Art

Sucks

The BIG one. By that I mean a penis.

(*EDIT* : Read what I actually typed before making a comment, there has been much too much reviewing and repetition and I am slowly losing the will to live, thanks. In this post I mention fractal generators, I am by no means trying to discriminate against people who use them (I have!) or any of the other subjects I mention. It is the modern definition of art which I want to attack, NOT DIGITAL ART in and of itself. Both have their application and ups/downs. I support digital as much as traditional and now practise both).

Once upon a there was art. Art was great. Art was the best we had. Art was... the future!
Art was the emerging trends in architecture, fashion, and I dare say technology. Art captured the moment like nothing else could! There was no disposable digital endlessly replicable copy of a copy, there was blood sweat and tears, there was individual style, there was a discipline, a time-seasoned skill which just got better and better.

Then technology happened. Then the world became a bigger place. Then everyone knew about it. Then everyone had access to it. Famous artists can use presets, admirers acquire the same presets, and make the exact same product at breakneck speed. Look how NOT unique funky famous digital styles become once the artist distributes his presets, textures and brushes Photopshop or Painter. Fashion continues to fall back on itself, territory already exhausted. Art became a visual key to be abused, to sell, to hypnotize.

Art became weaponized. Oooh cryptic!

'Authorities' (Big world renowned galleries and publishers) on art tell us Tracy Emin is genius, Damien Hirst is a visionary. Other 'Visionaries' with digital tools, poster boys for big digital art software manufacturers, sponsors, money, technology, sensation, more money, more sensation, more technology, more sensation, more presets, more money......... blah.

This is art so they say?

Well... Art SUCKS!

I hope you don't mind my quoting you Guyo (I realize you were talking more about these digital toys like silk etc, but the spirit in which you say it is what struck me.)



Could not agree more. I understand these programs are supposed to be just for fun. Problem is, there is so much of this stuff filling up websites where people post 'art' to try and reach people... Only to be so hastily drowned by torrents of mandelbulb, apophysis and other fractal flames, weavesilk screengrabs, and UNGODLY amounts of manga, fan art, fantasy elves, cosplay.....

So then where does this leave an (EXTREMELY amateur) traditional 'artist' ?. Though I am myself such a n00b, I have been asked many times 'what program did you use?' , 'What type of airbrush do you recommend?' as if I MUST have used a tool to do most of the work. I have zero experience with either. I really do not want to cast myself as some sort of self righteous-traditional OLD DOG who refuses to evolve into the current most (insanely disproportionately more popular) medium, but it just seems as if traditional really is falling by the wayside. The only really famous traditional art these days seems to be super minimalist, craft-less irrelevant junk, such as a bunch of dots on a canvas, or the grossly inflated AMAZE-POW-ZAP-SPARKLY diamond encrusted skull... just BECAUSE. Because someone has too much money. Because it works. Because people won't shut up about it.

You may be thinking (hey, this is the DMT Nexus after all) 'Don't you know about Venosa? Dude, you should totally check out Alex Grey! He's a psychedelic traditional painter and he is super famous!'.

Sure. Ask the average bear who these people are. Watch as they search their brain for these names and come back with the answer/question: 'Who?'. Then ask them about Damien Hirst. 'Oh HIM... yeah didn't he saw a shark in half? Totally nuts man!'. Really. One is a skilled painter whom should be respected for his time and technique, dedication and vision. He is BIG in little psychedelic corners. (I'm using what I think is the BIGGEST example with Grey, the rest of them are far less known). The other saws a shark in half, paints dots, is a super world famous multimillionaire.

Forget trying my damnedest to materialize my imagination, I would gain much more appreciation for laying on my back, flipping my legs over my head and pissing in my own face. After all, in the traditional world, that's what ART is! As I gargle my own urine, please inject meaning and make me rich.

Art SUCKS then! I propose we call GOOD art 'craft'. Art is an inflated word. It's meaning is clearly subjective, unless we invoke a dictionary :

noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Like a really good BLT! Because I say so!

2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.

So art is anything usually recognized as art in the first place... ?

3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

So art isn't even one discipline but a vague term for anything... umm... 'arty?'

4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

So everything recognized as art just IS...including sculpture, unless attached to a building where it floats straight over the ether of definition once again.

5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art

Almost everything we see in any modern society. It's always in your face.

Not all that clear as to explaining why an unkempt bed complete with condoms and bodily secretions is revolutionary ART then (Tracy Emin!). Modern art seems to be all about notoriety, regardless of how little craft was used, so long as it inspires at least a bleat amongst the pretentious wine-sipping gallery 'hmm yes this scratch on the ceiling is BLOWING MY MIND' sheep. (I'll drink the wine and fake appreciation, PRO TIP: it's free! Sneaky git!)

I'd like to inspire debate but do not want to be torn a new one by those who support modern art, or prefer digital or traditional art.

1: Yes I understand ART is subjective, this is part of my point.
2: I understand the relevance of digital art in the industry and for leisure.
3: I understand how digital art empowers some to create more.

But ask yourself: 'Do I like this painting because of it's superb craftsmanship, or because it is bright and colorful?' Craft= craft, bright color alone and nothing else = ART.

I propose that good art is 1% art, 99% craft. It is craft that takes work, patience, countless failures, rejection, refinement, perseverance, skill... Craft is what makes makes work stand the test of time. Craft is not disposable and cannot be cloned, only learned by the individual, who by simple force of nature develops his or her unique nuances that make the 'art' YOURS.

*EDIT* TL;DR:
Digital art is not better than traditional and vice versa. Digital is more popular, and thus there is more naff digital art (less craft = more art) than traditional art on the internet, which is likely the biggest gallery in existence. In the traditional realm, the famous folks are letting the side down with minimal trite crap infused with false meaning, it makes a lot of money. Like so much cosplay, fan art, cartoons and random fractals and graphics (some of which may indeed be very good!) it seems to drown out the hard traditional stuff. Whilst there may be genre titans of either traditional or digital, the most vacuous and least crafted art is the most numerous and most famous. Craft (skill, technique, raw imagination and practiced execution) is what's up!

But ART...

Art is pissing in your own face.

Well..you can see people banging out digital fractals one after the other like it's nothing. It's still art and creative, but it's not something that impresses me. Id rather have something that someone did by hand, or at least did some of it by hand. There is more work invovled, but there is also something more like "spirit" in it then also IMO..

Just so you don't feel like your subject is suckey too.

Feel free to disagree, I think I will edit the original to make it clearer I'm not saying fractal art sucks... I'm saying the modern 'definition' of what makes art ART sucks.

only Andy Warhol's art sucks.

I don't know how I feel about this, to be honest. I suppose that somewhere deep inside, your rant makes me feel defensive. I can't say that I don't understand your aversion; much digital art is disposable. But I guess I just feel that good art is good art, no matter what the medium.

Yes, the market is flooded with software that enables many more people without traditional skills to pump out visually impressive results. But I would challenge you to visit this gallery - http://www.zbrushcentral.../zbc-top-row-gallery.php - and deny that it showcases some of the most awe inspiring displays of craft that you'll find from any medium. If Da Vinci were alive today, he would be rockin' the ZBrush. It's just a tool, like any other - and I can tell you it ain't no shortcut.

I imagine that the art world was similarly full of nay saying traditionalists back at the turn of the last century, who dismissed early cubist efforts as noodling, or later assumed abstract expressionism to be a passing fad. My point is that time has a way of determining lasting value. There are shit oil painters as there are shit digital painters, just as there are masters of both.

I'm afraid I can't level with you because that definitely NOT the point I was trying to make and I would very much like to edit or expand upon any parts which may point towards me bashing digital art in and of itself.

It's the modern definition according to those with the most popularity which I find myself very opposed to. Be it traditional or digital I have no qualms, except in cases where very fast repetitive basic fractal art or fan art (most of which is digital anyway) drowns out other peoples hard work by sheer volume, just because it happens to be more accessible. And because most art going today seems to be shite (sorry, subjective), and the vast majority seems to be digital, it takes the bigger whack to it's credibility by default. But that's not my point.

I think we talked briefly about ZBrush before, I myself would love to get to grips with it, it would sure as hell beat the faff of using oil based clay for mockups IMO.

*EDIT* f it, see the opening and TL;DR

Personally, I guess I define "art" as any form of creative expression - and that would (in my definition) most definitely include dance, music, architecture, performance, and any visual medium, whether it's achieved with pencil, paintbrush, lump of clay, camera, or pen and Wacom tablet (to name just a few).

Methinks you doth protest too much. Why not just block out that which you hold in low esteem and get down to the business of painting? The more narrowly you define the parameters of just what is and isn't art, the more you limit your own possibilities and potential for future growth.

Just my two cents...

To clear things up..I was only referring to the simple fractal art that you can find all over places like etsy that seems like it was made really fast with some program and not much creativity, that people then want to sell for like 40 bucks a print. There is just tons of it...there is obviousily really great creative digital art also but it's obvious when you see it that someone really put effort into making it.

I guess its the same with electronic music..there is some really realy great electronic music out there and it requires real talent to produce it.

Art is like pressing a visual pleasure button. I say do it to the max until the thing breaks, which is usually what happens with easily producible artwork. You have to admit that fractal flames looked like the most awesome thing ever when you saw them. When they truly get old and when people run out of ways to renew their novelty, people will stop producing them.

For me, art is like masturbation. If I can produce something that makes my own eyes go , that's awesome. If other's get the same sensation, then good for them.

Personally, my main art medium is generative art, but I practice in this medium by programming algorithms that allow me to study the beauty of novel math-based patterns. Being able to create fractal flames is great, but the real power of generative art is in being able to program something like the fractal flame generator itself. When you can make something like that from scratch, the beauty and novelty of your creations is limited only by your dedication and creativity.

That doesn't mean I don't envy the far superior talent necessary to produce works like Blue lunar night's Ganja Lion

I think it's also important to understand that art isn't always something to be measured in degrees of craft or difficulty. In fact, what I sometimes find lacking within the world of seriously accomplished CG artists is that the focus is overwhelmingly on craft and overall technical mastery, and that there's often very little subtext beyond the visual fireworks.

There is no shortage of technically perfect art (traditional and digital alike) that I personally find to be vacuous. And just like I would rather listen to Patti Smith than Celine Dion, I'll take Andy Warhol over Maxfield Parrish any day of the week. Because art is more than the sum of its parts. It's not scored on some kind of a points system. And if someone pissing in their own face (to use your example) stirs me to feel something, captures some truth not previously evident or inspires a novel perspective, who is to say that this isn't art?

Isn't that what you're after with yours?

A very artsitic thread title. I think art should provoke an emotional response. I remember some people being outraged at the use of samples to make music. Don"t worry mate, it"ll all come out in the wash.

Perhaps better title than "art sucks" is "most art sucks"
for me, all forms of art just like people in the world the majority sucks and only a very small percentage doesnt. But All art cant be only beautiful or ugly, just like anything in life theres the full spectrum. You seem annoyed that all art is lumped into category of "art" well indeed most art doesn't coincide with it's definition for ME or for YOU but you see the problem is its very subjective. Like whos to judge if the art is "beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"? or if the art is craft? whats to us dogsh@t, the person who created it or some might actually believe it is craft or "beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"... But yeh its tricky perhaps art needs a more broad and subjective definition since pretty much any creation can be viewed as art depending on the viewer.

Nailed it! That's my definition of art as well. My main form of expression (or art, if you will) is through music and sound. I have spent more than two decades on the guitar (and vocals, bass and drums to a more, minor extent) so I guess you could say that is the craft I have learnt, but the thing that gets me most excited at the moment is the recording process and manipulating sound and creating sonic architecture through Pro Tools. My skills and years at my craft give me a great platform to pour into the recording process but in the end they're all just tools, as is my life experience.

To paraphrase Uncle Knucles, art is expression in it's most essential form, an expression of your life, as experienced through the unique perception each one of us has as our birthright. For some artists, the process is the point and the end product is sometimes completely irrelevant and mostly, is for the viewer/audience to appreciate and dissect.

Great topic by the way!

Sometimes it's like I'm being told the things I just said myself. I doth indeed protest that this is more craft than art. This by definition is art, as outlined by the dictionary. How much skill goes into making this? How much craft? It's a urinal with some scrawl on it. No matter which way you slice it, from a craft sense, this equates to a sneeze. But from an ART sense, oh boy! You could have the most airy fairy wishy washy philosophical debate, infuse it with such meaning! But ultimately, it's a god damn urinal with scribble on it. So yes indeed, I wave the term ART if this is officially art(as official as official can be in the art world, and by dictionary terms). One (ART) is very vague, the other (Craft) is very clear. One can be the biggest pile of toss ever... the other by it's very definition has to be good, objectively, even if you don't like it, it's craft. This is why I can't ever say a painting is crap if the artist clearly demonstrated craft. If one demonstrates art, they don't even have to do anything... Even if you infuse meaning onto a toilet, that is your imagination doing the work, not the artist, that is your mental craft so to speak.

Maybe I'm just jealous that these people get rich from dicking about. Maybe I got it all wrong and deep down I'm just greedy and bitter and think my efforts or futile. Or maybe it's just because I just want to outright reject this crap because it SUCKS.

That is a valid point, but the urinal is anti-art. I don't consider it to particularly creative OR crafty. More so it is a meant to represent a protest of traditional art.

I could go on for many pages on this subject, but I'm fighting off a cold and can't give this the vigor I'd want to. But in brief:

-I resonate with a lot of Art V's comments: in particular, the one about ignoring the crap and just soldiering on. What else can you do, but let it defeat you? The thing you have to remember about the mainstream art world is that it's an institutionalized thing, complete with all the money/power/influence brokerage going on. People like Hirst become famous for the same reasons a boy band like N'Sync does: and it's certainly not because of talent. Many fine musicians soldier on despite knowing they will never have that level of material success. You kind of have to as well.

- Yes, craft has been largely excluded from the modern art equation. I think fine craftsmanship is unwelcome in those circles because it shines an unflattering light on the slap-together stuff. This snake may eventually finish eating its own tail as the public stops accepting visually nonexistent art, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

- Art, I've always liked Parrish, not for his powerful emotional fire (which his work totally lacks) but because of his high level of craft. He built tiny models of mountains and such in his garage, worked from photos to create a high sense of realism. A lot of what I do with references is influenced by him. One notable thing is that he has never been accepted as a "fine artist" and given visibility in mainstream institutions. He is considered a "mere illustrator", which is both unfair and sort of accurate. At his peak, his art graced calendars in millions of American homes, far more than Warhol ever made it into. Emotionally, it was targeted at the mainstream though, and designed to meet the needs of a paying client. To me, that defines the distinction between art and illustration.

- as far as all these fancy new tools go, what makes fine art is all in how you use them, what kind of deeper substance you might bring to the table. I agree with Hixi about generative art: the deeper your involvement with conceiving/ designing/ using the tools, the more "art" you can take credit for. An artist can become very deeply immersed in digital artmaking, same as a traditional painter. It's the depth of this relationship that defines the depth of the art, IMO.

- I have decades of full-time traditional art experience, and am a bit of a purist about certain things. I find it to be a worthwhile challenge to visualize something impossibly complex, then work out the steps using different tools and methods to translate this vision to canvas. Paint is an ancient medium and I like the thought of rendering hyperspace using this archaic tool. Nonetheless, as I get more deeply involved with using digital tools, I've begun seeing digital art as having as much depth as traditional art. It's about the process, the experience. It took me well into my forties to accept this, but digital art IS art. Some good, some (most?) bad.

- considering that artistic pursuit is, on a Darwinian level, little more than a fancy display of plumage used to attain status and attract mates... Well, any of us that can make a living at it should thank our lucky stars.

(Orion posted the toilet while I was busy typing, but I'm leaving it here anyway)

Once upon a time a firebrand artist known as R. Mutt (AKA Marcel DuChamp, who was actually a very accomplished painter) hung a toilet on the wall and called it art. The art world had a conniption fit but the decision stuck: call something art, and it's art. As psychedelic people, we should appreciate the paradigm-shifting boundary demolition of this event. Sure, it's spawned a lot of terrible art. But it's also helped make all this other creative freedom possible. Lets try to bask in that, enjoy it. Things could have been much different- if you wee a painter in the 1600's, you would be allowed to paint Jesus and Mary... Anything else would land you in a stone cell. The modern art world is perverse and unfair, but we have our freedom, and the ability to make the most of the situation if we so choose.

Make art to please yourself. That's rule #1. All else should follow from there.

i think craft can be subjective as is art. How do you know how much skill really went into that and how much skill does a piece of art need to have to be considered craft? who can make these judgements? skill is the ability to do something well, that dude i guess had the ability/skills to make a urinal well so some might consider that craft, whats skillful in your mind might not be skillful in someone elses...tricky and subjective as well

Good words guyo, I do not disagree in the slightest. But as for yours and Art Van's comments about not letting it deter me, well.. I don't. I never have, I've thought this for years but never mentioned it. I bet somehow somewhere someone will say: 'AHA! You did an art!' But I'm not going to lose sleep or stop painting over it.

And as for Duchamps piece being art or anti-art (It was rejected from exhibition originally), Duchamps own words are verbatim as to the intention of the piece. I can't even find anything other than him saying something to the effect of 'choosing an object makes it art'. Ok thanks Mr authority on art, for being objective about your subjective view. How very modern! And so it will always be art if you say it is.

I applaud every dude or dudette who uses imagination and rises to the challenge of creating art which is mostly craft, and I would say most every piece submitted here on the nexus is a demonstration of craft used to illustrate an experience of/or thought. Sure you can call it art, but you can call anything art, so why do we even have this word ? For me it is because it takes so long to explain this, which is why I waited till now.



It's about how much craft goes into a piece. You are not born with the ability to make things like this, you need to learn. Even if you excel at it so much to the point you can do it effortlessly, you deserve the credit because you spent time teaching yourself. And he didn't make the urinal, he chose it. If he had made it, that would be an execution of learned craft. All he did was pick it up, write on it, turn it sideways, and exhibit it. Craft is objective because the definition of craft is not open to interpretation, whereas art is. It's like saying chemistry is subjective and sits alongside religion.

well i am also a little taken aback by the new softwares like weavesilk and what not that is out there

but the softwares will never beat The Artist , true hardwork , passion and love will not go down

sure many can use softwares like weavesilk,aphoysis, mandlebubler and photoshop , however without understanding Perspective , pattern , design , weight , colour combinations ,characterization , light and various other concepts and principles , who can say he's truly an Artist

love for Art of an Artist is so great that the Artist creates with magic itself , no rules only tools

da vinci ,dali , escher , alex grey , luke brown

all hardworking and talented Artists , the Geniuses of our time , they can definetly use softwares to a much greater advantage than anyone not diligent enough

many can create fractals and so can da'vinci if he gets a laptop and software and he'll create better fractals than many others who are not very passionate about their work ,

modern and most commercial Art does suck and many are becoming rich for nothing , yet they are not becoming Artists , they are simply buissnessmen , they are not Artists , their brains are nothing but filled with crap and looking at their Art , one simply knows , God is laughing at their condition and does not care for these mediocre grade wannabe's who wanna show off with vomit on the canvas , once again modern Art does suck

Great Artists whether using softwares or traditional mediums will always be better than the so called modern Artists