The Alex Grey Appreciation Thread

[His Name Is Frank]

These are two of my favorites.

 

[doofqueen]

I'm a really big fan myself

 

[tribal girl]

me too!

Well there's a surprise! :D

 

[aanallein]

Even if you aren't inspired by the images you have to admit that his skill level is absurd. He makes my artwork look like crude cave paintings in comparison and I'd like to think I'm not too shabby with a pen.

 

[Khadijah]

He has one subject: altered/alternate states of consciousness.
He has one means of representing it: literally.

The reason he isn't held in high regard is because he only says one thing, and its something that most people in the art world understand, but don't regard as particularly important to their own art. That's why psychedelic art is dismissed: its "the best thing ever" to the same group of people who think tool is "the best band ever". By that I mean, loved passionately by people who are, if the past is any indication, going through a phase. Most people grow out of thinking of psychedelics as central to their lives, or their spirituality, or their aesthetic. I'm inclined to believe that the art of someone like Mathew Barney, in all its inscrutability, is fundamentally better than Grey's, because its more complex, and more nuanced.

How much of alex greys art have you seen? Jus curious. if you seen all of his work you would know that it aint all one thing at all. just becuz he uses alot of colors dont mean that all his work is "tripped out." if you look at some of the series he done about life/death there is some pretty good shit in that group of paintings. the 2 lovers embracing, havin sex, the baby growin in the uterus, the birth, the family after the baby gets born, etc. and its some real nice shit.

I gotta go now , but ima come back here. i think its funny that a long time ago i started a thread talkin about how alex grey is overrated, and how over time i have came to appreciate his art alot more.

I guess im defending him becuz AS a artist, i know i just make shit for me that i like. not becuz i think im great or becuz whatever. And people always INFER that the artist thinks hes the shit, just cuz the fans think hes the shit. you feel me atlas? So he gets hated on, just becuz ppl love him so much that other people like to challenge that and be like yo, it aint ALL that spectacular. but what i really love about his work is just this, no matter how you feel about it, I think the one thing that he has in his paintings is LOVE. you can feel the love that he painted with when you look at his art, and its almost like his work is a expression of the feeling of deep down warmth and contentment that can come from feelin good emotions. Anyways more later...

just for the record, i dont like trippin, i dont like hippie crap, i dont really like any of that shit at all.

 

[His Name Is Frank]

I gotta go now , but ima come back here. i think its funny that a long time ago i started a thread talkin about how alex grey is overrated, and how over time i have came to appreciate his art alot more.

Every time I read one of your posts,I luv you a little more,lacey k. You keeps it real.

just for the record, i dont like trippin, i dont like hippie crap, i dont really like any of that shit at all.

I'm the same way,with the exception of 2CI and such. I've never really liked acid or those dirty,stinky hippies. But that's the great thing about Grey's work. You don't have to be on his level to appreciate it for what it is. Truely beautiful,powerful and unique art.

 

[Pander Bear]

what is the "and such" that follows 2c-i?

 

[glitterbizkit]

Every time I read one of your posts,I luv you a little more,lacey k. You keeps it real.

Same here

It really irritates me when people argue over whether one artist is "better" than another. It's all so completely subjective... I mean it's alright if you state that you personally prefer one artist over another, but saying one is better than another just cries out snobbery to me as it's seems like people who do this assume that they have some sort of special right to turn their subjective opinion into objective fact...

Personally I like Alex Grey Naoto Hattori is really great too.

 

[L2R]

damn straight gb.
it's just as ridiculous to say that alex grey is the greatest artist ever as it is to say that he's worthless.


additionally, there's a tonne of art that i don't appreciate, but the simple fact that others do, means that they have value.

 

[AmorRoark]

Here we go again.

As stated previously (as in, in other threads) I believe there is some legitimacy to the argument that objectivity in art does exist to an extent. Then again, I'm not too huge on post-modernist ideology. Anyway, I've read a bit (and I mean a bit) on art, art history, art philosophy and so forth... and this is the overwhelming philosophy I'm attracted to. So yeah, in this weird sort of way, my subjective opinion is that art is not entirely subjective. This isn't to say that subjectivity isn't *extremely* important but to say that there's absolutely nothing we (as a larger society) can judge or base "good" or "bad" work on can arguably take away from the actual quality of art as a whole. Conversely, you can argue that it cannot be taken away. But this is not how I view the world.

Alex Grey, then, I will agree has some really neat artistic ability. However, I have yet to understand any sort of deeper significance of his work. There's a lot of art out there that I cannot personally relate to but still atleast appreciate how it could inspire others, and I just cannot see it in Grey. Overwhelmingly, other way more "entitled" people have expressed similar views. Perhaps this is why he gets shit on so much. It's an easy bandwagon to jump on. And that doesn't necessarily make it right. BUT, it's how I honestly feel about the art.

Regardless...

I didn't mean to come off as a "snob" but I'm just expressing how I see art, philosophically. I think expressing this isn't snobbish at all, really.

 

[glitterbizkit]

So yeah, in this weird sort of way, my subjective opinion is that art is not entirely subjective.

You said it best ourself... it's all subjective... I do agree that there are some qualities that we as a society can judge art with... But I just think the words "better", "good" and "bad" have no place in art critique because in art, these terms are so generalising that they are almost always subjective terms. You really have to get more specific when you're judging art - and not only the visual arts, I think this goes for film, music and literature too.

And no, I wasn't referring to your previous posts as snobbery at all, because of the way you worded them I felt it came across that you were talking about your own, personal, subjective opinion.

 

[Khadijah]

Alex Grey, then, I will agree has some really neat artistic ability. However, I have yet to understand any sort of deeper significance of his work. .

The funny thing is when i was not so into his work i said the same thing. But now, honestly i really believe that if you cant see more in it, you are purposely limiting yourself, cuz some of the shit in his work is SO obviously "deeper" that you would have to be purposely not noticing it to not see it, you feel me? For example look at that jpeg of the artist someone posted. do you think its just there to make high people giggle. no, he obviously relating the experience of creating artwork to some kind of connection with the divine. thats a theme thats been in art for thousands of years, and i think its funny when people discredit it in one place and appreciate it in other places.

Stupid people like alex grey cuz his pictures are colorful and "trippy." That is definately not the purpose in his work. From what i can see and from how ive read him explaining his shit at least. his work is all different depictions of different spiritual states of mind, yea i know that word is gettin played out but i aint gonna say religious. his art deals with altered states of consciousness sometimes but really most of his shit aint about that at all. i think the people who see a couple images and make their judgements stick to them without realizing that there is alot more to it than that.

I think his art in general pretty much represents emotions in many different ways, in all stages of life, in death and afterlife, in cold reality and spiritual enlightment/enhancement/whatever. hes centered on the human mind and all the experiences that it goes thru. its very small and large at the same time and i think thas kinda cool.

And all i can say is, if yall say this shit that its unoriginal or boring or two dimensional, about a man with one usual style, but many different things done in that style,then i sure as fuck hope you dont like Mark Rothko or Piet Mondrian or any of those cats.

 

[AmorRoark]

^ I've seen all his work and I'm still unmoved. Different strokes....

 

[Pander Bear]

this post is called What I say to my friends who love Alex Grey/visionary art

We all agree that art is a really wide field, so lets narrow it can say Fine Art is what we're talking about. Fine Art, we should agree, is defined by its role in society, rather than its visual beauty, or how it conforms to beauty. Fine art concerns itself with more than representation; fine art is about something: teaching it, revealing, provoking discussion. Fine art is a kind of material philosophy. That's how people like Warhol made it into what we will call the canon. That is how I intend to dismiss Alex Grey's work. It is, in my opinion, bad aesthetics, bad philosophy (of art). Therefore, any discussions of skill, or technique, are immaterial to the discussion (as I have defined it, anyway). Though, I will say, in my opinion, his skills and technique do not make him a particularly compelling craftsman.

The spiritual has been the first role of artistic depiction for as long as art has existed. Anything predating spiritual art, is better described as visual history, or simple communication (cave paintings retelling an event). Grey is participating in a tradition with quite a legacy. My first observation is that visionary art is willfully anachronistic. It, like the new age movement that gave birth to it, is xenophilic, primitavist, and experiential (rather than conceptual).

Conceptual art is where its at, presently(where its at meaning where fine arts are discussed, analyzed, evaluated, experienced). That's not to say that because conceptual art is favored, it must be good. Certainly, there is an overwhelming heap of bad (uninteresting, uninspired, unchallenging) conceptual art. Getting into what makes something like Many Colored Objects placed side by side to form a Row of Many Colored Objects by Lawrence Weiner a valuable contribution to the canon, and an important statement about metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology and so forth takes a lot of reading, and I'm not insinuating superiority here, but it also takes a pretty advanced intellect. If there is anything wrong with conceptual art, its that it reflects a philosophy that resists interpretation and description, and it has abdicated its role as a teaching force that everyone can learn from.

Visionary art's pedigree is a philosophy, but that philosophy is uncritical, dogmatic, and limited. The result is art that is actually less spiritual and more political than say, Spiral Jetty by Robert Smithson.

Grey's art isn't about revealing a world that is obscured to us by the limitations of our senses. Its about confirming the primacy of of the icon, of depiction as a reliable means of teaching and revealing truths. I don't understand why a belief system that relies so heavily on what isn't visible (charkas, auras, "energy") would retreat to a straight visual vocabulary in order to represent itself.

Its been a while, but I used to moderate Psychedelic Drug Discussion. You're going to have to take on faith that I value cognitive liberty, endorse the validity of altered states of consciousness, and accept a spirituality that has a great deal in common with Grey's own. Grey is the one, however, who is operating within the vocabulary and the structure of everything that is ostensibly opposed to his worldview. Firstly, depiction effectively closes any debate about the nature of the visionary experience. Accepting the validity of Alex Grey's art is a great way to give Alex Grey undue influence over your own mind during a visionary experience. His ideas are really just another culture's religious art, and while I'm not dismissive of religious art, it detracts from spirituality, and predetermines your experience the way it has to Christianity. Orthodoxy is a plague, it perpetuates bad ideas, allows the powerful to control people, and homogenizes thought. If you primarily identify yourself as a devotional eastern religion follower, then Grey is someone who enunciates your teachings, the same as the Sistine Chapel does for renaissance Italian Catholics.

If you think psychedelics are some kind of magic that reveals the one actual world, congrats, you have effectively turned the best shot humanity has for multiplicity of ideas, mutual respect, and real humanism (without wedding it explicitly to a preexisting value system) into a new church's wine and crackers.

Psychedelics are a boon to mankind because they foster chaos, dissonance, freedom, and heterodoxy. What the world needs is more of that, not some alternative hegemony of hierarchical power structures telling me how things are. That's what makes Grey's work bad.

If you think Grey's work looks beautiful, or you find is to be a reflection of your spirituality, that's the realm of your opinion. Art, however, is more than whether something conforms to your ideas about beauty and philosophy.

Art appreciation isn't about sitting, looking, evaluating, and then expecting people to feel the same way. Its about exploring the motives for the art, its position in historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts, and evaluating if it says anything at all (agree or disagree). If you reject that interpretation of art appreciation, then have fun retreating to "its my opinion, and I refuse to explain or even understand why I hold it" every time somebody challenges you.

 

[AmorRoark]

His ideas are really just another culture's religious art, and while I'm not dismissive of religious art, it detracts from spirituality

Ok John Calvin.

 

[Khadijah]

Atlas, youre a great example of why art school ruins peoples ability to appreciate art.

 

[Pander Bear]

ya, I mean, what good have books ever done anyone?

 

[L2R]

Alex Grey's literal stance on the spiritual/metaphysical is exactly what attracts me to his work. These topics do not translate well into literal interpretations. If they did, then we wouldn't have people killing each other over belief systems. In that light, the well translated interpretations by Grey can definitely be seen as aspirational.

 

[Pander Bear]

8)

If you don't take the time to explain yourself, then you effectively say nothing at all.

 

[Khadijah]

ya, I mean, what good have books ever done anyone?

Alot of good and alot of bad.....What I meant by my post is that while maybe goin to school to hear someone drill their own personal beliefs about art into your skull for 4 years might give you more information to make your decisions about a piece of art, alot of that information is opinion, and also makes it alot harder for you to just look at somethin and just say "I like that." you allowed to think whatever you want about shit, but seriously , when you say shit like a giant red block is better, deeper, more complex, and more significant to humanity than a image showing the energy of 2 souls joining together thru sex and the love radiating out of that it just gets silly, cuz as much as you are tryna make a point, youre basically comparing something that says NOTHING at all to something that says ALOT. and then saying the first one is better because it says nothing, and somehow that means so much deep intellectual shit. "Ooh, but it says something by saying nothing, dont you get it? Its all the interpretation....Its COMPLEX, you wouldnt understand..."

If you wanna compare them on the same type of guidelines, if youre lookin at a alex gray painting, without knowing what it means or assuming that theres any meaning to it, you can tell at very least that the artist got alot of technical skill and is capable of creating somethin recognizable. while by judging at face value, you dont get shit from a block. when you look at it you see that the giant block could be made by someone with no skills at all, and not intending to mean anything at all, but you really dont know cuz its just a big block. Ooooh. interesting, intriguing. what does it mean? and people all act like its super fuckin great and shows some kind of intelligent mysterious thought provoking craftmanship. sometimes shit like that does, but there is plenty of worthless cons out there makin money thru complete shit, but hey somebody bought it, so i guess its worth something to them. i just draw the line at lookin down on something that may be simple in ways, but still shows great skills and a very obvious intent.

as a artist i cant stand to see the type of crap that people come out with, cuz when you act like a comepletely abstract, conceptual NOTHING of a wannabe artists brain-vomit, means more to art than well-executed images of different metaphysical types of things, thats when i cant even take it seriously no more.

The same way that people who cant sing think anyone who can carry a tune got a great voice, or someone who cant skate thinks anyone who can pop a olly is pretty skilled, thats what alot of pretentious-ass snooty art related people act like about art. they think they know so much becuz they got told by a professor that this means this. but in reality know so little that any piece of garbage that someone calls "art" is immediately cutting edge, smart, forawrd-looking, ahead of its time, etc etc etc. it dont take nothing to convince someone who cant draw for shit that somethin on a paper is art, cuz they dont know no better. when you put so much god damn analysis and talking into art, flattening it out into some kinda mechanical dead creature to look at and specualte about you just ruin it.

it seems like people come outta school with the attitude of someone who just learned to play chess just waiting to house someone at the next game. Full of new ideas and conflicting information and ready to challenge all the accepted ideas about art just like the people who love to come out like " I hate the beatles." its controversy and expressing new feelings about shit but alot of students think they know it all and get mad cocky and arrogant about shit once they get a lil info into em. I always wonder, if no one told you that the white line on the white canvas was great, would you think it was?

What makes it great, other than what you already been told about the context its in and the other background information about it. if you cant appreciate or understand a painting/image without someome explaining it to you, the history of it, then you cant act like you know because then its obvious that the meaning is whatever youre told. it takes years and years of drilling and explaining to give the art student the context to review and observe art and thats how people who spent time in art school come to conclusions that seem like the opposite of logic about the value of a piece of artwork. does it make you better and more knowledgeable that you can say you prefer a all-blue 50-foot wall to kathe kollvitzes holocaust charcoal drawings, or does it just mean that youre understandin it in a totally different way that aint necessarily related to its artistic skill , aesthetic value, or the meaning of it. Iunno. The thing about takin the artistic skill out of art is that you cant tell if it was made by a artist or not anymore. A circle is just a circle, when showed to people who like to over analyze things its a statement, but, the truth of it is, the circle itself did not take any skill to create. it took intent of the artist, it took thinking by the artist to decide what they thought they were saying, but the PIECE ITSELF shows no skill.the circle might provoke thought, but just that alone dont make it worth praise. alot of shitty things can provoke thought.

if the point of it is not to create art but to make a point then the line is blurred thats when it crosses over, to me, closer to advertising and not fine art. anyone can do what they just did, is the art in the intent of the artist? I could make a circle just as easy as a mentally retarded 7th grader with a compass could make a circle, and if no one told you who did it, would you even know? No..... some of the shit that people give mad credit to could be done by ANYONE,you see a million pictures by college art students that could pass for some shit by famous abstract artists, cuz other than the name attached, you dont even know. it seems like any graphic representation of anything is considered art. maybe thats a definition of it but is drawing the wal mart logo art? If i draw the logo and photocopy it and then put it ona wall and take a picture of it, is that my "Conceptual art installment?" the point im makin is that it seems like to many people, it aint the art ITSELF that people give credit to, but the idea goin thru the artists head when they made it which means that theres a whole lotta room open to interpretation. "Sure its a empty page, but she had just experienced the death of her mother when she made it! Its clearly a representation of loss!"

Yal are writing off alex gray like hes some kinda hack like thomas kinkade, who can draw pretty english gardens out the ass, but cant say nothing for shit. i understand the point of view of "you can paint something that looks real, but really means nothing at all and aint that great, and its worth less artistically than a cubed-out picasso mess on a canvas." Aint nothing wrong with that, i can understand that, cuz lookin pretty aint the end all be all of what art is all about. but i think you are definately reducing the quality of his work to make a point. Alot of times the critics of shit remind me of the celebrity magazines that just spend all their time gossiping about who did what and aint involved at all, just watch and analyze from the side lines. spend too much time on the side watching and judging and not enough time doing shit of your own and then its just a bunch of meaningless judgements said by a talking head.

anyways, none of the "You's" in this post is directed at you atlas or anyone else in this thread, just "you" in general as in anyone. well i hope that explains a lil better where im comin from.