Shay wrote:
>
> At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
> more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles, 

Well I make a fool of myself here quite often.  But I like to think I am 
enthusiastic :)

I will offer
> that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
> an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
> whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
> "awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
> opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
> in the picture is of no relevance.
> 
>  

I think you could take that argument quite far.


-Jim

> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Peter McCombs <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much
"anything
> goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
> components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
> difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.

Variety is the abstract spice of subjective surrealism?  There did seem to
be a lot of 'anything goes' entries, but that goes back to the point Shay
made earlier about scoring in the context of the entries, rather than in the
context of a subjective definition. My subjective take on surrealism before
the round was probably based more on 60's psycho-delic album covers more
than anything else :-)   After doing some research on the art and the
surrealist movement, I adjusted it to focus less on the image and more on
the process, as the idea seemed to be to let the subconscious dictate the
image. (And I have to say I found the process interesting... I will probably
do more 'surrealist' things based on what I developed from this round.)  And
after viewing the entries I've adjusted it again to include somewhat more
abstract concepts than I started with, since I hardly consider myself an
authority on someone elses subconscious ...   and some of the works of Arp
are more abstract than surreal.
>
> My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really
surrealistic-
> feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
> I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
> image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down
considerably
> after going back to it later.

Yes, there were some overused themes, and I didn't feel I was being too
critical if I knocked off points for it.  While I don't pretend to know
someone's subconscious, I'm pretty sure I know when they're 'borrowing'
Dali's.


The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
> author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a
story
> with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
> reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the
concrete
> because the whole thing had been explained to me.

There are a couple that the artist tries to go through and attach a meaning
to every single object and I find that tedious and it does spoil some of the
effect. On the whole though, I prefer some kind of explanation. After all,
this is a competition, and I'm trying to make some kind of judgement.  If
there is nothing to tell me what the artist is at least trying to say, then
I find it hard to judge how well they said it.  One I saw just said "You
figure it out". Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out 103 entries.

>
> Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
> bizarre.

Hmmm... in looking at the works of Dali, Miro, Magritte, I see significance,
but accidental doesn't really come to mind. Dali in particular seems very
much thought out and carefully constructed.   And I personally don't really
find them bizarre either.  Max Ernst though I found bizarre.

I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
> of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
> round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)

Yes, some very nice stuff in this round.  Even after my third and fourth
times viewing.  I always appreciate an entry with staying power ;-)

RG

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5e8a6b$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Well I make a fool of myself here quite often.  But I like to
| think I am enthusiastic :)

You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol

|
| I think you could take that argument quite far.

If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture. I don't have much to
draw from in that department. I may like anyone else occasionally slip
gears at very high RPM, but I don't take drugs and very rarely remember
my dreams. The last dream I do remember was a "nightmare" about being
unable to tie my shoe laces without their breaking. Not much inspiration
to gain from that!

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
> option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol
>

Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
> shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture. 

The danger would be in defining too great a divide between surrealism and
abstraction.  The breakthroughs of early abstract painters fueled the 
creativity of surrealism and later, surrealism's interest in the 
subconscious fed subsequent breakthroughs in abstraction.  More of a 
symbiosis.  Abstraction is probably a little harder to nail down than 
surrealism.

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...

|
| Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)

No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
of the consideration behind them.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I'm trying to get in touch with my "inner-artist", but unfortunately,
my inner artist has atrophed for many years.

I feel inadequate to discuss the artistic merits of just about anything.
However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.

-- 
Jeremy
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f5f7db0$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> |
> | Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)
>
> No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
> only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
> of the consideration behind them.
>
>  -Shay
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
> me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.
> 

I recently saw a taped interview with Kirk Varnedoe
(http://www.amacad.org/events/varnedoe_bio.htm)
on Charlie Rose.  He said that one of the roles art plays is that it's 
fun to argue about. Varnedoe could bring a lot of panache to the 
activity of gabbing about art.

Post a reply to this message