When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

[arildno]

I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.

I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.

 

[wolram]

I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.

Ay up, i am starting to feel all sophisticated :rofl:

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new?

Here's a new one:

Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botero/botero_watermelon.jpg.html

Each still life, or portrait, or landscape, is "new" by virtue of the fact each artist has his or her own specific aesthetic approach. A Dali still life, is vastly different than a Frieda Kahlo, or a Jeanne DuVal. Each artist has a very different idea about what should be observed and emphasized about the pitcher, or the fruit. We don't look at a still life to find out about pitchers and fruit, but to find out about the artist's take on them.

If you think of still life as a subject, then there hasn't been an original subject since cave paintings. Every "subject" has been done over and over a bazillion times: still life, portrait, allegory, religious illustration, landscape, marine pictures, whatever you want to categrize as a subject. Originality lies, and has always laid, in the individual artist's approach.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.

I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.

Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?

 

[wolram]

I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.

Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?

Artist, Antoine de Villiers.
http://www.antoineart.com/abastract-oil-paintings.htm

I like this artist, have fun Zooby.

 

[wolram]

By Zooby Here's a new one:

Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/...rmelon.jpg.html

That is a great painting, but my eye is drawn to the hotch potch houses,
which to my mind spoils it.

 

[LENIN]

My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesn't have Dali's classical clocks.http://sophia.smith.edu/~egraf/dali1944.jpg

 

[wolram]

My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesn't have Dali's classical clocks.

Is there some meaning in this painting?

 

[LENIN]

Is there some meaning in this painting?

There definatelly is.

 

[wolram]

There definatelly is.

Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc

 

[LENIN]

Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc

It's not actually in her arm. It's just pointed at her (the picture isn't really of the highest quolity). But appart from that it's a dream image. I just choose this one becouse it conteins most of the concepts of Dalis painting if you want to know more about him I would sugest Google.

 

[honestrosewater]

In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.

 

[arildno]

In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.

My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.

 

[honestrosewater]

My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.

Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.

 

[arildno]

Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.

1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.

2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.
If, by some unhappy chance that is a painting identical to a previous one, it simply means that an outsider won't be impressed by it.
It might well be called art, though, even if it remains unsellable..

 

[arildno]

Is there some meaning in this painting?

Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?

 

[wolram]

Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?

I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?

 

[arildno]

I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?

Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..

 

[wolram]

Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

 

[Evo]

I like Salvador Dali. This one is titled "Design for the Interior Decoration of a Stable-Library, 1942"

 

[arildno]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.

This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.

In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes a lot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.

Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist pursues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.

 

[arildno]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.

This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.

 

[Lisa!]

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.

Like me!

 

[wolram]

well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?

So if one meets the artist and tells him, That is tragic scene, and he replies,
oh no it is supposed to be light hearted and whimsical, is that not insulting ?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?

I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.

 

[honestrosewater]

[tone=nice&serious]

1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.

Does a situation being unlikely stop you from being able to imagine how you would react if it did occur? Don't people gain useful information from hypothetical questions all the time? That's all I'm asking: If every painting produced was exactly the same, what would the field or craft of painting be like, what function would it serve in society, would anyone even pay any attention to it, etc.?

2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.

Sure, I agree completely. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the only main goal. By an artist not caring whether their work is original, they miss the whole social aspect of art.

If, by some unhappy chance that is a painting identical to a previous one, it simply means that an outsider won't be impressed by it.
It might well be called art, though, even if it remains unsellable..

If no one other than the artist is impressed the work, I don't see how art as a field could survive. How would it if it collectively only produced one piece of art over and over again? What if every mathematician suddenly decided, "I'm going to choose a theorem that I happen to like, and whether it's already been proven or not, I'm going to spend as long as it takes in order to prove it myself."
[/tone]

 

[wolram]

I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.

Thank you Zooby, and :tongue2: to some other person

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.

This is absolutely, absolutely correct! Artists work by "feel". There is, of course, always a great deal of conscious attention to technique and skill, but the general drive behind a work takes place on the level of "feel".

This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.

Except in some obvious cases where an artist becomes enamored of a prior artist or style or movement and borrows from it. Van Gogh did a lot of improvisation around Japanese prints for a while, for example, and looking at how he approached them, it's not too hard to see why he was drawn to them, and what he kept from the experience in later works. There are lots of other examples of this with other artists.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thank you Zooby, and :tongue2: to some other person

"...and to some other person." ?

 

[honestrosewater]

This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?

In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes a lot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.

Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.

Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist pursues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.

Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

 

[wolram]

I can see what Rose means, some thing akin to films, same plot different actors,
It must be difficult to be origonal, Are there differing degrees of originality, ie
Alice in wonder land in 2005.

 

[arildno]

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?
Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.
Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

You could rather say that the great artists are great because by being true to themselves, they ALSO show themselves to be original. Those who were true to themselves, but whose art became unoriginal nonetheless, belongs in the realm of mediocrity.
For example:
If I were true to myself artistically, I've no guarantee that the individuality I thereby express would in any manner be original enough to pique the interest of someone else.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?

From doing it myself, and watching others do it: it's clear that everyone has their own "take" on what is important and interesting about the model, just like everyone in this thread has their own "take" on what makes good art.

Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occurred naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect.

You are talking about ideas here, and not art. Ideas aren't art. Michelangelo had a fantastic idea about David from the biblical story of David slaying the giant, Goliath, which was, to present David himself as a giant figure, which, by virtue of him having done a remarkable thing, he was, in a metaphorical sense.

That is a very neat idea, but it only worked because Michelangelo presented it so beautifully. Once we get used to the cleverness of making a larger-than-life David, that idea fades to the background and it is the beauty of the sculpture in and of itself that continues to make it so admirable.

Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.

In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.

Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.

No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.

I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.

 

[wolram]

So what is your next painting going to be, do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.