Not at all do you sound patronizing, Guernica was a protest by an artist, the red iceberg is not.Tarrasque Wrangler said:
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Red iceberg
- Thread starter Hand of Evil
- Start date
Tarrasque Wrangler
First Post
I'm just saying, someone could be all about shock value and outrageousness and still be a great artist. Many artists that we consider masters today were looked upon as perverts, halfwits, hacks and worse in their day. Just look at alsih2o, he's all of the above . Maybe Red Iceberg dude is just ahead of his time.
As for the aforementioned iceberg, I couldn't tell you my opinion. Link didn't work.
. Maybe Red Iceberg dude is just ahead of his time.As for the aforementioned iceberg, I couldn't tell you my opinion. Link didn't work.
alsih2o
First Post
Tarrasque Wrangler said:I'm just saying, someone could be all about shock value and outrageousness and still be a great artist. Many artists that we consider masters today were looked upon as perverts, halfwits, hacks and worse in their day. Just look at alsih2o, he's all of the above
PREACH!
jgbrowning
Hero
MerakSpielman
First Post
I don't much see the point in the Red Iceberg piece. This artist is a little strange. Remember, this is the same guy who set up an exhibit consisting of goldfish swimming around in blenders, who suggested to his viewers that they turn them on.
The problem with art is it's so broadly defined. My father-in-law (with a degree in Fine Art) defined art as "A creative process, and the results thereof." If it was created out of human creativity, it was art. This didn't mean it was beautiful, profound, or interesting. It is something anybody can do, not just a few talented individuals.
Oh, and then there's the key behind the "anybody could do that, I could do that" reaction to a lot of modern art. The point is, you didn't do that. You have the abilities, but lack the vision - however strange and uninspired the vision is - somebody else got there first. I see people on TV all the time and think "Eh, I could do that," but I'm still not the one on TV. Modern art often does not require any particular artistic talent on the part of the creator, but to be noticed it has to be unique - something nobody has done before.
Take Kazimir Malevich's Red Square for instance. A famous piece of modern art that any 2nd grader could create for himself. A 2nd grader is unlikely to be painting it as a response to communism, but the literal, finished product would be nearly identical. The two pieces - Malevich's Red Square and the 2nd grader's Red Square are equally Art, but Malevich's gained noteriety becuase of the meaning he associated with the image. That meaning was the only unique and original aspect of the work.
So take this Red Iceberg. Anybody with an iceberg, enough red paint, and enough time can simply make one of their own. But this person would probably be largely ignored. Evaristti has managed to attain, all at once, interest, ridicule, outrage, confusion, appreciation, unappreciation, and laughter into a single piece of art - a piece nobody will ever be able to take home and own. He has succeeded in making his mark on Mother Nature, increasing his own fame/ego, and bringing more tourists than usual flocking to a tiny town in Greenland. Most people don't like the Red Iceberg. Most people think it's, at best, silly. But it has inspired more of an emotional reaction to it's mere existence than all of my father-in-laws paintings combined. This makes it not only art, but wildly successful and popular art (the sheer number of people aware of it, thinking about it, talking about it, regardless of whether or not they LIKE it, makes it popular). Nobody can do this piece again without it being considered a cheap knock-off.
The problem with art is it's so broadly defined. My father-in-law (with a degree in Fine Art) defined art as "A creative process, and the results thereof." If it was created out of human creativity, it was art. This didn't mean it was beautiful, profound, or interesting. It is something anybody can do, not just a few talented individuals.
Oh, and then there's the key behind the "anybody could do that, I could do that" reaction to a lot of modern art. The point is, you didn't do that. You have the abilities, but lack the vision - however strange and uninspired the vision is - somebody else got there first. I see people on TV all the time and think "Eh, I could do that," but I'm still not the one on TV. Modern art often does not require any particular artistic talent on the part of the creator, but to be noticed it has to be unique - something nobody has done before.
Take Kazimir Malevich's Red Square for instance. A famous piece of modern art that any 2nd grader could create for himself. A 2nd grader is unlikely to be painting it as a response to communism, but the literal, finished product would be nearly identical. The two pieces - Malevich's Red Square and the 2nd grader's Red Square are equally Art, but Malevich's gained noteriety becuase of the meaning he associated with the image. That meaning was the only unique and original aspect of the work.
So take this Red Iceberg. Anybody with an iceberg, enough red paint, and enough time can simply make one of their own. But this person would probably be largely ignored. Evaristti has managed to attain, all at once, interest, ridicule, outrage, confusion, appreciation, unappreciation, and laughter into a single piece of art - a piece nobody will ever be able to take home and own. He has succeeded in making his mark on Mother Nature, increasing his own fame/ego, and bringing more tourists than usual flocking to a tiny town in Greenland. Most people don't like the Red Iceberg. Most people think it's, at best, silly. But it has inspired more of an emotional reaction to it's mere existence than all of my father-in-laws paintings combined. This makes it not only art, but wildly successful and popular art (the sheer number of people aware of it, thinking about it, talking about it, regardless of whether or not they LIKE it, makes it popular). Nobody can do this piece again without it being considered a cheap knock-off.
Last edited:
Blood Jester
First Post
There is a difference between 'I did not think to do it' and 'I dismissed it as tacky, worthless, and destructive and so did not do it'. 'Painting nature' is not new, or original for that matter, it's been done, alot. So this guy has offered the world nothing.
edit: typo
edit: typo
Last edited:
MerakSpielman
First Post
Can you honestly say that you thought of painting an iceberg red and decided not to? Sure, painting nature is old news. So this guy thought of a way that nature has never been painted before, and did it. Tacky, worthless, and destructive are pretty much beside the point.
Blood Jester
First Post
Not really. Even based on your father-in-law's opinion ...(art is) "A creative process, and the results thereof." So, one must create to create art.MerakSpielman said:
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
MerakSpielman said:
By some. Others have a narrow definition. That seems to be the point of contention; whether someone has the right (or "authority") to define what they consider art to be, or not be, for themself or if it has an inate existence despite individual opinion.
I think in the end people will always think for themselves, even under the most restrictive of conditions, and all one can hope to do is influence, not dictate, how they think.
That, IMO, is the goal of the artist. First, to get others to consider their output as art, and then to hope they qualify it in some way that validates it as art, for good or ill. While I am not against admitting that the goldfish exhibit was art, and not what I would personally view as high-quality art, I am not of an opinion that the iceberg stunt is art. It's provocative, but not (IMO) artistically so. Many things can be provocative without being art.
