[Grey Wolf]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2256987750&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT

Discuss.

[Knight Templar]

Right. I can see it as part of the 'new art' trend, but it means nothing if you don't know the entire history/deffinitition of what a pixel is.

[Stealth]

personally i think that's Fing stupid.  there's no "art" in that.  it's unusual, sure, and pointless, but not art.  anyone can draw a blue square.


what's next, someone drawing "the frequency curves of a random sound"?

[vyper]

I see no cultural value really.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Stealth
what's next, someone drawing "the frequency curves of a random sound"?

The frequency curves of the human soul. ;

or for the patriotic folk, "The Frequency Cruves of America".

[Stealth]

hey look at my work of art:



I call it "The Beauty of Sound"

[Grey Wolf]

Too much content. Replace it with a sine wave.

[Stealth]

and hey, here's another one:

I call this one:
Voltage across a 100MBPS network[/i]

[Stealth]

and (by recommendation) A SINE WAVE:

[Stealth]

and whadaya know:

[Knight Templar]

Yeah, well you suck at drawing, so get over it.

[Stealth]

True, but it's not very hard to draw a square in paint, so i'm pretty sure i could do the exact same "pixel" painting that this guy did

[Knight Templar]

BUT HE IS TEH ARTISTE!!

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Stealth
personally i think that's Fing stupid.  there's no "art" in that.  it's unusual, sure, and pointless, but not art.  anyone can draw a blue square.


what's next, someone drawing "the frequency curves of a random sound"?

the art is not the painting but the fact that he takes something as mundane as a pixel and makes a painting out of it.

NOt everything has to be represenational to be art.

As for the drawing of sound: it has already been done decades ago.

Like I said, the reason why something is art sometimes is because it confronts people with their preconceived notions of what is art and forces them to think about it, or because it forces people to something very mundane in a very different light (I refer you to the, iirc, Picasso's taking of a saddle and steer of a bike which he turned into the horns and head of a bull)

[Nico]

Well, art or not, it's just a blue square on a white canvas. It's not worth 600$.

[Singh]

yup.
Now drawing a Koch curve...that might qualify as art.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Nico
Well, art or not, it's just a blue square on a white canvas. It's not worth 600$.

i've seen something like that stuck to the door of a fridge.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80


the art is not the painting but the fact that he takes something as mundane as a pixel and makes a painting out of it.

NOt everything has to be represenational to be art.

As for the drawing of sound: it has already been done decades ago.

Like I said, the reason why something is art sometimes is because it confronts people with their preconceived notions of what is art and forces them to think about it, or because it forces people to something very mundane in a very different light (I refer you to the, iirc, Picasso's taking of a saddle and steer of a bike which he turned into the horns and head of a bull)

you can argue about the definition of art all you want, but i think this "pixel" thing, as well as many other forms of art which are basically a canvas with randomly sprinkled paint on them, are not my definition of art.

true art, that's a beauty to look at, really DOES take skill.  and a blue square, isn't skill...

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Stealth


you can argue about the definition of art all you want, but i think this "pixel" thing, as well as many other forms of art which are basically a canvas with randomly sprinkled paint on them, are not my definition of art.

true art, that's a beauty to look at, really DOES take skill.  and a blue square, isn't skill...

and that's basically what most people think... apparently unwilling to go beyond the preconceived notion that art has to be some nicely drawn landscape or somesuch.

Art, especially modern art, is as much about the idea behind the object as the object itself. That's the real trick about trying to understand modern art. the art is not so much the painting of the pixel (that would be profoundly silly cause everyone can do that) but the fact that the artist (or conartist ) came up with the idea to rip that pixel from it's usual habitat and put it on a big painting.

Once you have that down you can still go about and call a lot of it bunk (mainly because a lot of it is bunk). But you cannot deny that the person took something out of its regular context and forced you to see it from a different POV. That fact that you believe this painting is not art makes it art cause it forces you to think about art. It's how modern art works.

(so basically it tricked you )

[Stealth]

i don't see it from a different point of view, i don't look at a blue square and think "wow, look at the art and intensity that went into that!"... art to me is supposed to be beautiful to look at.  there's a difference between creativity and true works of art.

a blue square on a piece of paper and then naming it "Pixel" is creative, but i don't consider it art

thats just me

It's how modern art works

see, modern art is slapping stuff together and then calling it a masterpiece.  and people will stand in art museums for hours staring at a picture that's got randomly swirled paint on it, the same kind of "art" a 4 year old with a paintbrush can do, and they'll say "Wow that's deep!", "What a great work of art" but it's not, because my 8 year old sister can do better.  that's not. art.  it's creative, sure, and ugly as hell, and pointless, and not nice to look at, but people think that because it's done by a "great artist" that it must be a great work of art and if they don't think so, then something must be wrong with them.


i look at that, and while you've got to admire the guy for having the guts to paint something like that, i don't find it pleasing to look at, i don't find it wonderful, i don't find it art. period.  the whole "modern" art movement is a disgrace... it plays on the minds of people who see some pointless, 2 year old drawing, but because it says the name of a great artist on the bottom right, signed, they think it's great.