Comments on: Painting Can Never Be Art

By: Bender

Bender — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:01:48 +0000

Nicely done.

By: ARTbyVENY

ARTbyVENY — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:17:53 +0000

everything can be art, especially noways. It is interesting to see you spending time and effort to put together an article that is a clearly provocative and represents a theory with no valid arguments.

By: Ingdal

Ingdal — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:18:34 +0000

I like that you try to think differently, but it lacks real argument.

Exactly WHAT is art, and WHY can’t paintings have that?

I agree with Jonathan; it seems like you just quoted some1 and made your text around that. This is frustrating for me, maybe because it’s too hard to let go of the traditional point of view, but I don’t see you bringing any hard (enough) proof.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:05:56 +0000

you shouldnt let other peoples definitions for things rule your life.

By: ARTbyVENY

ARTbyVENY — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:42:52 +0000

painting is a form of art. also agree with Tolstoy’s definition that art is a form of communication. not necessary community representation, true art painting is a individual communication between the individual and other individuals. often simple communication is turned to a complicated one by art historians because of lack of information or need of proving own point. I always have admired the simplicity!

By: Jonah Falcon

Jonah Falcon — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:28:42 +0000

Speaking of satire, nice satire of Roger Ebert.