If you think that I'm basically in agreement with what you are saying but that I've somehow missed your point, you're sorely mistaken, Orion. I find your point of view to be self-limiting and more than a bit small minded. However, if you feel that you are being misunderstood, perhaps the issue is that 1) your argument lacks basic merit, or 2) you're not so good at expressing it.

Now...

I do find it ironic that you would trot out Marcel Duchamp as the ultimate example of supposed crap that is somehow stealing your thunder (100 years after it was created), but that particular piece probably represents the most subversive artistic moment of the 20th century. It inspired a school of complete anarchy art that was based on the artists' rejection of traditional forms and bourgeois values in general. This was protest art, shining a light on the ridiculousness of the human condition and the horrors of the war that preceded it, and without it, we wouldn't have later had abstract expressionism, German expressionism, pop art, or I dare say... psychedelic art.

You are like a guardian of the bourgeoisie with your narrow little argument of craft vs. "art". Do you paint to Kenny G.? Do you fuck to John Tesh? Smoke spice to Michael Buble? Good God, man... this is the DMT-Nexus. Try not to be so rigid.

Then you go on to say




Yes you are mistaken, I don't deserve massive credit because I have not earned it yet. I am an amateur, a beginner, I admit that I am just a fledgeling painter so far.




Spoken with authority with no verbatim source from the artist himself. You're doing the arty thing by padding it all out yourself.




Yeah, totally stalwart with my outrageous upstanding for the fact that art can mean anything at all. Stiff as a board.

May I ask, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread, Orion? Why does it matter what other people do? Let people make crap. Let idiots eat it up. It doesn't change anything. Good art speaks for itself, so let your art speak. Do your own thing! If you send your life caring about what idiots do, you'll destroy yourself!

The only measure I use to quantify art, is how much the artist cares. Good art carries away a piece of the artist out into the world. So it really doesn't matter how it's done, as long as they are putting them self into it.

I'm trying to put across the ideas discussed in this thread, and maybe inspire some banter, it would be so much more fun without having to be misread, misquoted and sometimes I suspect barely skim-read before some make a comment.

Like I said, I'm just saying something I have always thought, I'm not gonna lose sleep over it or stop painting. Getting tired of repeating myself guys, just read what I say instead of prolonging this backwards forwards.

Of course I am. This is what good art inspires one to do. In other words...



Nowhere does this hold true more so than in the world of abstract (or visionary) art. Meaning is assigned by the beholder as much (or more so) than it is by the artist himself. Of course, you can produce technically flawless pieces that leave no room for interpretation. You can sell them at the Pottery Barn as accessories for a couch, but does this make them more artistic than a urinal hung on a wall? I say no, but again, time has a way of putting things in their proper perspective.

What I'm getting from this is Orion's frustration at seeing highly refined art (that which displays a high level of "craft" manifestly rejected by the mainstream art world, while people like Hirst are (apparently) given the public limelight as a result of money/influence/power on the part of their sponsors. I share this view, but after letting it chafe at me for decades I now just laugh.

I'd like to go back to my N'Sync comparison. Commercial pop culture spawns this stuff: empty yet somehow huge. We should not be shocked or outraged by this, but just recognize it as one of the parameters of our condition.

I've been self-employed and making a living as an artist for close to three decades, and it's always been a struggle... So I believe I have those valuable bitching rights. But I usually choose not to complain, since it won't serve me any purpose to share my sour grapes. The reality is I'm self employed, I make art I like, and despite being two months from broke at any given time, I feel largely secure and happy. This struggle has given my artistic path a lot of meaning to me, and despite being in the subculture, I have enough of an audience to be satisfied. Do I wish I were world famous? I used to, but recently I've matured past this need (rejected two reality TV show offers last year... Screw that).

A small success, achieved honestly, feels much better than a world-sized one that is handed to you on a silver platter. Obviously I'm not speaking from personal experience, but people who are handed celebrity status lose all touch and become miserable tabloid fodder. Who needs that?

I have to say that hanging a toilet on the wall sounds like it takes a lot more craft than just taking a picture of it. Hmmm... What's the hardest, most technical thing we could do with a toilet?

I get it, Orion. I just wanted to make sure if this was a thread about you, or the art world. I suppose it could be seen as both.

It's another example of synchronicity. Before I read this thread, I was just thinking of a long rant I wanted to make about the music industry. Obviously, for a long time much of the music industry has been a hollow commercial endeavor. It really sickens me to see people like N'Sync (thanks for the good example Guyo) be called "artists" when there are true musical artists, phenomenal ones. I absolutely love music, and when I hear some of my favorite, extremely talented musicians play, it moves me deeply. So, at least for myself, I make the distinction. I can easily see the shit that was packaged up and sold from the start as a product, and not an art. Just knowing the difference makes me feel better about it.

So, like Guyo, I just laugh. Let people eat that garbage! It doesn't change how much I love my music.

Another example of how success ruins being an artist can be seen with Pink Floyd. They're one of my favorite bands, true artists, and also wildly successful. The last album they made, as the true band, was written from the feelings of being disconnected from their fans. This was a lot of the influence to the main theme of "Walls". Success had built a wall, and they felt more isolated from their fans, and as a result their art.

So, in the end, success doesn't even really matter. It's far better to be a broke artist than a rich whore. All that matters is the quality of the art. So, maybe the whole world doesn't recognize a true masterpiece (which, I have made no masterpieces yet, but it's how I often feel), their sorry asses get to miss out!

Today in the spirit of this thread, I thought I would give the ole colored pencils a shot

Nothing too extravagant, but it was a hyperspace inspiration.

Let's not go there man Nah I jest, maybe actually (god forbid!) plumb it in ?

I'm glad you get it Mr.peabody, and of course as I said it's not worth losing sleep over. I would say every piece submitted on this nexus showed something worth more than just existing, of course there is plenty of imagination on a site related to hyperspace In this fashion the nonsense surrounding the music industry could be talked about till we are blue in the face, if anything I'd say this paradigm is even worse there. But the two are kind of merged together in the mainstream, image is a massive factor, someones gotta design the whole look, the clothes, the covers, their graphical tag, the super fly shades...

Global, nice! It looks freehand but the edges seem so regular, the spacing in the grooves and symmetry, diggin it man.

Hells yes!

I like how you put that. Real art offers something more, it enriches life! It's like the whole is more than the sum of its parts. And this site has some of the most ass kicking art! My girlfriend is always blown away by just the header strip that says DMT-Nexus!

I like that Global! Keep on the pencils. I'm getting into the digital world at the moment, but there's always a place for traditional medium.

Global, that's a really nice design, but the impression in getting is that you're being limited by the quality of your materials. You should be able to get much smoother saturation than that without too much struggle. I usually recommend Prismacolor pencils (pricier than others but worth it) and paper or board with a nice tooth to it, basically the opposite of being shiny. If you have a decent art supply store in your area they should be able to make recommendations. You'll struggle less, accomplish more.

That said, your use of geometry is vey distinctive... Dig it!

Thanks for the advice Guyo. I'm pretty new to this whole art thing, so I appreciate the suggestions. I was thinking that I'd like to make eidetic (representational/referential) content out of such work. So for example, if I were to make a face, maybe I would duplicate this mandala I made, shrink them down and use them as eyes for example. I love how with DMT when you have more referential forms like a snake or something (as one in a million of examples) composed of the more abstract DMT patterns.

I have so far been hesitant to post in this thread, partly because I just wanted to see where it went, but here is something I posted in the Video game as Art? thread a while back



If you want to question the value of technology in art, well I would bet that when painters first were able to acquire pre-made paints as opposed to having to grind their own pigments there would have been voices of outrage at the thought of it.

I find a lot of what is presented in the current art scene to be bad art, but that is just my judgement call. A crucifix in piss, Cindy Sherman's photo's of other people's photos, an empty room painted white all comment on the world in some way, ways that I just don't find very interesting.

In my opinion Art is not about looking pretty or well crafted , though craft can be an extremely useful tool, it is about provoking expression and discussion of the human spirit, of our place in the cosmos. Sometimes good craft can do this, sometimes it can obscure this. See the earlier comments about N'Sync, etc. I find more artistic value in some poor old black man with a beat up guitar singing the blues on a porch in the rural south than in the most finely crafted studio pop. Both are Art, I just consider one to be bad art. The idea that there are absolute statements of value though, is absurd.

Taken to it's extreme, the idea that literally everything is art would mean that not only is a Renaissance masterpiece art, but so is dropping a nuclear weapon (VERY Bad Art, indeed). Both are expressions of the human spirit.

The way I judge art is to ask how it moves me inside, does it provoke, does it expand, does it challenge, does it please, does it give me answers, does it give me questions? Aesthetic judgements are relative and change over time and from culture to culture, and from context to context.

I make art mostly for what the creative process does inside of me. The actual product is what others see, the creative involvement in the process is actually my Art. Somewhere there is a quote (Thomas Merton perhaps, I have not been able to locate it) which basically states that the power of prayer lies not in what it does for a person, but in what it does to a person.

Ultimately, if a work of art doesn't speak to me, I just move on.

Love the Duchamp quote. In some ways that kind of clarifies all of this.

The truth in general is that most art is not created by people who are, for lack of a better word, talented. True artists obsess and thrive in the medium that they are accustomed to. I am a writer and I feel that I am pretty good at it, but producing good quality work is not really easy. It takes dedication, time, patience, and most of all vision. Without a real vision art truly falls apart. And most people who want to create something do it more as an idle hobby rather than a passion.

My view is that "real art" (whatever that means) has passion to it, vision and a true expression of someone's view of things. We can all tell the difference between a commercial jingle and a passionate song. A casual vacation picture and a beautiful photograph. Etc. The tools people use for art can hinder it in some ways, photoshop, auto tune, computer effects. Some of it is used to create cheap tacky art, however in the hands of a true artist, people can create masterpieces with such tools that the average consumer uses to just spice up something simple. They are dabblers, they don't pour their soul into it.

The truth is, most people who "create" art, do so as an idle hobby, they doodle, the sketch occasionally, the fiddle with a musical instrument, the write a blog. And that's fine. It's like comparing someone who drives a car to and from work with a race car driver or a stunt driver.

True artists when they create seem possessed by the very ideas they strive to create, they torment and toil with the muses that whisper in their ears.

The average person who posts a photoshopped picture on Facebook, or plays a silly song around the campfire to sort of dick around, is not hearing the muse, so to speak. They don't take the time and dedication needed to master an artistic medium. Not to be harsh, but those kinds of people simply don't care about creating art, they would much rather just doodle a bit.

The issue is when those hobbyists try to sell their schlock and it frustrates the real artist. When commercial pops sells better than soulful gut wrenching music, when popcorn flicks beat out heartfelt dramas, when McDonalds outsells home cooked classics, when literature that reads like a rough draft concocted by a junior high student hits the best seller list, etc. It sucks, but it is what it is, the average consumer tends to find comfort in something that doesn't stir the emotions, something easy and trite. For some its scary to delve into a world where such passion and emotional complexities exist. It's hard for many people to connect so they choose not to and meld into one of the simple banal cultural homogenizations that this world offers.

Just my thoughts.

The above line is epic, i very much like the idea of a homecooked classic being art

didnt see this otherwise would have posted what i posted in a new thread in here: A mod/admin can merge if its easier.

All depends which way you look at it,individual art or art as a continuation of organic social evolution.

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=41779

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Orion!

I've been so fed up with the fact that since photoshop and other programs came along, suddenly EVERYONE is calling themselves an artist and creative.

The very same thing goes for Music. All these amusical fuckwits slapping some simpleminded beats with uninspired melodies together on some program and calling themselves "Musicians" and "Arteests"

Give me a fucking break You want to be a real graphical artist? Pick up a damn pencil and draw. Pick up some brushes and paint.
Get yourself some clay and shape. Or some stone a chizzle and a hammer...Get your fucking hands dirty you geeks.
[It was this very attitude that made me drop out of graphic school: The school was obsessed with computer graphics, but totally ignored traditional arts. Rediculous.]

This very same logic applies for all those fake musicians. Want to call yourself a true Musician? Pick up a damn guitar. Learn to play Piano. Pick up a Djembé or Darbuka and start playing it....


And if it turns out you suck, don't have the talent for it...conclude that you weren't made to be an artist. Or musician. Not everyone has talent. It's harsh but it's true.
You're absolutely right in saying that this whole "everyone can be creative"-fad has drastically lowered the standard for art.

I'm glad you voiced that so clearly, Orion.

If a person feels that they are an artist, or musician, or whatever, who actually gives a shit apart from those that have a stick firmly stuck up their arses? I cannot see how it detracts from the quality of "real" art. Just get on with it and never mind what anyone else is doing. Time and personal taste is the measurer of good art.