Help me out a little here

Is it relevant to whether you are an arse?

 

Go to the Rothko room at the SFMOMA and you'll get it.

 

To be fair - the iconography was a little forced - as the only patrons
were the churches, or aristocrats (who also wanted the churches to keep
the plebs in their place) it made sense to make sure whatever creative
stuff you did was a bit biased in that direction - if you wanted to eat.

 

what, like Hieronymus Bosch, for example?

 

Nowadays his work would be considered photo-realism - have you ever
looked inside a Weatherspoons on a Friday night?

 

It's catching.

 

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Would you care
to elucidate for the hard-of-thinking, who were out on the razz until
0530 this morning?

 

Bosch was 16th C I think. He didn't strive to "achieve an accurate,
recognisable view of the world".

See? Even *I* know some art stuff!

 

I've seen plenty of Rothko pieces in the flesh.

I still don't get it.

Especially the Seagram Murals.

 

OIC.

<googles>

Well, not of _the_ world, perhaps, but it looks to me like he was
indeed trying to accurately portray stuff.

 

If I painted something that shit, I think I'd consider killing myself...

 

Well I do like to know that the arse calling me an arse is a worthy and well
aged arse, so yeah it's relevant.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Well if you're keen, you wouldn't really need goading, would you?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Ditto.
Not so much all 'modern art', whatever that is, just some.
<waits for those who once read a book on Art in school>

 

Simian posted:

Abstract is wrong. End of.

 

Quite. It's the visual equivalent of prog rock.

 

Not quite. It's the visual equivalent of Punk.
It's simple, aggressive, requires no talent to produce and no thought to appreciate.

Prog rock is Rembrandt or Hartmann, a watercolour landscape where mountains come out of the sky,
an oil painting with a dusty table, musty smells and tarnished silver lying discarded upon the floor.

 

Simian posted:

Not at all, vocals are just another instrument. Abstract vocals would
be scat singing or vocalisation. A good friend of mine once said that
lyrics were just there so the singer didn't have to go "la la la" for
three and a half minutes...

I would consider "abstract" in the context of music more as the likes
of freeform jazz, experimental music, "musique concrète" etc. Music
has forms, perhaps not mathematically expressible rules (although I've
always thought that there should be) but you just know when you hear
something whether or not it is "right".

 

<sigh>

Music doesn't try to depict sounds that you hear in the real world -
no wind through trees, ringing phones, etc. It's completely abstract,
and appeals to you on an emotional level.

So why do you insist that visual art has to 'look like' something that
you might see in the real world?

 

Not necessarily. Back in my schooldays I remember having to do a number
of compositions which did exactly that, albeit often in the same manner
that impressionist painters would try to depict what they could see.

And then there's electroacoustic music, which often exactly fits your
description above of what music isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music