Subject:
|
Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:38:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Magno wrote:
|
| |
| |
and my favorite question:
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at
all.
man, i wish there was an option greater than STRONGLY AGREE
I would have checked that one twice.
|
Why, exactly, must art represent anything?
Dave!
|
Exactly? I feel, that art should be something that is admired by “the common”
man; and not be reproducible by the commoner. To me, art is something I would
not be able to do. I can not paint a Mona Lisa, or carve “The Thinker.” That is
art.
What I can do is cover my canvas with Gesso(tm), slop random paint on said
canvas, and mush it with a pallet knife. THAT! is not art.
In short, anything I can do should not be considered art. I hold these same
standards of “the masters” as well.
If you like “abstract” then thats fine. In no way am I trying to tell you (or
anyone) what to like or not like. All Im doing is expressing a view.
Chris
Monkey #12 from the left.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
