apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

buy some real art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder =) If you want to create your own Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollack, I say go for it!

Another good artist to look at -- for both imitation and the addition of color to a room -- is Josef Albers. Thanks to a color theory class I took in college, I learned far more than I ever needed to about him and his work (my teacher of that class was in love with him for some reason) and though I grew tired of it, I'm sure someone out there would appreciate it!

I couldn't agree more.

If you must have a Franz Kline, buy a print.

Remember, just because you can, does not mean you should.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Rothko isn't decoration. And you can't just "make your own" Pollock. It's not just random blobs of paint!

If you want a large painting on a budget, check out student art shows, or Ugallery (www.ugallery.com) which sells work by art students for very reasonable prices.

i consider this real art. its saying something to someone obviously. that message may be "im copying something i really like" or "im too cheap to go after a real one." both are valid messages though. would i rather people go after my art(http://www.flickr.com/photos/breathsound/sets/72157608484253546/) of course (hint, hint)... but people dont want that. which is a message as well. the thing that i find fascinating here is that people are creating instead of buying. which is good and creative for the "buyer" and bad for the "24/7 artist". oh well. art is fascinating, lovely, and frustrating....

i love the idea of personalizing a large canvas for your home; as an ex-art student, i'm way more likely to be bored by a poster or print that has been featured everywhere than i am by someone who chooses to make art that works for him or her as an individual. take back the paintbrush!

I second buying at student art shows and when possible Etsy but forget prints. Buying a print just puts money into the corporate art industry. I collect outsider pieces and I love that Etsy allows me to buy directly from the artist. I remember my beginning years and I still have a "hate/don't hate so much" relationship with galleries.

It's vulgar, like trying to impress people with a fake Rolex.

Besides, if you don't believe there's any intellectual thought or art historical knowledge that goes into these paintings, why would you want to have one? Just paint a darn accent wall.

If being "grown up" is a consideration, I'd venture to say that finding your own contemporary artist to collect is much more grown up than finding someone from Art history 101 to try to copy.

I taught art, I was a founding member of an artist's coop long ago, and I prefer original art, even if the local artists I buy from may not be "New York gallery" level... I only have a few commercial framed prints because they add something I wanted for the room, but if I find something to replace them that's original (or create something myself), they will probably go away.

That said, it's whatever floats YOUR boat. Nobody is obliged to support struggling artists. Nobody is required to think prints are vulgar or that making your own art is a cheap cop out. It's YOUR place, put in it what pleases you, whether it's a fine art reproduction or a framed patchwork quilt from Grandma or your kid's kindergarten scribbles... If all you are about is impressing someone with your excellent taste and/or budget, your priorities are screwed and you deserve what you get!! ;^)

(I will suggest that if you like fine art reproductions of famous paintings, get the best quality ones you can. The cheapo ones fade quickly in anything but near darkness, and then the colors are far from true.)

So, is there some kind of artist's license out there that I need to get before I'm allowed to create "art"? Who gets to decide what qualifies as art? If I make it myself and I like it, then it's art to me.

A DIY Rothko? Seriously?

To Anteater - Your teacher went on and on about Josep Albers because he was the father of modern color theory.

To Jooly - I can blow out a candle, but that doesnt mean I'm qualified to be a firefighter. Art is a language, both being expressed and interpreted. Sure, you can fling some paint onto a canvas, but it doesnt make you Pollock. Which isnt to say that you shouldnt make art - it just means that not everything you (or I) do is great. Lets not forget: Thomas Kinkaide (barf) calls himself an 'artist'.

But seriously - go buy some real art. There are plenty of damn good artists in the world - and most of them are within your price range if you actually want to invest in something.

So to those who think putting paint on a canvass in the style of a modernist is crass, what exactly is the difference between putting paint on an accent wall or putting the same paint on a canvass?

Wasn't Warhol asking what's the difference between a soup label and a painted soup label?

And what's the difference between styling your home from inspiration from a great designer vs painting a canvass in the style of a great painter? And how many of you who bitch about anyone else making their own art can actually afford a Pollock yourselves?

Granted, I agree that the untalented among us should not go splashing paint on a canvass and style a room around it -- it's likely that the results will be sad indeed. But jeeze, if it makes you happy to experiment and if you might come up with something you love and makes you happy, why not??

to quote rauchenberg....
"this is a portrait, because i say so."

you all make art. everyday. what can make it art ( in my mind) is if you think of it as so. what jooly said was great! you need no background to make something inspiring, thought provoking to you or others. people shouldnt be discouraging the act of creation. i have a feeling those thoughts are coming from those that would rather a post done about them (who wouldnt) than what in their minds is "counterfeit art".

my last thought....
a few months back i was very inspired by the recent art of stanley donwood. i wanted to try to emulate some of the textures he came to through wax and ink. i tried it and came up with my own thing. i was so happy with it i posted it on my blog and a few people bought a few copies. if it hadnt been for mr donwood inspiring me enough to try to emulate him, i would of been out a new technique and a few hundred dollars... check it out here if you want.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/breathsound/2717004934/in/set-72157608484253546/

So make art. But copying someone else's style is sort of weird--slinging paint around doesn't make you Pollack.

But "quick and easy" art that's "neat" is really the same as the stuff people buy to match the sofa.

Just another in a series of posts that reflect the banality and low taste level that is AT:LA. Considering how many incredibly creative and talented people live and work here, I can't figure out where AT:LA finds these people.

This post wasn't about "creating" your own art. It was about how to make a knock-off, with the implication that there's nothing special about the originals that anyone with a paintbrush couldn't do too. That's what people are objecting to.

What does art signify to you? Interior design or something more. The fact that there are so many strong opinions out there on this topic really reflects our feelings about what we consider meaningful in the way we organize our personal space and what it says about us. It's your space, do what you want.

being an illustrator... art for me on my ways has to make my heart scream (in a good way), and not just something that blends in with the color scheme.

but to each their own.

*on my walls

also recommend this:
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/

oil painting reproduction done by artists of works i would have to sell my house to afford. you can submit any work and they will paint it for you.

so you get a 'real' reproduction, not some lousy print on canvas, while supporting real artists at the same time.

I think there are a few things here... I have seen photos of apartments of people who took the advice of creating own "splashes of color" by making a "painting" of big red square canvas, or with three strips in colors that match the decor... and it was so obvious it was done by the owner who is not even close to any painting art... how? the quality of it. It was obvious there was no base done, and no vernicks done after (I am sorry if the terms I am using aren't exactly correct - I am not American). I remember the only one painting I have ever done - I was a teenager and I was exploring my artistic side ;-). I was lucky that my Mom used to paint, so she told how to do home-made canvas, prepare base etc., so in the end, far from high art - at least the painting looked good. And it still hangs in my old room - and people do ask "oh, who made it?"

I think if someone is trying to do something, using classic art as inspiration (and not to try and copy them) - go and have fun. I've been thinking about doing it myself, to play around.. especially that I remember how much fun I had years ago with this one painting... But I would get professional materials to do it - so even though I am far from being an artist, the technical side would be ok.

And if I then put it on etsy.. would be an art then?

I think we need people not to be scared of trying something that is on the artsy side - no matter if we have "talent", if we are educated in art, if we are art connoisseurs etc. We all need more contact with beauty - not just by watching.

Why doesn't anyone suggest making your own Botticelli, Titian or Rembrandt? ;-)
More seriously, as much as I like Rothko, Pollock and Kline, why always them? There are dozens of artists from that period that are worth mentioning, if not rediscovering, why doe those three always end up as home décor and never Motherwell, Diebenkorn, Morris Louis...?

I'm all for people making their own art. But when it has to be "famous" art, that goes with the "color scheme" and shows no appreciation of the hard work the real artists put into their work -- oh, I give up. This is like arguing science with Sarah Palin.

Another thing that irks me about this is the disposable nature of it. Every second post on AT is about reducing, reusing etc and then there's this... It's so 'quick fix' and exactly the sort of thing you see lying by the kerb on hard rubbish collection days.

Here's the thing. I love AT because I love seeing what people do with their houses, but NOT because I want to rip off their ideas and replicate in my own home. I like seeing how creative people can be, and how individual their homes can become, because it pushes me to think of what I could do, within my own means, to make my home my own.

The idea of people blatantly ripping off someone elses "style" irks me, and the very notion of ripping off "famous" paintings makes me shudder. Whoever said that imitation is the highest form of flattery obviously didn't care much for copyright or intellectual property, or for any belief in people being able to be creative in their own right.

Ok, everybody go watch Mona Lisa Smile and loosen up. I encourage everybody to go make art in whatever way you see fit; even imitation is a way to learn. And hang on your walls whatever you damn well please.

Since "good artists copy and great artists steal" reach for whatever level of greatness you desire.