What Is Art? Are You An Arrogant Artist Or A Flamboyant Art Critic?

Oh good grief, LOL

I have reached my lifetime limit for discussing this topic. I'd rather be painting...but first I'll see Abbie's good grief and up it 2 more .

I believe on the most basic level art has to be an unique, individual expression of the creator, so yes, fluffy baby ducks flying around in jet packs can certainly be art. :)

Amen, Abbie.

Are You An Arrogant Artist Or A Flamboyant Art Critic?

For the most part neither.

Dave

More people are Flamboyant Artists or Arrogant Art Critics.

That's true

I 4th or 5th what Abbie said: "Oh good grief"

Art is whatever whoever wants it to be - it's not worth the effort hardly to even mention it much less discuss it. It's been 'cussed to death.

I know what art is not...it is not what you are creating when you are talking about it instead.

Art is not decided between the palette and the canvas but between the viewer and the wall.

Michael, seriously; seriously step back and think about the implications of what you doing, when you are begging the question with: "According to Wikipedia"...Are you not simply putting yourself in the lion's mouth? Even if you are seriously in need of the dialogue, might you try a different way of engaging the subject?

With that said; I must move on to my own creative processes; where the questions are the true answers; even if there are no words, there are the brush strokes.

Another fabulous intellectual and interactive question Ronald. The students you teach are sooo very lucky.

My answer is there is a wide range of valid art... a very wide range.

I only get critical if barf, bodily fluids and really new excrement are used in the creation of the artwork. That doesn't mean these works are not art. I'm not an art critic, but I live with one who has awards in art criticism...this is a difficult relationship for sure.

I enjoy most art and trying to figure what inspired the artist.

I especially love reading the words of artists on forums and then checking out their artwork. This discussion thread is a form of blogging that is much more interesting because we get to see what the artist thinks and how they interact with others.

It's a key part of our process.

Lisa?...you know this is not Ronald's threat, correct?

No, I didn't realize that, thank you for pointing it out!

I'm going in search for my brain now, if you see it, give me a call. Thank you, Terrance!!

Why did I read this...

We will have to talk later about this Lisa!! LOL

Art is my younger brother's name. Not arrogant or an art critic either.

As we all know answers to questions like this are impossible to answer. That is why in the past I have said every artist needs to define art for themselves and be true to their own definition. I don't see the whole Good Grief thing. On this site various subjects, that have little to do with art, are talked about adnauseum. I find the threads that do talk about art as being refreshing but to each their own.

Thank you, Ronald for posting a gentle response to my stupid mistake. Big smile!

That is why in the past I have said every artist needs to define art for themselves and be true to their own definition. Ronald

That's a great answer Ronald!

Maybe the term flamboyant should be taken out of the title so as not to insult people or make this thread private.

Check your urban dictionaries if you're in question. The term flamboyant can be used as an adjective to mean colorful and freestyle verbiage, but has also been used to describe a group of people. Although, I had no clue that it could be considered negative in any way, the OP of this thread should consider the possibility of such a conclusion.

Ronald, I hope this helps with the "Good Grief" thing. In different parts of the country and/or world, certain adjectives are urban terms and thusly should be avoided.

I couldn't possibly know every urban term myself, so I mean no shame in this thread.

I think it's a valid question.

Not terribly a fan of talking about art or discussions about art. I'm only popping in here because I don't think I've ever responded to one of these "what is art" threads. So, this is a first and probably a last.

I get the Wiki definition, and I don't mind it. I'll go with that and offer how art makes me feel. There have been times in my life when art meant absolutely nothing at all. And there have been times when art was everything -- a lifesaver. So, in my world art is either nothing or everything. And that's all I have to say about that. I don't mind discussing literature, however.

There is a wide spectrum of art from crayon drawings tacked on Mom's fridge to masterpieces. Where you want to be on the spectrum is up to you.

Are You An Arrogant Artist Or A Flamboyant Art Critic?

I am nobody.

And as for art, in my very personal opinion, is something unique that touches me at some level and that I I cannot do myself.

For instance a dirty toilet in the middle of a museum gallery is unique, revolts me, but I can do it myself with little effort- so it is not art.

Over the years being around many other styles of art, what once I thought looked like a pre-schooler made, is now something I really admire and love. I think a lot of art is an acquired taste and understanding. I always considered beauty and ugly or disturbing art to be ART, depending on its merits.

I am not nor will ever be arrogant, but can be an A-hole at times.

Good Discussion Michael

Art is what I do (apparently someone somewhere said that what the artist says is Art, is art. Could be a DuChamp quote, however now that I said it - I claim it as mine.)

That is the arrogant artist.

However while I love Duchamp's "Nude descending a staircase" I am a strident critic of some of his later work. Some of his readymades push the limits and paved the way for more inspired art than his, however he miserably failed with such pieces as "Urinal" which deserves to be - well - urinated on and in.
Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons - Pop life and death encased in kitsch
Cornelia Parker - elegant truth incarnated in thoughtful sculpture.

That is me as critic.


I guess I'm both.

Thanks Kevin. And thanks to everyone for their unique perspectives. I'm starting to see that many people consider art to be something they can hold their own unique understanding of.

A guy that's quite an experienced however unfortunately unsuccessful artist explained to me yesterday that art is often seen as a current phase of creative exploration within a field, suggesting that it is always changing. With this concept there are the followers and the rebellious types of artists.

The followers are usually setting the current standards and critically maintaining the highest standards while the rebellious types are setting the future standards and trends and may be seen as rather peculiar or unpopular.

In modern times I wonder if this can still be applied. What form of art sets the current standard or mood that artists aspire towards. Photography or digital art could be seen as the most dynamic fields but there is just so much out there.i.e. where do the followers sit.

What is the future field of expression in the visual arts? And who are the unpopular leaders and future trend setters? The rebellious artists in modern times?

Had dinner two nights ago with a highly trained jazz musician at Chili's. The music was very outdated rock and roll. We had fun cutting on it. He said you really are a musician most people would not know this stuff. Then he said being hyper critical of music comes with the territory. I guess I just thought it was the norm.

Admittedly I am very critical here about art as well, but I strongly believe in not stifling anyone else's efforts and instead offering them a place and chance to grow as an artist. Cutting on people must readily be put aside.

Dave

You express it well Micheal, as current and future standards. Very thought provoking. when you think of it as continuous and mutating.

Thank you James. it's great to have your feedback. I agree it's very interesting how the art trend is continuous and mutating and it must be going somewhere.

1st situation:

You go into a museum with a piece of butter. Throw it against the wall. --> You´ll be kicked out, and have to pay a big fee!

2nd situation:

Damien Hirst goes into a museum with a piece of butter. He throws it against the wall. --> Now the thing is art! Hirst will be payed big money, and will be celebrated for his unique style!

Add Colin, insult to injury, you will pay for that art, continually, through your tax dollars...The gift that keeps on...taking?

Not talking about butter on the wall but rather Duchamp's potty, which as I stated before I don't think was his in the first place. Duchamp was not interested in creating art at that time. Rather he was interested in creating artistic debate, something that worked quite well since we are still talking about it 100 years latter.

I think you express it well too, Michael.

I have met arrogant artists as well as artists that just create art for the sake of art. Then there are the rebellious artists who I personally find fascinating and would aspire to be minus the fact that I'm always about harmony and color contrasting which is boring for a rebel and my parents are still alive...

Anyhow, great discussion and I guess I'll let my customers or followers decide what I am, but I hope never to be arrogant.

In one of my art shows, I met a lot of arrogant or rather pre occupied artists, most were hard to communicate with and maybe super shy, competitive or combative or too critical. These traits might make it hard for them to sell. The tough thing is artists, like me, with far less skill, but more personable, come in with large low priced paintings and kick behind in sales, which only deepens the problems...but oh well, it's business. I'm not in it to pay homage to anyone, and especially not to anyone high and mighty on themselves. I'm prolific in artwork and I want it out of my house. Rebellious, trend setter, follower, critic, or lover of the arts; bottom line is getting rid of it once it's done.

Ode to Duchamp..................all copper sculpture, hand hammered.

Ode to Duchamp or to the Baroness? That is the question!

Don't men get enough credit already?

Dave

Indeed we do David and Ronald. This piece was sold to a doctor, he told me he wanted it for his office to display his business cards or as a candy dish for chocolate kisses.Lol!

Art is communication.

Art is a form of communication and expression that creates a degree of emotional impact in the viewer. Beauty as well as "Good Art" is in the eye of the beholder.

"THE ARTIST IS THE PERSON WHO MAKES LIFE MORE INTERESTING OR BEAUTIFUL, MORE UNDERSTANDABLE OR MYSTERIOUS, OR PROBABLY, IN THE BEST SENSE, MORE WONDERFUL. - George Bellows

-------------------------------------

"Arrogant Artist Or A Flamboyant Art Critic?"
If "Arrogant" or "Flamboyant" were the only classification for artists I would probably chose not to be one, or invent a better word for it. :)


http://fineartamerica.com/groups/art-4-renaissance.html

It is important to push limits. I am currently working on a piece called "The Marriage of Church and State" and I find I have to look back to art history to create it, before I can look forward to the future. We are all plagiarists. I certainly cannot work in a vacuum and as great artist must steal.

Paraphrasing Picasso......good artists copy, great artists steal.

I go straight into denial mode and do not come out of it.

Dave

Plagiarism is...

... the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.

“Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning.”
― George Bernard Shaw

Wrongful and Stealing? Or could it be "borrowing" the idea?

I thought I was both a good artist as well as a good photographer until I came here. There is SO much talent here that I am constantly humbled and feel appreciative. It is a very motivating experience.

Jeste, I find your corvids especially inspiring.

Thank you so much James! I am hoping to have a few more up over the next few days!

Glenn,

I only borrow the ideas in visual form after they are in the PD. I never actually infringe on anyone else's property or deny my sources.

More importantly my claim is not of their art, but my ideas and art.

Dave

David, I may be wrong but I don't think Glenn was saying you were guilty of plagiarism. I think he was just tossing out a definition he found.

Ron,

I know. He phrased it I believe as more of a rhetorical question in the second post. I simply answered it....perhaps as some guidance if people want to create derivative art.

Dave

ok

That's about right Ron.

More specifically, James' statement got me to thinking (briefly) about it. My attention span isn't that long. A quick google just verified my thought

Plagiarism is a pretty strong word with negative connotations. Regardless of the numerous on-liners thrown out (probably for their shock value) by artists of the past, when one has that accusation put on them, it remains as a bit of a stigma. Imitating another artisan's particular style, on the other hand, is encouraged as part of the learning process.

As for the PD work that David and many others do, that's a matter for them and the buying public to accept or reject. Seems to be acceptable in this environment.

Many prefer to construct their own from beginning to end.

(As critic, arrogant artist, appropriator)
My intention was to provoke, not to accuse - so let me rephrase that "I am a plagiarist" - of sorts because i cannot work in a vacuum. However - as I said to Jeste about crows;/ravens - the work inspires, put that together with work from Guy Denning - https://guydenning.org/portfolio/drawn/#jp-carousel-271 , plus my own photos, and what I come up with are derivative sketches which then melt into and original interpretation of source material. I would paint crows directly if they would stay still. Indeed I sketch them in 5 seconds before they move. In the end I may end up with some crows in a larger scene,


If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. Wilson Mizner

My Raven Avatar is tattooed on the back of a young lady from Europe. I thought that was cool.

When one does research, references are to be cited. That is not stealing...that is giving credit where credit is due.

Many prefer to construct their own from beginning to end.

Glenn,

If God created nature and you paint a landscape are you taking from elsewhere?

If Winsor Newton developed five hues of green that you use in your landscape and with mixing other paints you get the job done......did you construct the paints? Or the colors? Or either? And did others before you use those exact hues?

We all start from some higher level. Few of us are using linseed oil or dark rooms these days. It is okay.

Dave

David,

I think most will understand what I mean. It's a common sense statement. No, I did not build the computer I work on. Nor did I create the camera that I use.

There is nothing new under the sun. And if you want to bring God into play, I would argue that He created everything.

No need to defend yourself because of your chosen means David. There was no attack that took place.

Ditto Marlene.

Sorry Glenn, I am not taking it as an attack at all. Sorry to rile you up.

It really is okay to start wherever the artist wants to. Infringement is another matter and as you are pointing out not giving proper credit matters.

We are on the same page. The medium is not doing either of us justice.

Dave

I think when Picasso for one uses the word 'steal'......he is talking about incorporating things he sees other artists doing. That is not infringement. That is not plagiarism. It is actually comprehending what is valuable in the creation of work. Picasso, the Beatles etc capitalized on concepts by other artists where the first artists were not fully up to the job. That is a cruel reality for many artists. Does not make them less exactly, but perhaps one way of seeing it is a great Beatles tune where some ideas came from elsewhere, but John or Paul understood what it took to make a hit out of it.

Dave

Got that, Picasso or whomever walks into a studio or gallery and sees some other artists work. This work gives him an idea and he runs with it and ends up creating a better work than that artist was creating in the first place. How does this concept translate when one creates work based on a masterpiece? Is it kind of like remodeling a kitchen that is out of date?

Ron.

The remodel the kitchen has struck me as true in some cases of what I have done. Possibly not as good as the original, but was the invaluable original in storage and the prints not selling? Possibly.

Some of the derivative work gets more interesting when I use modern concepts and the masterworks as the subject matter. It becomes full of paradoxes. Other times it improves the decor.

I have seen some folks use prints of old masterwork. Just the original as a print. I do not often like that. I do not know why not. Somehow it is like buying good taste with a $12 print, but you know there is no concept on the part of the buyer about fine art. Just some stuff from history. Some of it is actually tacky. Over the top. For instance who hangs cherubs?

Dave

David,

Words.... I am not, nor was I, riled up. I was simply making a point in a discussion. I thought that's what we do around here.

It does seem at times to be modernizing old work, in any case always interesting. FYI, I like cherubs!

LOL do you have any cherubs hanging in your living room?

Not that I am against them, but they are not the modern human concept or eye.

Dave

Honestly? No!

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's art is another person's garbage. Really fantastic art strikes an awestruck reaction in the viewer and holds the viewer's attention.

Museums sell prints / posters of the works in their collections all the time. It makes it possible for people who wouldn't be able to afford a real Rembrandt to hand a Rembrandt on their wall and look at it every day if they want to look at it every day without going to a museum. Not sure what the problem is with that.

I bought art prints and hung them on my dorm room walls in college, and on my apartment walls when I was 20-something. I did that because I liked the art. Don't remember buying any cherubs, though. Cherubs aren't the only game in town, RE: masterworks available in prints. I think I had Corot, some impressionist works, some asian art, and some cubist art -- it was what I wanted to look at on my walls at the time. It wasn't about "buying good taste," whatever that means.

Cheryl,

I was out last weekend with a jazz drummer a few years older than I am at Chilis with another friend. I have known the guys several months, but this was the first time I joined them for dinner. The music in the room was older 1970s rock and roll, what both of us cut our teeth on. We were beeaching about every song that came up. It was actually funny. Meanwhile the younger lawyer just turned 30 is into Springsteen. The Boss' music was in the mix. The poor 30 year old was in a daze with the Jazz musicians criticisms.

Then the 30 y/o gave us a list from memory of all the Springsteen albums in order. We two older guys did not think that helped his case. LOL

Maybe I need to keep all my criticisms behind the scenes in emails? It comes with the territory.

Just an aside yes people buy a few old master prints, but there are as I am saying invaluable old master oil paintings in storage and the replicas will never sell. Never is not a strong word for it.

Dave

Funny the person I know who is really into Springsteen is 69 years old, went to Ucon majoring in art. Has a BFA from there.

LOL.....no accounting for taste.

So I am sitting with a highly accomplished Jazz Drummer who works as an accountant because music is hard to make money with, and Springsteen's claim to fame? Other than the money?

Dave....I did not go to Ucon....... :p

Thought you did Dave, where did you go?

Ron,

I am kidding you....UCONN......

Ron even the horrible criticisms my friend and I were leveling at the boss were jokes. Jabbering. But with a lot of truth.

Dave

I like some of what he does but he has never been my favorite. As I said I have a friend who has been a fan for a very long time. UCONN, sorry about that!

Have you heard of the expression, "Art is in the eye of the beholder". To me this implies that first and foremost, the artist must be pleased with what he or she creates. Art, regardless of medium or substance is when one creates something from nothing to create an interesting, and/or entertaining, and/or stimulating to one's senses and/or thought provoking composition whether that "composition" be literary, musical or visual. This is the intrinsic value of something artistic but, unfortunately not necessarily the "popular" conception of art or artistic value. Some, perhaps many, buyers of art have no concept of true art. Many (too many) so-called appreciators of art base their concepts of art on what society defines for them. They have no real appreciation of art and just as a large portion of the general populace are sheep who not only follow what they are indoctrinated into believing (to be true and correct). Many actually go out and "seek out" so-called or self-appointed "leaders" in which to follow - having no mind of their own. On this premise, if someone who has, through some effort on their part or through rubbing elbows with someone of supposed stature, come into a position of authority, and in many cases declared something of value (ie: artistic), then the followers will flock to behold what that person has decreed. For example: I could paint a big red circle on a white canvas and declare this as "art". This would mean nothing and have no value artistically. BUT, if I could persuade someone is who supposedly of stature to purchase this piece of crap for say, $1,000 and declare it as having artistic expression, then what is basically "crap", suddenly becomes "an artistic expression of ones soul", having a value of $1,000. On the other hand there are countless amazing works of art (whether it be musical compositions and pure artistic compositions) that have and will never attain its rightful value. So what is art? Art is really an "expression" that is pleasing and self satisfying to the artist. A better question is; what is sellable art or art of value?

Not intending to be boastful, arrogant or egotistic but rather, merely as an example: I display a good deal of my art on a non-commercial web site. Over the years I have received countless raves, reviews, accolades, etc, etc for my works............ but how many of those same people have actually "bought" any of my prints and posters - only two of which I know! The "un-buying" public have praised my work for its subject, its pleasing colors, its balance, its overall composition and above all for its meticulous detail and even make comments such as; "Your prints are amazing. They should be hanging on everyone's walls or art galleries around the country". (Sounds good, huh?) But how many of those same "appreciators" actually paid money to have one of my prints hanging on THEIR walls........... only two of which I know. For a time, I was selling about an average of two prints a months for three years running then about a year and half ago, everything came to a screeching halt. Nothing. Zilch. Am I suspicion - of course I am suspicious. If I had never sold any of my works, I would concede that my art has no appeal or is simply not that good but to have sold a fair amount for three years and then suddenly, without an complaints of which I know, NOTHING! Something has to be rotten in Denmark..... Oh yes, my Son who is an artist in his own right and who has decorated his gorgeous home in very expensive art and artifacts, did buy one of my prints (without me even knowing about this for three months).

Well that's "art" folks. That's my story sad but true ;)