Author Topic: True art  (Read 76612 times)

Zarka

  • Guest
Abstract does not mean meaningless
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2006, 05:06:53 PM »
"Abstract" in the real meaning of the word is to remove from the concrete. It means simply that an abstracted concept or idea is harder to understand, rather than directly connected to physical objects.

For example, Democracy is an abstract concept of governance. To call it abstract is not the same as cutting up the words and throwing them like confetti.

I liked this quiz of all of them, maybe because I love abstract art, and I make abstract sculpture from wood. It isn't abstract because it's meaningless, it's abstract because the meaning has to be teased out of it. Not all viewers understand all pieces of art, but art is a form of communication, and if the artist communicates something to the viewer, it is to that degree successful, even if the thing communicated is just a feeling of pleasureable balance, or a juxtaposition of thoughts the viewer might not have otherwise combined.

Someone Else

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Abstract art a condradiction of words? Rubbish!
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2006, 09:21:47 PM »
Quote from: "Anonymous"
Abstract art is a contradiction of words. If you remove the communication from art you lose the meaning...with no meaning it is pointless. Think of a book...a book is made up of chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words and letters (and some numbers). That is structure. Remove the structure and it loses its meaning. Abstract art is like taking a novel (paint, canvas, brushes and time) and mixing up all the words and telling people to make sense of it. It was purely commercial and it worked. Please don’t make more of it than that.


I agree that art is a form of communication but think you are making some very dubious assertions here. Abstract art can have very well-defined structure, for example Mondrian. Pollock's work has a different type of structure, but it still has a structure. And abstract images can communicate.

 Do you find Hubble telescope images of nebulae deviod of structure, meaningless and pointless? The 'structure' in those images are a manifestions of the underlying the structure of Nature. Does it communicate something to those that feel an incredible awe of the Beauty of Nature when looking at them?

Or do you believe only Nature can create awe inspiring abstracts and the we exist somehow outside of Nature and are unable to sense and communicate that same abstract beauty?
he position of the artist is humble. He is essentially a channel. Piet Mondrian

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Abstract art a condradiction of words? Rubbish!
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2006, 06:11:47 PM »
Quote from: "Someone Else"
Abstract art can have very well-defined structure, for example Mondrian. Pollock's work has a different type of structure, but it still has a structure. And abstract images can communicate.

It does. But almost everyone can produce paintings with this sort of structure. The question arises: why some of these paintings are in museums?

kyle johnson

  • Guest
True art
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2006, 02:18:56 PM »
i was incredible dissapointed in one of the latest articles on RealityCarnival as it asked me which pieces were art and which werent.

I glanced over the pictures and NONE of them really did any true justice as to what art can be. altho all the abstractions ARE art (tho not too detailed in their expression or purpose) I was surprised that it told me what WASNT art and what was!  I recenly finished a art history class and the teacher showed photos of work similar to the art sampled on the page that has black lines and a piece of red and yellow. That isnt art. What the fuck is that saying? What is gained from experiecing it? Nothing, yet i was told it

bhz

  • Guest
100%
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2006, 09:28:10 PM »
I took the test as fast as I was looking at them and it was quite obvious to me which were created quickly - most if not all of the fakes are typical computer doodles, and in the true-art you can also see texture which gives them away easily.

-bhz

Anonymous

  • Guest
True art
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2007, 06:40:17 PM »
Quote from: "Anonymous"
Abstract art is a contradiction of words. If you remove the communication from art you lose the meaning...with no meaning it is pointless. Think of a book...a book is made up of chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words and letters (and some numbers). That is structure. Remove the structure and it loses its meaning. Abstract art is like taking a novel (paint, canvas, brushes and time) and mixing up all the words and telling people to make sense of it. It was purely commercial and it worked. Please don’t make more of it than that.




Art is the products of human creativity.

Anything can be interpreted as art  and since abstract art is my specialty, I just had to disagree


check out my site www.mercurylakeonline.com/bboard


Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
True art
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2007, 07:28:09 PM »
Quote from: "Anonymous"
abstract art is my specialty

Thats good, since a 67% score on the  True art or a fake? quiz arrived from the same IP address as this posting.

eiaboca

  • Guest
True art
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2007, 12:38:25 AM »
I dunno, I thought it kind of easy.  Some of the fakes looked exactly like they were done in MSPaint.  I suppose an artist could work in that way, however.  The known/unknown was much more difficult.  I should have taken it without skipping, though.

Anonymous

  • Guest
True art
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2007, 08:43:51 AM »
All art is abstract, Da vinci, rembrandt, Monet, van gogh, cezanne all are abstract artists.

Now non figurative "art" wich i really call "design" is another matter.
(mondrian, pollock, mallevick, vasarelly)

walksabout

  • Guest
Wonderfully done
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2007, 10:47:38 AM »
But I can't help but feel that the conclusions are conclusive: One of the main conclusions is that the relative high scores of respondents is due to the respondents' prior knowledge of True Art.  An alternate possibility, and one not tested for, is that the fakes are particularly bad, although one comment in the analysis pointed out that the fakes were clearly born-digital.

In addition to the born-digital issue, the subtlety of the use of color was markedly different between the fakes and the non-fakes, although I doubt it was any better than a first-year art or design school students color understanding.

A better test would be to eliminate some of the obvious differences: Perhaps see if the public could distinguish between art created by non-household-name artists and "name-brand" artists.  (Apologies if you've already run such a test!)

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Wonderfully done
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2007, 11:16:50 AM »
Quote from: "walksabout"
One of the main conclusions is that the relative high scores of respondents is due to the respondents' prior knowledge of True Art.  An alternate possibility, and one not tested for, is that the fakes are particularly bad

It was tested. I explicitly wrote: "Although the quiz results are biased in favor of masterpieces, I’ll take them on face value to quantify the difference in quality between the images." And the difference turned out to be very small.

See: Scientific inquiry into modern art .

Quote from: "walksabout"
A better test would be to eliminate some of the obvious differences: Perhaps see if the public could distinguish between art created by non-household-name artists and "name-brand" artists.  (Apologies if you've already run such a test!)

Here it is: Famous or unknown artist?

archi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Hello
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2007, 09:33:41 PM »
I have done a photo canvas from my photo whcih got 65%. I was so happy when got those score. thank you.

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Hello
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2007, 10:38:56 PM »
Quote from: "archi"
I have done a photo canvas from my photo whcih got 65%. I was so happy when got those score. thank you.

Who are you? Josef Albers?

Peter

  • Guest
Re: True art
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2008, 02:35:53 AM »
Quote
I recenly finished a art history class and the teacher showed photos of work similar to the art sampled on the page that has black lines and a piece of red and yellow. That isnt art.

This comment exemplifies a problem I find in the test in general. While your test is quite interesting (I especially like your use of Urban's system to "weight" the answers), your article only points out the (statistically minor, you say) aesthetic disparity between your own art and the masterpieces based on the weakness of your own art.

The problem is that the article implies that truly exceptional art can be distinguished from computer art despite the fact that the masterpieces have been shrunk down, their colors have been reduced to whatever quality one's computer screen allows, and their distance from the observer cannot be adjusted in any practical way. What is lost when a painting becomes a .BMP? Plenty. You're not comparing works of art: you're comparing the digital re-productions of art with other digital productions.

That said, I think your conclusion that the "heavy-weight names attached to the masterpieces" are "[t]he only difference between masterpieces and fakes" is a bit absurd. Your test cannot account for the "only differences between masterpieces and fakes" because your test radically changes those masterpieces.

In addition, I think you vastly overestimate the public's familiarity with modern artists and their works.

If you choose to respond, please e-mail me your response in addition to anything you post here. I'm interested to hear your opinion.

Pete

  • Guest
Re: True art
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2008, 02:40:55 AM »
Sorry about the strikethrough in the last half of my comment. I was trying to supply the missing "s" after "difference" with a parenthetical (s).