View Poll Results: should we have a intellectual/creative critique section in the forum

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Go ahead with the new section

    20 37.04%
  • Not sure, but at least try

    14 25.93%
  • forget it.

    20 37.04%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 76 of 76

Thread: creative/intellectual critiques and info

  1. #61

    Default

    BTw, so have we reached a verdict yet? When or can we even launch a subforum? Or are the moderators all still waiting for the poll? I think it's good to set some target.

  2. #62

    Default

    * togu wonders if cs'pers will still have time for the critique corner then.


    No offence, but it's pretty funny that we are here thinking of writing or sharing some superb critiques about some masterpiece when we hardly see any nice critiques for our own newbie shots. Not an artist, can't see why a blue box deserve more lines of words.

    Only masters deserves critiques?


    Just my er... 2 cent.
    Last edited by togu; 27th December 2002 at 05:10 PM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by togu
    * togu wonders if cs'pers will still have time for the critique corner then.


    No offence, but it's pretty funny that we are here thinking of writing or sharing some superb critiques about some masterpiece when we hardly see any nice critiques for our own newbie shots. Not an artist, can't see why a blue box deserve more lines of words.

    Only masters deserves critiques?


    Just my er... 2 cent.
    I studied 4 years of art in secondary school under the Art Elective Program, but I still can't see why that blue thing (and there's a whole series of them with different numbers) can be considered art. At least even Mondrian's work has lines and squares and colour, and some form to it.

    What I am trying to say is that what exc is suggesting is something very niche, very subjective. Just as different people have different opinions about that blue canvas. Just like the example work posted too - i personally don't really like it.

    I don't think it's the time yet, and we can probably use the existing forums to "test drive" such type of works. If there's enough interest, then we will re-visit the issue.

    Regards
    CK

  4. #64

    Default

    Originally posted by togu
    * togu wonders if cs'pers will still have time for the critique corner then.


    No offence, but it's pretty funny that we are here thinking of writing or sharing some superb critiques about some masterpiece when we hardly see any nice critiques for our own newbie shots. Not an artist, can't see why a blue box deserve more lines of words.

    Only masters deserves critiques?


    Just my er... 2 cent.
    togu, It not that only master that deserves critique. Only when a work has a meaning then there is a base for people to discuss. The problem with newbie shots is their work are based toward into technical aspect of criting. You would realise after a while, you may be repeating what you are saying. Apart from just technical aspects, they won't be able to progress into more conceptually exciting work.

    Well, why a blue canvas deserve more lines is because of it's contradiction. The work has gone beyond normallity or people's perception of what art is about. From that there will be critique. People start questioning the value of the work. Sometime the value of work is not judge by how many people actually like the work but how many people actually thinks about the work and perhaps feel troubled by it. These master uses concepts, ideology, to challenge the mindset of people. Thus there's something to talk about. But if a person is merely doing art for beautifying, it would be just an ornamental. Like chirstmas tree. Nicely decorated but no function. It's only contraversial art like these blue panel that makes people thinks and argue. It's not about having a christmas tree. It's about meaning you derive from the works.

  5. #65

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    What I am trying to say is that what exc is suggesting is something very niche, very subjective. Just as different people have different opinions about that blue canvas. Just like the example work posted too - i personally don't really like it.
    Regards
    CK
    Well, seriously, I don't really like the appearance of the painting. However, I think I can relate to the thought of the painter. What he is selling is not exactly a painting. But an ideal. It up to others to decide how much the ideal is worth. For some, it may be priceless.

    Well, can we then considered the work a piece of good work? Technically, there's literally 'nothing'. But the painter is presenting to his audience ( be it an illusion), a sense of 'spiritual' solace, can we then use worldly materials or money to judge? This is the ideal. And this concept itself is something very sophisticated which involves human feelings. Of course some people don't see this and will find this a whole load of ****. But to the buyer who accepts the 'illusion', the painting means everything to him. Thus is this a good piece of work? There will never be answers. That's the beauty of a good art.
    Last edited by excentrique; 27th December 2002 at 05:51 PM.

  6. #66

    Default

    Originally posted by togu
    * togu wonders if cs'pers will still have time for the critique corner then.


    No offence, but it's pretty funny that we are here thinking of writing or sharing some superb critiques about some masterpiece when we hardly see any nice critiques for our own newbie shots. Not an artist, can't see why a blue box deserve more lines of words.

    Only masters deserves critiques?


    Just my er... 2 cent.
    The way I see it, it's like the way we study poems for literature. Sure, you and your friends can write your own poems and some might even turn out pretty nice. You'd probably be able to give each other a couple of comments, but how much can you actually discuss about them?

    The poems which you study in lit class, on the other hand, can be so skilfully-constructed and dense with meaning that you can go on and on, slowly unravelling their meaning and finding new things about them every time. Only when a work is that good can a critique be interesting.

    And obviously, not all art shots are abstract rubbish!! Just as painted art covers a whole range from fine portraits by Rembrandt, Leonardo etc to abstract like one line across a white canvas, art photography isn't all abstract. The picture of the woman in the bath with her deformed child for example.
    Last edited by rumraisin; 28th December 2002 at 01:12 AM.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Okay. Since this seems to have gone all intellectual on me, then here's another poser:

    If we can find good things to say about a blue piece of canvas (ideal, thought provoking, challenging, etc), even to the extent of justifying a S$11k price tag, then my question to you is, where do we draw the line? What makes my photograph of a white wall worth less than S$0.11?

    Surely this suggests that we can find something good to say about anything at all. In which case...

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Okay. Since this seems to have gone all intellectual on me, then here's another poser:
    If we can find good things to say about a blue piece of canvas (ideal, thought provoking, challenging, etc), even to the extent of justifying a S$11k price tag, then my question to you is, where do we draw the line? What makes my photograph of a white wall worth less than S$0.11?
    Surely this suggests that we can find something good to say about anything at all. In which case...
    Jed, don't forget about the role of art promotor. They're like salesman trying to promote art pieces to skyrocketing value in order to earn money. This can happen because there're many of rich people who appreciate the art pieces based on its value and fame (as prestigious or status symbol).
    So if those promotor decided to promote your white-wall photograph, then soon it will have $$K price tag too.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Thereby proving the case I've been trying to say. A case of the emperor's new cloths for the rich and famous who don't want to appear "uncultured". And at the same time, paying for name (aka brand) as opposed to what you're actually getting.

    Thereby making the actual worth of the photograph completely unimportant to "art" as long as it's promoted by the correct person.

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    If we're talking about art, we shall remove the price tag first, and also the artist's name from our mind. So that, money and fame would not interfere. There're a lot of good art pieces from infamous artists, and also crap pieces from famous artists.
    As stated in my previous post, as long as a society still have a culture of appreciation based on money, power and fame, then art will be just a minority. (altough may be a lot of "fine art" galleries with buyers driving Jaguar and Mercedez).

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by excentrique


    Well, seriously, I don't really like the appearance of the painting. However, I think I can relate to the thought of the painter. What he is selling is not exactly a painting. But an ideal. It up to others to decide how much the ideal is worth. For some, it may be priceless.

    Well, can we then considered the work a piece of good work? Technically, there's literally 'nothing'. But the painter is presenting to his audience ( be it an illusion), a sense of 'spiritual' solace, can we then use worldly materials or money to judge? This is the ideal. And this concept itself is something very sophisticated which involves human feelings. Of course some people don't see this and will find this a whole load of ****. But to the buyer who accepts the 'illusion', the painting means everything to him. Thus is this a good piece of work? There will never be answers. That's the beauty of a good art.
    So, like jed said, what makes that particular blue canvas worth that much? I can easily come up with whatever-colour I want as well. Of coz, the original artist had the advantage of having a promoter, the "rest of us" don't.

    I encountered the case where the lab printed one of my blank frames of a roll of neg (I mid roll rewind sometimes), what came out was a grainy, greyish piece of photo. So can I try to sell that as well? With the proper BS, I can probably come up with a writeup on what I was trying to convey as well.

    So I suppose you find LOMOGraphy an art form too? I personally find it just hype. They are just random snapshots from a less-than-perfect, overhyped, overpriced ancient camera.

    Regards
    CK

  12. #72

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    So, like jed said, what makes that particular blue canvas worth that much? I can easily come up with whatever-colour I want as well. Of coz, the original artist had the advantage of having a promoter, the "rest of us" don't.

    I encountered the case where the lab printed one of my blank frames of a roll of neg (I mid roll rewind sometimes), what came out was a grainy, greyish piece of photo. So can I try to sell that as well? With the proper BS, I can probably come up with a writeup on what I was trying to convey as well.

    So I suppose you find LOMOGraphy an art form too? I personally find it just hype. They are just random snapshots from a less-than-perfect, overhyped, overpriced ancient camera.

    Regards
    CK
    That's when credibility comes into play. Well, if an amateur artist/ photographer shoot an abstact, we can say that majority will think it is crap. This is because of the artist inexperience which we conclude the work sucks. If you look at impressionism or modern art, (take van gogh and picasso for e.g) People regconise their work for being abstract, by never did most people realise that they start from very traditional style and foundation. Before they evolved to their 'abstract stage' they were doing very classics work of painting and sketches. That is credibility. Their work was different at various stages of their artistic life.

    The problem is that the public often 'overate' a certain pieces of the work. People are not interested to trace back what the artist has done, his philosophy, thinking, evolution over the years. They look at the work and started talking even without knowing about the artist's thoughts. That's is a very sad truth. For e.g the mona lisa of Leonardo is certainly an overrated piece of work. If you know, leonardo spend most of his life creating, studying anatomy, sciece, flight. His sketches and creation are more than his paintings. It is because of all those incredible thinking, ideas, which made him as artist. Not just because of mona lisa. But seem like people are more interested with mona lisa than his sketches itself.

    Like wise for abstract art from masters. Art connoisseurs or art critics recognise the credential of the artist by the volume of works produced by these masters. Of course sometime they will 'hardsell' certain work to raise awareness.

    I have a lecture whom is the cultural medalion holder of singapore. A reputated potter worldwide, he commented once on the TV," If you look at the works of very experienced artist, you would realise that as they get older, their works can sometime get very ulgy". Yet, it's not the ulginess that people should matter. The artist has progressed. His works clearly reflects his life.

    I think people are only interested in beauty and youth. Just like the work of an artist. However, they are biased against the old and ulgy. However, whether you like it or not, that is a cycle of life and work. I don't believe that a person can be turned overnight as an artist. It takes the whole life to accomplish and yet a fragment will be presented. As the chinese saying that goes like, "it takes 3 mins on the stage to perform, but it take 3 years of practice to accomplish that."
    Last edited by excentrique; 28th December 2002 at 09:59 PM.

  13. #73

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Okay. Since this seems to have gone all intellectual on me, then here's another poser:

    If we can find good things to say about a blue piece of canvas (ideal, thought provoking, challenging, etc), even to the extent of justifying a S$11k price tag, then my question to you is, where do we draw the line? What makes my photograph of a white wall worth less than S$0.11?

    Surely this suggests that we can find something good to say about anything at all. In which case...
    Well, I would say buying a piece of art is like an investment. Credibility makes up most of the cost of a work.

    There was once a madam saw picasso on a corner of a street sketching. Out of interest, she asked picasso to draw her something. Well, within a few minutes Picasso came out with the drawing and said to the madam, " that will be $10000".
    Out of surprise she exclaimed,"But it only took you a few minutes to draw this drawing."

    Picarsso replied, " Well, it took me 10 years to master this drawing."
    Last edited by excentrique; 28th December 2002 at 10:09 PM.

  14. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by excentrique
    There was once a madam saw picasso on a corner of a street sketching. Out of interest, she asked picasso to draw her something. Well, within a few minutes Picasso came out with the drawing and said to the madam, " that will be $10000".
    Out of surprise she exclaimed,"But it only took you a few minutes to draw this drawing."
    Picarsso replied, " Well, it took me 10 years to master this drawing."
    Then come a young man, looking at the drawing, and said to the madam; "I can draw the same, and I also have 10 years of flying hour".
    The madam reply; "well, I'm sure you can draw the same, but I don't know you, and your name doesn't guarantee of praise and resell value. So young man, it is not just the matter of the result you see on the canvas, but more than that....."
    Then the madam speak closer to the young man with a soft voice; "you see the man behind that desk, come to him and say that you want to discuss about business..... he will guide you"

  15. #75

    Default

    Originally posted by tsdh

    Then come a young man, looking at the drawing, and said to the madam; "I can draw the same, and I also have 10 years of flying hour".
    The madam reply; "well, I'm sure you can draw the same, but I don't know you, and your name doesn't guarantee of praise and resell value. So young man, it is not just the matter of the result you see on the canvas, but more than that....."
    Then the madam speak closer to the young man with a soft voice; "you see the man behind that desk, come to him and say that you want to discuss about business..... he will guide you"
    Well, I think this concludes that all masters must have good volume of works, plus good marketing skills.

  16. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by excentrique
    Well, I think this concludes that all masters must have good volume of works, plus good marketing skills.
    All artists (whether a master or non-master), must have enough volume of works, for their portfolio. But marketing skills is not necessary, there're many third parties who always looking for "new artist" to be promoted to gain profit. Galleries, art dealer, agencies, and publishing organisation, play important role toward the "brand image" of the artists, thus the value of their artworks.
    Again, when an art pieces is tied to a value of money, then it is no more 100% art. As long as profit (or added value) of the pieces can be gained, art is just another form of commodities.
    The difference of the $11K blue-painting and Jed's white-wall photograph, is its marketing value, rather than its art form.

    Back to the main topic about your poll to add new forum in CS catering for "art critics":
    In my opinion, it is good if CS could add a fully-moderated forum for this, at limited trial period. Fully-moderated means, every post to the forum has to be approved by moderators before it can show up. And a strict rule shall be applied to this forum.
    After the trial period, we can evaluate the benefit and downside of this forum.
    Ideally this kind of forum, shall be free from any value, price, etc. Which means the pictures posted there may come from "the masters" or just an amateur, it is the art-form which matter, not the price tag or "brand image".
    But I also suggest that CS only add this forum, if there're some moderators ready to handle it, otherwise don't.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •