art is everywhere!

¡Have you seen that before? I think it's amazing !!!!!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bouncechrissy/155638.html?page=1

I was expecting that to be shit, but some of those are absolutely capital.

WOW... think of all the so called "artists" who sell shit for thousands of dollars, while people like this guy are TRUE, but sadly starving artists.

Kudos for him. Awesome stuff.

The world is full of neat stuff that has absolutely no connection to art. This is neat to look at, but is not art. I imagine his actual income is in line with his true earning potential. Drawing chalk drawings of oversized dead flies is far from being considered "art."

It is to me cause it looks so real. Try to do something like that as well. Can you manage that?

Ps! Zeni - say what is art to you? To me it's all the beautiful things that people have made with their hands

That is indeed artistic talent, Zeni. I, too, would like to have your defination of art.

Uh...i like those pictures!for me is more "trompe l'oeil" than art, but it's good!

I do not deny that the man has talent to draw things (nor do I claim that I can do the same), but that is not "art."

How do his drawings change the medium? What is his greater or deeper meaning, or is he commenting on society in some way? Is he trying to alter our collective perceptions or influence our thoughts? Art generally addresses these types of questions.

Take for instance his picture of the girl in the swimming pool. How is this considered "art"? It may be pretty and life-like, but where does it become "art"?

If these pictures had been drawn on a velvet canvas, most people here would dismiss them. Just because they are pretty does not mean they are "art."

Hm. maybe it's true in some point

But then again - there are many kinds of point of views ;)

nice drawings :)

"If these pictures had been drawn on a velvet canvas, most people here would dismiss them. Just because they are pretty does not mean they are "art.""


Zeni, it is because they are NOT on canvas that gives them appeal and also half breaks the 'medium' you're on about. Whether they are art or not depends on the person contemplating them. I wouldn't have them at the Towers, but they are very skilfully done.

You should see the annual Turner Prize for art. One year, I visited the exhibits after a particularly boozy night. I took one look at 'Unmade Bed' and promptly threw up.

My vomit took third place.

Once again people, Zeni is back here to bring us new definition to a word of common significance.

Today's word is... "art".

WOW pretty good :D

"it is because they are NOT on canvas that gives them appeal and also half breaks the 'medium' you're on about."

That's what gives them appeal, I agree. But "art" it does not make them. What do they offer besides 3-D images on the sidewalk? Where is the beauty in form? The social commentary? The explosion in technique?

And glad to see Aldanny/Jingles is able to rationally discuss things once again. Apparently "reason" and "intelligence" are words I'll need to define for him later; I guess cheap shots are par for the course with him. It is becoming more and more evident that you have no desire to discuss things in a sane manner. Unlike others, who took umbrage with my opinion and chose to discuss the matter intelligently, you simply made fun of me. You truly are a small person, Danny. I would love to have a 4 page "discussion" with you over your inner-jackassness, but I have little desire to communicate with the irrational.

Art, by it's very essence, cannot be defined - for me it's soul lies mainly with imagination.
It is in the eye of the beholder. Or to put it another way - One man's masterpiece is another man's 'turd on a stick'.