« "I Feel Young! I Feel Fifty!" | Main | Fine Art America - Reproductions »

December 07, 2010



Well....I'd put the top two in my house. They are actually pretty, and you can do real art on an electronic medium.

That said, heck no this wouldn't be a big deal if the guy wasn't already A Name.

I don't think you've got envy, although you may have a bit of traditionalist outrage to ya. ^.^


"so much of modern art making medium the message."

Yeah; it's completely inauthentic. Come to think of it, though; this is *exactly* the type of thing that would make a splash in the art world. That's why I avoid art and artists, who're merely trying to "out cool" each other instead of producing good work.


I admit it, I'm a Philistine! I've never heard of the artist nor had any idea how the picture was created, but without reading your post, rather liked it. Now I'm rather bemused. I'm not sure I care much for the gimmick of creation, but the picture itself has a fresh, pleasing look to my uninformed eyes.
And I do kind of wonder if Caveman Ugh said to Novem as he scratched away on his vellum, "That's silly and ephemeral and will never really be art."


You want electronic art, look at a World of Warcraft trailer.
There's a LOT of beauty and power to be found in the electronic area.

Literal finger-paintings of flowers can be lovely, but even with electronic tweeking it's not so grand.


What did Marshall McLuhan say? "The medium is the message."

Cell phone art does not belong in a Paris exhibit, for the studied gaze of art lovers.

Cell phone art should be glanced at while driving home, enjoyed briefly, and forgotten.


This is probably not the best example, except inasmuch as it's an example of the art world being overly interested in things just because they're a little different.

What do I mean? Well, first off, _I_ would be hard pressed to make a good picture on a cell phone. So there's some genuine artistic talent here. The only issue would be settling for using artistic talent on something gimmicky like this. But if the guy's already a big name, he obviously has done more than that. So, is a good artist allowed to take an exercise in a constrained medium and see what he can do in it? That seems fine too.

In short... from the artist's standpoint, I don't think this is really wrong. It comes close to a few things that would be, but mostly what's wrong is its elevation by the world.

The Cobbler

If I may put it another way (and under my other screenname; I was stuck on an odd computer last night) -- it's not high art, and should not be treated as such, but it is art and should be treated as such.

Or, we could borrow a leaf from G.K. Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Knotting Hill" and note that even a bad poet is still a poet -- and then throw in his comments elsewhere (I think it was "The Defendant") that a "bad" thing is usually a good thing that isn't as good as we'll settle for (e.g. that blunt knife that would've been a wonder in the stone age even though it's tough to carve turkeys with).

Such distinctions put in perspective many things. For example, that Japanese-dominated medium that crosses games and storytelling. Only a very few of those I'd try to argue are _high_ art in their own way, but most of them (leaving aside craploads that are just gorefests and such) are nonetheless pretty good as far as they go.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2005

October 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31