25-06-2003 03:41									#1
	Whatever happened to real art? Full PM-box? Change here!

I have a book on the Renaissance and I was looking at it and got amazed at the immense realism and hard-work that artists put into their works. Before men like Michaelangelo, painters and sculpturors were seen as craftsmen just like carpenters or any other craftsmen, but these men elevated the artist into the status of being a genius...

and looking at the paintings and sculpture of the period, you can easily see why... i can not imagine how but somehow these men created from canvass or solid rock life as physically intricate as any of God's creation. and what is even more startling is the fact that the ancient Greeks and Romans had done just about the same thing two thousand years before. the sculpture is especially amazing because it seems impossible for someone to take a chisel and carve into stone very realistic images of people.

the following is a few of Michaelangelo's works...









(wooden sculpture)




and these few works of supreme art only remind me more and make me even angrier that all we got today is this inferior bullshit...



where's the real art?


thanks

	25-06-2003 03:46									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yup, I went to school at UCDavis and we had some real crap on and around campus... We actually ahd a statue in the middle of town of guy with eyes on his butt!!! It came down about a month later after vandals attacked with supreme efficiency

There is no more good art, all the artist went to make movies instead (at least these days)... The artist that are left with more traditional mediums are too lazy to actually put any real work into their art... It's a massive conspiracy to get paid to do nothing financed by liberal democrats

Actually I have seen some stuff out there that is really good... You should go to D.C. and check out the MOMA there with the Smithsonia they have some prety kewl stuff, even some nice photography... I also think that fantasy art is rather good, and I Geiger is actually pretty talented..

For the most part, however, a lot of crap is out there... "Hey look at this! I painted the canvas entirly green! It represents the greediness of America, it's art!"

"It's garbage you freak!"

	25-06-2003 03:54									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It came down about a month later after vandals attacked with supreme efficiency

Yay for tolerance and understanding.

Basically, photography killed realism off. Not only were too many people becoming good at it, but there was an easier and faster way to accomplish the same thing.

	25-06-2003 03:54									#4
	Remove this text

Ugh. Most of the 'art' that is around the MSU campus is horrible. They put up a 'sculpture' in the courtyard near my dorm that looks like a horrible, twisted wreckage of something. Near the engineering building, they have a 'motion sculpture'. Meaning it looks like a giant spinning macaroni noodle on a post. Bleh.

	25-06-2003 03:55									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I've never considered pretty pictures to be art. For me, art has to have some meaning, or invoke emotions or thoughts. Not just "aw, that's pretty".

	25-06-2003 03:56									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Real art? Itīs all in the eye of the beholder....

	25-06-2003 04:09									#7
	Got spare money?

Yes. I agree with Osweld. "Real Art" is not entertainment or illustration or decoration. Those are different things. Art by its very definition conveys a meaning. It is critical and designed to shake society into enlightenment, if you know what I mean. That's why "Real Art" is often repulsive and shocking.
Also, art can be defined by the use of artistic methods of expression (I can't remember the word) like metaphore etc.
The problem today is that most "art" is idiotic cliche pop garbage that tries to picture itself as being worth something. Real art CAN be a sculpture of a guy with eyes on his bum, but such a sculpture isn't always art.

	25-06-2003 04:12									#8
	Remove this text

quote: Whatever happened to real art?

You just aren't looking for it. Personally I like the works of Alex Ross.

	25-06-2003 04:12									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Bebro:

you must have a bad eye in need of glasses, contacts, AND laser eye surgery to say that the **** that exists now is equal to the Renaissance artists.

	25-06-2003 04:15									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So because you do not like something it canīt be art?

	25-06-2003 04:16									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

you know what... let me do this one more time...

Art done by a 15th century Italian who slaved for hours with a chisel hammering away at stone to create all the fine details of the robes and the flesh and the... every inch of this is beautifully crafted...


'Art' by some 20th century 'intellectual' that was thrown together with no beauty or meaning...


i hope i made my point...

	25-06-2003 04:17									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

One could ask what the point of reproduction of the human form is, given the mediums of photography and moving photography?

The first human art was itself abstract (look at the very first reproductions of the female form).

Thank God you are no art critic.

	25-06-2003 04:18									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

Beauty isn't the point... Nor is physical effort. Emotional and philosophical content is.

	25-06-2003 04:21									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

yes and the art of that period has more emotional and philosophical content that modern art.

I don't expect art to look like a photograph, but a certain degree of realism is necessary in my opinion. You change a few things for dramatic effect of course.

	25-06-2003 04:22									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Speer: So because it is abstract, and not ( in your opinion) beautiful it canīt be art?

What if others like it?

	25-06-2003 04:30									#16
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

BeBro:

there we go... what if others like it... the vast majority of people (i'm talking about in excess of 95%) would prefer Michaelangelo over 'modern art' and you can not dispute that.

	25-06-2003 04:35									#17
	Remove this text

Even if those numbers were true - if 5 % think it is art, and like it - whereīs the problem? I donīt like this red thing either, but that doesnīt mean it canīt be real art.

What about Picasso? Is his stuff art?

	25-06-2003 04:38									#18
	Put an end to popups!

But woudl the people who make art go for it?

If that type of art is so darn popular, why is there not a huge market for it? I mean, wouldn;t you want such a piece in your home? 95% of the people could not give a rats ass about "high art", and they didn't care back in 1530 either.

As for the point of art: it is an exploration of the human condition. I personally don;t like most modern art. I personally don;t crae for most old sculpture or paintings either. That does not mean I think they are not art.

	25-06-2003 04:41									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

GePap:

quote: 95% of the people could not give a rats ass about "high art", and they didn't care back in 1530 either.

i think the problem is only in the fact that art was and is costly. i heard about a painter who has a company that mass produces realistic, scenic paintings. apparently, his company is doing very well and has sold huge numbers of these paintings.

	25-06-2003 04:44									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

BeBro:

quote: Even if those numbers were true - if 5 % think it is art, and like it - whereīs the problem?

5% of people may think Hitler or Stalin were great men... does that mean they were?

	25-06-2003 04:45									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer there we go... what if others like it... the vast majority of people (i'm talking about in excess of 95%) would prefer Michaelangelo over 'modern art' and you can not dispute that.

Bah! You'll never take my comics from me.

	25-06-2003 04:47									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer GePap: i think the problem is only in the fact that art was and is costly. i heard about a painter who has a company that mass produces realistic, scenic paintings. apparently, his company is doing very well and has sold huge numbers of these paintings.

Well, there is one porblem right there for you: what is the value of a piece when it can be mass manufactured? Is each reproduction equally valuable? Or only the original? If one started to mass reporduce Mona Lisa's, well, that is the value of that?

Also, scenic pics are different from portraits and depictions of man, which are much harder to make, speically capturing emotions (even that guy on TV, with the Afro, he coudl paint a mean little friendly tree)

	25-06-2003 04:48									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

That's an interesting criteria, Albert,

Art value proportionate to the effort spent on the piece of art.

The problem is gauging the value of effort...

	25-06-2003 04:55									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Who makes art? The artist makes it.

lets look at this from the artist point of view:

How can I become my own man if all I do is try to immitate the works of old masters? What is the point of me carving the figures of people out of marble? Imagine a man in a suite and tie cut out of marble, what does that signify? What is the message? In an age of photographs, why do so? Is there anyting left to be done with marble?

And what about painting? What room is left for it in this day of movies? So I paint a realistic scene of what? God? Jesus? Angels? In this age of Kitsch? Normal life? How does a painting like a Michelangelo, with its soft colors and luciosuness capture the truth of modernity, with its machine age slowly drifting into information age?

	25-06-2003 05:02									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Well, there is one porblem right there for you: what is the value of a piece when it can be mass manufactured? Is each reproduction equally valuable? Or only the original? If one started to mass reporduce Mona Lisa's, well, that is the value of that?

the piece itself is of little monetary value... only like a hundred dollars but it is something nice for someone to put on their wall and look at and appreciate just as people come to art museums and look at and appreciate michaelangelo.

	25-06-2003 05:05									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

GePap:

quote: How can I become my own man if all I do is try to immitate the works of old masters? What is the point of me carving the figures of people out of marble? Imagine a man in a suite and tie cut out of marble, what does that signify? What is the message? In an age of photographs, why do so? Is there anyting left to be done with marble? And what about painting? What room is left for it in this day of movies? So I paint a realistic scene of what? God? Jesus? Angels? In this age of Kitsch? Normal life? How does a painting like a Michelangelo, with its soft colors and luciosuness capture the truth of modernity, with its machine age slowly drifting into information age?

The Renaissance artists faced this exact same dilemna. you could have said that the Greeks and Romans had done it all but the took what was technically the same and breathed new life in sculpture and painting... i think we already had a handful of such artists like Raphael, Michaelangelo, etc. in this century... Norman Rockwell comes to mind.

	25-06-2003 05:06									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: with its soft colors and luciosuness capture the truth of modernity, with its machine age slowly drifting into information age?

Perhaps we're overdue for some realism, and romanticism in art to counterbalance the forces of modernism.

Art does not always reflect the society at hand, but sometimes reflects an ideal.

The best art combines a bit of both, showing the ideal inside the real. The little bits of white peeking out from under coats of grime.

	25-06-2003 05:14									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer BeBro: 5% of people may think Hitler or Stalin were great men... does that mean they were?

They were certainly for those 5%.

And while we have huge amounts of material about the effects of Hitlerīs or Stalinīs rule to make judgements - can you come up with something similar to measure art? Or the effects of "real" and "unreal" art (while you draw arbitrarily, because according to your personal sympathies, the lines between them)? Or the meaning of art?

	25-06-2003 05:42									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer BeBro: 5% of people may think Hitler or Stalin were great men... does that mean they were?

Are we actually Godwining a thread about art?

	25-06-2003 05:49									#30
	Remove this text

Well, for one thing we're producing more of it. We're just not doing it in the still life arts - since the 19th century the West has added the fourth dimension to representational beauty with the invention of recorded images and visuals.

Think about it: there are plenty of quality books out there that you will never read, tons of really good movies that you haven't seen yet and maybe never will, and I know that there are far more quality photographs shot every year than pictures drawn... not to mention quality websites, TV shows, etc.

We're bored with still lifes. Film and TV and books are where the Raphaels of today are, and the old forms don't hold much attraction to restless modern youth.