Dubstepforum.com

Agent 47 wrote:yeah, i dont get why he did it

Barnett Newman started the first painting in the series without a preconceived notion of the subject or end result; he only wanted it to be different from what he had done until then, and to be asymmetrical.

Agent 47 wrote:why his sold for that much

Laszlo wrote:I'm with Hugh on this. It's bullshit.

Give me a Dulux colour chart, about 5ltrs of emulsion, some undercoat and 2-3 days and I could knock that out no problem. In fact, I have done similar and it only cost the client and extra £100.

There is zero artistic merit to this.

wub wrote: Exactly. How does art get a price tag...

Laszlo wrote:My rule of thumb - if you need to read the little white card next to the piece of art in order to get any feeling then the piece of 'art' is shite.

Many Dadaists believed that the 'reason' and 'logic' of bourgeois capitalist society had led people into war. They expressed their rejection of that ideology in artistic expression that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality. For example, George Grosz later recalled that his Dadaist art was intended as a protest "against this world of mutual destruction."[6]

According to Hans Richter, Dada was not art, it was "anti-art."[5] Everything for which art stood, Dada represented the opposite. Where art was concerned with traditional aesthetics, Dada ignored aesthetics. If art was to appeal to sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend.

As Hugo Ball expressed it, "For us, art is not an end in itself ... but it is an opportunity for the true perception and criticism of the times we live in."[7]

Laszlo wrote:My rule of thumb - if you need to read the little white card next to the piece of art in order to get any feeling then the piece of 'art' is shite.

wolf89 wrote:The creativity in the first place is the impressive bit.

Laszlo wrote:Yeah, obviously i'm not saying my view is right and the next man's is wrong

...the CIA financed and organized the promotion of American abstract expressionists as part of cultural imperialism via the Congress for Cultural Freedom from 1950 to 1967.

SCope13 wrote:

...the CIA financed and organized the promotion of American abstract expressionists as part of cultural imperialism via the Congress for Cultural Freedom from 1950 to 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_e ... e_Cold_War

Many Italian Futurists supported Fascism in the hope of modernizing a country divided between the industrialising north and the rural, archaic South. Like the Fascists, the Futurists were Italian nationalists, radicals, admirers of violence, and were opposed to parliamentary democracy. Marinetti founded the Futurist Political Party (Partito Politico Futurista) in early 1918, which was absorbed into Benito Mussolini's Fasci di combattimento in 1919, making Marinetti one of the first members of the National Fascist Party.

Laszlo wrote:Yeah, obviously i'm not saying my view is right and the next man's is wrong - anyone can see beauty in anything for any number of reasons or combination thereof - I just find it mildly offensive (to intelligence, not my line of work) that because some blue and whit paint is on a canvas in a gallery and not on someone's wall in their home someone can look at it and think "Yes. I get it". Bare retarded.

wolf89 wrote:The creativity in the first place is the impressive bit.

I understand that and i'm not anti-abstract art but I fail to see the 'creativity' in a bit of blue and white on canvas.
Obviously this is my failing as an unsophisticated blue-collar worker but it's where I stand.

wolf89 wrote:

Laszlo wrote:Yeah, obviously i'm not saying my view is right and the next man's is wrong - anyone can see beauty in anything for any number of reasons or combination thereof - I just find it mildly offensive (to intelligence, not my line of work) that because some blue and whit paint is on a canvas in a gallery and not on someone's wall in their home someone can look at it and think "Yes. I get it". Bare retarded.

wolf89 wrote:The creativity in the first place is the impressive bit.

I understand that and i'm not anti-abstract art but I fail to see the 'creativity' in a bit of blue and white on canvas.
Obviously this is my failing as an unsophisticated blue-collar worker but it's where I stand.

I think I need to clear up something. I still don't know if this piece is that good. It doesn't look like much from the photo here but could in person be a lot more impressive. My point was more about how your approach of "I could do it therefore it's no good" overall isn't really a very good argument to dismiss a piece especially when it's just a small photo on a forum vs being able to examine it up close anyway.

wolf89 wrote:

Laszlo wrote:Yeah, obviously i'm not saying my view is right and the next man's is wrong - anyone can see beauty in anything for any number of reasons or combination thereof - I just find it mildly offensive (to intelligence, not my line of work) that because some blue and whit paint is on a canvas in a gallery and not on someone's wall in their home someone can look at it and think "Yes. I get it". Bare retarded.

wolf89 wrote:The creativity in the first place is the impressive bit.

I understand that and i'm not anti-abstract art but I fail to see the 'creativity' in a bit of blue and white on canvas.
Obviously this is my failing as an unsophisticated blue-collar worker but it's where I stand.

I think I need to clear up something. I still don't know if this piece is that good. It doesn't look like much from the photo here but could in person be a lot more impressive. My point was more about how your approach of "I could do it therefore it's no good" overall isn't really a very good argument to dismiss a piece especially when it's just a small photo on a forum vs being able to examine it up close anyway.