I saw a red circle on a white background and someone told me that was art. It might be art but it is not good art. If one is going to place a piece of art in public it should be good art. I am told it is really hard to paint a really red circle. Ok so its hard, but it is definitely not creative!
2006-07-14 03:28:14 · 8 answers · asked by jeff m 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
I agree with you. Like when I was in a museum, they showed us a string of light bulbs hung on a wall. One was purposely not on. This, I was told, was supposed to represent the spot of death and darkness within all of us. I said it looked like they needed to change the bulb.
2006-07-14 03:34:47 · answer #1 · answered by freeversecrafter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not very creative but the art reflects the artist's mind. That probably doesn't help with the image of that particular artist. I think that whether good art takes both creativity and skill depends on the person observing the art. Is something conveyed? It doesn't even have to be strong. Look at Andy Warhol. I don't think he really has either. But I do understand why other people see it as good art. He does unique statements or places things out of their normal setting. So, no, in my opinion, good art only takes an eye.
2006-07-14 10:33:50 · answer #2 · answered by mandylynn79_2000 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Good art" is open for interpretation. What you consider "good art" someone like myself could consider crap and vice versa. There is no definition of good art and if you ever study art or philosophy there is really no clear cut definition for "art."(i'm not talking about dictionary definitions.) I'm sure anybody could go into an art museum and pick out paintings, sculptures, drawings, installations, etc. that they love and hate. Regardless, they are all art and they are all good art somebody. It's all interpretation. So, enjoy what you enjoy, and allow others to enjoy what they enjoy. An by the way, I would like to see you try to paint a perfect red circle, a compass wouldn't help :)
2006-07-14 12:07:39 · answer #3 · answered by kid_A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hard to paint a red circle? get a compass, and keep within the lines. a 5 year old could do it. i'm with you on this. unless i can see where the skill and creativity comes into it, art is pointless to me. some people want to sell any old shite. it's got to provoke some kind of emotion, inspire you and go wow! now that's art!!
i reckon Dali was one of the best for both skill and creativity.
2006-07-14 10:35:36 · answer #4 · answered by the man 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what do you mean by skill? does it mean they got an A in art class and followed and mastered all the techniques their teach taugh them?
I don't think you need "skill" to be a good artist. I define good art as something aesthetic, that is, something visual that affects me emotionally, that creates an emotional attachment between me and the art.
Modern art has many people saying "my 3 year old cousin can do that." while the only modern artist I truely love is Mark Rothko, if your little cousin could paint something that overwhelmed me like Rothko I would probably pay him on cookies to make me some of his masterpieces.
but the thing is, we don't see that happeneing very often do we?
good art is creating something that SOMEONE in the world likes. it doesn't have to be good art to you.
2006-07-15 10:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by ashenputtel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you're right. you must be creative as well as skilled. i can make the most creative pictures, but if i draw them with "stick" people, then it's not going to look like art. it'll look like something a 2nd grader created.
2006-07-14 10:32:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you.
2006-07-14 10:32:42 · answer #7 · answered by Justanothergirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well brush strokes can do only so much
2006-07-14 10:31:33 · answer #8 · answered by My Big Bear Ron 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋