It's had a long life, it took thousands of years to mature. First only used to depict everyday life (the hunt, harvest, etc.) Later art served another purpose, religion. Used to represent gods of all sorts, sacrifices for those gods, and charms as a promise that you are being cared for. Even later, art became art, a visual stimulation of sorts. The Egyptians had it everywhere. It still served a major religious purpose, telling stories of the afterlife and the preparation for the transfer between worlds, but was becoming decorative, implementing symmetry and complex colors. Art was a teenager, I would say, it's complexion being compromised by the media it was having to be used on, impressive as it were.
The Roman and Greek era was art's early to late 20-30's. Still young but getting to its prime. Sculptures of momentous size and decoration. Surprising todays society by how mature it had become at its young age. This is where the switch between religion and art started to really kick in. Again, still representing religious figures, but now much much more decorative. Used as a sign of power, elegance, and the riches of anyone who had entered the city for the first time. Often straying away from the religious and having animals, or animal combinations, to represent strength and majesty of the ruler. To be blunt, they were used to say, "Don't fuck with me". Art being art.
Then came the Renaissance, rebirth for society, furthering education, and the perfection of the arts. I don't believe there will be art like this anymore. The final understanding of composition, relation of colors, technique and execution unmatched. With minimal tools, the artist of the Renaissance could spend years of their lives to one piece of art. It was their job, 9-5. Dedication met only by the scribes and monks. Jaw dropping art that charms and even confuses people to this day. Art had reached its adulthood .
And now we have today. . . *sigh*
There was a quote I came across in my works as a Graphic Design student. "There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation, the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite." -Paul Gauguin.
Art has lost its representation. No longer a definition so much as open to interpretation so any Dick or Jane can say what they think it means. Making them feel "part of the painting". Thats fine, but there is no more execution anymore. I consider it more of a Fauxicution, excuses to fill the gaps left by lack of skill.
My main target of all this is the "artist" Jackson Pollok. I think his art is the gravedigger for the whole art is to be placed in. NOTHING of his work has any sort of definition, besides a eyeball or nose thrown in. Interpretation is the coffin. If you can't get the viewer to get what you are portraying, simply say its open to interpretation and it's labeled abstract art. It seems that foundation knowledge is out the window. Its all left up to composition via energy and nothing else. It's the equivalent to allowing a random civilian cook in a five start restaurant and having the mediocre overcooked food as abstract and the taste is in all interpretation. . . just imagine you are eating a juicy well cooked steak. It's food, and it's on a plate, what's the difference? It's paint and its on a canvas, what's the difference?
And finally the word that gives me the heebie geebies. . . abstract! To me the definition of abstract in art is the meeting halfway of an artist uneducated in the finesse that is art, giving them a genre so that they may remain in the art world with less effort. Look at autotune is music, can't sing well? Just digitize your voice so that your bad notes will be carried over to the correct one. All instruments are digital so you don't need real orchestras or instruments to make music, just break out garage band. Abstract is basically the autotune of art, can't paint, call it abstract.
So I am preparing my suit for art's funeral, not sure when visitation will be, probably in a few years. If only Mr. Pollock was still alive to give the eulogy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


3 comments:
Thats funny. . .
I care so little that I've never actually looked up anything about him. Nor have I heard anyone talk about him as being deceased, that's very bizarre now that I think about it.
Oh well. I can just remove the last part and that fixes the tense.
*note to self, do research*
Surrounding one person with idiots doesn't make him a genius. Lets see, Molly Cyrus/Hannah Montana - people will pay for two tickets to see the same person. Only in America can a schizo get famous twice. Lil Wayne - You can't even understand what he is saying in most of his songs. Twilight - I mean really, talk about playing off teenage hormones.
Just because it sells doesn't mean its good. Just means that society is becoming pants-on-head retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonlajoie#p/a/u/1/ijr4rwb2WbE
Oh I know, that was a general point, not pointed at you specifically.
I wish I could think of something crappy enough to get rich over.
Post a Comment