So they like Malevich.

Kazimir Malevich, Russian painter, 1879-1935

http://www.tianya.cn/techforum/Content/169/541277.shtml

coincidence, maybe?

  On 5/24/2010 at 11:05 PM, sirch said:

coincidence, maybe?

Maybe not. Actually could be a real visually inspiration source.

i like the textures.

If "They" = someone at TDR, then probably.

  On 5/24/2010 at 11:23 PM, baph said:

If "They" = someone at TDR, then probably.

Actually i don't know if they just leave the covers to the designers republic, like "just do something" or if they really give an initial idea and put a little hand on them. Anyway, i like all their covers, they go well with music. My favorite is Amber.

i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds

  On 5/25/2010 at 1:41 AM, modey said:

i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds

Its not just like that. There's a whole philosophy behind it.

I remember seeing the permanent exhibition of Joan Miró in Barcelona 2 years ago, and while listening to the audio guide of this famous tryptic he painted, i learned that it took him a couple of minutes to actually execute it but years to create it in his mind. There's a whole meaning combined with expressive gestures that you can't just interpret as if you were looking at someones shoes.

It's called: Hope of a death condemned

  On 5/24/2010 at 11:23 PM, baph said:

If "They" = someone at TDR, then probably.

good point. and it's probably that.

but, seems kinda lame.. the first picture Reason posted is.. well, TDR completely ripped off that Russian guy!

basically.

and i think that's kinda shit.

like the guy above me says... 'famous for painting circles'.. lol

c'mon now. it's not very original (of Ae/TDr) is it, you have to admit.

Greg you messed up by sharing inside info ,, you should never do that on watmm.com lol ;)

  On 5/25/2010 at 1:53 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 1:41 AM, modey said:

i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds

 

Its not just like that. There's a whole philosophy behind it.

I remember seeing the permanent exhibition of Joan Miró in Barcelona 2 years ago, and while listening to the audio guide of this famous tryptic he painted, i learned that it took him a couple of minutes to actually execute it but years to create it in his mind. There's a whole meaning combined with expressive gestures that you can't just interpret as if you were looking at someones shoes.

 

It's called: Hope of a death condemned

see, this is 'Art'.

if someone makes a fairly 'regular' looking black circle and then tells you it took them 53 and a half years to produce the idea,

in 3 dimensions, or 2, as it were,

then really you have to either believe them and their story about such hard work and thought, or simply tell them their full of shit.

it's your choice. :)

sometimes when you make a lot in a certain medium and work with it a lot of different ways it takes way less to make something evocative to you, because you know so many different types of detail to see it as specifically that, and there's that mental contrast to make it stand out. I don't know about this minimalist stuff though, seems to me that if you're gonna do something really simple in execution you might as well do it 100 times and discover something in the process instead of thinking about it for years.

i think tdr should have put a little effort into it and made a limited edition of 1000 copies of quaristice/oversteps/move of ten that had hand drawn/cut/assembled artwork. ie. the oversteps circle could be individually painted 1000 times, or quaristice could be a bunch of black/white/grey squares glued to blue/grey card, each edition different to the last. just having a standard print of the artwork isn't quite as poignant imo. (is that the right word?)

  On 5/25/2010 at 1:53 AM, ruiagnelo said:

There's a whole philosophy behind it.

its a fucking black circle.

  On 5/25/2010 at 5:03 AM, modey said:

i think tdr should have put a little effort into it and made a limited edition of 1000 copies of quaristice/oversteps/move of ten that had hand drawn/cut/assembled artwork. ie. the oversteps circle could be individually painted 1000 times, or quaristice could be a bunch of black/white/grey squares glued to blue/grey card, each edition different to the last. just having a standard print of the artwork isn't quite as poignant imo. (is that the right word?)

This would be AMAZING. fuck

  On 5/25/2010 at 4:43 AM, spraaaa said:

sometimes when you make a lot in a certain medium and work with it a lot of different ways it takes way less to make something evocative to you, because you know so many different types of detail to see it as specifically that, and there's that mental contrast to make it stand out. I don't know about this minimalist stuff though, seems to me that if you're gonna do something really simple in execution you might as well do it 100 times and discover something in the process instead of thinking about it for years.

It's not even minimalism. It's abstract.

Minimal art is way more complex than we can imagine. As described by art experts: "minimalism is the maximum expression with minimum use of elements".

It's my belief that you can't create minimal art in minutes, hours or even days. It takes years.

  On 5/25/2010 at 10:49 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 4:43 AM, spraaaa said:

sometimes when you make a lot in a certain medium and work with it a lot of different ways it takes way less to make something evocative to you, because you know so many different types of detail to see it as specifically that, and there's that mental contrast to make it stand out. I don't know about this minimalist stuff though, seems to me that if you're gonna do something really simple in execution you might as well do it 100 times and discover something in the process instead of thinking about it for years.

 

It's not even minimalism. It's abstract.

Minimal art is way more complex than we can imagine. As described by art experts: "minimalism is the maximum expression with minimum use of elements".

 

It's my belief that you can't create minimal art in minutes, hours or even days. It takes years.

Rui, your avatar is thrusting in time to the start of 'Pendulum Man' by Bark Psychosis.

On art: do you think minimal art requires a longer apprenticeship than other art? I'm not convinced that anything of substance can be made without first developing an appreciation for what it is one is trying to make. Technical development is another required element, but appreciation is, I think, necessary to make stuff that will last.

  On 5/25/2010 at 11:05 PM, Miblo said:

 

On art: do you think minimal art requires a longer apprenticeship than other art? I'm not convinced that anything of substance can be made without first developing an appreciation for what it is one is trying to make. Technical development is another required element, but appreciation is, I think, necessary to make stuff that will last.

Well, that's not exactly what i wanted to say.

I believe that Rembrandt took years and years of apprenciceship before he came up with his magnificent paintings, that naturally have gone through serious development before becoming masterpieces, as we call them today. I believe he took a lot more time than Donald Judd, that you certainly have heard about, a minimal artist that plays with the most simple forms to create the most simple compositions. But maybe not. Maybe it was the opposite and Judd spent all his life thinking and developing his ideas to produce a couple of works, that now have earned respect and admiration all around the world and rembrandt was just born with talent and represents an exceptional case. I am not trying to compare artists or skill levels at all, but these two are examples of the will to express something, and not the sole interest for fame or money. That is the point.

What really made me reply to this thread was a comment made a user that stated "i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds" .

I respect his opinion and i am totally open to understand it, but with the knowledge i have about art, which is actually too little, but it comes from my interest and passion about it, i wanted to say that it doesn't work like that.

The question has to do with art in general, and not only minimal art, and we should focus on that. Being a surrealist or abstract-expressionist or whatever, you don't create a piece thinking about the two squares you will use to make the composition or how you paint a certain woman, expecting the final result to be fame and money. That way you are moving apart from the essence of art.

Maybe my comment drived the thread into another direction, but this is an essential point for me. That comment kinda created a revolution inside my head and forced me to show my point of view about this.

  On 5/25/2010 at 10:49 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 4:43 AM, spraaaa said:

sometimes when you make a lot in a certain medium and work with it a lot of different ways it takes way less to make something evocative to you, because you know so many different types of detail to see it as specifically that, and there's that mental contrast to make it stand out. I don't know about this minimalist stuff though, seems to me that if you're gonna do something really simple in execution you might as well do it 100 times and discover something in the process instead of thinking about it for years.

 

It's not even minimalism. It's abstract.

Minimal art is way more complex than we can imagine. As described by art experts: "minimalism is the maximum expression with minimum use of elements".

I guess my point was that the expressiveness, and what you measure as the "elements" that are used, subjectively depends on what you have seen or done before, and partially for that reason I tend to be less into art that is conceptualized in advance and more into stuff that developed out of processes, experimentation... anyway it's too hot here for me to try to make a point and you seem to be making a different one so

  On 5/26/2010 at 1:10 AM, spraaaa said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 10:49 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 4:43 AM, spraaaa said:

sometimes when you make a lot in a certain medium and work with it a lot of different ways it takes way less to make something evocative to you, because you know so many different types of detail to see it as specifically that, and there's that mental contrast to make it stand out. I don't know about this minimalist stuff though, seems to me that if you're gonna do something really simple in execution you might as well do it 100 times and discover something in the process instead of thinking about it for years.

 

It's not even minimalism. It's abstract.

Minimal art is way more complex than we can imagine. As described by art experts: "minimalism is the maximum expression with minimum use of elements".

I guess my point was that the expressiveness, and what you measure as the "elements" that are used, subjectively depends on what you have seen or done before, and partially for that reason I tend to be less into art that is conceptualized in advance and more into stuff that developed out of processes, experimentation... anyway it's too hot here for me to try to make a point and you seem to be making a different one so

Yea obviously i was into a whole different question, because that comment i mentioned really made me think how people think art is so easy to make, when its not.

I totally understand what you mean and i even feel that, specially with charcoal, which i accidentally discovered so many years ago and now its expressiveness and way of communicating comes so clear to me that after experimentations and more experimentations i feel completely comfortable with it and discover a new thing with each new drawing.

  On 5/25/2010 at 11:56 PM, ruiagnelo said:

What really made me reply to this thread was a comment made a user that stated "i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds" .

 

I respect his opinion and i am totally open to understand it, but with the knowledge i have about art, which is actually too little, but it comes from my interest and passion about it, i wanted to say that it doesn't work like that.

The question has to do with art in general, and not only minimal art, and we should focus on that. Being a surrealist or abstract-expressionist or whatever, you don't create a piece thinking about the two squares you will use to make the composition or how you paint a certain woman, expecting the final result to be fame and money. That way you are moving apart from the essence of art.

 

Maybe my comment drived the thread into another direction, but this is an essential point for me. That comment kinda created a revolution inside my head and forced me to show my point of view about this.

well, i didn't intend for my comment to imply that it was all to do with fame and money - i was just expressing confusion as to how someone manages to get recognition/move people through minimalism.. i guess it has something to do with being the first to come up with the idea to paint a plain square on a plain background, or something? argh i can't manage to get my point across, i'm at work, it's early and i haven't had my caffeine yet, zole.

i mean, don't take this as me saying i hate minimalist art, i fucking love it.. i just don't understand where you draw the line between genius and someone putting something together really quickly to fuck with people. or is that also a kind of genius?

  On 5/26/2010 at 1:37 AM, modey said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 11:56 PM, ruiagnelo said:

What really made me reply to this thread was a comment made a user that stated "i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds" .

 

I respect his opinion and i am totally open to understand it, but with the knowledge i have about art, which is actually too little, but it comes from my interest and passion about it, i wanted to say that it doesn't work like that.

The question has to do with art in general, and not only minimal art, and we should focus on that. Being a surrealist or abstract-expressionist or whatever, you don't create a piece thinking about the two squares you will use to make the composition or how you paint a certain woman, expecting the final result to be fame and money. That way you are moving apart from the essence of art.

 

Maybe my comment drived the thread into another direction, but this is an essential point for me. That comment kinda created a revolution inside my head and forced me to show my point of view about this.

well, i didn't intend for my comment to imply that it was all to do with fame and money - i was just expressing confusion as to how someone manages to get recognition/move people through minimalism.. i guess it has something to do with being the first to come up with the idea to paint a plain square on a plain background, or something? argh i can't manage to get my point across, i'm at work, it's early and i haven't had my caffeine yet, zole.

 

i mean, don't take this as me saying i hate minimalist art, i fucking love it.. i just don't understand where you draw the line between genius and someone putting something together really quickly to fuck with people. or is that also a kind of genius?

I was writing a reply to your comment and brought the example of donald judd's empty boxes and michelangelo's la pietà:

Then i accidentally erased everything. I am so pissed right now, seriously.

Anyway, i understand your comment and i don't doubt that is really confusing.

But observe and try to compare these two masterpieces. Imagine you are looking at judd's boxes and think of the never ending different perspectives you can get by moving yourself through space. That's where the value of the piece resides, for me. Supreme elegance combined with variety, using just 10 boxes attached to a white wall, resulting in infinite set of images. It's curious how people often don't notice that simplicity feels so good naturally. The simple object appears balanced and beautiful to human's eye and spirit.

  On 5/26/2010 at 2:03 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/26/2010 at 1:37 AM, modey said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 11:56 PM, ruiagnelo said:

What really made me reply to this thread was a comment made a user that stated "i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds" .

 

I respect his opinion and i am totally open to understand it, but with the knowledge i have about art, which is actually too little, but it comes from my interest and passion about it, i wanted to say that it doesn't work like that.

The question has to do with art in general, and not only minimal art, and we should focus on that. Being a surrealist or abstract-expressionist or whatever, you don't create a piece thinking about the two squares you will use to make the composition or how you paint a certain woman, expecting the final result to be fame and money. That way you are moving apart from the essence of art.

 

Maybe my comment drived the thread into another direction, but this is an essential point for me. That comment kinda created a revolution inside my head and forced me to show my point of view about this.

well, i didn't intend for my comment to imply that it was all to do with fame and money - i was just expressing confusion as to how someone manages to get recognition/move people through minimalism.. i guess it has something to do with being the first to come up with the idea to paint a plain square on a plain background, or something? argh i can't manage to get my point across, i'm at work, it's early and i haven't had my caffeine yet, zole.

 

i mean, don't take this as me saying i hate minimalist art, i fucking love it.. i just don't understand where you draw the line between genius and someone putting something together really quickly to fuck with people. or is that also a kind of genius?

 

I was writing a reply to your comment and brought the example of donald judd's empty boxes and michelangelo's la pietà:

 

Then i accidentally erased everything. I am so pissed right now, seriously.

 

Anyway, i understand your comment and i don't doubt that is really confusing.

But observe and try to compare these two masterpieces. Imagine you are looking at judd's boxes and think of the never ending different perspectives you can get by moving yourself through space. That's where the value of the piece resides, for me. Supreme elegance combined with variety, using just 10 boxes attached to a white wall, resulting in infinite set of images. It's curious how people often don't notice that simplicity feels so good naturally. The simple object appears balanced and beautiful to human's eye and spirit.

oh, definitely! that looks fucking amazing, even just a photo of it. i guess it's just when art gets conceptual i find it confusing, i'm very much into aesthetics alone when it comes to art, i don't particularly care about a statement that the artist may be making. call me shallow, but that's just how i am, hehe.

  On 5/26/2010 at 2:14 AM, modey said:

  On 5/26/2010 at 2:03 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 5/26/2010 at 1:37 AM, modey said:

  On 5/25/2010 at 11:56 PM, ruiagnelo said:

What really made me reply to this thread was a comment made a user that stated "i really wish i could be famous for painting plain circles and squares on plain backgrounds" .

 

I respect his opinion and i am totally open to understand it, but with the knowledge i have about art, which is actually too little, but it comes from my interest and passion about it, i wanted to say that it doesn't work like that.

The question has to do with art in general, and not only minimal art, and we should focus on that. Being a surrealist or abstract-expressionist or whatever, you don't create a piece thinking about the two squares you will use to make the composition or how you paint a certain woman, expecting the final result to be fame and money. That way you are moving apart from the essence of art.

 

Maybe my comment drived the thread into another direction, but this is an essential point for me. That comment kinda created a revolution inside my head and forced me to show my point of view about this.

well, i didn't intend for my comment to imply that it was all to do with fame and money - i was just expressing confusion as to how someone manages to get recognition/move people through minimalism.. i guess it has something to do with being the first to come up with the idea to paint a plain square on a plain background, or something? argh i can't manage to get my point across, i'm at work, it's early and i haven't had my caffeine yet, zole.

 

i mean, don't take this as me saying i hate minimalist art, i fucking love it.. i just don't understand where you draw the line between genius and someone putting something together really quickly to fuck with people. or is that also a kind of genius?

 

I was writing a reply to your comment and brought the example of donald judd's empty boxes and michelangelo's la pietà:

 

Then i accidentally erased everything. I am so pissed right now, seriously.

 

Anyway, i understand your comment and i don't doubt that is really confusing.

But observe and try to compare these two masterpieces. Imagine you are looking at judd's boxes and think of the never ending different perspectives you can get by moving yourself through space. That's where the value of the piece resides, for me. Supreme elegance combined with variety, using just 10 boxes attached to a white wall, resulting in infinite set of images. It's curious how people often don't notice that simplicity feels so good naturally. The simple object appears balanced and beautiful to human's eye and spirit.

oh, definitely! that looks fucking amazing, even just a photo of it. i guess it's just when art gets conceptual i find it confusing, i'm very much into aesthetics alone when it comes to art, i don't particularly care about a statement that the artist may be making. call me shallow, but that's just how i am, hehe.

Then you are shallow, so what? It's very important to have an aesthetic feeling of things, of the world surrounding us.

I love images, the image of things. I understand it now that i am studying architecture. The worst errors i end doing happen because i try to base a certain space on perspectives i imagine. I get fooled by images often, and end forgetting about the essential: space.

It's getting better now, i am kinda trying to control it and see the conceptual way of things, as i am still in second year and it's part of a learning curve obviously.

But images have such power, its fascinating.

nope they like bad brains.

i think it's ridiculous that we're debating the originality of a black circle on a white background.

who cares who did it when?

just look at it. look at them.

there, done.

and oh yeah check out my avatar which is an album cover of mine. i also painted something similar.

i like how they look. they please my brain. i don't give a fuck about anything else.