it knows where you're coming from even though they don't get it.
Yes, this can be depicted with splattered paint, but you're not really trying if you've turned in hundreds of canvases of angry splattered paint and called it art. That my good sir is just you ruining hundreds of good canvases.
Also, being an artist requires a great amount of skill.
You need to be able to depict what you've imagined perfectly even if it means you've got to start from scratch hundreds of times. Because one tiny mistake can ruin everything. You accept your limitations and draw what your body and mind allows you to. You take what you've been given and make the best out of it.
What makes a competent artist is being able to show the world how you feel knowing that not everyone will "get" what you're trying to say and know that you will get hurt and have to try harder more often than not, but don't mind because you know you'll someday have a group of people who understand you and know what you're trying to say. Instead of lowering your standards and demanding everyone accept what you've made, putting in little to no effort into your work, and simply doing it because others did it makes you an incompetent artist.
To make it simple, a competent artist is a person with a story to tell who tells their story in hopes of reaching out to others for some reason. Whether it be to let people they too have been hurt, mad, confused, or even show the beauty that most forget exists without directly telling them so.
It's pretty complicated.
User avatar #80 to #27 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
isn't that where the distinction between lazy art and genuinely meaningful art comes in....


artwork being crap doesn't relegate it as art. it's just crap art.

It think what's happened here is a confusion between saying something is 'art' as a compliment, and saying it is 'art' in terms of artistic relevancy wouldn't you say?
User avatar #81 to #80 - mornanddusk (08/17/2013) [-]
i mean like, Warhol's intention with his art, was to to be as a lazy as possible (also mirroring pop culture)- that was precisely what he wanted - yet people still say he's a **** artist even though he's accomplished what he wanted in the way he wanted.

Not that i like his stuff, but its still art.
#70 to #27 - thecommittee (08/17/2013) [-]
Don't be hating on jack the dripper.
 Friends (0)