00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

JamesChrist just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Abstarct vs Cubism

860 Views | 17 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:11:42


How do you feel towards it?

My art is not on this page!

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:13:24


At 12/17/13 09:11 PM, brian08242 wrote: How do you feel towards it?

My art is not on this page!

Or maybe it is but im not trying to advertise! I don't sell art! I was just wondering how people feel on the topic!

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:17:41


Isn't a forum mainly about opinion?!?!

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:23:47


At 12/17/13 09:17 PM, brian08242 wrote: Isn't a forum mainly about opinion?!?!

Yes it is, but you can avoid shamelessly using it to advertise your work at the same time.

http://turkeyonastick.newgrounds.com/art/


BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:34:17


Well anyways my option on the matter is kind of neutral, which is why I am interested in other opinion's. Any views on anything related would be helpful.

Thanks

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 21:41:43


Abstract is too broad a term, what do you mean by it? Real abstraction? Or perhaps non-representationalism which is closer to what people commonly consider abstract (even though it technically isnt). Cubism is stupid and was invented by twats who lacked the skill to make real skilled work so they created some pretentious unnecessary art form to blow bullshit air so far up their own asses they had to register their egos as aircrafts.

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-17 22:23:21


At 12/17/13 09:41 PM, ornery wrote: Abstract is too broad a term, what do you mean by it? Real abstraction? Or perhaps non-representationalism which is closer to what people commonly consider abstract (even though it technically isnt). Cubism is stupid and was invented by twats who lacked the skill to make real skilled work so they created some pretentious unnecessary art form to blow bullshit air so far up their own asses they had to register their egos as aircrafts.

Fauvism
Impressionism
Pointillism
Pop Art
Realism
Postimpressionism
Surrealism

All up for grabs what do you prefer?

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-18 09:02:46


I've always thought of style more as a medium. A good artist (who has mastered the art basics like perspective, anatomy, color, light, research...) can pretty much make amazing art in any visual medium.
But a crap artist will also most likely produce crap in any medium. To play around with style, figures and concepts you must thoroughly understand and master them first in my opinion.
Though sometimes it can be like trying to distinguish free jazz from a toddler randomly mashing keys on a piano.
But I'm not a big a fan of free jazz, so I don't usually have that problem.

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-18 18:04:48


At 12/17/13 10:23 PM, brian08242 wrote: Fauvism

"Hi I have a childish grasp of color theory and want to make quantifiably hideous pieces with color schemes that are ugly as fuck because I've got these colors in my paint set and can never seem to find a good creative way to use them so lets go nuts"

Impressionism

Want a semi decent looking piece done in half the time and skill of a real piece, then try impressionism. Its the lazy less skilled artists way of getting away with mediocrity.

Pointillism

Two words, Carpal Tunnel. The tedious way to get the same point (pun so intended) across as normal drawing or painting.

Pop Art

Pffft, really?

Realism

As in the art movement or what people generally consider to be a lump grouping of "stuff that aint abstract"?

Postimpressionism

See impressionism.

Surrealism

As in the real surrealism which was meant to be mostly scribbly nonsense train of thought writing and automatic drawing? Or the refined more representational dream-esque art that everyone calls surrealism even though technically no one does surrealist art unless they are accepted into the surrealist group, normally by Andre Breton, who is dead. So there is that little hiccup. Frida Khalo does surrealist looking pieces, but they aren't surrealist, because she rejected the invitation to the group.


All up for grabs what do you prefer?

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-18 18:17:27


At 12/17/13 10:23 PM, brian08242 wrote: Fauvism
Impressionism
Pointillism
Pop Art
Realism
Postimpressionism
Surrealism

Why not Abstract Expressionism?
Kinda wanna see what Ornery writes for that one.


- P R O F E S S I O N A L - G R A P H I C - D E S I G N E R -

LATEST ART PIECE

BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-18 23:28:17


At 12/18/13 06:17 PM, Decky wrote: Why not Abstract Expressionism?
Kinda wanna see what Ornery writes for that one.

I'm gonna guess:

"Crap made by people with no skill so they just shit all over the canvas like dumb idiots."

Or

"It's not a sterile display of pure technical ability, so it sucks."


Aigis - Putting the 'ai' back in 'Aigis'.

BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-19 00:01:10


At 12/18/13 06:17 PM, Decky wrote: Why not Abstract Expressionism?
Kinda wanna see what Ornery writes for that one.

Art that can literally be created by tripping over a paint can? Why of course, only a master of creativity and talent could ever create such a piece...

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-19 03:31:29


At 12/19/13 12:01 AM, ornery wrote:
At 12/18/13 06:17 PM, Decky wrote: Why not Abstract Expressionism?
Kinda wanna see what Ornery writes for that one.
Art that can literally be created by tripping over a paint can? Why of course, only a master of creativity and talent could ever create such a piece...

Called it.


Aigis - Putting the 'ai' back in 'Aigis'.

BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-19 11:19:52


At 12/19/13 12:01 AM, ornery wrote: Art that can literally be created by tripping over a paint can? Why of course, only a master of creativity and talent could ever create such a piece...

To be far Rothko was rather neat with his colour fields of solid, flat....Yeah an idiot could have done it.


- P R O F E S S I O N A L - G R A P H I C - D E S I G N E R -

LATEST ART PIECE

BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-19 11:57:23


i do not find them "aesthetically pleasing" or "thought provoking with good talented artwork" so i don't declare them as art.

Surrealism is the closest one to my view of "art" as the quality of the image and idea behind it show skill and thus i give my time and appreciation to a skilled piece of work.

as for splatting paint in a randomised "pattern" on a blank canvas, or heaven forbid someone mention "modern art"... i shall find you... and i shall kill you.


BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-19 22:29:53


At 12/19/13 11:57 AM, LegolaSS wrote: i do not find them "aesthetically pleasing" or "thought provoking with good talented artwork" so i don't declare them as art.

Surrealism is the closest one to my view of "art" as the quality of the image and idea behind it show skill and thus i give my time and appreciation to a skilled piece of work.

as for splatting paint in a randomised "pattern" on a blank canvas, or heaven forbid someone mention "modern art"... i shall find you... and i shall kill you.

What do you deem modern art .... postmodern/ contemporary, then yes I agree.....
Marcel Duchamp was the beginning of a lot of shit

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-20 16:16:48


At 12/19/13 10:29 PM, Tapersteve wrote: What do you deem modern art .... postmodern/ contemporary, then yes I agree.....

I'd say modern art was 1851 (The Great Exhibition) - 1980s (start of post-modernism).

Just to add my thoughts.


- P R O F E S S I O N A L - G R A P H I C - D E S I G N E R -

LATEST ART PIECE

BBS Signature

Response to Abstarct vs Cubism 2013-12-21 01:09:08


Cubism is a form of abstraction... It's kind of a pointless conversation - that's like saying "Flowers vs. Roses?" or "Meet vs. Chicken?" And as was pointed out before, there are incredibly huge differences between the popular notion of abstraction, the art-historical term "abstract", and what I like to call the unpopular popular description of it.

But I'll bite and assume you are talking about cubism as a whole, and abstraction in the art-historical context with cubism being a separate entity.

The initial goal of abstract art was to question the boundaries of social acceptance and rail against the academy. It was kind of a rebellious teenager thing embodied by adults. In my opinion, as a movement, this was one of its weaker points and it only got worse in most cases (I agree with much of what Ornery said). Surrealism is in many theorist's opinions not part of the broad school of abstraction. Its qualities are a bit abstract, no doubt - but it is a school of its own, and I subscribe to this idea, so I leave it out of this discourse.

Cubism's original goal was similar to abstraction's - questioning standards and tradition. The likes of Braque and Picasso were no doubt not the only cubists, but in terms of art history, they are the most important. The mature form of analytic cubism was, in short, a gimmick; it could have been a series of ten or so pieces, but it long overstayed its welcome. Picasso was trying to break down elements of the visual senses and reconstruct them from some kind of perceptual experience, but in the end this was just his cover letter to stay relevant. Synthetic cubism was a similar beast but it at least contributed something helpful to the development of current day art - solidity for the gestalt theory. Good concept, poor execution, I'd say.

Now, when you say "vs" I assume you want to know which I feel is better - I'd normally say neither, because I think art-historical abstraction in general is a load of crap dropped in the toilet of over-privileged bourgeois pricks, but some schools of abstraction do have their merit. So I'll go with the former.

I mean this in the least condescending way possible, but I assume you aren't particularly educated in art history due to the phrasing and content of your question. Check out the Russian Constructivists, they are a particular favorite of mine in the realm of dusty art-golems. Infinitely more interesting than mainstream cubism anyway. If you are really interested in learning about this stuff shoot me a PM and I'll refer you to an excellent book (about Freshman college reading level).


(>'-')>