Art

1. 60

   Erudite Scholarposted 3 years ago

   
   What do you think of the Black Square by Kazmir Malevich ?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      lovetherainposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It is a little boring, but still pleasant to look at.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Art is in the beholder.
      
      This is not my cup of tea.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Nor mine, Castle.  But then I find nearly all "modern art" rather distasteful.  A recent visit to an art museum resulted in leaving far earlier than expected and visiting another museum across the road.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Nonrepresentational art depict shapes, colors, lines, etc., but may also express things that are not visible – emotions or have feelings.
            
            Realistic art is much more popular today. I used to loose in international art contest to this kind of art in the early 80s.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               @Castle, Kazmir's Black Square evoke many emotions, it is a representation of voidism. Life has become like a shell.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Personally it doesn't bring emotion to me. Yes, some kind of avoid shell feeling.
                  It could fit with someone wallpaper.

                  replyreport
         2. 60

            Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            @wilderness I agree that Art especially non-representational art is not palatable to everybody.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I would say, not most popular with people.
               
               Although may not yell at the furniture or likely blend in with the landscape or architecture.

               replyreport
   3. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      With art you also need context. As visual art like painting is a language. The more you learn the language the more interesting the art becomes.
      I can read the Russian alphabet, so I can read Russian books. But I have no clue what they are about because I do not know the meaning of the words. The books are boring to me.
      
      Kazimir Malevich was like a lot of painters at the time trying to find a new way to express the world. By simplifying shapes he came to an abstraction.
      Before he painted the black square he painted a lot of crosses. Now if you know that, you can imagine that the black square could simply be the core of the cross, the center. Knowing this you can look at the black square completely differently and see it in a spiritual way.
      
      There are more painters who painted a black square, all from a different point of view and with a different background. Like Agnes Martin for example who painted a black square with the title The Sea in 2003. It's not a copy of Malevich as it is made with a completely different idea in mind.
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Peter,
         Thanks for the insights. I like the way you have elucidated the idea.Artists like Malevich were trying to change the old way of creating art.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            ... of defining Art.

            replyreport
   4. 83

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I've always been uncouth and uncultured as it concerns the appreciation of art, and I forget what first inspired the way I interpret art. When I look at this I see its level of importance, how it became important, the finer nuances of the brush strokes and how we made it to this point... and I want to see it burn. The destruction of fine art has always been my flavor of artwork, and still to this day I am waiting for an artist who obtains fine art for the sole purpose of destroying it.
      
      So what do I think of the Black Square by Kazmir Malevich? I think I'd like to see it go up in a blaze of glory, and all of the stories it could tell reduced to ash, then celebrated like a martyr to a great cause as more art is brought forth to the pyre. Strangely, though, I only feel this way about fine art; other forms of art don't inspire a fiery, hedonistic, celebratory nature within me.
      
      If you want my knee-jerk interpretation of this: I see an elephant.
      
      As I said, uncouth and uncultured.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Then you must know the story of the drawing by Robert Rauschenberg. He asked Willem de Kooning to give him a drawing so he could erase it. And so he erased a Willem de Kooning. The almost empty piece of paper became a famous artwork.
         An amazing story. You can find him talking about it in a video on Youtube.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            She may like Sand and snowsculpture. It attracts amazing large crowds.
            It's like auto destructive art or a preforming art form.

            replyreport
         2. 83

            Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Link me, homeboy! That sounds like it would definitely be up my alley, and now I'll have a real-life example to support what I once felt was comparatively strange.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Robert Rauschenberg - Erased De Kooning

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  The amount of discussion, the art of just discussing that piece, makes me wish we could all think in such a way.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes one of the important things about art is to share ideas. Discussing the piece. It's poetry, never clear cut but always changing.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        perhaps the role of the artist is to initiate discussion, explore ideas and increase awareness and thereby transform the world.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           ++++ You nailed it.

                           replyreport
               2. 74

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Most interesting thing, is his 6 decade profession as an artist. The most common thread to greatness is practice in their work for 10,000 hours or greater of.
                  
                  I know vaguely about Rauschberg . In Many ways he reminds me, of me. Playing hard for a living with anything you can imagine in materials   formed in 3D. It's, just I did more corporation scale to a high degree of a corrupted artform. Do most of my work for the little guy, today. Involving humanitarian purposes and intent. No longer a toy for the wealthy.

                  replyreport
            2. 74

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               https://hubpages.com/my/photos/gallery
               
               All the sand and snowsculpture on my hubs were done by either  team, I directed or by me.
               
               Sandsculpture titled.
               Torontosaurswrecks
               A secrete protest to the nuclear power plant.
               Front page of the top newspapers in Canada.
               
               Most large sandsculpture projects last 3 weeks, small ones less than a week.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Kyler,
         I understand that you are uncouth and uncultured when it comes to art. I think that your idea of destroying fine art by the old masters is a very scary way of enjoying art. Do you think that we could have enjoyed works of art from artists like Da Vinci or Van Gogh if they were destroyed?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            You'd first have to ask me a question I care about for me to answer it in any meaningful way. I want to burn the art in a celebratory fashion, so my motivation to answer whether or not you could enjoy the art is inconsequential to me personally. It's a pretty redundant question, as well.
            
            I'd derive a great deal of pleasure from burning the most famous pieces from these artists, and I'd call the act of doing so art in and of itself. Now that Peter has shown me the "Erased De Kooning" I know I am not alone in such a feeling. Is it scary that this artist destroyed a piece, taking months to do so, and everyone celebrating it as art? Fire is a great eraser, a thing even the Gods utilize for what millions would call "the greater good",  just ask any Abrahamic religion adherent.
            
            To be fair to your question, though, no. However, I'd venture to guess we'd have many more artists in the world if we were to simply annihilate the benchmarks set for them in a glorious blaze. Then we'd take their beautiful works of art and place them upon the pyre for a crowd to burn as well; more art would take its place, and on we would go until we get bored with our fiery endeavors and create even more interesting ways to destroy the art.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               As a major feature in sandsculpting for venues in a around world tour.
               
               Our team drew 18 million people within 1 year.

               replyreport
            2. 81

               peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Have you ever burnt a famous artwork? I wonder.
               
               The erasing drawing by Rauschenberg was not a destruction. But changing one artwork into another. It's poetry.
               You are talking about destroying art in a way done with "entartete kunst" during Nazi Germany and other dictatorships.
               That's a pure attack on culture and society. So you do agree with the extreme Muslims who blew up the century-old Buddha sculptures in Afghanistan. Because that's basically what you said.
               It saddens me to read your ideas of destroying civilization.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  anarchy

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     No anarchy is something else.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        its destruction is it not?
                        
                        "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
                           
                           
                           that's not the same as destruction. It's a structure/organization without hierarchy.

                           replyreport
                        2. 74

                           Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           From my experience the anarchist are the most non violent, creative entrepreneurs and organized group of people I've ever meet.
                           
                           Most of the multimedia news about anarchist is all lies. Slave masters don't want you thinking for yourself.

                           replyreport
2. 60

   Erudite Scholarposted 3 years ago

   You can check out the full article here https://discover.hubpages.com/art/Black … r-Malevich

   replyreport
   1. 60

      FatFreddysCatposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Promoting your own Hubs in the forums is a no-no.
      
      Just sayin'.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         @FatFreddys Cat How can we discuss the painting without context?
         
         Just askin'.

         replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   What is Art?
   a TV screen turned off?
   a computer screen shut down?
   One black tile from a box of many?
   A print of a black square?
   So, if I stomp on black paint wearing a Nike tennis shoe and then stomp onto a piece prepared matrix and then frame it, I can call it a work of art? and give it some sort of meaning, like this presentation of my sole represents the steps of humanity through time in the onward search for
   b e a u t y ... ?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "So, if I stomp on black paint wearing a Nike tennis shoe and then stomp onto a piece prepared matrix and then frame it, I can call it a work of art?"
      
      Yes, you can call it art, but it probably won't be accepted as art by others.
      The black painting is accepted by many artists and art critics as art.
      
      So what is the difference between your tennis shoe art and the black square of Malevich?
      
      First Malevich made a lot of artworks before he painted the black square. And was already known as an artist.
      You are not known to be an artist.
      
      Art is a profession, which means the artist studies art. The first work of an artist is often not very good. The first drawings of van Gogh are not that great for example. His art became better the longer he studied and worked on it. Also, life experience itself makes the artist better.
      Your tennis shoe art will not be a very good artwork as it is your first one. You lack practice
      
      Then you have the "authorities". The more people accept your work as an artwork the more it will become an artwork. This sounds a bit like magic. But in a way, it's the same as money. The more people accept the dollar as a currency, the more it has the value as a currency. If everybody stopped believing, it would just be a green paper slip.
      
      Art is not just beautiful or ugly. Nothing in life is black and white.
      The black square of Malevich should be seen together with the works he made before and after. Also, it should be seen in the time it was made and the social, economical, and political climate of the time.
      If you look at the work without all these and more factors. It doesn't mean a thing. The black square is for an alien just as stupid as the last supper of Da Vinci.
      
      It does not mean that you have to study the background of all art you see, of course not. But art is there to ask questions, to provoke sometimes, to open boundaries, to show the world in a different light.
      It doesn't answer questions. That's not the function of art.
      Art can be beautiful, but it can also entail many more emotions and thoughts. Esthetics is only one part of the arts, there are much more layers and thoughts attached to an artwork than beauty alone.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Peter,
      Your make very valid points.
      
      Art is not just beautiful or ugly. Nothing in life is black and white.
      The black square of Malevich should be seen together with the works he made before and after. Also, it should be seen in the time it was made and the social, economical, and political climate of the time.
      If you look at the work without all these and more factors. It doesn't mean a thing. The black square is for an alien just as stupid as the last supper of Da Vinci.
      I agree with you that art has to be first studied and that a work of art has to be accepted by art critics.

      replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   "As Malevich’s stated, it was '… the experience of non-objectivity … the supremacy of pure feeling.'"
   
   "Black Square was the most controversial of Malevich’s Suprematist artwork.
   It was exhibited ... in Saint Petersburg in 1915."

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      - so, I could say my shoe print is the experience of the most exhilarating of   subjective feelings: A single stomp of sheer will power.
      - good to know.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Kathryn,
         Do you consider art by Jackson Pollock true works of art?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Hi. Here is a question for you:
            What is the role of an artist?
            No matter what his/her background or accomplishments, an aspiring artist or a professional artist has a role to play in society.
            What is it?
            
            It is not just to make money.
            It is not to merely decorate a surface.
            It is more significant.
            How so?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Kathryn
               
               A work of art on the other hand is defined as a masterpiece when not only an individual understands it but when many people do. There is a common misconception that the fine arts are elitist. While there may be an iota of truth behind this misconception judging by the prices artworks of the old masters fetch at auctions, art is not something you have to study to understand and enjoy.
               
               The role of an artist is to inspire people, transports them to alternate realities, and moves them into the subconscious realms that remain unknown.
               
               You can check out the full article here https://discover.hubpages.com/art/How-do-we-define-art

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  art is not something you have to study to understand and enjoy.
                  
                  But....
                  The more you know something the deeper the love. The more understanding and connection you will feel.
                  
                  Some art has a lower threshold than other art. For example surrealism is loved by more people than conceptional art. Probably because superficially surrealism is easier to grasp. It is figurative, you see the technical skill and it is something strange.
                  Conceptual art often refers to something you have to know beforehand. A critic on art itself. A world the artist has crafted.
                  
                  In a way, it doesn't mean a thing to say something about the black square of Malevich without referring to the works he made before this painting. The painting is strongly related to his other work.
                  It is like reading the last chapter of The Lord of the Rings, without knowing who Tom Bombadil or Isildur is for that matter.
                  If you know more about the artist or the artwork it makes the art more interesting.
                  
                  So art is elitist in the sense that the more you know the more you can enjoy and this asks for effort. But on the other way, art is for everybody as it correlates to the deeper human senses.
                  
                  The world of selling art is a different thing, and the value of a masterpiece money-wise. This is more about speculation than about the story of the artwork and the social value and context.
                  
                  So yes, I would advise people to read the two volumes of the Lord of the Rings before reading the last chapter.... The world of Tolkien will become richer. And so the appreciation of art will.
                  
                  ---
                  
                  “One has no right to love or hate anything if one has not acquired a thorough knowledge of its nature. Great love springs from great knowledge of the beloved object, and if you know it but little you will be able to love it only a little or not at all.”
                  
                  ― Leonardo DaVinci

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey Peter,
                     I am always in awe of your insights in regard to art. I agree with you that for people to understand and appreciate art they need to have a deeper knowledge of the art itself and the artist.

                     replyreport
5. 82

   jbosh1972posted 3 years ago

   Yes because, although whimsical and abstract, you should consider Pollock’s state of mind.  Art is about the creation AND the intention.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Jbosh,
      Pollock's art was interesting, what would you say was his state of mind during the creation of his art?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Pollock was more exciting than the solid strips or plain looking abstract paintings. As an artist for 45 years professionally. Certainly wouldn't want to live as short or in as great a hardship lifestyles as Van Gogh or Pollocks.
         
         I would get more out of Van Gogh.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            The hardship of an artist is a myth. Thanks to van Gogh. Most artists live great lives. Perhaps they are not rich but they have a goal in their lives which is more important I think.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Personally I find Michelangelo life and body of work most impressive as an artist in 2D and 3D arts.
               This Italian sculptor died at age 89 when life expectancy was in their 30s in his period of place and time.
               Pollocks and Van Gogh had illnesses with shorter life span and art works that I as as an living artist  would not be so inspired to.
               
               There is alot more artist even living today, I would be more inspired with and in their healthy living and body of art works.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  It's always difficult to compare artists especially if they lived in a different time.
                  Skill is not the thing that attracts me in art. To me, it's much more the poetry and the new ideas that artists bring.
                  I think the amazing thing about art is that it opens up new windows of thought. An artist shows you the ordinary world in a new light.
                  The work of the artist should always be seen in the timeframe it's made.
                  
                  For instance, the work of Pollock was made in the high days of the cold war. And many artists in the US were supported (unknowingly by the artist) by the CIA to show off to Russia what freedom meant in the west. It was also a cultural war. And many exhibitions in Europe of the American Expressionists were financed by the CIA.
                  
                  I'm not a fan of Pollock and van Gogh either but both artists acted like a battering ram into the art scene. Opening up new ways for the artists to come. Both looked for the boundaries of expression and freedom going further than others did at the time.

                  replyreport
         2. 60

            Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Castle,
            How would you get more from Van Gogh?

            replyreport
   2. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It's interesting to know that Pollock was inspired by the paintings made by indigenous Americans who painted on the sand, horizontally instead of vertically what the traditional way of painting was.
      The process of making his artwork was a part of the artwork itself. His movements with a stick dripping with paint was almost like a dance in trance. You can find a video of him on Youtube when he's painting his huge canvases. Quite interesting.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Erudite Scholarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Van Gogh was a master who was misunderstood during his time.He suffered adversity and this is reflected in his art. Pollock on the other hand lived in relative prosperity. I think that the circumstances the artist finds himself/herself shape their art. Rembrandt did not see reality in 3D, he saw it in 2D.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Pollock struggled with alcoholism for most of his life, 1945. Pollock died at the age of 44 in an alcohol-related single-car accident when he was driving. 
            
            Fame is exciting, yet, I wouldn't 'wish upon Pollocks way of living on any of my veteran artist friends.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               No, alcohol is a dangerous friend. A good friend of mine and a great painter also had alcohol problems. He survived it luckily and is now clean for years. 
               Another friend of mine who was an author was an alcoholic too and died last month of a heart attack.
               Alcohol is a dangerous friend to have.

               replyreport
         2. 81

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "Rembrandt did not see reality in 3D, he saw it in 2D."
            
            I don't think that's correct. Everybody sees the world in 3D, if not you would have an extremely rare illness and not survive the first year.
            He was thanks to the invention of linear perspective and the use of Clair obscure and lots of other visual technics able to translate the 3D world into a 2D world. That's something else than not seeing 3D.
            
            Van Gogh had enough money to buy paint and pastis.... thanks to his brother. Most artists were and are well-educated people and earn enough money to keep their business going.
            The van Gogh story about the artist has to suffer and is always poor is a myth. Most artists I know (and myself included) have a good life. Their goal is not to make money but to create and contribute to the world. That's what makes them happy. Money is just a tool to keep on making art, not a goal.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Peter
               What kind of art, are you doing and for how long?

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Castle,
                  I did my exam in painting and drawing at the school of fine arts AKI (Now ARTEZ) in Enschede, in The Netherlands in 1993 and I'm working as an artist ever since.
                  Moved to Amsterdam in 1994 and moved again to the countryside near Valencia in Spain where I live now for about 15 years.
                  I've done painting, drawing, sculpture, ceramics and at the moment I'm into photography.
                  I'm teaching art for about 25 years (adults)
                  My real name is Joost Gerritsen.
                  https://joostgerritsen.com/
                  
                  You are doing sculpture, aren't you?
                  
                  My art? It's related to the Anthropocene. And how artificial objects (man made) fuse with "nature". Questions about what we call nature and how mankind made a division between itself and the rest of the planet with fatal consequences.
                  My photos are about these questions. Finding the poetry in discarded objects. The interaction between the thrown-away objects and their surrounding. A plastic bag hanging in a tree-like strange fruit. An empty ceramic coffee cup full of pine needles.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Nice, looks like you have worked in a diverse number of art works.
                     
                     I enjoyed Netherlands, did a few international sand sculpture contests there. I've won internationally in 6 different kinds of sculpture material medians. As a professional sculptor for 45 years.
                     
                     One sample is this natives dance among 20 other displays of the history of Oklahoma.
                     
                     
                     https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/4462028_f1024.jpg

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Wow, that looks really cool. pretty pagan!! The drama of war. The uncertainty, loss, and fraternity. I love the figure at the right looking straight at you.

                        replyreport
                        1. 74

                           Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Thanks

                           replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   I once worked for a local Museum of Art as a gallery attendant for about a year. I took the job with the intention of working toward a curator position.
   
   Unfortunately, No. Once you're seen as a gallery attendant, the higher ups will not recognize you as anything else. Very sad for me. I made a mistake. I should have done it the right way with a Masters degree in Art or Art History, I suppose. But then, even my niece tried and tried to land a curator job with her Masters degree in Art history, which she received from a university in Ireland, and never did. (Now she has three children and is decorating her home after marrying a doctor whom she met on line.)
   
   But, I digress.
   
   As a gallery attendant, (with my eye mostly on the curators,) I noticed that the public would gaze at a painting for very short periods. I began counting the seconds to see what the longest amount of time was.
   
   Can you guess?
    
   Three minutes?
   No.
   Two?
   No.
   One?
   No.
   
   Thirty seconds was the MOST!!!
   
   I would agree, yes, knowing art history, knowing the intent of the artist, his methods and reasons for creating what he has created is very important in appreciating a work of art.
   
   What makes any piece a "work of art" is an interesting phenomenon.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Funny, I've entered 35 world annual sandsculpture championship and placed 24 times.
      
      Same thing to my guess estimate for the average person looking at worldclass sculptures is about 30 seconds.

      replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   I have always liked "carving" sand images, (star-fishes and mermaids, of course,) when at the beach.
   
   I enjoyed seeing one of Castlepaloma's
   (awesome) sand sculptures here!

   replyreport