Comment

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 29, 2013 at 6:15am

My reply to this article:

Art Investors: Don't Follow The Herd

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryntully/2013/09/27/art-investors-d...!
Eversince I entered the art world, I have been wondering about this aspect. Things here work on perception based assumptions and not on talent based realities. This is so different from the ways we see in the world of science. I fully agree with the author of this article. Everybody should get equal opportunities to shine. Hope the association with science will bring a change in the art perceptions too.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on July 17, 2010 at 4:05am

Replies to This Discussion

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 9:28am
Delete
Reply by Christopher Sayer on 31 May 2009 at 6:21am

Yes, you do not see many scientists launching ''retrospectives'' of their work. I am a director of an art school in London where we train many young artists and rarely, although there has been one very notable exception, does any of them receive recognition or, to keep them in food, commissions. Only later in life are they ''perceived'' as good and earlier works considered interesting.
Sadly, much of the public have to be told what is good in art and, as we all know, fashions change.

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 9:36am
Delete
Reply by Claudio Fontán on May 31, 2009 at 4:25pm

very good!!!

thanks
Claudio

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 3, 2009 at 10:01am
Delete
Reply by Heinrich 1 day ago

Probably it equally important that the artist knows how to market and promote his/her work. To show the work to as many people as possible is probably a good start.
Does art follow a kind of fashion or general trends? Are these trends global or more local?
You are kicking off a very fascinating discussion!
Heinrich


Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa 22 hours ago

Thanks for the reply. I am glad this discussion got so many replies on various networks. Yes, internet helps us do exactly that. My work is seen all over the world now & I am happy about that.
Yes, artists follow some trends both global & local. However, I believe in setting trends & not following them. My Art from Science is a new trend & I am glad people are appreciating it.
Krishna




Michael Dechant Permalink Reply by Michael Dechant 1 day ago

yes i agree with your opinion. Let me say that art is more subconscious and science more consciousness. Science trys to explain the world around us and art is bringing the world in ourselfs to a global reality. There is a link between this two worlds. In our deepest thoughts nothing is impossible. But there is a interface between the world in us and the world outside us. If you link this two worlds.....there is always transfer of information...and then...you can find out what exactly that is. Art for example is always a transfer of information between this two worlds. And I say worlds not only because my english is not as good as i want;) But to explain what i mean...if you look in a mirror...and you think something...does your reflection also think? Are you sure that you are the original?



Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa 22 hours ago

Thanks. Reflections don't think. Only brains of human beings think. This is a scientific reality.
These days I am trying to understand the differences or relationship between art & science. This is a wonderful journey & I am trying to share all that I am learning in the process with the world.
Krishna

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 4, 2009 at 9:21am
Delete
Reply by Kuesta 2 hours ago

I agree with them Very good !!

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 5, 2009 at 12:23pm
Delete
Barry John said:

Although difficult, I think it may be possible to judge art in a more objective way. I am talking about painting, which is my art, and music, which is something I enjoy.

When you compare a piece of music by a great classical composer (like Bach, Beethoven, Brahms etc) with a pop song or a folk song, you find there are far more complicated and intriguing rhythms, the harmonies are complex compared with the simple three chord structure of pop or folk song, and there are lots of other subtle nuances like repeating patterns, ornaments, overall structures that tie the work together and so on. Anyone who has studied music seriously will recognize these patterns and structures, and can analyze the work. The one objective, and scientific part of music, that can be quantified is the knowledge of the composer - whether the composer uses that knowledge to create a great piece of music is a different discussion - however the 'embedded knowledge' in the work is an objective measure.

I think painting is similar, but to date very few people (except Alfred Munsell), have attempted to create a notation for color (analogous to musical notation), and without a notation it is very difficult to describe the patterns in a painting. However I think these patterns and structures do exist. In a similar way to music, it is possible to quantify the 'embedded knowledge' of the artist who has created the work.

Of course none of this is very precise, but I do believe that art is much more of a science than people think (at least in contemporary times). There is some evidence that prior to the 20th century in fact, there was a much different perspective on art. John Constable, the famous British landscape painter (11 June 1776 – 31 March 1837) said "painting is a science, and should be treated as such". The idea of painting not being a science grew in the 20th century as modernism took over from the traditional teaching approaches of the great art academies. However there are signs that that is now changing as young artists are becoming keen to learn the 'craft' of their art, and are dissatisfied with the 'anything goes' philosophy of the art colleges and schools.

Barry

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 14, 2009 at 9:20am
Delete
Reply by Dr. Pramod Rai 14 hours ago

I feel , what God has created is beautiful ......
God has created man .........
What man creates with clean mind is also beautiful .........
the artistic creations of man are "invariably good" ....... although they may not appear " that good" to some .......
why worry !!!!!!!!!

Pramod Rai

Pierre Permalink Reply by Pierre 11 hours ago

If ART is the way for the artist to express how he appreciates the LIFE around him, then all art is good even if the artwork is bad (or considered as bad by some or many people).

Pierre

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 14, 2009 at 9:36am
Delete
Thanks, Dr. Rai & Pierre for your replies.

Well, several young artists have complained to me that people don't consider their work for shows or auctions just because they are new & up coming even though their work is good! In the art world, according to them, only experience & seniority is taken into account which is not the case in the field I come from. That made me think & add this discussion. It is the problem of young & upcoming artists & they are all struggling. I want to tell them why experience & age is important in the field of art.
If you see the same discussion on Art Lab network several people have agreed with me.
Krishna


Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:

Reply by Dr. Pramod Rai 14 hours ago

I feel , what God has created is beautiful ......
God has created man .........
What man creates with clean mind is also beautiful .........
the artistic creations of man are "invariably good" ....... although they may not appear " that good" to some .......
why worry !!!!!!!!!

Pramod Rai

Pierre Permalink Reply by Pierre 11 hours ago

If ART is the way for the artist to express how he appreciates the LIFE around him, then all art is good even if the artwork is bad (or considered as bad by some or many people).

Pierre

Comment by Prince Freakasso on November 18, 2009 at 7:00pm

Well David I liked what you said in your message.Kens'been doing a great job with his paintings and I've always admired them.The unfortunate thing about art is,it isn't dependant on painterly skills,dramatic light and shade and the rest of the gamut surrounding it.But rather the popularity of the personality of the artist,combined with workable marketing techniques that endear him to an Avant Garde vanguard audience.
People have a tendency to submit to a sort of sclerosis in thinking,when they yield to the overtures of a hyped up artist.The real art in question being reduced to a postscript.Rgds.Prince.

Comment by Prince Freakasso on November 18, 2009 at 6:45pm

Very true!In science everything needs to be quantified before it can be accepted.In art, the skill of the artist is open to perception and interpretations of a myriad shades and hues.Rgds.Prince.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on October 13, 2009 at 8:06am

Yes, I totally agree with Ken Howard. Yes, we may not get the name & fame now while we are still living but who knows after we leave this world we may become famous one day. However, I paint because I want to explore my mind & thoughts & communicate -especially science themes -with the world through my work & not for fame & name & certainly not for material gain. If I get these things too in the process it is okay.
Krishna

Comment by David McEwen on October 12, 2009 at 3:28pm

Wow, I suspect that I should read everything again two or three times before I meditate on the thoughts here before having the gall to contribute, but, here goes! I am a painter ( not an Artist, I always think that they wander arround clutching their foreheads and being "interesting") I make paintings with my hands so I'm an artisan. Other than comissions, I paint what I find interesting and beautiful and I've been doing it for a long,long time and I have yet to be 'discovered'. I call myself a portrait painter because even when I'm doing a landscape, it's a portrait! I don't philosophise because I think that art is too subjective to be 'good' or 'bad' ..........well I suppose work can be technically bad or in BAD taste ( like some of the offensive pieces being peddled in the U.K. as deep contemporary art). I'm rambling a bit so I'll finish off with something that a painter whom I admire says about painting. Ken Howard R.A. says that painting should be about Revelation ( revealing to one self and others through doing the painting a way of seeing the world ) Communication ( we must speak to the public so if your ideas are not communicated, what's the point, you're just talking to yourself ) and Celebration
( the idea that Art, Music, Literature should raise us above the norm, to raise our spirits and give us a sense of celebration ).
So I'll sit here in my studio and carry on painting the things that interest me, things that I find beautiful and I shall continue to hope that one day an honest gallery owner ( a rare breed ) will say, " I love them, I'll exhibit them." Well, maybe our grandchildren will get some benefit.

Comment by Brenda Starr on July 22, 2009 at 4:58am

It is said creativity itself walks a fine line that divides sanity from insanity...the color, shape and texture of ones passion may be a science...however, the reason why the passion is there is not.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 14, 2009 at 9:35am

Thanks, Dr. Rai & Pierre for your replies.

Well, several young artists have complained to me that people don't consider their work for shows or auctions just because they are new & up coming even though their work is good! In the art world, according to them, only experience & seniority is taken into account which is not the case in the field I come from. That made me think & add this discussion. It is the problem of young & upcoming artists & they are all struggling. I want to tell them why experience & age is important in the field of art.
If you see the same discussion on Art Lab network several people have agreed with me.
Krishna

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 14, 2009 at 9:23am

Reply by Dr. Pramod Rai 14 hours ago

I feel , what God has created is beautiful ......
God has created man .........
What man creates with clean mind is also beautiful .........
the artistic creations of man are "invariably good" ....... although they may not appear " that good" to some .......
why worry !!!!!!!!!

Pramod Rai

Pierre Permalink Reply by Pierre 11 hours ago

If ART is the way for the artist to express how he appreciates the LIFE around him, then all art is good even if the artwork is bad (or considered as bad by some or many people).

Pierre

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on June 5, 2009 at 12:22pm

Barry John said:

Although difficult, I think it may be possible to judge art in a more objective way. I am talking about painting, which is my art, and music, which is something I enjoy.

When you compare a piece of music by a great classical composer (like Bach, Beethoven, Brahms etc) with a pop song or a folk song, you find there are far more complicated and intriguing rhythms, the harmonies are complex compared with the simple three chord structure of pop or folk song, and there are lots of other subtle nuances like repeating patterns, ornaments, overall structures that tie the work together and so on. Anyone who has studied music seriously will recognize these patterns and structures, and can analyze the work. The one objective, and scientific part of music, that can be quantified is the knowledge of the composer - whether the composer uses that knowledge to create a great piece of music is a different discussion - however the 'embedded knowledge' in the work is an objective measure.

I think painting is similar, but to date very few people (except Alfred Munsell), have attempted to create a notation for color (analogous to musical notation), and without a notation it is very difficult to describe the patterns in a painting. However I think these patterns and structures do exist. In a similar way to music, it is possible to quantify the 'embedded knowledge' of the artist who has created the work.

Of course none of this is very precise, but I do believe that art is much more of a science than people think (at least in contemporary times). There is some evidence that prior to the 20th century in fact, there was a much different perspective on art. John Constable, the famous British landscape painter (11 June 1776 – 31 March 1837) said "painting is a science, and should be treated as such". The idea of painting not being a science grew in the 20th century as modernism took over from the traditional teaching approaches of the great art academies. However there are signs that that is now changing as young artists are becoming keen to learn the 'craft' of their art, and are dissatisfied with the 'anything goes' philosophy of the art colleges and schools.

Barry

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page