They were engaged in making art, for the most part, not ancillary to any other product (i.e., not adorning a useful box or furniture, etc.).
I rather detest the work of Andy Warhol and Jean-Michel Basquiat, for example, which in both cases are close to garbage IMHO. What makes them "fine artists"
That's easy to answer, Arthur - both of them endorsed each other's work. Birds of a feather. I wouldn't have anything against Basqujat if they'd simply take out of his estate the funds commensurate to sandblast and repaint over every single thing he did on public and private property without permission. Vandalism, whether art-worthy or not, is still vandalism. But art entered the Dark Ages anyway once Warhol showed up.
Regarding the “label” that appears next to a displayed piece of art, (and I acknowledge that even the use of “label” is controversial) I mentioned earlier here or on another thread that I find it curious that with photography it is not uncommon to see technical data such an camera model, lens, type of film, exposure data, paper used, etc., even seen on the Gallery on this site. Why is that? With other media it might note “oil on canvas” or “ink on paper” but the brand of oil, the type of brushes used, and that type of thing is generally not included.
All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists' studios? How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.
I collaborated with some excellent ones in terms of technical issues and needed equipment over several decades, and sometimes went to shows. Had a few of my own gigs of course. But I'm sure not going to waste any time seeing yet another fourth million Warhol of Avedon or Cindy Sherman print.
I go to galleries, museums, artists' studios - sometimes more frequently than others.
I've had photography in galleries and public space group shows that I also contributed toward the organization of.
My wife and I have bought inexpensive art from places like community markets.
But they don't - they actually travel to the place itself.
I know people who call themselves photographers today who have rarely set foot in a gallery or museum to see an original. I have bought photos and original art, sometimes stretching the budget in order to acquire it, as well as trading design and photography services for art.
All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists' studios? How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.
Going to galleries and museums doesn't make someone an artist and not going to those places doesn't prevent someone from being one. Galleries and museums display art, they don't make it.
Yes, you can learn from those places. But you can learn just as much elsewhere. Owning original artwork is swell but owning a decent copy will provide the same insight, in terms of what you take away for your own artistic endeavours. Perhaps you should see as much original artwork as you can if your goal is academic and you intend to write some criticism. But a photographer, for instance, produces photographs, not treatises. The idea that an artist needs to go to galleries and museums in order to be an artist is pompous.
All this discussing of "fine art" and artist's statements, galleries and museums leads me to ask, how many forum members regularly go to galleries, museums, artists'How many produce fine art, have published and sold books, have had gallery shows, are in museum collections, have sold to collectors? How many buy art? Or maybe it is all just a bunch of bullshit.
Going to galleries and museums doesn't make someone an artist and not going to those places doesn't prevent someone from being one. Galleries and museums display art, they don't make it.
Yes, you can learn from those places. But you can learn just as much elsewhere. Owning original artwork is swell but owning a decent copy will provide the same insight, in terms of what you take away for your own artistic endeavours. Perhaps you should see as much original artwork as you can if your goal is academic and you intend to write some criticism. But a photographer, for instance, produces photographs, not treatises. The idea that an artist needs to go to galleries and museums in order to be an artist is pompous.
Saying that it’s not necessary to visit galleries and museum has a validity to it but I think it’s akin to telling a sports fan they don’t need to go to stadium or arena when they can just watch the event on TV.
Those weren't Neanderthals, Pieter. Neanderthals were known to have some personal ornaments and likely used charcoal and red ochre colorants, but were never suspected of mural work.
Sorry, Drew, but that's no longer considered to be the case. See for example https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/neanderthal-art-discovery/
there's something about it that's satisfying
I learned about composition, balance left and right, light and dark ... , visual flow
“art” just isn’t about the finished piece, it’s about the entire process of creation and interacting in a community of others
Hand and dot and line motifs are a far cry from the extraordinary animal painting etc going back to around 44,000 yrs or so that have no evident Neanderthal links. Of course, a lot of anything of this nature is hard to pin down. But at one phase, namely overlapping my formal education years, I did do a lot of direct paleoanthropology research myself, so have a decent idea how these things work. Plus, like that link itself stated, cave motifs tended to get painted over or receive added content over tens of thousands of years, so it doesn't mean it was all painted at the same time or even by the same people. Neanderthals weren't dumb by any means, but they were quite different in how they obtained and used materials, more locally than through trade connections. Smaller less mobile populations apparently. But they certainly were far more highly evolved and intelligent than the typical tagger or "street artist" around here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?