It's work about his partner who died of aids. It's the weight of his partner in candy. People take some as they enter or leave the space. Representing the weight loss and withering away from the disease as well as the idea of it spreading.
Get out of your mom's basement
you can't judge art by how much effort has gone into it. Someone asked Picasso "what is art?" and he just point to a bulls head he had made by sticking the handle bars of a bicycle to the seat
You just got Kandinsky'd.
dat dere candydoll mansion
Oh yeah this is the maker's mark on the back of it.
Well I'm sorry you can't diferentiate between actual criticism and faux criticism just for the sake of provoking a reaction.
Then again what do I expect from someone who defends a pile of candy.
oy vey, the smugness...
go sniff farts out of wine glasses hipster scum
Because I'm of the opinion of "L'art pour l'art".
i got one too, except in ceramic
oh I got you mah nigger. I got some choice art to post.
i thought 'art' was anything that caused a reaction after experiencing it and contiues to cause a reaction when re-experienced, no matter in what form.
>Isn't art for arts sake nothing better that making decorative art?
And what's wrong with that?
Wat's wrong with liking something for the beauty and effort instead of the message/meaning behind it?
>You don't want any lasting meaning or for it to have an impact on you
The meaning of an art piece is secondary to me.
Then again why you're arguing taste is beyond me.
I love the way that he uses shades of purple and pink along the horizon and in the lake to express the shimmering iced over lake.
I love the faded linearism along the backdrop
I love the faded yet mystical atmosphere altogether
Also a fave
My fave ever.
Just questioning your read of art. Nothing is wrong with it if that's your taste. Just think about why you like art. At the end of the day just saying you like it because it's beautiful and hard to do, isn't an intellectual conversation
This some tribal I did the other night, about seven hours
i honestly think that explanation isnt entirely bullshit. art is kinda like comedy in that if the piece requires a longwinded explanation before you can appreciate it, they shouldve just made a better piece in the first place
So, while that gives the piece more meaning, it doesn't mean it's a good piece. A piece of art should be able to stand without the artist's intention; the intention allows for a more enriched viewpoint after already interpretting and digesting it.
Holy shit, I just cried for a second out of nostalgia. The painting itself isn't a masterpiece or anything, but it reminded me of my family's backyard in Sweden during the winter this one time. A teenage lover of mine lives there. We were very close when we were teens, but nowadays never speak anymore.
Can you tell me more about the painting and the artist?
>At the end of the day just saying you like it because it's beautiful and hard to do, isn't an intellectual conversation
not person you are talking to, but maybe art is meant to be enjoyed and not talked about?
friend of mine says art is a dialog, and to understand the language, you need to be educated in art.
I think its interesting that some art is worth thousands ( basically meaning "i like it" ) and other art is worth hundreds of thousands ( lots of people find it a significant dialog )
Can someone please explain to me why it's so wrong to like both modern conceptual art and old figurative art? Or popular "art" and unpopular "non-art"? Why do I have to be in one of two camps?
To a point. Some "artists" just use the explanation to pass off anything. Went to Saatchi art gallery, one piece was some underpants on a radiator with a massive explanation. Utter bullshit explained away.
I agree about art as a dialog. Zombie formalism is rampant right now which is the "I like it" camp. It's a huge debate in the art sphere. People making art to make money and no other reason. The ones that stick in the history books are the ones with meaning and a strong dialog
i like going to art fairs and districts and marveling at all the jr and sr school examples being old as art
i think there is a story behind it but i don't remember it. i just feel tension when i look at it because the girls body looks really uncomfortable and there's like an excessive amount of light on her and then the color of the sky and houses is really uncanny and bleak, respectively
ahh fuck i wanted an official story but fuck it, might be a little bias
The girl has an idea of something horrific happening inside that house but she isn't sure what, she doesn't want to check it out but she knows she has too for whatever reason.
A scenario pops inside my head is i imagine her hearing a painful scream of a loved one followed by a slight alien voice of another man that isn't suppose to be there like perhaps a dangerous serial killer. She doesn't want to check on her family but she has too
I see what you mean, but it doesn't really matter: if there's a group of people that feels addressed by either the underpants, the radiator, the combo of that or the explanation it can pass as legit art. Its not our duty to judge other peoples emotions.
Mainly painters that can make it in new york. It's more about 5 percent of artist making 95 percent of sales. a company paying 2 mil for a sculpture in their front yard when that could be used to fund thousands of shows for more interesting and compelling artworks
because youre not a goddamn writer. if you used your medium effectively the piece could make the statement effectively.
many pieces in the thread fulfill that, meaning, beauty and effort are not mutually exclusive.
to address your metaphor, its not like that at all because audio is part of the movie format. its more like saying doing a silent film with a book beside it would be ridiculous because if youd used the medium to its full capacity there would be no need for a book
the women in Renaissance art give me raging boners for some reason. they're just so soft looking and i would very much enjoy taking off their large layered clothing, it makes a woman's body seem so innocent and so holy
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
Thomas A. Edison
and so is art. Hipsters think they can reverse that ratio & make money from crap. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the history books will call you out on nonsense in the long run.
>Stole ideas and made them profitable
No wonder those were his words.
>Art is about perspiration
Art is about conveying ideas and concepts that words can't cover. If you can do that with minimal effort, well done.
>inb4 words can cover all: describe taste
>art is all about money
>history books matter
>art isn't already nonsense
Bob Ross is the only real artist ever to live. I would say goodnight but you hipsters are just starting your day with seven dollar coffees and free WiFi, so good day all you fedora touting heroes of nobody.
Enjoy your coffee.
My interpretation of girl with a pearl earring
best thread of the week
Such an amazing artist. My first favourite I think.
Mu Pan in great too
I see what you mean but that doesn't make it art. A pair of underpants on a radiator can move you if you relate to it in some way. Say for instance you remember seeing your underpants on the radiator in your room as a child after your dad took them off of you before sodomizing you. You may have a very visceral emotional reaction to seeing that. It doesn't mean it's art.
I didn't say I didn't like it. I never said I didn't like it. I just said it wasn't art. It's poignant and thought provoking. That doesn't make it art.
When you call it art you make it pretentious garbage. It borders on being performance art but then I don't really consider that art either.
Interesting point, but it can become art, I believe, by giving context. Otherwise we start to judge art by effort. There is no definite discipline in arts: anything can be(come) art.
Take for example Rothko: he painted big squares of a solid colour and is being hailed as one of the greatest comtemporary artists. By meausure of effort he is no Van Gogh (even though he was perfectly capable of painting figuratively), yet his works are able to evoke emotions by combining certain aspects, in this case size and colour.
Well, that's fair I guess, I personally stretch my opinion on what is art and what isn't a bit further. Not to say there's not a thing as shitty art, there's a lot of that, yet it's still art to me. Art, in the end, is nothing more or less than a display of the imagination.