next »

[moi]

PROTIP: knowledge is an abstraction, therefore everything is an abstraction

[Inanimate]

I just realized this in the wrong section; this should PROBABLY be in Art.

*kapoof*

[P-Flute]

I realize people buying paint slatters for millions may be BS.

The general concept, though, that experimental/abstract art or art that isn't traditionally pleasing to look at has no worth and is entirely for deluded yuppies: It burns my bacon.  It's no different than the common backlash against art games: They're not fun, therefor they don't even deserve to exist.

[Nugsy]

1) That's a freaking Jackson Pollock. He's super famous.
2) That's some Halo Wars concept art. It's just some concept art.

Just because the Pollock looks like a mess, doesn't mean he didn't spend days/weeks working on it.

[gimymblert]

Time is not relevant

[s0]

Time is not relevant

Nor is "effort" or "required skill." It's really weird how people rate art based on how hard (they think) it was to make.

[XRA]

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i agree with inane's posts on the first page. i don't like modern art much but as bad as it is i like it better than that stupid halo pic

[moi]

i agree with inane's posts on the first page. i don't like modern art much but as bad as it is i like it better than that stupid halo pic

/thread

[Bones]

The fact that your trying to say that Jackson pollock was merely an abstract painter means your generalizing him too narrowly.

He's an abstract expressionist, his gestures and the actions he took is what makes his paintings.
It's the attitude of the expression in which the paint was put onto the canvas.

Also the fact that it's a tangible object which you can see, touch, and feel is what makes it worth more then a digital halo painting.

And as Inane pointed out, the price is obviously also inherent to the significance of the artist making it. If someone went out and tried to copy Pollock it wouldn't work because everything afterwards is measured up to it.

A modern example of abstract art would be fractals or computer generated abstraction. But as I said, digital art can't really be touched so what's it's value if you can't touch or own it without printing it out and making a replica of it, thus diminishing it's value.

[Hamletz]

ok but are games art

[Bones]

Yes, The National Endowment for the Arts says so.

If putting an everyday object in the context of an art exhibition is considered art such as Fountain (Duchamp).
Then I see no reason as to why games would not be considered art.

Your question is broad however.
My answer only covers video games...
Are games themselves an art form? Designing them sure, but are the games themselves art?
Such as card games, dice games, et cetera?
I mean the game charades could be seen as a performance art.

Sorry, I've just been in extensive answer mode lately.

[Hamletz]

Are games themselves an art form? Designing them sure, but are the games themselves art?
Such as card games, dice games, et cetera?
I mean the game charades could be seen as a performance art.

yes yes yes! brilliant questions. we must discuss extensively. 

[iffi]

1) That's a freaking Jackson Pollock. He's super famous.

But how did he become famous in the first place?

You hear a sound, and you know what it is, where it's coming from.

This would be halo art. You know what is going on and there is no mystery, yet you can still appreciate it for what it is.


You hear a sound, yet you cannot recognize it and don't know where it's coming from

This example is abstract art. You know there is a sound, yet it is unknown what is making it. You have to think about what it could be, and where it could be coming from. While different, it can still be appreciated as a beautiful or interesting sound.

I see what you mean, but when I look at the Jackson Pollack painting in the OP, it feels more to me like "You hear silence, but you know you should be hearing something so you strain your ears until you think you heard something, then guess at what you heard and where it's coming from." To me, it's so abstract that all its meaning is purely from the viewer's imagination; the painting itself doesn't communicate anything by itself. Granted, I haven't seen the painting in real life, so I can't say if it would mean more to experience it personally (I bet it would) - I'm just going by my impressions of the image link posted.

To me "realistic" art can end up drab and boring except for the technical aspects (which still interest me, since almost everybody I know has better art techniques than I do). Art done in a realistic (or otherwise not so abstract) style, however, can say a lot about the artist's unique view of reality. Self-portraits, for example, can suggest the artist's view of him/herself through facial expressions, color choices, etc. Even if the art itself doesn't say anything beyond its immediate image (like the Halo concept art in the OP), if someone buys it and hangs it up on a wall it says something about the owner, so I don't quite think such art is meaningless.

My favorite works of art are oftentimes those which present a heavily distorted version of "reality" (right now I'm thinking of M.C. Escher's works), since (in addition to simply looking nice) they leave much room to interpretation while still being grounded strongly enough in reality or other familiar concepts to create a sort of "seed" for interpretation, like the guide of a discussion. Put a bunch of people in a room with a piece of abstract art such as that in the OP, and chances are you'll find a completely different interpretation for each person in the room. Some people find that to be the beauty of a painting like Pollack's, but to me it isn't worth spending millions of dollars on, as people have done for Pollack's paintings. Perhaps the various subtleties that can't be conveyed in a JPEG such as paint thickness do provide some sort of a base for discussion/interpretation, but even so it would still be very open-ended (perhaps "open-started" would be a more accurate term here?) and I still wouldn't see the supposed worth in it, going by the image link posted. Its being not so aesthetically pleasing to my eyes doesn't help matters either.

[rivon]

Obligatory XKCD

[Superb Joe]

0 to webcomic in 5 pages

[Nix]

Obligatory XKCD

I don't think this really applies. Enjoying art isn't like enjoying good coffee or good whine or good music where you have to have a sense of the minutiae to properly enjoy it. You can be inspired by a piece of abstract art having never browsed an art gallery or been trained in art history. Abstract art isn't about looking and saying, "wow, I'm blown away by the thought put into this piece." It's about transcending the human creation and using the art as a catalyst for the exploration of your own mind and your own perception of reality. Art is deep. If you don't get it, it's not that you're smarter than everyone else -- it's that you're missing out on something fantastic.

[XRA]

Obligatory XKCD

I don't think this really applies. Enjoying art isn't like enjoying good coffee or good whine or good music where you have to have a sense of the minutiae to properly enjoy it. You can be inspired by a piece of abstract art having never browsed an art gallery or been trained in art history. Abstract art isn't about looking and saying, "wow, I'm blown away by the thought put into this piece." It's about transcending the human creation and using the art as a catalyst for the exploration of your own mind and your own perception of reality. Art is deep. If you don't get it, it's not that you're smarter than everyone else -- it's that you're missing out on something fantastic.

thank you.

[s0]

Obligatory XKCD

I don't think this really applies. Enjoying art isn't like enjoying good coffee or good whine or good music where you have to have a sense of the minutiae to properly enjoy it. You can be inspired by a piece of abstract art having never browsed an art gallery or been trained in art history. Abstract art isn't about looking and saying, "wow, I'm blown away by the thought put into this piece." It's about transcending the human creation and using the art as a catalyst for the exploration of your own mind and your own perception of reality. Art is deep. If you don't get it, it's not that you're smarter than everyone else -- it's that you're missing out on something fantastic.

Your post makes no sense to me, but I do enjoy a good whine from time to time. Particularly about how videogames used to be so much better when I was a kid.

[gimymblert]

There is a fallacy in saying abstract is about meaning ... not as much as in a landscape, instead of random tree you have random brush stroke Both art form cited are more about composition than meaning.

And even if there is meaning? What about calligraphy? Calligraphy is about making something beautiful with letter, letter happen to have no meaning in isolation ... Does not that makes calligraphy as abstract as Pollocks? both tend to emphasis movement.

Now you have a calligraphic piece with meaning, except it's in a foreign language you don't speak... Obviously there is a hidden meaning you just don't get, and yet you can appreciate it for its formal quality.

Word themselves does not resemble things they depict, and some of these things are idea, they aren't visual at all, then what is the difference with a piece of abstract art with meaning as it also convey idea? Not only that but language MUST be learn before you are able to decipher the text. Word are abstraction, letter are abstraction, painting can be too, so his gesture or music.



listen to this and tell me what the meaning is? or what are the object it depict?

There is two way to appreciate something, sensually and intellectually.

edit
Whatever, teh true legacy of abstract art is not more abstract art but more freedom to mix visual language. Webdesign is also a direct descendant as abstract art had the most impact in graphic design.