Jason Newsted Announces Art Exhibition
Former Metallica bassist Jason
Newsted is about to get all arty – with his first exhibition of paintings.This happens at the Micaela Gallery in San Francisco, from May 6 to June 27. According to Blabbermouth, Newsted had the following to say about his skills with a brush:
“I am possessed by an undercurrent of kinetic energy that I have channelled through pure artistic creation for as long as I can remember, beginning with childhood drawings and songs, followed by teenage rock and roll based ideas, and ultimately, internationally recognized musical recordings and live performances.
“With the title of most decorated heavy metal bass guitarist of all time intact, my purpose has shifted from making crazy and colourful music, to making crazy and colourful paintings.”
http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/jaosn-newsted-announces-art-exhibition/
I don’t mean to be a dick but this is art? Dude’s a very talented bassist. But art?
Hahalolhaha
It depends on his intent. A pretty picture -just because it's pretty- isn't art. A cool looking painting or photograph isn't art unless there is something behind it. Band pictures, pictures of babies, pictures of cool buildings etc isn't art. It's commercial or client based photography.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Pollock, I'm not a fan of Andy Warhol... but what they did *is* art. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.
You're right... just cause I don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.
ReplyDeleteBut a drawing of a can of Campbell's soup or scribbles on a piece of paper? That's "art"??
Now the funny thing is that I'd prolly hang it up in my living room (and not because it's from that dude that used to play in Metallica). I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it, but if I found it in the bargain bin at Kmart for cheap, I'd buy it and hang it on my wall.
Right next to my Twilight poster, of course. That Kristen Stewart is truly a gorgeous piece of art...
Maybe you need to take some college 300/400 level classes if you think 1. Andy Warhol isn't art. 2. If you think a Twilight poster with Kristen Stewart is art.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, not to be rude, but for you to even put quotations around the word art when talking about Andy Warhol means you don't know the true definition of art.
That said, I wouldn't hang Andy Warhol or pictures of "scribbles" up in my home because I don't like it. The difference is, I can appreciate it for the ART that it really is, the intent behind it and the craftsmanship of it (yes, believe it or not, compositionally speaking, "scribbles" can be art --IF it has the intent and other important factors behind it).
Is Andy Warhol's painting of a can of soup art? Sure. You can call anything art. A drawing of a banana, a painting of a house in a dusty field. I can paint a yelling stick figure with bunny ears and say it's the anger that I keep bottled up inside me that allows me to be so cute and adorable (like a bunny) and call it art.
ReplyDeleteIn all reality, this posting is more tongue in cheek than anything. If you take offense to anything that I say or write, I apologize.
But I still think Kristen Stewart is hot. And if her poster causes me to experience feelings of, um, excitement, isn't that what art is all about?? Emotions and feelings?*
* There really needs to be a sarcasm font...
"You can call anything art. A drawing of a banana, a painting of a house in a dusty field. I can paint a yelling stick figure with bunny ears and say it's the anger that I keep bottled up inside me that allows me to be so cute and adorable (like a bunny) and call it art."
ReplyDeleteOkay you CAN call anything art... but not if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Your "reasoning" behind your bunny wouldn't hold up when presented to anyone with a fine art degree. A lot of people do try to bullshit their way through art. "It's art because I say it's art" or "I'm just expressing myself" doesn't hold water anymore.
Despite his "simple" looking paintings, Henri Matisse could actually paint (realistically) very well... but it didn't fit what he was doing with his art.
If "scribbles" or blocks of color are the best way for someone to get across their "message" (combined with a knowledge of what came before, what is contemporary art, composition, intent, craftsmanship, and one hell of a good explanation of WHY they're doing -and the WAY they're doing something) then it can have validity.
When it comes down to it, the medium doesn't matter... as long as it is suited to what you are doing.
I used to think "scribbles" and Andy Warhol paintings/prints weren't "real" art (and even now they're not exactly my favorite expressions). It's a fact that I was wrong.
In beginning art classes they mostly cover technique. They (try to) teach you how to paint, draw, sculpt, photograph... with skill.
The junior and, mainly, senior levels of art classes cover content (minus the graphic design classes).... and that's what art basically boils down to. Content.
Yay for classes upon classes of Art History! :P
It's easy for someone to dismiss art they don't like or understand. It's a little harder to actually sit and try to dissect what the pieces do and say.
I hope *you're* not offended by anything I've written here. It's hard not to take the defense on art -and the dismissal of it- when this is all drilled into my head by my professors every day.