Computer Artwork

[Pluto]

That's right, it is interesting to see yet another dead artist being milked by an institution long after they are gone. Some artists are worth more dead, as production has stopped and the work limited.

But of course, we can see their wonderful work too. I'm thinking of Picasso and Matisse, Edvard Munch.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Shit guy, listen to you. Well done genius, you are an artist and I'm not.

Congratulations. You finally worked it out.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Doesn't the public (and the government too) get to decide what is art and what isn't? Isn't that part of the total equation?

PhilX

Of course. That would exclude.... No one; especially not artists.

Personally I think there is more art in a Homo erectus selecting a face-looking rock than that p**** Duchamp bringing a pisser into an art gallery.
And, no, I do no think shit should play any part in art, but there are many who think otherwise.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's the art world which decides what is art. By showing it and promoting it, they legitimize it, turn it into a commodity, perhaps. The art world has the power to say you are a successful artist, and another not. It's powerful, and run by rich white middle class types. For me, the art world is a problem, but if you don't deal with it, engage with it, become accepted, then it's a long and lonely road, perhaps

I don't think "they", should be the ones to have the final word.
Their choices have been shit (pun intended), for many years.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That's right, it is interesting to see yet another dead artist being milked by an institution long after they are gone. Some artists are worth more dead, as production has stopped and the work limited.

But of course, we can see their wonderful work too. I'm thinking of Picasso and Matisse, Edvard Munch.

They all reach a point where their name is more important than their art.
When Matisse was in his last year, he could barely life a pair of scissors. He cut out rough shapes, and got girl students to stick them and place them on paper.



Seriously, if they had been part of a 18 year old's A Level project - he'd have got a B+, at best.
Matisse made a fortune for his inheritors.

[Pluto]

It's the art world which decides what is art. By showing it and promoting it, they legitimize it, turn it into a commodity, perhaps. The art world has the power to say you are a successful artist, and another not. It's powerful, and run by rich white middle class types. For me, the art world is a problem, but if you don't deal with it, engage with it, become accepted, then it's a long and lonely road, perhaps

I don't think "they", should be the ones to have the final word.
Their choices have been shit (pun intended), for many years.

Where's the work they are missing out on then?

[Pluto]

That's right, it is interesting to see yet another dead artist being milked by an institution long after they are gone. Some artists are worth more dead, as production has stopped and the work limited.

But of course, we can see their wonderful work too. I'm thinking of Picasso and Matisse, Edvard Munch.

They all reach a point where their name is more important than their art.
When Matisse was in his last year, he could barely life a pair of scissors. He cut out rough shapes, and got girl students to stick them and place them on paper.



Seriously, if they had been part of a 18 year old's A Level project - he'd have got a B+, at best.
Matisse made a fortune for his inheritors.

Have a go at an old man wanting to continue to produce work why don't you. The cut-out shapes are great, the church he designed with them is equally great. Having assistants in art is as old as the hills. When I think of Matisse I think of his paintings.

the-blue-window-henri-matisse-wikipaintingsorg-1352392004_b.jpg (207.42 KiB) Viewed 3862 times

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's the art world which decides what is art. By showing it and promoting it, they legitimize it, turn it into a commodity, perhaps. The art world has the power to say you are a successful artist, and another not. It's powerful, and run by rich white middle class types. For me, the art world is a problem, but if you don't deal with it, engage with it, become accepted, then it's a long and lonely road, perhaps

I don't think "they", should be the ones to have the final word.
Their choices have been shit (pun intended), for many years.

Where's the work they are missing out on then?

I said nothing about "missing out". But since you ask, they are billions of great artists the world over that are completely overlooked by "THE ART WORLD" what ever the fuck that is.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3647827 ... 1/?fref=ts

Meanwhile the "art world" tends to choose questionable shite.

EG
A world famous artist did this...
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/ ... 567_10.jpg

[Hobbes' Choice]

Having assistants in art is as old as the hills.

the-blue-window-henri-matisse-wikipaintingsorg-1352392004_b.jpg

I don't care how old it is. The artist need to do the work for it to be his, and get credit for it.

If I commission an artist to do a sculpture of me, I don't claim it as my own work.

That painting os okay. It has good balance, except the dark blue object directly to the left of the fish bowl. I wonder if he looked back and thought about whether he ought to have left it in?

[attofishpi]

Doesn't the public (and the government too) get to decide what is art and what isn't? Isn't that part of the total equation?

PhilX

Of course. That would exclude.... No one; especially not artists.

Personally I think there is more art in a Homo erectus selecting a face-looking rock than that p**** Duchamp bringing a pisser into an art gallery.
And, no, I do no think shit should play any part in art, but there are many who think otherwise.

When i was rather young and nuts, I woke up in my car in a multistorey car-park after a night at my favourite jaunt, the Proscenium night club (a goth club) with a dire need to shit.
I found a newspaper in the stairwell, carefully laid it out so as not to create a true mess, and took a dump. When i stood and looked down at it...it was a perfect question mark - with a dot at the bottom also- exactly the same shape as on the cover of the band Jesus Jones's album Doubt?
I wouldn't call it art...but since then i've considered that i do shit questions...

[attofishpi]

Okay you art critics and lovers, is this good enough to call art?:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/20/face ... _truncated

PhilX

Edit: I'm adding this Wiki article that pertains:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_world

Sure its art, but it is still man made. There was a website that i've lost the details of, that you can type in a term, such as what i did, Androcies, and it would create a finished piece of 'art' based on what it found as images on the web. It was pretty cool, it managed to dredge up images that i had put out there on the web from numerous sources including cyberpunk forums.
But it was still me that created the art, all the machine did was create something of a collage.

[Pluto]

Having assistants in art is as old as the hills.

the-blue-window-henri-matisse-wikipaintingsorg-1352392004_b.jpg

I don't care how old it is. The artist need to do the work for it to be his, and get credit for it.

If I commission an artist to do a sculpture of me, I don't claim it as my own work.

That painting os okay. It has good balance, except the dark blue object directly to the left of the fish bowl. I wonder if he looked back and thought about whether he ought to have left it in?

Yes maybe, it's inclusion adds tension to the picture, with it gone, the picture is too calm and lifeless, perhaps. It's sort of an anchor too, without it the picture is adrift. It pins or holds the rest of the picture with its gravitational pull, perhaps. Maybe you've identified the part which holds and makes the whole work, work.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Doesn't the public (and the government too) get to decide what is art and what isn't? Isn't that part of the total equation?

PhilX

Of course. That would exclude.... No one; especially not artists.

Personally I think there is more art in a Homo erectus selecting a face-looking rock than that p**** Duchamp bringing a pisser into an art gallery.
And, no, I do no think shit should play any part in art, but there are many who think otherwise.

When i was rather young and nuts, I woke up in my car in a multistorey car-park after a night at my favourite jaunt, the Proscenium night club (a goth club) with a dire need to shit.
I found a newspaper in the stairwell, carefully laid it out so as not to create a true mess, and took a dump. When i stood and looked down at it...it was a perfect question mark - with a dot at the bottom also- exactly the same shape as on the cover of the band Jesus Jones's album Doubt?
I wouldn't call it art...but since then i've considered that i do shit questions...

I once watched a documentary about Andy Warhol. In it he was painting a woman's breasts; then impressing the image of the breast with a piece of paper. He then tool the paper, screwed it up and flushed it down the toilet. As he flushed he took a picture.
Where is the art? Actually it was the Photo of the paper going down the shitter.
In my view that was the point that art had reached an all time low, and not much has improved since; though there is still much out there of value and interest.

[artisticsolution]

Having assistants in art is as old as the hills.

the-blue-window-henri-matisse-wikipaintingsorg-1352392004_b.jpg

I don't care how old it is. The artist need to do the work for it to be his, and get credit for it.

If I commission an artist to do a sculpture of me, I don't claim it as my own work.

That painting os okay. It has good balance, except the dark blue object directly to the left of the fish bowl. I wonder if he looked back and thought about whether he ought to have left it in?

Jeff Koons uses other artists as 'tools' by his own admission. I don't agree with this using of people like they were pawns in a chess game, but I have to admit it is in keeping with our times. It is the trend on wall street, why would it be any different in the art world as art does imitate life.

Another artist, Chihuly, dislocated his shoulder and was unable after that to produce his art. He hired people to do what he could do no longer...the physical work.

Both artists, use other people. one because he can and the other out of necessity. It is not like hiring an artist to do a commission in which the commissioner is not an artist. It is much different as when the artist hires someone to create his art, as they have no say in the matter...they do what they are told...which is by the direction of the artist.

They are creating what the artist envisions and in that respect they are no different than a computer. Now, granted, personally I can deal with the idea of having people help you because you are disabled much better than I can deal with having people help you cause you are a dick and like the fact you are so rich you don't have to lift a finger to wipe your own ass.

http://www.jeffkoons.com/

http://www.chihuly.com/

[Hobbes' Choice]

Having assistants in art is as old as the hills.

the-blue-window-henri-matisse-wikipaintingsorg-1352392004_b.jpg

I don't care how old it is. The artist need to do the work for it to be his, and get credit for it.

If I commission an artist to do a sculpture of me, I don't claim it as my own work.

That painting os okay. It has good balance, except the dark blue object directly to the left of the fish bowl. I wonder if he looked back and thought about whether he ought to have left it in?

Jeff Koons uses other artists as 'tools' by his own admission. I don't agree with this using of people like they were pawns in a chess game, but I have to admit it is in keeping with our times. It is the trend on wall street, why would it be any different in the art world as art does imitate life.

Another artist, Chihuly, dislocated his shoulder and was unable after that to produce his art. He hired people to do what he could do no longer...the physical work.

Both artists, use other people. one because he can and the other out of necessity. It is not like hiring an artist to do a commission in which the commissioner is not an artist. It is much different as when the artist hires someone to create his art, as they have no say in the matter...they do what they are told...which is by the direction of the artist.

They are creating what the artist envisions and in that respect they are no different than a computer. Now, granted, personally I can deal with the idea of having people help you because you are disabled much better than I can deal with having people help you cause you are a dick and like the fact you are so rich you don't have to lift a finger to wipe your own ass.

http://www.jeffkoons.com/

http://www.chihuly.com/

Thanks for the links. I think art is a wide field and standards about what is and is not art differ, and about what is good and bad art also differ.
I can only offer you my own standards. For me art is nothing without craft. I have a saying that I've oft repeated.

Art without craft is like sex without love.

For me, art has to involve the intense engagement of the artist with the materials; not any kind of proxy. Paint covered overalls and clay under the fingernails are the greatest indicator of a true artist.