RLS0812 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:50:52 +0000 UTC]

... why are those images bad? They are quite creative. ( I like surrealism )

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Rhyn-Art In reply to RLS0812 [2012-07-28 14:48:56 +0000 UTC]

oh they are bad because they are not well done, now theres 2 ways of looking at art the 1st is selling aspect, when an artwork has a selling potencial its because the mass loves the work but lacks the emotion and drive within the work and 2nd the Creative side where the artwork has packed full of passion and love and care and full of the human soul, its like comparing artwork from a gallery on the highstreet that sells work and a public gallery that you can visit for free and is for everyone, there is a massive difference in the work you see and most people are blind to it because they dont realise it.... now the work shown here are ALL picked from the most popular in the print area of deviantart now that means profit, money and dead, you can question my logic if you wish but they would not show these works if they were not popular in the print area

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-31 15:53:59 +0000 UTC]

btw, by your logic, doesn't that mean that Michaelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci are bad artists? They are extremely popular artists whose work would fetch millions. I agree with the others that you're giving very poor reasons as to why you don't like their work. Maybe it's because you don't find them aesthetically pleasing? Plus, in your signature, you're asking people to give you points. Aren't you asking for a profit, support, and some popularity by doing that? And have you not thought that maybe these pieces became popular in sales and such AFTER they were included in this article? Passion is a trait that all artists must have to go forward in life, their career, and hobby. Whether or not they're rich or poor has nothing to do with it - and their income is certainly NOT a measure of their passion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to yourbigbrowneyes [2012-07-31 16:15:00 +0000 UTC]

I didnt realise that i still had that signature still, but the points raised I give to someone who has worked hard on their work and not for myself, also the anonymous logo I have up Is to support the path of beating corruption and nothing to do with my artwork unless I paint or draw something that is anti-corruption, so dont bring the anonymous sign up again in your discussion please, and also leonardo davinci was an inventor not an artist, he just drew his ideas down and did art in his spare time, he never claimed to be an artist, and the same with michaelangelo, he knew the logic of the human condition which he worked in the same way as a philosipher or a scientist did

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

angiee45 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-30 19:43:36 +0000 UTC]

I have to disagree. I don't think popular work is automatically bad. A lot of people considered great in the art world are actually popular. Hollywood can and has made plenty of movies that appeal to a wide audience and are actually good. What makes art popular is not that it is dead. It is that it touches something in a lot of people. There is a common thread that connects many people that the art work has.

Think about love. Why are love stories and love songs so popular even if they are bad? Think of Romance novels. These books aren't necessarily great art, but they are popular. People are drawn to them because everyone wants to be loved. All girls want prince charming even though we know he doesn't exist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to angiee45 [2012-07-30 20:57:31 +0000 UTC]

yes and good movies are corrupt, scaring you to think that a robotic apocalypse is going to happen even though robotic advancement will end the need for money, the production value of robots would be amazing, people will stop being stressed because they will not have the need to rush and panic, taking that out of the context I still feel most popular artwork on deviantart is fake, you cannot argue with me, that is how i feel

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

angiee45 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-08-11 03:47:34 +0000 UTC]

I can totally argue with you about how you feel. I may never change your mind, but civilized argument is a good thing. We exchange ideas and enrich each others lives. That is the reason I read comments online and make responses. I wonder what other people think and feel and I offer my input. That said, stories about the robot apocalypse have been around for at least 100 years. I read one for a class called "The Machine Stops" that was published around the time of the Titanic. Movies are only an extension of the same storytelling humans have been doing for thousands of years.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to angiee45 [2012-08-12 03:42:32 +0000 UTC]

robotic adjustments are GOOD if something with a higher IQ and awareness will not want to start a war, if a war happened in the future guess who is more likely to start one?!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

angiee45 In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-08-12 06:15:34 +0000 UTC]

I didn't mean to get into a debate over who would start a robot war. I just wanted to point out that stories about an apocalypse based on our dependence on technology started a long time ago. Terminator, The Matrix and other such stories are part of a long tradition of cautionary tales meant to tell people that we should not depend on technology too much. The story I mentioned, "The Machine Stops" by E. M. Forster, actually has nothing to do with war. It is about how humanity was so dependent on one machine that when it broke down the human race was doomed.

I was trying to point out that movies are not corrupt just because of the stories they choose to tell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nikkoli In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-28 17:14:28 +0000 UTC]

Nothing wrong with not liking something...tho your reasoning being that they are bad just because they are popular seems kinda silly to me.

To the article: I don't understand why this is being spoken of as something 'new'. Symbolism has been around forever. It occurs both on purpose and by accident. People having interpretations of things is both unavoidable, and not in any way new.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rhyn-Art In reply to nikkoli [2012-07-28 18:14:58 +0000 UTC]

the reason i find them bad is because deviantart always picks artwork that do well in the sales area, one thing i find wrong in that is when you go to a art dealer on a highstreet gallery their work are artwork that have a selling power not soulfull, now if you go to a public gallery, its full of work that is packed with soul, beuty and love, thats why van gogh and cezanne had it so bad.. their work was ridiculed and not sellable hence van gogh killed himself, full of depression and doubt, if you showed these to a serious art critic he would say the same, think about it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nikkoli In reply to Rhyn-Art [2012-07-28 18:37:03 +0000 UTC]

So then if one of these 'soulful' obscure artists has a piece that gets found, and it becomes popular -- that piece looses its soul and becomes bad? Since van Gogh is very well known now -- his works have lost their soul and his and are now bad?

Sorry, but I think it is you who must give this more thought. Its a generalization that is again, just silly. Popularity of something doesn't always mean something is better or worse...its just popular. And, I understand the appeal of being 'underground', but again it doesn't necessarily mean something is better or worse.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to nikkoli [2012-07-29 20:05:19 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm... you know, this may be the attitude/belief that drives the hipster culture. Think about it- "I knew about that band before they were big. Now they're sellouts."

So, if the best artists are the least popular...
That means the best artist is one nobody ever heard of.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nikkoli In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-07-30 18:55:14 +0000 UTC]

Heh yea thats kinda the vibe I got from it too

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rhyn-Art In reply to nikkoli [2012-07-29 00:05:27 +0000 UTC]

i dont need educating, what im trying to say is that there are too many art out there which does not have an inside punch but only the wow thats good aspect like someone drawing a portrait very accurate, people get struck by them because most people cant draw and they see that as something that is superhuman-like that they look up to, I however see it as a cliche, a human ability to become machine which is unhuman, im only saying that because its an example.. theres good and there is good,good and i only see good in these

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rogue-Z In reply to RLS0812 [2012-07-28 00:14:58 +0000 UTC]

No one said bad, it just didn't appeal to them

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MysticalTemptress In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 20:56:47 +0000 UTC]

ditto. some just down right freaked me out

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-07-28 04:46:19 +0000 UTC]

very rude and childish thing to say. the internet is not a toy for you to abuse your power/right of speech while you sit behind a screen, practically anonymous. if you have nothing nice to say (or even constructive criticism), please refrain from having the need to say it. this article never asked for your opinion of the pieces of work displayed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to yourbigbrowneyes [2012-07-29 20:02:02 +0000 UTC]

...so, freedom of speech as long as you're not offended, right?

We're allowed to put down honest opinions for a reason: To disallow the expression of honest opinions is tyrannical. To say, "this article never asked for their opinion on the pieces of work displayed" is sufficient reason to not put the opinion down...
well, they didn't ask for your opinion on their opinions. Isn't that kinda hypocritical? To express your opinion on someone's opinion when it's your opinion you shouldn't do so if you weren't asked?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-07-31 04:55:45 +0000 UTC]

And I never said anything about honesty - honesty is obviously important trait and value. But kid, let me tell you, look at the Olympics right now. 2 people just got kicked out for racist tweets. Would they have ever said those things on camera? No - not on their life. I believe in honesty when you'd actually have the balls to in real life what you would over the computer. They weren't discussing anything about the article. But hey, go for it if you wanna criticize suggestivism and if it really is a category or not etc, go right ahead, thats what is being discussed, but don't go bashing the artists work. And why am I not allow to call out someone who is abusing their privilege, hmm? Basically, you're the hypocritical one here for not allowing me to be honest and let people continue making rude comments.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to yourbigbrowneyes [2012-08-01 02:03:45 +0000 UTC]

You are allowed to call people out for saying they don't like the art. But you said " this article never asked for your opinion of the pieces of work displayed." This, on an opinion, that didn't ask for your opinion.

That isn't hypocritical?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-08-01 03:51:01 +0000 UTC]

As I said before (oh god here we go again) we can go back and forth on that. Although it didn't ask for my opinion on that specifically, I am trying to be the good semaritan by calling people out when no one else will. Btw, it was hardly an opinion, I was basically stating "The Golden Rule" therefore I wasn't being hypocritical (I'm sure dA has some Golden Rule type of rule although I'm not sure, who knows, it's one huge site!.They were asking their opinion on suggestivism, which none of them that I was calling out gave.

End of story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to yourbigbrowneyes [2012-08-01 06:03:50 +0000 UTC]

"very rude and childish thing to say." "Yup did not like those pieces." That's not an opinion? Kaaay...

"the internet is not a toy for you to abuse your power/right of speech while you sit behind a screen, practically anonymous." Expressing an opinion when someone didn't ask for it is abusing the right of speech. New on me.

"if you have nothing nice to say (or even constructive criticism), please refrain from having the need to say it. this article never asked for your opinion of the pieces of work displayed."
Aaaand you can't go back and forth on this- either you DO think it's acceptable to express disapproval when opinions are not asked for, or you DON'T. You said you didn't, but by saying you didn't you did. This is not a thing to go back and forth on - this is, according to dictionary.com and Webster, hypocrisy.

You were not stating "the golden rule." The golden rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is not to berate others for not doing unto others what they would have done to them, nor is it to not say anything mean.

Feel free to get the last word in on this- I doubt you'll develop proper grammar or logical thought, but I do not feel you'll be satisfied unless you believe you have "showed me."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-08-01 15:22:21 +0000 UTC]

lol didn't read any of this, stop wasting my time and pushing your views onto me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MysticalTemptress In reply to yourbigbrowneyes [2012-07-28 06:43:48 +0000 UTC]

It's childish to say that some of the art pieces actually and sadly scared me? I didn't say the artist or the artwork was horrible or they needed a kick in the head for creating such things. I'm sure that it took a long time and a lot of skill to do this work.
But then again I didn't ask for your opinion either nor do I care.
I'm sure everyone wants to hear it >>

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-08-01 02:07:04 +0000 UTC]

Nope. It's not childish. yourbigbrowneyes are brown for a reason.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yourbigbrowneyes In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-07-31 04:52:07 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. But thank you for the back handed "I didn't ask for your opinion", as if I asked for yours either. We can keep going round and round in circles, go back and forth. But darling, just stop.

Good day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

thedragonlady In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-07-28 10:21:22 +0000 UTC]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps that was the entire point of the art? To invoke those emotions?
Art is not just 'pretty pictures', art is expression, art shows emotion and invokes emotion, be they awe and amazement, or horror and fear.

I'd say in your case the art itself worked spectacularly well for the very purpose it was created.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

KayIscah In reply to thedragonlady [2012-07-28 13:24:30 +0000 UTC]

So if the whole point of the art is to evoke that reaction, why pick on her for having that reaction?

She didn't criticize the skill or artistic merit of the pieces, merely shared the emotional reaction they invoked in her.

I found some of the pieces unpleasant and disturbing too. I understand that in many cases this is quite deliberate on the artist's part. But understanding that sometimes makes the work even more disturbing.

And it does beg question, why create something so unpleasant?

Sometimes there's a good reason...other times it just seems to be a further contribution to the unpleasantness of the world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

thedragonlady In reply to KayIscah [2012-07-28 22:23:03 +0000 UTC]

I wasn't picking on anyone, merely trying to clarify that not all artists set out to make fluffy and happy art, there are those that appeal to the darker emotions too. Shutting off part of the emotional spectrum and saying it's not art simply because you don't like it is very close minded in my opinion. (There are some very powerful pieces of art out there that have dark and sinister themes.)
Also, I never said she wasn't allowed to dislike them, I merely elaborated on something that I feel is a misconception in the minds of many people.
Example: I hate dubsteb, I don't think it's music, just unpleasant noise that grates on my ears. But that doesn't stop it from actually being music and a variety of people liking it.

As to why, there are a million and one reason to create art that people may find 'unpleasant'.
Perhaps the artist is channelling their own emotions into the piece and they happen to be unpleasant, to do so can be both therapeutic for the artist and enlightening for the viewer.
Sometimes it's because of an agenda, the artist wishes to invoke that emotion for one reason or another, to rally people to a cause and to express how they feel about a matter and how they visualize and express it.
Sometimes the artist just wants to get that sort of art out of his/her system for reasons unknown.

But it's a misunderstanding to think that unpleasant art is adding to the unpleasantness of the world, in many cases it can do the exact opposite due to the very unpleasant emotions it calls fort in the viewer.

As they say; a picture is worth a thousand words.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KayIscah In reply to thedragonlady [2012-07-29 05:53:12 +0000 UTC]

I do understand what you were trying to say. But yourbigbrowneyes comment followed by yours came off as very condescending. You weren't as rude, but it did seem like people were unfairly ganging up.

Again, I really think it depends on the art piece. I don't think existing automatically gives merit to art. But I certainly agree that an unpleasant images can spur positive actions/reactions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

thedragonlady In reply to KayIscah [2012-07-31 16:18:13 +0000 UTC]

I was not at all trying to come off as condensending and/or rude, and I'm sad that my comments may have come across as such. But such is the problem with text over the internet, it cannot accurately convey the emotions we try to express through to strangers very well.

My reply was written in genuine curiosity and amusement as I was intrigued by the reaction from the person I originally replied to. I merely wished to invoke thought, as when I was younger I had the same mindset until I learned more about art and expression, and as I opened my eyes a bit more and stopped judging art based solely what I liked I found a gateway to a whole new world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HimitsuUK In reply to thedragonlady [2012-07-28 10:41:36 +0000 UTC]

Couldn't agree more thedragonlady.

Unfortunately not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, if you know what I mean ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Vueiy-Visarelli In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-07-28 02:28:39 +0000 UTC]

Yup, I agree. Although I thought the marbles one was kinda funny (in a sad way, lol). Most of them were technically brilliant and clearly took a lot of skill to do, but...yikes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MysticalTemptress In reply to Vueiy-Visarelli [2012-07-28 03:10:16 +0000 UTC]

Oh yes I agree about the marbles one. And yes they are skilled and took a lot of time to create, but makes me wonder what's going on with some to create things like that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vueiy-Visarelli In reply to MysticalTemptress [2012-07-28 04:17:46 +0000 UTC]

Yeeeup. Well, "they" do say that the best artists are the tortured ones...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MysticalTemptress In reply to Vueiy-Visarelli [2012-07-28 06:44:17 +0000 UTC]

I guess it's true :c

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

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

its just pointless, i will never use that term

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

zsxdcv In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 01:26:58 +0000 UTC]

Wow, awesome article.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lost-angle In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 01:03:48 +0000 UTC]

1. yes and yes, art should be open, there should be no contraints on who can do it and what they can do. Let the creativity flow and if someone is politically inclined, I see no reason why that should be stifiled, just as I see no reason why creativity should be stifiled if it has no political leanings whatsoever.

4. My work, at its root, is what you define to be suggestivist. It is unplanned, executed as fast as possible and concluded however it ends up. There are very few pieces I've created with specific purpose beyond creation, very few pieces that have actual meaning beyond the initial idea behind them. There's no real focus on any execution, techniques or aethstetics. (Unless I'm editing a piece of writing, but that's in editing, not creation.)

3. Because of the way I create the vast majority of my artwork, I generally don't try to figure out any meaning behind what anyone else has created, I even wrote/drew a paper on it in high school. I will look at a piece and if I enjoy it, I enjoy it. Sometimes a message or meaning will pop out at me, sometimes not. To me, it feels wrong to impose a meaning on a author's work when they may not have intended any meaning at all, especially when considered against my own work.

👍: 0 ⏩: 9

Sopictrix In reply to lost-angle [2012-08-03 19:22:18 +0000 UTC]

1 - agree!
4 - mine too (but not as fast as possible...I like to enjoy various stages when I'm happy with what I've done but am not sure where to go next...yet..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to Sopictrix [2012-08-03 20:03:09 +0000 UTC]

awesome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Digital--Angel In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-30 17:21:03 +0000 UTC]

Thoughts on your thoughts for #3

I don't know, I guess I feel that people interpret art for a lot of reasons, but I definitely don't think that it's wrong to find ("impose" is a little strong for me) a meaning other than what the author/artist intended. I think that's a huge part and maybe even the whole point of art. I personally love to hear different interpretations of my artwork, because I feel like it becomes it's own "thing" once I've finished working on it, so I no longer have sole propriety over it once another human being has seen it, because everyone will have a viewpoint based on their own views/experiences.

That's not to say that we should try to force meaning on every piece of art; i.e. Person: "The artist used the color blue to convey his sadness" Other person: "Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure he just painted the water blue because it was blue". Yeah, it's overdone sometimes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to Digital--Angel [2012-07-31 03:54:30 +0000 UTC]

I guess what I was trying to get at (and didn't really explain well in my original comment) is that I don't agree with the over analysis of the meaning behind what an artist did is wrong. In that sense, you are imposing your own views on what the artist did. (To use your example, "the artist used the colour blue to convey his sadness" is basically saying what you think is what the artist did.)

I do agree with making interpretations of work, but not in depth analyzing every word/colour choice and brush stroke.

It's definately overdone sometimes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

walkur In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-30 01:05:13 +0000 UTC]

well done, said it better than me ='D

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to walkur [2012-07-30 01:48:35 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

walkur In reply to lost-angle [2012-08-02 05:49:00 +0000 UTC]

no prob. luv yur comment

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to walkur [2012-08-02 06:00:01 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kuandohan In reply to lost-angle [2012-07-29 20:41:26 +0000 UTC]

I actually do agree with almost everything you have said.
It's good to let your painting be expressed with no meaning planned behind them.
But I believe it's good to not point that out, and let the person viewing it have their own conclusion, if they believe there's a meaning or if there isn't.
Because that's what usually changes peoples lives when they see media form, it's the meaning that they realize after thinking about your piece for days.
Many people will have many conclusions, and all of them could be life changing.
That's why a piece is amazing to someone, and terrible to someone else.

I hope what I said made sense, but I've realized this through personal experience.
Another point to make too, Don't let the fact that there's no meaning stop you from thinking about it, thinking about a art helps it be more powerful.

Keep pursuing your dreams! ~ Wynn

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lost-angle In reply to kuandohan [2012-07-29 21:20:11 +0000 UTC]

Wonderful! It's nice to see a contesting point to one I made. I agree that there is meaning to each and every person behind each and every piece, whether that piece of art intended it or not, whether the meaning is deep and powerful, or just a small emotional response.

What I meant when I said that I prefer not to read meaning into work is that I prefer not to sit down and analyze the work like you often do to short poetry and literature in high school. I like to look at the work and see what emotions and feelings and symbolysm bubbles to the surface for me.

You're right, too, in saying that the reason people find a specific piece striking is not neccessarily what the original artist intended. I have one piece that I created in fun, but that people respond to as finding it creepy and symbolic (though, admittedly, it is kind of creepy).

Keep creating!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1