| *the Time Guardian* 15.01.2004 09:19 |
¡Have you seen that before? I think it's amazing !!!!! link |
| Flashman 15.01.2004 09:40 |
I was expecting that to be shit, but some of those are absolutely capital. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.01.2004 10:33 |
WOW... think of all the so called "artists" who sell shit for thousands of dollars, while people like this guy are TRUE, but sadly starving artists. Kudos for him. Awesome stuff. |
| Maz 15.01.2004 11:03 |
The world is full of neat stuff that has absolutely no connection to art. This is neat to look at, but is not art. I imagine his actual income is in line with his true earning potential. Drawing chalk drawings of oversized dead flies is far from being considered "art." |
| *the Time Guardian* 15.01.2004 11:08 |
It is to me cause it looks so real. Try to do something like that as well. Can you manage that? Ps! Zeni - say what is art to you? To me it's all the beautiful things that people have made with their hands |
| ~Silje~ 15.01.2004 11:30 |
That is indeed artistic talent, Zeni. I, too, would like to have your defination of art. |
| Hitman 15.01.2004 11:46 |
Uh...i like those pictures!for me is more "trompe l'oeil" than art, but it's good! |
| Maz 15.01.2004 11:52 |
I do not deny that the man has talent to draw things (nor do I claim that I can do the same), but that is not "art." How do his drawings change the medium? What is his greater or deeper meaning, or is he commenting on society in some way? Is he trying to alter our collective perceptions or influence our thoughts? Art generally addresses these types of questions. Take for instance his picture of the girl in the swimming pool. How is this considered "art"? It may be pretty and life-like, but where does it become "art"? If these pictures had been drawn on a velvet canvas, most people here would dismiss them. Just because they are pretty does not mean they are "art." |
| *the Time Guardian* 15.01.2004 12:06 |
Hm. maybe it's true in some point But then again - there are many kinds of point of views ;) |
| MexQueenFM 15.01.2004 12:15 |
nice drawings :) |
| Flashman 15.01.2004 12:35 |
"If these pictures had been drawn on a velvet canvas, most people here would dismiss them. Just because they are pretty does not mean they are "art."" Zeni, it is because they are NOT on canvas that gives them appeal and also half breaks the 'medium' you're on about. Whether they are art or not depends on the person contemplating them. I wouldn't have them at the Towers, but they are very skilfully done. You should see the annual Turner Prize for art. One year, I visited the exhibits after a particularly boozy night. I took one look at 'Unmade Bed' and promptly threw up. My vomit took third place. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.01.2004 14:25 |
Once again people, Zeni is back here to bring us new definition to a word of common significance. Today's word is... "art". |
| Mayboy 15.01.2004 15:39 |
WOW pretty good :D |
| Maz 15.01.2004 17:06 |
"it is because they are NOT on canvas that gives them appeal and also half breaks the 'medium' you're on about." That's what gives them appeal, I agree. But "art" it does not make them. What do they offer besides 3-D images on the sidewalk? Where is the beauty in form? The social commentary? The explosion in technique? And glad to see Aldanny/Jingles is able to rationally discuss things once again. Apparently "reason" and "intelligence" are words I'll need to define for him later; I guess cheap shots are par for the course with him. It is becoming more and more evident that you have no desire to discuss things in a sane manner. Unlike others, who took umbrage with my opinion and chose to discuss the matter intelligently, you simply made fun of me. You truly are a small person, Danny. I would love to have a 4 page "discussion" with you over your inner-jackassness, but I have little desire to communicate with the irrational. |
| Flashman 15.01.2004 17:25 |
Art, by it's very essence, cannot be defined - for me it's soul lies mainly with imagination. It is in the eye of the beholder. Or to put it another way - One man's masterpiece is another man's 'turd on a stick'. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.01.2004 18:29 |
Well Zeni, perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror before throwing cheap shots. Besides, I never called you any names on my previous post, and here you are once again calling me a 'small man' and a 'jackass'. Well, your last post really prooved that you're the right person to define "reason" and "intelligence", so let it be it. |
| *the Time Guardian* 15.01.2004 18:50 |
Hey hey hey! Please calm down 2 of you!:( |
| Virtuoso 15.01.2004 19:00 |
What is Art,right? Art is any human creation which contains an idea other than it's utilitarian purpose.Beauty doesn't imply itself as a 'value' for Art,but the meaning of what people consider 'beauty' to be from their own eyes,with of course containing an 'idea' behind it from the author of the creation.So "meaning" is to be the consideration of "Art".The purpose of Art lies purely in its ability to portray a concept. Sooo...Zeni's probably right after all. |
| Maz 15.01.2004 19:11 |
"Art, by it's very essence, cannot be defined" "Art" can be defined quite easily. After all, it can be studied and written about, so why can't it be defined? What causes debate is whether or not something matches that definition. In an earlier post, I gave a definition of what "art" is and what it should do. To me, this does not match that definition very well. |
| Daburcor? 15.01.2004 19:11 |
Ooh! Neat-o! *thows art supplies away in a jealous rage* |
| Virtuoso 15.01.2004 19:16 |
Nice sig Zeni |
| *the Time Guardian* 16.01.2004 00:47 |
I said it - everybody has got different point of views. It may be art for some, and fore some it may be not. So is it really smart to think that your oppinion is the correct one, Zeni? |
| Maz 16.01.2004 01:14 |
Gerli Feel free to disagree with me, I really don't mind. The problem is that, short of Flashy, few have offered an opinion as to why this is art. I enjoy an intelligent debate, so please, discuss. I think this guy does have a talent and his work does entertain, but, as stated earlier, it does not become "art." |
| Saffron Caribou 16.01.2004 01:36 |
Don't mean to interrupt, but isn't Da Vinci's sketches, which are drawings of his inventions, and preliminary ideas for paintings,considered to be art? I guess they are. To each their own opinion. :D |
| Flashman 16.01.2004 05:06 |
I think people are becoming confused with the modern take on art, which tends to disappear up it's own constipated arse, and what art really is in it's basic form. Which, in these terms, are pavement drawings. Whether it has 'beauty in form' or not is too personal to be judged by any one person. Zeni may be right about art as it is in it's highest form, but without the basics, there is no art. Give a six year old a paintbrush and a wall, and the end result is art. Don't believe me? Visit the 'Tate Modern' - somebody has repeated this process a thousand times. |
| siljeoen 16.01.2004 05:22 |
wow,-that's really cool!!! |
| Queenleaf 16.01.2004 13:02 |
My friend at camp once drew a (50'?) dragon on the side walk. It was really, really cool.... ...that is really good! |
| ~Silje~ 16.01.2004 16:00 |
Zeni, I believe art can be defined in many ways. I am myself in an art school at the moment, but at times even my teachers seem to be confused by their own definations, and some of them say against each other. When my teachers all gathered to have a class on esthetic philosophy, that brought up a lot of discussion, from me and three of my friends in particular. In the end we got the answer that their defination of art, is everything "God didn't create". Almost anything made by human hands CAN be considered art. Some protested and said that if so, we can find art in nature as well. This, the teachers said, was not the defination we were to use at school, but to the private person, nature can be art. In order to teach us anything at all, they have taken the widest subject and transformed it to something more narrow. All in all, almost anything can be art to a person. Under the right circumstances, with the right person watching, it can have the deepest meanings. OR, it can be art exactly because this is something that has NO meaning. Art is now mostly about creating something new, with a deep meaning, with an artistic side to it. Earlier, on the other hand, art was talent and beauty. The closer you could get to the photography with only some paint and brushes, the greater art it was. And those chalk drawings have amazing talent behind them, and they are considered beauty. You are right, this would not become famous if it wasn't drawn on a sidewalk in chalk, but I think Flashy already explained quite well that it's exactly the circumstances which make it art. And already there I think that the chalk paintings have been defended, at least they have for me. I think the defination of art can vary and SHOULD vary from person to person, exactly to create discussion and for each person to make up their own mind. Is not that what art is about, at least to very many? |
| Flashman 17.01.2004 14:43 |
Did everybody notice how a few of us have just embarked on a discussion expressing different thoughts and arguments in a mature, sensible fashion? Without resorting to namecalling, hysteria, foul language and threats of sour vengeance and dire retribution? This cannot be allowed to continue. |
| siljeoen 17.01.2004 14:49 |
LOL!! |
| Maz 17.01.2004 16:34 |
"Almost anything made by human hands CAN be considered art." I don't particularly agree with that assessment, mainly because I think it is too broad and liberal an interpretation, but I will accept it for the sake of discussion. If that is true, and essentially anything created can be labelled "art," then it is important to distinquish between high-art and low-art, much as Flashy alluded to earlier. To me, this would be considered low-art. Again, it may be neat to look at, and certainly is a good display of talent, but it is not something that will impact the art community. You can see just as many displays of similar talent at a craft show, but I doubt most of us would consider that art. |
| ~Silje~ 17.01.2004 17:37 |
Sure, it is not what I would call high art and a tremendous breakthrough, but it is art nevertheless. And it's amusing art, it's good to see that, as Gerli described in her headline, art is everywhere! I think life would be rather boring without it, it's just so GOOD to see those things. If I walked by it I would feel really happy, and just by seeing the pictures I feel uplifted. Therefore I refuse to look down upon it as something not artistic. |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 17.01.2004 18:11 |
You can add my name to those who believe these drawing are art. It is my belief that 'art' should cause a reaction and by the ongoing debate here, over whether it is art or not, proclaims it as such. However, I hope he has a day job 'cos he's rubbish. His use of colour, light and perspective is very poor. No I couldn't do better I'm not an artist but anybody who owns a Tony Blair mask deserves criticism. |
| Holly2003 17.01.2004 18:25 |
The sidewalk drawings are fun and there's a degree of talent in getting the perspective right (Da Vinci's Last Supper is effective in part because of the impossible perspective) but as Zeni says, it's hardly original or thought-provoking (except perhaps for the businessmen-in-hole drawing which would be a "statement" if placed in the right geographical context - Wall St, for example). The difference between high art and low art is often how much some pretentious twat is prepared to pay for it. For example, Kevin O'Neill, Mike McMahon or Carlos Ezquerra have produced some great, original comic book art. But that's all it is - comic book art. On the other hand, people pay small fortunes for Roy Lichtenstein's work, and he is basically an unoriginal copier of comic book art. Or consider Hiro Yamagata who was considered as a producer of "low art" when he was decorating the insides of shopping malls but is now considered to be producing "high" art only because the wealthy starting paying inflated prices for his work. |
| Flashman 17.01.2004 18:28 |
I never thought I'd see the name Carlos Ezquerra mentioned on these boards. You can't beat a bit of Strontium Dog and Wulf Sternhammer, and that's a fact. |
| Holly2003 17.01.2004 18:32 |
Indeed. |
| Maz 17.01.2004 19:13 |
Kevin O'Neill - Besides his work on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, what else has he done? |
| Flashman 17.01.2004 19:19 |
*Gets out 'nerd specs' and gives 'em a good dusting* 'Nemesis The Warlock' and 'Ro-Busters' spring to mind. I was always a fan of the chap who did 'Slaine'. Might have been called Grant Mills, or did I dream it? |
| Holly2003 17.01.2004 20:49 |
"Kevin O'Neill - Besides his work on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, what else has he done?" I think Marshal Law is his best stuff. "I was always a fan of the chap who did 'Slaine'. Might have been called Grant Mills, or did I dream it?" The early b/w stuff I might've been Grant Mills - the name rings a bell - but that's back in the mists of time so I could be wrong. Later art was mostly by Simon Bisley, with some Glen fabry thrown in for good luck. Those were the days, coats for goalposts and all that... |
| nil 18.01.2004 07:45 |
WOW! That's really groovy! |
| behind blue eyes 18.01.2004 09:37 |
thanks time that brought me some happy just now and i really need it right now. smiles for you. ) |