jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Describing Street Art, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 9, 2008 1:14:17 GMT 1, A thread recently posted by a member on this forum described a print (they are advertising to sell) as "SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL". When I clicked on the title to see what it was that they were describing, this was the photo that popped up:
I have no problem with the photo or the artists who spray painted the stencil next to the ATM; I think it has an intriguing mix of being a bit funny, a little ironic, and somewhat thought-provoking. I would not however call it "beautiful". Now this thread is not meant to pick on the artist or the producers of this print, I am simply using them as an example of the way descriptions of pieces (or reactions to pieces) on this forum tend to be inaccurate and vague.
One only needs to look in the "Get Your Art Out for the Lads!" thread to see a tidal wave of terms like "beautiful" "stunning" "spectacular" thrown around to describe anything from photos of someone's entire collection, to a stencil on wood, to an edition of 1000 print. And while I am not against the voicing of admiration towards one another, I would much rather tell someone WHY I like it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the overuse of these types of words doesn't further the discussion of the art, it only pats our collective selves on the back, and dilutes their original meanings. "Beautiful" is Monet's "Water Lillies". "Spectacular" is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling. "Stunning" is Jackson Pollock's "One". Banksy's "Nola" print is not any of these former things, it is however witty, provocative, and intelligent, a piece that is well worth having a conversation about.
***Note: Feel free to use the term "corker" to your heart's delight.
A thread recently posted by a member on this forum described a print (they are advertising to sell) as "SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL". When I clicked on the title to see what it was that they were describing, this was the photo that popped up: I have no problem with the photo or the artists who spray painted the stencil next to the ATM; I think it has an intriguing mix of being a bit funny, a little ironic, and somewhat thought-provoking. I would not however call it "beautiful". Now this thread is not meant to pick on the artist or the producers of this print, I am simply using them as an example of the way descriptions of pieces (or reactions to pieces) on this forum tend to be inaccurate and vague. One only needs to look in the "Get Your Art Out for the Lads!" thread to see a tidal wave of terms like "beautiful" "stunning" "spectacular" thrown around to describe anything from photos of someone's entire collection, to a stencil on wood, to an edition of 1000 print. And while I am not against the voicing of admiration towards one another, I would much rather tell someone WHY I like it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the overuse of these types of words doesn't further the discussion of the art, it only pats our collective selves on the back, and dilutes their original meanings. "Beautiful" is Monet's "Water Lillies". "Spectacular" is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling. "Stunning" is Jackson Pollock's "One". Banksy's "Nola" print is not any of these former things, it is however witty, provocative, and intelligent, a piece that is well worth having a conversation about. ***Note: Feel free to use the term "corker" to your heart's delight. |
|
Gurn
New Member
Posts โข 894
Likes โข 904
August 2007
|
Describing Street Art, by Gurn on Dec 9, 2008 1:48:45 GMT 1, Can't really disagree with you here James.The above image isn't beautiful to my eye.It is as you say though thought provoking(especially if it isn't staged)..It is intresting that you describe Monets"Water Lillies" as beautiful because many at the time thought the Impressionists works were ugly.Maybe beauty just takes time to be appreciated.
Can't really disagree with you here James.The above image isn't beautiful to my eye.It is as you say though thought provoking(especially if it isn't staged)..It is intresting that you describe Monets"Water Lillies" as beautiful because many at the time thought the Impressionists works were ugly.Maybe beauty just takes time to be appreciated.
|
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
Posts โข 267
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
Describing Street Art, by sfdoddsy on Dec 9, 2008 2:08:29 GMT 1, Your point is valid. Most street/urban art of the type shown above is indeed 'intellectual'. It is (or tries to be) witty, provocative, funny, ironic etc. It is designed to appeal to the head. To an extent the same is true of a lot of contemporary art.
The artists you mention, on the other hand, produced what I would call 'emotional' work. Work that appeals to the heart.
I know which I prefer, but I'm obviously in the minority.
Your point is valid. Most street/urban art of the type shown above is indeed 'intellectual'. It is (or tries to be) witty, provocative, funny, ironic etc. It is designed to appeal to the head. To an extent the same is true of a lot of contemporary art.
The artists you mention, on the other hand, produced what I would call 'emotional' work. Work that appeals to the heart.
I know which I prefer, but I'm obviously in the minority.
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Describing Street Art, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 9, 2008 4:20:51 GMT 1, Can't really disagree with you here James.The above image isn't beautiful to my eye.It is as you say though thought provoking(especially if it isn't staged)..It is intresting that you describe Monets"Water Lillies" as beautiful because many at the time thought the Impressionists works were ugly.Maybe beauty just takes time to be appreciated.
Great point Gurn... Here is my take on that. I think that Monet and the other impressionists were challenging notions of beauty for their time. Eliciting beauty from the mundane was always the impressionists original intent so of course they weren't considered beautiful during their time, but these works have come to transcend time and culture to help mold what we today perceive as beautiful.
There are a wide array of contemporary artists attempting to change our notion of beauty, everyone from Nan Goldin to Anish Kapoor, unfortunately not to many street artists make it a focus. Except for Swoon (ah! the fitting name!), no other well known street artist really searches out a timely beauty that attempts to transcend time. It will however take time to find out if she lasts.
Your point is valid. Most street/urban art of the type shown above is indeed 'intellectual'. It is (or tries to be) witty, provocative, funny, ironic etc. It is designed to appeal to the head. To an extent the same is true of a lot of contemporary art. The artists you mention, on the other hand, produced what I would call 'emotional' work. Work that appeals to the heart. I know which I prefer, but I'm obviously in the minority.
That's exactly why not many street artists create what one might call "beautiful" work.
Can't really disagree with you here James.The above image isn't beautiful to my eye.It is as you say though thought provoking(especially if it isn't staged)..It is intresting that you describe Monets"Water Lillies" as beautiful because many at the time thought the Impressionists works were ugly.Maybe beauty just takes time to be appreciated. Great point Gurn... Here is my take on that. I think that Monet and the other impressionists were challenging notions of beauty for their time. Eliciting beauty from the mundane was always the impressionists original intent so of course they weren't considered beautiful during their time, but these works have come to transcend time and culture to help mold what we today perceive as beautiful. There are a wide array of contemporary artists attempting to change our notion of beauty, everyone from Nan Goldin to Anish Kapoor, unfortunately not to many street artists make it a focus. Except for Swoon (ah! the fitting name!), no other well known street artist really searches out a timely beauty that attempts to transcend time. It will however take time to find out if she lasts. Your point is valid. Most street/urban art of the type shown above is indeed 'intellectual'. It is (or tries to be) witty, provocative, funny, ironic etc. It is designed to appeal to the head. To an extent the same is true of a lot of contemporary art. The artists you mention, on the other hand, produced what I would call 'emotional' work. Work that appeals to the heart. I know which I prefer, but I'm obviously in the minority. That's exactly why not many street artists create what one might call "beautiful" work. |
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
Posts โข 267
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
Describing Street Art, by sfdoddsy on Dec 9, 2008 11:29:24 GMT 1, I don't think they are trying, with the exception of your Neates, Parlas, Smalls and even Bast and Supine etc.
Not coincidentally I think those are some of the few whose work may make a small dent in the modern art stream
BTW, the lack of interest in these kind of threads speaks volumes
I don't think they are trying, with the exception of your Neates, Parlas, Smalls and even Bast and Supine etc.
Not coincidentally I think those are some of the few whose work may make a small dent in the modern art stream
BTW, the lack of interest in these kind of threads speaks volumes
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Describing Street Art, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 9, 2008 22:12:14 GMT 1, BTW, the lack of interest in these kind of threads speaks volumes
You can't buy anything on it
BTW, the lack of interest in these kind of threads speaks volumes You can't buy anything on it |
|
|
|
gm
New Member
Posts โข 950
Likes โข 15
February 2006
|
Describing Street Art, by gm on Dec 9, 2008 22:50:12 GMT 1, To my eyes that's neither a beautiful photograph nor a beautiful piece of graff - what's going on with its legs?
To my eyes that's neither a beautiful photograph nor a beautiful piece of graff - what's going on with its legs?
|
|
๐ธ