[Tokolosh]

 

One of his first versions was a painting you know? Nevermind.

I think it all boils down to aesthetics.

What's that meant to mean? I think I've pretty much made it clear with my first post about what my thoughts on such 'paintings' are. Explain to me what's artistic about that, then.

[Tokolosh]

The concept behind LOVE and other paintings is far more important to me than what I see on the canvas. I don't think I have to tell you this, LOVE was conceived at a time when the United States was consumed by the war in Vietnam. It became a symbol for peace.
I won't go into detail, but Indiana originally got the idea from a banner he saw at a church saying "God is Love" and applied it to the time and situation America was in. It's not just 4 painted letters.

Anyway, I can only speak for myself, and I judge an art piece by it's underlying statement and what it's trying to say.
Well, most of the times.

[jon boy]

 

[jon boy]

 

Do people read my posts or do they just respond to them while sleepwalking?

[Tokolosh]

How rude! Can you at least start off by saying good morning?

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Explain to me what's artistic about that, then.

What's so artistic about that? The reason for making it in the first place. There I said it!

The problem is that a lot of people want to be spoonfed when looking at art. They're not prepared to take the time to think about the work they're looking at, and why the artist made it. It has to explain itself right there and then. If they can't see what the reason was for making it, it isn't art. Normally it ends with " Anyone can do that" before walking off to criticize the next artwork.
I've heard many people saying the same things about Warhol's Brillo, as you've said about Indiana's LOVE.

Ps: Good morning porky pigy wigy!

Good morning, shoe sniffer.


You're pretty much arguing the point that lazy artists make to defend themselves from accusations of being useless. I'm coming from the point of view a person who actually analizes art microscopically, so there. No spoonfeeding for me, thanks. Using simple words to spell out an artistic feeling means that you don't have the ability or the talent to paint powerful images that would say more indirectly but in a much more pleasurable way what words make more direct. We often forget, foot licker, that art is meant to be enjoyed and provoke positive thoughts, even you have to walk the darkest routes to do that.

[Tokolosh]

Shoe sniffer no. Foot licker yes. Problem with that?

I agree that many artists hide behind their irrelevant crap art by making it look more important than it really is, but there are also people that use that as an excuse when they don't get it.
That's contradictive coming from someone who worships Warhol. What makes his Brillo piece (which is ONLY text on cardboard) art, and Indiana's piece crap? Please explain if you will, 'cause I'm loosing interest here.

As for art having to provoke "positive" thoughts. Where the hell did you get that from?
We're not talking about decorating a house with pretty things, so that everyone's happy.

 

[pbradley]

And Robert Rauschenberg's "blank" canvases?

[Tokolosh]

 

Next thing they"ll say is "My child can do that, and he's only 4 years old".
Fuck off!!!

Rauschenberg rules, by the way.

[Tokolosh]

Do people read my posts or do they just respond to them by not responding?

I'm busy, smelly nike lover.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

It's my feeling that the majority of fine art instructors discourage the practice, unless collage or the like is the specific focus, I suppose.

in my experience i would have said the opposite, i mean in regards to university tutors

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by jimbrim

He was intending to create an image that in turn shouts out at the viewer, appealing impossibly to one of the senses that painting cannot reach.

yeah, but making art about art is lame

[Rob Instigator]

in some manner is about every other artwork that preceded it, and that was experienced by the artist.

[Toilet & Bowels]

well i don't really agree with that statement. anyway, i'm talking about when the dominant concern addressed in a piece of work is commenting on how art works, i find it dull.

Too true. One of the reasons that I've always despised a band like, say, LCD Soundsystem is exactly the fact that they made a career out of commenting about music, putting the emphasis much less on any emotional expression that should come from it, whatever that might be. Tokolosh, I'll get back to you about the Warhol thing that I knew you would bring up. In the meantime, lick my shoelaces.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Too true. One of the reasons that I've always dispised a band like, say, LCD Soundsystem is excactly the fact that they made a career out of commenting about music, putting the emphasis much less on any emotional expression that should come from it, whatever that might be. Tokolosh, I'll get back to you about the Warhol thing that I knew you would bring up. In the meantime, lick my shoelaces.

that's why I don't like beck or lenny kravitz

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Tokolosh, I'll get back to you about the Warhol thing that I knew you would bring up. In the meantime, lick my shoelaces.

Nevermind. There's nothing you can teach me about Warhol that I don't already know.
Isn't that shoelace incident getting as old as Clones cape stories already? Choke on it!