ArtsArtArtists
ANSWERS: 17
  • No, I do not like it. I had a boyfriend who was a painter, and he talked much about paintings. He tells me such radical modern art is a con game. Painters today have lost the techniques and skills of the past masters of painting and just do weird things and invent excuses for it. He said that Pablo Picasso admitted he was a mountebank selling trash to fools. The last great painters were in the Baroque period, and painting has deteriorated constantly since then.. Modern artists are children compared to the Baroque masters. Eccentricity has replaced true creativity. The finest art communicates with everyone, while abstract art pretends to have its own language that few can comprehend. Even if that were true, it would destroy much of art's purpose.
    • Pei Chia-Li
      I agree with you totally. I think this si an excellent answer.
    • Victorine
      Utter nonsense. Take some art history classes. And no, there are great modern artists who are, in their own genres, the equal of the Baroque masters. As a specialist in Early Modern European culture, I can assure you of that.
  • Yes I do.
    • ReiSan
      I do not!
    • Pei Chia-Li
      I do not either !
  • Some i do if I feel s connection to it.
  • No, I hate it. It's all a con game.
  • i like art but inn not sure what you nnean by abstract
  • Yes, I extremely love abstract art. It gives you the freedom to explore the artwork and turn your imaginations into a piece. My room and living area is filled with beautiful abstract art. Love the flow comes from random patterns and it
    • Pei Chia-Li
      I hate it. It is just one more lame excuse for lacking the skill of the Baroque masters.
  • dont know rnuch about it
  • I,m not into art of any kind, except the art of nature.
  • An if. It is full of possibilities and can serve as an inspiration for trauma's stories.
  • I hate it, It is meaningless, but some morons claim it has profound meaning. It cons people.
  • Any 'art' that requires some snooty conceited museum curator or art critic to qualify it as art, and try to convince you it actually is art....AIN"T ART! Never was. Never will be. No matter how many rabid docents or arty intelligentsia squeal like stuck pigs to the contrary. Real art never requires some doubletalking fool to explain what it is, or what it's about, nor browbeat you into accepting it as art....real art is known to the eye the moment it is seen...just as is crappy pretend art!
    • Victorine
      Once again, you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Educated people don't require a curator or critic to tell them what art is, but the uneducated who haven't studied the field do. I know many curators, art historians, and docents, and none of them is "snooty" or "conceited". You are merely insecure and resentful when confronted with people who are better-educated on the subject than you are. That comes through loudly and clearly, sweetie. By the way, "real art" is NOT always "known to the eye the moment it is seen". That's an amazingly ignorant claim.
    • Franco333
      "Educated people don't require a curator or critic to tell them what art is" as they have already been properly indoctrinated into right-thinking, as in those that have allowed pseudo-intellectuals to tell them what to think, how to think, when to think (and when to shut up and let conceited snobs do the thinking for them)! The very argument that us poor uneducated folk need to be told by your sort what is art, goes further to conclusively prove beyond doubt, just how snooty and conceited docents, art historians, and ex-museum curators truly are, than any other evidence I could offer. As for "better-educated on the subject than you are", in other words those that have been properly indoctrinated at public school and leftist infested colleges in libturd groupthink.Your sort wish to be granted the status of final arbiters of art, or whatever other field you infest. You're merely scared witless that the masses will awake to this particular con job of the intelligentsia (one of many), and start thinking for themselves, at which time control freaks will become unemployable, the reins of power will be ripped from their fingers, and all their glorious ability to influence will wane away.....which is THE worst case scenario for your sort, to be rendered impotent and nugatory...the very stuff of nightmares for every wannabe gatekeeper. Real art is indeed self-evident to those of us able to think and see and understand for ourselves, without any need for silly 'experts' to tell us what we think and see and understand. Your silly sort can oooohhh! and ahhhh! a rusted bicycle pump, a twisted bit of carwreck, Picasso or Pollock crap, a canvas some monkey threw paint at, and yes, pay $50,000 for a Hunter Biden original! Just don't be surprised when the attendance at your ghastly museum or art showing is dismal, or when someone who does attend proclaims your choices as crapart, and when you try to browbeat him/her into submission, they label your silly protests as amazingly ignorant! As the old saying goes: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time! And you can bank on that Snookums!
  • nope i dont most is silly
  • Yes, I like good abstract art. Not all of it is good, though generally, untalented abstract artists don't do well on the art market and don't get their works into museums. I know many artists. Of course those who work in the abstract genre are sincere. It's not some great joke to them, I assure you.
  • Some art in the genre of "abstract" is okay. My taste focuses more on color and balance than subject matter.
  • Its nice to look at but I prefer real-life. It takes more time and requires precision and practice. Anybody can put together fancy colors, not everyone can draw a person accurately😌.
  • I have difficulty understanding abstract art
  • If it has minimalistic character, I like it okay.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy