Leonid Afremov
5 posts
|
Nowadays, there are so many artists and honestly many of them can only be "artists" just because they paint or draw only technically. In reality only a few have the talent, creativity, and ability to create real art that many people enjoy. In my opinion splashing paint on canvas or paper, or drawing/painting imaginary "something" that no one else understands and pretending that it is a peace of art is nothing. It does not take any skills or technique and I can tell it right away. I am not blaming or convincing anyone, I am just giving my observation: art is for people with unique talent who can make it lovebale and adorable by others.
Sincerely,
Leonid Afremov
|
|
|
Krista
28 posts
|
Are you meaning to be critical of abstract art?
|
|
|
johnlincoln
17 posts
|
I think art must be more than "loveable and adorable". Picasso's 'Guernica' is a case in point. I don't think he set out to be lovable and adorable but wanted to inspire others to think about the massacre of innocents in the Spanish town when they were bombed into oblivion in 1936. His 'Demoiselles d'Avignon' is hardly lovable or adorable but is responsible for a very significant change in art form in the early part of the twentieth century.
I believe art (though here I think you have restricted your comments to two dimensional painting and drawing) should be able to work on many levels because it is so fundamental to the lives of us all whether we are conscious of it or not.
|
|
|
|
johnlincoln
17 posts
|
A further comment on this topic. I am one of those people who believes that everyone is capable of being creative. Artists, however, are those of us who make a conscious decision to engage in the production of images and 3D forms to engage with the world and the people in it. Some are able to do this with considerable facility and invoke feelings of wonder and admiration at their ability to connect with us. Others, and I am one, struggle with limited ability and talent to achieve the occasional image that works and inspires a response (I think that is one of the joys of this web site). However I and many millions of others will not give up the challenge to make something that attracts comment and understanding whether or not what we produce is lovable or adorable.
|
|
|
|
Leonid Afremov
5 posts
|
I am surely not being critical of abstract art, I think that art can take many various forms and those who perfect their skills and techniques usually secure the hearts of the audience. In my opinion, it is very important to create art not only for yourself but for others, by which I mean making something sharable, understandable, attractive, and unique. And it does not matter what you do: paint, draw, sculps, etc. it is important to gice yourself away and do the best you can. This way real art is being born...
|
|
|
ironpinecones
34 posts
|
why should art be for everyone?
what gives you the impression that your work is more signifigant than say pollock or marcel dzama?
are you aware that there are far less people doing the very things you are knocking than there are people that are painting like you? where does that put your creativity and uniqueness? what are you bringing to the table that others are not?
and art being lovable and adorable. jesus man! that's crazy talk.
since you paint landscapes, here are some artist that have broken boundaries in this area
claire sherman, peter doig, dan attoe, anna conway
gah! nevermind. why did you even post this?
|
|
|
Will
21 posts
|
Why should anyone have to create for others' appreciation? Why can't someone paint or whatever just for themself? If you start expecting people to create what other people will enjoy then you're heading for the lowest common denominator which, in my opinion, is probably the opposite of 'Art'.
|
|
|
|
Leonid Afremov
5 posts
|
Interesting thoughts, thanks guys. I am not in any case saying that my work is more significant than someone else's (ironpinecones reply:)) I am saying what I think and I a right to do that. This is what the discussions are for. But still I think that creating art for yourself is not of a great value(not commercial value, value is general). It is when others start to talk about someone's art when it becomes "Art with a capital letter "A"". There are many talented people out there and without recognition they can shrink, but when others begin to pick up the art and spread the word the artist gets more recognition, inspiration, and will to create more and better.
Thanks for the posts guys. I really appreciate all of the comments and criticism:) Leonid.
|
|
|
|
Krista
28 posts
|
It's rare that the most talented artist is talked about the most. This seems to be true of any discipline. Does any of us think Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears to be the most talented? I'm with you Will, the only way to be truly happy is to please ourselves, the rest just falls into place.
|
|
|
|
Leonid Afremov
5 posts
|
I partially agree with you Krista, it is important to create happines for ourselves. This is actually the only way to success for it provides motivation and will to create. But as soon as others recognize you, it gives you even more enjoyment and pleasure. So, I'd say it a connected circle, one way leads to another. Amazing:)
|
|
|
leylamurr
3 posts
|
This is an endless discussion. I would just like to say that it is important that art is created in a free and creative environment be it physical or psychological. Any barriers put upon artists are stifling including those to please others. I see creativity as a call to which I have to
reply. It is up to the others to respond. Viewer is as much a part of art as the creator. It matters WHO is looking as much as who has painted a picture.
|
|
|
Fanny Osteen
2 posts
|
Whoa, I hope some new creative soul doesn't get discouraged when reading this. I agree with Will. Hee hee... Well when you put your stuff out there to be judged, it will be so. I love the critics, makes me just boil over with creative gooo inside. I love the folks who think they are better because of what ever reason they give themselves... Be carefull by what measure you Judge, that is a gutsy move.
|
|
|
|
Fanny Osteen
2 posts
|
P.S. I have to add real quick..... Side Walk..... I do still like having my ass kissed sometimes:)
|
|
|
adam mazzarella
8 posts
|
im a person who likes to look at art as well as create art, just like all of you. now if i create art and i like the look of it then surely there are people out there who would also like it. if i were to create for others then perhaps more people would like it, but would I? i couldnt call my work ART if it wasn't created for me.
|
|
|
mgn
1 post
|
to me art is to discover the personal and social terms and not-terms of freedom, love etc...and i am interessted in everyons solutions. artworks are lifeextensions...good, useful for joy or understanding or the opposite, that have to know the artist first and then the watcher too, if may and want :)
all on the way
|
|
|
sev
59 posts
|
I paint because I must and what i paint is done becaus i must and if people like it then WOW thats amazing , if people dont , but I did it well then im proud of myself . The process of painting and achievement is what i live for and a burning need to simply do it. Of course making money would also be nice but i have a thick skin for criticism and im always willing to learn . Life is fun.
|
|
|
Artisan
71 posts
|
This debate of "Art or Not" is a classic. From Jackson Pollock to the guy who gold leafed dog poo...what does the answer mean really? I think the question lingers in insecure beings who desparately need to have their suspiscions confirmed. "I am a true Artist". "I have joined the ranks of the Masters". Only time, long after we're gone will actual determine that...and at that point we won't care anyway. Like Sev, I create paintings because I have to. I create paintings to articulate my experience, to work through an issue, to be honest within myself. My paintings are "my" truths. If someone understands and relates to them, I'm thrilled beyond words and usually feel a little exposed (the naked in the middle of Times Square nightmare:). And when they don't, they usually reveal their own inner workings through their unique interpretations which is wonderful too. Likewise, I may not understand or relate to every work of art I see, but I can appreciate that it may have come from that artist's reality and so deserves my consideration.
|
|
|
|
adam mazzarella
8 posts
|
at the end of the day, what leonid is saying is that it pays to be fake, and to follow the crowd, which i think is exactly what art is not.
|
My Cart
(0)
|
Sign In
|
Sign Up
|
Adult content filter: ON (turn off)
18 posts, 11 voices