Teri

Posted on 10/29/09

Art, to me, is something pleasing to the eye. It must also
make me feel something. Of course, something pleasing to my
eye is not necessarily pleasing to another's eye.

It seems, though, in the art world, that anything can be art
as long as someone likes it, and, in most cases, is willing
to pay for it.

I have often thought many of the same questions you propose.

I have also wondered if I tagged my 2nd grade son's art
projects as being created by a 50-year-old man with
Alzheimers (no offense to anyone) we may make a fortune. LOL!

~Teri :D

On 10/29/09, L. Swilley wrote:
> Those of us who have been watching "Art in the 21st
> Century" must wonder:
>
> 1. How does one teach artworks after Picasso?
>
> 2. Are balances of color, volume - shapes, in general -
> important to observe in estimating the point and value of a
> modern abstract painting, sculpture, etc.?
>
> 3. I mounted/stretched a well-used paint rag - frankly, I
> cannot tell the difference between that and some of the
> works shown on "Art in the 21st Century." Please comment.
>
> 4. How would one tell the difference between a Pollock and
> a work that I create by using the same "method"?
>
> 5. Is craft a necessary element in art?
>
> 6. I am looking down at papers I have dropped on the floor.
> If I secure them where they are and cut that portion of the
> floor that contains them, have I a legitimate work of
> modern art?
>
> 7. I am given the impression that doodles by monkeys might
> well become modern art "sensations" - if only they were
> given the publicity rendered by a wealthy patron. Please
> comment.
>
> 8. How do YOU teach the art of Pollock, Rothko, and of the
> artists shown in "Art in the 21st Century"?
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> L. Swilley

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one