Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Art painting has for long been a scammer's trade.
Cynical painters , compliant critics and idiot buyers make for a riot of scammery
Here are my humble translations of some critical cliches.
>original = no one ever thought it worthwhile to paint this mush before
> searingly true to life = but you'd still get more out of a photograph
>daring and inventive = my 5 yr old could do(has done)better
>exciting brushwork = obviously half frazzled at the time
> stylistically challenging = incomprehensible mish-mash
Any more ?
Cynical painters , compliant critics and idiot buyers make for a riot of scammery
Here are my humble translations of some critical cliches.
>original = no one ever thought it worthwhile to paint this mush before
> searingly true to life = but you'd still get more out of a photograph
>daring and inventive = my 5 yr old could do(has done)better
>exciting brushwork = obviously half frazzled at the time
> stylistically challenging = incomprehensible mish-mash
Any more ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 133
|
By:
You seem to be wrong on all 5 points.
|
|
By:
If we had time i could take you through point by point and explain
why you are wrong, but there is no guarantee that you would understand |
|
By:
Gulp!
Sorry you don't find them paletteable.  I'm glad you don't have the time to do a detailed , comprehensive and meticulously crafted rebuttal. I might never recover.  |
|
By:
sorry wasnt meaning to be rude( it was i know!)But look many/most people think they can comment on for ex. a painting by Corot or Matisse or Cezanne but they may just as with science have no real understanding...its not mandatory. |
|
By:
I'm sure you're right lfc1971
My playful comments were directed at some of the contemporary painters who seem to delight in parading collections of random daubings and disfigurements. Then some critics try to persuade the gullible that they're are seeing something that gives fresh insight into life and will enable a whole new vision of society or somesuch. Some of the gullible who have more money than sense then pay hundreds of thousands to have the dubious pleasure of having these concoctions hanging in their house. I think most people can appreciate the classic periods of representational art.In the contemporary scene ( and since about mid-20th cent) one gets the feeling that art has become one big in-joke among the dedicated initiati. |
|
By:
> original= something that has not been seen or thought of or understood before
and therefore a necessary part of anything resembling genius in art, science or sport (johann cruff) point 1 |
|
By:
Vubiant representational art is not a photograph. Art must transmit a feeling in time.
|
|
By:
You either get a work, vubiant, or you don't. It doesn't lessen you or the artist if you don't, or make you or them "right" if you do. My own tastes are shared by some people, derided by others. So be it. To each his own.
|
|
By:
....good stuff jed.
|
|
By:
I slightly disagree Jed, there are of course different tastes, but a work of art
such as a Van Goth will always be a masterpiece even if everyone in the world says it is not..even if Van Goth himself said it wasnt he would be wrong and the painting remaina masterpiece. Like a mathematical formula. |
|
By:
Vubiant representational art is not a photograph. Art must transmit a feeling in time
..so must a photograph lfc.......or at least a good or great one must. |
|
By:
Yes that crossed my mind re. photographs as i wrote it.
|
|
By:
Van Goth sounds like a Turner Prize entry
 |
|
By:
There may have been no great artists of the last 50 years...or great scientists
|
|
By:
Wow , never knew the forum was peopled by so many paid up members of the art-loving elite.
It must be great to operate in and around a medium where anything can mean everything and nothing. You set your own standards and every viewpoint is equally valid. So my critique is as meritorious as that of,say ,the principal art critic of the New York Times. I feel so elevated. Pity people have so many hang-ups about painting ! |
|
By:
...you don't need to part of any elite to love art vubiant.....nope...
|
|
By:
Every opinion is not equally valid, a masterpiece exists outside the fashion
and understanding of man, what people think of it is not relevant, truth is beauty and beauty truth. |
|
By:
vubiant....this is one of my favourite sites...
http://uk.lumas.com/new/ ...full of beauty.........you may like something...yep. Pep Ventosa and Edward B Gordon two of my particular favs....among many others. |
|
By:
That is true to a degree lfc imo.
I would say that Lichtenstein's Bedroom is a masterpiece, or the later works of Rothko which had their own room in the Tate, and I wouldn't hang an Ofili in my coalshed, but again it's down to personal taste. I view it rather like I view women, I would give my right arm for an hour with Serena Williams, but not everyone would. |
|
By:
Not quite following you there lfc.
'outside the understanding of man' - so how does anyone know what's a masterpiece then ? |
|
By:
And who is to say who was right about Van Gogh?
All the people who refused to give him a centime for his work while he was alive, or those who have paid record sums for his work after his death? |
|
By:
Very interesting Jed, Serena Williams...i quite agree, most very tall women for some
reason, these things are inexplicable |
|
By:
I fail to see how a Lichtenstein can be a masterpiece if acrylic paint is used.
The medium is very important |
|
By:
You may ask why but it comes back to originality...oil paint by its nature, difficult
lends itself to this, modern paint negates it. |
|
By:
The art form is closely linked to the medium, there would have been no rock music if
the electric guitar had not been invented |
|
By:
I think you are painting yourself into a corner if you think in such absolutist terms lfc.
|
|
By:
Doesn't matter -in modern art a corner can be a door. Depends how you look at it.
|
|
By:
 nicely put but here it is, a masterpiece exists in and of itself,some people will recognise this but perhaps most will not. It has nothing to do with elitism...the Queens painting expert and soviet spy Anthony Blunt had no understanding, despite being a cambridge grad. and he admitted himself, had no real understanding of what was or was not a great painting He just did not have the capacity despite many years of study |
|
By:
Maybe so re: rock music lfc, but there would still have been music. Rock music, like representative art, is no more valid than any other type. It is a question of taste surely?
|
|
By:
You may as well say a scientific formula is a question of taste, not so!
|
|
By:
...for me the medium is irrelevant....
..it is the feeling that.... the image.....whether its a painting, photograph or anything else.....engenders in and draws out of the observer that is key.... |
|
By:
quite right egner, but my point is certain mediums are more capable by their very nature
of transmitting these feelings. For ex. the very nature of oil paint and the surface on which it is painted is critical... again impressionism came about only after the invention of oil paint in tubes and a certain kind of canvas. |
|
By:
I cannot think of any generic art form where a particular medium is prescribed or even seen as essential - Artists have flipped between oil, watercolour, tempera, pencil, chalk etc etc.
In Music, John Cage didn't even need notes - little  |
|
By:
There is a reason that they still play football on grass and not astro turf.
|
|
By:
lfc - hadn't read your impressionist bit. "Only came about after" is partly true but that is not to because of. Artists were painting impressionistically well before the advent of premixed oil tube paint. Turner
 |
|
By:
If i could liken it to a snooker table, if the surface is too quick you will
hardly ever get a great match..likewise a painters canvas and how it is primed plays a greater part than most, even painters themselves know |
|
By:
Nobody however, including Turner had painted like Monet, and the reason was largley
down to the paint and canvas used. |
|
By:
Whilst not doubting that football can reach the dizzying heights of art - even you would not claim that it is an "art form". It is clearly a sport, and I think the majority of those have prescribed rules.
|
|
By:
No it is an art
|