 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
09-21-2014, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The art cards the guy is selling aren't really all that bad, they have a bit of a feel to them, that's hard to do. Of course, they aren't particularly great either. Steve B 
|
|
#2
09-21-2014, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Picasso said he wasn't always trying to make a work that was beautiful-- his focus was sometimes on other qualities and things--, and the expected usual commentaries about the work's beauty, or lack thereof, missed the point.
Many of his cubist works were trying to depict three dimensions in a two dimensional plane-- an aesthetic and philosophical dilemma that, really, exists in all two dimensional artworks, as three dimensions in a two dimensional plane is by definition an impossibility. Some of his cubist works tried to depict the passage of time in a still image-- another interesting and unsolvable aesthetics problem that exists in all still art, even so-called realistic art. I don't like Picasso on the 'pretty' level and wouldn't hang one on my wall, but his works bring up significant philosophic, aesthetic and cognitive science questions. All human perceptions and representations of reality are limited and distorted and filled with paradoxes, and his is just a different representation from a different informational angle. So called 'realistic' art is filled with smoke and mirrors, tricks and visual illusions. If one looks at a Picasso work as a philosophic thing, the question of "Is it beautiful or not?" becomes "Is whether or not it's beautiful a relevant question?" Many artworks are trying to express something other than beauty. Clearly, Munch's Scream is trying express something other than beauty-- and most would say it doesn't a good job at it. In short, I don't critique art, I critique art criticisms. Last edited by drcy; 09-21-2014 at 09:40 PM.
|
|
#3
09-22-2014, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting. I never considered it that way.
I had a choice between art school and drafting school. The drafting school made me the better deal. Plus I doubt I'd have been a really good artist even with training. Many of the artists I like were certainly more realistic, even the ones with less than realistic subject matter. (Bosch, Escher, Dali...) From the drafting pint of view, expressing 3d in 2d by putting for instance both eyes left of the nose just doesn't work unless the figure is shown as clear. I suppose that's the sort of thing that's always bugged me with Picasso. Some of the stuff I didn't have much liking for became much more likeable when seen up close. Impressionists, some modern art like Pollok all are impressive in person, much less so in photos. Picasso still did nothing for me seen up close. Maybe I'll have a go at looking at some online and trying to view it from a philosophical point. Steve B
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
