SU Podium Forum
Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
arqcova

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 372
Reply with quote  #1 

Hello just wanted to share the second exercise for the chairs mandalas:

50th birthday, with 50 chairs,  mandala of creation_clay.jpg 

50th birthday, with 50 chairs,  mandala of creation.jpg 



__________________
https://www.behance.net/CuevaRoja
bigstick

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 10,334
Reply with quote  #2 
These are really cool! I personally prefer the clay render mode version.
You are creating abstract sculptural forms with mundane mass-produced objects that are not the sort of thing that are normally thought of as 'art', and this is art.

Here's the thing for me, if they were real chairs, sprayed white, in a gallery as an exhibit in this , I suspect most people would be far more likely to recognise the quality than most of the bullshit conceptual art we see!

__________________

That which does not kill us makes us stronger
-Friedrich Nietzsche

arqcova

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 372
Reply with quote  #3 
Thanks, bigstick! yeah that's true, for me art means an emotion if the art doesn't "move you" it isn't art.... any conceptual art, performance or blank canvas hanged on a museum if it doesn't make an emotion for the observer or the experimenter is not art.
__________________
https://www.behance.net/CuevaRoja
jlo

Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #4 
Bigsticks comment made me re-look at the images. It begs the question of what is art and even harder to answer- what is "good" art? The images are cool. It is an interesting play of conventional to unconventional. Would it be more "artistic" if someone physically made this instead of using a sketchup plugin? I'm sure if I did see this in an art gallery, I would look at it differently. I guess that means art is somewhat both a representation of the author's ideas and also it's relevance that the viewer perceives. Sometimes art is just something that makes you think differently...
bigstick

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 10,334
Reply with quote  #5 
I think the whole issue of what constitutes art at the moment, given the prevalence of conceptual art (I prefer 'con' art) is in a bit contentious.

It's not necessarily what moves you, because much of what is accepted as art, even 'good' art, doesn't move anyone. And many things which are intended to be art which do, could arguably not really be categorised as 'art'.

Have a look here for example. It's moving in the sense that it captures the artist's state of mental despair and disarray, and it's clearly evident - but is it a snapshot of reality, or is it art? Is the mere fact that it is captured and presented as 'art' enough? It's not like a photograph where it's reality captured in a way that is visually striking and unusual, and presents us with reality but from a different perspective.

This piece is notorious, it was nominated for the prestigious Turner prize in the UK, but most of us will look at it and have a WTF moment...

I struggle with contemporary art every time I visit a gallery (I visit them fairly often) and I see a lot of random shit that is meaningless and that isn't particularly interesting to look at. I visit the ICA (institute for Contemporary Art) in London pretty much every year, and each time I go, visitors probably take pity on me because they think I have Tourette's.

The café is good though...

__________________

That which does not kill us makes us stronger
-Friedrich Nietzsche

exhibitions

Registered:
Posts: 33
Reply with quote  #6 
Well...the old debate of what is and isn't art eh?

Seeing as this is the field I work in I'm just going to give my simple rule of thumb. I can actually agree with you arqcova - if that is what art is to you. The thing is the bottom line is that for the person looking at or experiencing art this is a deeply personal question. Only each one of us can answer that for him or herself. So if something must move you to be art, then it is your perogative to set that definition. However, we must remember that since it is so deeply personal we can't expect to set that criteria for everyone else.

Bigstick, I know the piece you are referring to, and I know people for whom this is a powerful and meaningful piece.

The problem we face is that even though art is subjective there are times it needs to be qualified (as in the turner prize, or even in art school critiques) and we have no choice but to turn to the arc of art history, critics and the artworld to set these qualifiers. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with the outcome each and every time.

To me the key to me is simply to be open, not only in your own interpretation but for others' interpretations as well. After all we each lead an individual existence ultimately only defined by our own experience.

Excuse the diatribe, take it for what it's worth.

My vote is for the all white setup 😉
arqcova

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 372
Reply with quote  #7 
Thanks all for sharing your opinion!
__________________
https://www.behance.net/CuevaRoja
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.