OCD.

yeah, this is one of things that i find frustrating and boring about a lot of art, art about art is probably the least interesting thing in the world and yet it is all over the place and when i was at art school the tutors would cream themselves over that stuff.

ocd gets on my fucking tits

One gets in the ZONE

This was always a point of contention between me and my art teachers. They were very adamant that we keep up with current art shows, to visit gallerires, read artnews and artforum and art in america to keep up with what other artists were doing. I found that to be decent advise, just so that one is versed in the world they are trying to enter/become a part of, but their insistence upon it drove me insane. I would much rather artists spent their free time reading about the world around them, enjoying music, visiting different cultures, experiencing all the sides of life. these should be a focus, for it is these things that allow a human to grow and an artist to fill her/his head with ideas and knowledge and inspiration.

Only so much inspiration can come by lookig at other's artwork I feel.

while studying other artists to better understand technique or to help solve issues one is having in one;s own art is vital, keeping up wuith current art trends seems not so important to me.

But what has he expressed in this painting? What is the meaning of it? It's purpose? Does the painting inspire you? What mood, message does it communicate to you? What ideas does it express? How does it stimulate your emotions?

Anyway, some Pollock:

I think when a piece of art is only about art, then yes, I agree. I like Truffaut's position: that truly great art says something about art and something about life. He was talking specifically about film but it works just as well if you replace the word 'film' with 'art'.

One thing, however, did become clear to him – why so many perfect works of art did not please him at all, why they were almost hateful and boring to him, in spite of a certain undeniable beauty. Workshops, churches, and palaces were full of these fatal works of art; he had even helped with a few himself. They were deeply disappointing because they aroused the desire for the highest and did not fulfill it. They lacked the most essential thing – mystery. That was what dreams and truly great works of art had in common: mystery.
- Hesse

I hate discussions about the definition of art.
anyways, here are some of my current favourite painters

Arik Bauer




Amanda Sage




Fritz Aigner




doesn't really fit into this selection but I just recently got into him, Caravaggio

Meaningless shit.

Meaningless shit.

I didn'y really 'get' Pollock until I did the whole Jackson Pollock Jazz thing but Norman Rockwell's The Connoisseur, as though by commandment, really helped me to place Pollock's work in the proper pantheon of art history instead of being the 'oddball hack' that so many unimaginative dead-weights (e.g. Keeping It Boring) exceptionalize him to be.

You agree with me then. Pollock was a deadbeat charlatan who browntongued his way into the affections of a couple of pseuds in the art world who in return bigged up his monstrosities.

you mean like, paintings and stuff?

Why don't you tell us what you actually like dear? Sometimes, it's better to share than to blithely dismiss things with unqualified hysterical nonsense.

</p>Any answer you get Skuj is only a reflection of someone else's mind. Art does not have to "express" anything. Art does not have to have a purpose. the questions you pose are more suitable to an allegorical work by carrvaggio or Michelangelo than a photo-realist image of a nature scene, although they can be answered in relation to the jaguar.repose, satisfaction, the regal bearing of a true predator. Even working from a photograph there are a million different decisions to be made by the painter to depict it as he/she has. a beautiful image is an end unto itself. anything else is gravy.

I always used to think about that Bukowksi poem with no words, just a title. Was this, in the process of not actually making art, art itself? Anti-art?

oh! the mule opines on the subject of french pastries! what's next? dogs discoursing on ancient greek literature? lectures on space travel by garden snails? encyclopaedia articles written by amoebas?

I see you've yet to read wikipedia then.

Exactly art can be view in different contexts by different people. Yeah it can have one universal link that unifies it to the era it was produced, but like i said many people can view it in a different light. You probably won't ever get the answers you want from an art piece.

excuse me but have you ever seen a painting by Pollock for realz like in a museum n' shit?