Printable View
Theses pieces are by an artist called Josef Albers. He studied at the bauhaus in dessu and later became a teacher there. He is most famous for his seris called homage to the square" ............ baisically squares in different colours. Can that really be considered art?
/discuss
Josef albers gallaries
Yeah its art... But different art.
Im actually laughing at you. Of course it is, you just have no appreciation for art obviously.
must just be me then but i dont see how he can be reggarded a 'genius' or 'influental figure' for pieces like that
It is a bit simple, but it is still considered art, look closely theres a bit of texture there.
It's because you're not educated in fine art, or I guess more correctly you're not empathetic.
I don't think he's revolutionary, there's been artists before that used similar techniques and emotions. A russian artist who's name I can't remember or pronounce comes to mind, but he worked largely with circles and violent emotions.
I don't think it's amazing, but it's deffinetly art.
Its art, but im not into crap like this. Its not anything award winning or skillfull.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Vermilion @ Apr 27 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]166923[/snapback]</div>Art doesn't have to be skillful. Art is about emotions, so no technical skill is required actually. IMO very simple stuff can be more artistic then the huge portrait paintings by Da Vinci and people with similar style. But of course, Da Vinci WAS a genious, but that's not the point.Quote:
Its art, but im not into crap like this. Its not anything award winning or skillfull.
[/b]
Edit: And btw, why didn't you pick some of his more interesting pieces?
http://www.albersfoundation.org/Albers.php...alleries&g=i440
http://www.albersfoundation.org/Albers.php...alleries&g=i360
http://www.albersfoundation.org/Albers.php...alleries&g=i090
http://www.albersfoundation.org/Albers.php...alleries&g=i300
I would fav all those four if I found them on DeviantART.
it is art but he is most known for he's color theory. we learned a lot about him in my color theory class this year. he shows the relationship of color and how they work with one other.
I like it :P It is indeed art, to its simplest form, but with many ideas : Minimalism
that form of art is all about colour and interpretation of feelings...
not my favourite form of art i'd have to say though :P
I'm surprised noone has said this. Art is work that has emotion and time into it. Although I am not a real big fan of minimalism, it is art. If the guy spent hours on it, then it might be art. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So in that sense, I consider it art. It ain't my fav, but some of his other works are beautiful. So yeah...
Dan
Anything can constitute art. If cow dung on a canvas can be considering art, everything can be considered art. Snobbery is just fine. I'll admit to it for some things but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I behold that "art" to be unsatisfactory on every level. It does nothing for me. If it does something for others, good for you. To each his own. We're all free to interpret as we wish.
I wonder how much money he made from making that?
I hope he made an negative amount. I don't like any of his work. :)
I saw that in the Tate Modern, I thought it was something a 5 year old child stuck on the wall.
Haha, this must be a joke.. some of you cant be serious can you?
Josef Albers is more of an accomplished artist than most of you could ever be, your lack of appreciation for his work, never mind probably everything that slightly similar would point that out.
would you call me a great artist if i took a piture of my sofa? maybe you'd fancy a kitchen chair? Just aint my up of tea.
You know, alot of people tend to believe that art is all about technical skill. But wait! A thread not so long ago, a good majority did not like the 15,000 layer PS work. I'm sure that took alot of technical skill to pull it off.
Art does take skill, but it's not always how good the artist can draw, paint, sculpt, weld, etc. For those that don't is the skill in conveying its message. How about looking deeper and interpreting what it really is, and not how it was made?
What an arrogant statement Kaleidoscope! One man's trash is another man's treasure. I think Maria Callas is the greatest voice ever but some can't stand to listen to her or Verdi or Bach and that's okay. Just like it's okay if you like it, no need to insult anyone because they disagree.
But, in the end, it's all about subjectivity. Perhaps, some of us did look deeper and it still didn't resonate with us. Perish the thought! :blink:Quote:
How about looking deeper and interpreting what it really is, and not how it was made?[/b]
The only thing slightly interesting about that piece of "art"work is that it has never been done before. WOW Is he going to go onto triangles next O.O. And so what if I dont like his art no need to get all insulting Kaleidoscope thats being just a little bit of a fascist.
Anything can be considered art, it's all a matter of perspective, I mean sometimes I don't get it, I remember when I was young going to an art museum and seeing a bunch of people crowding around a peice of canvas with a single dot in the middle of it, I didn't understand what was so special about it.
what is there really to observe when you have a big white canvas w/ a little dot in the middle. Or squares put together. It's art but its not a kind of art that would be considered umm...."good" but also i wonder how long it took for him to think of the square deal
We need more opinions!
I cant help thinking that all these "artists" are drawing/painting/sculpting/making something that has taken them about 5 minutes of no thought at all, then they just make up some story about what the piece "means" then the art gallerys are gullible enough to beleive that story, so the artists gets fame and fortune simply for sticking some paper on some other paper.
Yes it is art, it may not be very visual art but it has a mean. Sometimes the mean is in the title. It is all well thought out and yes i think it is art but the piece alone aint art. Only when it given a meaning etc.
For example, someone could take a picture of a sofa and no that would not be art.
If you took a picture of a sofa in the middle of a desert and called is isolation and it resemboled (SP?) your childhood or something yes that would be art.
that's art bro. Very simple but still art.
I do consider it art but i consider it FAR from award winning or such high praise.
Look I call it Homage to the Face GIVE ME MUNNY!
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7...etoface3zi.jpg
alright, im gunna go take a crap in a bag of doritoes, take and paint it with basic shapes and colours.
does this make me an artist?
no, i dont like this guys work. i think its boring to look at and i find the "meaning" being it to be utterly pointless because i feel that a much more complicated image with more interesting elements could convey the "meaning" much better. does this not make it art?
its art.
Hey! That guy paint's just like me... and I just started painting last month! ^_^
LOL I would imagine a lot more wannabes feel better about themselves after seeing that. :lol:
Art is an aesthetic form of conveying emotions.
Don't you dare say this isn't art as what jason said, this is far more than any of us have accomplished.
@undertone - putting it so vulgar with no meaning just supports a biased approach, but maybe his art has a nullifying meaning, perhaps this conveys it perfectly.
@swabs - i just find your views arrogant and self-indulgent, you say no thought, yet obviously it is you who have not given thought into it as this artist may have spent hours trying to pervey what it is he is feeling or trying to accomplish, you can't say art is a con as art is a visually pleasing medium of emotions, and since it is... what's your beef maybe you don't see it as pleasing but then i'm suprised you can even see it at all with your own head in the way.
The one thing that could maybe determine this as "art" is that nobody has done it before. Other than that I see no real "meaning", sure he may say that it has meaning but in my opinion he is just slapping some squares on some other squares, giving it a name depending on what colours it is made of and making a shiz load of money from it.
I think art is something that the person has taken a long time in creating all the fine points and details. Art also has to be something interesting to look at. Somehow I dont think some squares will capture the eye and the imagination like a Giacometti sketch or painting will.
Also, saying that you know the "meaning" of these squares does not make you a more intellectual person.
I dont think that a canvas of squares should get placed in a gallery instead of a painting or sculpture that someody has spent a long time getting to look just perfect.
I don't mean to sound like an asshat but for all of you who bieleve it has a "meaning"... honestly who cares? You are never going to find out what the meaning is as the art itself gives you no clues. You can try and assume but you can't get a meaning from a side view of a fucking chair. This type of art enrages me. I read an article back in middle school where this kid of 6 or 7 was selling his paintings for millions and I looked at his paintings and almost shot mysef, all it was were colors sprayed all over the canvas. I bieleve art takes skill and neither one of these. The kid is no artist, this is a child artist...
http://www.artakiane.com/home.htm
If you look up the defeniton of art you will come across the words beauty, skill, and aesthetic. This guy's art is none of the these. Look at this... http://www.albersfoundation.org/imag...mages/i040.jpg
If you'd call that any things besides squiggles on a paper i want to punch you in the face. Someone arugue with me as I dont feel like typing any more at the time.
Wow.. thats pretty good. Why cna't you look into it, and see what it's suppose to mean?
I really like that piece. =P
Reminds me of the male body... and how men are supposed these days. How we were made. Perfect.
Art lacks a good definition. It is always changing, it cannot necessarily be something that be just beautiful anymore. You only have to go to the Tate gallery. Just as there were different movements in art throughout history, what art really is changes with it.
Nowadays its more about expression, art is based off impulses and emotions more than just pursuing beauty. While I do like the traditional art better, art today represents expression more than ever before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ragidy_man @ Apr 26 2006, 08:39 PM) [snapback]166905[/snapback]</div>Quote:
must just be me then but i dont see how he can be reggarded a 'genius' or 'influental figure' for pieces like that
[/b]
The beauty of art is there is hardly any standard for it. Im sure the stuff you did in art class in preschool wasn't magnificent. And im sure if he is considered 'genius' or an 'influential figure' it is because of his other accomplishments besides that one painting.
IMO, that's called art. If art evokes emotion, then that is art. This thread is proof. Look at all the emotions displayed on this one simple piece. I'm sure if Albers read this thread, he'd be ecstatic. I wouldn't call Albers a "genius" or "astounding"...h3ll, I'd hardly call him an artist...but he did create art, according to his own personal opinion. I wouldn't have paid a dollar for his art, but some people would pay millions. Luckily, I'm not them.
Now, art is opinion. Sure, you can take a crap in a bag of doritos and call it art, you could even smear sh!t on a canvas and call it "Crap-tastic" and sell it for millions, just don't tell people it's sh!t and they'll buy it. It's all about opinions...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shurai @ Jun 22 2006, 12:58 AM) [snapback]175022[/snapback]</div>I whent to the Tate Modern last week, some pieces where trulty great, for instance John Constables "6-footers" where very good. but some of the things where just made me go "okay......so what"Quote:
Art lacks a good definition. It is always changing, it cannot necessarily be something that be just beautiful anymore. You only have to go to the Tate gallery. Just as there were different movements in art throughout history, what art really is changes with it.
Nowadays its more about expression, art is based off impulses and emotions more than just pursuing beauty. While I do like the traditional art better, art today represents expression more than ever before.
[/b]
