Surrealism - Art or Scribbles?

[hiltonoracle]

So I've been wondering for the longest time what art is really considered art. A piece of pencil shavings photographed can be framed and called art and I find it unfair to artists like myself that people do that and are still accredited equally. So my question is, is surrealism truly art?

[Syrella]

Surrealism is an art movement that began in the 1920s. Famous artists like Frida Kahlo and Salvador Dali fall into this category. You might want to consider doing some research before you jump into a discussion on the topic.

I think what you don't like is abstract / non-representational / non-objective art... which is typically more design and experience oriented. I'm sure someone here will be more than happy to enlighten you about it.

And, of course, even if you don't personally like abstract art, it doesn't mean that it's automatically relegated to the "not art" category. I'm not a huge fan of cubism, for example, but it doesn't mean that I would consider it not to be art.

[God-the-almighty]

Surrealism can be highly skilled. Not all of it is just a white canvas or reeks of dadaism.

[-2o]

I think if you're asking that question, you don't know enough about either surrealism or art.

Crossing my fingers in the hopes that this does not become a ten page "lol what is art?!?!?!" conversation

[Syrella]

-2o

I think if you're asking that question, you don't know enough about either surrealism or art.

Crossing my fingers in the hopes that this does not become a ten page "lol what is art?!?!?!" conversation

My thoughts exactly... emo

[God-the-almighty]

-2o

I think if you're asking that question, you don't know enough about either surrealism or art.

Crossing my fingers in the hopes that this does not become a ten page "lol what is art?!?!?!" conversation

It's what I figured,.

[hiltonoracle]

Well yes, I got the two, surrealism and abstract art, confused. But what I meant to ask, my fault for writing the wrong thing is what art should be accredited as art.

[hiltonoracle]

and the reason I ask this is because I have bought this book about Kerry James Marshall and he questions why there is a hierarchy in value of art(ie paintings over drawings), and as a young artist I want to openly ask you all why his question is so valid in reason.

[-2o]

Goddammit. No disrespect, but if you didn't care enough to research the art in question, I have zero faith this is going to be a fruitful discussion.

For my part, I just cannot give less than a s**t what is contained in the definition of art. It does not change my enjoyment, perception or evaluation of any piece of work, and it's navel gazing bullshit wrapped up in illusions of legitimacy for academics with nothing better to do.


edit:Or art collectors who like that sweet sweet cash.

[Better Than You Are]

News flash: there is no answer. Not really.

Don't try to find one, either, and just don't ******** ask it when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.


There's millions of scholary books and essays on the subject. There's classes and dissertations and critics who try to find an answer. And none of them can find or agree on one.

My senior year of my bfa, I took a grad level class that gave an overview of the last 150 years of this argument. It was the most painful, boring, and pointless class everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Pink]

Not just abstraction mixed up with surrealism (which I always thought had distinct visual differences anyway, and if you looked at a sample of like 15 iconic pieces from each movement this would be obvious), but you've gone as far as to cite photography. (Or even installation or conceptual stuff.)

So:

-2o

Goddammit. No disrespect, but if you didn't care enough to research the art in question, I have zero faith this is going to be a fruitful discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, this = </thread>

[Schwanengesang]

God-the-almighty

reeks of dadaism.

And dada is bad because?

[God-the-almighty]

Schwanengesang

God-the-almighty

reeks of dadaism.

And dada is bad because?

I think of it as art for artists because the viewer sees art in the object. Not a lot of people see it that way though. my point was it can take skill to make surrealism, the artist makes the piece rather than the viewer seeing the art in the object. Did you see me say it was bad? Different is different, it doesn't necessarily mean bad.

[Schwanengesang]

God-the-almighty

Schwanengesang

God-the-almighty

reeks of dadaism.

And dada is bad because?

I think of it as art for artists because the viewer sees art in the object. Not a lot of people see it that way though. my point was it can take skill to make surrealism, the artist makes the piece rather than the viewer seeing the art in the object. Did you see me say it was bad? Different is different, it doesn't necessarily mean bad.

"To reek" has a negative connotation in English. So yes, it is equivalent to "it's bad".

[God-the-almighty]

Schwanengesang

God-the-almighty

Schwanengesang

God-the-almighty

reeks of dadaism.

And dada is bad because?

I think of it as art for artists because the viewer sees art in the object. Not a lot of people see it that way though. my point was it can take skill to make surrealism, the artist makes the piece rather than the viewer seeing the art in the object. Did you see me say it was bad? Different is different, it doesn't necessarily mean bad.

"To reek" has a negative connotation in English. So yes, it is equivalent to "it's bad".

maybe or maybe not, it certainly wasn't my intention. Chalk it up to being a bad day. My condition today was not good. I should have let you see even this post in it's unaltered garbled form. It took me a while to fix it.