MissEskimo In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:19:56 +0000 UTC]

1) There's room for both. You can make art about whatever you want so tehre's no cut off between political and apolitical.

2) Art is always shifting and most art movements are only acknowledge properly when they are over and something is obviously shifting. As a species we're always looking to progress and surpass and that's what we strive for in Art - to be original and different. Personally i think there's a lot more digital art becoming popular - I don't know if that would qualify it as a movement but it's definately alternative to post-modernism.

3) Art is whatever the person who created it, wants it to be. So I think it can be anything for any reason. It's up to the viewer to decide how they view it I believe. The artist can be obvious in their intent or subtle, or than can be no intent - if all artists worked and created in the same way and for the same reasons the art world would be very dull. It's hard not to pin your own opinions to a piece of art based on the aesthetics but when you do, it can be even harder to decifer what the original intent was. It would be nice to know, but you can't always find out or get it right so coming up with your own opinion is where the fun in observing art comes from.

4) My work is pretty aesthetics driven. I prefer to create a mood or a feeling from the viewer than an actual story or narrative. I make something I enjoy and hope others find something they like in it. I work in so many different ways I don't really know what works best for me yet but i do know if I try to force a feeling or story or anything it always ends up being less successful for me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kveldvaahiim In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:05:02 +0000 UTC]

1. There's no 'should' or 'should not' when it comes to art.

2. Not in the sense that there used to be - trends, not movements and usually these trends are short-lived and not expanded upon or they're much more involved with/hijacked by marketing.

3. I usually go with my own interpretation, how it relates to me as an individual or life in general.

4. I usually have something to say - even if it's just something small. In my opinion, art created without some kind of vision often comes across as 'soulless' and you can generally spot something done just for aesthetics purposes a mile-off. Technique and aesthetics are different things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HimitsuUK In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:58:14 +0000 UTC]

1) Whilst art should not just be political for politics sake, artists should also not be afraid of using politicisms in their art to provoke the viewer or support a cause (or vice versa).

2) Yes, there are various movements of visual art (just like there is music). Some of it good, some of it bad (in this writers opinion). The instant gratification of some trends (like the program Instagram for example) does not always bode well for an artist to learn their craft thoroughly and create original, unique pieces. On the contrary there are many artists out there who create the art they love and feel, despite whether it fits the current fashion or trends. Making art the artist knows will be popular is not usually the same experience as making art the artist is truly happy with themselves.

3) Absolutely, especially with less 'mainstream' art or art of a truly impressive nature (in a gallery, for example). With deeper understanding comes greater enjoyment (this can be applied to many things outside of art, too).

4) Messages can be lost in translation. Sometimes an artist can incorporate cryptic or somewhat obvious meaning into a piece, only for most viewers to focus on the aesthetics. Powerful art usually balances the three; message, technique and aesthetics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PyroSikTh In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:43:54 +0000 UTC]

Loved every single piece of work there. It also sounds like the kind of art I make with my poetry. I have a knack of being able to write poems on a whim as they come to me. It's only after it's complete that I start to gleam a meaning from them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ekoi1995 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:36:18 +0000 UTC]

I still don't understand what suggestivism really means :/
but it's quite interesting...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to ekoi1995 [2012-07-28 12:40:03 +0000 UTC]

It doesn't really mean anything. It's just one of those empty soap-bubble-words that people are so fond of nowadays. Nothing said or shown in the article above isn't true for Surrealism.

That's my take.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ekoi1995 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-30 23:53:29 +0000 UTC]

I see! o.O

it made wonder!

Thanks for the info anyways

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to ekoi1995 [2012-07-31 13:46:23 +0000 UTC]

Mind you, I might be wrong about this. I know a thing or two about art, and this smells fishy. But I might still be wrong about this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ekoi1995 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-08-02 09:20:49 +0000 UTC]

I see! Well ok!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sabbelbina In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:32:04 +0000 UTC]

1. I think there is enough room for both. Many artists did both apolitical and political works.
2. I don't think there is a real movement today anymore. There are so many people doing so many different types of art, how could we call it a movement. It's great to see many different things and many different mediums...
3. It's not that easy. Sometimes I just think about a piece of art as being good or bad (often it's this way with photography), but pictures like these are more complicated. I try to find a sense in the picture and most of the time I see one but what I think can be totally different to the ideas of the artist.
4. I do mainly landscape photography and architecture-photography, there it is not really possible to transmit a message. The pictures have some kind of outcome because of the things they show, but there is no real intention in the pictures, because I just want to show things I saw or liked when taking a photo of it. Technique and aesthetics are not really important to me if a picture has a good outcome. If a picture is blurry butshows a great scenery I like it as well as a well photographed picture. Often technique and aesthetic are worse for a picture that everything else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shadewalker-94 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:28:48 +0000 UTC]

I'll adress the questions asked in a minute. What I wanted to say is that this shows and is connected to a movement in our societies which is very dangerous. It's the new type of tolerance. How is it connected to art you'd ask?
In this topic it's stated:
" It is an art for our times that does not ask to be analyzed and understood, but presents itself as a cipher or puzzle with no correct answer that commands attention none the less. "
This kind of illustrates the problem about good and evil today. The movement of the idea that you should consider liking something whether or not it could be bad. And this is connected to tolerance. Today, tolerance has turned from the logical "respect and let go, even if you dislike" to "embrace it, support it and become afilliated with it, or else you're not tolerant and therefore you're evil". This new type of tolerance which is active in the US and probably in other parts of the world too is turning moral values into a whore, and thus, in the future will make good and evil blurred out, it will label normal and good universal moral code and law as fanatic, dangerous, just because it says that something which is generaly evil IS evil, but in the culture of the one who made it it's ok. This is all around the united states. The new tolerance defends evil, just because it's ok in someone's culture or worldview. It states that we shouldn't judge a killer if that's part of his/her culture. It tries to say that all truths are equal and with the same validity which is plain illogical. In other words that means there's no good and evil. And that means that it would say that if you kill, rape, steal, but if it's your culture then it's NORMAL! and not judgeable. The new type of tolerance is one of the worst things to come into history of humanity. But all "truths" can be measured. There are different opinions, but in the end there's one event and truth to it. Everything else is just sophisticy.



1. Yes it should be political, but not only. It should be apolitical. I think so, because art is a tool which can talk to people and can make really strong statements. It also is just the creation, the beauty of creation, the way it's made and the beauty of the artwork itself.

2. I'm not sure. Today, modern art is active, which declares that the idea is more important than the way it's shown. I'm not entirely agreeing to that. Ofcourse, modern art has some great works, but as a total it hasn't shown better than old masters. They will always be the greatest to me. Their mastercy will very hardly be surpassed. But the idea being more important than the way it's done...Imagine saying that your love is more important than the way you propose to your future wife. Yes, it is more important, but if the way didn't matter then you could make it not entirely the best way. I think it's always better if you search for the best way to propose and do it when you find it. That's why I also think when you have to say something through art you should make it in the best way you can.

3. I do both.

4. While making art just, because it would look beautiful and it would show a certain level of skills is still nice, I'd say that's not the peak, the highest level of art. Imagine combining a great message with a beautiful display of it. I think that's "higher", so to say, than just making art for the sake of making it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

sleepyowlet In reply to shadewalker-94 [2012-07-28 12:54:17 +0000 UTC]

I don't believe in "good" and "evil" - I believe in good old common sense. And common sense says that murder and stuff is just plain stupid. Thus bad. Good and evil are made up concepts, and they are very arbitrary, differing from culture to culture and from religion to religion. Just because some book (I don't care which) says so, doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. If you question everything people teach you, if you question everything you read, you're a lot less likely to fall into the trap. The most horrible atrocities were (and still are) committed by people who didn't/don't question their beliefs. My whole country fell into that trap not too long ago...

Tolerance... one of the problems is that those shouting for tolerance are usually not willing to live it themselves. And as nice as the concept is, it only works when it goes both ways.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

shadewalker-94 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 13:53:09 +0000 UTC]

So you rely on your conscience? You know that it can be defiled, twisted and even blocked right? It can't be the best scale for wrongdoings...And why do you think people have it? It's because people strive for good. If there wasn't good nor evil, we wouldn't have or even need conscience.

And religious moral values can be weighted and tested in their logic.
And about the Bible - so far it's the book that has made the biggest changes in much more people than any other book that ever existed on the face of the earth. From murderers, rapists, liars, stealers, adulterers, idolshorshippers, greedy, loveless it has made loving, meek, strong, faithful, honest, generous and good-loving people.
And if you haven't read the Bible, please don't try to argument yourself that it's just one religious book...
I don't mean to be rude. I'm just defending my position. I'm sorry if I have offended you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to shadewalker-94 [2012-07-28 14:43:47 +0000 UTC]

No, I'm not offended (I hope you aren't either). I can take someone disagreeing with me. You see, I used to study Science of Religion - so yes, I did read the Bible. I also studied Ancient History and have a keen interest in history in general, so I know a thing or two about religion and its impact on history/humanity.

Who told you that people strive for goodness? The world would be a better place, if that were the truth. They strive for survival and the survival of their families first and foremost. If somebody else is hurt in that goal... bad luck. That's humans for you, regardless of their background. I deeply respect Christians who really live their faith - who genuinely try to be good people, who really help others regardless of who those people are. But most Christians I met have this holier than thou thing going on and disrespect and belittle me for my differing views.

To explain those: I spent quite some time getting to know various Christian faiths - and I found the blatant misogyny in all of them really repelling. There are some good points to Christianity, but I didn't find it convincing enough to commit myself to it. It doesn't suit me. I'm pagan (sort of), I find divinity in everything that surrounds me. I don't worship idols or forces of nature, I just use nature as a conduit to connect me to the divine. I don't need churches or priests or rituals - my connection to the divine is deeply personal, and it works for me. If it works for other people is more or less irrelevant. I'm content to let everyone seek their own way - if Christianity works for you, that's fine. I'm certainly not saying that it's bad/stupid/whatever because it didn't work for me. In the end religions were created for people, not the other way around.

I said common sense, not conscience. There's a difference. Besides, as I said - someone who continuously questions themselves and their surroundings is less likely to fall into behaviour resulting in murder or rape. A murderer or a rapist don't question if what they do is wrong. Fundamentalists are absolutely sure killing people for their religion/philosophy/gender/race is okay. Because they don't question.

There are good things and bad things. "Good" and "evil" are not defined well enough for my liking. Some Christians call one of my best friends evil because he likes men. Some call me evil because I don't worship God (and I don't want to marry, and I don't want children! Yikes). Killing is bad, right? What about soldiers who defend a country against aggressors? Rape is bad, yes? Not too long ago matrimonial rape wasn't even recognised as a crime because the Christian faith grants a spouse the right to the other's body (matrimonial duties)...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

shadewalker-94 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-08-01 18:34:10 +0000 UTC]

The internet is not a good place to seek these kind of answers. And the best place for answers about the Bible is a bible-based and passionate church. University or the internet or an intelligent non-christian teacher are not good sources for Bible study and understanding.

But i will try to address the problems you've said, but if you want - in private notes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to shadewalker-94 [2012-08-02 05:56:52 +0000 UTC]

Okay, note sent!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

roddy9uk In reply to shadewalker-94 [2012-07-28 10:54:59 +0000 UTC]

How right you are about "tolerance"!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

shadewalker-94 In reply to roddy9uk [2012-07-28 12:18:01 +0000 UTC]

Well it's the Bible's opinion and mine too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ZR-ratz In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:23:16 +0000 UTC]

1) art should be what you make it. If it is political or not. Art is art if it is showing inequality of class, or simply the pure joy of good weather.

2) Art is constantly changing and adapting. There is constant movement, quiet, slow moments. Once in a while, people pick up the pace, and that is fine. The world, everything changes, so how people express themselves will too. This, to me can only be a good thing... for people to express their humanity and emotions is what important, even if the final product isn't everyone's cup of tea.

3) To me, art is a very expressive thing, but it isn't like that for everyone. Some people create art because they like the process, and end up caring little for the result, others try to be perfect, others thrive is strong and non-uniformed movements. To me, I try to figure everything out- but I am a very curious person.

4) I end up sketching the most delightful ideas and concepts, but as most of my art-energy is focused on my GCSE work, I am currently restricted. However, I try to be in the middle.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LetsStareAtClouds In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 10:02:38 +0000 UTC]

1.) I think there's room for both in this world. Messages need to be conveyed, whether political or not. Politics are an important factor in our societies, but there are subjects to be explored other than politics. Politics are man-made, something we ourselves created, and yet it seems to override nature - some people seek a "bigger picture", and others debate that politics has become the bigger picture through our own doing.
2.) I think there is a sense of change in the air - and I am mostly neutral towards such changes. However, there are some pieces and exhibitions which truly push the boundaries and which I really admire - they are something that I could never dream of achieving myself. there are also others that I think are exploring the same tired subject in unoriginal ways - because what can we do but follow examples? there have been many great generations before us, and they partly created such works of art because of such conditions and times, and therefore it is hard to replicate these things originally when we don't know too much about this. Any of us could be artist - a lot of us just haven't found our mediums yet.
3.)I try to figure out the artist's intent, because this is something personal and usually not created for mass-consumer-markets. It is not about my own personal beliefs - this is something personal to another human being that I may never truly understand. I still try, though, and make it personal to myself. However, after much deliberation, I realise that I do in fact feel more negative towards one piece of art than the other.
4.)It depends whether I just want to improve skill Or I feel that am message needs to be passed on. Either way, I try to make it personal to myself in any way I can, even if it just conveys a snap-shot of my emotions at the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheGurch In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:59:30 +0000 UTC]

Lovely lovely post! Lovin it lots!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xzahaki In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:52:26 +0000 UTC]

well to have a suggestive art, i shall say they are very inspirering and artistic in a good way. not like one of those
offensive garbag you wanna trow up
and kick their asses out of here.

if you understand what i'm meaning

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

0GasGuy In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:47:48 +0000 UTC]

1. Yes, art should be political, but not generaly political. Sometimes art just wants to evoke emotions or wants to tell a story, without a political critique. Thats ok.

2. Theres a heavy emphasis on emotions in current art, where someone literaly just stabbs a couple of times into the canvas and calls it art. The backstory behind the piece is the only thing that gives it some kind of quality. I think thats ratehr bad. Suggestivism finds a quiet good balance between emotion and aesthetics. I like that : )

3. I usualy try to understand the message in an artwork first, then I decide if I like it or not. I like artworks with som sort of message the most. But it also has to have SOME visuals to wake my attention. A couple of randoml scattered colored boxes are uninterresting to look at, at least to me, and I won't even make an effort to understand the meaning of it.

4. Right now, rather on aesthetics, but only because I still have alot to learn. I sometimes try to convey a message, but thistends to be pushed into the background for my practices. But I like to paint pictures with bigger mesasages in the near future.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheMrSir In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:34:17 +0000 UTC]

1. I think it's room enough for both. Art can portray whatever you want to in whatever style you chose to use and any media, nothing should be excluded, everything fits and it's the most wide spread form of communication known to man.

2. I'm not that in to the "movements" to know what's really going on, so I don't really have an opinion, while I still think that art is developing and becoming more original, somehow.

3. Both, some art is "just" slabs of color, something that was made for the sake of being made, and nothing else, and I see them as that, but a dark piece or something that really shows the artists effort makes me think. A comic has the text to guide the eye, but a well made piece of art or well written text can fill the mind with millions of paths to a decision about what you think it is and means.

4. I rarely try to get a message through in my paintings, I paint to let out steam, but I also just do it. I like satire art and focus on that. But when I write, it's mostly about political shades and the underlying problems in society, I write about the hardships of life. Not always portrayed as that, sometimes hidden in what seems like a beautiful poem, and sometimes straight forward in a text or lyric.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HametsuNoCharge In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:30:10 +0000 UTC]

1. Art is the way the artist chooses to see the world. If the artist is creating in response to feelings about one political view or another then it will undoubtedly be political. I don't think artwork not meant to be political should be made political or caught in the constant crossfire of ideologies, however. I also don't count political cartoons and purposeful propaganda as art. It's more like advertising I think.

2. I think today, people are moving more towards abstract art, pop art, and designing as a generation. Graffiti-style lettering has become much more prevalent in the last two decades than it ever really was before. There are people now doing it professionally. Photo manipulation too is a fledgling art. Before the computer, there was not much you could do to a photo once it's been taken, now though, you've got some pretty impressive photoshopping out there that really should be considered it's own brand of art.

3. The first thing I grade art by is rapture...is it interesting for one, and is it capable of keeping attention on itself for two (I don't think these are necessarily the same thing). Then I look at what is actually in the piece. The subject, the feel of it. And finally, because I'm an ass, I will harp on technique and execution...not because I am an artist of note or skill but because it just always occurs to me. It's distracting when a funny or conceptually interesting picture is badly drawn or messily painted.

4. I usually draw what i feel like drawing, which usually comes from day dreams or stories I've read or watched. Sometimes inspiration really strikes me and there is deep meaning behind my work. I am however not at the stage where I can rely on something like inspiration to move my pencil. Most of the pictures I draw are done with ideas barely half formed, hurried along by the pencil lines on paper because I need to improve. I draw avidly because every time I draw, my lines look a tiny bit cleaner, and my figures look a little bit sharper, and my anatomy looks a little less grotesque.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PotatoOni In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:10:58 +0000 UTC]

All these works look like an mix of expressionism and surealism and maybe with a bit of pop art and caricature in it. I would'nt say it's an complete new genre. More an mash up of old ones.

The questions:

1) art is should be mainly apolitical. I mean, a little girl that draws a picture of an flower (yes, that is art too) has definitly no intention to be political.

2) No, definitly not.

3) I try but not entirely. I decide what emotions it triggers in me.

4) Only techniques and aesthetics because without them there can't be any message. But my stuff is rather andom so...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Fractamonium In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 09:02:01 +0000 UTC]

It certainly seem surreal to me. I see some DaDa in it. It is nothing new. It's a repackage.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CatDecaire In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:49:58 +0000 UTC]

A lot of it looks like the category "Surrealism". Where you often see what is not there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CatDecaire In reply to CatDecaire [2012-07-28 08:53:26 +0000 UTC]

I think #3 is what i like about Pollick. The only way to enjoy it is to not try to figure it out. You are just aware of the feeling while gazing upon it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fuxs In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:49:00 +0000 UTC]

Beautifully written.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

psychotchi In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:29:55 +0000 UTC]

PREACH IT AND TELL IT MY PROF FOR TELLING ME MY ART HAS TO BE BORING LOL NOPE

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?

Every to their own liking, I think. Political art, however, will always be important to later generations to "analyse" our today thought of the world and how we changed the future thanks to it or how we did nothing. Which I find really interesting.

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?

Oh yes, there is this new movemont which includes a lot of digital artist that weren't there 20 years ago. It also includes Anime art in the western society which still is laughed about by most. But I guess that is typical for a new art movement. coevals alsways laughed about the new art movement they didn't like/understand when it first came to a rise.

Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

I do both. sometimes I just like to look at an appealing art piece, sometimes I like to find a message in it. And this is kind of suggestism too, isn't it? The on-looker free to see what he wants and the creator leaving room for interpretation.

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

I do both. That really depends on whether I want to achieve something new (technique wise) or just express a feel or a notion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to psychotchi [2012-07-28 09:14:17 +0000 UTC]

Electronic computers have been used as a tool to create art since the early 1950's. I did not start using a computer for art until 1975 and I felt really late to the party. I always imagined that it would develop into something like it is today (I just didn't think I'd live that long) and I'm still looking forward to the future. It's going to be something wonderful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

psychotchi In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 10:02:30 +0000 UTC]

Really that early?
well, I was thinking of using a tablet for creating art when I said digital art
what kind of art did you create back in the 1975 years? and how much did it change up to today? I'm sooo curious! I just can't imagine anything, I haven't even lived at that time...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to psychotchi [2012-07-28 10:30:53 +0000 UTC]

Don't feel bad, most people weren't alive then. I didn't see a tablet, other than a picture of one, until 1979. It was part of a drawing system displayed at an art museum that was far less functional than MS Paint and cost over $50,000 (which is like a million dollars in today's money). Computers could make ink drawings on paper using a "line plotter" which was sort of a robotic pen. Images could be formed on the screen of a "vector display" (monochrome only) [link]
I made an animation of a rotating 4D hypercube on one.
Text printers were used to make "ASCII art" [link]
Believe it or not, people still do this stuff today. Crazy people. I spent my time in school playing with these things instead of studying which is why I am now so stupid. Just kidding...I was born that way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

psychotchi In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 11:20:48 +0000 UTC]

Awwwww, that's so cool. I really think it's a great thing you did that instead of studying! the things we explore on our own are the best and we'll learn much more from those then by simply studying!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LoveLifeClarity In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:29:14 +0000 UTC]

Seems to me that the majority of these examples are simply surrealism. Plus, isn't most (if not all art) suggestive to begin with? People who make their art with purpose usually have a deeper meaning behind their art - so does that mean that all of that art is suppose to have another label added just because it has an intended underlying meaning? I'm not completely sold on the whole "suggestivism" thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Geoperno In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:29:11 +0000 UTC]

Art is as meaningless as life itself. Some are good at it, some just come along for the ride. Suggest you have another wine and relax.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to Geoperno [2012-07-28 09:29:36 +0000 UTC]

Maybe it is meaningless, other than the fact that we continue to do it. I mean art as well as life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BJMNS In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:28:09 +0000 UTC]

Well.
1 - There is certainly room for both.
2 - Art is derived from culture, and culture is constantly changing. While the current art scene may be disjointed, as the "internet culture" evolves, I think that the present art movement will become more apparent. We're in a bit of a transitional phase, so to speak.
3 - I don't try to figure out a message, I make one for myself. The artist's intentions have less of an impact on my than my own interpretations.
4 - It depends. With photography, usually I just focus on making it "look nice". But where I am actually creating the scene and product, rather than just capturing an environment, I always have a message in mind.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SoosooCherry [2012-07-28 09:20:02 +0000 UTC]

The first rule of Art is that you don't make rules about Art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SoosooCherry In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-29 10:27:15 +0000 UTC]

Indeed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jenteelability In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:02:53 +0000 UTC]

1. In visual art, pieces grab you (so to speak), they draw your attention. They are the ones that first demand a response because as soon as you walk into a place they call your name. Now that doesn't mean that you necessarily like them but it does mean that something has drawn you to them, drawing your eyes to it, even if just for a moment. Art is expression of beauty, of surroundings, of culture,of self. It can be an expression that is from a hidden part of you or is from another role you wish to play because like good books and good movies, art has the ability for you to adventure into another place, another land where anything is possible. Art is the expression of an idea. Whether it is good art or bad art is another question and often one that the beholder/viewer decides. So there is room for political and apolitical.

2. Current movement in art is art that is generated by computers with lots of visual but losing in texture, smell, and touching and feeling. One of the things I love about traditional art is that all your human senses can be drawn into the process of creating an artwork.

3. Some pieces of art are just for appreciating or not appreciating, they are for the eye only and not for a message. Others lend themselves to a story. No use reading between the line ( or brushstrokes) if there is not a story there. Design and other pieces are about the balance and flow and appreciation, the music and pattern of line and shape so with those piece, I don't try to get a message instead I just dance with them...with their sense of movement.

4. In my own art work, I may have an idea but I often let it develop and tell its own story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1