what kind of art is this!?!?

Question

how is a splat of paint conciderd art? like i see paintings that has just a splat of paint on it and nothing else, and they sell it for lik $3,000, how so?

Answer 1

I know what you mean. That's the tricky thing about abstract art. Does it really have some deep meaning or is it just a blotch on the canvas? Sometimes I think it's a case of the emperor's new clothes...no one wants to appear stupid so they will agree that they see all this depth & meaning in a nearly empty canvas.

Abstract art was a reaction against representational art. After the camera was invented why bother to compete with the camera, instead of painting literally what you see, why not paint what you think or feel, why not just experiment with form, colour, pattern. Jackson Pollock's work was groundbreaking & is beautiful in its own way. He threw paint onto the canvas, but did it very passionately. Other abstract artists may just paint a circle or a single line. A lot of it has to do with the name rather than the quality of the artwork. It's very subjective after all...

Personally I prefer expressionistic work (Munch, Schiele). I like to do portraits that are somewhat realistic, yet exaggerated, quirky (my own interpretation of the person). I used to hate abstract art but I've learned to appreciate a lot of it. Especially Picasso.

Anyway, the bottom line is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone with $3000 wants a splat of paint on canvas to hang over their designer leather sofa, then let them pay it. It's a matter of taste. Not everyone likes landscapes, portraits or still lifes. Modern art goes best with modern decor...

Answer 2

This is Abtract Expressionism. It can either be Action, or Color Field. It is nothing but a "stampede" of flowing emotions interpreted into variable brush strokes onto canvas. However, not every "splat" of paint is considered art. Some people think they can be artists just by painting such "splats". Good Abstract Expressionism could be that of Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Helen Frankenthaler, Franz Kline, Hans Hofmann, and Arshile Gorky.

Answer 3

To brief things up, it takes guts and a lot contradictory, fresh notions and manipulative reasonings to start with.

Of course, if you're no artist before (with no skills or knowledge on hand-on arts or art history), there is no way or the chance is a bit steep for you to come up with the X-factor art.

Its all about originality. Thus, originality takes attraction for the spectators to be magnatized to the piece of art. When there are spectators, expect arguements, reasoning, etc.

Marcel Duchamp is a very good example of what I called 'the sneaky, and manipulative artist of the century'. Not that he is a bad artist, but he did prove quite a huge point to a lot of people from around the world with his work 'Fountain' where he only got a toilet bowl for his showcase.

How does he go through this? Simple. Guts.

If you want to ponder more on these kinda "is this what you call art?" articles, probably you can make a small research on works like Mona Lisa by Leo Da Vincci and Starry Night from Vincent Van Gogh.

Answer 4

If a splat sort of has a design to it, it really is art. But $3,000 is an over valuation. If the splats don't ahve any design to them, they shouldn't be considered art. But you'd be surprised what artists do, these days, that shouldn't be considered art.

Answer 5

This is sheer nonsense, in spite of some brainwashed people's futile efforts to utter some obscurantist "ngao si" (as my Chinese lover says about stuff on the ground near cattle) to excuse it. Who can really judge when anything goes in art? A fantasy tale had ET's with much money buying goods of our world. One saw a cowpat and wanted to buy it. Soon, the prices for cowpats was sky high. The ET's laughed as they left. What a great joke upon gullible earthlings to make dung from cattle priceless! One can find this syndrome in painting and in fashion. Witness all of the people wearing denim jeans everywhere often with dress clothes.

Answer 6

Abstract or surrealistic works don't necessarily have a realistic subject ... but all paintings need to have a pleasing or eye-catching 'pattern' or composition ... even if it's only a 'splat of color.' The intenseness of the color ... the placement on the canvas, etc make them desirable.

Answer 7

Any painting...by DaVinci, Turner, Picasso, Murray, Stella, Hockney...pretty much is what it is...paint spread on a canvas. Any music...Ravel, Cline, Orbison, Spears, Brubeck...pretty much is patterned air movement. So, what makes art, art? It's a combination of application, arrangement, and arousal of sense. Why is one better than the other? Norms, edginess, acceptance of critic's reviews, personal reaction...no one has the scientific formula to make it happen repeatedly. Too many variables.

Answer 8

it's what the people see in the art not by it's appearance..... sometimes they even see the feelings of the painter on how spread the paint is.... and they are pros.... they know how to look at a painting

Answer 9

well it also depends on the artist, for example, Picasso could put a simple dot on a page and it would go for millions.
i myself, am only 14 and i sold a painting for $300. it depends on the quality and the artist.

Answer 10

If you think about it, it's like finding beauty in anything. For instance, physical beauty. Some people may not understand why some people like large breasts or tattoos or light skin or dark skin etc........ It's just a preference.