The Bob Ross techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same techniques for every painting he does.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
The Bob Ross techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same techniques for every painting he does.
damien hirst?
The Damien Hirst techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same lack of technique for every artwork he does.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
The Damien Hirst techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same lack of technique for every artwork he does.
I've no doubt that's true.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
i'm not sure how these examples are supposed to disprove my theory?
in fact, i think they support it!
why are you assuming that Ross's paintings don't evoke emotion? i looked at that painting and felt very peaceful (and then giggled about Bob's happy little trees. )
when i look at the second one, i don't feel anything. it's a sheep in a box. and then i wondered if it was a real sheep, or a fake sheep. that's all.
~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
i'm not sure how these examples are supposed to disprove my theory?
in fact, i think they support it!
why are you assuming that Ross's paintings don't evoke emotion? i looked at that painting and felt very peaceful (and then giggled about Bob's happy little trees. )
when i look at the second one, i don't feel anything. it's a sheep in a box. and then i wondered if it was a real sheep, or a fake sheep. that's all.
I'm just amused he thinks Bob Ross' painting requires 'skill and dedication.'
Get me a fan brush Jamie UK and I'll show you how to paint a 'happy little tree' just like those ones.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
lol! i know! he used to crank those suckers out in 30 minutes or less!
thats 28 minutes longer than it took that guy to get into his bear suit.
so its how long a painting takes that makes it art now is it?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
its pompous beyond belief... any idiot wearing specs could do that.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Roni Horn took a whole lot of close up pictures of a girl. The girl is in water and she moves slightly because of the waves, Horn also moves a little, so each photo is just a little different.
thats 28 minutes longer than it took that guy to get into his bear suit.
so its how long a painting takes that makes it art now is it?
I don't know Dunk, is it?
28 minutes = art but 2 minutes doesn't?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Edit: Ah yes, I did. Sorry. I'm just not used to having you agree with me.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Then he did his job.
His show was about teaching you how to paint.
Of course, hence the show's success. But that's different from an artist with 'skill and dedication' producing great art in its own right. We're talking about 'skill and dedication', not the ability to teach the TV-watching public a few easy short cuts for half an hour.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Of course, hence the show's success. But that's different from an artist with 'skill and dedication' producing great art in its own right. We're talking about 'skill and dedication', not the ability to teach the public a few short cuts for half an hour.
Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.
If Jamie chooses to appreciate Bob Ross' work and see the skill and dedication, then that is his perogative. Your being pretentious about him being a charlatan makes absolutely no sense at all. He was a painter and wanted to share his love with the world. That seems to be dedication to me.
And no, not everyone can paint what he did.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.
If Jamie chooses to appreciate Bob Ross' work and see the skill and dedication, then that is his perogative. Your being pretentious about him being a charlatan makes absolutely no sense at all. He was a painter and wanted to share his love with the world. That seems to be dedication to me.
And no, not everyone can paint what he did.
Look, I loved his show. It's a good, entertaining, relaxing half hour. I still watch it when it's on. I like Bob Ross, he's a cool guy.
But Jamie UK's argument was that Modern Art produced quickly is not real art, whereas Bob Ross's stuff IS... which is a silly statement. Bob Ross's stuff is just as easy to *learn* to produce as Modern Art of the type that Rothko does (and yes, there would be some learning to do to produce a Bob Ross painting - but about an afternoon would do it).
I'm no more pretentious than someone who says 'Modern art = shit'. We're all a bit pretentious, otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about this.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Look, I loved his show. It's a good, entertaining, relaxing half hour. I still watch it when it's on. I like Bob Ross, he's a cool guy.
But Jamie UK's argument was that Modern Art produced quickly is not real art, whereas Bob Ross's stuff IS... which is a silly statement. Bob Ross's stuff is just as easy to *learn* to produce as Modern Art of the type that Rothko does (and yes, there would be some learning to do to produce a Bob Ross painting - but about an afternoon would do it).
I'm no more pretentious than someone who says 'Modern art = shit'. We're all a bit pretentious, otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about this.
I think if maybe some of Rothko's more interesting works had been shown, such as alot of his untitled work from the 40's, then it may have sparked a bit more interest.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I think if maybe some of Rothko's more interesting works had been shown, such as alot of his untitled work from the 40's, then it may have sparked a bit more interest.
I'd like to think you're right - I love Mark Rothko. And I'm hoping to visit the Tate Modern in a couple of weeks and spend a lot of time in the Rothko room.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
who said 'unskilled'....there are varying degrees of skill, and also what one CHOOSES to employ. plenty of artists have the SKILL, and do not utilize them fully b/c the IDEAS are paramount to the technique in their minds.
If ideas are paramount to technique or talent or skills, then anything can be art, which is the case. A black square is art because of the process the artist went through, because of his ideas etc. Fine, call it art then, I call it shit.
techinical ability alone does not equate "art" but merely, technical ability. one can play, draw, paint, etc...but the ideas and concepts are what truly make an artist create art imho.
What qualifies today as art is shit. Anything can be art as long as there's an idea connected to it; a black square, a urinal, random drops of paint, a dinner table... anything can be art as long as the "creator" says it is art, as long as he or she has a meaningful explanation or idea.
Well, sorry but I just think it's pretentious crap. There are plently of artists who also have ideas and concept but use their skills and talent to express their ideas or emotions. I have a lot more respect for them.
You say technical ability alone does not equate art, I say ideas alone do not equate art either. In my mind, it requires skills as well.
I'm just amused he thinks Bob Ross' painting requires 'skill and dedication.'
Get me a fan brush Jamie UK and I'll show you how to paint a 'happy little tree' just like those ones.
Pffft! Get me some all bran and a flag and I'll show you your sort of crap art. Seems to me you'll say anything to prove yourself correct, or should I say superior?
My tongue was very gently in my cheek when I mentioned Bob, although I do have to say I have great admiration for his work. You really must be starting to think there's something in this 'art bullshit' theory most of us are subscribing to. Or is it probably, is actually, that we just don't understand how clever it is to put a sheep in a box, or do some 'splodges' of colour, and then talk about how flippin seductive and provocative it is? Huh?
Pffft! Get me some all bran and a flag and I'll show you your sort of crap art. Seems to me you'll say anything to prove yourself correct, or should I say superior?
My tongue was very gently in my cheek when I mentioned Bob, although I do have to say I have great admiration for his work. You really must be starting to think there's something in this 'art bullshit' theory most of us are subscribing to. Or is it probably, is actually, that we just don't understand how clever it is to put a sheep in a box, or do some 'splodges' of colour, and then talk about how flippin seductive and provocative it is? Huh?
Tongue in cheek? OK. All I know is you compared a great artist with Bob Ross. I didn't know you were joking. Look man, this is all just friendly debate.. If it upsets anyone, I'll bow out, no problem.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Tongue in cheek? OK. All I know is you compared a great artist with Bob Ross. I didn't know you were joking. Look man, this is all just friendly debate.. If it upsets anyone, I'll bow out, no problem.
I was using Bob as an example, I don't know the fellas you go on about, but frankly Mark to say they are great and Bob's work is just two a penny, is pretty much the most ridiculous, not to mention pompous and disrespectful, thing in the world. Who says this stuff? Just because it's taught that way in some elitest art circles, don't make it so. Sorry, voice of reason here, no offence.
Actually, I bet it took longer to do than most of the stuff that 'provokes' your mind, how thought provoking is that?
In fact, I'm really looking deeper into this now, maybe the artist was saying something...:p;)
If ideas are paramount to technique or talent or skills, then anything can be art, which is the case. A black square is art because of the process the artist went through, because of his ideas etc. Fine, call it art then, I call it shit.
What qualifies today as art is shit. Anything can be art as long as there's an idea connected to it; a black square, a urinal, random drops of paint, a dinner table... anything can be art as long as the "creator" says it is art, as long as he or she has a meaningful explanation or idea.
Well, sorry but I just think it's pretentious crap. There are plently of artists who also have ideas and concept but use their skills and talent to express their ideas or emotions. I have a lot more respect for them.
You say technical ability alone does not equate art, I say ideas alone do not equate art either. In my mind, it requires skills as well.
well said.
and therein lies the REAL point: it is not for you or i to deicde if it IS art...but to debate if it is 'good' or 'bad' art, in the most simplistic of terms...now THERE's an interesting discussion.
i completely agree. a LOT of art today is shite.....but again, to dismiss ALL art/artists creating today on that basis, now that's pretnetious - by whomever decides to do so. there are PLENTY of artists working today, right now, who's talents and skills WOULD match up with many ideas of what is 'art'...as people are debating in this thread.
so again this:
modern art = shit
dunk may've backtracked and said it's merely 'opinion'....but presenting an *equation* like that IS wrong, in MY opinion....but really, forget opinions, "modern art = shit" just ain't so. even dunk admitted pollack, chagall, etc....lots of good art and yes, they ALL are under "modern art."
and it's not just about technical ability...or just ideas...it's a melding of both usually, sometimes not always......and just way too much to get into on a message board, at least for me. this is a loooooonnnnnng, interesting conversation to have in person, over coffee...or perhaps IN an art gallery, or museum, and really look at examples and discuss.
anyhoo...i am all for anyone sharing their opinions ABOUT the work, but sorry if *I* am not pretentious enough to say that my opinion, my thoughts on WHAT is ART.....alone...is correct. again, opinions, to me, are in the realm of is it good? is it bad? but is it art? hmmmmmmm....that i don't think there IS a definitive answer. i think you're right, a lot of it is if the creator says it is so, then it is. it is then up to the viewer to accept or reject that premise for themselves...but that still in no way diminishes the creator's *right* to call it art.
LMAO!! I'm an art lover, but i'm kinda on the fence about modern art.... some of it i like, some if it makes you go "hmmmm"....
shit, or not shit. in my mind, the whole idea behind art is to make you think, to cause you to feel something, to ask questions, to start discussions...
so if you're standing there, looking at a plain laquered red slab of wood in a museum, and wondering "why the fuck is this art? this is shit... i'm so angry!" and then you tell your friend about how shitty you think it is, and you have a good laugh over it... well then, it's done it's job!
here are a couple of personal 'favorites' of mine:
And I love On Kawara!! His art you can like on its own, but is also very interesting if you know the info behind it!
I wrote an essay on him while I was still at the Art Academy. I am an art-teacher actually.
I did not read the whole thread yet..just the first or so posts,but:
I agree with Dunk on most of his examples, though I feel most is personal opinion and some things just simply either click with you or they dont.
And then some works you have to see in reality, bc they just dont make any sense digitally. Like Rothko's work.
It is magnificent in real life...very meditation like...imo.
Why not be mediocre and be the best at it that you can be?
I find myself appreciating alot of modern art purely in a comical sense. Like the Sex and the City episode with the art installation where Carrie was caught laughing while all these nerds stood around being all philisophical.
Art is purely about evoking emotion. It isn't intellectual, never claimed to be.
I get the biggest kicks out of the installations like a room that was set on fire or a ransacked fridge.
Van Gogh has always been at the top of my list....the dude painted vases of flowers.
It is not cerebral, it is emotional.
And yes, that stuff stinks.
I am more into modern photography manipulation, sculpture and the works of our own chiquimonkey.
Agreed again!!
Why not be mediocre and be the best at it that you can be?
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Comments
Who decided that? One of the people who were crap at art?
Here, this took skill, talent and dedication.
http://dlucas84.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/bob_ross_csg033_mountain_splender.jpg
This didn't, just needed a dead sheep and a glass box...and a lot of bullshit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1580155/Does-Britain-need-more-modern-art.html
Still on about Bob Ross?
The Bob Ross techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same techniques for every painting he does.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
damien hirst?
The Damien Hirst techniques really aren't as difficult as you think they are. And he uses the same lack of technique for every artwork he does.
I've no doubt that's true.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i'm not sure how these examples are supposed to disprove my theory?
in fact, i think they support it!
why are you assuming that Ross's paintings don't evoke emotion? i looked at that painting and felt very peaceful (and then giggled about Bob's happy little trees.
when i look at the second one, i don't feel anything. it's a sheep in a box. and then i wondered if it was a real sheep, or a fake sheep. that's all.
I'm just amused he thinks Bob Ross' painting requires 'skill and dedication.'
Get me a fan brush Jamie UK and I'll show you how to paint a 'happy little tree' just like those ones.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
lol! i know! he used to crank those suckers out in 30 minutes or less!
thats 28 minutes longer than it took that guy to get into his bear suit.
so its how long a painting takes that makes it art now is it?
http://www.slought.org/img/archive1/1264+press1.jpg (Hermann Nitsch)
http://www.genetologisch-onderzoek.nl/wp-content/image_upload/fabre.jpg (Jan Fabre) (What you're looking at is pillars wrapped in meat)
naděje umírá poslední
so thats the world's shittest butchers in pic 1
and Goliath's local kebab shop in pic 2
its pompous beyond belief... any idiot wearing specs could do that.
i'm certain that years and years of careful thought and planning went into each one of his little masterpieces!
hahaha, love your forwardness about this.
I actually like some of them.
But not the bear.
Although it did kinda make me laugh.
Roni Horn took a whole lot of close up pictures of a girl. The girl is in water and she moves slightly because of the waves, Horn also moves a little, so each photo is just a little different.
naděje umírá poslední
I don't know Dunk, is it?
28 minutes = art but 2 minutes doesn't?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i think you've read my post all wrong.
Quite possibly......
*runs back to sort out the confusion*
Edit: Ah yes, I did. Sorry. I'm just not used to having you agree with me.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
His show was about teaching you how to paint.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Of course, hence the show's success. But that's different from an artist with 'skill and dedication' producing great art in its own right. We're talking about 'skill and dedication', not the ability to teach the TV-watching public a few easy short cuts for half an hour.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
If Jamie chooses to appreciate Bob Ross' work and see the skill and dedication, then that is his perogative. Your being pretentious about him being a charlatan makes absolutely no sense at all. He was a painter and wanted to share his love with the world. That seems to be dedication to me.
And no, not everyone can paint what he did.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Look, I loved his show. It's a good, entertaining, relaxing half hour. I still watch it when it's on. I like Bob Ross, he's a cool guy.
But Jamie UK's argument was that Modern Art produced quickly is not real art, whereas Bob Ross's stuff IS... which is a silly statement. Bob Ross's stuff is just as easy to *learn* to produce as Modern Art of the type that Rothko does (and yes, there would be some learning to do to produce a Bob Ross painting - but about an afternoon would do it).
I'm no more pretentious than someone who says 'Modern art = shit'.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I'd like to think you're right - I love Mark Rothko. And I'm hoping to visit the Tate Modern in a couple of weeks and spend a lot of time in the Rothko room.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
If ideas are paramount to technique or talent or skills, then anything can be art, which is the case. A black square is art because of the process the artist went through, because of his ideas etc. Fine, call it art then, I call it shit.
What qualifies today as art is shit. Anything can be art as long as there's an idea connected to it; a black square, a urinal, random drops of paint, a dinner table... anything can be art as long as the "creator" says it is art, as long as he or she has a meaningful explanation or idea.
Well, sorry but I just think it's pretentious crap. There are plently of artists who also have ideas and concept but use their skills and talent to express their ideas or emotions. I have a lot more respect for them.
You say technical ability alone does not equate art, I say ideas alone do not equate art either. In my mind, it requires skills as well.
naděje umírá poslední
Pffft! Get me some all bran and a flag and I'll show you your sort of crap art. Seems to me you'll say anything to prove yourself correct, or should I say superior?
My tongue was very gently in my cheek when I mentioned Bob, although I do have to say I have great admiration for his work. You really must be starting to think there's something in this 'art bullshit' theory most of us are subscribing to. Or is it probably, is actually, that we just don't understand how clever it is to put a sheep in a box, or do some 'splodges' of colour, and then talk about how flippin seductive and provocative it is? Huh?
Tongue in cheek? OK. All I know is you compared a great artist with Bob Ross. I didn't know you were joking. Look man, this is all just friendly debate.. If it upsets anyone, I'll bow out, no problem.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I was using Bob as an example, I don't know the fellas you go on about, but frankly Mark to say they are great and Bob's work is just two a penny, is pretty much the most ridiculous, not to mention pompous and disrespectful, thing in the world. Who says this stuff? Just because it's taught that way in some elitest art circles, don't make it so. Sorry, voice of reason here, no offence.
btw, if I was really making a joke I would have said this was better than your guy..
http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/dogs%20playing%20poker22.jpg
Actually, I bet it took longer to do than most of the stuff that 'provokes' your mind, how thought provoking is that?
In fact, I'm really looking deeper into this now, maybe the artist was saying something...:p;)
well said.
and therein lies the REAL point: it is not for you or i to deicde if it IS art...but to debate if it is 'good' or 'bad' art, in the most simplistic of terms...now THERE's an interesting discussion.
i completely agree. a LOT of art today is shite.....but again, to dismiss ALL art/artists creating today on that basis, now that's pretnetious - by whomever decides to do so. there are PLENTY of artists working today, right now, who's talents and skills WOULD match up with many ideas of what is 'art'...as people are debating in this thread.
so again this:
modern art = shit
dunk may've backtracked and said it's merely 'opinion'....but presenting an *equation* like that IS wrong, in MY opinion....but really, forget opinions, "modern art = shit" just ain't so. even dunk admitted pollack, chagall, etc....lots of good art and yes, they ALL are under "modern art."
and it's not just about technical ability...or just ideas...it's a melding of both usually, sometimes not always......and just way too much to get into on a message board, at least for me. this is a loooooonnnnnng, interesting conversation to have in person, over coffee...or perhaps IN an art gallery, or museum, and really look at examples and discuss.
anyhoo...i am all for anyone sharing their opinions ABOUT the work, but sorry if *I* am not pretentious enough to say that my opinion, my thoughts on WHAT is ART.....alone...is correct. again, opinions, to me, are in the realm of is it good? is it bad? but is it art? hmmmmmmm....that i don't think there IS a definitive answer. i think you're right, a lot of it is if the creator says it is so, then it is. it is then up to the viewer to accept or reject that premise for themselves...but that still in no way diminishes the creator's *right* to call it art.
and.......back to work!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I SOOOOO agree with you!!
And I love On Kawara!! His art you can like on its own, but is also very interesting if you know the info behind it!
I wrote an essay on him while I was still at the Art Academy. I am an art-teacher actually.
I did not read the whole thread yet..just the first or so posts,but:
I agree with Dunk on most of his examples, though I feel most is personal opinion and some things just simply either click with you or they dont.
And then some works you have to see in reality, bc they just dont make any sense digitally. Like Rothko's work.
It is magnificent in real life...very meditation like...imo.
Agreed again!!
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11622483/Thomas_Kinkade_Oil_Painting.jpg
to this?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mas53/pisschrist.jpg
And what are you reasons for your preference?