ooooo, a troll, huh? Full of crap? Pretty harsh stuff.
Let me begin by saying to Andy, and anyone else that may have misunderstood my first post. The model, and in particular the water, is certainly the best I've ever seen. If smells could somehow be included in that diorama, I'd probably be seasick.
I've worked with just about every other art medium, but currently are doing ship models, including them in some type of diorama. In this respect I fully recognize the great accomplishment of the model. (Frankly, I don't want to know how the water was done. Isn't that the point of doing? Though, if a competent video were released, I'd certainly pay attention to it.)
I brought it up the issue about art, not to lessen the quality of Andy's work, but not to cheapen the word either. I suppose it's a bad way to try to educate or enlighten. I thought I made myself clear and had no intention of offending.
Art is tough to define, it always has been. It exists on so many levels. The point I was trying to make was simply one of semantics, and of the care-free use of the term today. Art isn't just anything you do, no matter how well. And a person doesn't become an artist just because they're very skilled at whatever they're doing. As a viewer, a person can like whatever they want. BUT, they must understand it is just that, something they enjoy. They may think of it as Art, they can call it Art, but only to themselves.
Using the words, Art and Artist, are testimonial proofs that the subject exists, and begin to make the distinction about what it is.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Unfortunately that phrase has stuck with many people. It is a valid statement but that's not the total criteria used in judging or defining art. Since beauty, only exists in the individuals mind, there is no reference point there. Furthermore, the subject in Art isn't always pleasing, or recognizable. We can't use this for a reliable method.
SO . . . WHAT IS IT?
* Primary it is a statement of an idea.
* Fundamentally it doesn't serve any other purpose. ‘‘Art for Art's sake.''
* The materials used are usually in their rawest state. This allows the artist to exercise the greatest amount of control over the piece.
* The idea and execution of that idea should be original.
* The artist should remain in control of the materials throughout the entire evolution of the work.
Despite those conditions, it is not the responsibility of the artist to define, or explain the piece, to the viewer. Of course, most artists want their art to be understood, and usually take steps to achieve this. But it is the viewer that must make the adjustment to the piece. It is their responsibility to understand this new object confronting them. Like any unknown item one may encounter, they are responsible to learn about it. And to learn as objectively as possible. This is especially true for art. In fact, it is vital to the whole process. So much is missed if you judge something with a closed mind. The piece, the artist, and the viewer, all suffer.
One of the posts had a derogatory comment about the art of Jackson Pollack. The person was trying to illustrate the lack of aesthetics simply by way of what they saw. And by what they understood about the art. Undoubtedly very little of either. Then they compared it to something a six-year child might do. Once again, they must be reminded about the fundamentals as stated above.
However, a statement like that commits another grievous offence. To the child. Children, when given the freedom to express themselves through art, produce very satisfying results. Usually without knowing what they've done. They are not constricted by the materials (drawing on walls), are not concerned about what it's supposed to look like, how it might make more money if this or that were changed, or if the idea is clear to the viewer at all. A very pure medium for growing some very good art.
One often times asks the child, ‘‘ What is it?'' A big no-no. This is one of the initial phases that brings doubts and kindles awareness and brings doubts into a child's mind. Getting older, seeing how things appear different usually finish the job. ( in this aspect, we're all born as artist). Dig, so far?
The same goes for art done by primitive people. And I DON'T mean people that have no formal art training. If you're still following this, art isn't just the manipulation of materials. IT IS THE IDEA. Pure, undiluted, and unconscious. A near impossible state, but the only one worth attempting.
(by the way, I'm not a fan of Jackson Pollack , but I can tell you the reasons why that is.)
On the other hand, I don't read Shakespear. But it's my own ignorance that is to blame. I cannot truthfully say, ‘‘ Shakespear is just crap. He bunched together a lot of goofy words because he really didn't know how to write. ''
I can think that, but it would only be true for me.
I have other authors I like better. But that's all it amounts to, something I like. The key word is like. It's my loss in not reading deeper into Shakespeare. Without some extra effort, Shakespear isn't easy to read and understand. But that isn't his fault, or his responsibility. If he had wrote his stories simpler, like a romance novel, the whole effect would suffer.
Why is this? Because of the limitations of that writing style. The same holds true for all the other classes of art.
Rock, by it's very nature and definition, is more limited than classical music. (but it is my preference and I accept this aspect of it).
Graffiti will never produce a Mona Lisa. (unless the intension , materials and desire of the person changes).
Poetry comparable to Keats, Tennyson, or Longfellow will never be produced by Rap (artist?) for the same reasons. I know they're totally different things, but they both use words to convey their meaning. The reason I can't stand Rap isn't because I'm offended by the language, only by the lack of some imagery. It's pretty much all the same. We'll never come across something like The Raven by a rapper, unless the entire format is changed.
A product commonly known as Paint-by-Number, also shares this limitation. One can only go so far with a painting like this, no matter how carefully you stay within the lines. (The only way to improve this method of painting is breaking away from it. Sound like another contradiction? The improvement is the pure, ideal concept of freedom. Breaking away of the Paint-by-Number does not imply that the new format will be better, but it's the only chance one has. Everyone can still prefer the Paint-by-Number piece.) ANY of the modern, 20th century, artists drew exquisitely. From, Andy Warhol to Picasso. Where they branch out comes from the limitations of simply drawing something with photo-realistic accuracy.
Incidently, the Wildlife stamps are only illustrations. Skillful, yes. But (probably) not something you'll find in the Louvre, or Met. I think you know why. The restrictions imposed by the current materials and concepts.
The same is true for modeling. Scratch building brings it a step closer, and placing it in a diorama, another step. But there comes an end to what can be expressed through this format. Eventually one has to ‘switch' the media and explore the deeper ideas and questions inside them.
That is the final point I'd like to make about Art. (certainly ‘great' art as well). It goes beyond seeing. It goes into the state of awareness. Not only about what he sees, but about himself along side of those images. And about the speculations and ideas, born from a result of. It's what separates us from all the other life forms.
(Andy, I'd like to hear from you. I have a hunch you know what I mean.)