[Pigeon]

Could modern art be considered visual philosophy, that ponders the nature of reality, existence, emotion, and expression?

Consider this: If you paint an apple, it's not a real apple, it's just a representation of an apple. It's never going to be a real apple no matter how well you paint it, so why try to paint it as realistic as possible? Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that it is just a symbolic apple, and try to distill what it means to paint a symbolic apple by reducing it to its basest compositional elements?

I think this is what Mondrian was trying to do with his geometric work. If you look at the progression of his work over the years, and read his writings, he simplified everything into a few squares and base colors.

Robert Rauschenburg and Jasper Johns are other good artists to study with this idea of the reality of painting.

A friend of mine asked me though, if you're more interested in pointing out the false reality of painting, why bother painting at all? I thought then that perhaps some artists could be considered philosophers as well.

I paint, therefore I am.

-Dean

------------------
-Pigeon
http://www.darklight.org/dunakin

[Sumaleth]

The line "why try to paint something absolutely photorealistic when you could just photograph it" has, for a long time, been used to help explain the point of 'modern art'.

And the question of why people bother to paint at all when the painting will always be something other than the item it depicts.

The answers to these two questions are just as varied as the meaning of "art".

I think mostly people want to get a "feel" out of their art. An apple is an apple, but in a painting you can give it a "feel". Photography can do this too, but not with the range that painting can. So in one way it's less than an apple, but in the way that matters in art it's -more- than an apple too.

But it's also worth remembering that art is also a technical skill, and that is also part of the enjoyment. That's why some artists trying to get abolute realism in their paintings - in addition to the "feel", they also enjoy the technical challenge. Or the technical results.

Row.

[Awetopsy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
Could modern art be considered visual philosophy, that ponders the nature of reality, existence, emotion, and expression?

---

probly but people have a tendancy to try and draw philosophical meaning out of everything, even when the artist didnt necessarily have any specific thing in mind when he drew/painted/whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
Consider this: If you paint an apple, it's not a real apple, it's just a representation of an apple. It's never going to be a real apple no matter how well you paint it, so why try to paint it as realistic as possible? Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that it is just a symbolic apple, and try to distill what it means to paint a symbolic apple by reducing it to its basest compositional elements?

---

the whole idea behind a painting is to visually represent something, no? doesnt matter if its done realistically or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
I think this is what Mondrian was trying to do with his geometric work. If you look at the progression of his work over the years, and read his writings, he simplified everything into a few squares and base colors.

---

sounds to me like he just got lazy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
Robert Rauschenburg and Jasper Johns are other good artists to study with this idea of the reality of painting.

---

I suppose that there are some artists who take it to a point where the art becomes more about the theology behind the art than the actual art itself.... and I suppose there's nothing wrong with that in itself. I personally dont care for the theological side of art.. I just love to draw. I could care less whether Salvador Dali meant anything to do with teenage sexuality by painting the melting clocks... Its just a cool looking pic to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
A friend of mine asked me though, if you're more interested in pointing out the false reality of painting, why bother painting at all? I thought then that perhaps some artists could be considered philosophers as well.

---

some people are painters. some people are philosophers. some people are both. more power to all of 'em.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
I paint, therefore I am.
[/B]

---

I (insert adjective here), therefore I am.

------------------
Freeze, This is a holdup!! Give me all your Talent!!!

[Dthind]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigeon:
Could modern art be considered visual philosophy, that ponders the nature of reality, existence, emotion, and expression?

---

I am not sure what to say, so I respond:

Philosphy, isn't that expressed literally as the love (or search) of of wisdom, knowledge or someting of that nature.

With all that said. Is 'art' trying to convey wisdom or present something that creates knowledge. If I view an apple that is only an image of an actual apple is that different then viewing the real apple (I dunno, and this has been debated forever).

Or does the fact that an image is viewed creates a sense of wonderment to the actual viewer which in turn causes 'visual philosphy'.

blah.. blah.. blah.. (from me, I don't know).

------------------
Ich habe keine Idee, was ich mich befasse