Boobas thread.

[doppelgaenger]

Boobaa, some artists generally have objective views about the world. They see the circle of life in its process; they examine it.

It's depressing to see. Depressing to be reminded of it.

[boobaa]

Update:

I am overwhelmed with school work. There is no way i could finish everything on time. That happens when you let things pile up. A very possible chance to drop out :S

[ecojeanne]

you seem intelligent, just cram this time, no-one's perfect, i let things pile up all the time.

[IndiReloaded]

Sorry, my friend. I mis-spoke. I meant that your passion for art might be (in part) explained by your depression.

She thinks you'll cut off your ear or something.

Boobaa, I'm no artist, but I love art. I agree with you, most art sucks. Most of what is considered 'great works', is shit IMO. Especially the modern stuff. Jackson Pollack for example, is crap.

[vashti]

Jackson Pollack was a really fun artist to teach to elementary school kids, though... I had a blast doing that!

[boobaa]

Pollack was not crap. Pollack knew what he did, had a purpose, was self concious, critical. Most people don't even realize what he has done... And I bet everything is fun to teach to elementary kids, don't be full of shit.

Or, if you think he was that bad, why?

[vashti]

And I bet everything is fun to teach to elementary kids, don't be full of shit.

No, not everything.

Anyway, we rolled tons of butcher paper across the schoolyard and let the kids go to town dripping and splattering paint. They had a blast. Unlike other forms of art, there was no objective "correct" way to do it, so all the kids felt good about it afterwards and no one was frustrated.

[boobaa]

They will get huge egos.

[IndiReloaded]

Anyway, we rolled tons of butcher paper across the schoolyard and let the kids go to town dripping and splattering paint. They had a blast. Unlike other forms of art, there was no objective "correct" way to do it, so all the kids felt good about it afterwards and no one was frustrated.

That does sounds like fun, Vash.

Boobaa, you could do the same thing, you know. Just leave great big blobs of paint on the paper & wait for the tanks to roll through and leave track-prints. You could sell it titled Memories of Estonia.

[doppelgaenger]

Pollack was not crap. Pollack knew what he did, had a purpose, was self concious, critical. Most people don't even realize what he has done... And I bet everything is fun to teach to elementary kids, don't be full of shit.

Or, if you think he was that bad, why?

Boobaa, very few people will understand what Jackson Pollock did without going to school.

[boobaa]

That's what school is for. Its to widen our eyespan, it teaches us topics we really have no interest in, making us see and experience things we otherwise often don't want to do. And that is the preparation for life.

And Indi, I am familiar with both dada and abstractionism. Although my main criteria right now is focusing on realism, doing usual pictures. Practice is everything to be the master of expressing your thoughts.

Art has never been just about beauty. Beauty may be just craftmanship. But since stone age, the beginning of art as we know it, art has always carried some meaning in it, purpose. Even doing art for the sake of having no meaning is givin meaning. And the understanding of beauty can be stretched, widened, reversed...

[IndiReloaded]

Boobaa, very few people will understand what Jackson Pollock did without going to school.

And this^ is PRECISELY what makes him a terrible artist.

And Indi, I am familiar with both dada and abstractionism. Although my main criteria right now is focusing on realism, doing usual pictures. Practice is everything to be the master of expressing your thoughts.

LOL, honey I know the words, even tho I'm not schooled as an artist. Fancy words for crap doesn't change what it is. Sorry.

[boobaa]

And this^ is PRECISELY what makes him a terrible artist.

Can you be a bit more precise about this? Where does the borderline go? is there some kind of criteria?

That terrible exhibition I mentioned, is terrible because it is clearly seen that artist is wondering, doesn't quite know what to do. That makes him a student or explorer, not an artist. If the ehibiton were classified under dada or something, it would have been more acceptable. Right there was something that seemed like a composition, idea, topic, but then it faded away and the overall result was a blob of meaningless paint claiming to be something.

Now Pollock knew exactly what to do. He let the paint drip and cut out the places that reminded him a bit of good composition, creating something.

LOL, honey I know the words, even tho I'm not schooled as an artist. Fancy words for crap doesn't change what it is. Sorry.

What does fancy words have to do with this? Besides, they are same fancy as action movie or porn -- genres, each carrying their own meaning.

[IndiReloaded]

That's what school is for. Its to widen our eyespan, it teaches us topics we really have no interest in, making us see and experience things we otherwise often don't want to do. And that is the preparation for life.

And Indi, I am familiar with both dada and abstractionism. Although my main criteria right now is focusing on realism, doing usual pictures. Practice is everything to be the master of expressing your thoughts.

Art has never been just about beauty. Beauty may be just craftmanship. But since stone age, the beginning of art as we know it, art has always carried some meaning in it, purpose. Even doing art for the sake of having no meaning is givin meaning. And the understanding of beauty can be stretched, widened, reversed...

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.

[boobaa]

Sixtine Chapel, Rubens. I will type my answer later, I must work now. Bought great amounts of energy drinks to stay up for a few days.