Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art

Cigno

Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 07, 2008, 07:31:02 PM
Deleted

Re: Trascendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 12:14:16 AM
straw man.  pick something a little less obvious for your modern art example.

Raise_the_Dead

Re: Trascendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 12:28:42 AM
I actually had the chance to visit a contemporary art museum for a class field trip recently.  I don't like a whole lot of "modern art," but I have to admit that it was an interesting experience.  The size and scope of some of this stuff, combined with the content, has an almost frightening impact.  I wouldn't write off all contemporary artists - an obvious good example of modern art would be Giger, whose work has the symmetrical composition of the first work you posted combined with a knowledge of symbolism and better technique.  I wonder if there are others around currently who do the same thing just as well, or better...?

That aside, examples like the second painting in your post only serve to show us exactly where we [most of us] are: confused, alienated, lonely, and afraid.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 05:18:56 AM
I do not despise the so-called modern art. It is reflective of our time. Those "modern" pieces allow me to have a good laugh more often than not. This is why I enjoy them.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 05:32:52 AM
This merely goes to show that aesthetics has lost its importance in the modern world. What I mean by this is that we now have a false dichotomy of science and art, where art is some contentless -- and, often, symbol-less -- mash of color, an impotent Universal manifesting spontaneously either for profit (cartoons, video games, pop art) or -- as tangentially noted in a recent thread about postmodern irony -- as an admission of defeat; a death rattle.

The marriage of knowledge and aesthetics has ended, resulting in compartmentalization. This kind of compartmentalization quite obviously has adverse affects on media, often to the point where the particular medium has its entire core removed for no other reason than so that it can be packaged and sold.

This shouldn't imply that we are no longer in search of truth; rather, it means that art is dead, since truth has been relegated to materialist discoveries, none of which apparently merit any kind of symbolic reverence. Consequently, we over-emphasize scientific truth to such an extent that it, too, has its meaning completely obliterated. We might find something really amazing on Mars, but that isn't going to stop all the garbage technology from reaching the homes of laymen. Eventually, science mutates into YouTube and X-Box 360 while art simply....evaporates.

This probably has something to do with the fact that any modern scientific breakthrough winds up trickling down through populist channels until its profitability has been maximized: "Dude, this chair has seventeen different degrees of softness and will fit the shape of your ass perfectly if you set it correctly. NASA invented it!" So we have a 'scientific community' -- an elite which has no interest in Mexican cosmic art -- and the general public, which is self-explanatory at this point. Betwixt the two, who is going to bring meaning back into our lives?

As for good modern art, try the Polish surrealist Zdzislaw Beksinski:


Cigno

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 05:40:15 AM
Black metal happened in 'modern' times using a current languaje to re-discover and to re-evaluate the pristine.
Sudden and casual art happens anytime, just that in our modern time such art is wrongly praised, in the pretext of calling it modern.  Is not generalization or straw, just a symptom.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 09:28:29 AM
Firstly, it's a straw man.
Secondly, I think that your sole evaluation of art is based on its conforming to this particular internet forum's core ideals is somewhat pathetic and seems to indicate that you follow rather than experience individually. This is not to take a pluralistic view by any means, nor to say that as long as someone appreciates art, it is worthwhile, but to simply state that in taking this blinkered and over-simplified view, you are closing your mind in a way which is detrimental only to yourself.

Cigno

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 06:00:18 PM
Clubhouse behavior is pathetic.
It's obvious that by modernity I'm refering to most present art. I start to think that visually some people here hasn't developed the same spark as auditionally.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 08, 2008, 07:18:02 PM
That tribal art sucks, by the way.  Looks like every other faux-primitive gee gaw on the market today.  It appears mass produced for Ten Thousand Villages.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 06:31:56 AM
The quality of the first picture in the thread seems evident to me, adequete explanation was given in the OP.  I think the difficulty most people have with evaluating visual art is that it is even more intuitive than music, and so cannot easily be rationally 'explained'.  For this reason it is far easy to be fooled by the fact that many inferior visual artists are masters of aesthetic, virtually all Renaissance painting demonstrates this tendency. 

@Satan is my Stewardess

The first painting uses simple technique, and so is not difficult to imitate.  This does not detract from its quality however, what I said about being blinded by aesthetic is relevant here.  This could also be remembered when evaluating most classical and romantic music, though that is another argument.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 05:39:20 PM
The quality of the first picture in the thread seems evident to me, adequete explanation was given in the OP.  I think the difficulty most people have with evaluating visual art is that it is even more intuitive than music, and so cannot easily be rationally 'explained'.  For this reason it is far easy to be fooled by the fact that many inferior visual artists are masters of aesthetic, virtually all Renaissance painting demonstrates this tendency. 

@Satan is my Stewardess

The first painting uses simple technique, and so is not difficult to imitate.  This does not detract from its quality however, what I said about being blinded by aesthetic is relevant here.  This could also be remembered when evaluating most classical and romantic music, though that is another argument.

I'd take precisely the opposite position; visual art is easily made directly representational, so it's meaning is often unpacked easily.  Gifted visual artists bring subtlety to the table and are able to layer meanings within works.  The mere fact that we can unpack a meaning we like from a work doesn't make it good, especially when such an obvious meaning is encoded so obviously.  Again, this is just like any other ethnic gee gaw at Ten Thousand Villages, so why praise it?

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 08:18:51 PM
I'd take precisely the opposite position; visual art is easily made directly representational, so it's meaning is often unpacked easily.  Gifted visual artists bring subtlety to the table and are able to layer meanings within works.  The mere fact that we can unpack a meaning we like from a work doesn't make it good, especially when such an obvious meaning is encoded so obviously.  Again, this is just like any other ethnic gee gaw at Ten Thousand Villages, so why praise it?
I agree with your observations. Those same principles made Necroticism - Descanting the Insalubrious so great. Each and every listen rewarded the listener with something new as they uncovered different subtleties and nuances, each contributing to a clearer understanding of the work's meaning.

This is our problem, making things too obvious, crudely simplistic and tangible for everyone. It doesn't challenge them. Perhaps this goes to the 'knowing' vs. understanding principle, and such art is a consequence of people who don't truly grasp the immaterial principles and how they manifest themselves in nature. Thus we get these pieces of art that are simplifications of a complex concept that are more cartoons than elaborate works of art such as you mentioned. At best the above art could work as a logo or emblem, a standard for a tribe even. But this is not great art.

Raise_the_Dead

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 11:46:56 PM
I don't think anyone was implying that it was great art, or that it was meant to be.

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 11:51:27 PM
I don't think anyone was implying that it was great art, or that it was meant to be.

So the original poster starting the topic, labeling it "transcendental art," calling it meaninguful, and contrasting it with "a self-obsessed painter masturbating himself" doesn't imply that?

Raise_the_Dead

Re: Transcendental Art & 'Modern' Art
July 09, 2008, 11:58:18 PM
I don't think anyone was implying that it was great art, or that it was meant to be.

So the original poster starting the topic, labeling it "transcendental art," calling it meaninguful, and contrasting it with "a self-obsessed painter masturbating himself" doesn't imply that?


Eh, it's not like he was saying it was "Great Art," a la Da Vinci, Dante, Vivaldi, etc.  But I see your point.