Thank you for the specific example. It’s an interesting piece - and in trying to capture motion, rather than emotion, it’s a little different than the sorts of things I had been imagining, but a valid choice. Here’s the question : when did you smile? When you saw the painting, or when you read the title?
Well, thank you, but I do a pretty good job laughing at the stuff already. 
I’m not explaining myself very well, I think. Take Michelangelo’s “David” – it’s clearly not actually a man, but is a representation of a man. That’s an example of representative sculpture. With “Broken Obelisk”, the sculpture is not representing an obelisk, it is a [broken] obelisk. That’s the difference between the two categories I’m seeing.
Come to think of it, I have a hard time envisioning how one would even be able to create a sculptural representation of an obelisk. Any attempt would wind up being an actual obelisk, and not a representation. It would be like trying to make a statue of a statue of a man.
Is this really necessary? Maybe so; it certainly makes your agenda a little clearer.
It’s starting to look, once again*, like you’re not all that interested in learning anything here. You don’t seem to reading the responses to you OP as offers of understanding so much as opportunities for you to “prove them wrong,” by whatever twisted sophistry or reasonable-doubt technicality you can slap together. CandidGamera: tireless defender of ignorance.
You haven’t necessarily gone so explicitly far I’d break board rules by accusing you of anything specific, but you have certainly reached a point of “been there, done that” tiresomeness.
CandidGamera, you are irrationally hostile toward abstract art. Fine. Whatever. So why do you start threads on the subject anywhere but the Pit?
**Fourteen pages *(no seriously) of CandidGamera defending his assertion that “abstract art = worthless fraud” (starting at post #7).
That’s allright, neither am I. My point is that we have a name for objects like that sculpture. ‘Obelisk’. Because of its shape, we can readily identify it as an obelisk. Just like we might identify a ‘column’ or an ‘arrowhead’. We are familiar enough with these objects to have expectations about them, and more objective criteria.
It’s a joke. It plays upon art snob stereotypes.
I’m certainly addressing all reasonable responses that I can. I’m genuinely curious if a medium like non-representational art is capable of expressing things of any complexity. I have my suspicion that it is not, but I encourage dissent so that I may better refine my view.
And come now, it’s not like I wrote every post on those fourteen pages.
As a footnote, interjecting some rationality here, this is, I believe, the first thread I have ever started on the subject.
Er…Doing a very brief search on threads by CG, I don’t find any threads started on abstract art. Lots of comic book stuff, but no art. Care to link to the myriad of other threads?
Or on preview, what **CG **himself said.
I never suggested you did; only that you’re so predeterminedly close-minded on the subject, why would you initiate a discussion in a forum where people expect good-faith engagement?
Your assumption about my close-mindedness could be invalid. Just a thought.
“Art snob” stereotypes exist because they are promulgated by people like you, just like racist stereotypes are promulgated by racists, not by black people.
Your “suspicion”? Your conviction.
What kind of straw man is that? Whoever suggested such a thing? It’s inarguable, however, that you pretty singlehandedly kept it going for those fourteen pages though, by making it a monumental exercise in refusing to concede a single point in “defense” of your assertion that abstract art is, objectively, a fraud.
Dude. Fourteen pages of being “right” about the invalidity of abstract art. If there was *ever *on these boards evidence of a closed mind, my friend, that thread is it.
Fart. I hate it when people leave the search term in the URL. Here it is unhighlighted.
Because, by analogy, all racist stereotypes are about black people? :dubious:
Your assertion. You’re wrong.
The comment about the length of the thread was playful banter. Calm down. Take you meds. Meditate. Ommmm. Ommmm.
::: Moderator bangs representational gavel for attention :::
lissener, you have no call to either atribute motives to other posters, nor to make comments about their character/personality. Your accusations are out of place here. If you think Gandid isn’t really interested in discussion, the place to say so is in the Pit, not here.
A comment such as:
is pretty much out of place.
A coment such as:
is definitely out of place, and about as close to “personal insult” as one can come.
You wanna say things like that, you go to the Pit. Not here. Here, you can discuss represenational and non-representational art. Not the other posters. You clear on this?
And, while I’m at it, Gandid, a comment like “Take your meds” doesn’t help. Hit the REPORT BAD POST button, and let the Moderator handle it. Don’t respond. When the teacher comes on the playground and finds two children fighting, the first order of business is to break up the fight, not to worry about who started it. If the offenses are all on one side, it’s clear who started it. Rebuttal snipes just muddy the waters. OK?
Fair enough. Intended as good-natured jocularity, so everyone gets a chuckle, but it’s probably out of place. Thanks for the prompt response.
Should I report your post for mangling my username, though?
Anyways. Please resume our regularly scheduled thread.
Hmm. I feel like the fourteen-page thread on abstract art, and CG’s participation in it, is objective evidence of the straightforward assertions in my posts, CK, rendering them valid responses, and NOT personal insults. I’ll ponder on the distinction, however, and endeavor not to make the mistake again.
Ok, how about Louise Nevelson and these things that have such nice rich texture but are painted entirely black. (or, as assemblage, are these also necessarily representational, representing, like, stuff pasted together)
And if we discount abstract art that might be reminiscent or evocative of something (“square things”, “things that are pointy at one end”) as representational, then we should discount wit in music, too, since the oboe in Peter and the Wolf totally reminds me of a duck or something. Thus music is a pitiful artistic vocabulary that can’t achieve anything without lyrics except ‘mood’ and other sad, pointless exercises.
What about it? Do you find it funny? Doesn’t seem representational to me. If you find it funny, why?
It’s one thing to remind one of something, to suggest something, or to evoke something. Nude Descending a Staircase, for instance. It’s quite another to be a slightly melty coffee cup.
Music… music is just different from static art, really, and I don’t know how analogous we can make it.
A potential category-killer is Ed Ruscha, whose paintings use words and phrases that (inevitably) have meaning, but aren’t used representationally. His work frequently makes me chuckle (like this, or this, or especially this), but usually stops short of a belly laugh. With one notable exception.
Those are a little rough to categorize. The ones that appear like text next to blanked-out versions of the text - is the plainly visible text part of the work, or a ‘transcript’ provided by the website?
And what tickles your funny-bone so about OOF? 
