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?

My fave Abs-Exp painter is Motherwell

i was going to address this after skuj's picture. the problem with seeing little pictures of pollock's paintings on a bad computer screen connected to the 72dpi interwebs is that it gives us a false idea of the impact and power of these pieces as they exist in the physical world.

mark rothko often suffers the same fate, dismissed as a hack when reduced to postcards and tiny internet pictures-- his paintings are massive in scale, like some sort of 20th century menhirs, and their religious power only works when you stand in front of them and face them with your own eyes.

You're saying I'll feel differently if I did? Like the meaning behind the painting will leap out and rape me or something?

so do you like any art at all?

yes.

you should get out of your mother's basement and go get raped by art.

that is provided there is an orifice in your skull where art's penis could enter.

otherwise you could just end up with a very bad bruise on your forehead and just as dumb as you started.

You don't need to restrict that sort of statement to 'modern' (that term seem oxymoronic today) painters either - the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, Van Gogh, the aforementioned Carvaggio [etc] - all fail on the computer screen.

For years I thought I disliked Warhol until I saw his stuff in situ in a gallery. I still have massive qualms about him, but it makes legions more sense in its 'proper context' than it does reproduced in a book or on a screen.

I'm a fan of Art Deco, especially the architecture side of it.

^I had a similar experience with Richter, couldn't really get into his more abstract paintings until i went to his exhibition and saw those paintigs in 3x5m..... magical.
That structures, hundrets of layers, details, etc.

Yeah, although I sometimes think with say Rothko that it's the physical size of his paintings that suggests their greatness far more than the paintings themselves. Not that scale can be seperated from the overall message of any painting. You get my drift though, I'm sure.

of course, but fuck if i'm going to list here all the things that suffer from reduction-- some things suffer more than others and pollock and rothko suffer among the most. the sistine chapel, well, it's a space-- when the internet is HD holographic, maybe we'll see it better.

other things however tend to survive printing or photography relatively unscathed. there is this little painting by pietr de hooch that i love for its treatment of the light as it travels through a house, and while the interweb photos are not the same as the original, the colors are garish and vary wildly from photo to photo, they sufficiently trigger a response for me .

and since you mention caravaggio, that posted caravaggio looks amazing to me in spite of the quality loss. something about the faces and gestures that manages to survive electronic transmission.

kinda like steppenwolf and the radio (since someone quoted hesse above). yes, the little people can still be happy from listening to it.

we could go on and on about this, even discuss benjamin's concept of "aura", but i thought the object of posting here was to insult KIS so he'd fuck off?

anyway, speaking of fucking off, i should go get breakfast, it's almost noon. but nice talking with you.

well you should go get raped by a skyscraper then. i hope it fits.





good day.

don't be talkin shit bout rothko yo

hahaha

The Rothko chapel above, in Houston TX, is a perfect place to contemplate suicide.

That's one of three places I'd like to visit in the USA.

Edit: 4.

I have experienced and know of friends who have experienced the iost wildly ranging reactions, emotional and psychological, to spending ten+ minutes in meditation at the Rothko Chapel.

Some people find it very liberating, the giant purple and black canvases perfectly "clearing" conscious thought, allowing for a type of euphoria in some people. others, the exact opposite happens. The space and the paintings act to expose the core of someone, in a very real way. I have friends who have gotten extremely agitated, as if the artworks are attacking them personally.
I have myself felt both profound sadness and grief, as well as uplifting clarity at the Rothko chapel.
My brother, who is by nature a sad and "dark" individual, cannot vist the Rothko chapel anymore becaus eit truly depresses him. It seems to open up inside him all his fear and sorrow at the state of the world, at how humans treat each other and the hopelessness of it, in his mind.

if one looks at those purple/back paintings enough they begin to pulse and breath and expand and contract. never been there on any "influence."

You make them sound like penises.

Yr brain makes everything you hear sound like penises!

are Penii that powerful? I must ask Lady Instigator

Yeah, prior to actually seeing Richter's paintings 'for real', I had what KIS might describe as a bit of a 'pseuds' appreciation of him, which came mostly out of books about his work. Seeing them for the first time in a gallery though was one of the most incredible experiences I've had looking at a group of paintings. It was his New Paintings exhibition in 1998. Amazing. Anyone who gets a chance to see the original of his Abstraktes-Bild, See painting, really really should. Utterly incredible.

Abstraktes-Bild, See (1997)

Is 'Lady' instigator a 'lady' in the same way as 'lady' Gaga?

She does not work the "Tuck Game" if that's what ya mean!