I need to know if there is a name for this particular example of art.
The closest I could get while searching was "abstract scribble art", but that doesn't totally cover the specifics of what I'm looking for.
I'll post several examples, but basically this is "scribble art", that either only very vaguely contains the shape of something, or doesn't try to represent anything specific at all, and is very chaotic. I don't like scribbles that are too uniform. I don't like it when patterns are formed and repeated.
Having a dense mass of scribbles, or several concentrated masses, that radiate out to less dense strokes, seem to be a common theme of what I find appealing in these.
It's proven weirdly resistant to putting a name to that doesn't contain other very different kinds of art that come from scribbling motions, or general abstraction.
>>63418
Another example
>>63418
I really like this one. The damage to the paper in the center only adds to its intensity.
>>63418
This one is almost too tightly packed, risks being a little bit uniform, but I still like it and it technically qualifies, mostly.
>>63418
This one contains a very vaguely defined face (a girl's head with a pointy hair bow), but it's abstract enough that I still very much like it, and the other chaotic elements and radiating strokes are there.
>>63418
This one is almost too unfocused, but does seem to just barely have a central point that it somewhat condenses to.
Basically there is almost not enough of it, but it is still pleasing in a very similar way, just to a lesser degree.
>>63418
This doesn't qualify, because of the lower left portion that forms a pattern that looks like tree trunks.
BUT, if you were to cut the picture in half diagonally from the top left to the bottom left, the upper right portion would perfectly represent what I am looking for.
>>63418
I like this one a lot, but it does seem to be something fairly different from the better examples of what I'm specifically looking for.
This one has some lines instead of strokes, but they are somewhat like lightning bolts. Uncontrolled enough that they still look chaotic, even if they aren't all condensing towards the center.
I guess this isn't an example, but gives me a similar feeling when looking at it as the stricter examples.
>>63418
And that's all I really have.
If anyone knows of the name for this art, if there is one, or at least just an easy way to search for more examples that fit my criteria, I'd very much appreciate it.
>>63418
who was jackson pollock
>>63425
Tsukasa is watching you from the shadows.
>>63457
That's not at all what I described, but thanks anyway.
this page has different examples, but only a few similar to the ones posted before:
http://www.studentartguide.com/articles/line-drawings
"Line drawings by William Anastasi: while blindfolded, Anastasi drew on a wall with graphite for an hour."
>>63490
>>63509
Generative art - drawing machine
Desmond Paul Henry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Paul_Henry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARON
>>63519
Thanks for taking the time to respond, but this stuff is really not at all what I described above or showed examples of.
>>63490
>while blindfolded, Anastasi drew on a wall with graphite for an hour
>art
funny how most art can be done by either a complete retard or "artist", the only difference is the story
>>63553
just as i thought, this trash in the pic sold for 30-40k
>>63553
>>63556
It's art if someone likes it. If it sold for 30-40k, then someone liked it.
Being the OP of this thread, I find these scribbles to be "art", because they just appeal to me in a way that's hard to describe. They are visually stimulating in a way that reaches me on a deeply emotional level. Just seeing these scribbles a slashed across paper in certain ways evokes an involuntary response in me, and it feels good.
With this particular art, the "good" I feel from it is sort of a dark and melancholy kind of good. It doesn't make sense logically. It just is.
If I had the money to spare, I could easily see myself looking for the best example of this art that evokes the strongest sense of the particular feeling it gives me, and dropping tens of thousands of dollars on it.
I don't have that kind of money though.
>>63563
i know a couple of people who collect high end art like this (banksy, etc) and most of it is done for investments. and in an inflationary environment like now the prices of these things are always rising
>>63553
From the wikipedia definition
"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts – artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power"
It's purely subjective, so of course there are going to be things that people call great art, that many or even most people just don't see any value in, because they don't get an emotional response from it.
Not every expression is going to be technically impressive, and not every person is going to look at an expression that didn't take a lot of technical skill without still feeling that it's beautiful or touching, regardless of who made it or how long it took, or how difficult it was to produce.
Human aesthetic taste is about the most diverse thing there is.
>>63568
im not saying it doesnt look sort of cool, even i can agree with that
im just saying the prices behind ridiculous stuff like this is insane
i mean, if you want to paypal me $10 i can whip some of these up on mspaint and they'll look pretty much the same
>>63575
>im not saying it doesnt look sort of cool, even i can agree with that
No no, I'm saying it's still art even if you think it doesn't look interesting or good at all, or even if you think it looks BAD.
Other people have such wildly different tastes that it really shouldn't be surprising that something you see little or no value in can be highly valued by someone else.
That's what art is. Purely subjective human expression.
>>63577
yeah thats true i can agree with that
the main thing i was really saying is how the types of 'art' which are less 'skill' and kind of just weird lines can sell for insane prices and people create a reason to think it's something unique and amazing, when it's not really that much.
same for paintings like jackson pollock's,
>>63583
>people create a reason to think it's something unique and amazing, when it's not really that much.
And that's the part I'm saying isn't surprising because that's the essence of art.
You think it's not that much.
Someone else thinks it is.
Neither of you is wrong or crazy, because it's all your personal viewpoint on a subjective aesthetic.
Because the emotional appeal is what matters in art, the hype, fame, and story surrounding it and its creators can matter, because it can affect how you feel about it due to knowing and giving a fuck about where it came from and what inspired its creation.
It's not very different from a man being unwilling to part with a family heirloom, say a pocketwatch that was passed down to the men in his family for generations that survived through wars and disasters, for any price. The value to him is priceless sentimentality, tied together with a sense of honor and tradition.
A collector may value that, especially if it passed through a famous place or along famous hands along the way, or even through the hands of someone who just knew someone famous or did something noteworthy.
But it's just hunk of metal to most of us.
>>63589
well in the case of most expensive art i'd say the price and the love of the piece of art are largely unrelated.
like you may like this art, and you say you may buy it if you had the money, but most of the collectors of art do it as a social statement or for an investment (or both), and art collectors/dealers even hype up cheaper artist paintings (after accumulating all or a good deal of them to make them very scarce), and they spin fancy stories of how 'artistic' the artist is or whatever to sell the story and make profits
i know what you're saying about a person tying value to something, but in the case of a lot of this art the price is independent, for the most part
on the plus side, now that you found the name you can buy a reproduction print of these for pretty cheap and it should be pretty much the same thing to you
>>63600
Oh, yeah that's a good point and definitely worth mentioning.
Greed, corruption, and social influence and exploitation seeps into anything where money is involved.
>now that you found the name you can buy a reproduction print of these
Dunno what you're talking about, there. Whoever listed some names in above posts didn't read my original posts and gave examples of art and artists that didn't have anything like what I described and am looking for.
>>63602
>
Dunno what you're talking about, there. Whoever listed some names in above posts didn't read my original posts and gave examples of art and artists that didn't have anything like what I described and am looking for.
oh my mistake
