The purpose of art

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:26 am

GandalfgalTVV,

I believe the painter you are thinking of is Joan Miro.

Who was it that once said, 'art for art's sake'.

Art, I believe, is all an individual interpretation. No two people will probably see art in the same way. As has already been said, everything is art. It's everywhere you look from a beautiful piece of victorian architecture, the strip in las vegas, to the oil on canvas. Look at people like Laurie Anderson and Christo, their art is a production more or less.

For myself personally, the age of impressionism is what first comes to mind when I think of art. The heavy brush strokes and the collage of color just does it for me. Dada, however, is what probably changed the art of art forever. Truly, they were pioneers, reaching for a new artistic experience.

I struggle where people always try to find meaning in different pieces of art when the viewer should just bask and enjoy someone else's creativity.

One of my uncle's teaching sculpting for a graduate program here in the U.S. His program is based on the camraderie of art. He poses to his students the idea of each one coming up with a piece and then all getting together to work on each project one at time. "You try and pour a few thousand pounds of liquid f'n metal by yourself" is one of his quotes.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:13 am

@Gandalfgal and Ned: It might also be Piet Mondrian.

GandalfgalTTV · Post by **GandalfgalTTV** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:16 am

That's the one, thanks CE. It bugged me all day.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:30 am

Mondrian,

nice CE