tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post116017437472969690..comments2008-12-10T07:18:17.937-08:00Comments on Exploding Art Mimbulus Mimbletonia style: Hello everyone! I can see you....Juliahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12985968255210536856noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post-1160319869061685232006-10-08T08:04:00.000-07:002006-10-08T08:04:00.000-07:00I feel like the argument here is whether something...I feel like the argument here is whether something created so fast and so not unique can be worthy of calling art?<BR/><BR/>Well, art is a lot of things to me, and any skill developed so far from the median is art. <BR/><BR/>But as far as minimalism is concerned, maybe it is just a comment on itself, on art, exploring how far can they go before people say: What is this crap? By Clark's second law, the only way to know the limits of the possible is to go beyond them.<BR/><BR/>Then again, maybe the things at odds here are the talent of a master painter who spends days, months, years on a painting until he deems it perfect, or a modernist, who paints his in an hour, but paints hundreds. Funnily enough, I believe that both will come to the same resolution... they will paint a masterpiece, even if the master painter takes 2 years to paint his and the modernist 200 paintings, it will eventually happen, if they preservere.Matejjjjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post-1160318425400257322006-10-08T07:40:00.000-07:002006-10-08T07:40:00.000-07:00Newsflash: Julia is going to hell.http://www.therc...Newsflash: Julia is going to hell.<BR/><BR/>http://www.thercg.org/youth/articles/0403-bagy.htmlMararrrrhttp://blog.myspace.com/anamananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post-1160248090376368422006-10-07T12:08:00.000-07:002006-10-07T12:08:00.000-07:00Personally, I don't understand why minimalism is s...Personally, I don't understand why minimalism is still popular. It's gotten redundant by this time. Only so many people can paint a canvas a solid color and call it an original piece. I can't imagine someone painting in the style of Picasso would get much attention because "it's been done", yet it's ok to copy Kasimir Malevich.<BR/><BR/>But I think it's just because I think it's dull to begin with. My Russian art teacher last summer made it interesting for about 10 minutes, but at the same time I couldn't help thinking "ok, so the point was made, why is it being repeated?"<BR/><BR/>That's also part of why I didn't want to just study art in school. I don't like making ugly things, even if they have meaning, I value putting effort into the actual creation and not only into the three paragraph statement that will accompany it. So basically, I'd be religated to the world of dinky crafts person, which I like, but then why go to school for it?<BR/><BR/>I'm ranting. I'll stop.Mararrrrhttp://blog.myspace.com/anamananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post-1160204838443514242006-10-07T00:07:00.000-07:002006-10-07T00:07:00.000-07:00Exactly as I imagined it. Liked the music. But i...Exactly as I imagined it. Liked the music. But is it art?<BR/>In the Art World, art requires an art context. In an art context, almost anything can be art, beautiful, true, profound, or not. If you screen your video at the Whitney or at Eigen+Art, it is clearly art and it does not have to be loved or understood. If you screen it in a movie theater, it had better be entertaining. If you screen it on your grandmother's television, it had better be politically correct and not too long. It can still be art outside the art context, and film has a confining technology that implies art potential -- I mean, you probably can't find it on the kitchen counter or make cheap copies to sell at Big Lots -- but the context can dictate its credibility. The Whitney and Eigen+Art exist to bestow art context on work that the Art World finds of interest. If you go out and paint a skillful painting that looks like a Giotto or a Picasso, it may be beautiful but no one will want to give it contemporary art context because it was meaningful in the past. It is art in the historical context and therefore "quaint" in the Art World. Right now, beauty is not necessarily a consideration to the Art World and some curators and critics seem to find it a defect. Minimalism, meanwhile, has an aesthetic philosophy that is still interesting in the Art World even though it seems like it should be possible to exhaust its ideas eventually. (I guess that could be argued.) Unlike a lot of art movements, there is a library of intellectual writing behind it. It may not hold much appeal unless you can recall the thoughts that support it.<BR/>And, yes, on skillful lips, almost anything can be justified as art. It's a curious phenomenon of the Art World that keeps things democratic despite art's inherent elitism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31278594.post-1160191519956587572006-10-06T20:25:00.000-07:002006-10-06T20:25:00.000-07:00Kind of reminicent of Koyaanisqatsi...Kind of reminicent of Koyaanisqatsi...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com