Can Fine Art truly be defined?
whacko
raises questions about what fine art really is.
I was trained for illustration, that much is true.
But I feel that there is a fine art to it.
Some of the work was inpired by themes from literature,
and some of them we're just inspired.
I don't feel that they should be demoralized, just
because there is a more linear approach to them.
I consider myself a modern artist. This is the kind of
work I feel is relavant to our time period, in a time of
commercialism.
I don't think fine art can really be defined.
It always changes, and is never the same.
It evolves, and is dictated by the moment, or by a
feeling."
Michael D. (the Whacko)
http://freakinout3.tripod.com
Dave
keith o'connor
last supper (Leonardo) is considered by many as the height of classical
style - but the classical style is defined by the presence of compositional
structures usually associated with subdivision of space into the ideal, as
well as the use of planes to create recession, and including form lighting
for form clarity.
The pre-classical style would not consider compositional unity as a major
factor.
Rembrandt's night watch is baroque in that light and shadow have been
included as design elements and are no longer forced to define form.
Classical is therefore a tactile art and Baroque is a visual art.
expressionism is basically a baroque classical variation. Some
expressionists broke with traditional compositional theory in favour of
experimenting with outdoor virtual space concepts.
Your work has a linear style component (there are other style components
that will work in conjunction with linear) but to make it fine art you must
add unity of composition as a major component and that will require
theoretical study.
But a work does not have to be fine art to be considered art. Many modern
painters have experimented with creating a work of art void of composition.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"whacko" <mdor...@att.net> wrote in message
news:6XMVb.4748$fV5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Thur
> painters have experimented with creating a work of art void of
composition.
>
such an experiment produces?
Those being it is a work of art, and it is not a work of art.
Both being possible, and neither being certain.
Thur
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:yW7Wb.15778$Ovt....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
walnut earl
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
OK let's play a game.
Count the number of strange statements in this manifesto.
>Your linear approach is usually associated with the classical style - the
1. "classical style" WTF?
>last supper (Leonardo) is considered by many as the height of classical
>style - but the classical style is defined by the presence of compositional
2. The School of Athens is a pretty slick Renaissance painting, not
to dis Leonardo, but Raphael gets big props too.
>structures usually associated with subdivision of space into the ideal, as
>well as the use of planes to create recession, and including form lighting
>for form clarity.
3. OK. does that make any real sense? I thought not.
>
>The pre-classical style would not consider compositional unity as a major
>factor.
4. Which pre-classical style? Since the writer is calling the high
renaissance "classical", then we can assume that artists like Carlo
Crivelli just slapped their pictures together without pictorial unity.
>
>Rembrandt's night watch is baroque in that light and shadow have been
>included as design elements and are no longer forced to define form.
5. Wow. Value had been cruelly forced to define forms? Thank goodness
it was liberated so that it could live freely as a design element.
Yeah, right on. .
>
>Classical is therefore a tactile art and Baroque is a visual art.
6. Now hold it right there. I tried to get tactile with a Renaissance
piece once but was cruelly escorted away by a guard at the Met.
>expressionism is basically a baroque classical variation. Some
VII. Nope, it's a friggin' lunch meat. Expressionism, "a baroque
classical variation" ? These words do not mean what you think they
mean..
>expressionists broke with traditional compositional theory in favour of
>experimenting with outdoor virtual space concepts.
OK. I quit. I'm not up for any more. The task too great...
keith o'connor
don't give up.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"walnut earl" <walnut@oil> wrote in message
news:c7di201k9djtajmmt...@4ax.com...
whacko
I think what is in question, is whether the style I chose,
can be legitimatly fine.
It can be considered, unsophisticated.
Being cartoony, as it is.
I think, the day I am published for being a comic artist,
or a children's book illustrator, is the day I lose the
feeling that I have about myself being a fine artist.
Or maybe not.
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:yW7Wb.15778$Ovt....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Flobby Bischer
keith o'connor
others make you believe you are. The choice is yours.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"whacko" <mdor...@att.net> wrote in message
news:xhqWb.16683$fV5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John Ng
> raises questions about what fine art really is.
The definition of art is not set in concrete but it is not hard to
define... definitively. A very simple question, "What is yellow?" or
{pink"). You know it but it is hard to describe. There are many
shades and accents of yellow but you know it is yellow... people
around you agree it is yellow. You don't need no art critic to tell
you that it is yellow, or worst still, tell you that pink is yellow.
Art is about shape and form. To be art, there must be an agreement as
to what is being drawn. There must be agreement that the image drawn
is a suitable representation of the real thing. This is just the base
definition.
Then on top of that, you add, "Is it feelings sufficiently conveyed",
"Is it beautiful", "Is it original", "Is the idea landmark" etc.
What I am most appalled is that the cream you add on top of the
definition of art becomes the only thing of importance to myopic art
critics. It is as if the cream on top of the cake is the cake and the
only thing that matters!!!
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Dilettante
No, doggy, no! No potty in the house!
Dilettante
Thur
> To be art, there must be an agreement as
> to what is being drawn.
Yes, but in practice, there seems to be some "art"
that is deliberately obscure. It seems to find it's way
into museums and galleries under the title of Modern
or Contemporary art.
> Then on top of that, you add, "Is it feelings sufficiently conveyed",
> "Is it beautiful", "Is it original", "Is the idea landmark" etc.
Then there is art that tries to tell a story.
Some of the British work in the 18/19th
centuries tried to tell social tales and moral
tales. e.g. Hogarth "The Rake's Progress"
and "The Election".
Finally, "art" encompasses too much. Make it Visual
Art at least.
It's a minefield.
Thur
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.04021...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor
dollar or prestige value assigned to a work. This means professional
objectivity.
It also means everything of a graphic nature is assigned to the category
art. There are no exceptions - mani produces art and so does dan fox. The
difference is style that's it.
--
take care: Keith
The language of art is not a scientifically accurate language. The language
of art is based upon the application of tendencies and as such creates more
variety of interpretation between people than absolute agreement between
people.
Keith O'Connor
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:FIMWb.4212$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
John Ng
> > to what is being drawn.
> Yes, but in practice, there seems to be some "art"
> that is deliberately obscure. It seems to find it's way
> into museums and galleries under the title of Modern
> or Contemporary art.
Precisely! That is why these so-called art is not art at all. They
are decorations.
> Then there is art that tries to tell a story.
> Some of the British work in the 18/19th
> centuries tried to tell social tales and moral
> tales. e.g. Hogarth "The Rake's Progress"
> and "The Election".
I did not excluded narrative from being considered art if it is done
within the confines of my definition
John Ng
> > Art is about shape and form.
> Ignoring colour and texture?
I left out "colour and texture" for a reason. I feel that they are
somewhat secondary because if they are included, my definition would
have to exclude pencil drawings from being art.
keith o'connor
simultaneous contrast. Black and white produce simultaneous contrasts so I
consider black and white as colour equivalents. This allows me to include
historical comments on colour qualities in black ink engravings.
This also allows for colour to texture and texture to colour transpositions
to occur in my evaluation system.
The problem is similar to the general theory of relativity. Can you
construct a general theory of art which includes all human constructions
from the beginning of human activity time until now.
My answer is yes it can be done but, it cannot be done if you start with
exclusions. Once you enter the world of exclusions then your theory has a
religious basis - religion has all the answers - science is always looking
for the illusive answers - art knows that everything is relative and nothing
is absolute.
--
take care: Keith
The language of art is not a scientifically accurate language. The language
of art is based upon the application of tendencies and as such creates more
variety of interpretation between people than absolute agreement between
people.
Keith O'Connor
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.04021...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
> dollar or prestige value assigned to a work. This means professional
> objectivity.
That is not a problem. My definition is precisely to exclude things
of "dollar or prestige" value from being termed art. Rich insipid
businessmen may pay a lot of money for something which, because of
their hype, will keep its value. But this does not mean it is art.
It is much like Michael Jackson's History Tour glove. It cost a lot
but it is not art. Likewise with Picasso's Guernica. It cost a lot
but it is not art.
> It also means everything of a graphic nature is assigned to the category
> art. There are no exceptions - mani produces art and so does dan fox. The
> difference is style that's it.
Semblance is only the base for something to be even considered worthy
to be called art. Suitability is the key. Just because you mesh
butter and flour together and stick it in a oven doesn't mean it is
worthy of being call a cake. There are borderline cases where yellow
becomes too much of an orange to call yellow.
John Ng
> exclusions. Once you enter the world of exclusions then your theory has a
> religious basis - religion has all the answers - science is always looking
> for the illusive answers - art knows that everything is relative and nothing
> is absolute.
In short, are you suggesting that we should broaden the term "Art" and
not narrow it down? That is the key to mediocrity. Just image a
person who own a cello and bows the strings a bit. Do you consider
him a musician? Surely he is one in his mind, but would you consider
him so? In that case, anybody who approaches a musical instrument is
a musician.
Likewise, do you think that anybody who owns a couple tubes of paint
and has two fingers to spread it is an artist, or is doing Art?
Surely not.
Lauri Levanto
that is the most concise definition of impressionism I've ever seen
-lauri
John Ng wrote:
...
G*rd*n
> > exclusions. Once you enter the world of exclusions then your theory has a
> > religious basis - religion has all the answers - science is always looking
> > for the illusive answers - art knows that everything is relative and nothing
> > is absolute.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
> In short, are you suggesting that we should broaden the term "Art" and
> not narrow it down? That is the key to mediocrity. Just image a
> person who own a cello and bows the strings a bit. Do you consider
> him a musician? Surely he is one in his mind, but would you consider
> him so? In that case, anybody who approaches a musical instrument is
> a musician.
>
> Likewise, do you think that anybody who owns a couple tubes of paint
> and has two fingers to spread it is an artist, or is doing Art?
> Surely not.
Well, they're either artists because they say so, or artists
because other people say so. And of course the fashions in
these things come and go, changing day by day. It looks like
it comes down to individualism versus social definition.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Dilettante
>
> What I am most appalled is that the cream you add on top of the
> definition of art becomes the only thing of importance to myopic art
> critics. It is as if the cream on top of the cake is the cake and the
> only thing that matters!!!
You must be referring to Robert Hughes, the antipodean art critic,
calling Jean-Michel Basquiat the little black sambo of the New York
art scene.
D.