Hello, What is contemporary art?
I plan to take an admision exam on a fine arts academy and they want people to show 10-15 works and explain a few to the teachers. Most people are rejected because they produce "boring baroque style" or works not corresponding to this era. (surrealism, impresionism)
If you can recommend some books i would be very thankful, otherwise posting some artists or art.
I ony went to a contemporary art gallery once and 90% of the works there were portraits with vivid colors
I also wanted to reproduce some glitch art in a canvas and call it art... gee
Well, i found that the themes are mostly the same but what has changed is the style it is presented, but the only real references i have are of some specific movements in wikipedia.
I really love that you get to have so much freedom in what you can express but i'm really confused about the esthetics it follows
this is probably one of the worst places for contemporary art. the people here have no clue about important art.
with that said look up works by:
ai wei wei
theres too many to list but these are some important artists off the top of my head
also check out artist who have been in the Saatchi Gallery
not all of these people work in one medium and that seems to be important in art today as well as concept. Don't let this place make you think drawings of bullshit will get you anywhere.
First off post your work.
Second, Basquiat was influenced by cartoons more than anything else. The influence of cartoons on modern art only became clear after him, and it quickly fizzled out because something replaced him. Video games.
If you want to seem like you have your finger on the pulse of culture right now you need to somehow incorporate video games into your work. and not in a corny oh look its the night cafe but mario characters are in it kind of way. A lot of people treat video games like its to be incorporated with pop art sensibilities. Video games are more interesting than a can of soup.
Heres something I did which incorporated some of the themes of video games while still having traditional subject matter and modern sensibilities when it comes to color.
but as i said please post your work.
I think that "boring baroque style" means paintings that shows technical skills but lacks ulterior motive, or context, or meaning. Because the art world isn't about only showing technical skills. An artwork needs more than that to be striking, moving, influential. And because art schools look for the people who are most suitable in the future art world, this is what they're looking for in the applicants.
Don't try to mimic what other contemporary artists have done. You should absolutely have them as inspiration, but you need to find your own voice. Work with a vague concept, or more straight forward, look for things you cherish and explore that, or put light on questionable things, in the society or in your own life. Look for what you think is important. It can be something political, aesthetic, philosophical, humorous, etc, etc. but you're the only one who can find that out.
If you try to fake something, cop-out, it will shine through in your work. It's almost always easy to spot. Whatever you want to convey, needs to be genuine.
Contemporary art is an era, not a movement, it has no predefined sense of aesthetics. Some of these artists even show obvious influence from Baroque artists.
Contemporary art is art that's being made today, that's all there is to it.
putting the canvas in front of you so it blocks out the image you want to paint, then painting what you remember was there. That way it leaves you with the parts of the image you remember best and filters out all the unnecessary crap. Personal taste is a very... personsal thing. So if everyone did this technique to the same spot we probably wouldn't all paint the same things.
And sometimes it makes patterns emerge where some are left off, making you repeat "textures" like you'd see in a video game.
You ever heard of option selecting in fighting games? Where you input multiple buttons to cover multiple options. It's kind of like that but for imagery. You use what's around you to get input on what is meant to be in the painting. Those buildings might be a bad example but these trees are more like what im talking about
or this one actually is a pretty good example. its unfinished but its using the canvas as a screen you see your world through.
it was too cold to finish it
well how do you define "important"? and important to who?
if we're talking strictly about the fine art scene, the average person knows and cares very little about about the world of art outside of mass media .there's a lot of money in fine art, but I wouldn't necessarily say that makes it important.
I'm not going to waste my day explaining why you should value contemporary art, research it yourself. if you dismiss the entire era with one fell swoop, you're a pleb who isn't worth saving anyway.
Pic related, an important contemporary artist , Lucian Freud (now deceased, unfortunately)
What's so important about any artist? These aren't the men curing cancer or building rockets.
He made zillions of dollars and influenced countless artists after him. His figurative work and portraiture is undeniably unique and he can paint like a motherfucker. He explores the psychological aspects of his subjects (like his grandfather Sigmund), in a style that sets him apart from both his contemporaries and others in art history.
What is more important to an artist than skill and innovation?
How do you personally gauge the importance of an artist?
How is this discussion itself important?
Roberto Ferri, a contemporary artist who is clearly influenced by Baroque art.
>works corresponding to this era
those movements are of the modern era, not postmodern/contemporary.
Pop surrealism is an example of a contemporary movement. Pic related, Todd Schorr.
something that changed people who weren't artists. or made them realize something about themselves. something concrete. not "explored themes" or "influenced other artists". like a real shift in everyday life because of an artist or a way in which art is made.
like if a painter could convince other men to stop masturbating or to convince celibate men to have sex just because of their art. If seeing the painting made that change in another man. THAT would be an artist.
And you don't think a single contemporary artist has done this?
Can you name just a few artists from art history, before the contemporary era, who have achieved this 'importance' you describe? Just name four or five artists or works that have completely turned an entire society on its head.
Ai Wei Wei hasn't impacted Chinese society at large, he has no influence on the people? I guess that explains why the government felt the need to arrest him on trumped up charges.
Jeff Koons (whose work I completely hate) fabricates massive public sculptures. You don't think any of these have created a "shift in everyday life"?
Hell, even a hack like Banksy has had a massive impact on society and how people view the world they live in (even if most of those people are edgy teens).
Artists have been engaging the public and interacting with broader society and culture for quite some time, and it continues to be true today.
none. and no one ever will. but art is the effort to make that change. so everyone who engages in creation has the intention to either make that change in other men or convince men that you believe that change is possible in them if you are a woman.
it is possible to bring about that change in yourself but i think it would only be possible if you acknowledged the impossibility of bringing about that change in other people.
but wouldn't it be something if someone ever made that painting?
i think if anyone ever got the closest... if you wanna have that conversation... id say van gogh came the closest. his explorations of the relationships between colors had the most potential of anyone since and before even if those theories are a bit scattershot throughout his work
those are some high standards
some art that may have had an impact on the general public could be the massive balloons that flew in the Macy's thanksgiving parade by Jeff Koons and also by Takashi Murakami
none of those artists have made any changes to anyone. let alone themselves. those are all very ordinary people, they just have a wider audience who appreciate their work. If anything they have that audience because people are rooting for them to make that perfect painting or sculpture or whatever. Not because they've made it.
Trust me if it happened we'd all know about it.
and the chinese government has arrested more people than just ai wei wei. it's probably pretty easy to get arrested in china.
they are very high standards. it's a lofty idea, and an impossible thing to accomplish, but if you want to talk about art seriously that's what you have to talk about.
and like i said previously, you have every right to enjoy the work of other artists and see potential in some more than others, it just doesn't mean it's going to amount to anything.
It probably just means they are going to die, just like every other artist before them and every artist after them, and we can look back and appreciate with humility the tremendous effort certain artists made in their lifetime.
and to the previous guy... sure. advertisements art
How did David change society permanently? What sort of social uprising did he bring about?
So it's impossible for art to be important, got it. This might not be the board for you.
There are varying definitions, but art created after c.1960 is certainly one of them.
Omnia vanitas. If you're getting philosophical, everything is ultimately empty, meaningless, and unimportant. You judge the importance of artwork by what it CAN achieve, not what it cannot.
I quoted four different posts, you'll need to quote the portion that applies specifically the "what you said."
Art doesn't cure cancer or create world peace, that doesn't mean it isn't important, just that you're using retarded parameters to judge its importance.
2nd and 4th.
and i didnt say art solves all our problems i said it has the most potential to. if anything was going to it would be art.
so your using the same retarded parameters i am, just without admitting that art is the potential savior of the world even if/though it never will be.
>How did David change society permanently? What sort of social uprising did he bring about?
The French Revolution. Without David's paintings to incite the public, the Revolution wouldn't have been nearly the same. Especially after Marat.
how do you propose that art can solve all of our problems? if we're talking practical issues of world health, violence, climate change, etc. then politics/economics/religious views have more of an impact than art could, though none of these things are mutually exclusive.
We are not using the same parameters. If I were to call an artwork "important", I would mean that it is important in its sphere of influence. It is innovative and inspiring within the world of art itself. art-for-arts-sake has been a thing for quite some time, art doesn't necessarily need to serve a social function. It can also be a journey for seeking personal truth, among other things.
i posted what i think art has the potential for earlier. If we're talking practical issues like violence and the well-being of everyone then yes I believe art has the potential to change those things. Not enormously, but enough. What you have to take into account though is that as things are, things have never been better for human beings. Maybe not for everyone, but for a select few they have more money than anyone in the world, and are therefore better off.
Better after that point is subjective. Would you think it a better world if wealth was distributed differently. If the richest were slightly less rich and the poorest were slightly less poor. It would depend on what side you land on after a massive societal shift happened.
i think the thing that has the most potential to precipitate that change is a piece of artwork. And not just a personal manifestation of that change, because we know that is possible. Art can already change who you are personally. I mean globally, for everyone. Something that would change everyone who saw it or listened to it.
and i think its impossible. I think it's more likely that everyone experience a personal change through their own artwork, and the world changes that way, than a single piece of artwork changes everyone.
That's fine and well.
But the posts I'd responded to were asking for "a few artists from art history, before the contemporary era, who have achieved this 'importance' you describe"
The discussion was whether or not art can change how non-artists live their lives, whether it can actually change a society. Which is an obvious "yes".
Kind of a shitty measure of "importance" to be honest, but it can be done if that's what one wants.
Dunno why you think painting<photo<video though, for example comparing Goya's record of the Napoleonic Wars to wartime photography and then that to video each show rather different characteristics that the others couldn't quite catch properly.
You talk about how you're reconstructing memories more or less when you paint. Repeated textures and patterns. I think those two concepts are interesting and I think you can make some great work if you explore those ideas further. The video game connection is the part I like the least. I feel like you're over complicating things with that part.
Anyway, an artist that works with similar concepts (reconstructing memories, digital media) is Sirous Namazi. Specifically his "twelve thirty" exhibition. Look at it online and read about it if you're interested!
>I'm not going to waste my day explaining why you should value contemporary art
Then don't preach to me like it's the most important thing in the world.
I never said I dismissed it. I just said it wasn't important.
I like this stuff. It's raw, it's bold, it has a lot of strong impressionist influence which I greatly enjoy.
But why is it "important"? And secondly, why does it have to be?
I never preached "like it was the most important thing in the world." you're either severely confused about what I've said or you're conflating several individuals in this thread.
also there's practically zero impressionist influence, it is much more influenced by German Expressionism. just btw.
It has both influences. Otherwise we wouldn't see much representational work from it at all. But in the end, arguments like that boil down to semantics.
And if you don't think it's so remarkably important, I ask you avoid saying shit like:
And then basically refusing to educate me on the actual value of cultural resonance outside of its own genre.
That's just being a presumptuous dick.
Here's a Dax Norman. I like his shit. His works focus on transformation and relation of form.
>Otherwise we wouldn't see much representational work from it at all
What does it mean to "see representational work from it?" Do you mean:
>Otherwise it would be non-representational
Because if so, I hope you realize that German Expression was representational. This is not about semantics, impressionism and expressionism are distinct, and there is nothing impressionistic about Freud's self portrait. It has exacting detail and a veristic quality, impressionism is generally softer, much less precise and more about the play of light.
actually yeah you did...
I'm just reading this but yeah you think this guy is great because he made "zillions of dollars", you keep saying he's "unique" and that his style "sets him apart", none of which makes any sense or explains why it makes him so "important"... (just in case you think I'm pulling this out of my ass with you "I never said" bullshit, here's where you said all of this:>>1903677)
you're annoying, you're not an art critic, you'll never be one if you can't simply explain what makes this guy so fucking amazing...
and I love how you can't "waste" you day explaining any of this but you have such an easy time arguing your point without actually explaining shit...
oh and OP here's your answer (pic related)
He was unique, and his style was distinct. That's why he made tons of dosh. Stylistic innovation and technical ability are of huge importance in art, and he had plenty of both. He made less of an impact and more of a crater on the art world.
You're the one whose proposing this unrealistic and exaggerated expectations of what it means for a work of art to be considered "important." That's not my claim, that's yours. I am looking at the importance of contemporary artists from an art perspective, whereas you are taking a completely different sociological perspective.
No, no and no... I'm asking for descriptive words that explain why he's as "innovative" as you claim... the problem is you can't, because you don't have any visual art vocabulary under your belt... apply yourself!
>Do you mean:
>>Otherwise it would be non-representational
I'm saying that by simple virtue of genre one can easily say that the contemporary movement has a lot of impressionistic influence.
And again, it's just an argument over semantics. Art movements aren't solidly bordered concepts beyond the dates in which they where most active. There's a good deal of bleed room every which way as far as concept and technique are concerned. Outside of historical context, it's kind of a pointless pursuit.
Zentangle is dull pattered abstraction for the sake of abstraction.
Dax's approach is more to connect familiar forms to coax a marriage of concepts.
>His figurative work and portraiture is undeniably unique and he can paint like a motherfucker. He explores the psychological aspects of his subjects (like his grandfather Sigmund), in a style that sets him apart from both his contemporaries and others in art history.
lol, so many other people do tht is not even funny. This joker just happens to be in a gallery and has "muh important relative"
I didnt say shit about his technical skill, but you're acting like hes the first dude to ever use psychological themes, then jerking him even more just because he's Freud's kin, like thats supposed to make it more legit.
I merely described what distinguishes his art, I never said he was the first to explore these themes, or that his relationship to Sigmund Freud has any bearing on the quality of his work, though it may impact he themes he explores.
You keep believing his fame as a painter is only due to his grandfather though. It's cute.
I only bounced off what you said m8, with all your fanboyism, you're gassing the guy up when theres no substantial reason on why he should be considered such a big deal
[spoiler]At the same time, you may be kinda naive if you think his lineage had totally nothing to do with it, [/spoiler]
I never said having a famous grandfather didn't help. Do learn to read.
And again, if you can't see what the big deal was, I have to assume you know fuck-all about painting technique because Freud was next-level.