doubleDare6969 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:34:12 +0000 UTC]

1. Of course there's enough room for both
2. I think it's difficult to catagorize the world's art movement because everyone is doing something different. Or at least that's what I've seen. Some artistic direction I think is negative because many people now rely so heavily on computers, which I believe takes away some value. Musical and theatrical arts are definatly going down for me though. Computers and money are relied on almost completely in that industry making talent more rare in the mainstream than ever.
3. I try my best to see what their angle could've been before judgeing, though I'll admit to being close-minded at times.
4. I believe all art has or can have some kind of message, and I don't think mine is excluded from that. However, given my current level, I focus for more of my attention on my technique and accually completeing a good image.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeadxDreadxPunk In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:34:03 +0000 UTC]

Art shouldn't have to have rules or boundaries. Its the only place where you can actually say what you want.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rhyn-Art In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:31:57 +0000 UTC]

IM SORRY BUT THIS IS IS BULLCARP ALL OF THE FEATURED ART HERE FITS IN THE CATEGORY CALLED SURREALISM, NO MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

doomroar76 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-08-02 18:15:31 +0000 UTC]

yes it does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OniPolice In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-27 22:01:45 +0000 UTC]

I have to agree. Personally, I think it's just a case of someone inventing another category in order to sounds smart.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

froggywoggy11 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-27 21:35:55 +0000 UTC]

People love to think they're doing something new. I agree with you - just because work has a message doesn't mean it can't be abstract or surrealist or any other category.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to froggywoggy11 [2012-07-27 21:39:53 +0000 UTC]

the problem is that everything art has become has been copied or reproduces somewhere else in a different mannor, suggesting that sussestivism is art with philosophy inside is bullcarp, because all art in one way or another plays around with philosophy, for me personally, this is just another name for emo art

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ColorForDays In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:31:44 +0000 UTC]

I think suggestivism is just a more descript category of surrealism or abstract art. All art can be suggestive to someone depending on how you look at it. After all, art is usually about a message.. the category seems kind of moot.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PixelTwist In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:31:31 +0000 UTC]

1) Art should be an expression of the artist. Wether they intend it to be political or not; sometimes the meaning they intend is not always what the viewer percieves. Therefore, a completely apolitical work, could be construed as completely political and biased, depending on the viewer. Let art be art, wether its political or apolitical. There is plenty of room for both, the same as opinions, theyre all different, and usually wrong to someone else.

2)Im no expert on art, by far. But take a browse through the web. Take notice of artwork and the range of dates. Whle there have always been artists who had a particularly dark or forboding feel to their work, I have seen as of late, more and more works with dark themes, or portraying very dark or twisted imagery, violent acts, or just very apparent overtones of malevolence. No, not all, there are just as many with positive influences as well, but, the dark side is definitely becoming more prevalent. And as far as it being a good or bad thing.. who knows. Maybe its a reflection of the state of the world, or a sign of the times. Either way, or for whatever other reason, it is still art, and art is a reflection of us all.

3) Sometimes, you can stare, fathom, ponder, drink coffee and nibble pastries all day long, and there's just no meaning. Others, you look and it floods your mind and soul with thoughts and feelings without a trace of effort. Every work of art is as unique as its creator, and the impact it has on each individual is just as unique. So, in summary, I would say its a per instance occurrance.

4) Nah.. i never really start out with a specific meaning or message. That usually develops on its own as i work. Usually when I try to create something with a specific meaning, it changes and evolves into somethin far different, or a slight twist to its original focus. So i just let it happen, if someone gets a message, or sees something in my work that touches them.. But, chances are, what they see or feel is far from what was intended, if intended at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkSnarkArtie89 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:30:13 +0000 UTC]

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

This is a rather stupid question, for I believe the answer is both. Political art and cartoons have been around for a very long time and won't be going any time soon. Likewise, most artists tend to show their beliefs and influences in one way or another.

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

Well, it really depends on how you define "movement". For me, I still think we're sitting the in post-modern era, and another era won't come for a few more years. However, for animators, simplicity is becoming a bit more predominant than usual, thanks to Flash and other digital assets. But then again, said cartoons like to blur the lines of fiction and reality all the time, despite their being obvious gaps or audiences who don't get 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?

It really depends on the piece in question and the artist themselves. If you're drawing one of those winged-sparkly-inflatable-fox-taur-candy-cane-farting-drunk-furry-friend-persona-whatever things and trying to show us this creation with a straight face, I probably won't take it seriously. But, if you drew up this picture of a scene of what a terrified victim of the Columbine shooting saw before they died and were cracking jokes about it as you presented us the work (or gave us the famous "..." in the artist's comments), I wouldn't really appreciate the work very well either. Presentation, along with what kind of subject matter you bring us, really is the key to how well I can "get it".

I mean, if you don't put effort into something and try to present it as being the best yet, I'll just blow it off.

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

Well, as for my drawings, everything is tasteless. It's either generic fan-art, generic fetish art, generic comic art, or generic studies of real-life objects. I'm more so concerned with making sure things "look right" rather than try to come up with a message or "deeper meaning." I view my artwork as either being practice or just stress relief.

Musically though, I try to strive to actually go further. I want to be able to "paint" images or "movies" into the listener's head. It means I kind of have to break the rules of tonal-harmony at times in order to do, such as having cadences go nowhere (or like in piece, there is no cadence, it's just a cycle of relative chords that make themselves "sound" like cadences), using folk melodies, pentatonic melodies, pop progressions, non-traditional instruments in orchestration (or just simply throwing away the double-reeds for saxes), weird synth sounds, choral effects, and even just samples of everyday sounds. It's nothing too fancy, and it's nothing too extreme like John Cage or Phillip Glass, but it certainly is strange...

But then again it's just post-modernism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KristenMash In reply to DarkSnarkArtie89 [2012-07-27 21:36:03 +0000 UTC]

I like your answers!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkSnarkArtie89 In reply to KristenMash [2012-07-27 22:23:16 +0000 UTC]

But how? I thought they would provoke great anger and rage!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KristenMash In reply to DarkSnarkArtie89 [2012-07-27 23:00:20 +0000 UTC]

If it makes you feel better I thought you were being kind of a dick but your answers were intelligent. So there!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkSnarkArtie89 In reply to KristenMash [2012-07-27 23:14:07 +0000 UTC]

Well, I do have that tendency (Thank you internets!), but I try to be a jerk all the time...

Although as for the whole "still stuck in a state of post-Modernism" part, yes, I do hold that to be true. It just seems like the most close answer to where the world is at now.

I mean, look at all those "ask [insert character here]" blogs, twitters, and videos people make. We're clearly still wanting to experiment and test just how strong the line of reality and fantasy are. Hence why there's a lot of abstraction too.

As for the whole nonsense about about weird sparkle foxes and serious paintings... Yeah, I admit, I was being a jerk there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KristenMash In reply to DarkSnarkArtie89 [2012-07-28 01:49:29 +0000 UTC]

I have to agree with you. I too believe we're still stuck in post-modernism. And honestly, I don't think anything other "ism" can be invented. I mean, what else is there? You may know the answer to that lol. But I just can't think of anything. It seems that everything has already been done.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkSnarkArtie89 In reply to KristenMash [2012-07-28 02:12:08 +0000 UTC]

Yeah. I mean there could be a new art movement, but the thing is, it's really hard to predict what it would be. Most of these movements also tend to be somewhat "cyclic" from what I note in some eras. But then again, I can't really tell you much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ludjia In reply to DarkSnarkArtie89 [2012-07-28 10:53:32 +0000 UTC]

What is the difference between and art movement and a trend? I percieved cubism to be kind of superficial/artificial. I observe smaller trends in digital art today where people jump on bandwagons on how to depict certain things and these trends morph and twist into entirely new styles of works. They were not agreed upon by a group but evolved out of crossinrpiration. I don't know what to make of that. Bandwagoning is seen as negative often, but is it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkSnarkArtie89 In reply to Ludjia [2012-07-28 17:39:09 +0000 UTC]

I don't consider bandwagoning to be all that negative, depending on what the outcome is. If a bunch of people work together to create something really good, then it was a great effort by the community.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sensia-v7-03 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:28:36 +0000 UTC]

Since when has art ever needed it's own philosophy?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to Sensia-v7-03 [2012-07-27 21:33:30 +0000 UTC]

MOST ART HAS ALWAYS HAD THE ASPECT OF PHILOSOPHY

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sensia-v7-03 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-27 23:03:35 +0000 UTC]

And I suppose a Capslocker would be an authority on the subject?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to Sensia-v7-03 [2012-07-28 14:49:43 +0000 UTC]

my capslock is faulty

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sensia-v7-03 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-28 15:35:34 +0000 UTC]

Riiight... =/

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to Sensia-v7-03 [2012-07-28 18:15:43 +0000 UTC]

suit yourself

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

djawesome3000 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:27:13 +0000 UTC]

art should be whatever you want it to be!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nikolass83gianni In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:26:04 +0000 UTC]

1. There’s room enough for both ....

2. Art changes with every generation .. that's good ... technology makes movement in art ...

3. I'm really trying to find some points in all artworks ... I love all arts and I love to investigate mind of artist ...

4. In all my artworks you can find messages ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SpiritOfOrigin In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:24:45 +0000 UTC]

1.Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
I think that art should steer clear of both.
2.Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
Not really. But then again, I don't watch or read the news.
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 don't try to find a hidden meaning. In my opinion, art is a way of expressing creativity, not feelings. So yes, i just decide whether or not i like it.
4.In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Like I said for question 3. Art, is my way of expressing creativity. I do concern myself mostly with how i draw, but i guess, from time to time, i do try to give meanings for my art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JefimusPrime In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:24:41 +0000 UTC]

Art is just a hobby I do

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bangalybashir In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:24:18 +0000 UTC]

see my art

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gregman104 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:23:41 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism is no more than Abstract. A age-old category. The only thing that seperates Suggestivism from Abstract is the implication that it should be seen as/is different. . .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-07-28 23:01:01 +0000 UTC]

... which would make it Surrealism. In my opinion this whole Suggestivism thing is nonsense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-28 23:42:21 +0000 UTC]

Surrealism seems no different in my opinion - just another 'ism' to discount in this scheme of things. I agree though, and add for both - it is nonsense. Just leave all things surreal & open to any interpretation wherein they both belong catagory wise: Abstract. There is far too much time spent on all of this classification/determination/labelling, and not enough spent where it matters: On the subject itself. In this case art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-07-29 05:26:56 +0000 UTC]

Uh... Surrealism isn't abstract. Abstract art is stuff like this: [link] (Kandinsky painted it).

Surrealism is art that is aimed at your subconscious, it's supposed to either confuse you by throwing your brain into a logic-loop (like Magritte's "This is not a pipe"), or it's geared towards eliciting emotion in the viewer (like fear or pleasure) without doing it with telling a story. So Surrealism is hardly meaningless. It's supposed to be what you see in it, a bit like the Rorschach-test with symbols and weird stuff instead of random shapes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-29 14:17:41 +0000 UTC]

So then refute one ism but find/have meaning/use for another. . . Couldn't it then be said the same could be found by the gallery people & other self-determined higher-ups for Suggestivism? Whether or not we see it - in the end I doubt it makes a difference. All the same I still say Suggestivism is something that shouldn't be - even as an ism it doesn't have what your example of Surrealism does. Yet, all it's really missing is it's own definition that is accepted widely.

At the very least issues like this make for great discussion topics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-07-29 17:58:31 +0000 UTC]

My example of Surrealism? Magritte? Okay...

Anyway, the difference seems to be that Surrealism was created by a group of artists with specific things in mind (check Dalí or better yet, Max Ernst), Suggestivism feels like an artificial blanket-term to me.

I think there's a big difference between an artist describing their own work with a term (even better yet, coining it for their work), and someone else doing it (like a gallery-owner or an art-historian).

Yes, I agree, it makes for great discussion topics. I like exchanging views and ideas with people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-29 19:12:04 +0000 UTC]

no I meant Surrealism itself as your example of another ism sorry. I get what you're saying.

Yes Suggestivism is just another artificial/superficial term. I completely agree. If an artist and/or group thereof coins a term then it is valid, but if it is coined by galleries, (pompous society generated types) & the like - then it is by my opinion wholly invalid.

As do I.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-07-29 19:48:56 +0000 UTC]

Yes, exactly. I really, really came to dislike the art world - so much that I decided not to become a professional artist. Not the artists themselves (though many are superlicious twits), more those plastic-people fawning over every crap they take. Those so-called experts who make up -isms. Honestly. Bleargh.

That's why I'm a hobbyist - I just don't want to put up with that kind of crap.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-29 23:15:18 +0000 UTC]

Crap taken crap given, it's all worthless. Does anyone even remember what it means to be a professional anymore? I'll bet you if you asked some joe shmo he's say 'well everyone says he/she is professional so. . .he/she is.' A true professional is one who has mastered their chosen profession in all it entails. Be it a carpenter or a painter - to anything else. One is also not a professional who would proclaim themselves to be. Also I despise the 'yes men & momen' those who are just there to feed egos and force their crap down your throat. I completely concur. I wouldn't feel right to call myself a professional, nor try to delude myself into thinking I was. I've labelled myself a hobbyist because I am no way a professional in any art form I do, and at the core of it: Everything I uploaded/ will upload is, and most likely always will be a hobby to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-07-31 15:26:02 +0000 UTC]

In my experience the going opinion is that a professional artist needs a college degree. If you don't have that... well, no matter how good you are, you are looked down upon.

You are right, a true professional is someone who has mastered their craft - and sadly that is not taught at art schools any more, at least in most of them. A couple of decades ago you had to actually be able to draw from nature. Otherwise you could kiss your degree goodbye. If you did so in your art was your decision, but you had to be able to. Actually you had to be somewhat proficient to be admitted to an art school in first place. I've seen the works of both students and graduates of the local art college. Most of them couldn't draw from nature, had no bloody clue how to compose a picture, and don't even get me started on their (non-existent) knowledge of anatomy or perspective.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-31 16:54:20 +0000 UTC]

Oh yes it's all pieces of paper these days. Skill means the nothing, the perception of it need only be bought (pay for & pass a course). The last I heard of those kind of, (albeit proper) criteria in an art school was in the 40's. It almost makes me start into my rant on society as a whole, but I'll not bother with that here, as it is slightly digressive. Suffice it to say in summary our points on degrees, paper, and all-in-all the degration of expectations, (moralities, skills, intelligence etc.) is society's purpose in-and-of itself. It is how it all is, and it will only get worse, look at anything for examples, and you will find them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to gregman104 [2012-08-03 12:03:37 +0000 UTC]

Yep, sad but true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gregman104 In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-08-03 14:13:19 +0000 UTC]

all well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lightsyde In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:22:10 +0000 UTC]

Art is the lie that makes us realize the truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

benitezdk In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:21:47 +0000 UTC]

I do 'art' just for I like to do it ... if some find it worth to look at ... it make my day! ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NekoChanMaasta In reply to benitezdk [2012-07-28 01:00:44 +0000 UTC]

I wish more artists had this attitude.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to NekoChanMaasta [2012-07-28 02:23:35 +0000 UTC]

...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SableGear0 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:19:38 +0000 UTC]

So it's basically surrealism....? Weird for the sake of weird?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Fallliingmoon In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:19:19 +0000 UTC]

1. Art is freedom, no one should bind an artist with rules. It can be political... apolitical... both it doesn't matter. Art is the artist.

2. Well, if you mean by 'change' in style of something like the rest of the world then yes and no. Yes people change their own style, not entirely as a group but individually. Other younger artists get inspired by that artwork and try out that style or turns that inspiration into 'Modern Art'. Some people never change.

3. Yes I try and find a message in the more complex art... but sometimes I'll just decide if I like it or not. Depends on the piece, really. The effort put in it or if it grabs my attention.I'm just picky like that.

4. Sometimes I'll try and draw out a message. Sometimes I'll get a good idea and sketch something... only to find in the end I've drawn a complex picture describing feelings or something like that. Other times I just draw for the sake of drawing and allow people to do what they want with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

darklittle1 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:19:04 +0000 UTC]

..... Some of those pieces were slightly... disturbing......

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NekoChanMaasta In reply to darklittle1 [2012-07-28 01:01:27 +0000 UTC]

Only slightly?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1