Stepping away from using the fundamentals of art and just doing what you want I think is a good way to explore what can be done. I think it is an effective way to make interesting paintings because you are not tied down to ideas and principles and it can also spark new ideas for other paintings in the future. Also by doing whatever comes to mind and using whatever medium you want is a very freeing way to express yourself that you might not be able to do with paint.
I found the part where it talks about a painting seeming lousy to look again interesting because most people are used to looking at good quality paintings and to see one that is out of the ordinary might seem of a lesser quality. Just because one painting might not look like other "good quality" ones doesnt mean that it is any less. There is always something about or in paintings that catches ones eye that is interesting.
I do love the idea of diving into different materials working them all together and conquering old stand by techniques to push what is able to be done. I do not like pushing art for the sake of it however. Meaning that an artist is doing it not because they are working the paint or clay or art to create an image but they do it to go with a movement. Same as if an artist will only try one medium and never move in a new direction they will only embrace what is in. I think boundaries, techniques, and style should always be pushed changed and created. i hope not to see a day however where an artist will have to move to extreme painting and move to sky diving while painting. However much an artist says they want the viewer to freely interpret their art - open ended- I truly believe that ever artist wants a viewer to see a little part of what the artist imagined.
I never really thought about it, but the article mentions how most painters find a style, and then they spend the rest of their careers engulfed in that style. To me every artist has a sort of aesthetic that they seem to stick to. They work on similar scales, with similar materials and a similar approach. All this combined with their personal style and influences, makes a Miro painting unmistakably a Miro painting. But this is not the case for this new wave of abstract painters who constantly push the boundaries in their own work with various sizes and random materials. The result I feel, is aesthetically fresh, however, I wonder, is the artist's identity suffering? Are their paintings any less identifiable as belonging to a certain artist if they dabble in such a wide spectrum of approaches? Or does that not even matter? A good painting, is a good painting.
One thing Butler said that caught me was that these artists focus on “unexpected outcomes rather than handsome results.” If you’re looking for an unexpected outcome, then you are attempting to engage the viewer in a dialogue about that outcome, or at least make her think about it. Doesn’t this usually lead to art that is about art? I have no objection to that genre, but its limited subject has a limited audience. Artist-to-artist. But maybe painters always paint for other painters or the slightly larger group called The Art World?
I guess you can tell that these guys didn’t inspire me.
A lot of what is today regarded as "great art", was initially rejected or thought to be sub par because it broke too many rules. Finding new ways to break rules compositionally, etc, and making it work is part of what makes art so fascinating. I love the concept of artists rejecting principles "learned in art school".
I think Dan had an interesting point about exploring new styles while still being identifiable. It seems there is a fine line between exploring new ideas and losing what makes your work different from anyone elses. I also wonder if this is a concern among artists, and if so how restricted they might feel.
How many times can Miro make a Miro painting and get away with it. There comes a point in an artist's career where they must continue to explore alternative methods and techniques for creating art. Why create your own artistic style and master it only to continue with that style for years on end? I wasn't too fond of some of the contemporary abstraction artists in the article but I respect them for their exploration. Artistic creation is a vital part of intellectual growth and it is beneficial to stimulate your artist's mind with new possibilities. Picasso, most known for his cubism, is a great example of an artist that had a multitude of styles. Because of Picasso's exploration his work became more and more successful.
But what makes are successful. Impressionist artists of the 19th century conceived advanced paintings which inspired artists today to view light and color differenently than those artistis living pre-imressionistic period. However, impressionist, such as Monet, were mocked by established 19th century realist artists. Is the success of an artistic creation predetermined and conditioned by professional and successful artists of its time?
I've always rather enjoyed abstract art but never really found myself to be able to do it so well. But since abstract art is such a wide field and can be viewed as many things and represented in many ways it's hard to define what can and cannot be abstract art.
I have been hearing the following statement a lot lately: "there has never been a better time to be an artist than now" and although I tend not to agree with it because it has never been so hard to find funding for the arts than now, it seems to be true regarding this article...
It has never being a better time to be artist because we have hundreds of years of artistic history behind us to draw inspiration and from which to catapult new ideas . Our generation of artists haven't really had to worry about breaking any set of rules to make art, all rules have been broken for us. It's not revolutionary to make feminist art, graffiti an entire wall, or make protest art against war. We can make whatever we want, we were raised on a culture of "freedom". Our job is to educate ourselves to be able to understand the historical background behind the art, not to just see it aesthetically, but rather to be able to discern from what is good and well thought art and what is just plain laziness disguised as "avant-garde".
The art movement, The New Casualists, is doing what it should be doing, and that is experimenting.. I think their challenge lies on figuring out how to make all this knowledge about history, technique, material and new technologies coexist and be relevant not only on a personal level but on the world at large.. Picasso didn't just put some cardboard and string together and hope for the best, he had an idea in mind, a guitar. His findings revolutionized and inspired a whole generation and this is what the goal and focus should be for any art movement.
Stepping away from using the fundamentals of art and just doing what you want I think is a good way to explore what can be done. I think it is an effective way to make interesting paintings because you are not tied down to ideas and principles and it can also spark new ideas for other paintings in the future. Also by doing whatever comes to mind and using whatever medium you want is a very freeing way to express yourself that you might not be able to do with paint.
ReplyDeleteI found the part where it talks about a painting seeming lousy to look again interesting because most people are used to looking at good quality paintings and to see one that is out of the ordinary might seem of a lesser quality. Just because one painting might not look like other "good quality" ones doesnt mean that it is any less. There is always something about or in paintings that catches ones eye that is interesting.
I do love the idea of diving into different materials working them all together and conquering old stand by techniques to push what is able to be done. I do not like pushing art for the sake of it however. Meaning that an artist is doing it not because they are working the paint or clay or art to create an image but they do it to go with a movement. Same as if an artist will only try one medium and never move in a new direction they will only embrace what is in. I think boundaries, techniques, and style should always be pushed changed and created. i hope not to see a day however where an artist will have to move to extreme painting and move to sky diving while painting. However much an artist says they want the viewer to freely interpret their art - open ended- I truly believe that ever artist wants a viewer to see a little part of what the artist imagined.
ReplyDeleteAllie Pisack --bumpkins124
I never really thought about it, but the article mentions how most painters find a style, and then they spend the rest of their careers engulfed in that style. To me every artist has a sort of aesthetic that they seem to stick to. They work on similar scales, with similar materials and a similar approach. All this combined with their personal style and influences, makes a Miro painting unmistakably a Miro painting. But this is not the case for this new wave of abstract painters who constantly push the boundaries in their own work with various sizes and random materials. The result I feel, is aesthetically fresh, however, I wonder, is the artist's identity suffering? Are their paintings any less identifiable as belonging to a certain artist if they dabble in such a wide spectrum of approaches? Or does that not even matter? A good painting, is a good painting.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Butler said that caught me was that these artists focus on “unexpected outcomes rather than handsome results.” If you’re looking for an unexpected outcome, then you are attempting to engage the viewer in a dialogue about that outcome, or at least make her think about it. Doesn’t this usually lead to art that is about art? I have no objection to that genre, but its limited subject has a limited audience. Artist-to-artist. But maybe painters always paint for other painters or the slightly larger group called The Art World?
ReplyDeleteI guess you can tell that these guys didn’t inspire me.
Barbara
A lot of what is today regarded as "great art", was initially rejected or thought to be sub par because it broke too many rules. Finding new ways to break rules compositionally, etc, and making it work is part of what makes art so fascinating. I love the concept of artists rejecting principles "learned in art school".
ReplyDeleteI think Dan had an interesting point about exploring new styles while still being identifiable. It seems there is a fine line between exploring new ideas and losing what makes your work different from anyone elses. I also wonder if this is a concern among artists, and if so how restricted they might feel.
Brooke
How many times can Miro make a Miro painting and get away with it. There comes a point in an artist's career where they must continue to explore alternative methods and techniques for creating art. Why create your own artistic style and master it only to continue with that style for years on end? I wasn't too fond of some of the contemporary abstraction artists in the article but I respect them for their exploration. Artistic creation is a vital part of intellectual growth and it is beneficial to stimulate your artist's mind with new possibilities. Picasso, most known for his cubism, is a great example of an artist that had a multitude of styles. Because of Picasso's exploration his work became more and more successful.
ReplyDeleteBut what makes are successful. Impressionist artists of the 19th century conceived advanced paintings which inspired artists today to view light and color differenently than those artistis living pre-imressionistic period. However, impressionist, such as Monet, were mocked by established 19th century realist artists. Is the success of an artistic creation predetermined and conditioned by professional and successful artists of its time?
I've always rather enjoyed abstract art but never really found myself to be able to do it so well. But since abstract art is such a wide field and can be viewed as many things and represented in many ways it's hard to define what can and cannot be abstract art.
ReplyDelete- Jennifer Edgerton
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have been hearing the following statement a lot lately: "there has never been a better time to be an artist than now" and although I tend not to agree with it because it has never been so hard to find funding for the arts than now, it seems to be true regarding this article...
ReplyDeleteIt has never being a better time to be artist because we have hundreds of years of artistic history behind us to draw inspiration and from which to catapult new ideas . Our generation of artists haven't really had to worry about breaking any set of rules to make art, all rules have been broken for us. It's not revolutionary to make feminist art, graffiti an entire wall, or make protest art against war. We can make whatever we want, we were raised on a culture of "freedom". Our job is to educate ourselves to be able to understand the historical background behind the art, not to just see it aesthetically, but rather to be able to discern from what is good and well thought art and what is just plain laziness disguised as "avant-garde".
The art movement, The New Casualists, is doing what it should be doing, and that is experimenting.. I think their challenge lies on figuring out how to make all this knowledge about history, technique, material and new technologies coexist and be relevant not only on a personal level but on the world at large.. Picasso didn't just put some cardboard and string together and hope for the best, he had an idea in mind, a guitar. His findings revolutionized and inspired a whole generation and this is what the goal and focus should be for any art movement.