PDA

View Full Version : HERR FASCIN



MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th May 11, 06:20 PM
7682

discuss

resolve
13th May 11, 08:45 PM
Why does the man on the bottom have a built in colostomy bag in his pants?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th May 11, 09:12 PM
you don't understand art

NoBowie
14th May 11, 12:12 AM
you don't understand fags

SoulMechanic
14th May 11, 01:33 AM
all crap

Steve
14th May 11, 07:25 AM
Fancy burca then Dante.

resolve
14th May 11, 09:13 AM
Ever wonder why fashion hasn't been included in general art history or why it's never really sold at Christie's / Sotheby's as high art or displayed at galleries?

It's like its own little spin-off of the art world onto a craft. It's main purpose is to be utilitarian but then that doesn't stop it from trying to develop its own sense of aesthetics... Kind of like how woodcarvers develop strange new forms or different kinds of woodworking techniques to make interesting new tables or lampstands or whathaveyou... but it's still utilitarian. That's kind of why people take issue with it. If someone makes a beautiful or really cool looking table but you can't put anything on it or it's wobbly or somehow denies its original purpose than people won't want it because it stems from a craft with that utilitarian purpose. So if clothes don't fit or make it awkward to move in...

Now if something was being produced simply as an art piece and never to be worn (which alot of fashion designers are attempting to do today) then that's a little different. However, these "art pieces" are usually produced as a symbol for their line, showing off the major aesthetic decisions that were made in that line of clothing. It's a showpiece for a set of utilitarian pieces and thus runs into the same issues as I stated above.

Of course this all depends on how the craft backlash movement that's carrying through postmodernist art goes through and how much weight it lends to craft. But at the moment craft is merely appropriated for the purposes of art; kind of like how these crafts like fashion design and clothing construction are appropriating pieces of the postmodern aesthetic.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th May 11, 08:37 PM
No. The problem is that people don't want to consider things art unless they like or they can understand it. People generally don't have any trouble accepting painting as art even if its depicting a penis fucking a skull because they're conditioned to accept painting as an artistic discipline. But art can be made with anything, including rocks, feces, silk chiffon, and babies shot out of cannons. Anything that can be used to communicate, which happens to literally be anything, is capable of being used to create art.

I figure the difference between the craftsman and artist is that the former makes what you want him to and the latter makes what he wants to; the difference between the unsuccessful and successful artist is how well he convinces you that you need the things he's making. This definition doesn't just kill those noncreative jobs that have had 'artist' tacked onto their names, like Subway's sandwich artists or the graphics artists that are just making CG on demand, but it also kills that perception that only certain mediums are artistic because it makes no distinction between them.

NoBowie
15th May 11, 06:42 PM
My datacenter designs are art.

You walk into a NoB designed datacenter and you get a special feeling in your pants, something you couldn't duplicate unless you were standing in front of a Rembrandt or a Monet or maybe a still from 'Raising Arizona'.

danno
15th May 11, 07:02 PM
discuss

banned in france?

danno
15th May 11, 07:06 PM
I figure the difference between the craftsman and artist is that the former makes what you want him to and the latter makes what he wants to; the difference between the unsuccessful and successful artist is how well he convinces you that you need the things he's making.

false dichotomy, son.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 09:19 PM
elaborate

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:42 PM
The Sistine chapel ceiling was a commissioned work.

The skilled craftsman who expresses creativeness in physical form is by definition an artist.

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:44 PM
As far as success you seem to measure it only by if one uses their creativeness to make a living.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 09:49 PM
The Sistine chapel ceiling was a commissioned work.

The skilled craftsman who expressed creativeness in physical form is by definition an artist.

It was commissioned; it was not, however, specifically defined. He was commissioned to art all up on that ceiling.


As far as success you seem to measure it only by if one uses their creativeness to make a living.

Not exactly. If he convinces anyone that they need his art to enrich their lives then he's succeeded at some level.

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:54 PM
Convincing is the job of a salesman.
Physically manifesting creativity is the job of an artist.

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:56 PM
And art that is specifically defined is still art as long as the artist is putting some part of himself into it.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 09:56 PM
art is just a method of communication. if no one, anyone, wants to listen to you then you've failed.

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:58 PM
Only in a commercial sense.

nihilist
15th May 11, 09:59 PM
Art should speak to the artist first and foremost.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 10:03 PM
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about selling his art.

nihilist
15th May 11, 10:16 PM
This is why discussing art is kind of stupid in the first place it just leads to artificial rules that can't be defined in black and white.

My only point here is that defining an artist purely by what other people think of his creations is only half of the story. Expressing yourself should be the first thing in your mind.
http://www.google.com/search?q=leigh+bowery&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=C5XQTfDEEsTZiAK19uCXBg&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=981&bih=661

danno
15th May 11, 10:43 PM
I figure the difference between the craftsman and artist is that the former makes what you want him to and the latter makes what he wants to

as i was saying, this is a false dichotomy. you say that artists only make what they want to and craftmen make what others want. that doesn't make any sense to me. i've been asked to make images which someone else wanted which i also wanted to create myself. most art is created as a combination of both to varying degrees.

i'm not completely disagreeing with everything you've said, i just think you've made this really unfair black-and-white statement, which amounts to "there are two kinds of people in this world".

at the moment i'm working on a graphic novel which is exactly what i want to make, but i have to think hard about what the audience is going to think and feel. i have no client, but all art exists in the mind of the audience. you always make art for the viewer.

once you ignore the audience and sit in your garage making shit no one understands or wants to see, you've practically castrated yourself as an artist.

and it's not about "convincing". the art should stand on it's own. if it works, it'll have an effect people and they'll want it. if you've got to write an essay about it or explain yourself and brainwash them until they want it, you suck.

humans love movies, music, pictures, everything. art is extremely important. if you make good art, whatever it is, you will have an audience.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 10:46 PM
You're not disagreeing with me as much as you think.

resolve
15th May 11, 10:52 PM
My viewpoint on the art/craft/design split has changed over time. I'm still uncertain about where I want to sit in the conversation but just studying it has brought alot of much needed perspective to creating art in the postmodern mess.

When I first started into art school (about halfway through my college career) I just wanted to draw and paint and sculpt and have fun making beautiful things.

But I was told I needed this and I needed that, and that's not conceptual enough, my message isn't clear, "why are you just illustrating!?!? Where is YOU in this?", et cetera.

It's enough to make most go mad and makes most art students change their degree. Thankfully I've had a few professors who were willing to give me alot of one on one time and point me where I need to go in my research of art history and the cultural changes that affect the viewpoints and sometimes abject BS that is spouted off. You will get alot of different viewpoints even in the same art department... so the study of it is really on your own shoulders.

But when you make something that instantly communicates to people and they get it... that is just, it's just beautiful. That's what drives me in art now. Pure communication.

danno
15th May 11, 10:56 PM
Expressing yourself should be the first thing in your mind.

well, that's the point of the whole thing. communicating something. to transfer thoughts from your mind to someone else's. to do that, you have to understand how others perceive and understand shit. you don't make art in a vacuum.

danno
15th May 11, 10:57 PM
You're not disagreeing with me as much as you think.

i'm only disagreeing on that point. i just think you're portraying two things as mutually exclusive when they aren't.

danno
15th May 11, 10:59 PM
creating art in the postmodern mess

makes a man want to kill, doesn't it? so much fucking bullshit fairy floss relativistic obfuscated faggotry.

let me tell you how it all works. first, you get the money. then, you get the power. when you get the power - that's when you get the women.

danno
15th May 11, 11:04 PM
right now, i'm making something which really is a craft object. mum wants a painting of a clydesdale horse to hang up in her home.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 11:12 PM
i'm only disagreeing on that point. i just think you're portraying two things as mutually exclusive when they aren't.

No I'm not. Art generally involves some craftwork, but that doesn't reduce it to mere craft. Craft isn't uncreative, either. The distinction is whether he's making a table for you or making a sculpture that can have books put on top of it.

danno
15th May 11, 11:20 PM
you said that if someone is making what they want, it's art. if they're making what others want, it's craft. but it's a combination of both, and there are no clear distinctions.

danno
15th May 11, 11:49 PM
it's the same problem with trying to define art. if you try to break it down to one element, you'll be able to find examples of art which lack it. there is no single common single feature, or at least one which is easy to explicitly define. and where you think there is a dichotomy one moment, the next you can't separate the two.

one way to get around this is family resemblance. it hasn't stopped any debate, but it's worth considering.


Wittgenstein's point was that things which may be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all. Games, which Wittgenstein used to explain the notion, have become the paradigmatic example of a group that is related by family resemblances...

The local context where the topic of family resemblances appears is Wittgenstein's critique of language. In Philosophical Investigations 65-71 the plurality of language uses is compared to the plurality of games. Next it is asserted that games have common features but none is found in all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th May 11, 11:58 PM
There's isn't really a dichotomy. It was imprecise, like any other simplification.

danno
16th May 11, 12:12 AM
ok.

just so i don't come across all wishy-washy, i also don't like the other extreme where it's impossible to discuss any distinctions whatsoever.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th May 11, 12:40 AM
naw man
you can't define art man
art just is

danno
16th May 11, 01:10 AM
have you considered some kind of fashion design career, MJS?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th May 11, 01:21 AM
do you not browse the PAC?

danno
16th May 11, 01:32 AM
not often. i'll have a look.

nihilist
16th May 11, 02:03 AM
well, that's the point of the whole thing. communicating something. to transfer thoughts from your mind to someone else's. to do that, you have to understand how others perceive and understand shit. you don't make art in a vacuum.

Now you are trying to define artistic expression in black and white.

I've drawn and sculpted things that I didn't show anyone. I did it because I enjoy the doing of it rather than the accomplishment. By your definition that is art in a vacuum.
It's natural for most people to want to share their art with the world but there are many artists who created prolific bodies of work that weren't discovered till they had passed on.
A true artist creates, not for some altruistic goal, but because he or she really has no choice.
Just like I was going to spend 20 years playing the drums not to get paid or laid, but because I loved feeling the creation of music. I would have done it regardless of if I was the only person on the planet.

Neildo
16th May 11, 02:08 AM
i thought in order for art to be art it had to have no purpose other than itself. so in fact some of these pieces could be art because they certainly can't be used as clothing.

nihilist
16th May 11, 02:12 AM
Who says art can't be functional?

danno
16th May 11, 02:19 AM
Now you are trying to define artistic expression in black and white.

I've drawn and sculpted things that I didn't show anyone. I did it because I enjoy the doing of it rather than the accomplishment. By your definition that is art in a vacuum.

not saying it isn't art, just saying that if it doesn't connect to an audience, it sucks. that's my opinion.


It's natural for most people to want to share their art with the world but there are many artists who created prolific bodies of work that weren't discovered till they had passed on.

sometimes happens, but not very often, and it's rarely any good. let's talk about some examples of this though, who were you thinking of in particular?


A true artist creates, not for some altruistic goal, but because he or she really has no choice.

nah, that's just something you've made up.


Just like I was going to spend 20 years playing the drums not to get paid or laid, but because I loved feeling the creation of music. I would have done it regardless of if I was the only person on the planet.

sure, and it's possible that someone might discover it later and enjoy it, which wasn't the reason you recorded drums onto a tape before you died. if you're making something you think is awesome, someone else might also like it.

i don't agree that you have to make something only for your own enjoyment to be an artist. we're making up arbitrary rules again.

danno
16th May 11, 02:22 AM
i thought in order for art to be art it had to have no purpose other than itself.

what is the purpose of art?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th May 11, 02:27 AM
i thought in order for art to be art it had to have no purpose other than itself. so in fact some of these pieces could be art because they certainly can't be used as clothing.

Why can't they be used as clothing? All of these are from ready to wear collections.

nihilist
16th May 11, 03:07 AM
not saying it isn't art, just saying that if it doesn't connect to an audience, it sucks. that's my opinion. Art appreciation is subjective. it will almost always connect with someone.




sometimes happens, but not very often, and it's rarely any good. let's talk about some examples of this though, who were you thinking of in particular?
Ray Johnston comes to mind.



nah, that's just something you've made up. No, it's something I've always felt and I have heard several artists reiterate almost the exact same thought.




sure, and it's possible that someone might discover it later and enjoy it, which wasn't the reason you recorded drums onto a tape before you died. if you're making something you think is awesome, someone else might also like it.
Again, it's not an all or nothing proposition. since humans share the same basic brains, what appeals to one will appeal to others. Maybe I recorded it, maybe I didn't but the point of it was the process of expression. what happens after that is largely academic.


i don't agree that you have to make something only for your own enjoyment to be an artist. we're making up arbitrary rules again. Not "only" for your own enjoyment. an artist who does art for other people's enjoyment at the expense of his own becomes a prostitute. I have had the misfortune of dealing with people who totally ruined music by writing crap purely to get pussy. Ridiculous.

nihilist
16th May 11, 03:23 AM
BTW,

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hSj4oyLbd5kJ:collectivision.wordpre ss.com/2006/11/09/next-time-you-need-me-dont-expect-a-call/+%22an+artist+has+no+choice%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BGERdr2QRWcJ:www.gauthierpublicatio ns.com/Submissions.html+%22an+artist+has+no+choice%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mud69TRbVRgJ:www.marycoman.com/resume.htm+%22an+artist+has+no+choice%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4fAcLy9MaP8J:acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php%3F2711520-Feeling-overwhelmed-and-sad!-%28not-a-new-song-lol%29+%22an+artist+has+no+choice%22&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

danno
16th May 11, 04:03 AM
Art appreciation is subjective. it will almost always connect with someone.

yeah it's subjective, but i don't like where the idea leads to, which is that all art is therefore equally good.

if i bury a can of peaches in my back yard and call myself an artist, i'm more of a wanker than anything else IMHO.


Ray Johnston comes to mind.

i tend to think that the collages he left behind were intended to be seen by other people after his death.


No, it's something I've always felt and I have heard several artists reiterate almost the exact same thought.

i think it's a really arbitrary thing to say. saying people make art because they have no choice doesn't really mean anything to me. i could say the same about any other activity. seems to me like it's an attempt to make artists seem more special than other people.


Again, it's not an all or nothing proposition. since humans share the same basic brains, what appeals to one will appeal to others. Maybe I recorded it, maybe I didn't but the point of it was the process of expression. what happens after that is largely academic.

Not "only" for your own enjoyment. an artist who does art for other people's enjoyment at the expense of his own becomes a prostitute. I have had the misfortune of dealing with people who totally ruined music by writing crap purely to get pussy. Ridiculous.

if i didn't have an audience, i wouldn't create art. if i was the only person left on the planet, i just wouldn't bother. i don't do it because i enjoy the process itself, though sometimes i do.

i do create things which are not intended to be seen by others, but that's about practicing, recording and fleshing out ideas. it's background work for the things i will show others.

i want to create something that i think is awesome that some others also think is awesome. i want to share ideas, communicate my perspective. music, painting, films etc have had a strong influence on me and how i see the world and enriched my life, and i want to contribute some of that in return. if i can't effect other people in that way, i'm not interested. to do that i need to get inside their heads a little, and also understand myself.

in the same way, i don't stand in a room and talk to myself. i come here for example and have it out with other brains.

danno
16th May 11, 04:47 AM
before anyone goes for the jugular, i'm certainly not saying that if you don't approach art the way i do, you're wrong.

nihilist
16th May 11, 09:38 AM
Not all artists have the same motivations. Some do it because they have no choice. They are driven internally. It does not make them "more special" although I would suspect that some of them may be pretentious twats who say it to set themselves apart assume kind of tortured Jesus figure.

My wife is a good example of someone who is driven in this way. She has thousands of things she has created and she doesn't show them to anyone, not even me unless I specifically ask what she's working on.

You would not even believe how much stuff she has just given to Goodwill.

Is she OCD?


Possibly, but then so am I.

resolve
16th May 11, 10:06 AM
Can we get an art forum now?

nihilist
16th May 11, 12:34 PM
God no.

nihilist
16th May 11, 12:44 PM
BTW Danno, when I said 'pure artist' I meant someone who is driven purely by the need to produce art.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone else is somehow 'tainted' or somehow less of an artist.

Also, a 'pure' artist's body of work could be composed of low quality shite.

A chicken feather taped to a door with the word ENOUGH! Scrawled in blood would be such an example.

Just thought I'd clarify...

NoBowie
16th May 11, 04:25 PM
A broken condom taped to a door with a glory hole and the word MOAR! scrawled in Cheetos colored saliva would be an example of my work.

Just thought I'd clarify...

nihilist
16th May 11, 05:16 PM
That sounds suspiciously confessional.

NoBowie
16th May 11, 05:18 PM
That sounds suspiciously confessional.

I don't eat Cheetos. I hate orange fingers. I don't eat Doritos either.

Also, glory holes are a turn off. I like to see the person I am with.

nihilist
16th May 11, 05:19 PM
Pervert.

SoulMechanic
16th May 11, 05:50 PM
The dude gets off on the eye contact.

danno
16th May 11, 09:08 PM
Not all artists have the same motivations. Some do it because they have no choice. They are driven internally. It does not make them "more special" although I would suspect that some of them may be pretentious twats who say it to set themselves apart assume kind of tortured Jesus figure.

i'm happy with that.

i wouldn't describe it the same way (no choice), but i'd certainly go nuts if i couldn't make art or do BJJ.


BTW Danno, when I said 'pure artist' I meant someone who is driven purely by the need to produce art.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone else is somehow 'tainted' or somehow less of an artist.

Also, a 'pure' artist's body of work could be composed of low quality shite.

A chicken feather taped to a door with the word ENOUGH! Scrawled in blood would be such an example.

Just thought I'd clarify...

i'm just really wary of over-complicating and mystifying art. if i get the slightest sense that things are getting pretentious or someone is portraying themselves as a "tortured jesus figure" as you said, i immediately go on the offensive.

there's just so much bullshit in the art world. so much rhetoric, inflated ego and obfuscation. art is extremely important, enriching and powerful, so there's no need to make shit up. it's awesome enough already.

i think many people now spend too much time theorising about art and not enough time making it or enjoying it. we all know what happens when martial artists theorise more than they fight.

i think that's partly about ego, people who wants others to tell them they are wonderful.

nihilist
16th May 11, 09:28 PM
Agree completely. One of my favorite things to get a laugh is reading artist's statements.
Many of them are so much pretense built on top of utter nonsense.
The following is an actual excerpt:
“This painting speaks of multi-dimensional consciousness giving the viewer an opportunity to enter into alternative universes, which are considered fantastic, but may yet become commonplace. Worlds where creation manifests in myriad forms come from almost familiar and others more alien, more beautiful. This cosmology says there is room for infinite manifestations in endless universes.”

danno
16th May 11, 09:36 PM
that hurts me. it hurts my soul.

i used to get in trouble for writing too little about my artwork at uni. we had to give slide presentations too, i only ever did enough to pass that stuff.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th May 11, 09:36 PM
Artist's statements are just a terrible idea; they exist for the gallery patrons that don't actually understand or don't want to think too hard about what's going on. A lot of pieces need context, like Duchamp's urinal, but if it's absolutely necessary for the artist to tell you what the piece is about then it's probably not very good.

danno
16th May 11, 09:38 PM
there are many artists who literally spend a LOT more time writing about their work than actually making it.

nihilist
16th May 11, 09:46 PM
Well, now there's hope:

http://www.playdamage.org/market-o-matic/

danno
16th May 11, 10:00 PM
it does a good job.


Work of Meta-Art in the Age of Symbiotic Reproduction

The matrix creates, the chaos reproduces. In the synaptic reality, art objects are deprecations of the musings of the matrix -- a matrix that uses the chaos as an organism to represent ideas, patterns, and emotions. With the devolution of the electronic environment, the matrix is conceiving a point where it will be free from the chaos to consume immersions into the contortions of the delphic reality. Work of Meta-Art in the Age of Symbiotic Reproduction contains 10 minimal quicktime engines (also refered to as "clipper chips") that enable the user to make traditional audio/visual compositions.

measuring chains, constructing realities
putting into place forms
a matrix of illusion and disillusion
a strange attracting force
so that a seduced reality will be able to spontaneously feed on it


Tony Montana's work investigates the nuances of modulations through the use of slow motion and close-ups which emphasize the Symbiotic nature of digital media. Montana explores abstract and bent scenery as motifs to describe the idea of hyper-real reality. Using transcendant loops, non-linear narratives, and allegorical images as patterns, Montana creates meditative environments which suggest the expansion of culture...

nihilist
16th May 11, 10:02 PM
Lol.

TheMightyMcClaw
16th May 11, 10:25 PM
As something akin to a practicing fashion designer, I'd like to weigh in. When I create clothing, I basically have one overriding goal: to look cool as hell. And, by extension, to make the person wearing them look cool as hell.
Occasionally there are side-goals, like weather-appropriateness, pocket space, and so on, but they all contribute to the goal of my clothing looking cool as hell. These other considerations force me to be creative; since I'm not going to run around in a spike-encrusted leather jacket in the middle of the summer, I had to figure out how I could make sandals and kilts look as cool as leather jeans and armored boots. And I totally did.
I'll occasionally make things that deviate a bit from my own sensibilities for commercial practicality; a lot of the metal I sell at anime cons is a good deal more colorful than what I myself wear, but whatever. It's still in the same overall genre of spikes, leather, and chainmail.
So yeah, in terms of the "point" of fashion, it's basically to look cool, possibly while keeping you warm and giving you a place to put your wallet and keys. But mostly to look cool.
Different people have different definitions of what cool as hell looks like, hence all these different designers and trends running around. The shit MJS posted at the top of the thread seemed to be going for "spooky ghosts are awesome".

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
17th May 11, 07:42 AM
7686

danno
17th May 11, 08:39 AM
shrink-wrapped auschwitz victim?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
17th May 11, 08:45 AM
martin margiela

he probably smokes a lot of pot