I hate the art we've been going over. I hate it passionately. Words cannot explain how much I hate it. I want to burn it all --- all of it. And I want to watch it burn. Slowly. Especially "Red Square."
I mean, really now? Drawing a mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa? Really? I get that it's a statement about how western culture has led us to war and turmoil, but it's nothing more than a statement. That's it. Not art. That is, unless every statement ever by anyone is art, in which case, me giving the NHS pin to John last semester is art, and I went to Honor Council for making art.
You are far too trapped in the beauty of classical art. There are photos and videos, you need to open your mind, HEATHEN! Why paint something that you could take a better picture of. I think some of it can be quite beautiful, I loved the fauvist, but the cubism does slightly annoy me.
I think that these art works have merit, but just less than art that we have studied before. I dont see how there is any comparison between three musicians and, say, birth of venus. I just think the actual skill level and detail arent nearly the same.
Frankly, I find the abstract art very interesting. El Paco, you have to remember that Dada was done to make fun of all the art that had been previously made.
Firstly, I think what we have here are irreconcilable differences of opinion, because we are not judging the art with a fixed and universal system. We all seem to have our own definitions of art.
Andrew knows that Dadaists were mocking traditional art and he understands their message, but he simply rejects it as having any worth as art. He denies, it seems, that is even art at all. But he seems to be protesting-- please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew-- that art is (at least first and foremost) about aesthetic value; it is the process of creating something pleasing to the eye. Or perhaps he is saying that art is about the accurate depiction of the world? Or, well, maybe a combination of the two... that art is an aesthetically pleasing, decently representational depiction of the world. I suppose that's one definition.
I should like to add that worse things than Honor Council hearings have probably happened to people for creating art. The Dadaists might have been overjoyed to go before the Honor Council (indeed they might have mocked it, too); I'm not sure, though.
Dean's system seems a bit complex. I feel that he has, in his mind, taken a weighted average meaning, message, novelty, aesthetic value etc. with the emphasis on aesthetic value, and, finding cubism or fauvism or surrealism or futurism or whatnot less than pleasing to the eye, deemed older art the better art.
I can't say that I have a system for rating art myself. I do of course have personal aesthetic favorites-- pieces I should like to decorate my house or room with, for example. I'd never put Duchamp's Fountain in my living room but I would adore a Picasso. For some reason, I find myself attracted to the notion of art having a message. Oh, yes, Primavera is lovely-- and it has historical value, being part of a series of increasingly naturalistic paintings, one of the first with a female nude, and one clearly harkening back to the Classical era. But there is something absolutely lovely and wonderfully different about a Klimt, some exciting and strange beauty in Les Demoiselles D'Avignon. To me, even Kandinsky's artwork is aesthetically pleasing, and all the more rich and beautiful because when I look at his pieces, I am engaged. I am drawn into the experience; I am invited to think, to ponder the piece, to follow its lines and colors and explore the feelings they elicit. Like with Proust, the message is at the surface-- literally, in the layers of paint or newspaper that line the canvas-- and I am beckoned to decipher it. I enjoy that. Furthermore, I think I like the messages the art seems to be sending me. I appreciate the genius that goes into taking an idea and creating and wonderful visual representation of that idea-- it's visual literature.
And I just like the way they look. I guess I'm easy to please.
I do not mine the Fauvism all the much. In fact, I kinda like the "Tahitian Women" painting. While I do not think it is anything special though, it does not anger me as much as Duchamp's dadaism structures did. I was so irate in class during this argument when I was told that he got the credit for doing these things. He took a urinal and a rack that someone else had the idea to make and made and gets credit for it just because he believes it's "art". Maybe it is a form of art, but it certainly isn't his by any means. Just because I like this couch in the Peyton Center and feel that it could be art does not mean that I can take it, put it in a museum, and take credit for it. Blah. Makes me angry!
The movie showed some things like red square and other paintings that just dont seem to take any skill. This art movement does not seem to deserve the same attention against, say, classicism. I think dada is more about the statement then the actual art.
After seeing that video today, I pretty much love everything by Dali. Before I got to know more about the painter, I thought they were cool, but I didn't really understand where it was coming from. However, now that I know more about his CRAZINESS, I really really like it.
i like this art!!! the Dada artist could actually paint and create art very well, they were just making a statement! they were protesting in a way of many things going on in the time and the work is fun and creative, not stupid!
i liked some of the dada art and i liked the idea behind the movement. i also like some of dali's work but loathed others of his collection. i did not like the dada video though because i almost had a seizure. once of my favorite works was the cubist fox painting.
Dada struck me as more interesting and stimulating than Dali's works. I guess Surrealism is not my cup of tea. Dada being a complete protest against art seems more artistic in and of itself as opposed to Surrealism which seemed to sell-out [by not rejecting the styles and techniques of previous art movements] Dada'ism. Also, through Dada'ism's destructive nature, I feel that Dada'ism reveals something about basic human behavior, whereas Surrealism seems more concerned about what is hidden behing the concious viel.
Dadaism, to me, is basically trolling art. I think trolling is pretty funny, and I would even dare to say it can be considered an art form - but I'm kind of half-and-half about liking Dada and hating it.
For example, I think "look guyz i maded a urinal, itz art lolol" is hilarious. It's even compelling in that it forces us to question how we define art. But all the vague political manifesto, the fake-language conversations, the "dadadada" chanting, the characterization of the whole thing as some sort of Civil Rights Movement-style protest... that stuff's all just kinda douchey. They're messing with art snobs, and that's funny and I can appreciate it. But calling Dada a "protest against art" is like calling South Park a "protest against pop culture."
South Park is funny and great satire, and it's become popular enough that in some ways it can be a cultural catalyst. You could even call it art. But I would never call it a freaking "protest" - and I would say the exact same thing for Dadaism.
tl;dr Dada is funny, and you could plausibly call it art, but calling it a "protest against art" is lame
I don't really think Dada is about the art, more about what the "art" means, so when somebody calls Duchamp an artist I think that is a bit of a stretch. Just because he put his name on a toilet doesn't mean he should be called an artist just as Picasso and Degas and MIchelangelo are called artists. This doesn't mean that Duchamp didn't have some novel, groundbreaking ideas, but just because he did something innovative doesn't make him and an artist.
I'm not the biggest fan of cubism. I really didn't like it at first, and I went home and talked to my parents about Picasso and Braque. They said that they felt the same way I did when they just saw pictures of the painting, but when they saw the actual cubism paintings up close, their opinions changed. Some of the paintings are apparently massive, and I've decided that they must be intricately detailed in their lack of detail. (That made more sense in my head)
I think it's healthy that some of you guys don't like what we're studying. It means you think for yourselves rather than love every famous work of art just 'cause it's famous and by extension, "good".
I kind of like Dada. It's fun. Though, I agree, I don't really want to call Duchamp an artist... maybe a statementist. I think the Dadaist just meant to have fun defying traditional western values about art.
Without the Dadaist though, where would we be? I think a lot of the contemporary art we have now references what they did. They went there, which allows us to travel down that road too, if we want to. Kind of like the paved the way for us.
I agree with Margaret on her saying dada is fun because thats what it is, these people knew they weren't creating masterpieces! it was just a protest and we should accept it for what it is and just appreciate it for being creative, original, and innovative!!!
I think 20th century art shows exactly how much more freedom we have now. Before, there were limitations and certain subjects that were permissible. As time passed, there were additions made to the paintable subject matter, however now especially the idea of DADA art shows the progress and advancements made.
24 comments:
I hate the art we've been going over. I hate it passionately. Words cannot explain how much I hate it. I want to burn it all --- all of it. And I want to watch it burn. Slowly. Especially "Red Square."
combo breaker
I mean, really now? Drawing a mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa? Really? I get that it's a statement about how western culture has led us to war and turmoil, but it's nothing more than a statement. That's it. Not art. That is, unless every statement ever by anyone is art, in which case, me giving the NHS pin to John last semester is art, and I went to Honor Council for making art.
You are far too trapped in the beauty of classical art. There are photos and videos, you need to open your mind, HEATHEN! Why paint something that you could take a better picture of. I think some of it can be quite beautiful, I loved the fauvist, but the cubism does slightly annoy me.
I think that these art works have merit, but just less than art that we have studied before. I dont see how there is any comparison between three musicians and, say, birth of venus. I just think the actual skill level and detail arent nearly the same.
Frankly, I find the abstract art very interesting.
El Paco, you have to remember that Dada was done to make fun of all the art that had been previously made.
Firstly, I think what we have here are irreconcilable differences of opinion, because we are not judging the art with a fixed and universal system. We all seem to have our own definitions of art.
Andrew knows that Dadaists were mocking traditional art and he understands their message, but he simply rejects it as having any worth as art. He denies, it seems, that is even art at all. But he seems to be protesting-- please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew-- that art is (at least first and foremost) about aesthetic value; it is the process of creating something pleasing to the eye. Or perhaps he is saying that art is about the accurate depiction of the world? Or, well, maybe a combination of the two... that art is an aesthetically pleasing, decently representational depiction of the world. I suppose that's one definition.
I should like to add that worse things than Honor Council hearings have probably happened to people for creating art. The Dadaists might have been overjoyed to go before the Honor Council (indeed they might have mocked it, too); I'm not sure, though.
Dean's system seems a bit complex. I feel that he has, in his mind, taken a weighted average meaning, message, novelty, aesthetic value etc. with the emphasis on aesthetic value, and, finding cubism or fauvism or surrealism or futurism or whatnot less than pleasing to the eye, deemed older art the better art.
I can't say that I have a system for rating art myself. I do of course have personal aesthetic favorites-- pieces I should like to decorate my house or room with, for example. I'd never put Duchamp's Fountain in my living room but I would adore a Picasso. For some reason, I find myself attracted to the notion of art having a message. Oh, yes, Primavera is lovely-- and it has historical value, being part of a series of increasingly naturalistic paintings, one of the first with a female nude, and one clearly harkening back to the Classical era. But there is something absolutely lovely and wonderfully different about a Klimt, some exciting and strange beauty in Les Demoiselles D'Avignon. To me, even Kandinsky's artwork is aesthetically pleasing, and all the more rich and beautiful because when I look at his pieces, I am engaged. I am drawn into the experience; I am invited to think, to ponder the piece, to follow its lines and colors and explore the feelings they elicit. Like with Proust, the message is at the surface-- literally, in the layers of paint or newspaper that line the canvas-- and I am beckoned to decipher it. I enjoy that. Furthermore, I think I like the messages the art seems to be sending me. I appreciate the genius that goes into taking an idea and creating and wonderful visual representation of that idea-- it's visual literature.
And I just like the way they look. I guess I'm easy to please.
Seriously, michelle the last sentence was really all that was necesarry.
I do not mine the Fauvism all the much. In fact, I kinda like the "Tahitian Women" painting. While I do not think it is anything special though, it does not anger me as much as Duchamp's dadaism structures did. I was so irate in class during this argument when I was told that he got the credit for doing these things. He took a urinal and a rack that someone else had the idea to make and made and gets credit for it just because he believes it's "art". Maybe it is a form of art, but it certainly isn't his by any means. Just because I like this couch in the Peyton Center and feel that it could be art does not mean that I can take it, put it in a museum, and take credit for it. Blah. Makes me angry!
The movie showed some things like red square and other paintings that just dont seem to take any skill. This art movement does not seem to deserve the same attention against, say, classicism. I think dada is more about the statement then the actual art.
After seeing that video today, I pretty much love everything by Dali. Before I got to know more about the painter, I thought they were cool, but I didn't really understand where it was coming from. However, now that I know more about his CRAZINESS, I really really like it.
I agree, Dali is so wierd. I don't even know what to think about him, and now his paintings make alot more sense!
...I mean like now I can kind of understand where the craziness in his paintings comes from.
Dali now has me looking at eggs and fish in a whole different fashion, that video made me have to re evaluate his art.
i like this art!!! the Dada artist could actually paint and create art very well, they were just making a statement! they were protesting in a way of many things going on in the time and the work is fun and creative, not stupid!
i liked some of the dada art and i liked the idea behind the movement. i also like some of dali's work but loathed others of his collection. i did not like the dada video though because i almost had a seizure. once of my favorite works was the cubist fox painting.
Dada struck me as more interesting and stimulating than Dali's works. I guess Surrealism is not my cup of tea. Dada being a complete protest against art seems more artistic in and of itself as opposed to Surrealism which seemed to sell-out [by not rejecting the styles and techniques of previous art movements] Dada'ism. Also, through Dada'ism's destructive nature, I feel that Dada'ism reveals something about basic human behavior, whereas Surrealism seems more concerned about what is hidden behing the concious viel.
Dadaism, to me, is basically trolling art. I think trolling is pretty funny, and I would even dare to say it can be considered an art form - but I'm kind of half-and-half about liking Dada and hating it.
For example, I think "look guyz i maded a urinal, itz art lolol" is hilarious. It's even compelling in that it forces us to question how we define art. But all the vague political manifesto, the fake-language conversations, the "dadadada" chanting, the characterization of the whole thing as some sort of Civil Rights Movement-style protest... that stuff's all just kinda douchey. They're messing with art snobs, and that's funny and I can appreciate it. But calling Dada a "protest against art" is like calling South Park a "protest against pop culture."
South Park is funny and great satire, and it's become popular enough that in some ways it can be a cultural catalyst. You could even call it art. But I would never call it a freaking "protest" - and I would say the exact same thing for Dadaism.
tl;dr Dada is funny, and you could plausibly call it art, but calling it a "protest against art" is lame
I don't really think Dada is about the art, more about what the "art" means, so when somebody calls Duchamp an artist I think that is a bit of a stretch. Just because he put his name on a toilet doesn't mean he should be called an artist just as Picasso and Degas and MIchelangelo are called artists. This doesn't mean that Duchamp didn't have some novel, groundbreaking ideas, but just because he did something innovative doesn't make him and an artist.
I'm not the biggest fan of cubism. I really didn't like it at first, and I went home and talked to my parents about Picasso and Braque. They said that they felt the same way I did when they just saw pictures of the painting, but when they saw the actual cubism paintings up close, their opinions changed. Some of the paintings are apparently massive, and I've decided that they must be intricately detailed in their lack of detail. (That made more sense in my head)
I think it's healthy that some of you guys don't like what we're studying. It means you think for yourselves rather than love every famous work of art just 'cause it's famous and by extension, "good".
I kind of like Dada. It's fun. Though, I agree, I don't really want to call Duchamp an artist... maybe a statementist. I think the Dadaist just meant to have fun defying traditional western values about art.
Without the Dadaist though, where would we be? I think a lot of the contemporary art we have now references what they did. They went there, which allows us to travel down that road too, if we want to. Kind of like the paved the way for us.
I agree with Margaret on her saying dada is fun because thats what it is, these people knew they weren't creating masterpieces! it was just a protest and we should accept it for what it is and just appreciate it for being creative, original, and innovative!!!
I think 20th century art shows exactly how much more freedom we have now. Before, there were limitations and certain subjects that were permissible. As time passed, there were additions made to the paintable subject matter, however now especially the idea of DADA art shows the progress and advancements made.
Post a Comment