Should we create art from our imagination or should we use the beauty of creation to create art?

[AMITABH BHATTACHERJI]

I see a lot of art which is meaningless to me. Maybe I am new to art but I am sure I would not buy that piece even if I can afford it.
Amitabh.
www.galeriekarma.com.

[Ney C Farill]

My oppinion is that every one should paint from their soul, what ever they want to express, if this comes from there and enjoy painting it, I thing that would be anyone who likes it and maybe want to buy it... I paint what ever my imagination suggest, in this part of my live I feel that I most paint things that shake heads, and change points of view of common things... but every painting is done from my soul and for my own pleasure, it doesn`t matter if some one buys them or not.... but this is my particular oppinion...

[Mauk]

Maybe what is meaningless for you has a meaning to other. "Wassilly Kandinsky Quotes") There is no must in art because art is free. ( "Jackson Pollock Quotes " ) The painting has a life of its own.
Every good painter paints what he is.

[Madalena Lobao_Tello]

Amitabh
I think this is a very interesting discussion and very actual
I agree with Mildred.
What is a meaningless art for you? Art created from imagination or art created from the reality?

[Rebanta Goswami]

Madalena puts forth an interesting question for Amitabh: What is a meaningless art for you? Art created from imagination or art created from the reality?

It is a muddling issue for the practicing artists. It might sound interesting to the ears of the moneyed buyers and investors of art. But I feel what MAUK said is the most brief and correct statement, 'Every good painter paints what he is.'
An artist can get pleasure by just replacing the camera lens with his eyes, and go on replicating what everybody can see and understand in common. Another artist can not be happy without showing what a copying machine or lens cannot see. That is through the deeper senses, through a complex processor in our brain, mingling with the realistic images with their usual day-to-day meaning. Here the viewer needs a specialized eye for the complex art, a bit trained, to understand the visual language what is altogether different from the visual dialect used in advertising or on calendars. Understanding of finer elements of life and reacting to them is partly in-born and partly groomed. It is the individual who develops the power to express and appreciate them.
And as far as I know, nobody compels anyone in India to buy a piece of art one does not understand though can afford it. It happens only with a funny combination of a blunt/greedy investor and a crude art-promoter.
Satirically, it makes the fortune of many mediocre art-works and increase the art-junks all over the world.

[Madalena Lobao_Tello]

”I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them
Picasso

"The function of Art is to disturb."
George Braque

"A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art."
Paul Cézanne

"There are painters who transform the sun into a yellow spot, but there are others who, thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun."
Picasso

In Art history there have been plenty of pieces of art that have shocked, appalled, and created quite a negative reaction, yet they are great works of art. And there are pieces of art, that are quite popular but are not great or good works of art.
In my opinion great art can be any style or technique or level of skill, but to qualify as great it has to create a substantial amount of activity in the viewer's mind or heart.
"Guernica" is a great example of great art; It is not pretty, it's disturbing.

[Madalena Lobao_Tello]

Rebanta
As you I agree with Mauk and I agree with you.

Artists are always ahead of its time.

Art history is replete with examples but suffice to quote the Impressionists who were rejected by the French academy and the galleries of his time. Many times people forget that they made the biggest revolution in the history of art. They opened the way for modern art ... and were called bad painters, accused of making bad paintings, not to know how to use the colors, to have mistaken compositions, etc., etc.
We must look at the prices that have today Impressionist on the market to verify they were ( are) great artists.
Today there are critics who talk about the death of art ...
Collapses the price of copper and other raw materials but the prices of art does not drop ever. Always rises. Art is the only sure value of the financial market.

Nature is beautiful and perfect. Copy nature is a sad act of copying. Without creation there is no art. There is no art without interpretation.
NO,we can not compare the language of advertising or on calendars with the visual language. Art looks for, suggest, disturb, question,

Unfortunately in the art market there is everything, good and bad dealers, there are people looking for easy money and there are others who really love art and are able to bet on an artist. They leave their name in the history of art, nobody remembers the others.

[Rebanta Goswami]

Madalena Lobao Tello .... is not a typical money-making artist whose meaningful painting shocked and grabbed me on SAATCHI's portal. That is of a lady in nude, looking out of her window with a translucent scroll covering her upper body. The world outside cannot see her nakedness and her tremendous mental void sealed within her apartment where we can see her actual desolate state and desire for a colorful life represented by the sweetly painted locality where people seem to be happy in their own periphery. But this protagonist raises a suspicion that all those who seem to be happy and fulfilled might be unhappy and incomplete in the same way she is, though that part is hidden from our eyes.
Louis Bunuel is one of the great film-makers who re-interpreted so many complex socio-psychological factors, mostly with a backdrop of Latin America. Like Bunuel, Madalena also re-interpreted life in such a simple way and with direct realistic images which can crash any art-viewer's previous experience of facing a nude. I feel sometimes, if Bunuel took up the brushes, he could perhaps have painted such a powerful picture that Madalena did create. It is very much justified that in an August'08 press-review on the IberoAmerica show, Madalena is quoted after Lamm, Dali, Machado and Cubero.

All my words are spent not to advocate Mada's art, but to tell what is meaningful in art.
If any dealer convinces his buyer to buy this piece of Mada, just as a good study of some woman's fleshy rear view, the dealer and the buyer both are cheated and befooled. They have no aesthetic right to own it. But who will buy the work, with full understanding of its greatness in his skins, has the genuine right to possess it.
Serious Art is not, never was and will be that what just money can buy and declare it to be great.

[Brajanne]

Very interesting discussion and all I want to say about it is already said by Mada and Rebanta.

[Madalena Lobao_Tello]

Rebanta
Thank you, my Friend!
You move me!!!
Hugs
Mada

[Rebanta Goswami]

Thank you Mada.
Thank you Brajanne.
Thank you Mauk.
Thank you Ney.
I never knew Mada. It was her apparently calm painting that created a storm in my inner feelings.
I was too curious to know the creator of it... and now I feel lucky to meet you all.
On this planet earth, lots of great art work are produced everyday. But I value those which
tells the truest tale of mankind. It may be a piece of non-illustrative Mark Rothko or Mondrian even.
But the visual feeling must be very very true and touching.
I am tired of listening to this sort of sordid comments questioning the meaningfulness of art.
So I reacted much.
Everybody should excuse me, if I have crossed my limit pushed by a strong emotion.

[Donald M Schrier]

I bow to your greater knowledge of art and the paintings that I am not farmiliar with. All I can say is that I paint those things that I love, those things that touch my heart when I see them, and I agree that there has to be some form of emotional affinity between the artist and his art or it is not really art but a picture. There are a lot of tec. out there that can duplicate almost anything but to me there has to be a little bit of the artist in his painting and this makes his work great or greater then that of someone who just paints to relay an image. I do not profess to understand all those things that all of you extremely knowledgeable people are talking about. I just feel that true art comes from the combination of the eye of the artist, his heart as it reads what he sees, his hand as it guides the brush and his affinity with his choosen medium that he uses to capture all of these things and gives him the opportunity to share this with his fellow man, which I feel should be what we should all be guided to do. What greater joy then to share with others those things that we see and the beauty or pain and how we interperate it. I do hope this makes sence to you all and that I have in some poor way expressed my feelings.

Rebanta Goswami said:

Thank you Mada.
Thank you Brajanne.
Thank you Mauk.
Thank you Ney.
I never knew Mada. It was her apparently calm painting that created a storm in my inner feelings.
I was too curious to know the creator of it... and now I feel lucky to meet you all.
On this planet earth, lots of great art work are produced everyday. But I value those which
tells the truest tale of mankind. It may be a piece of non-illustrative Mark Rothko or Mondrian even.
But the visual feeling must be very very true and touching.
I am tired of listening to this sort of sordid comments questioning the meaningfulness of art.
So I reacted much.
Everybody should excuse me, if I have crossed my limit pushed by a strong emotion.

[Madalena Lobao_Tello]

Donald

The important thing in art is to be true.

In art as in life truth is a fundamental value.

This is what I believe and what I try to do with my art work.