Originally Posted by
IndiReloaded
[Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I completely agree. But the best messages are those done with skill and elegance. Great art is great b/c the skillset that produced it is rare.
Well, since we are discussing art let me start by saying that I'm simply expressing my OPINION.
That said, the reason I think JP sucks is at several levels but the primary one is that I am not at in anyway awed by his work (and I've seen several now, in person). It doesn't require any special skill. A group of kinders (or monkeys) with squeeze bottles and foam brushes could reproduce it. *I* could, and that is not saying much.
Art should be a combination of message, talent/skill, and novel ideas, as you said. Generally any of those alone is not enough to be great, IMO. Clever ideas is not enough either. While I enjoy a lot of the mixed media & electronic stuff out there, I don't consider them great.
The Sistine Chapel is a great work, both the structure & the art. Most cannot do that. Paul Rubins "Prometheus Bound" is another (tho not particularly appealing to me). Bachs Brandenburg concertos. DaVinci's early sketches of aeroplanes. La Pieta. Need I go on?
Those artworks make me inspired & awed at the elite ability that humanity can occasionally express. Find me a monkey or kinder kid who can do any of that. Jackson Pollock is just "meh" & I wouldn't send him out to represent the pinnacle of human artistry to space aliens. Same for those pure white or black-on-black garbage that out there. Artists like that are simply desperate for a new idea to distinguish from their peers & promote their cleverness if they manage to come up with one. That's not great art, IMO. Innovation, yes, but not greatness.
Since you asked.