Haha, yup.
I think it's just that people have done new, interesting, or controversial things that is considered art (since it's kinda hard to say sometihng isn't art... at least, to certain types of people in the art community.) And those things are just what people have to talk about when they talk about art... but I don't think it makes it "good art" just because it's different or makes people react in some way.
And now that so many people can draw, only once in a while certain art pieces well really surface into mainstream where loooots of people can see and do it (Warhol, the Obama-style posters... uh...)
There's a lot of really great art out there in different communities... but I think museums just have to take whatever seems unique and different, since they've seen so much that someone that can paint pretty stuff or whatever is dull.

...I dunno, just blabbing. Neat that you could make someone wanna blab about that kinda conversation, anyway.

Oh, I coulda gone on for hours on this subject. My point being, the piece behind them, a Jackson Pollock, I could do. I cannot, nor will I ever be able to draw/paint/sculpt as well as, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Bernini, etc. Why has that kind of art disappeared, while we get stuff like Pollock, or that guy who painted color squares (his name is escaping me as I type this). All the good artists seemed to move into illustration or animation during the last half of the century, and we were left with absolute garbage in the fine art community.

Thanks for the input!

Haha yup! Anyone could do Pollock stuff, or those basic colors and squares, but apparently them being the first to think of it, or at least do it, means it's worth focusing so much on. Even all the local museums here are just boring beach and field paintings, buuut they're all that sorta impressionist style, where nothing's specific so it just looks neat from far away.... there are a few neat sorta things going on... but it's just under lotsa crap. X3 At least there was neat animators for a while, if there still are some... most the stuff I see is just crappy flash. :B Buuuut I guess things go back and forth. Maybe that's just what modern art is focusing on, but it'd be neat to have our focus shift again soon. Til then I guess we just have to find our own neat things.

You're thinking of Rothko with the rectangles dude, probably. The abstract expressionists didn't just randomly splash stuff around, they really did think about what they were doing and as much as the impressionists 100 years before, they were attempting to find new ways to express themselves through painting. As much as I'm much more partial to figurative stuff for the most part over abstract paintings, what Pollock and such did at the time was something profoundly groundbreaking. Art isn't just about making sure things look pretty.
You probably couldn't do the things that Beuys or Warhol or Duchamp or Barney or Kruger or Rothko or Gorky or Picasso or Styll or Braque did with half the expressiveness, personality, or overall success, really.

OK, I'll give you Warhol, Picasso and Gorky. But Duchamp! What I remember from him is a urinal and a bicycle wheel. To call that art, well, I'd have to disagree. And no art doesn't always have to be pretty, I agree. I like Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Goya's Black paintings, even Francis Bacon is good to me. Mondrian was the rectangle "dude" I was thinking of. And yes their stuff was original, it doen't mean it was good, in my opinion.

Marcel Duchamp:
-The Bride
http://www.earlham.edu/~vanbma/20th.....ide%201913.jpg
-Entants Donnes
(outer) http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhib.....-donnes201.jpg
(through a peephole) http://blackmodular.files.wordpress.....rt-1946-66.jpg
-Nude Descending Staircase #2
http://www.uncg.edu/rom/courses/daf.....v/nude_no2.jpg
-The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even/"The Large Glass"
http://www.fondation-langlois.org/e.....rand-verre.jpg

Yeah, I've seen most of those before. They're just not my thing in art. Sorry! I do appreciate the input, though.

Very nice art pics! That's what I like. In the end it's all a matter of personal taste.

LOL!! This Is So FUNNY!!! But True! =3

Very glad you agree with me!

You aint seen insane till you see Snakes covered in paint sliding across a canvas costing a good thousand bucks.

THATS insane.

Only 1000 bucks. Surprised someone wouldn't offer more.

Its the grand idea of "Nobody has done it. Its genius"

Splattered paint like that. Done.
Do it like The Blue Man Group, Good money in that.

Trust me. If you're crazy enough and put time and "effort" into it, you can find yourself rich from just making a painting that looks like poop.

There's a lot of really great, really interesting conceptual art and late 20th century stuff. This dismissiveness of modern and post modern art is as bad as people who say nothing pre-WWII is relevant in contemporary times.

The is relevant art out there from the 1900s (Salvadore Dali or Picasso comes to mind). I can't say that Andy Warhol, Mondrian or Kandinsky move me in any way. It may be interesting to look at, but then realize a museum has paid millions at an auction to get some of these pieces is crazy!

If your only concern is the money surrounding the art you aren't looking at all at what is important.

Uh, no money is not the concern. I gain no inspiration from the Modern, Minimalist, Dada art movements is all that I'm saying.

I think people have discovered their imagination around that time but it was obscured by drugs or just had a terrible imagination.

Drugs did pay a large part in some of the late 1900 art. And art seemed to be more of a status symbol or "club" during that time, meaning only the cool kids we allowed in.

Bet those "cool kids" have a bunch of that art hanging in their "cool den."

Go for it!

That, actually, is kind funny!

Everyone's a critic.

Yeah, Badgers get kinda cranky every once in a while.

I kinda like the gist of Pollock's stuff, in terms of it being a random pattern you can make out all sorts of things in through the human brain's wonderful ability of pareidolia.

But it's still a fine example of how chutzpa overtakes drawing ability in a lot of modern art.

I'll agree that it is interesting to like at, but 100 or 200 years from now, to see that in the art books as "great art of the period" makes me kinda sad.

It's true. Nice picture man!

not a fan of pollok I see. XD

true, true.

:D

Yeah for being Gusto, my favorite Gummi Bear. I gotta do something where he's not in this kind of scenario. Gummi's are kinda fun to draw.

Awful lotta copy but I definitely agree. Gravity is cool and all but there's nothing creative or artistic or ground-breaking about dripping paint on a canvas.

Or arranging rocks in a big circle.

Or taping string along a ceiling.

Or throwing one's own faeces at a wall.

Or turning a urinal upside-down.

>:|

I, too, prefer production of art to be dominated by the wiles of the cultural elite within the patronage system\


no but really modernist art rules, deal wit it

*Scratches back of neck...*

I think I made something like that when I was about... What, 3? think I could get thousands for it now?

I dont begrudge anyone to create whatever they think is art and to express themselves how they feel compelled to do so. But I certainly much prefer art I can look at and recognize as what it is intending to represent even if its abstract or exaggerated (like say furry art) as opposed to something that seems to make no sense unless you listen or read to an artist explaining what its supposed to mean (like someone running around naked on stage covered in peanut butter and taking a dump and then saying its expressing wild animal spirt versus societies restrictions or some retarded explanation )

oh and the picture is good too that you drew

amazing is Gusto in the the show did different styles of art, so he knows
what he likes :)

I've seen worse!