hmm, since there is this wonderful idea about art blog, i have decided to share with you people my philiosophy towards art, especially at my time.
Its pretty simple really, i might offend some people, but thats the way i view it.
There are basically two categories of art, Good art and Bad art.

good art is...well, good art! it includes those large scale artworks that require ALOT of skill and it serves more mature message to bring across.

for example:




One of the works of the super duper famous photorealist of today!
Chuck Close!

well, the reason why i categorize him as good-art-artist is because every piece of work has a sentimental value to society, remembering things we treasure the most through photography , he embraced it... the world will be very depressing without the ability to capture the image of people ever so effectively...

his works require skill, LOTS AND LOTS of skill =)
thats why its named good art.

here's one example of bad art.




well, this is lavender mist by Jackson Pollock.
Upon first glance, its rather obvious to understand why this person does not appeal to the public. Well, you're right!
this is just my opinion towards his art, here it goes.
unlike Chuck, i believe that "abstract expressionist artist" is a term given by high ranking officials in art to people like Jackson just to stop bugging them about squiggly lines.
Does it require alot of skill? i think not. Being drunk or in a trance-like state doesn't make you skillful.
It's rather disheartening to see people like him ramble about on a big wooden board and yet bring in tons of cash into his life. Got a body to spare? no problem, just fill it up with alcohol and shamble about on the board, not a care in the world. This person definitely puts artists such as Chuck to a shame, Chuck is papralysed neck down, a father, and a seemingly innocent person, does he exploit his body? i think not.

there is almost no sentimental value of his works...well individually, it being a series, every artwork is repeated, his same arms, his ame mind, the form will be imprinted there. he just can't treasure.
well, one good thing about his works is that he can easily chop it into two and call it two different works, better yet, chop it into 60 pieces and say he just made 59 pices overnight.

there must be a reason why aspiring graphic designers follow his style in billabong gear, high-end designs for youths, yes, im talking about the random splattering. why redevelop these splatters? SIMPLE! IT NEEDS MORE IMPROVEMENT! if im not wrong, people can use his work as a source of primary research for their coursework. 1,000,000 orientations of a splatter can be found in one artpiece...


well, in general Good Art includes:
classical art, more conventional art, something to treasure, something you would want in your house.
old masters like Cezanne, Rene Magritte the surrealist and picasso for example. their works deserve to be treasured deeply. these works require skill, their visual aspect must be there, otherwise it won't be called VISUAL art.

Bad Art includes:
new medium movements, performance art does not communicate through me, i watch a certain movement for example (a fat woman belly dancing and rolling on the floor), and 50 minutes later, POOF! i have forgotten all about it! normal people won't be inspired just by looking at people rolling on the floor. take for instance, an advertisment of a woman with bad teeth smoking cigarettes.



and lets say the hawker centre "ah peh" plans to put up a video of a performance art play in another kopitiam. The performance art clip includes people walking around like ah peh, falling to the floor and doing the sprinkler, then blowing smoke from their noses and falling down again. which is more impactful? its rather obvious.

other arts include the exhibition of "body worlds", sure their plastination is a boom success in the medical industry, but why exploit their bodies???? i can deal with slicing a person in half, segmenting them, but why construct a couple having sex? a man holding his skin, a man who is practically blown up and and hung in mid air? its inmoral, there is no message though this. dada is one of it, exploiting other art forms to earn money and recognition, the reason why other art forms dont exploit them is because dada is ALREADY exploited works of art.

over simplification, a form of laziness? i guess i have to agree. Its just not fair to see a person like Piet Mondrain draw a square with a white triangle inside and recieve 50thousand dollars for it. If society was equal, why can't the african people sell their tribal totems or sand art to museums and make them rich and enjoy a better taste of life??? this artworks don't require skill.

ok so i guess you want to challenge me about neutral artworks? what are they? here's an example:



this is a nice sculpture along singapore river, can't really remember the artist's name though...
good poise, nice fengshui. but hmm, isnt this abstract??? does it include skill? well, its more of a medium. Its not as intricate as roman statues and it is not super abstract like brancusi's "the muse". Its more on the middle. well, my take is this, if its moral, aesthetically appreciative and serves a sentimental message to treasure, its Good Art, otherwise its just a wasteof space.
in my opninion this is good art, the statue gives higher recognition to the singapore river, its soooo much magnificent now that the statue is in place. Ask a tourist,"where do you want a picture taken, over there?","oh its lovely, honey, stand next to the big statue". and ask again, "where did you take this statue?","oh i took it at this wonderful river bank, the shops there are great". it makes the area, more wonderful, people describe art as a 3-way process, Artist, viewer and artwork communicate together, now theres an additional term, that is destination. the destination makes the statue deserve to be appreciated whilist, the statue makes the destination something worse spending $12.00 to travel from choa chu kang to City hall in one hot day.

hmm