I Know that there are very many people out there who really don't like this type of art. Although I wouldn't call it my favorite, I think there is some merit to it. Part of what makes art, well, art I guess, is that whatever it is makes people feel something, some strong emotion. And if the so-called art does this for enough people that it becomes well-known, I think that's enough for it to count as "real" art. Of course being well-known or not doesn't really matter for something to be art, it only matters if the artist desires recognition, right? Well, anyway, I like these paintings because they are visual representations of the way I sometimes feel inside, emotionally, psychologically, just the way I feel as a piece of matter walking around. All frazzled and crazy. Not necessarily bad or not beautiful, but definitely hectic and hard to follow. A little misunderstood.
Even though this is, actually and truly, just a bunch a splatters of paint, there's something to it. I think. I like the black spots. They are like concentrations of anger for me, or anxiety, which are still all compacted while the rest of the soul of the painting is trying to break free. Maybe calm people hate these paintings because they don't ever feel this way and don't understand. And maybe anxious people hate them because it reminds them too much of themselves. Who knows? But I like them. We owe this random post to the inspirational paintings by Jackson Pollock.
3 comments:
I have just recently realized something I could use as ammo in anti-modern art arguments. That is, that "art" means "artificial". Ie it is something deliberately done, not an accident, not something formed by nature or by accident and artfully presented. A work of art is a work of artifice. Which a lot of modern "art" is NOT.
I think those pixx are OK. They'd look good as ringbinder covers or something like that.
You sure if you don't stare at 'em long enough some magic mushroom type thing doesn't spring out at ya..?
Autostereogrammes, weren't they called %-0
I have never been a big fan of this type of art. It just doesn't do much for me. Sometimes, it strikes me as pretty or harmonious with the decor but I don't see the talent in producing it. And so I don't see it as valuable.
If you subscribe to the thought that art should make you feel something and this stuff works for you, ok but to me real art has to communicate. It might communicate feeling but it can also convey more complex things - or document a place or time or be full of symbols.
Gledwood- I hear what you're saying, for sure. That's a good point. I agree that these are only okay. You're right that they'd be good for something like book covers for school. I don't what happens if you stare at em long enough though......
Jeannie - I totally hear you guys. I knew when I posted them that a lot of people wouldn't be fans. It's an interesting subject though? It definitely gets people thinking about what art is to them.
Post a Comment