More Real Than Real?

please elaborate?

What we call realism is all illusion created on a flat surface. The Black painting has no such illusion. It is what it is, therefore more real.

mkay

He went as far in his paintings as to try to eliminate evidence of brushstrokes, you are not given clues as to how the painting is produced.

Ronald,

I had to look up Ad Reinhardt. He was part of the abstract expressionism school.

Black signifies infinity. It goes on forever.

If you have a narrow office and a red door at one end of the office paint the door black and the room seems larger.

Hyperrealism is a different art movement long after Reinhardt's 1930s abstractions.

Here is a link with some good examples of hyperrealism.

http://tinyurl.com/mmhw4tc

Dave

I wonder what colors he used to create his black. Its very rich looking. I can appreciate it because although it may seem so its not easy painting a consistent block of color without variances and then having no brush strokes visible is even tougher. Also, although it may seem so its very difficult to even paint a straight line with even thickness. So kuddos goes to those painters that can do that too.

Just in case you want to see what actual realism looks like.

Johannes Wessmark - gouache and colored pencil
http://www.johanneswessmark.se/paintingsLandscape.html

Elizabeth Tyler - acrylic
http://www.elizabethtyler.com/Elizabeth_Tyler/Acrylics.html#9

Jos Van Riswick - oil
http://www.josvanriswick.com/

The guy with the black canvas (and he isn't the only one by the way), is making a statement. Now, is the making of the statement in and of itself "art"? That is up for discussion. Personally when people do the paint roller of black on a small canvas the statement that I am hearing is "I am so famous, only my name matters, so I can put *?!x on a canvas and people will buy it." To me that makes that person a salesperson, not an artist. And I find the statement a little bit offensive to the people who work so hard to develop their skill and show, like the examples above, real artistic talent.

Kim,

Extremely good artists. Thanks for the links.

Abstract Expressionism is a lot of things. In the hands of a few of the originators
it was more dynamic. Most artists simply adding a blotch or two of paint to the
canvas to see what will happen fail to have any depth in their constructs. Paint
slopped onto a canvas is nonsense.

The idea behind modern art is to evoke questions. Abstract Expressionism particularly
when well done succeeds. The art also is meant to be roundly rejected. That too is a feeling
that is evoked on purpose.

Some questions,

Is that art?

What was the artist thinking?

Some statements,

I can do that.

That sucks.

Those are the common reactions to modern art.

I am saying modern art because evoking responses does
not just stop with abstract expressionism.

It was the impressionists on a deeper level who began to understand that the audience was
involved with how art is actually seen. There are universals in how art is seen.

It was the cubists who using some science at the time understood that the brain
and the eye were connected and that the eye was working differently than the brain
that was piecing the image together.

Art has been made with universal audience responses in mind for a long time now.

Dave

impressionism and cubism involve making some effort at putting something on a canvas. Saying a black piece of dung on a wall is meaningful because someone says it is a whole lot of BS. So basically you are saying the BS is art and should be respected as such. And I say well I don't. Its my personal choice to value talent over con artists.

Subjectively and objectively I agree with you.

That said there are some art theories I was pointing out. I was merely pointing them out.

The art in most instances is still BS. I agree.

A con job. Bad work if you can get it.

Dave

the thing you are saying is, there is this club, and the club has agreed that they will have this rule. It doesn't matter that the rule requires you to throw your brain out the window, it is the club rule so that is the way it is. Quite a number of club rules follow this formula so no matter. The end result though is a con, which makes the "artist" and the gallerist both grifters. And as the french like to say, its the result that counts.

Kim,

I never used the word "club" I have no reason to use the word club.

The French won the US Revolution.
The French gave us the Statue of Liberty.
The French separated out from NATO as a nuclear deterrent to the Soviets.
Possibly preventing WW III.

Do you always tarnish the French when you disagree with something else?

We have a lot of common ground.

Modern art is mainly BS. I agree.

That does not mean all of it has to go.

Every period has BS. The 1900s and 2000s are not exceptions to this.

I do agree much of it is con.

But then again putting 3D realities onto 2 dimensional planes for entertainment
purposes is easy to over price.

Who is cheating who?

Dave

I am not tarnishing the French, far from it. The club I was speaking of is the "Art World" now the art world club that I'm speaking of would be those members of this club that make the rules. Who would those rule makers be? Well, heavy hitter galleries and auction houses. Are all the people who buy crappy work dupes? No, because since the art world introduced the concept of providence and art as investment into the club, it doesn't matter what a piece looks like for it to have financial value. But, for those pieces that do not have providence you have to be a serious heavy hitter to create it. Most people are not, that means that if you spend a lot of money on an "artist" who's work does not have some pieces in providence maker collections you are not getting value for money. If you seriously like the black painting and to you shock = art, then go for it. The other factor in the art world that makes things like the black painting get sold is not just artists thumbing their nose at collectors, and gallerists selling snake oil, but collectors (sometimes) thumbing their nose at the rest of their peers. Essentially saying, "Look you wanna be billionaires, simple millionaires, I can buy this ridiculously priced piece of thing that otherwise has no value whatsoever, because I can."

The question is, what does recognizing crap as art do globally to artists? My pretty worthless opinion is that it devalues the art field in general. Because the number of people buying high value art is small. The number of average people buying lower priced art is larger. If the opinion circulates that art can be done by anyone, because it requires no skill, which is generally the opinion today, then art loses its value and all artists suffer.

Kim,

It is an interesting argument. I do not mean battle by argument.

I see it a bit differently. I agree almost all of it is crap. But then again how many perfectly well executed
realistic paintings do we need? And from anyone who dares to paint?

I see it as an exhaustion of Western Culture mixed with the move from the analog world to the digital world.

As the Abstract Expressionism hit its high in sales creativity took a dive. You are right. But the movement
was a natural outcome of the decades or even centuries of art development by generations of artists.

The thing you are railing about really exists. There is so much money in the arts it is ridiculous. But the reasons
are very different than what you are thinking. Simply put the FED printing all that money has money flowing into
very dumb art.

And btw Bloomberg much early this year wrote an article on artists only a few years out of art school. Many of those
totally worthless artist works were selling in the upper hundreds of thousands of dollars. NOT that those artists were getting that
much. Their art pieces were switching hands on average five or six times a year like a hot potato just waiting to crash to the floor.

The Bloomberg article also looked back ten years to similar conditions for new artists.Those works had crashed in half and
were still descending in price. New works by those now 30 year old artists were not moving.

All the easy money in New York has distorted the market a great deal.

The bottom line....which you will love.....major collectors are going to see all their art become worthless as digital
technologies take over the process. All art will be made in unlimited quantities. Including ancient master pieces.

Only the ideas will be worth something.

I did not say you need in any way to accept the art. I do not. Lets make that clear. But the ideas you need as
an artist to make more money. This does not mean copying rubbish. Instead it means fully understanding the
different constructs of art theory. That is not club talk. That is art talk . Your club is a bunch of bankers losing money
again...and again...but it not their money....

Dave

The artist will never see the result of provenance. So any artist hoping to make their fortune by painting nothing on a canvas will be disappointed. But people who throw down hundreds of thousands of dollars on a piece are provenance makers so it doesn't matter to them what it is. Some collectors actually like art so I am not throwing everyone into one bucket. But the art world is all out bonkers and upside down. This New Yorker Outloud Podcast talks about the sale of the Francis Bacon triptych and says basically what I said, that "art since Plato has been one long confidence game."

https://soundcloud.com/newyorker/131202-outloud-paumgarten

"Art theories" are created by the club that I talked about. And the club can give dog pee a fancy name like Abstract Expressionism, that does not change it from being dog pee. Some people will say hey you know that dog pee there it stinks, and other people will call the dog pee smell a fragrance and try to sell it. Now, there are some seriously good sales people. Art dealers for one have to be very good sales people because they are selling something no one needs for a high price. If you make the rules you can tell people anything and since people are trained to listen to people with authority they will believe what the art authority tells them is so. Now once the dog pee has been sold it has provenance so has a monetary value, does that make it art. No. Does it make it worth something, yes. The people with the club want everyone to think the way they do because it benefits them financially. Not everyone is required to buy the snake oil.

Digital will not take over traditional art. It is another medium. Watercolor, oil, acrylic, digital, etc. There are some extremely fine artists who work in digital. One of my very favorite artists is a digital artist. But people like the uniqueness of an original and the texture of the reality of traditional media so one medium will not replace all the others.

http://hyperallergic.com/80667/van-gogh-museum-3d-prints-its-own-paintings/

Kim,

There is quality and there is quality. Given time all digital technologies will be
deflationary.

What is $34k in 2013 can be under $500 in 2030.

By current values Van Gogh's complete works are probably the
most highly priced compilation of works in the world.

I am not saying Rembrandt was a lesser artists. Van Gogh is the most
popular artists as of today. So his works as a group in total are probably
the highest valued group of art by an single artist.

The prices of his works are now under pressure.

There is money to be made making 3D prints of those works
that would otherwise be gathering dust. There is the possibility that
the public's tastes will change and Van Gogh's popularity will
diminish. So 3D print while the sun is shining.

Dave

Not comparing Van Gogh to the solid black painting or the solid white painting or even Rothko.

You like Rothko?

Interesting. There is value in Rothko.

One evening in 1988 on a Friday night several classes at UCONN in the arts had to
show up to a show in the gallery. On the gallery walls were six massive murals hanging
ceiling to floor. Black, red, brown, mixed together. I was young, but an exceptional student.
There were very occasional splotches on every canvas of gold leaf.

The painter out of NYC was video taped. He told us of his mystical state as he painted. He
bathed on the canvasses flat on his studio floor.

That was on the Friday night. On the Saturday and Sunday I sat in the gallery looking and
writing my page on this art. I wrote and wrote. The first point here is that because it was
abstract expressionism I kept putting my emotions and thoughts into the work. So I kept tearing
up my writings and starting over with my thoughts.

I spent 6 hours writing over that weekend. I had nothing to show for it.

On Tuesday in the cafeteria I saw one of the professors. She came over to talk to me.
That was a first for me at least. She is to this day a professional artist. She has done
well. She wanted my opinion on Friday's show. I did something radical. I told her I was
not turning in a paper, that I had nothing to say. She screamed at me. She shock the entire
cafeteria. What she screamed was, "good because it was all Bull S...."

I learned more about how humans universally see art in those few days.

The irony is that my prof won an award a year later for a black and slightly browned
square canvas that kind of glimmered. Nice.

My art is not abstract. My art is a new definition of art.

Dave

Kim,

You do realize that all figurative or representational paintings use shapes
in 2D planes to represent 3 dimensional objects. This means all those tiny
shapes you see or even paint on your canvas are in fact contorted
abstract shapes put together carefully to work as if they are the object, the
subjects etc......They are not the subject its self.

The fact is every time you paint you create shapes that are abstract.

Another way of seeing abstraction is if you look at a woven blanket. You can see
it is a blanket. Now if you took two square inches as your subject and only painted
those two inches blown up size wise onto a 36" x 36" canvas the blanket would disappear and you
would have an abstract painting.

Just some food for thought.

Dave

What you learned from your prof was the value of showmanship and manipulation. I do not like Rothko, you misread my meaning. I was lumping Rothko in with the Black painting and white painting. The dog pee example was to illustrate the fact that people will try to sell you dog pee, they will call it some fancy name like "Abstract Expressionism" or other. Then when a thinking, sane person says "Um no, that's just dog pee" the person who is trying to sell it will use manipulation by calling the sane person ignorant, or insinuating that they are not "in the know" or not in the club so as to make the sane person feel bad about themselves. This is classical manipulation it has been working for millennia. Because a sales tactic works on a large number of people does not make what the person is selling "art". Now if you want to go and sell a piece of canvas with brown paint on it and call it the newest thing in rich people spending trend, more power to you. I still will continue to have a great deal more respect for those who actually display talent and a level of proficiency in their art. While the brown canvas people will continue to devalue art as a profession.

There are a lot of people devaluing art as a profession. They come from all
quarters.

That does not mean art is worth more if they just did not practice their deception.

There are artists who get rich. Far and few between. But they are in the history books.

I dont like more purely abstract work. But for me personally there are a few exceptions.

The exceptions are not valuable in my book, but then again most of the realists
are not producing valuable work in my book either. Personally I do value realism more.


It is all manipulation. That does not in and of its self mean it is wrong.

You really can only feel bad about yourself only if you do feel that way.

I could careless about sales people sellng me art. I dont buy art.

I am on Twitter hawking my wares. I have a few followers, about 76 or so.

Twitter just recommended I follow six different people. They are all recent graduates
of business schools who specialize in marketing. What waste of time that would be. Those kids
are out to use others only. But the problem all of them face is having fewer than 50 followers on
Twitter.

I just unfollowed the first of their ilk because he kept tweeting and tweeting nothings about
movies that interested him. Now I find he is a web of half arsed MBA students out of
a group of poorer MBA colleges.

The middleman can be skipped.

We can do this for ourselves.

Are you using Twitter?

Dave

Hi Dave.

I've been following this discussion with interest and obviously had to check out your portfolio... Do we really have to wait till Monday to see your work?..I'm eager to see it now! (nice bit of marketing btw)... I am intrigued and you have just gained a new follower here on faa. I really hope I'm not disappointed come Monday :-) peace!

Calling the black paint abstract I think is an insult to the many, very talented abstract artists. The black paint is an example of shysterism not art. Business school graduates can actually afford to buy what we sell here. I'm done here, going to go out and take some photos. bye.

Barry,

Thanks for following. It is one piece of work each Monday for 13 weeks. The idea is to give the works
a fair and better chance of gaining an audience. If people like the work, then each week the audience
will build.

As James Brown used to say hit them on the one(the first beat). Monday.

I have worked very hard to get up to speed on Photoshop. I have read 1700 pages of text books and other
materials in the last two years. I now work at a very good pace in PS.

I have most of the images done, but have a few to finish up. I have plenty of time to work. But I have deadlines
to honor.

My pieces weeks 7 through 11 will be the best sellers.

All of the art is interesting. If I do say so.

Thanks again,

Dave

Hey Dave, Reinhardts black paintings were made from about 1957 to 1967 not in the 30's. They are quite different from the abstract expressionist school. He also was not into symbolism his goal was very different.

Please explain?

And do you see his work, the Black paintings, as similar to Rothko who might have
gone further in his concepts?

Dave

This is precisely why I like to only read from the horse's mouth ( artist's own written or recorded words)..I abhore conjectures...read what the artist himself was trying to do in his own words....all else is mere gossip.

A few years back i tried to have an intellectual discussion here based on Rothko's own words...my intent was to present one quote at a time for those interested to discuss. From behind the scenes, I was attacked...guess an intellectual discussion is often perceived as snobbery..and there is no fixing that.
Ron...I will be following the intelligent comments though! ;) thanks for continuing to try.

Art is not defined by it's efficacy or verisimilitude but rather by the artist. Marlene, shame on you for trying to be reasonable in the world of art. I am not altogether certain that Ad Reinhardt's paintings' are abstractionism. There appears to be no reference to anything extrapolated. Maybe better called minimalism.

Tony, that is right on point! His paintings are exactly what they are there is not a reference to the outside world, that is what makes them real.

Well, if their (the paintings) goal is to make people pause or think beyond the obvious then they certainly reached that objective. I use BS in much of my work but it is still art. I tend to be ambivalent however as to whether or not anyone "Gets it".

My understanding of his work may not be all that good. My thoughts are he wanted to create art that had no reference to the outside world. In other words the art existed solely as art. Most work be it abstract or figurative relates to the real world. Even non objective paintings generally do this, the way the brush work or other techniques are used, color choices etc. cause one to relate them to something you may have experienced. His goal was not to have this happen. His extreme reduction of all elements and principals of art was not a scam or some I want to get rich plan. It was a methodical and serious approach to try to achieve this goal. The questions that I ask are... Did he achieve this? Was it a worthwhile goal? I can't answer the second question, but personally have no real interest in the goal. I feel he did not achieve the goal in any case. He made a statement like "This is the last painting that needs to be done". The problem with that is he kept on painting so I don't think he believed that himself. Secondly people would look at his work and match the color black with some symbolism or "Wow its just like being in a room with no lights!" In other words he was not able to create a painting that was at least viewed as being just about painting.

Kim, very good artist as far as illusion goes. Not real however, just illusion.

I absolutely adore minimalism even though I am well, I don't know what I am, but, minimalism is serene and calm, a constant to all that is chaotic. It does something to my mind, soothes it perhaps? not really sure, but I am not going to over think it.



This painting is another example of what I am saying.

Magritte's painting of the pipe (1928-29) in which he wrote "Ceci nest pas use pipe" under it (This is not a pipe) illustrates the issue and sets the challenge that Reinhardt took up years latter.

Ceci n'est pas un pipe is because it is a picture of a pipe not a pipe. Ronald, it is a demonstration of their skill, talent, hard work. I maintain that the black painting does not demonstrate that. You say he was trying to "say" something with it. Really? How do you know? Was that in his "press release"? You know talk show guests are scripted. Their PR people won't let them go out there and speak for themselves. So how do you know, even if he said the words, that the words were true, or even his own? If it was indeed a scam, certainly the person would be willing to lie to perpetrate their scam. How would you be able to trust anything he said?

Illusion, the entire universe might be an illusion and we might all be pixels, pfft, go with what you got.

Gosh and I thought he was making the point that it was not a pipe but only the picture of a pipe, the illusion. reinhardt painted black pictures for the last ten years of his life. His goals were well established.

miscommunication i thought you were talking about the artist links i put in above being illusion. If he painted nothing but black pictures, solid black, for 10 years. That sounds disturbed. Doesn't change any of what I said. Maybe emphasizes it.

It isn't an illusion if no one is fooled into thinking it is actually a pipe.

I think all these "artist" with such eccentric ideas really should have chosen philosophy as their chosen craft not art. It should not be that as a prerequisite to understand these art works one needs to understand their philosophical whims which they care to reveal in their New way of redefining art for the rest of us.I would say to them Be a philosopher or be an artist, if your an artist create some thing visually appealing, if your a philosopher write a book. I have the same sentiment for artist that create abstract art that comes with an owners manual to extrapolate it's meaning. I want to look at it and understand it. That's just me.

The paintings the artist produced in the links you posted are illusion. Think of Reinhardts black paintings as being tangible objects, that was sort of his goal. This being said I don't love Reinhardt for the reasons stated earlier but I do respect what he was trying to do. His paintings also are quite interesting when seen for real. There is frequently underlying order to be seen.

And if, he was trying to paint something not of this world, and all he could come up with was black paint, was he an artist? is that art? if you do the same thing over and over and over and over, sounds more like Henry Ford than Georgia O'Keeffe. If he didn't, even by his own standards succeed with the first one. How is the second one, third one, etc, going to be any closer to goal than the first, being that they are the same. Was he mad?

They are not the same, there are small differences in each one as he worked on and tried to perfect his idea. No idea if he was mad.

I am both visual artist and philosopher. I don't agree that one has to be either or. Here is an example of both:

Tony, I don't have a clue, what the philosophy of your image is nor what the visual is supposed to mean, which is why I stated the two should be kept apart.

Mario,

You are a very concrete thinker. Not everyone is.

Kim,

I actually agree with you a lot. I just like to take that step back from failed artists and
see what they were doing. Not that I would dish out money for failed art or failed
philosophy books.

It is important to understand artists make art and fail.

So? Before the Black paintings was Russian Suprematism, white on white. Same
diff....Once you've seen one you have seen them all.

Guys y'all need to understand something about Western culture. We in our mind sets like
permanent monuments. The twentieth century was the century of disposable art. Jackson
Pollack perhaps the most famous of the Abstract Expressionists never fixed his canvasses.
That means his works will be gone in about 100 years from now. The acids in the paints are
eating the canvasses.

What is in your minds and everyone else's are massive monuments. The arts have been in
crisis for more than 100 years because we dont do monuments any more.With the exceptions
of sky scrapers. Power.

Now enter the Vietnam War Memorial. It is a black wall made of Gabbro. Gabbro comes
from lava. It has a reflective surface. So when you walk the memorial your reflection is in
the memorial. You live and breath with the lists of the dead. It is very very moving. The point is the
memorial, the art, involved the viewers, the audience. So where modern art fails it also succeeds in
some cases when applied correctly. And yes an entire society can hold success as self evident.

If you throw out modern art, you throw out understanding of art its self. That does not mean
you need any modern art hanging in your living room. It is disposable rubbish. Your worn out
baseball cap with a neat abstract symbol on it is disposable art, just like your T shirt with the ad
for whatever and the logo.

Mass produced goods are disposable art. So if you invest in a very conservative business you buy
into marketing with throw a ways quite literally.

I do not like any of it. That does not mean I turn off and ignore it. It also means that I have Kim's reactions
of disdain and disrespect for most of it, but I like to understand the techniques and the possible meanings or theories
of what the artist was doing.

More and more artists think in terms of the aesthetic without a message in making abstracted art. So the
dumb has been watered down for the worst.

Our society on so many levels is wrong, but that does not mean I wont come to understand it. It also
does not mean I wont condemn the failed. It is not a crime to fail.

Dave

Tony,

Clearly that is an image of someone wiping their mouth.

I knew it.

Dave

Kim, the illusion is thinking that the surface of the painting is anything but flat. No images, space or anything other than a flat surface. That is the illusion of the pipe. Not that you believe it is a pipe, just that you see an image of any kind.

It is the blind leading the naked.

Ron,

I saw the Magrette exhibit at the MoMA this last January.

I did my art school thing with a friend, I made fun of it from top to bottom. We
had a lot of laughs.

Magrette was a commercial graphics artist turned quasi wannabe fine artist.
On Charlie Rose, Bloomberg TV, the next evening Rose interviewed the curators
involved with the exhibit. The exhibit was on a three city tour. Just lame. Because
Magrette knew he could not compete with the abstract painters, ie Picasso and Matisse,
Magrette chose to work with poor perspective qualities. He sucks. He works one
little area of the canvas and then the next, that was his technique. The images were
flat.

Human eyes are intrigued by artists creating perspective. If you want your audience to
stay focused on your art for a longer period you use perspective. It entertains the audience.
Magrette failed.

His alien rifts in a few of the pieces was weird. Yes I am art school type, that does not mean I dont
know weird. I know weird as they would say on Seinfeld.

Ron there are dead ends and failures in art. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that.

I mean Magrette just sucks. He gave up as fast as he could even think the name Picasso.

I hate surrealism more than abstraction. It gets no respect. I like Dangerfield movies.

Dave

Tony,

I said that.

I put in code.

Dave

http://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/plain-of-air-1940





Magritte....surely @ Dave

Vivian,

I was having trouble with that in my mind. Thanks.

I found something on Google with Magrette and went with it.

Should have carefully read the Google search results.

http://www.magrette.eu/welcome

Not it.

I have an auditory processing problem. A birth defect.

I fell into the arts in college quite by accident. I was not diagnosed with
my auditory processing problem till I was 28. In our day there were no diagnostic tools
for cognitive problems.

My reading and writing skills leave something to be desired. In those days
you needed auditory skills to learn to read and write.

I am all maths, music and art. Cant do much in a office setting at all.

Computers organize me in a big way because of the monitors.

I began college as an engineering student. I just drank a lot.

I was down on my luck and moved back home .I straightened up and
took a History of Cinema class. Easy A. So I took Art History classes .More easy
A's. suddenly I was working my way through UCONN majoring in the arts. This was not
my dad's plan. His father and uncle were successful tailors in London and Dublin. This meant
they had two great skills, tying knots in threads and drawing up future clothing designs.
My dad's brother ten years senior to my dad wanted to be an artist. My grandparents fought tooth
and nail that he become a doctor. My dad and my uncle graduated med school pretty much around
the same time.

Doctors in surgery tie knots in the stitches. My grandfather the tailor could tie knots with one
hand all day long. He could always thread a needle on the first try.

My uncle died in a car crash in London on his way to work in an emergency room when I was a baby.

I am all visual. I am as much or more art historian by accident as an artist. But in my
art studio classes I excelled as well.

Put me in an office as I said and I fail miserably. If I have to listen to detailed instructions
on what must be done my hearing suddenly goes blank sooner than it would with
most of you posting here. In an office I would not know what to do next at times.

I have tried offices, computers, and a brief stint as a paralegal. I drank a lot.
I did not major in computer science so I wont get a job in that now a days.

Dave

Dave....thanks for all that. I'm honoured you took the trouble to explain your difficulties to me, though, I was not judging you....I am a stickler about spelling.

I hope you stopped drinking....it destroys the nerve endings and causes havoc to the hearing, and countless other functions. Tinnitus, for me, now, sigh, and a few unmentionable other matters being seen to as we 'speak'.

Looking fwd to your uploads 'coming soon'.

I have recently removed most of my work......the search priorities left me mostly lost in the wilderness, now that those with even only one sale get ALL their work indexed before mine, even though our new page layouts are very attractive......

08/27/1993 a last drink in a bar in my home town.

I got into a fist fight that I provoked out of sheer stupidity.

I left the bar and looked in a shop window in the mall.

I never drank again.

Dave

Vivian,

Thanks,

Dave

Ronald, Its not an illusion. No one would think it is anything other than a black painting. So if that was his stated goal, he failed.

These people succeeded in creating illusions. These people are good examples.

Lorena Kloosterboer
http://art-lorena.com/trompe-l-oeil

3d Sidewalk Art
http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blog/gallery/36-greatest-works-3d-pavement-art-created/

Once I painted a spray of roses and at the end of the day when I was cleaning up and picking up all my model leaves I reached over and mistook one of my painted leaves for a real one and tried to pick it up. Success.

Let's keep to the topic please

Kim, success indeed!

"I hate surrealism more than abstraction. It gets no respect. I like Dangerfield movies".

and I'm the very concrete thinker Dave? lol

I reject your appraisal of my thinking method, I am neither a concrete thinker or an abstract thinker but I can employ both methods at will.

.

Kim, if all you can see in Reinhardts painting is a black painting and nothing else then I am wrong! Reinhardt was a huge success!!! I did not think his goal was possible but I guess it was!

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Thanks for the definition Kim but you are not comprehending the point of his work. He was trying to create work without illusion. In other words a concrete thing. You just stated thats what he did. Therefore according to you he succeeded in his goal. I on the other hand did not believe he did succeed in this goal and thereby failed despite years of very focused work. What we most likely have as common ground is was the goal worth while? I stated that I had little or no interest in his goal and although I cannot be sure suspect you feel the same.