Most Horrifying Painting?
- Thread starter sparrowhawk
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Did anyone watch The Young Pope? An intriguing piece, I thought. (A TV series joined together could be a piece, I hope)
I tried to watch The Young Pope, but I just couldn't get interested in it. Even though we watched them all at one time, it was like I was missing an important piece to the puzzle that would help me understand what was going on.
Ok, so you fail to see it. Outside of listing hundreds/thousands of paintings and explaining to you the political nature of each, I would merely suggest that you maybe audit an Art History course, or read some books on art. If it is that you disagree with the historical background on the ones that I have already given a snippet of, then maybe I am just misunderstanding the issue. Most likely, you just never studied the political nature of art, so it is a new way of looking at art. But, seeing how most of the art throughout history was paid for by governing bodies (royalty, elected, dictators, etc), religious establishments, and countries, I would think that it was obvious. Then, after photography freed artists from the patronage system, they were free to explore other subjects, but some stayed within the realm of politics.
Actually, I was trying to define the nature of art, which has nothing to do with politics. But that does not stop some artists from implying a political statement /through/ their art or for some onlookers to infer it.
I hope that's not me as I studied art at the Carnegie Institute on a scholarship.
I didn't see the word "current" anywhere in the guidelines, it just says politics. But making fun of the current president is about as "current" as I can think. Look! Please do not mistake me for being overly-critical or sensitive here, frankly I don't care what pictures are posted, but I was told to read and abide by the Guidelines and I'm trying to do that. But if you are going to make a rule with fuzzy blurry edges that is subject to interpretation, then defend people for testing its limits, you can hardly complain when resulting threads invariably disintegrate down into philosophical debates of disagreement. My only point.
Sheesh. :roll:
This thread reminds me of Thanksgiving with my family. "Remember the rule everybody: we don't talk about politics OR religion!"
This thread reminds me of Thanksgiving with my family. "Remember the rule everybody: we don't talk about politics OR religion!"
Because politics are inextricably intertwined with human existence.
I would argue however that the vast majority of art produced today is strictly commercial, and so the political element is not in the forefront (not to imply that all art isn't commercial to some degree).
And then there is intent. But that's a whole other can of worms.
...or, get suckered into arguing with drunk Uncle Sal. :
:
Carnegie Institute of Science? I had no idea that they had an Art History Department. I know they had a museum, but...
Ummm, most people realize that it is only current politics that would matter, especially since history gets discussed quite a bit. We wouldn't be able to talk about much if we stuck to some... If you've got a problem with the rules, you can PM me or the admin, and we can clear it up for you, Toob.
:Carnegie Institute of Science? I had no idea that they had an Art History Department. I know they had a museum, but...
Ummm, most people realize that it is only current politics that would matter, especially since history gets discussed quite a bit. We wouldn't be able to talk about much if we stuck to some... If you've got a problem with the rules, you can PM me or the admin, and we can clear it up for you, Toob.
Before my mom passed away, my uncle painted her a picture.
My mom was a severe alcoholic, and it made for a lot of really crappy years, for all off us. My dad was too, but quit when I was roughly 12 or so I think.
The picture depicts the two sides of my mom, including the demons within. My mom never wanted to hang it up. After she died, I never wanted to hang it up, but my wife insisted.
She's the reason I don't drink alcohol. Never have, never will.
My mom was a severe alcoholic, and it made for a lot of really crappy years, for all off us. My dad was too, but quit when I was roughly 12 or so I think.
The picture depicts the two sides of my mom, including the demons within. My mom never wanted to hang it up. After she died, I never wanted to hang it up, but my wife insisted.
She's the reason I don't drink alcohol. Never have, never will.
Frida's work always leaves me a feeling very unsettled. And, her eyebrows... and her work, and eyebrows...
She has communist eyebrows. ::
She has communist eyebrows. :
:
and if anyone has been paying attention to art in the news. The most horrifying restoration job in history... ha ha. cracks me up.
Frida...wasn't she the Mexican Communist left leaning thinker?
That image is what I see of a night when I smoke anything with Latakia in it :nana:
Regards,
Jay.
That image is what I see of a night when I smoke anything with Latakia in it :nana:
Regards,
Jay.
Defining what Art is (note the caps) is not possible. Hell, I've been a professional artist for over 50 years and I still find the whole question a pointless exercise in mental masturbation. Assessing the quality of a work of art is totally dependent on a locus of external values. Bach may have been a genius, but that didn't save his manuscripts from being used to cap honey jars, or being tossed in the trash by his successors. To some level, it comes down to "I know it when I see it." or "What god forsaken crap is this??!!"
As for politics in art, of course there's politics in art. Not just the narrow and terminally dysfunctional arena of party politics, left and right, and other constantly changing nebulous meaningless terms, but in the very basic and real sense of two people and a coffee pot, who gets the first and/or last cup, whether it should be French roast or Mocha Java, or French Press, percolated, or drip.
BTW, I like Frieda. She wasn't afraid of her eyebrow. That fat boyfriend of hers wasn't half bad either.
As for politics in art, of course there's politics in art. Not just the narrow and terminally dysfunctional arena of party politics, left and right, and other constantly changing nebulous meaningless terms, but in the very basic and real sense of two people and a coffee pot, who gets the first and/or last cup, whether it should be French roast or Mocha Java, or French Press, percolated, or drip.
BTW, I like Frieda. She wasn't afraid of her eyebrow. That fat boyfriend of hers wasn't half bad either.
Mental masturbation was what I kept referring to it as when seacaptain I debated this on here a few years ago. I like that.
I don't expect Sable or Toob to agree with me... actually I would be shocked, ha ha. But, the problem with almost all definitions is that they try to set parameters for what someone else can call or exclude as Art. When I was teaching at UA in the early 90's we had an aesthetician, Dr. Frank McCoy, who passed away last year, come and gave a lecture on aesthetics, the philosophy of art and beauty. And, this is what I took away from the endeavor.
Art is not whatever you want it to be, but what your social, genetic, history, socio-economic, gender, race, and age establishes as norms and phenomena.
Art is a measuring stick that helps us separate everyday objects from extraordinary. It is not limited to a particular craft (painting, sculpture, drawing, etc...) but extends into any aspect of human creation.
Somewhere within the creative process a phenomena can occur that elevates the creation or event above the level of ordinary. Between the problem, brainstorming, planning, execution, re-working, and exhibit stages of the process something can happen that separates the creation from ordinary. However, it is recognition, the measuring stick, within us, helps us recognize the phenomena, and elevates the event or creation above that which we have become accustomed to within our own personal life.
This is a far superior definition, as it excludes someone from just saying that "to me only toothpicks are art." Therefore, art cannot be whatever you want it to be, but contains it within out own worldview. We do not control the measuring stick, nor the definition, but we are moved by it.
Ten years working with stones and metals in my father's jewelry store, I wanted to be more creative. So, I studied studio art, painting and print. Then worked my way up the ladder to professor of printmaking, while working on my PHD is aesthetics. Not because I wanted a different job, but because I had an internal passion for the subject. While doing this, I decided afterwards to just set up shop and be art, instead of teaching it, and I saw so much promise in living it, outside the realm of the classical crafts or academia, which I loathe. I returned to jewelry, writing, public speaking, and debate as my crafts. 43 years now, and it's all really for my own amusement. Hopefully, someone else has been affected also. Everyone is different. But, for me, once I was able to establish a definition, I could spin my own Art more easily. Sure, it may not be necessary for everyone. But for me...
I just find the above definition, defining the subjective, to be far superior to trying to define it as a noun, or thing. And, with years of participating in debates, Toastmasters, and speaking to schools, I have yet to find an adequate challenge to the definition. So, I guess you could say that it was a pretty good splooge as far as mental masterbation goes. YMMV ::
I don't expect Sable or Toob to agree with me... actually I would be shocked, ha ha. But, the problem with almost all definitions is that they try to set parameters for what someone else can call or exclude as Art. When I was teaching at UA in the early 90's we had an aesthetician, Dr. Frank McCoy, who passed away last year, come and gave a lecture on aesthetics, the philosophy of art and beauty. And, this is what I took away from the endeavor.
Art is not whatever you want it to be, but what your social, genetic, history, socio-economic, gender, race, and age establishes as norms and phenomena.
Art is a measuring stick that helps us separate everyday objects from extraordinary. It is not limited to a particular craft (painting, sculpture, drawing, etc...) but extends into any aspect of human creation.
Somewhere within the creative process a phenomena can occur that elevates the creation or event above the level of ordinary. Between the problem, brainstorming, planning, execution, re-working, and exhibit stages of the process something can happen that separates the creation from ordinary. However, it is recognition, the measuring stick, within us, helps us recognize the phenomena, and elevates the event or creation above that which we have become accustomed to within our own personal life.
This is a far superior definition, as it excludes someone from just saying that "to me only toothpicks are art." Therefore, art cannot be whatever you want it to be, but contains it within out own worldview. We do not control the measuring stick, nor the definition, but we are moved by it.
Ten years working with stones and metals in my father's jewelry store, I wanted to be more creative. So, I studied studio art, painting and print. Then worked my way up the ladder to professor of printmaking, while working on my PHD is aesthetics. Not because I wanted a different job, but because I had an internal passion for the subject. While doing this, I decided afterwards to just set up shop and be art, instead of teaching it, and I saw so much promise in living it, outside the realm of the classical crafts or academia, which I loathe. I returned to jewelry, writing, public speaking, and debate as my crafts. 43 years now, and it's all really for my own amusement. Hopefully, someone else has been affected also. Everyone is different. But, for me, once I was able to establish a definition, I could spin my own Art more easily. Sure, it may not be necessary for everyone. But for me...
I just find the above definition, defining the subjective, to be far superior to trying to define it as a noun, or thing. And, with years of participating in debates, Toastmasters, and speaking to schools, I have yet to find an adequate challenge to the definition. So, I guess you could say that it was a pretty good splooge as far as mental masterbation goes. YMMV :
:
- Status