Sye216 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:51:57 +0000 UTC]

Just sounds kinda like surrealism to me. The features were nice though.

As for the questions...

1. Art is a subjective term. So one person's "art" is never political, where someone else's "art" is always created with political context. I think that the politics behind art varies from artist to artist. Likewise with the view towards art from a viewer's perspective varying.

2. There probably is, but I don't pay attention to current art movements.

3. I love trying to figure out deeper meanings behind art, because I like putting meanings in my own art. Symbolism and mystery are some of my favorite things to find in art and literature.

4. Putting deeper meaning in my art is one of my favorite things to do artistically, whether it's visual art or literature. I feel like art is so much more interesting when it has more to it than just aesthetics and technical skill. Hence why surrealism is one of my favorite styles of art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tordo In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:50:27 +0000 UTC]

1 Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
I think there has to be room for both, otherwise we'll be censoring artists on what subjects can address or not.

2 Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
I don't think there's a movement as such, but I see many artists (including myself) taking things from the past. I mean, to call something a movement you have to have a group of people actually committed to that movement, making a statement as a group, having collective activities and such, otherwise you just have a group of artists with things in common, rather than a movement.

And I don't see it as something negative, just as a sign of the times.

3 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 like to figure out what the artist tried to say, not everyone is trying to say something, but when they do is interesting to see how they do so, for me it's part of experiencing art.

4 In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Sometimes I do, others I just let myself go and I end up doing a bunch of nonsense. When I do try to say something I always say it so others can decide if I got to make my point or not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SylvanSmith In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:49:33 +0000 UTC]

I like this piece. I can only give my impression of the current state of the art world, as my knowledge is too limited to make anything more than a broad statement.
It would seem that there is more egalitarianism that is provided by the internet. There is no need for an artist to depend upon a gallery to access the public eye any longer - though it would be inaccurate to say that galleries granted access to the larger public. I can only state that I have heard many state that galleries and art schools are elitist and nepotistic. They have gone from trying to define to the public what could be art- to a fascistic mode of telling everyone what is art. It has entered a realm of pseudo intellectualism, and their art is contrived and coded as to make it esoteric and unavailable to public consumption.
I think that the public still admires craftsmanship and values it more than the obscure expressions of an artist.
This really comes down to how a piece resonates with an individual. Perhaps we tend to see movements as capturing the spirit of an age, but as near as I can tell- art is so widespread that there is no real head to this Hydra, just an eternal beating heart.
Why does art need to be anything other than what the artist wants it to be? Art is an expression, and it should not have to serve any master. For a person to demand that art be political or a political is a bit dictatorial.
I can sometimes try to figure out what an artist means or is expressing, but it is not always necessary for a person to enjoy it. It is like looking at clouds- everyone sees what is projected from their subconscious.
Sometimes I try to express certain themes in my art, but I am not bothered if people see something else. It is a free world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

umbbe In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:49:26 +0000 UTC]

Hm, I thought it was called surrealism? :l

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ArtofGarethJohnson In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:48:50 +0000 UTC]

Wow this is my kind of art! Just crazy and exciting to look at with or with out a meaning, hidden or otherwise

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mumume In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:48:01 +0000 UTC]

There is no 'should' in art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ABlackShadow In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:47:39 +0000 UTC]

I've seen stuff like this before...it's not new it just has a name now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gbosquesi In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:47:27 +0000 UTC]

Great article and images! Sorry if i have no idea of how to answer all the questions except for #2. I think our current movement, rather than 'not having one' is the concept of being free to choose whatever path that interests you. Today we have postmodern studies that observed that art doesn't have hierarchical values anymore, so there are no such things as bad or good taste.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChristianeC In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:46:46 +0000 UTC]

1 - Answer this question opens the field of extensive debate. The policy refers to the structure and functioning of a social group, the group as a sum of individuals. Art as a creative individual participates in the collective and therefore politics.
This is an individual and context. When Goya painted the "tres de mayo." It is first expressed his horror and also the resistance of the Spaniards to the Napoleonic invasion. But can we say about "The Great Wave" Kanagawa it contains a political message?
This concept of an art that is political belongs to contemporary art but not art as a whole. The artwork represents and unreal as Sartre said its purpose. Policy as a practice of power is very real.
In addition, the act of creation escapes most often in our consciousness. A catharsis which would fall within the immanence and not a reflection on the organization of society.
The art and politics can interact but each covers the fields of human activity in many different aspects.

2 - Interesting question! I also wondered about this. Between the effects of mode and significant achievements which would fall within the history of art, discernment becomes difficult.
An aesthetic, an artistic movement implies convergence. Contemporary art is a constellation of concepts. And today, the word "art" is a bit hackneyed.
The image has never been present in past centuries. In doing so, it seems diluted in its propagation. And your question suggests that you are as puzzled by this visual orgy.

3 - Honestly, this is primarily my own flesh and blood that react. Sometimes I can be upset, provoked and I do not even know if I like or not ...
Then the realization interests me more than the intention. Anyway, I do not know anything. We are not in visual communication with its language and its codes but the urgency of the creative catharsis. Think you can enter the state of mind, the intention of Van Gogh in his field of wheat? I do not claim this, nor the inclination for that matter. Just know that the ultimate moment, he shared.

4 - Every time I tried to send a "message" in my personnal work, I got lost, I have come to nothing but a huge frustration. And technical performance does not interest me either. I just wanted to share an emotion that often I can not even formulate or understand why it took me.

Finally, the "ism" seems to belong more to the commentators on art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to ChristianeC [2012-07-28 03:14:19 +0000 UTC]

Are you suggesting that no politacal message can be drived from Hokusai's 'The Great Wave off Kanagawa' from the series '36 views of Mt. Fuji' when half of the city was being governed, remotely, by the Tokugawa Shogunate and not by local daimyo. The power of the central government sweeping over local fishermen, trying to make a living.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nyx-godess In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:44:49 +0000 UTC]

... hmm... i like it... though... most of it seems rather dark... but I like it (my favorite in there is deep deep sea by *Elenakalis )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

heix33 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:44:25 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism, must not be confused with dadaism, metaphysical painting, expressionism, nowadays conceptual art, surrealism and certainly not with 20th century conceptual art, because seems it's the opposite of that. So be careful and think beforehand the meaning your artwork, otherwise you might become another victim of suggestivism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IceyPinkLemons In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:42:48 +0000 UTC]

Isn't this just surrealism with just some room for more fantastic twists?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RedHeadLilith In reply to IceyPinkLemons [2012-07-28 02:41:53 +0000 UTC]

this is what I was going to say !
but I see you already said it before me

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

IceyPinkLemons In reply to RedHeadLilith [2012-07-28 21:12:02 +0000 UTC]

Great minds think alike.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RedHeadLilith In reply to IceyPinkLemons [2012-07-29 05:08:22 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ryoishen In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:41:12 +0000 UTC]

(SPA)

¡¿Sugestivismo!?
Esto que es?
Otro, digamos, nuevo estilo de arte para sacar pasta?

Esta visto que solo algo se convierte en arte cuando un crítico señala la obra y exclama, ¡que gran pieza!. Entonces cuelga una etiqueta con valor de 19.000 $ o 35.000 $... y lo cuelga en ARCO.

Conmigo no conteis. Gracias.

-----------------------------
(EN)

Suggestivism!?
What is that?
Is another new style or kind of art to get money fastly...?

Is a fact, only something becomes to art when a critic points the work and says -what a great piece!. Then, hang a label with a value of $ 19,000 or $ 35,000 ... and hang it in ARCO or another art expo.

Do not count with me, thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yeliriley In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:40:54 +0000 UTC]

There's plenty of room for both political and apolitical art in the world. Too much or a lack of one might signal the need for more of one or less of the other. It doesn't have to be balanced but that eventuality is most likely in the long run.

I think there is a movement to blend many of the arts, styles and genres. It's a good thing, it opens new horizons, expands our creativity.

I try to feel art, whether that feeling is just emotion or the feeling that an idea or opinion is being conveyed. I may miss the entire point but I may still feel something other than the intended message.

I sometimes try to transmit a message in my art but probably less often than not. I do however always hope to invoke some sort of reaction whether it be an emotion, the understanding of my intended message or an idea that I didn't even think to convey.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GivenHeart In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:38:07 +0000 UTC]

Oooookaaay... Moving on...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dorothy-T-Rose In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:30:36 +0000 UTC]

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

Politics will always be in art and art will always be in politics. Art is a form of speech and for as long as people speak about politics, so will art. Neither can be forced nor stopped.

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

I believe each location has it's own "movement". Where I live, impressionism is at the top of the charts and you see very little else. Where I lived before, realism and abstract art were competing for top possition. I also see a stylistic trend in various countries. I believe it is the natural state of things. In the same way that Japan excells in producing sushi and Wisconsin excells in producing cheese, so does each locale excell in producing their own type of art. And so it should be! How boring the world would be if you could find all the same things in New York that you could find in Rome that you could find in Brazil that you could find in Algeria that you could find in the Indian Ocean that you could find on Mars! The world needs variety and her people will demand it!

3.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?

Art without meaning is meaningless. Even design-oriented art (abstract, cubism, etc.) is meaningless if the sole purpose for its existance is decoration. This is not to say that one cannot appreciate meaningless art, however (with the except of a few works) it annoys me. I like to understand the message in art. It is visual poetry for me and if there is no message, then I feel like I'm reading a collection of random words strung together in a rhythmic line that may or maynot rhyme.

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

I consider myself an illustrator. Even my most abstract works have a message behind them. The only works I have created for their aesthetic appeal alone are texture backgrounds which I offer as stock to be used as part of a greater whole which will then (hopefully) have meaning.

~D~

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to Dorothy-T-Rose [2012-07-29 21:03:05 +0000 UTC]

While I disagree with some of your points, you put point number 2 very well. Comparing art to sushi and cheese didn't hurt, either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dorothy-T-Rose In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-07-29 23:38:55 +0000 UTC]

Ya, I realise that points 3 and 4 are my own feelings about art and that many people will disagree. But I'm glad you like the food comparison. I seem to be doing that a lot.

~D~

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IndeedeeGraphics In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:25:38 +0000 UTC]

Being an artist, is not about what you produce, but who you
are as a person.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renilicious In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:24:27 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism? Seriously? What a load of tripe. This is just another category for art to be misplaced into.

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Personally speaking, political art is boring and I avoid it.

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
I see crap and I see nice stuff. I tend to ignore crap. (See above.)

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?
Cut and dry for me. If it's crap, it's crap, if I like it, I like it.

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
I just want to make pretty pictures or tell a little story. I've got nothing to prove or say to anyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheSoup1 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:24:16 +0000 UTC]

This is the category I have been looking for. I need in!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

coolclaytony In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:23:52 +0000 UTC]

So suggestivism is... tripping balls while doing artwork?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Origami-Butterfly In reply to coolclaytony [2012-07-27 23:57:34 +0000 UTC]

I think it's just art that wasn't premeditated.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Katzen-Key In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:18:44 +0000 UTC]

sorry, i find some of it a little scary

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fanan-nusayr In reply to Katzen-Key [2012-07-27 23:41:16 +0000 UTC]

AND I THINK THAT IF I DRAW VIOLENT dosent mean im violent it's may mean that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Traditionalfire In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:18:00 +0000 UTC]

1: I find it being a pretty stupid question (personally) of course thier's room for both!

2: I am not into art in this way. Im into photography (wich may or may not be professional) and for that i ain't feeling that there's any kind of movment.

3: Yes.

4: Honestly, my concern (for the most part) is only aesthetics. Maybe i slap in some fancy metaphore into it but otherwise no. Im not trying to transmit any message with the suff i make but if there any feeling im trying to transmit thru my pics is beauty. Most may not find my picture anything out of the ordinary and relly, im not professional. It's more of an ego boost or something.

Now that last one became a bit personal.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

i-am-a-retro-lass In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:14:07 +0000 UTC]

I think it is impossible to define art.
to collate, to categorize, to compartmentalize, to institutionalize or even to analyze.
My art is the abyss of me and my internal universe inside of me and you, as well as the external universe outside of me and you.
The massive "Me-Cloud" that is the output of all of the data of my life experiences and your life experiences in between our first breath to our last breath or our now moment, is absolutely unique.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

A--S--K In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:13:08 +0000 UTC]

... Art is art, no matter what new label you come up with to describe it. Why do we need yet another pretentious "ism" when there are plenty of others we could use? I see no reason to further clutter our language.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Zayin8 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:11:13 +0000 UTC]

wow

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FoolSightBlind In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:09:24 +0000 UTC]

I may need to difest the definition a bit more, but it seems to me most art has always been "suggestive", it's that "suggestion" that leads to the desire to express an idea.
"The artist's intent" is given way too much critical weight.It's not unusual for an artist to be surprised (often pleasantly) by a viewer's interpretation of his/her work,if it evokes a reaction, it works, i'd wager some of the "deepest",works of art started out as something like ..."yeah, that would be a cool image".
Art can, and is both apolitical and political, and many times the latter appropiates the first, while other times , a political work is done ,simply as a way to be able to produce art,any art in a circumstance where other ways are absent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Auroen In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:07:59 +0000 UTC]

1. Art should be what you, as an artist, want it to be. It should express the ideals and morals each of us as individuals or-in some cases- as a society. So to answer the question "Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?"...
It should not be restricted to either option. Whether a person likes or dislikes political/apolitical art is their own preference. Self-expression is a huge key as I've seen a lot of other members comment on this same post. Of course there is always a limit to how far you should take things (certain controversial or law-breaking topics/ideas) but that is a different matter altogether.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

secretplanet In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:06:47 +0000 UTC]

well, it pretty much sums up the work i do, & how my process works as well, but i've been calling it "magic realism". suggestivism covers it too, & i suppose it could incorporate writing, game, & film styles just like magic realism does. i love that other artists are creating things that occur to them spontaneously & often finding meaning in the work afterwards! i thought it was just me being weird!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Erameris In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:58:59 +0000 UTC]

1- I think there's more than enough room for both

2- Of course art is always in constant change and it's hard to judge if it's good or bad because that would be generalizing something as diverse as the arts.

3- First I try to see if there is an intent or message, which is not always the case. I don't need to decide if I like something or not, I know that when I see it. Sometimes I might like the looks but not the message, that doesn't change the fact I like how it looks or vice versa.

4- Right now I often feel like I'm not skilled enough to express myself successfully on paper, when I draw something and it turns okay I'm like "wow I did it!"
I'm learning to go easy on myself because it was always the same, I drew something and at a first glance it was okay but in a second and third look I started to see the flaws and question myself, every aspiring artist must walk that path and now that I learned to go easy one myself, I draw something and if I see a flaw it doesn't matter anymore I just say to myself I have to keep practicing and the next time I'll do it better.
With that said, I'm not interested in literally transmitting messages, I do like to tell stories or try to draw something that represents a moment or an idea that I just had but I don't care if others see what lies beyond it or not, I'm more concerned in doing something that makes me happy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FiskXPhantom In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:58:37 +0000 UTC]

"Recently, artists have come up with thousands of ways to say absolutely nothing."

- Edward Knippers

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ThatJuanArtist In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:57:51 +0000 UTC]

Very insteresting read, thanks for sharing the toughts. As for the questions:

1. That's pretty much up to each artist, but for me it's both.
2. If anything it's the "art" movement. Artists all over the world just keep showing the world how art stays rellevant in today's society in very creative ways to keep up with our fast lives we live today. As far as "isms", if it was to count as one, "digitalism" (?) is our biggest one. Since digital art began we've been seeing very interesting techniques come to fruition both by pure digital art, or the mixture of digital and traditional.
3. First I pick a piece I like, and then I look at the meaning behind them, and if not the meaning I wonder what made the artist decide to create their piece.
4. Some are mere color studies or technique experimenting, but I like to make series of paintings that follow an ideal every once in a while.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

THE-BRAT-05 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:54:45 +0000 UTC]

I really like these pieces and the idea of suggestivism. I think I will research it more and try to take up the idea and create some of my own.
1. I think that there is always room for both political and apolitical art. Art is so expansive; how can anyone let it all, as a whole, be reduced to "political or apolitical."

2. Art is always moving and evolving. Art will always be that way. People will always come up with new ideas and mediums, reinvent old ideas and mediums, and bring back traditional ideas and mediums.

3. I look at the overall idea. I think of what the artist may have been feeling or thinking when creating the piece, based on the feelings or ideas I get when looking at the piece. I look at the technique, too.

4. I sometimes try to convey a message with different colors and techniques, along with the actual subject. Other times, I go for aesthetics. It depends on my inspiration and mood. (:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SonicWolvelina99 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:50:11 +0000 UTC]

1. Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Well, it depends on how you execute it. There is room for both.

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

Well, yeah. Especially in the fashion world. The world is affecting quite alot. I see alot of Britain supporting clothes and USA supporting clothes. I don't know why. Maybe, it's the elections of the Olympics.

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?

Most of the time, I just glance through art but sometimes, I leave some in my inbox to take a closer look later.

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

It's pretty hard to weave a message into a piece of art without rubbing it into your face. The technique is just as important as the message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wolfieguy In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:48:37 +0000 UTC]

1)Yes there is enough room for both in my opinion. There needs to be art done on both sides to see different perspectives in style and thought.

2)I see it as a good thing in that a lot more people seeing art with a agenda than just a creative persons pass time.

3)I like the some art because I understand it and I dislike some art because I can't understand it or make sense of it. But I try my best.

4)Not yet I still an amuture and I always think I will be. I always see myself as a student and never a master of such things.

Well That's what I think, but it's all pretty spotty and suggestive, but there you go.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RLS0812 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:47:02 +0000 UTC]

**Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?**
Self expression is a core value of art.
**Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?**
Art is always evolving with the times. Whats "good" and "bad" is determined to what holds up to the test of time.
**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?**
Depends on the art. If the artist has to explain in great detail what something is about, it is usually not worth my time to interpret.
**In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?**
Most of my art I upload to this site, is my textures. No message there. My political art, is self explanatory.
[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

m00gli In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:45:44 +0000 UTC]

Great article, but I am not sure about there being a new "ism" in the making. I can relate to this "ism" in all kinds of art, and lately I have been feeling a lot of it particularly in the Indie-scene of videogames, which is great! However, I feel that this approach to art has always been there. Leaving the interpreting up to the beholder doesn't feel like just -this- era, if you know what I mean.

To answer your questions:
1. There is always room for art. Any kind of art, except the ones that break the laws in some way...
2. I'm not really sure, but there is -a lot- going on right now.
3. I like to fantasize, but the true intention of the artist is not that important to me. If the piece of art has envoked a feeling, thoughts or had your brain running, then it meant something.
4. I am not at that level, but I like to keep a thought or a feeling in the back of my mind when drawing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AlexandraBaban In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:43:13 +0000 UTC]

I like this article a lot, but I disagree with you saying that today's world is largely apolitical. I think that, unfortunately, almost everything is political nowadays, including art, and that's a shame. It really is a breath of fresh air when I find art that comes from the soul and isn't a reflection of how disturbed and corrupt the world we live in can be like.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

the-boy-with-a-coin In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:41:53 +0000 UTC]

I don't believe that art should or shouldn't be this or that. Besides obvious exceptions, I believe art is and can be anything and everything. I rarely see 'should' in art, as I much as I see 'already is'. However, I do believe in the simplicity of art. I think there are too many categories. Most will call a piece of art all kinds of things, and maybe they're all true, but then what's really the point? I understand the importance of categories in order to find pieces of art, but what I disapprove of is the obsession with labeling art just for the thrill of the label itself being distinct. Let the art speak for itself, rather than its label. Allow people to interpret it the way they will. Freedom of expression. Freedom of interpretation. Any one piece of art could probably fit into an innumerable amount of categories. There will be those that argue over the primary category, but again, they forget that art is subjective. Art is not a perfect science. It's not arithmetic.

Art is art. 'Nuff said.

As an instinct, I first consider whether or not I like each piece of art. I think that's the natural response. If I find something, within, that I enjoy, or that piques my interest, I will continue to gaze and begin to analyze purpose and meaning. I do love that part. I understand that I don't necessarily need to come to a conclusion, however. I can take pleasure in the journey, itself.

I do admit to baking in some personal meaning in my literary layer cakes. However, I do have a mind to appreciate the implementation of technique and aesthetic.

As for Suggestivism, well, I'll tell you what I've learned about Suggestivism. It's horribly, horribly disturbing. Beautiful, but disturbing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Auroen In reply to the-boy-with-a-coin [2012-07-27 23:08:48 +0000 UTC]

Well said

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

the-boy-with-a-coin In reply to Auroen [2012-07-29 22:50:24 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MokkaChan In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:41:37 +0000 UTC]

All my art work usually contains a message, wether that be a message about how I feel or the relationship between someone I have.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

auntycc In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:40:52 +0000 UTC]

limitations, boxing art in any category is an accountants dream, art works in any and all levels dependent upon the viewer.
movement in the arts world is unknown to me, but the access to various artists creations is now enjoyed by a person like me from aotearoa/nz and it is so enjoyable to see the creativity that is out there in the world is so spectacular, wow!
If asked to comment on an artists work, then i will try to figure out what i think an artist is expressing.
and as for creating art, i create what i feel as art would become boring to me and technique and aesthetics are tools.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0