I like.
Did some surfing last night, stumbled upon a world of art called Fashion Illustration. I love how it is very delicate and feminine, yet edgy and funky at the same time. I also like how very not American it looks.
Here is some work by an artist called "Coco."
See her site and the rest of her work here.
Here is some work by an artist called "Coco."
See her site and the rest of her work here.
posted by Christi at
12:05 PM
10 Comments:
designformankind.blogspot.com
I think it looks extremely American actually lol. american pop art, andy warhol would love it, and therefore i hate it.
maybe a little pop art... but im not sure there is even such a thing as "american pop" ... sounds more like a soda to me. and where exactly is warhol in this? is he not known for taking extremely ordinary or commonly seen things like the tomato can and monroe face and making it art?
...hate to disagree.
Warhol is known for lots of stuff, he liked the repetition of symbols or subjects and used them to demonstrate the um... brainwashing? that occurs when we're constantly bombarded by advertising or news images. Not that this ladies stuff is brainwashing; I said he would like it though, not that it looks like his stuff. Then again Warhol's def'n of art is "whatever you can get away with." so what wouldnt he like?
*pop art from america
I'm not trendy or modern enough to appreciate that sort of art! Give me some Vermeer and Rembrandt, throw in some Van Eyck, even a few Gothic triptychs--that art speaks to me.
I can kind of see how this art would lead your mind to Warhol with the sort of cut-and-pasted, skewed colors thing going on.
It's interesting how we define art and what is good and bad, whether something has artistic value or not.
Everyone seems to have a different take on the subject. I've walked into the Blanton and thought that a piece of art hanging on the wall looked like someone dug through the trash and tacked it to the wall. And often times that's exactly what they did!
I've heard the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy used by critics of modern art. It's an interesting discussion! What do ya'll think?
Christi, I like that you gave a little explanation of what you appreciate about this art and what draws you to it.
This little comment space is not large enough to contain the pandora's box you just opened. The more I learn about the art world the more I hate it, yet the more I seem to find myself talking about it. I don't have a definition of art, not one that isnt entirely cynical and sarcastic anyway. But I can recommend two excellent movies I've seen dealing with the whole 'what is art' discussion. "Who the F*** is Jackson Pollock" and "My kid could paint that" The latter being a little more watchable and having much better special features. Including an awesome interview on pretty much this exact subject with Michael Kimmelman, Chief Art Critic of the NY Times.
I'm taking a Philosophy of Aesthetics course this fall. Someone bring up this topic again later this year lol.
definition of art = impossible. personal opinion/definition of art = inescapable. I think that most of the world puts value on meaning and/or talent. if there is both and it is relevant to the general population or strikes a chord with them... then people are blown away.
Good point, Becky.
I have trouble with being a relativist about art. I understand that it makes sense, but just because there's no agreed upon universal standard for what makes art, does that mean there shouldn't be?
For example, I read an article a couple of years ago about the evolution of performance art. One man had himself nailed (like the crucifixion) to the roof of a VW bug and called it art. Another person defecated on stage and called it art. And there was a controversy over the person who stuck a cruciform in a jar of urine and called that art as well.
I guess it sounds, from my extreme examples, as if I'm saying that anything we find appalling isn't art. But obviously that's not true.
I don't know! I believe there should be a line somewhere. And I think my faith has a lot to do with that opinion. But should we give up on the idea of drawing the line on art just because it would be counter cultural?
No!
Andres Serrano is the guy you're talking about Karen, he made the photograph titled Piss Christ. He works often with bodily fluids of all types mixed with images of beauty and/or religion. He is pretty consistent with it, so you've got to give him credit for sticking with a style whether you call it art or not.
I'm absolutely for the idea of an objective and universal definition of art and I dont believe photography has a real strong presence in it actually.
I like how christi has just moved on with another post and we're still discussing this one lol.
Haha, consistency does not mean art.
When it comes to those sorts of "artists," to me they seem to be people who try to upset the comfort zones of others for shock value and attention. They thrive on the controversy of what they create. It strokes their ego.
I don't necessarily have a problem with using strong, sometimes upsetting visual concepts. And I don't necessarily have a problem with pushing people out of their comfort zones. But I think the purpose of art is the key. I can appreciate something that is meant to open peoples minds and eyes to knew things.
For example, I can appreciate the art of Francisco Goya, even considering political and subversive nature of many of his works. Some of them I would consider "shocking" in nature.
I obviously have NO idea where the line should be drawn.
But when I'm walking around an art museum and considering the meaning and quality and value of the art I see, I'm constantly reminded of the Bible verse: ...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute...thinks upon such things.
God is the true Artist, and as we look at the work He has done with His hands, I think we are given a standard to live by and to come to conclusions about beauty and art.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home