tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post2731962112789841712..comments2024-03-28T05:04:06.624-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: ART TO KILL SNAKES WITHDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24662523296635164322012-10-06T15:09:03.955-04:002012-10-06T15:09:03.955-04:00I have to say, I completely agree that all of the ...I have to say, I completely agree that all of the above examples destroy the concept of art and beauty in our world. It steals from artists in our communities doing real work, seeking to expand our consciousness of what beauty is, and what it means to master a method. <br /><br />Expressing something already expressed is mere documentation. The moronic people who want to seem high-brow have always sought to destroy and muddy the waters of this self-evident aspect of human nature. To capture the world around them with a masterful eye and somehow add their own brand of seeing. <br /><br />Killing snakes is for farmers.Sir Fred Gearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992283855388215730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-23846741401854834772009-12-20T15:47:29.928-05:002009-12-20T15:47:29.928-05:00physiological girl-o-ometer,fuzzy feeling,Whoopi G...physiological girl-o-ometer,fuzzy feeling,Whoopi Goldberg in a bathtub full of milk,aesthetic concepts ingrained in us biologically,glycerin on meatloaf... & Kev says "Ah well, another train wreck in the lounge."<br />Nooo, its a lovely party, thanks!<br />Oh, yes, not to foreget the importance of.... imagination!<br />Happy holidays to all of you. <br />BethStimmeDesHerzenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084934926989805342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-27510968562088633592009-12-19T05:40:23.878-05:002009-12-19T05:40:23.878-05:00Well, the previous anonymous was me (I know you wo...Well, the previous anonymous was me (I know you wouldn't have guessed, David). How did I forget to take credit for that great opus of rationality :)<br /><br />AntonioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-87436106523583325472009-12-19T05:38:43.826-05:002009-12-19T05:38:43.826-05:00>Finally, if you think that photographs of >...>Finally, if you think that photographs of >girls bending over are >"indistinguishable," then I am sorry, but >you simply do not love photographs of >girls bending over as much as I do. There >is, my friend, a HUGE difference.<br /><br />You tell it like it is, brother!<br />Now we are talking REAL art! One's aesthetic reactions to photos of girls bending over can be measured and graded on the metric system, and you can't be more objective than that! Nobody can argue with the physiological girl-o-ometer.<br /><br /><br />This reminds me I had settled once and for all this "what is art" nonsense long ago. Remember kids, if it gets girls to strip for you, it is art, if not, it is not. Hence Oil painting can be art, photoshop is not. Photography most certainly can be art, pottery is not. Nobody strips for a potter.Look upon the historical record, people. All the Old Masters had girlies stripping for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-17151280996408106362009-12-19T05:28:28.960-05:002009-12-19T05:28:28.960-05:00Kev, I am having trouble with your argument. The t...Kev, I am having trouble with your argument. The thing is, when I try to parse this sentence<br /><br />>If three photographers take the same girl >under the same lighting with the same >instruments<br /><br />for some reason my face starts grinning all by itself and I keep going back to the start and reading it over and over again with a fuzzy feeling growing inside me >:-D<br /><br />AntonioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-6750266455949730852009-12-19T05:27:08.896-05:002009-12-19T05:27:08.896-05:00To avoid misunderstanding - I did not wish to impl...To avoid misunderstanding - I did not wish to imply that art should be merely a decoration. I was talking about aesthetic sense which, in my view is ingrained in us. I also did wish to imply that work which pretends to be called "artwork" should have aesthetic quality first, then everything else. If aesthetic charge is absent, than it does not have what it takes to be considered as art.Valentinohttp://www.valentinoradman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-63973615803997321942009-12-19T05:18:50.735-05:002009-12-19T05:18:50.735-05:00>They liked to both look at beauty (and not ugl...>They liked to both look at beauty (and not ugliness, for some reason)and being surrounded by beauty."<br /><br />Error. I wanted to say: <br />"The liked to both look at beauty (and not ugliness, for some reason) and to look beautiful".Valentinohttp://www.valentinoradman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15177936623546278992009-12-19T05:14:57.764-05:002009-12-19T05:14:57.764-05:00David: >"In short, are aesthetic concepts ...David: >"In short, are aesthetic concepts ingrained in us biologically, perhaps from common perception of balance, harmony, etc. in nature?"<br /><br />Obviously, they are part of human nature. As early as the dawn of humanity, cave dwellers have shaped the pieces of stones and animal bones into objects which served a strictly practical purpose but, once they gained sufficient skills and confidence, they added to those items another dimension - aesthetic value.<br />Those tools could have served their purposes equally well without being nicely shaped, but our ancestors obviously appreciated more the items which looked beautiful. I am sure the tribe members able to make more perfect tools were held in higher regard than those who could only make a crude, simple tools. (I am tempted to make analogy with contemporary, post modern art scene here, but I will refrain from that...) <br />Then came the age when people wanted items that served solely the purpose of decoration. They liked to both look at beauty (and not ugliness, for some reason) and being surrounded by beauty. It's obvious that aesthetic principle (or however we chose to call it) is part of our nature.Valentinohttp://www.valentinoradman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-49198304666552394252009-12-18T19:58:09.556-05:002009-12-18T19:58:09.556-05:00Thank you Norm. I enjoyed looking at your work too...Thank you Norm. I enjoyed looking at your work too. And I agree that a lot of talented people are coming in here. <br /><br />David, my point was not about hard versus easy per se. It was about encoding expression with the mind and hand. Versus not.<br /><br />It is equally difficult to make a fantastic painting (I've not made one yet, so I'm just extrapolating.) as a crappy one. But it is not possible to make a fantastic painting at the touch of a button, or by virtue of an accident.<br /><br />So even if you don't agree with my arguments, you must agree that clearly there is some fundamental difference between Rembrandt (which nobody disputes is Art) and a randomly captured, yet spectacularly effective photograph of a nuclear bomb explosion. <br /><br />Getting into such questions as arise with "action painting" is very tricky, because making a good looking abstract is rather difficult. In some ways it would seem to be as difficult as painting some hacky cover because you have nothing but instinct to act upon.<br /><br />But, again, difficulty or ease, are not my concerns. Except to say that it is very difficult to encode emotion into art. And, it is impossible to encode your own emotions into a photograph per se. (Unless you get into much more manipulation and staging of the reality in front of the camera and the photo in post-production, as Laurence mentioned. Which is the scenario within which Annie Leibovitz does her work (which I like, btw.)) <br /><br />I have a friend who works in Boston at a food-photography agency. All day long he spritzes glycerin on meatloaf to make it more appetizing. He describes the entire output of the agency as "hackwork delux." And so it is, but so what. People have to make a living. I've done my share of hack work myself, including shiny product photography. I don't confuse it with Art with a capital A, although I take pride in doing any job well, even a hack job. <br /><br />Rob, I paint in oils, and draw with pencil. For my graphic novel I only color, letter, and do the compositing on computer. I make it a point to keep the physicality of the pencils and inks evident throughout the digital production process.<br /><br />I consider the experience of reading a graphic novel an Art experience in the same way as I consider movies an Art experience. There is no "original" of the experience. There is only the experience of running through the frames, which are themselves reproductions. My photoshop documents aren't artworks, they are (beating my old dead horse here) the first reproductions of artworks that never existed.<br /><br />I like to think that the some of the original ink work stands on its own, however. <br /><br />Lastly, as I stated above, (and this is to you as well, David) my point was not about ease or difficulty, but about aesthetic emotion, which derives from within, versus captured emotion, which derives from without. Obviously I wouldn't agree that this distinction is without relevance to creating art.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-85078233510513184172009-12-18T19:20:32.392-05:002009-12-18T19:20:32.392-05:00p.s. David, if you think Whoopi Goldberg in a bath...p.s. David, if you think Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk is hard work, i urge you to check out what Gregory Crewdson gets up to take a decent snap.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-59266553315925454012009-12-18T19:09:03.484-05:002009-12-18T19:09:03.484-05:00"Do you (or Kev) think that "realist pai..."Do you (or Kev) think that "realist painting" is harder than that? Do you think it is harder than coal mining?"<br /><br />no... those are feats of logic and physical endurance respectively... a completely different kind of 'hard'. painting requires subtle, practiced technical skill plus imagination. or not much imagination if you're producing straight studies from life. i wouldn't compare them myself.<br /><br />"I suspect it required more creativity and hard work for Annie Liebovitz to come up with her photo of Whoopi Goldberg in a bathtub full of milk..."<br /><br />creativity maybe. hard work, i'm not sure.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-77964586682068586062009-12-18T18:45:13.309-05:002009-12-18T18:45:13.309-05:00Kev, that was a revealing discussion of the Purita...Kev, that was a revealing discussion of the Puritan Work Ethic. How that relates to art is anyone's guess. For that sort of penance I'll stick to a few Hail Marys and some Our Fathers. <br /><br />You seem to be confused between between labor and genius and pain. If hard work was what made great art, you wouldn't use a computer. But you do, so what's that say about your commitment versus your pronunciamentos?Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-13067685986920803952009-12-18T18:35:43.538-05:002009-12-18T18:35:43.538-05:00Laurence, I would agree with your general assessme...Laurence, I would agree with your general assessment, but as usual, with exceptions. For example, I suspect it required more creativity and hard work for Annie Liebovitz to come up with her <a href="http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/01/16/71/slideshow_871161_leibovitz.1210_01.JPG" rel="nofollow">photo of Whoopi Goldberg</a> in a bathtub full of milk than it takes for some hack paperback cover artist to paint one more conventional potboiler cover. <br /><br />But as long as we are judging human pursuits by how "hard" they are, what do you think about Antonio's point that algebraic geometry is by comparison REALLY hard: "I know it is hard and conceptual because I spend months trying to understand a paper written by a guy that actually wants me to understand it, and my brain really hurts." Do you (or Kev) think that "realist painting" is harder than that? Do you think it is harder than coal mining?David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89438327968359187122009-12-18T15:08:10.814-05:002009-12-18T15:08:10.814-05:00kev, that was a very articulate summation of the n...kev, that was a very articulate summation of the nagging suspicion most of us on the painterly side of things have... that photography is far easier than painting (and action painting is far easier than realist painting).<br /><br />there is a middle ground however... photographic artists who meticulously construct elaborate sets and/or use digital post production to heavily alter the photographic source to achieve something closer to their imagination. photographer Gregory Crewdson, who's still-photo shoots are often of film set proportions, would be a good example.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15990982345252646572009-12-18T14:22:29.229-05:002009-12-18T14:22:29.229-05:00David,
You have glanced off Rembrandt to Motherwe...David,<br /><br />You have glanced off Rembrandt to Motherwell.<br /><br />Let's get back: Can you accidentally make a Rembrandt? <br /><br />Answer: No. He may have, from time to time, used serendipity in his efforts, but Rembrandt was not clicking a button or turning a crank. <br /><br />To your girlie point:<br /><br />If three photographers take the same girl under the same lighting with the same instruments at the same moment, the photos will be indistinguishable. One photographer may zoom in to an extreme, one may tilt the camera, one may get on his belly to get an extreme upshot... but these are all superficial methods to differentiate themselves. So the guy who went zoom gets on his belly, the upshooter stands up and tilts, and the tilter instead goes zoom. One unfocuses, then the other says, "hey that's neat! I'll do that too!" One blots out a blemish in the darkroom, another sees the effect and replicates the act. These are simple technical matters, easily transferrable. The difference is marginal. The real issue for the photographer is the same as the journalist: How do I get myself in the position so that I can record the light coming off important and newsworthy or rare action or experience. <br /><br />On the other hand...<br /><br />If you put Leyendecker, Burton Silverman, and Rembrandt in front of the same model, same paper, same chalk, same light, same girl, then the difference will be highly pronounced. <br /><br />The reason is because the penmanship of art carries the expression, not just of the man, but also his thoughts. Think of the brush as a seismograph needle, but with a psychological sensitivity as well. This is the encoding I referred to earlier. <br /><br />Photography has no such penmanship aspect. The hand has been de-coupled from the surface in any meaningful way, except for the general causality. Furthermore, a camera has never facilitated a coupling of the photographer's intention with the physicality of the thing being photographed. Unless the photographer puts down the camera and physically changes the form of the things he is to photograph, which is of course Sculpture. The photograph then would capture the light coming off the sculpture... recording an artwork that lies outside the finished product. Which means, again, if two other photographers were in his studio with him with the same equipment, their recording of his sculpture would be largely the same as his. <br /><br />And as far as that Steichen photo, I agree with him that roses in black and white can be pretty. Credit where credit is due. So let us salute the beauty of nature and the invention of the camera and, yes, Steichen for giving us an excellent demonstration of both. <br /><br />If you really want to test your beliefs, bring 5 different color photos, recent ones, of similar flowers in a similar arrangement as that Steichen into photoshop. Then play around with it. <br /><br />There are about 10 million photoshop jockeys that can play that Steichen in 10 minutes or less from any given photo of flowers. The city agencies have production people galore who can do it. In my experience, it is purely a technical matter.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-37223323867383011432009-12-18T13:35:15.528-05:002009-12-18T13:35:15.528-05:00Slinberg-- you asked recently whether I have taken...Slinberg-- you asked recently whether I have taken to moderating the comments here. As I hope will be apparent from the chaos that reigns, I never censor any comments except obvious electronic spam. For older posts, I did invoke a blogger feature that requires my approval for new comments. I did this because I was receiving spam from escort services that might show up on 50 old posts simultaneously and I had to go through and weed them all out individually. Now I can simply decline to accept them-- much easier. So if any of you are commenting on posts that are more than a month or two old, it may take a few days for me to check and see that they have new comments but I promise I will get to them and accept them. <br /><br />Kev-- I think a dropped camera that happens to take a great picture is not much different from a dropped paintbrush that becomes a great Robert Motherwell painting. Furthermore, I don't see how we can view the interesting splash from the dropped Motherwell brush as qualitatively different from the happy accidents that took place in paintings by Rembrandt and lots of other artists we respect (although quantitatively, the accident might account for 5% of the rembrandt and 95% of the Motherwell). <br /><br />One problem I have with the intellectual framework you propose is that it requires us to know the intent of the artist (or photographer). Obviously we respect the deliberate photograph more than the product of a dropped camera, but you won't always know the history of an image. If the object stands alone as a beautiful object, how deeply do you need to go into its pedigree?<br /><br />You note that "A camera, on the other hand, couldn't give a damn if it was viewing a flower or a riot. It will still render the given light on the assigned flat surface with the same mechanical sufficiency." Well, a paintbrush doesn't give a damn either. It is the photographer or the painter who decides to portray the flower close up (tell me that <a href="http://silentstoryteller.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5343d23970b0120a67906d4970c-800wi" rel="nofollow">Steichen's photograph, "Heavy Roses"</a> is not filled with artistic choices) and the riot with an action packed image from a distance.<br /><br />Finally, if you think that photographs of girls bending over are "indistinguishable," then I am sorry, but you simply do not love photographs of girls bending over as much as I do. There is, my friend, a HUGE difference.<br /><br />Thomas-- I agree with you that "a common aesthetic exists," certainly within the confines of a particular culture or a particular time period. I also agree that should be plain to all, just as it is obvious that certain styles-- art deco or art nouveau, for example-- prevail in their era. The far tougher question is whether it is possible to identify common aesthetic criteria, or even a common aesthetic vocabulary, that transcends a particular culture or country. In short, are aesthetic concepts ingrained in us biologically, perhaps from common perception of balance, harmony, etc. in nature?David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30142323180149493422009-12-18T11:47:23.185-05:002009-12-18T11:47:23.185-05:00David,
Yes, all that is true... A photo of an ato...David,<br /><br />Yes, all that is true... A photo of an atom bomb and a Rembrandt have certain similarities which we text savants can taxonomize: both are flat images, both can have an emotional impact, both have subject matter, have compositions, etc.<br /><br />But is it not true that we now have cameras with serviceable autofocus, autocomposing, and autostabilization? (One of my first principles is, if a machine can do it, it is craft, not art.)<br /><br />And couldn't the explosion of a bomb prompt the photographer to drop his camera, which then accidentally goes off when it hits the ground (highly hypothetical I know, but an important philosophical test nonetheless). And couldn't this accidental photo of the bomb blast be absolutely amazing?<br /><br />If the accidental photo is too much, how about the photographer turns away from the bomb blast, pointing the camera over the shoulder and clicking the shutter button randomly. Could you doubt that at least some of these shots would be amazing?<br /><br />Is there anything to drop or click that will get us an accidental Rembrandt? <br /><br />I propose that a bomb blast in and of itself has an emotional charge. Just like a crying child, an elderly man hooked up to life support, a priest disfigured by a splash of acid to the face and neck, or a hot girl bending over.<br /><br />These things give off light that can be captured. With a machine that captures light, the design of light broadcasting off these charged visuals can be captured sufficiently to communicate the original charge. Anybody can capture this charge. Pressing a button, aligning the subject, and focusing is all the craft required to capture the charge to a flat surface that will then broadcast it.<br /><br />Imagine three photographers in a row, each looking at the hot girl bending over. They all take photos. They switch places, take more photos. Later on, all the photos are tossed upon a table. Each carries the emotional charge sufficiently, and one photographer's work is indistinguishable from the next. <br /><br />I can hear voices saying "Ansel Adams! Ansel Adams!" Well, a few years ago I did a test. I found some decent compositions of mountains taken by unknown photographers and Ansel Adamized them in photoshop. I then posted the fakes along with some real Ansel Adams' and, believe it or not, nobody noticed the difference.<br /><br />Speaking of which, what credit goes to Mr. Ripley that he exhibits his oddities, except insofar as he is an entertaining procurer and curator of them. He made none of them. He just captured them and put them on exhibit. (Well he may have shined a few up, added a few more bits of straw, etc.) If an English safari master had kept a shrunken head for himself, instead of offering it to Mr. Ripley, would that change the emotional charge of the item? Hardly. Nobody calls Mr. Ripley an artist for his capturing and exhibiting of emotional charged objects. (And since we can't touch these objects in his museums, all we have is the light coming off them.)<br /><br />This goes to the question of Aesthetic Emotion versus sensation, kitsch and curation.<br /><br />The charge of Aesthetic Emotion does not come from outside. It comes from within the artist. That means, Aesthetic Emotion exists irrespective of subject.<br /><br />Sensation, however, can be curated... collected by the activation of a light collection machine pointed at the sensation.<br /><br />All to say, yes a photo and a Rembrandt can be compared at a superficial level. But the most essential question of Art; "from whence does the emotional charge arise," demonstrates that we are comparing two different species of image. <br /><br />Incidentally, I believe it is the poeticizing act that gives Art aesthetic emotion. The human being interprets the form while suffused with an emotion. This is a synthetic process that encodes emotion within technique.<br /><br />A camera, on the other hand, couldn't give a damn if it was viewing a flower or a riot. It will still render the given light on the assigned flat surface with the same mechanical sufficiency.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-21916947521344828722009-12-18T04:00:34.132-05:002009-12-18T04:00:34.132-05:00Kev: you write, "If you believe that a photo ...Kev: you write, "If you believe that a photo of an atomic bomb is art, I would like to hear your definition of WHY it is art. And in what way it is art in the way that Rembrandt is art. When would a photo of an atom bomb blast NOT be art?" <br /><br />It seems to me that a great many criteria are common to all two dimensional images (including both a photo of an atom bomb blast and a Rembrandt). They can be judged on the basis of design, composition, color, balance, harmony, etc. They can be judged on the basis of content, emotional impact, etc. There are some obvious differences, of course; a photographer chooses a composition by the position of the camera while Rembrandt chooses the composition by cropping his drawing with his hand. Rembrandt achieves a likeness by the skill of his hand, while the photographer achieves it with his skill with camera settings. Rembrandt chooses color from an array of pigments while a photographer uses exposure times and other setting to adjust the colors perceived by the human eye. We may agree that some of these skills are superior to others, but in the respects described above, a photo can be a successful or unsuccessful image just the way that a Rembrandt can.<br /><br />Norm: you write, "...and by rigid definition, I'm talking about art snobs who look down on cartoonists...or cartoonists who refuse to accept conceptual art as a potentially valid form of expression...or abstract artists who say representational art is useless." <br /><br />I agree that it is essential to keep an open mind about art forms that make us uncomfortable, and to fight our natural inclination toward snobbishness. But on the other hand, I maintain that it would be a bigger mistake to abandon all standards and treat art as totally subjective. As we have discussed in previous posts, this necessary tension between scylla and charybdis-- between the rock and the whirlpool-- is where all the action is, as far as I am concerned.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-49120237978396839452009-12-18T02:25:21.469-05:002009-12-18T02:25:21.469-05:00for further reading on 'the great modern art c...for further reading on 'the great modern art conspiracy' see Brian's comments in the 'illustrating infinity' post, June 2009.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-36966409817924485672009-12-17T22:48:34.822-05:002009-12-17T22:48:34.822-05:00When the "art of reduction" reaches its ...When the "art of reduction" reaches its zenith, we can declare post modernism dead and start building something real.Stephen Worthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01047366337202801862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-57608805182278964892009-12-17T22:25:55.766-05:002009-12-17T22:25:55.766-05:00Thomas: "Reality is by definition an objectiv...Thomas: <i>"Reality is by definition an objective world outside of yourself."</i><br /><br />That's not a useful definition. If we use it to define reality, you run into a couple of problems: Firstly, you can't prove that there even <i>is</i> a reality (because everything that appears to be outside of yourself is really within your consciousness) and secondly, it means that you yourself are not part of reality.<br /><br />I suggest coming up with a more appropriate definition.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-29011125136543407632009-12-17T22:21:43.444-05:002009-12-17T22:21:43.444-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-26569972810239042772009-12-17T22:03:36.432-05:002009-12-17T22:03:36.432-05:00Ha!
You're right!.....What was I thinking?Ha!<br />You're right!.....What was I thinking?normnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-45862652052494764422009-12-17T20:43:11.926-05:002009-12-17T20:43:11.926-05:00Norm, you should have sold it to him. :)Norm, you should have sold it to him. :)slinberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02628769298413600033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9176842552439396682009-12-17T20:13:50.459-05:002009-12-17T20:13:50.459-05:00Yeah...at this point,I'll vote for anyone who ...Yeah...at this point,I'll vote for anyone who wants it, as the winner of this debate. But, at the risk of making a positive (if off topic) statement. Kev, I checked out your stuff. Very nice brushwork. Cool stuff.<br />In fact there are a lot of very gifted artists dropping in here.<br />I don't want to exclude the non-artists (Hmmmm, is there such a thing?), but for me,it would be interesting to hear how people feel about this "what is art?" question as it applies to them professionally and personally.<br /><br />Sometimes I get irked going into a musem and realizing I wouldn't get an iota of respect from the crowd gazing at a blank canvas.<br />I'm probably being a bit petty...but it gets to me sometimes.<br /><br />Once, I was in a painting class and I took turpentine and smooshed my whole painting (which wasn't working)into a greenish brown smear. Then, when I had just started going in with some Payne's gray to cover it up and start over<br />, my teacher tells me to "Stop!" then he grabs my painting and runs up to the front of the class..."This is remarkable! It's like a Rothko! Magnificent!"<br />I liked the teacher...but that kind of knocked me off my pins. <br />Where does that fall on the "what is art" scale?normnoreply@blogger.com