Recent art that you liked

Txomsy,

Maybe you didn't get that I personally don't agree with the cave paintings NOT being art. We don't know for sure what the intention behind them was. But I think there's no way the cave painters intended it as art (as we have come to know "art" in today's context). There's no way to know. I believe it is art, and art can't be defined in simple terms. It could have been religious, graffiti, warnings to hunters, worship of the animals, maps...who knows? But, it doesn't really matter because they are beautiful anyway you slice them. Perhaps it was the first true outsider art under the original terms of outsider art. Art for no one and/or anyone-- the maker not being concerned with making their mark as an "artist." Again, meaning an artist as we have come to know it.

I also don't think I am superior or that utility is incompatible with art, and I definitely don't think art is limited to painting.

Just sayin'.
 
A recent eerie bit by one of my favorite contemporary artists:

Aron Wiesenfeld - The People Outside, 2025 oil on museum board, 11 x 14 in.jpg

Aron Wiesenfeld - The People Outside, 2025. Oil on museum board, 11 x 14 in.

As for the other discussions here, I no longer have any opinions whatever about whether this or that is "really" art. I find I have more rest for my soul that way. :-)
 
Rather like this one, though I think it would look better on a wall than on canvas... :-)

Lady Pink (b Sandra Fabara, 1964) - Malcolm X, 1992 Spray enamel abd acrylic on canvas, 127 x ...jpg

Lady Pink (b Sandra Fabara, 1964) - Malcolm X, 1992. Spray enamel and acrylic on canvas, 127 x 116 cm.

From the information at Gandalf's Gallery:

Lady Pink, (born Sandra Fabara, in Ambato, 1964), is an Ecuadorian-born American graffiti and mural artist, active in New York City. In 1979 she started writing graffiti and soon became well known as the only female capable of competing with the boys in the graffiti subculture. Today, Lady Pink continues to create new paintings on canvas that express her unique personal vision. She also shares her 40 years of experience with teens by holding mural workshops and actively lecturing to college students throughout the world.​

 
Arty; you are correct that our concept of ART was not necessarily shared throughout history or across all cultures. That’s one reason that I don’t share the notion that ART is whatever the artist/creator says it is. Most Medieval artists never even signed their creations… which were often created collaboratively. It wasn’t until the Renaissance that we saw the more contemporary idea of “artists” as opposed to craftsmen. Where earlier patrons simply wanted a portrait or a picture of the Madonna, with the Renaissance the began to desire a Leonardo or Titian. Think how far we are from the earlier thinking. Walking through a museum we look at a painting and think, “Ooh! That’s a Vermeer!” or “That’s a Picasso”… rather than “That’s a painting of apples or a woman.”

I’m not certain just how much the intentions of the creator matter. I might intend that my paintings are profound works of expressive genius… but that doesn’t mean that they are. Some works of art were intended as works of socio-political commentary; others were intended as religious expressions; still other works were intended as narrative, decoration, illustration, memorials, erotica, portraits… and yet within every one of these genre or intentions there are works of masterful art.

One of my studio partners became so frustrated with the endless debates as to what ART is and whether he was an artist that he simply declared “I make images and objects; others can decide whether they are ART or not.
 
stlukesguild said:
Arty; you are correct that our concept of ART was not necessarily shared throughout history or across all cultures. That’s one reason that I don’t share the notion that ART is whatever the artist/creator says it is. Most Medieval artists never even signed their creations… which were often created collaboratively. It wasn’t until the Renaissance that we saw the more contemporary idea of “artists” as opposed to craftsmen.
Click to expand...

The early patrons would have been perfectly happy with AI-generated art...

stlukesguild said:
One of my studio partners became so frustrated with the endless debates as to what ART is and whether he was an artist that he simply declared “I make images and objects; others can decide whether they are ART or not.
Click to expand...

My own philosophy as well. I find the whole debate rather silly and pointless.
 
I never considered myself an artist when I was young. I just had to make stuff. When other people, especially artists, started calling me one, I just assumed they were probably right. But as far as the work I make, I just want to feel good/satisfied that it looks the way I (basically) intended. I have no qualms about whether people feel it's art or what they think it's "about," or rather, wanting to know what I intended it to be about. I believe it's their decision, imagination, interpretation, judgment, and so on. Not mine to spoon-feed them the meaning or WHY. In the past, I've given that up, and people often felt betrayed or disappointed, so I'd rather not explain myself. It's really whatever they want it to be. It doesn't matter what they want or what I want. People are either persuaded by the work to look closer, or they're not. I don't think we have too much control over our work, like whether it sells, whether people like it, are interested in it, or whatever.

So our intentions have little to do with it all.

However, if I create something and others clearly see what I had intended, that's always a plus for the ego.

I don't think artists before the Renaissance had a lot of ego in that regard. They had other reasons for creating, like St. Luke listed above.
 
Too often it seems that the artist’s intentions… or purported intentions lead to the most pretentious statements laden with catch-words and phrases and sheer gobbledygook:

‘My art aims at a void that signifies precisely the non-being of what it represents…’

‘My art practice examines hesitation as part of the process of decision-making, where the object is neither the object of objecthood nor the art-object. It is rather the oblique object of my intentions…’

‘I propose specific intervention within the experiential fabric of our surroundings designed to temporarily yet subtly disrupt posited “standard’ systems of experience, and thereby heighten the understanding of the unique structure of our city and our environment…’

I feel that my intentions are not often clear even to myself which may be why I feel the need to create visual works as opposed to putting these into words. I would also suggest that my intentions while creating a work of art are fluid or ever-changing. As a result, when speaking of my work as an artist I tend to remain centered upon my sources of inspiration.

But perhaps we should return to purpose of this thread: recent art we admire. 😜
 
Well… I can’t take credit for those “creative” works of Artspeak as I just copied them from a collection of pretentious artist’s statements.

Returning to the original purpose of this thread… today I stumbled upon a new painting by the Japanese artist Chie Yoshii, who I have been following for some years. This painting is her interpretation of the comic book character, Harley Quinn and was painted for commission:

IMG_2389.jpeg


The brilliant saturated colors and black backgrounds of Yoshii’s paintings remind me of Russian enamels.

IMG_9543.jpeg


IMG_2406.jpeg


IMG_2412.jpeg


The vast majority of her paintings are rooted in mythology, legends, and faerie tales. They remind me of “children’s” book illustration which I am quite fond of.
 
Last Thursday I visited the Akron Art Museum… about 45-minutes from Cleveland… with one of my best friends from Art School and my Studios. He was visiting from Connecticut and staying with his in-laws. The Akron Museum had a couple of special exhibitions including art by local artists and art by women artists. Perhaps my favorite work was an assemblage by the Ohio native, La Wilson:

IMG_2746.jpeg


IMG_2747.jpeg


La Wilson is one of the few artists who worked in the same realm as Joseph Cornell whose work didn’t strike me as a poor pastiche. I first came upon her work in an exhibition at the Cleveland Museum of Art:

IMG_2748.jpeg


IMG_2749.jpeg


IMG_2750.jpeg


IMG_2751.jpeg
 
Saw this one in a NY Times article about a fraudulent art purchase. Someone pretended to be Lady Gaga so they could get a discount and then resell it at Christies for a quick buck based on the artist's rise in popularity. Apparently these kind of artists want the buyer to hold on to it for like five years or so. The hot color foreground flowers are a little cliché for my tastes but I like her brushwork because one can see the brushwork. It's a large painting. 7x10 feet

1751222548047.png


“Happy Valley,” by Emma Webster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stlukesguild
The Duende (When You're Hot, You're Hot...)
Replies
12
Views
1K
Artyczar
Artyczar
txomsy
  • Sticky
June Challenge
2
Replies
20
Views
487
PaintBoss
PaintBoss
Terri
Jacob - Sunday stroll
Replies
16
Views
1K
Terri
Terri
Artyczar
  • Sticky
John Demmer AKA john
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Grapes
Grapes
ams
Monthly Art Prompts - October 2023
Replies
17
Views
2K
joe1It
J
Back
Top