timsk
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,728
- Likes
- 3,425
Mornin' Pat,
Your definition of art appears to me to rest solely on the notion that it's in the eye of the beholder. End of. Well no Pat, there's a great deal more to it than that. I didn't spend five years of my life at art school to get an honours degree in the subject just to be told at the end of it that anything I go on to produce may or may not be art - let alone good art - based on the uninformed opinion of whether or not you and others like you give it the thumbs up. That's crazy! So Pat, at the very least, please tell me that something (a painting or sculpture) can be art - even great art - even if can't bare to look at it? Unless and until you can accept that your liking or disliking of something has absolutely no correlation or influence on whether or not something is (or isn't) art and that the two things are completely independent of one another - then I'll be forced to keep making this point until it finally sinks home.
Tim.
Absolutely not. I'm merely trying to bring things to your attention that you don't appear to be aware of. Think of it as constructive input from an old online friend.Are you setting yourself up as the great art critic Tim ?
This assumes that what one is looking at qualifies as art. However, the paint by numbers video you posted is at best occupational therapy - it has little or nothing to do with art.The quality of art imho is in the eye/brain of the beholder.
Can you name the critic that I'm allegedly 'slavishly parroting'? Let me save you the bother, as I don't pay any attention to any art critics; so I'm not parroting anyone, slavishly or otherwise. Additionally, I wouldn't dream of foisting my own opinions onto others. All I'm doing is trying (in vain so it seems) to bring a modicum - a mere modicum - of understanding about a subject that you appear not to know a great deal about. I realise that's patronising, but may I remind you that it is you Pat who started this thread and gave it the title: 'ART - not just pretty pics'. If you'd entitled it 'NOT art - just pretty pics' - then I wouldn't have an issue.One should avoid slavishly parroting the critics who are mainly stuck in the past with their own opinions. Most critics go further and try to foist their own opinions onto others.
Your definition of art appears to me to rest solely on the notion that it's in the eye of the beholder. End of. Well no Pat, there's a great deal more to it than that. I didn't spend five years of my life at art school to get an honours degree in the subject just to be told at the end of it that anything I go on to produce may or may not be art - let alone good art - based on the uninformed opinion of whether or not you and others like you give it the thumbs up. That's crazy! So Pat, at the very least, please tell me that something (a painting or sculpture) can be art - even great art - even if can't bare to look at it? Unless and until you can accept that your liking or disliking of something has absolutely no correlation or influence on whether or not something is (or isn't) art and that the two things are completely independent of one another - then I'll be forced to keep making this point until it finally sinks home.
Tim.