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

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #176
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
557


I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.
 
  • #177
2,123
79


I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.
Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.
 
Last edited:
  • #178
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1


Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.
That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.

When you take Art History, that's the main point of many of the lecturers. Learning history through the eyes of a civilization's artists. Sometimes they're artists that the state has hired and sometimes they're artists who are independent. For instance Goya painted the atrocities enacted by the Spanish government upon its citizens during his time. If he was employed by the government he would have either been muzzled into painting pretty pictures of the King/Queen's children or he would have been killed.

Sometimes the artwork of a culture can tell us more about it than any written history will do. This is because written works can be edited and re-written to reflect someone's idea of a better view of the times. Whereas, a sculpture can only be destroyed or disfigured and a painting similarly so..... but this is rare because art commands far more respect than the written word. It was only when a ruler was displaced that their image would be destroyed or replaced with the next. Even during the 2nd world war much of the art work that railed against the Fascists was never destroyed but was stolen, stashed then retrieved by the allies upon the defeat of the aggressors.
 
  • #179
2,123
79


That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.
Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.
 
  • #180
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1


Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.
These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.
 
  • #181
2,123
79


These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.
My examples were in reference to some modern art. I don't categorically deny that much modern art could be of interest to future civilizations. Moreover, art is not restricted to paintings and sculptures. Wherever we have some freedom of design, we can have art. It can be functional. It doesn't have to be decorative in the usual sense. However, by using the word "stuff", I'm not talking about ideas, literature or necessarily the media that conveys those ideas. There are many art forms that aren't things that you hold in your hand or place in your home (music, dance forms, etc). I'm really taking the more narrow definition of art that has been the subject of this thread; that is, "stuff" that future archeologists might find or that is otherwise preserved for future generations. I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.
 
Last edited:
  • #182
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1


I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.
Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.
 
  • #183
2,123
79


Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was a steal at 500 USD.
 
  • #184
18
0


hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.

Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they cant find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.

Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.

Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.

Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.

As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.


Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.


m'just sayin
 
  • #185
38
1


hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.

Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they cant find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.

Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.

Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.

Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.

As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.


Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.


m'just sayin
I would basically agree with this. I would say art is the production of something that has a metaphysical value beyond solely that of the information contained. In other words, it is a creation whose sum is greater then the addition of its components, in the form of different elements of language combining to create a communication that none of the individual lingual elements (geometric, aesthetic, words, musical, linear story, character, etc) are capable of expressing in isolation.
 
  • #186
18
0


Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,

The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.

Excellant point! I am thinking...(having read now to the page this post is on, six, i believe), that low-brow art and the semi-undiscovered works of those with mental health issues, are probably the wave of the future. Since everyday more and more folks are "diagnosed".

No one can predict where art will progress to, and that is part of the beauty...arts evolution follows mans evolution and his processes, construction or deconstruction, appealing or repulsive. Disturbing, awe inspiring, precious, genius...art is what we do to keep time, with the ways of the world, as artists. And while I may have what sometimes feels like a great deal of jealousy, or envy, or disgust that some who produce what they produce, which seems of a low caliber, meet with more fame or fortune. I have to give them credit for producing something that provoked, or enlightened, or destroyed a false idea, that mimicked or pleased or made smile or gasp...I have to give them, that they put something out there...which i as an artist, seem to have a hard time doing.

I have my talent, and my ability to produce my sort of art and it comes with some ease, and provides me great pleasure. But who is it affecting, who is it welcoming in, moving, or sending away reeling? If kept to myself....Art is meant to be shared, in order to make the world more somehow aligned...I am grateful to that those who are producing art.
Art of pretty much ANY kind.

If someone deigns to get volumes from a canvas painted just plain white tho~ i might be inclined to smirk about such pretentions...

heehee
;~})

Oh and i adhere to what Hemmingway said in his speech~ it is very hard to reach sometimes, for the unexplored, undiscovered and unexpected, when what you have in you, sometimes, is just right here, and right now, & sometimes just average.
Lowbrow is exciting and new.

http://www.lowbrowartworld.com/profile01.html

and (Outsider art)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistry_of_the_Mentally_Ill
 
Last edited:
  • #187
18
0


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.

This is true for me, that i do my art because i sense something forming before me, and I may just rub a lightly painted cloth across a surface (sometimes canvas) and there before me my imagination sets to interpreting what is in the pale smatterings. My imagination comes to the fore and gives light to whatever I see before me. I am not someone who knows what i will paint. The painting or piece comes to life before me. Part of this creative process seems to be letting go, allowing the art to take me on a journey.

Someone may interpret my art, and they may be completely right on, or be just so off base, and that isnt too important, I am not completely sure what my own art means to me most of the time. It just produced itself thru my hands...into existance. I was used by the creative flux...in a sense, to my thinking... I am not analysing myself...i am just creating art, i am not making a statement, i see things and I color them in. It pleases me to add color and depth to what i see...but then I see interesting detailed fairy tale images in carpeting and bathroom tiles.

Lucky i guess...

This "friend" in myspace~ they are more into making a statement...it seems.
I love the art~ despite its quietly violent nature.
http://www.myspace.com/logyu
 

Attachments

Last edited:

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

  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Top