Rate my work

Opinions on my paintings?
I went for an abstract expressionist style, trying to capture the nature of chaos

This is in no way chaos. Its fake chaos.

jackson pollock pls go

The problem is, chaos is not art.

not yours

alright, here's what you do, OP
1. get really fucking high, preferably with something that will totally impair your perception, but not your motor functioning, like a hallucinogen for example
2. throw on some trippy as fuck music, whatever you choose to play, as long as it doesn't divert your attention away from your work, you'll probably want something soft and ambient but also trippy as fuck
3. get a variety of paints, their colors do not have to compliment one another, just grab as much as you can
4. get a moderately sized canvas and painting utensils
5. take your drugs and wait for them to kick in, then just do what is natural
6.???
7. when you snap out of it, sell the final product to some pretentious fart smelling hipster artist type and make a grip.

I disagree. Chaos is a legitimate expression that can carry a message.


I can appreciate you seeing it that way. There's a certain blurriness to the concept of chaos, where some might say that chaos is just a kind of order and patterns that we just haven't deciphered yet.

Neither chaos nor entropy are art and your primitive expressions of your own inner turmoil/malfunction brain surely aren't, either

Why not?

Chaos cannot carry a message. That's the definition of chaos

shit "art"
no actual technical skill

Chaos isn't absolute. There's always a certain degree of order even amongst the most convoluted of expressions and objects.
The very concept of perfect chaos is an interesting one though. Maybe I'll try exploring that.


Sounds like someone doesn't know what art is.

Nice meme.

try again, Jackson Pollock clone #892434781102

why stop at using paint? start collecting and hoarding materials to use in a multimedia project. just like a schizophrenic

Having standards implies, by definition, that art is not a medium of expression but merely a masturbatory circlejerk of those who abide to the standardised concepts of "skill" and "talent" as dictated by the latest trends in the art universities.
Art has no boundaries, and it's silly to try to contain it in such a narrow minded approach

Honestly. Try b8ing with someone that anyone that's been to a museum wouldn't recognize.
I do like Pollock though.

Chaos is the absence of any kind of message; it's all noise and no signal. If you're claiming to be expressing anything at all, then, by necessity, you have intentionally arranged things in a specific way. Like said, it's not even chaos. Humans are incredibly predictable.

And like said, it's not even art. Art is portraits and landscapes and sculptures and symphonies and poems that rhyme. Non-rhyming poems are not poetry and not art. This is no-skill garbage that a toddler or chimpanzee could shit out.

Pollock pls go.

The definition of chaos is it contains no information.

You can think of it as a circlejerk or you can think of it as a more complex and proper tool to channel your expressions than by randomly throwing strings of paint on a canvas and calling it a representation of "Chaos".

Its ok but please do not say this is chaos. At least not here, maybe with normies

That's absolute chaos. Like you said, humans can only go so far as to approach it in a relative manner, never truly being able to achieve absolute chaos, but that doesn't mean relative chaos doesn't exist.


I do and so should you.

"relative chaos" is a meaningless term. It's chaos to a greater or lesser degree, but the part that's chaos has no information.

a monkey in the same room as a few buckets of paint could have done that.

Thank you :D
Do you have any tips or thoughs on things that could be improved?


If you can admit different magnitudes of chaos, then by definition you're admitting that there's a "lesser chaos" that's "less chaotic" than absolute chaos. Ergo, you're admitting that a type of chaos that's not absolute exists. I choose to call it relative.

Haiku are not poetry?


No you shouldn't.

But art does not exist to be first and foremost a medium of expression, art should above all else be beautiful. It is an attempt to capture what is aesthetically pleasing. The moment a creative work becomes more about the artist's expression than the outward appearance of the piece is the moment it stops being art.

I say again the part that is chaos has no information, and therefore is not art. If it's almost all chaos it has almost no potential to be art.

OK. Ignoring what you said earlier, if there's "part chaos" and "part not chaos", then there's certainly some room for creativity in combining them in ways that can be aesthetically pleasing or express some thought. Even the non information can contain information if put in a certain context, or canvas in this case.


Who's to dictate what's beautiful and what isn't? Sometimes, expressing a message in new creative ways can be beauty by itself.

So if I let my cat walk through wet paint and then put the cat on the painting will it be art? I guess, in your deranged mind, yes it would. It would be better than the utter shit you posted.

they you should be writing and not painting, Painting is not the proper medium for communicating a message as there is no standard through which the message can be encoded and decoded.

Isn't that an interesting thing though? Sometimes there's fun in figuring out ways in which the message can be decoded. Without a standardised approached to do so, we're left to our own devices.
Either way, I do write as well, but I wanted to give painting a try, been practising for a while. Thanks for your input and for being civil.

There are actually some paintings done by monkeys that I enjoy. What is closer to "art" a robot recreating a scene as exactly as possible because it was programmed to or a monkey painting because he enjoys how the colors look when he combines them together?

So you admit that the paintings that you posted in the OP are failures, then?

The Code of Hammurabi is chaotic, compared to a geometry textbook. "Relative" anything has no significance, unless it's in direct comparison to a specific example that already has a significance of its own. Those Pollock paintings are only chaotic compared to things that are not chaotic; compared to things that are actually chaotic, such as thermal noise, radioactive decay, a roulette wheel, the digits of pi, etc., the paintings represent relative order.


I don't consider them to be poems, although they are interesting word arrangements. They approach poetry, but do not reach it, since they only really make use of metre and symbolism. In all honesty, a haiku is more like a kind of short prose.


Sometimes. Whether something can be considered beautiful depends on just that: whether something is considered beautiful. It might be hard to pin down what exactly defines beauty, but we all know it when we see it. A 10/10 woman with curves in all the right places is obviously more beautiful than some 1/10 ham-planet troglodyte. A fancy ye olde time oil painting is more beautiful than a 13-year-old's deviantart fursona. A random mish-mash of paint splatters is not beautiful, and is not beauty.

The Jews have destroyed everything that is beautiful to keep you from being inspired to better yourself and your people.

Neither fit in my opinion, art is a creative medium, but it should be used in a way that demonstrates some meaningful skill. Copying a landscape is an activity devoid of creativeness, while monkey splatter is devoid of skill.


It is only interesting because it prompts people to make shit up, at which point it ceases to be communication. To be perfectly honest I do like the way the colors work together, but if it is to represent chaos there should be more clashing colors and less synergy.

Baiting ceases to be fun if you admit you know where the paintings came from :^(

Surprisingly nice when viewed from afar

stopped reading there

u little boy, watch this

rate

I genuinely love it