What is Art?

Off Topic
21

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

What you’re talking about is illustration, not art. Artist’s make art. Illustrators illustrate. There’s nothing wrong with either, but they’re by no means the same thing.[/quote]

I disagree with this modernist notion.

I’m an illustrator. I get paid to make a picture that follows a set of instructions from my client. I was commissioned because my style is favorable in the eyes of my client, and he/she believes I can best give them what they want visually.

How is that any different than any artist before the modern age? All the Old Masters from as far back as history can count were realizing the whims of their patrons. Michelangelo and Rafael painted what their patrons wanted them to, and nobody can dispute that what they did is art. The list is endless. Caravaggio, Titian, Poussin, Rembrandt… they all were commissioned. In more recent times Rockwell, Parrish, Lyendecker, Hirshfeld… these men were illustrators of the highest praise and hell yes they made art.

I’m an illustrator. Damn right what I do is art.

22

I’ve got nothing to contribute here, but OP: it was Marcel Duchamp who put a urinal on display and called it The Fountain. If I remember correctly much of his work was basically making fun of art, and he became very popular for it. In short, he was awesome.

23

[quote]rcsermas wrote:
I’ve got nothing to contribute here, but OP: it was Marcel Duchamp who put a urinal on display and called it The Fountain. If I remember correctly much of his work was basically making fun of art, and he became very popular for it. In short, he was awesome.[/quote]

But then he basically made art, because what he did would have made no sense without the cultural context and the frame he set up.

24

Indeed he did. I just find it quite entertaining that his work was embraced as great art by the very people he was attacking.

25

[quote]rcsermas wrote:
Indeed he did. I just find it quite entertaining that his work was embraced as great art by the very people he was attacking.[/quote]

And now, in New York, that’s the work that gets most of the media attention. I respect what people like Duchamp did and I think people like him, who really push us to examine our idea about what art is, are crucial to the forward motion of art, though most are just attention whores (Piss Christ, anyone?).

But when I work in oils (or charcoal) and I’m really in the zone I can feel the spirit of my painterly forefathers in a way I never would if putting together gallery installations was my thing. Although, in a couple hundred years…

26

500×568 38.8 KB

.

27

[quote]Genocide_General wrote:
Art can be anything that someone creates that they, or other people find attractive. I can shit on the sidewalk, and some dude with a scat fetish might think it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. Other creepers with no mind of their own will follow what this scat man say. Thus art is born. Shitty way to put it.

See art is a lot like porn. You can make anything, the craziest thing in the world, and I guarantee that someone out there will have a thing for it.[/quote]

Wim Delvoye beat you to it, and they managed to mass produce it.

Check out the artist’s stained glass windows for a nice compliment to your second comment. Personally, I like his tattooed pigs.

28

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

What you’re talking about is illustration, not art. Artist’s make art. Illustrators illustrate. There’s nothing wrong with either, but they’re by no means the same thing.[/quote]

I disagree with this modernist notion.

I’m an illustrator. I get paid to make a picture that follows a set of instructions from my client. I was commissioned because my style is favorable in the eyes of my client, and he/she believes I can best give them what they want visually.

How is that any different than any artist before the modern age? All the Old Masters from as far back as history can count were realizing the whims of their patrons. Michelangelo and Rafael painted what their patrons wanted them to, and nobody can dispute that what they did is art. The list is endless. Caravaggio, Titian, Poussin, Rembrandt… they all were commissioned. In more recent times Rockwell, Parrish, Lyendecker, Hirshfeld… these men were illustrators of the highest praise and hell yes they made art.

I’m an illustrator. Damn right what I do is art. [/quote]

x9001

I illustrate as well, and I’d like to think what I create is art.

29

[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

What you’re talking about is illustration, not art. Artist’s make art. Illustrators illustrate. There’s nothing wrong with either, but they’re by no means the same thing.[/quote]

I disagree with this modernist notion.

I’m an illustrator. I get paid to make a picture that follows a set of instructions from my client. I was commissioned because my style is favorable in the eyes of my client, and he/she believes I can best give them what they want visually.

How is that any different than any artist before the modern age? All the Old Masters from as far back as history can count were realizing the whims of their patrons. Michelangelo and Rafael painted what their patrons wanted them to, and nobody can dispute that what they did is art. The list is endless. Caravaggio, Titian, Poussin, Rembrandt… they all were commissioned. In more recent times Rockwell, Parrish, Lyendecker, Hirshfeld… these men were illustrators of the highest praise and hell yes they made art.

I’m an illustrator. Damn right what I do is art. [/quote]

x9001

I illustrate as well, and I’d like to think what I create is art.[/quote]

My apologies for revealing what hellacious, insufferable, art snob I am. I especially want to apologize to IronDwarf, whom I adore!

I hope I can carefully clarify here… I do believe illustration can be art and often is, maybe even more often than what gets labeled as art. Though whether it originates as illustration or an attempt at “art” I believe actually attaining art is almost always an accident (one of those accidents that cannot happen if you’re not actually TRYING to make SOMETHING happen, working at it, slogging away… Making a lot of crap along the way is part of the process).

When I try to make art I don’t actually feel like I’m doing so until I’m in that ZONE I referred to in an earlier post; that weird, magical place where I’m floating on autopilot and producing without thinking or consciously trying. I never produce anything I would consider art that doesn’t come from That Place and I’ve never been in the zone when illustrating. But that’s me.

Once again, I really need to remember that my experiences are not necessarily universal (as in our recent discussion about dreams, in which I spoke in absolutes that, it became clear, did not apply across the board). But I don’t get wicked serious about anything else like I do art. The artist’s I know… we’re crazier than a sack of squirrels when fighting amongst ourselves, and yet it’s all in good fun, because we all love it so much. Still, in a forum such as this, where nobody actually knows me, I need to be more careful. Thus, I’m truly sorry if anyone was offended and hope there are no hard feelings :).

30

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

My apologies for revealing what hellacious, insufferable, art snob I am. I especially want to apologize to IronDwarf, whom I adore!

I hope I can carefully clarify here… I do believe illustration can be art and often is, maybe even more often than what gets labeled as art. Though whether it originates as illustration or an attempt at “art” I believe actually attaining art is almost always an accident (one of those accidents that cannot happen if you’re not actually TRYING to make SOMETHING happen, working at it, slogging away… Making a lot of crap along the way is part of the process).

When I try to make art I don’t actually feel like I’m doing so until I’m in that ZONE I referred to in an earlier post; that weird, magical place where I’m floating on autopilot and producing without thinking or consciously trying. I never produce anything I would consider art that doesn’t come from That Place and I’ve never been in the zone when illustrating. But that’s me.

Once again, I really need to remember that my experiences are not necessarily universal (as in our recent discussion about dreams, in which I spoke in absolutes that, it became clear, did not apply across the board). But I don’t get wicked serious about anything else like I do art. The artist’s I know… we’re crazier than a sack of squirrels when fighting amongst ourselves, and yet it’s all in good fun, because we all love it so much. Still, in a forum such as this, where nobody actually knows me, I need to be more careful. Thus, I’m truly sorry if anyone was offended and hope there are no hard feelings :).
[/quote]

No apologies necessary SS. Although I accept! :slight_smile:

We spoke of the zone in another thread, and it is indeed universal among those who take their craft seriously. Even athletes.

I agree much of what we do is crap, and Picasso showed moments of genius within a majority of utter crap. lol That’s where good art comes from - learning from just working in large volume, making mistakes, learning from them, producing successful works, etc.

Thanks for making yourself clear, SS. And I adore you as well. :slight_smile:

31

c’mon, let’s hug it out.

32

Art is when you express yourself by changing the physical world, taking something metaphysical, and trying to make it physical. Playing the piano in itself is not an art. A machine could play the piano, its not until you take something from inside yourself and use the piano to express it that we have art. Even as a programmer, I feel that I’ve created art within my programs, giving the program a personality of its own. Art is everywhere whether we recognize it or not.

There is no such thing as good art, only art that is more universally understood. If I wrote a poem or letter in a language you’ve never heard of, using phrases and references only my friends and family would understand, this would not have much mass appeal, yet it might be extremely valuable to my family and friends. It is art, but understood by few.

Art can be more difficult to understand due to lack of skill. Every art is linked to a skill, this skill is needed to express the art inside. Painting in itself is not an art, neither is writing, even if you can do these things very well in a technical sense, it is not art until you put yourself into it, which can be very difficult NOT to do in my opinion.

People always want to express themselves, art can’t be stopped, only denied by the “elite”.

33

[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:
c’mon, let’s hug it out.[/quote]

And I LOVE Jeremy Piven, too! It’s all just too good :).

34

[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

What you’re talking about is illustration, not art. Artist’s make art. Illustrators illustrate. There’s nothing wrong with either, but they’re by no means the same thing.[/quote]

I disagree with this modernist notion.

I’m an illustrator. I get paid to make a picture that follows a set of instructions from my client. I was commissioned because my style is favorable in the eyes of my client, and he/she believes I can best give them what they want visually.

How is that any different than any artist before the modern age? All the Old Masters from as far back as history can count were realizing the whims of their patrons. Michelangelo and Rafael painted what their patrons wanted them to, and nobody can dispute that what they did is art. The list is endless. Caravaggio, Titian, Poussin, Rembrandt… they all were commissioned. In more recent times Rockwell, Parrish, Lyendecker, Hirshfeld… these men were illustrators of the highest praise and hell yes they made art.

I’m an illustrator. Damn right what I do is art. [/quote]

x9001

I illustrate as well, and I’d like to think what I create is art.[/quote]

I would just like to stress illustration as art.

This from one of the MASTERS:
http://www.donmartinshrine.com/

Don Martin, FTW.

35

909×650 149 KB

The Birth of Venus

36

508×700 133 KB

The Mona Lisa!

37
38
39

These appeal to the 5 year old side of me.