|
New Yorkers (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
All of this. Except the part about Cubism vs Vorticism, because I've never fully understood the difference :o |
Vorticism was inspired by Cubism, and some argue it's an offshoot of it. Vorticism was mainly a British movement and short lived whereas cubism was a widely practiced in most of Europe and even the states and South America. It was mainly astract and had staggered or sharp planes, with themes about industry and machines (it was just after the turn of century so there's artistic commentary about the rise of fascism and industrialization of nation and people etc.
Cubism was angular and cuboid but not limited to themes as such, and it's focus was to deconstruct traditional compositions in to base shapes. Vorticism (and this is a sweeping generalization) was more about constructing the shapes to fit the composition, theme and overall narrative of the movement. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm not talking about the very few, i.e. 1% who buy art as an investment or just to show off. That's a minority.
|
I think the majority buy art to decorate their walls and because they fancy the artwork, not because they have some deep knowledge of art. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Vorticism was inspired by Cubism, and some argue it's an offshoot of it. Vorticism was mainly a British movement and short lived whereas cubism was a widely practiced in most of Europe and even the states and South America. It was mainly astract and had staggered or sharp planes, with themes about industry and machines (it was just after the turn of century so there's artistic commentary about the rise of fascism and industrialization of nation and people etc.
Cubism was angular and cuboid but not limited to themes as such, and it's focus was to deconstruct traditional compositions in to base shapes. Vorticism (and this is a sweeping generalization) was more about constructing the shapes to fit the composition, theme and overall narrative of the movement. |
Yeah, no, I know what Vorticism IS, I just can't tell the difference between it and Cubism when I'm looking at them. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Yeah, no, I know what Vorticism IS, I just can't tell the difference between it and Cubism when I'm looking at them. |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
It was mainly astract and had staggered or sharp planes |
That's the difference. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
I think the majority buy art to decorate their walls and because they fancy the artwork, not because they have some deep knowledge of art. |
Wel, firstly, you could argue that the vast majority of art, at least the commercial aspect is really just to have something that looks nice on a wall, so really I take that assertion as a given. It's like saying most people buy a car for transport but the second part is taken a bit too far. I'm not suggesting that people who happen to buy art (for whatever reason have a "deep" knowledge; I'm stating thay you're more likely to have an interest in art and therefore know a little about it or at least research the artist or piece. That's knowing "something". What I find amazing is that I sometimes meet people who will bang on about how ing much they pseudo-know about art then you ask them what they have or what pieces they've actually gone out and bought and they suddenly go very quiet. |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm not suggesting that people who happen to buy art (for whatever reason have a "deep" knowledge; I'm stating thay you're more likely to have an interest in art and therefore know a little about it or at least research the artist or piece. That's knowing "something". |
Yeah, that makes sense. I got a little confused about the minority bit (not sure why). My father's friend probably belongs to the minority that you mentioned, and asks my dad to hang up the pieces he purchases because he no longer has any room in his flat. You have no idea how many cringes I've seen from people who occasionally come to visit. I had a yoga teacher who suggested I remove four huge paintings from my room because they give off negative energy. :wtf: |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
Yeah, that makes sense. I got a little confused about the minority bit (not sure why). My father's friend probably belongs to the minority that you mentioned, and asks my dad to hang up the pieces he purchases because he no longer has any room in his flat. You have no idea how many cringes I've seen from people who occasionally come to visit. I had a yoga teacher who suggested I remove four huge paintings from my room because they give off negative energy. :wtf: |
ah, I know what you mean. One of my friend has a serious amount of money (I mean 8, maybe even 9 figures) and he just buys whatever is hot. He's got three huge (12 foot tall) Retna peices, 2 large matching Alec Monopoly and this massive Shepherd Fairey mural in his living room alone. I'm sure in a few months when someone else is hot, he'll replace them like he did the last.
Lol at the yoga teacher though. I once had someone tell me a painting was evil and they were going to physically attack it if they stayed in the room any longer :wtf: |
|
|
| AlphaStarred |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I once had someone tell me a painting was evil and they were going to physically attack it if they stayed in the room any longer :wtf: |
:stongue:
That reminds me, someone (or some) has also mentioned the paintings in my room being "evil." My dad is basically doing this guy a favor by retaining it for him, out of the kindness of his heart, and since there's not much room to stack it away somewhere, he just hangs them all up, giving zero s. So now we've got some paintings of elephant carcasses and huge flies throughout our apartment. And this ain't what you'd exactly call modern expressionism, either. |
|
|
| MeLLyMeL |
While in NY banksy did a piece by my apartment.
Was the worst of them all. I managed to see like 3 of em. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Formal education say, in art history, helps but it's absurd to think that's what's needed. |
I didn't see it's what's needed, I said it's a yardstick. Given education is all about progressive learning which is assessed and tested, if there's any hard and fast way of proving your knowledge of art it's showing your grades. I don't see how that's any more absurd than saying that buying art is a measure of knowing anything about it, given probably 90% of art is sold just to look nice on a wall.
Anyway, as I said, the only true way to judge someone's knowledge and taste is by hearing what they've got to say. EarnYourKeep is chatting nonsense, but that doesn't make it valid to just override him by whipping out your collector cock. The whole point of public art galleries is that art should be available to everyone, not just the wealthy. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
I would say actual curation is probably far more of a determination in terms of your ability to "judge" art than just having purchased it, especially when it has nothing to do with the patronage at all.
Furthermore most purchasers of popular and "valuable" art are looking at it from a financial aspect rather than the artistic aspect. The artistic value matters, but only in terms of what is currently popular. The is traded like stocks, and when you throw in forgeries it gets even more stupid how totally subjective artistic merit is.
There have been forgeries made of the great painters that are 100% indistinguishable from the style and even materials of the artist they are copying. These are "new" pieces too, pieces done in the style of the artist and just having their name attached and a history made up for them and people eat them up, the forger going on to change as tastes change. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm not suggesting that people who happen to buy art (for whatever reason have a "deep" knowledge; I'm stating thay you're more likely to have an interest in art and therefore know a little about it or at least research the artist or piece. That's knowing "something". What I find amazing is that I sometimes meet people who will bang on about how ing much they pseudo-know about art then you ask them what they have or what pieces they've actually gone out and bought and they suddenly go very quiet. |
If someone can talk at all about art they clearly know 'something.'
I know people who are insanely wealthy who have some very expensive pieces and can't talk about them at all, other than they thought it looked nice or it was a gift or an inheritance or something like that and they've been advised to hold it. Then I know people who don't have a single piece of art, yet they absolutely love it and can talk for hours about it.
Somebody with lots of money who buys a piece isn't really making much of a sacrifice for it. Someone without much time who invests time in reading about art, watching documentaries, going to museums etc, is clearing investing more in it.
I of course agree that there are many pseudo-art critics in the world, but to argue they're pseudo only because they don't actually own any art is rather vacuous. |
|
|
|
|
