Chimpy Chompy on 4/3/2006 at 22:29

---

I've missed Tony's sparkling charm and cheery demeanour.

Para?noid on 4/3/2006 at 23:55

---

It isn't really a particulary outstanding work of art but the point of art like this is to try and exist on a purely subjective and aesthetic level, avoiding layers of meaning to try and affect the viewer in a more instinctual, emotional way. Although the title suggests the subject, it can, without this information be construed as all kinds of shit. I guess "abstract expressionism" might be the word to use but I'm not very up on genres so that could be completely wrong.

Spamlet on 5/3/2006 at 00:27

---

As someone who has studied art for years, allow me to confirm that 'noid has the right genre. Actually, there's nothing all that methodical or time consuming about the technique itself. Although her name may not be as known to the general public, Frankenthaler is considered one of the most influential and revolutionary painters of the 20th century. Next to her masterwork, "Mountains and Sea" this is one of her most important pieces. That's why it's value is in the millions.

SD on 5/3/2006 at 03:28

---

Creating a foetus doesn't take much talent or effort either, but you advocate the death penalty for anyone who terminates one ;).

Anyway, I guess something is only as important as someone else considers it. Many artists have obviously been influenced by her work, so even if you don't rate it very highly yourself, it's clearly a significant painting.

Spamlet on 5/3/2006 at 05:34

---

Tony,

I didn't call that painting her masterwork. I said that this one (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/F/frankenthaler/frankenthaler_mtns.jpg.html) was.

However, since you asked. Modern art does not need to take a great deal of effort to be deemed great. Execution is nothing without concept. You replicating a great work of art via some computer program or whatever, only means you're good at copying someone else's idea. If you aren't the one who's expressing an original vision, the best you can hope for is being called "technically proficient" (which is usually pejoratively translated as "not a real artist yourself").

Besides, you aren't using similar mediums so there is no possible way you are acheiving what she did. Thousands of art students attempt to recreate her (and many others') paintings as part of their training and the individual nuances betray their hand every time. That's the precise point of the exercise. So don't flatter yourself that the same painting could be done in 5 minutes, if at all.

SD's analogy is a good one: an artist takes a part of themself (soul, if you'd like) and gives that its own physical life. Independent of its source, it then takes on an emotional and intellectual relationship with all who encounter it because you feel and think something even if that something is next to nothing. Whether you personally recognize its beauty or worth is, therefore, entirely moot.