Paint what you see

[dougo]

Link from cthulhia: paintings of web pages. Relevant quote: "So today how to paint something ? The skill doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint something that nobody painted before you."

Comments

[ex-colorwhe.livejournal.com]

You've entirely misunderstood me. I'm not talking about that guy at the mall (who I'm understanding you to mean as an example of art with great aesthetics but nothing to chew on). Of course art needs idea in it. I'm talking about a current trend in the fine arts world of tipping the balance a bit too far away from noticing aesthetics at all. This includes the world of art criticism too. I'm saying I'm personally uncomfortable with exactly where the balance sits right now. It parallels the section of the literary criticism world that analyzes books for content but not for the art (sorry, can't think of a better word) of literature. I say this as a literary critic myself.

Though actually, I don't believe that the line between art and illustration is so cut and dried. It's elusive and personal, and easy to mix up with judgments about quality. (I have no problem with judgments of quality, but they're not theoretically the same thing.) I review children's picturebooks and find the art v. illustration distinction to be not so useful. (If you're thinking that children's picturebooks have all illustration and no art, I have some books to show you.) As for that guy at the mall, if the picture of grandma that he paints really is "wonderful," then it probably does have idea in it, or emotion, or something discursive, or something else.

BTW, I wasn't harshing on the art that was linked to, just commenting on the quote.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I can't see how you can claim that I "entirely misunderstood" you when what I posted was a statement of my own opinion, independent upon what you've said. Perhaps you don't see the logical connection between your post and mine that I do, but I've been accused before of commiting nonsequiters.