Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.truefresco.com/cgidir/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: Modern Art - Classic Art - New Art
Topic ID: 7
#0, Classical v. Modern
Posted by Art Lover on 17-Nov-01 at 03:52 PM
The debate over classic v. modern is interesting, though I don't think artists who reject the modern and postmodern are "going back" or returning to anything. Painting is simply painting.

An interesting artist I've found whose work is deeply involved in this problem can be viewed at

Figurative Painter, Draftsman, Sculptor

Ciao


#1, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by ballpointpenart on 14-Mar-02 at 03:20 AM
In response to message #0
Greetings, I'm Jerry Stith the founder of Ball Point Pen Art here on the Internet. This is a New Art Medium, American Folk Art and World Class Art Movement here on the Internet. Being a New Art Medium throws us in the Modern Art arena, I would guess to think. Yet when I draw my pictures it would be called Classical Realism. Which means my art is as real as I can do it. It looks just like the object I'm looking at.

I live in modern times and use a modern instrument the Ballpoint Pen. Invented in 1938. Which seems rather modern next to many other art mediums. I like this modern medium because it's new and stands on it's own merits. I live today and use a new art medium instead of an art medium hundreds or thousands of years old.

I’m not placed in a medium with every artist over the past thousand years or so. I have a new avenue to travel down instead of dealing with the past. I have a new outlook and experience to deal with. I bring a fresh new kind of picture and look to the art world. Newness is a change instead of doing the same old thing over and over again.

This represents an evolution of the art world and updates us artists with new tools or instruments. Change is real and part of the world we all live in. It gives us artists of today something new and exciting to work with. The Ballpoint Pen has an extra-fine tip or point sharper than in the past. Therefore a new clarity or degree of detail in our works. Why be limited to the past and leave the world at a stand still? We can refine realism to a new level of excellence not available ever before. Classical Realism is advanced and new goals can be performed or cared out.

This moves our artist’s forward and keeps us in touch with modern times and new instruments. This New Art Medium brings us an American Folk Art never available if we stayed in the past. We can’t build a wall and always stand behind it. Things have got to change because everyday is new and different. Stagnation is a denial of reality and seems rather unhealthy. This gives us people of today a life and a place in art history. Which means I get a life!

Ballpoint Pens are likely the most used instruments in all of history. With billions of pens manufactured annually and used by countless numbers of people around the world this might be very true. These pens are used by hundreds of millions of artists or billions over the past 68 years.

A truly classical instrument used for writing and drawing by many. We simply apply this new instrument to our artistic needs or desires. The Ballpoint Pen makes the greatest camera ready detailed line in art history. The Half Tone line is made with the sharpest tip in history possible with its oil-based ink.

We adjust to modern times and produce new art works in doing so. Out with the old and in with the new is the slogan. Yet history records them all! This permits Classical Art to represent the past and Ball Point Pen Art can therefore preside in the present. A great balance and realistic in those terms. There is then a place for all as me march into the further.

Modern art forms or mediums permit us to have our own lives and space in time. Remember; all classical art mediums where at one time known themselves as modern. Modern art today will be a Classic art form in the year 3,000 if the world is still here. Those terms are simply related to our own place in space or time and will chance further down the road. In this view point they are really all the same.

Thank you, Jerry Stith


#2, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by catvarga on 05-Apr-02 at 09:58 AM
In response to message #1
Wage Peace through Art
www.christinavarga.com

I think it is possible to meld centuries together. There is no reason to stick to an old technique or style if you find a variation you would prefer to do.

I have recently garnered much criticism from other artists because I have parted ways with old techniques. In particular, I did a series of Icons, and iconography style, method and medium have been very rigorously laid out in detail over the past few centuries. There are rules to follow and I don't doubt that I violated a lot of them, and to some people, all.

However, an artist is an artist, and breaking with tradition is the right and liberty of the artist. Classical is one thing. A classic will always be a classic. But to paint in a classic style today can only be considered neo-classical. That's all.

Every artist has the right to express what they will. How people react to it is something else. How a critic regards it is another thing entirely.

Christina
www.christinavarga.com


#3, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by Lewerkun on 23-Nov-03 at 04:53 AM
In response to message #2
I would say, that, generally, there is no matter what materials or techniques or methods you are using. I think, that the main part of any creative work is it's idea. So, we can't compare ideas of past with the newest ones. The different techniques only can help us to express something new (or old), but if we haven't any new idea our work wouldn't be modern. We need modern ideas to create modern art (or musik, literature, or scientific theory, or anything else).
At the same time, I think, we can't reise on that lewel of fulfilment (I hope it's the right word) of works(I mean technique level), which had achived artists of past. It's so, because the modern art became something that evertbody can do (or can try to do).

(I recall Dushamp, one artist, who used "ready-made objects" in his works and it was 100 years ago.)

So, for example, the ability to create became more accessible for everybody (like other things in this world). This also show us that the ideas of our time influence on art,technique and methods we use in creating art.
(This means, that technique and methods we use in creating art need to be more accesible for everybody - like Ballpoint Pens).
And so on. We can find more examples.
So, new materials/techneques help us to create something new, to have our own "image", story, history and ect.
But we need new ideas (or "good-forgotten" ideas)to name new art "modern" and so on.
(And, finnaly, I'll add my explanation of rigor laws in iconographia:
Creating icons was kind of mystery. Comparing this with idea of middvil times that nobody can grasp the wisdom of God (saints and etc.). So iconographia was more a ritual, then a kind of art. Also we can recall, that the rules of that time was too rigor, these rules determined all life of people and it's naturally that such rules was in iconographia.)
Respectifully,
L.


#4, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by Ilia on 24-Nov-03 at 02:57 AM
In response to message #3

>At the same time, I think, we can't reise on
>that lewel of fulfilment (I hope it's the right
>word) of works(I mean technique level), which
>had achived artists of past. It's so, because
>the modern art became something that evertbody
>can do (or can try to do).
>
>(I recall Dushamp, one artist, who used
>"ready-made objects" in his works and it was 100
>years ago.)
>
>So, for example, the ability to create became
>more accessible for everybody (like other things
>in this world). This also show us that the ideas
>of our time influence on art,technique and
>methods we use in creating art.
>(This means, that technique and methods we use
>in creating art need to be more accesible for
>everybody - like Ballpoint Pens).

Looks like "Create" needs a re-defining...

"Ability to create" just like "ability to make babies"
became more accessible to people or did it?
Nothing has changed in my opinion, everyone now so as than had this ability to the fullest... they did not have ballpoint pens but there was enough sticks and sand... so as freedom of sex and birth control does not (in my opinion) "statisticaly" per gross population look any different from wars and rape by the occupation army (romans and whatnot) has been ballanced by higher death rate.

They did not have ballpoint pens but internet was not available either, so they had planty of time drawing on the sand...

Getting back to the point: the fact that everything is concedered art (by whoever) does not makes it art and the level of fulfillment is achievable if one searches for it and not paying much attention to the ignorance technical or mental.

Just imagine what good of a person will result from crossing a deliriouce alcoholic and a crak addicted syphilitic.

Botton line - the "act of creation" is not f.king - it is achieving this fulfilment you have mentioned.


#5, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by Lewerkun on 24-Nov-03 at 07:28 AM
In response to message #4
Hmm.
It's pretty sad that you misunderstood my words.
I lost only word in sentence and you get it so serious and frankly. I meant that people in our centure have much more time/abilities to devote them to their hobbies (also to art).Though not many of them do this (not f.king)
Botton line - "the "act of creation" is not f.king" - why? to be honest, f.king(I think we shouldn't use this word because webmaster will be angry) is also act of creation. )
Take it easy.
P.S.
Maybe you are preoccupied about creating babies? If it's so, I can't help you.

#6, RE: Classical v. Modern
Posted by Lewerkun on 24-Nov-03 at 07:34 AM
In response to message #5
(Maybe i've post too many smiles in message,
but I didn't want you, Ilia, to rush on me. (I thought you willn't be glad). Jokes, jokes, jokes...