Is a dot just a dot?

[juggernaut]

You could brain-fuck this topic forever.

Look, if Michaelangelo had put out this dot as his first work, he'da been ignored. If he'da put it out after his other masterpieces, we'd wonder what he's thinking about and still cut him some slack because, although we may not necessarily like the dot piece, we know the boy can draw and paint and we'd accept it as something different or exploratory from him. No one is going to get famous doing stupid things like this. If I draw a single triangle on post it here, I doubt I'll be showered with compliments. The mystery of what was intended is about all there is to talk about. There's no brush stroke, no use of color, no rhythm, no negative space, no balance, no perspective... nothing. It's completely absurd and requires no talent. A monkey with a nosebleed is capable of this.

If someone is known to be talented and experiments with this, it may get exposure. If someone untalented has influential friends, lives in the right city, and kisses the right asses, it's possible to get this seen in a gallery somewhere.

I used to work with a guy who did the worst, and I mean the worst, fine art paintings of faces. They looked like Picasso teaching a second grader, and I'm careful not to insult the second grader. He also had a friend downtown with a gallery and they put some of his stuff up for a week. He very arrogantly charged anywhere from $600-$1400 for the 8x10 pieces of crap and learned that his friends were very willing to stand around and congratulate him, but they never sold one thing. It was stuff you'd never defile your house with and the opening did poorly, But if you look at his website, he credits himself with an opening at the ___ Gallery and it lends credibility to him when you read his bio. All you need is a peek at his art, though, and it dispells any rumors that he's talented. He's not. He's connected. Unfortunately, sometimes that's enough.

 

[morgandee]

harima x eri for the win

edit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYMNSCElO-U

 

[Betchass1]

Jackson Pollock became famous mainly for his drip-paintings. He did other abstract expressionist stuff before them, but the drip-paintings got him in TIME Magazine. I think his drip paintings are neat, but I would not know if I saw one by someone else, and I don't think anyone ever said "No one can do that like Pollock". My point is that he is known for it because he was the first. Who knows how many imitators he had; no one knows their names.

The most intensely creative artists are often not the greatest artists; it has been suggested, with lots of evidence, that the geniuses are not usually the masters. When someone initiates a revolutionary concept, there's a good chance that person will get bored and keep initiating things, as opposed to spending the next 25 years perfecting a technique in that one revolutionary idiom. A highly creative person is rarely happy doing the same style or the same medium for his or her whole life.

Bach is an example. He didn't invent counterpoint, but he is best known for it because he pushed out hundreds of very well-crafted pieces with it. He was a master; he took the ideas others created and perfected them as technique.
Pollock I would call a creator. The value of his work to most people is not in his mastery of technique, but in the fact that he's "the guy who did that."
However, it is true that he was at least respected, if not super-famous, before the drip-paintings.

 

[Betchass1]

You could brain-fuck this topic forever.

Some people discuss the topic because they find it interesting. Not all human conversation is aimed at proving something or coming to some sort of conclusion.
Beavers make dams, dogs hump legs, people talk. It's just what we do.

 

[Kjiron]

You could brain-fuck this topic forever.

Yeah, but I think that's why we enjoy it so much. (^_^) I mean, come on! A fucking that never ends? What guy in his right mind would turn that down?

...

I think that might have come out wrong...

How's this for off topic?

kjiron, is that the boy from Loveless in your siggy and avatar? I just added that to my Netflix cue after seeing an AMV made from it at anime mid-atlantic (it won the romance category).
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/mem...fo.php?v=117942

I have that video actually. It's awesome, isn't it? Loveless really is fantastic, I've got the whole thing. It gets a little hard to follow near the end because the series got cut short. It was intended to be a full season (about 26 episodes) but it got cut down to only 12. At the end it becomes painfully obvious that they were wrapping things up as quickly as they could. The result is a rather confounded and unsatisfying end. It's still a great ride up to the end though. If you enjoy Lovelss I'd recommend you also check out Gravitation. The English dub isn't very well done though, so maybe try and torrent a good fansub. Then there's always the manga, which I'm told is fantastic though I've not read any myself (that goes for both Loveless and Gravitation).

Actually, that's Ritsuka there as my avatar, but not in my sig. The one in my sig is actually three different pictures (head, tail, and feet) all spliced together. I don't know where they all come from originally, as I just looked around on 4chan for my source material.

And last but not least, for Vlad:

True enough that I've not seen any of your art aside from what you ever post here. I don't doubt that you've got other pieces that are perhaps more evolved. But I always liked your tickle-art, and something about the whole role-reversal thing is appealing to me. Add to that the development in your skill that is apparent between the two and it gets even better. If you have a place where it's kept (aside from what you have here) I'd love to see some more of your more recent non-tickle work as well.

I still think you missed my points, but we've managed to connect regardless eh? I suppose that means you can't have missed them quite as blatantly as I had thought. Perhaps it has more to do with my inability to communicate them than it does your inability to receive them. (~_^)

'Course, when a batter gets a strike in baseball they don't blame it on the pitcher. Hehe, j/k, sorry I just had to say it. (^_^)

Truth is, I'm much more of an epicurean than I am a stoic. You're a lot better at reading between the lines than I was willing to give you credit for Vlad. While I really do believe that it's possible that there's more to the natural world in terms of logos than we are able to perceive, I just can't justify giving it more than the small bit of credit that I do. I believe that doing so demeans all the wonderful things in the world that human beings have accomplished. Yeah, I know, I'm writing between the lines again. I'm just being a bit more polite about it this time. That counts for something, right? (^_^)

|
|
|

So, as it stands then; Vlad believes that art can occur in the State of Nature and I don't. Now, before we go any further I think it's important that we all know exactly what it is when we talk about the State of Nature.

The wiki for it has a nice rounded description that's actually rather light on chewy text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Nature

Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and even Machiavelli all had differing views on exactly what the State of Nature was. It's not hard to see that they could have all agreed that all forms of life that exist without any form of society or government would be existing still in the State of Nature.

I think we can all agree that art must be created. It cannot simply be "found". The question then is:

"Can art be created in the State of Nature? Why or why not?"

There's some seriously good opportunities for some seriously good philosophy to bubble up to the surface here. Please, if anyone has two cents to throw in then by all means, go for it!

harima x eri for the win

You, my friend, win t3h Internet.

 

[juggernaut]

Some people discuss the topic because they find it interesting. Not all human conversation is aimed at proving something or coming to some sort of conclusion.
Beavers make dams, dogs hump legs, people talk. It's just what we do.

Well, quit it. It's getting on my nerves.



Nah, I'm just kidding. My only point was that 100 different people could argue 100 different aspects of this and never reach that conclusion you're talking about. It seems sometimes like we'd love everybody to see it our way, though. And in this thread, the question is "Is it or isn't it", so the responses are definitive and leaning one way or the other versus the answers you might get from "What kind of art is this?"

By all means, keep talking. Or humping legs. Or whatever it is you all do.

 

[nessonite1]

Last bt of off topicness....
I really thought that started out as one pic. Good job ^^
From what little I've seen I think i will enjoy Loveless. How disapointing that it has an unsatisfactory ending though. ;_;

On on topic...

yes. A dot is just a dot. it isn't art. It's pretentious crap.
There ya go. No discussion. XD

 

[Kjiron]

Last bt of off topicness....
I really thought that started out as one pic. Good job ^^
From what little I've seen I think i will enjoy Loveless. How disapointing that it has an unsatisfactory ending though. ;_;

On on topic...

yes. A dot is just a dot. it isn't art. It's pretentious crap.
There ya go. No discussion. XD

(pokes Nessy's side)

Come now, you can do better than that. So you think that art is something that needs to be complex on at least some level then, is that what you mean? I know you can argue...er...discuss better than that, hun. I'm interested to hear not only what you think, but more so why you think it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Wow, I just got back from church and dinner a little while ago and theres some more posts up in this place! XD

I'm not sure how much more I have left to say on the matter, so I'll just recap the main point, from my point of view, one last time:

If the "artist" thinks in his mind that by drawing a dot he has drawn something more than just a dot, that is certainly his right to think that.

I've always been of the opinion that the artist knows better than anyone else what they wanted to project through a picture. Others can guess, and others can come close, but only the artist really knows.

Part of the mystery of art is it's ability to be both limited in it's discription and infinitely impossible to contain to a single line of thought at the same time.

In the greater scheme of things, that dot picture exists so that people with too much time on their hands like you and me can discuss it. LOL XD

Note that, it may be possible the artist wanted this to happen, or maybe he didn't. I don't know.

It's good enough for me to accept that I can't say for sure, but I'm free to think what I wish.

I do think it's just a dot and nothing more. I do think he's taking advantage of the fact people can't argue with him and get anywhere, and I do think the picture has been milked for all it's worth.

I do also think that to others it's a work of genius, and some no doubtedly have this picture hanging on their wall. That they are able to see more to it than I want to, I am happy for them and hope they enjoy it for many years to come and can find others that feel as strongly as they do for it.

 

[nessonite1]

That's nessie, with an "ie" =^_^=

My opinion really is that it's not something that someone should think too much about. ^^ if people have to sit and wonder if something is art, then it probably isn't. XP
I have a feeling that there are an awful lot of "artists" out there who sit and chuckle while pseudo-intellectual people try to one-up eachother by saying how much meaning they see in whatever crap was thrown onto the canvas.
There probably are at least a few who put genuine feeling into "dot on a canvas" type pictures. But those people are probably also not "all there". ^^

As my first photography instuctor said, there are two types of pictures. Windows and mirrors. A window shows the world as it is outside and a mirror shows the world as it is inside (you). I think that applies to art in general as well.
If someone paints a picture that is so much a mirror that it means nothing to anyone else then they're not going to find success outside of the "zomg look how sensitive I am to this here arts" espresso slurping crowd. Trouble is there's no way to tell that kind of artist from someone just winging and tossing paint around cause they can sell it to pretensios twats for $10,000.

So meh...my two cents.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Trouble is there's no way to tell that kind of artist from someone just winging and tossing paint around cause they can sell it to pretensios twats for $10,000.

This is the basis for my creating this thread.

Also, why do some people think they're cool for drinking at Starbucks? I don't get it. Are they somehow sophisticated for drinking an expresso and sitting on a couch then drinking coffee at a diner and sitting at a counter?

I can understand how smokers can use smoking to look cool (or try to anyway), but I don't get expresso drinkers.

 

[juggernaut]

...twats...

Can't say I saw that coming.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I did. She's said things like that before. I've examined her, and it seems to me that when she feels comfortable in a situation or that others feel the same way she does, she's less inhibited and says things she would not say otherwise. Though, that pretty much describes the average reaction of anyone.

Of course, maybe you did see that coming and it's a rhetorical statement. 😛

 

[Kjiron]

Also, why do some people think they're cool for drinking at Starbucks? I don't get it. Are they somehow sophisticated for drinking an expresso and sitting on a couch then drinking coffee at a diner and sitting at a counter?

I think it's because they payed $6.49 for that coffee. Feeling that they can pay more than the average joe (no pun intended) makes them feel superior. Personally, I think it just makes them idiots.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think it's because they payed $6.49 for that coffee. Feeling that they can pay more than the average joe (no pun intended) makes them feel superior. Personally, I think it just makes them idiots.

Oh, yeah. I totally forgot that whole equating money with personal worth bull$hit.

 

[nessonite1]

Feeling that they can pay more than the average joe (no pun intended) makes them feel superior

May not have been intended but that's the best pun ever XD

Can't say I saw that coming.

Every now and then I throw a curve ball. Keeps people on their toes. xp Not a word I use often (or ever) but it seemed to fit nicely. Just the other day I finally found a proper time and place to call someone a "douche". Sometimes I amaze even myself.

when she feels comfortable in a situation or that others feel the same way she does, she's less inhibited and says things she would not say otherwise

Not really. The posts in this thread are all too long and boring so I've only skimmed. I have no idea what anyone has said prior to me. I just replied cause I wanted to ask about kjiron's siggy. =^_^=

 

[juggernaut]

It's always the proper time. I must use the term "douchebag" 15 times a day. I don't think there's been a person on the road in front of me in the last five years I haven't called douchbag for one reason or another.

Why that word? Did you actually decide on it or something?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Not really. The posts in this thread are all too long and boring so I've only skimmed. I have no idea what anyone has said prior to me. I just replied cause I wanted to ask about kjiron's siggy. =^_^=

Actually, I wasn't refering to this thread at all. I mean your posts everywhere on this and other sites in general. It's not important though, pay it no mind.

 

[Kjiron]

It's not important though, pay it no mind.

Now who's writing between the lines? J/k, 😛

 

[Betchass1]

I have a feeling that there are an awful lot of "artists" out there who sit and chuckle while pseudo-intellectual people try to one-up eachother by saying how much meaning they see in whatever crap was thrown onto the canvas.

This is John Lennon writing 'I Am the Walrus'. According to Wikipedia, a grade school teacher mentioned to Lennon that he was having students analyze Beatles lyrics. Lennon assembled the lyrics from several unrelated sources, and reportedly said, "Let the fuckers work that one out," when it was all finished.
Magical Mystery Tour is, incidentally, the best Beatles album...

 

[Betchass1]

yes. A dot is just a dot. it isn't art. It's pretentious crap.
There ya go. No discussion. XD

Hmm. I think the discussion is worth more than an answer. If the bottom-line final answer were all that mattered, no one would bother with art anyway. Art is for the ones willing to "waste their time" getting into it. The kids playing in the sandbox are having more fun than the people watching them saying, "Pointless."

Is it even necessary to judge art? Is it a big tragedy if people think something's great but it really sucks?

 

[Betchass1]

This is the basis for my creating this thread.

Also, why do some people think they're cool for drinking at Starbucks? I don't get it. Are they somehow sophisticated for drinking an expresso and sitting on a couch then drinking coffee at a diner and sitting at a counter?

I can understand how smokers can use smoking to look cool (or try to anyway), but I don't get expresso drinkers.

Someone told me Starbucks serves the single highest-calorie fast food in the world, http://www.chowbaby.com/fastfood/th...d+Coffe,+w/Whip+-+Venti&DisplayName=Starbucks . I'm pretty sure I've found other fast-food items with higher calories, so maybe this just refers to items that are listed on the menu. Or maybe he was just wrong.
Starbucks coffee is as strong as anything, and some people genuinely like it for that. As a musician, I refuse to buy there because there was a rumor Kenny G was a shareholder. *shivers*

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Dear Lord, those are too many calories for a beverage!

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Anyway, I think this particular picture could be interpreted many ways. In one sense it's just an odd thing, and maybe that's all he intended. But those frills could be painted eyes, wings, lungs, breasts, hair, whatever. The sky is familiar, but upside down it takes on a whole new quality. Is he trying to portray femininity? If so, how? Or is he mocking how femininity is already portrayed? Or is this just randomly found items? It doesn't matter so much to me how he intended it, because all of those possibilities are valid ones.

What you think?

Finally have the time to get around to answering you.

If this piece has anything to do with femininity, I think it may be a sort of messege which is a tribute to the old saying "it's whats inside that counts". In this case, he makes a joke of it by literally showing the innards of a woman.

That whole expression "wear your heart on your sleeve" may be exagerated in this picture as well.

It may also be a mockery of that sentiment, since the sky is upside down as if to say "yeah right, women were never respected for what they have on the inside", and to have the sky upside is to show the disordered naivety of that optimism and hope from a chauvinist perspective.