memyselfandi

Just came back from "Art All Night" which is a 24 hour art show where anyone (from children to aspiring artists) can show one piece of art. The old industrial building where it was held was pretty cool, and it drew a huge crowd. Most of the art was bad, but it was great that people got a chance to show their work to the public.

I have to sleep now. I still haven't gotten any sleep since Weird Science.

(Edit)

Now that I've had some sleep, I can think more clearly. I didn't mean to say that all of the art work was bad last night. There was a lot of interesting things to see, but if I had to see one more portrait of Jimmy Hendrix, I would've screamed.

My overall feeling is that most of the art was a bit to contrived. There were some good concepts that were poorly executed, and some talent that needed directive. The pieces that were really beautiful were the childrens drawings and photos. They were so pure and natural. I actually bought a photograph that was taken by a seven year old kid.

So, when it comes to fine art, I'm a bit more traditional (That is to say I like painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, etc.). It was kind of interesting to see some of the submitted art last night that was digitally done. I know that there's value in this art, but I have trouble appreciating it in a gallery setting. My feeling is that this type of art should be left to magazines, websites, etc. It has a place, just not in a gallery. I know, I know, the computer is a tool, also. I just disagree.

Anyway, these are just opinions, so don't get pissy about it. Art is objective in any form.

And that's all I have to say about that!