Monday, May 13, 2013


twin peaks, homies

Today, we were doing a peer critique in art class. A girl said, “When you look at a piece of art, you’re supposed to know what it’s of.”
In the hallway a while ago, a boy said, “You can only make abstract art if you’re an accomplished artist. If you’re not, you just suck at art.”
People love to make jokes about abstract art because it’s pointless and stupid.
I mean…
jackson pollock
piet mondrian
marc rothko
Jackson Pollock SUCKED until he became accomplished.

Any music that's not ~pretty~ or ~polished~ SUUUUCCCCKKKKS.

What constitutes good art? Is the point of creating things to make something "good"? To please as many people as possible? Do we try to keep things is peachy keen and neat and fake and plastic and sparkling as we can?

I don't know. I think the point of art is to express yourself. You make what you feel to make the people around you (and yourself) think and feel differently after seeing this thing. The piece of artwork may change your ideas, or just leave you feeling intrigued because you enjoyed the way the paint was layered and the colors bring back memories or something like that.

Do human beings want to be as machine-like as possible? Or, do we want to embrace ourselves, and our differences, and the world, and art of the strange shimmer in the air?

No comments:

Post a Comment