• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

What is art?

MrPhox

Well-Known Member
Paint from Riopelle is call "abstract art" but I call that S and its worth 150.000$ Can.

My question is what is art?

Why something so ugly can be sold to such a price and what furs do wont be sold to 50.000$ and yet some have great talent.

A red circle on a white back ground is also call "art" I find those paint so ugly, it should be use as a torture method.





Jean-Paul_Riopelle,_1948,_untitled,_oil_on_canvas,_97.5_x_130_cm.jpg
 
T

T-LARC

Guest
Well, I'm no art aficionado, and I myself don't agree with the direction it's headed in, but I can't think of where else it would have gone. Essentially, the purpose of art for hundreds of years of human history was to capture the beauty of nature, and beyond anything capture reality itself - the more vivid and detailed and talented the portrayal, the greater the art. But with the advent of photography and modern technology in the last 100 years, artists can no longer compete with depictions of reality, because machines are far better equipped to represent it, and they do a far better job. Because of that, the focus had to shift from capturing 'reality' to portraying reality in very different, abstract and symbolic ways. That's why you get ridiculous canvases with a single red smear on them being sold for millions today. But painters can't just make a million brushstrokes to paint a field when a camera will already capture it in far greater detail, so art has to shift in a different direction. It can't be what it was before.
 

MrPhox

Well-Known Member
But you can't photograph something that is not real. I mean any drawing have to be in your mind before its on screen/paper.

You can take the picture of a flower, but you can't take a picture of a Pokemon for example. if you want a representation of one, you have to make it, draw it.

Paint like that are just plain ugly and anyone can do that. but drawing/painting or anything else you need talent to make it realistic. That's what I call art.
 

insomniverse

Join the Tomato Cult
Value is perceived by those who consume it. Gold is a pretty useless metal, yet people flock to buy it. Same thing with most luxury goods. I personally really don't understand why people would pay for orchestra or dance (I don't like em), but that doesn't affect the value of it.
But if we're talking about that specific painting, I actually kinda like it haha.

I'd actually argue that the painting displays plenty of technical talent. The biggest thing that stands out to me is obviously the color palette. At first glance, the painting looks chaotic and confusing. But from the colors, we can tell that the artist that made it has expert knowledge of color theory and value. Next, the technique used to paint shows that the artist knows how to use a palette knife pretty damn well lol. Even the arrangement of color shows that plenty thought went into making the painting.

And it's not like art's ever had clean-cut meanings and interpretations. Take this painting for example:
14017601.jpg


Just looks like a loving couple reuniting after war, right? In actuality, the entire painting is a metaphor for 'peace.' The woman, Aphrodite, is distracting her lover, Aries, from continuing the war he's started. As he's distracted, she and the Cupid (not a Cupid but can't remember the actual name) start to disarm him by removing his weaponry and armor. In all, "love" triumphs "war."

Personally, I feel like both paintings are just as vague with their explanations. It takes prior knowledge of art history, symbolism, and mythology to actually understand the above painting, just like it takes prior knowledge of abstraction to understand Riopelle's work. Honestly, if you look at either painting without that knowledge they both look kinda crappy lol

Overall, if it isn't your description of art, that's fine. Part of doing art is figuring out how you personally interpret it.
 

nerdbat

Green butt of reason
In simple words, art is an expression of imaginative or technical skills in "consumable" (i.e. "existing in real world for others to see/hear/read/etc.") form. Even silly ironic memes and "YouTube Poop"'s are art in their own weird way. As for your quesion: Art doesn't have to be incredibly technical and sophisticated to be "true" or "good". In fact, sometimes it's quite the opposite, with some mediums more then with the others: for musical examples, "Selected Ambient Works Volume II" by Aphex Twin, a collage of abstract monotonous sounds, is widely considered one of the greatest and most influental electronic albums of all time, because it sounded beautiful despite being so bareboned, while Attila's self-titled album, an overwhelmingly complex and overproduced mess, is often called one of the worst rock albums in history, mainly due to being, well, an overwhelmingly complex and overproduced mess. Not to mention that art is a very subjective thing by default - while I'm not a fan of so-called "modern art", if there is a big and unironic following around it, there also must be some appeal behind it, it's just something outside of our taste.

For me personally, though, main differentiation between "good" and "bad" art with modern/abstract artwork is artist's general level of proficiency. Speaking shortly, if artist knows his crap and can draw something decent, but willingly chooses to express himself through weird scribbles, he's alright in my eyes, but if said artist can't draw anything aside of weird scribbles, I would say he's a hack.
 
Last edited:

MrPhox

Well-Known Member
Value is perceived by those who consume it. Gold is a pretty useless metal, yet people flock to buy it. Same thing with most luxury goods. I personally really don't understand why people would pay for orchestra or dance (I don't like em), but that doesn't affect the value of it.
But if we're talking about that specific painting, I actually kinda like it haha.

I'd actually argue that the painting displays plenty of technical talent. The biggest thing that stands out to me is obviously the color palette. At first glance, the painting looks chaotic and confusing. But from the colors, we can tell that the artist that made it has expert knowledge of color theory and value. Next, the technique used to paint shows that the artist knows how to use a palette knife pretty damn well lol. Even the arrangement of color shows that plenty thought went into making the painting.

And it's not like art's ever had clean-cut meanings and interpretations. Take this painting for example:
14017601.jpg


Just looks like a loving couple reuniting after war, right? In actuality, the entire painting is a metaphor for 'peace.' The woman, Aphrodite, is distracting her lover, Aries, from continuing the war he's started. As he's distracted, she and the Cupid (not a Cupid but can't remember the actual name) start to disarm him by removing his weaponry and armor. In all, "love" triumphs "war."

Personally, I feel like both paintings are just as vague with their explanations. It takes prior knowledge of art history, symbolism, and mythology to actually understand the above painting, just like it takes prior knowledge of abstraction to understand Riopelle's work. Honestly, if you look at either painting without that knowledge they both look kinda crappy lol

Overall, if it isn't your description of art, that's fine. Part of doing art is figuring out how you personally interpret it.


I think the angles are call cherubin. Hero or Cupid from the Roman or Greek. The Greek god of war.
 

Revous

Active Member
Besides what people have said above:

Art is a luxury good, and as such, both tangible and intangible values are attached to it.

Same thing with, say, Haute Couture/high fashion. You might think it's ridiculous but it's a billion dollar industry and designers (technically) can price it according only to their company's wishes, not what's "fair".
 

Royn

Otterest Sergal evah!
As to the original question, "What is art?"..... Art is that which exists.
 
T

T-LARC

Guest
But you can't photograph something that is not real. I mean any drawing have to be in your mind before its on screen/paper.

You can take the picture of a flower, but you can't take a picture of a Pokemon for example. if you want a representation of one, you have to make it, draw it.

Paint like that are just plain ugly and anyone can do that. but drawing/painting or anything else you need talent to make it realistic. That's what I call art.
Well, that's true, and that's partially why painting as an art form still exists. There's always more that can be dreamt up than than actually exists - furries are evidence enough for that. The entire fandom's dedicated to art of imaginary anthropomorphic animals. But as far as mainstream painting is concerned, the move from naturalistic artwork makes sense given the change in technology.

The problem with the talent argument is that a fantastic artist can spend 10,000 hours on a piece, but that alone is no guarantee of the quality of artwork. If more effort, skill and thought was spent smearing a canvas with a single perfect brushstroke than painting the Mona Lisa, according to that argument, the stupid modern minimalist artwork would be superior. It's a lot easier to say simply that you should like art that appeals to you - effort is appreciated, but if you find out later that the artist didn't put every ounce of their soul into a picture you love, it shouldn't make you love it less.
 

Khazius

The Fruit Bat
Well as far as you thinking some art looks ugly, I believe art is a very personal thing. I actually like the painting you posted, I feel it portrays a battle between 2 armies, notice the blue and white on each side but in the center where they meet its filled with red splattered, the white stained yellow? Dunno thats my quick interpretation.

In any case, The reason "Ugly art" and "Good art" exist is the same reason some people like some food over others, opinion.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I'm not sure if this is the right question. The notion of art is just a social construct, so it's pretty wishy-washy. I think when people ask the question 'what is art?' they are usually asking 'what is good art and what is bad art?'.

There aren't really objective answers to those questions either, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.


@insomniverse Gold isn't a useless metal; it's an extremely good electric conductor and the device you used to submit your comment probably has gold plated elements inside it.


I actually like the painting you posted, I feel it portrays a battle between 2 armies, notice the blue and white on each side but in the center where they meet its filled with red splattered, the white stained yellow? Dunno thats my quick interpretation.

I'm not a fan of it. I think it looks the floor of an artist's studio:
c27adaeacac00fe6ef8e1e55147f7bf2.jpg


So I find it pretty dull.
 

Khazius

The Fruit Bat
I'm not sure if this is the right question. The notion of art is just a social construct, so it's pretty wishy-washy. I think when people ask the question 'what is art?' they are usually asking 'what is good art and what is bad art?'.

There aren't really objective answers to those questions either, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.


@insomniverse Gold isn't a useless metal; it's an extremely good electric conductor and the device you used to submit your comment probably has gold plated elements inside it.
I think he meant useless as a material to wear, as it serves no purpose.
 

insomniverse

Join the Tomato Cult
@Fallowfox
Should've clarified, but yeah kinda what @Khazius said? Mostly meant it in a historical sense.
Like, I know it's a conductor and that it's useful for space stuff, tooth fillings etc but most of those applications are pretty recent. What use was gold to a pharaoh? They pretty much only kept it around bc it was shiny and bendable. I mean, back then gold's only practical use was to fill stuff like teeth and cracked vases bc of its malleability.
Plus if you compare it against other metals like steel, iron, etc the uses of gold are pretty limited atm
 

Khazius

The Fruit Bat
Golds a pretty crappy material to represent a bond between to people if you think about it.
"Our bond is like gold, easily bendable and too darn expensive for what were getting."
 

Mobius

Mech pilot.
Art's purpose is whatever the designer chooses. Whether or not it's good depends on whether or not it fulfills its purpose.

For example, a M1 Abrams tank. Its purpose is to kill bad guys, and it does that. It's a good design.
A water bottle's purpose is to contain water. If it leaks, it's a shitty design.

Art can be designed to look cool, evoke an emotion, or influence customers to buy a product.

Now, this "painting."
image.jpg

If its purpose is to be sold for an absolutely absurd price to modern pseudophilosophers to wank over, it's a good design.
However, we don't know what its purpose is. Go ask the painter for that.
 

Khazius

The Fruit Bat
I'm not sure if this is the right question. The notion of art is just a social construct, so it's pretty wishy-washy. I think when people ask the question 'what is art?' they are usually asking 'what is good art and what is bad art?'.

There aren't really objective answers to those questions either, but I suppose it's interesting to see what people think.


@insomniverse Gold isn't a useless metal; it's an extremely good electric conductor and the device you used to submit your comment probably has gold plated elements inside it.




I'm not a fan of it. I think it looks the floor of an artist's studio:
c27adaeacac00fe6ef8e1e55147f7bf2.jpg


So I find it pretty dull.
Haha, well to each there own I suppose. :)
 

pidge

Member
Art isn't just what works are good on a technical level, it's also about the meaning of a work.

For example when you listen to a song you might want to also look at the song's lyrics because you care about its meaning. Modern art isn't created to look pretty so why judge it on its looks alone? People create modern art because they want to express an idea or emotion.

To me, good art sparks controversy and makes people think. If someone didn't create a painting like this we wouldn't all be on this forum discussing what is and isn't considered art, so for that reason, I think this painting is art.
 

Mobius

Mech pilot.
Art isn't just what works are good on a technical level, it's also about the meaning of a work.

For example when you listen to a song you might want to also look at the song's lyrics because you care about its meaning. Modern art isn't created to look pretty so why judge it on its looks alone? People create modern art because they want to express an idea or emotion.

To me, good art sparks controversy and makes people think. If someone didn't create a painting like this we wouldn't all be on this forum discussing what is and isn't considered art, so for that reason, I think this painting is art.
The holocaust is Hitler's best work of art then.
 

Khazius

The Fruit Bat
The holocaust is Hitler's best work of art then.
Hitler was an art student actually, and some sociopaths would argue that murder is a form of art. But I think what she meant was that good art sparks controversy, not all controversial things are art.
 

pidge

Member
Hitler was an art student actually, and some sociopaths would argue that murder is a form of art. But I think what she meant was that good art sparks controversy, not all controversial things are art.
yeah and I think genocide is a little past "controversial"

Anyways, whether or not you like modern art, you have to agree that it does create an interesting discussion. And maybe that's what the artist was trying to do. Maybe he wanted to see if a painting like this could be art?
 

Mobius

Mech pilot.
yeah and I think genocide is a little past "controversial"

Anyways, whether or not you like modern art, you have to agree that it does create an interesting discussion. And maybe that's what the artist was trying to do. Maybe he wanted to see if a painting like this could be art?
We don't know what the artist designed it for, so we don't have a metric by which we can accurately measure whether or not the artwork fulfills its purpose.

It's like thinking random background radiation in space is aliens trying to contact us.
 

insomniverse

Join the Tomato Cult
We don't know what the artist designed it for, so we don't have a metric by which we can accurately measure whether or not the artwork fulfills its purpose.

It's like thinking random background radiation in space is aliens trying to contact us.
That's not quite true. Riopelle was closely tied to the Refus Global manifesto, and as such he drew inspiration from it.
Lucky for you, there's an entire book about him and his peers
 

Xaroin

THE ONE THE ONLY
Modern art is based of Freudian shit about the subconcious. Sigmond Freud used cocaine, so it would only make sense for modern art to be representitive of you being high.
 
A

Alex K

Guest
True art does not need to be written out on a piece of paper, or painted on a canvas, or acted out on stage.



True art does not need to be expressed, or talked about, or even exist
 
Top