it's just a bit too wry and knowing for me. i mean he's alright, but on the on the other hand i wouldn't be disappointed if banksy was never heard from again. plus i'm not into stencils, i find them a bit dry, and also lazy.

Escher's work is debatable for the same reason. Where should we draw the line between art and graphic illustrations?

Joyce is modernist, so far as I can make out.

Postmodernism talks about the dissolution of grand narratives, by Lyotard's understanding. Which is why we don't have the monsters. We have the epic, and the (Kantian) sublime in a few corners of the mid-20th century onwards (loosely assuming postmodernism follows Duchamp), but very little of the grand narratives so beloved of your Boschs or whomever.

Postmodernism is a horrible cache-all applied erroneously - I was surprised to see you mention it, most people who apply it in its more 'proper' sense (although, obviously, effacement can apply to any concept) do so with extreme hesitation, especially in a forum such as this.

I'm fucking awful at remembering the names of artists, I have a habit of enjoying galleries more for the experience and the architecture. I spent most of yesterday afternoon gadding about galleries, and today I simply can't remember the names of anything I saw.

I know nothing about art; but I do have posters of these three in my bedroom, all of which I was attracted to for various reasons (but mainly because I liked the colours).





Edward Hopper.





Whistler.





Whistler again.

And I might get one of that Van Goth one... its great.

I think the line should be drawn exactly where something that is presented as a work of art comes across as nothing more than an image without the potential of having universally resonating significance. Otherwise everything starts being called art, like it happens already.

A certain air of mistery is also always appreciated, I don't want to immediately get what an artist is doing with their work, I want something that I will need to spend some time pondering on.

By the way, I appreciate tons of graphic art.

I've always been told that fine art is intended to provoke, whereas graphic art reflects.
Pretty much what you just said.

i think the line should be drawn on paper or canvas. if the line it is drawn neatly with a ruler, then it is graphic design. if it is drawn expressively, then it is art.

What about cubism etc?

what's cubism?

doesn't that rule discount a vast amount of pre 20th Century art from being art though? it even rules out a lot of 20th century people too, matisse for example.

him as well ^

Is that irony?

It may seem that way, but Matisse was very provocative for his time.
The way his nudes were posed, colour etc. Provocation doesn't have to mean shock. To evoke a certain emotion is enough.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

^^^ graphic art

V V V fine Art

if you had to ask, then no... no it's not.


if i had to ask, then yes... yes it is.

Oh, I see, it's clever verbal abstraction.

talent just means a natural facility to do something.

people with talent and no training are just slightly better than people with no talent and no training.

It is "ART" if it means something to the person that is viewing/reading/hearing/experienceing it.

i've posted this before, but this i love this guy and in particular this painting.
ivan albright.