I'm not fighting over semantics. In my mind, original means created by the artist from scratch, that's the kind of art that I like and support. Collage is a form of art indeed, it takes time to do, but in my opinion it's half original. Can I take that Marilyn Monroe, turn into black/white, and call it original? π
If you can manage to come up with some original, meaningful, conceptual justification for turning Marilyn black and white then, yes, it becomes an original piece of art. And I can definitely come up with reasons as to why turning Andy Warhol's coulourful portraits into monochromatic images should be considered art.
The difference between Jackson Pollock and a four year old splashing paint on a piece of paper is the meaning and intent behind their creations. It's the "why" that's important.
From what I've seen over the years art is little more than the ability to justify your bullshit, sometimes even literally, haha.
Why call it bullshit, it's my opinion. I didn't call yours bullshit, did I? Try to avoid derogatory comments if you want to have a discussion with me π
I happen to be a great admirer of Jackson Pollock. In fact, several of my abstract paintings were done because of his inspiration to me.
I didn't call your opinion bullshit, in fact, if you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm really calling my own opinion bullshit. But, I was speaking generally about how some art is nonsensical without the justification created by an artist's context. Look at Yves Klein's monochromatic works, without context it's just a colour on a canvas, but with context it becomes a piece of art. The only reason I used the word "bullshit" is because it lead into that article I linked about a very interesting exhibition I went to where an artist used cow dung as a medium.
And, yes, Pollock is fantastic, I'm a fan of his work too. Abstract expressionism in general has been a major influence on my life, along with Dada, the surrealists, and the futurists, just to name a few.
I'm just a fan of art, which is why I'm still keeping this conversation going. I'm having fun attempting to explain what constitutes art. In the strange landscape of this post-Warholian world we find ourselves inhabiting there is no way of ever truly being able to define "art", but we can certainly entertain ourselves by trying, haha.
Anyway, I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm just trying to have a little fun.
More formal, less colloquial, to me it sounds like the difference between an aristocrat and a normal human being. It always feels awkward and unnatural for me to use "one(s)" instead of "you(r)". But that's just me. I'll try and watch my language in future, haha.
Haha. I knew you'd see sense. Although I kind of hoped you'd put up more of a fight, hahaha.
I'm not fighting over semantics. In my mind, original means created by the artist from scratch, that's the kind of art that I like and support. Collage is a form of art indeed, it takes time to do, but in my opinion it's half original. Can I take that Marilyn Monroe, turn into black/white, and call it original? π
If you can manage to come up with some original, meaningful, conceptual justification for turning Marilyn black and white then, yes, it becomes an original piece of art. And I can definitely come up with reasons as to why turning Andy Warhol's coulourful portraits into monochromatic images should be considered art.
The difference between Jackson Pollock and a four year old splashing paint on a piece of paper is the meaning and intent behind their creations. It's the "why" that's important.
From what I've seen over the years art is little more than the ability to justify your bullshit, sometimes even literally, haha.
Oh, and a signature and a title can make all the difference too, haha.
Why call it bullshit, it's my opinion. I didn't call yours bullshit, did I? Try to avoid derogatory comments if you want to have a discussion with me π
I happen to be a great admirer of Jackson Pollock. In fact, several of my abstract paintings were done because of his inspiration to me.
I didn't call your opinion bullshit, in fact, if you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm really calling my own opinion bullshit. But, I was speaking generally about how some art is nonsensical without the justification created by an artist's context. Look at Yves Klein's monochromatic works, without context it's just a colour on a canvas, but with context it becomes a piece of art. The only reason I used the word "bullshit" is because it lead into that article I linked about a very interesting exhibition I went to where an artist used cow dung as a medium.
And, yes, Pollock is fantastic, I'm a fan of his work too. Abstract expressionism in general has been a major influence on my life, along with Dada, the surrealists, and the futurists, just to name a few.
I'm just a fan of art, which is why I'm still keeping this conversation going. I'm having fun attempting to explain what constitutes art. In the strange landscape of this post-Warholian world we find ourselves inhabiting there is no way of ever truly being able to define "art", but we can certainly entertain ourselves by trying, haha.
Anyway, I'm sorry if I've offended you. I'm just trying to have a little fun.
All good. I guess it was a bad choice of words when you wrote "your bullshit". It would have been more accurate to write "one's bullshit".
More formal, less colloquial, to me it sounds like the difference between an aristocrat and a normal human being. It always feels awkward and unnatural for me to use "one(s)" instead of "you(r)". But that's just me. I'll try and watch my language in future, haha.