Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on August 29, 2004, 12:49:51 pm
-
Putting modern art in its rightful place (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3604278.stm)
-
:lol:
Owned
-
I can't stand "modern art". Someone ought to train a secret brigade of these cleaner types to roam the world and do away with modern art.
The bag filled with discarded paper and cardboard was part of a work by Gustav Metzger, said to demonstrate the "finite existence" of art.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
What really irks me is this line:
The 78-year-old artist replaced it with a new bag. The gallery would not reveal whether he would be compensated.
Since when do we pay geriatrics to give us their garbage? :wtf:
-
[color=66ff00]I see utter miracles every day; events, scenarios or objects that to most people are mundane, but if you give a little thought as to what's happening they can be the cause of some revelation or insight and isn't that what art is all about?
'Modern' art as it is called is simply a way of illustrating how important or interesting things that people overlook on a daily basis is.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
'Modern' art as it is called is simply a way of illustrating how important or interesting things that people overlook on a daily basis is.
[/color]
I can see how people can have... 'different' tastes. But a f*cking bag of GARBGE!?
Come on... There's a limit to everything, and the limit of 'art' has lies on the other side of the universe of a bag of garbage :doubt:.
-
I hate "modern art" as well, it's one of only a few fields where you can legally swindle people out of thousands of dollars by claiming a bag of dog crap is actually a piece proclaiming "x" about life.
-
[color=66ff00]Oh the money side of it is obscene but lets face it, only a muppet pays for something like that. Most of those works can be easily cloned at very little cost.
[/color]
-
It's allegedly to expose the 'finite existence' of art, which just goes to show that :-
a) Modern Artists see Art's 'lifetime' as 'as long as it's profitable'
b) The artist secretly considers his own work to be mostly rubbish.
Personally, I think it's just another example of humanity running out of ideas :)
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Oh the money side of it is obscene but lets face it, only a muppet pays for something like that. Most of those works can be easily cloned at very little cost.
[/color]
Yeah, I throw clones into the garbage container daily...
Say, how much money would I get for a garbage container? :p
-
[color=66ff00]Tate will probably give you a cool half mil for it if you get someone to say that you're some mighty Dutch art guru. ;)
[/color]
-
"We don't understand this! Let's burn it!"
Way to go, enlightened peoples of Earth.
-
Not exactly Blaise, more like...
'Oooh look, theres a rubbish bag, and I'm a cleaner, let's do my job' :D
-
Really?
I was talking about the
"WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?"
"That? Oh, that's a new piece we've just acquired, it's called-"
"I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S CALLED. IT'S DUMB AND DOESN'T BELONG HERE. IT'S NOT ART, SEE."
"Um... well, it's supposed to represent the vast gulf between Man and-"
"WHAT? NO IT DOESN'T. I CAN'T SEE ANY SUCH MEANING, SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY BULL****. IT'S JUST A STUPID PIECE OF PAPER WITH BLOBS ON IT."
"Those 'blobs', as you call them, are exquisitely-painted depictions of the 'great thinkers' of the Renaissance period-"
"RENEY-WHAT? IT'S BLOBS. MEANINGLESS BLOBS IN A MEANINGLESS PIECE. I BET IT WAS MADE ONLY BECAUSE THE ARTIST COULDN'T THINK OF SOMETHING THAT HAD IDEAS AND STUFF BEHIND IT, OR COULDN'T BE ARSED ACTUALLY CRAFTING A PROPER WORK. THAT DOG**** PIECE YOU HAD LAST WEEK, THAT WAS ART. THAT HAD PROPER MEANING. AND I BET IT DIDN'T COST SOME EXORBITANT PRICE WAY BEYOND WHAT I, AS AN UNACCOMPLISHED NON-ART CRITIC WITH ABSOLUTELY BUGGER-ALL TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF ART, ART HISTORY OR ART CRITICISM, BELIEVE IT OUGHT TO BE WORTH."
"Please leave."
"I LIKE PEARS."
stuff.
-
:wtf: @ Blaise
-
:wtf:
-
Awesome. :)
-
Dude, it's a bag of rubbish. Come on.
-
Blaise gains respect -3!
-
Mate, [any painting you like] is splotches of paint on a canvas. Think about it.
Blaise gains respect -3!
Um, okay.
Unless you're referring to the rather blatant rip of JE Sawyer, of course. But if you mean my not buying into the viewpoint that 'certain things' are not 'art' because 'said things' do not conform to my expectations of what 'art' should be, and my saying so... um, okay.
A discussion would be nice.
-
Let me put it this way, the National Gallery has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to preserve the DaVinci cartoons. They show the grace, intellect and skill of this artist.
Equal amounts have been spent on preserving and restoring great Architecture, sculptures etc.
Who, in their right mind, is going to spend that kind of money to preserve a cellophane bag full of rubbish for our future generations to look upon and wonder (what the hell we were thinking).
-
Why is a cellophane bag full of assorted materials any less worthy of existence than pieces of paper with ink on them or funny-shaped bits of stone or metal?
-
[q] pieces of paper with ink on them or funny-shaped bits of stone or metal[/q]
Because of the beauty in thier expression.
-
why they didn't just leave note This is not garbage but meh.
-
I LIKE PEARS
-
Because "classical" painting/sculptures/art actually represent something.
The function of art is to a)to look cool and/or b)convey a message or feeling or insight.
The best art does both, this does neither. Lets face it, most people who buy this stuff are snobby Manhatanites who hand wierd crap on their wall so their shallow friends will think they're sophisticated. IO would venture to guess that for a good chunk of the population, probably the majority, art is what someone else says it is. If an art critic says that a garbage bag is the greatest masterpiece ever, and an art gallery displays it behind a velvet rope, than you'de better believe thats its art, or you "don't get it". And most people want to get it.
For example, I think most of Picasso's better known work falls into the same category as this garbage bag. Ditto Pollock and Mondrian etc.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
why they didn't just leave note This is not garbage but meh.
ROFL! :lol:
*walks into art museum*
*notices that every piece of art is labelled 'This is NOT garbage'*
:lol:
Surely that would be the saddest thing ever. When we have to tag art to prevent it from being seen as garbage and thrown away.
-
*agrees with Rictor*
And as for labelling what isn't garbage, it would be a lot easier to label what is.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Surely that would be the saddest thing ever. When we have to tag art to prevent it from being seen as garbage and thrown away.
Yeah, but did that help in this case? no it didn't, because it looked like garbage. still Meh.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Because "classical" painting/sculptures/art actually represent something.
The function of art is to a)to look cool and/or b)convey a message or feeling or insight.
[/b]
And inspire, provoke conversation, make us take a different point of view. Art is controversial by nature - quite often artistic works are INTENDED to be stupid, ugly or confusing, just to make us consider what art actually is. Trying to label art as "portraying and conveying form of whatever" is as stupid as saying "minimalistic electro-ambient is not music".
The best art does both, this does neither. Lets face it, most people who buy this stuff are snobby Manhatanites who hand wierd crap on their wall so their shallow friends will think they're sophisticated. IO would venture to guess that for a good chunk of the population, probably the majority, art is what someone else says it is. If an art critic says that a garbage bag is the greatest masterpiece ever, and an art gallery displays it behind a velvet rope, than you'de better believe thats its art, or you "don't get it". And most people want to get it.
[/b]
Oh, it's the snobby manhattians so the value of this art is zil!
Actually, this piece has managed to inspire conversation among COMPUTER GAME IDIOTS, isn't it a sign? If it truly was totally trivial and irrelevant meaningless piece of ****, no one had ever noticed. Granted, the way this art piece got publicity is pretty interesting, but however - it makes us discuss. It has successfully managed to do what it was supposed to do.
For example, I think most of Picasso's better known work falls into the same category as this garbage bag. Ditto Pollock and Mondrian etc.
?
I LIKE PEARS <3 Blaise
-
So which of these is 'art':
(http://www.kinkadecentral.com/paintings/tk99-09.jpg)
or
(http://www.creativespirit.net/henryreed/artgallery/Art002.jpg)
?
The first is a generic landscape by Thomas Kinkade. It looks nice but is completely devoid of meaning or substance. The second is a painting by Jackson Pollack, one of the most influential modern artists, and is an expression of visual texture. There is more emotion, power, and meaning behind the second than the first, which in my opinion makes it more worthy to be called 'art.' An art creation does not have to visually represent something familiar, it has to emotionally and conceptually express a concept and communicate a theory, idea, or anything else the artist wants to express.
-
*waits for someone to spot an image of Jesus in the 2nd one, thereby doubling its value*
-
Originally posted by Janos
I LIKE PEARS <3 Blaise
Sadly, I can't claim intellectual ownership of that statement. Not really, anyway. Entire thing was basically a rip, although from something about something else entirely where fruit was an allegory or something.
Anyway, I concur with the two posts by Janos and Galemp. Points are raised that I feel are valid and pertinent and cool and stuff. :nod: :yes:
-
First one: Ok, as generic as it can possibly be... Not art in my mind.
Second one: Did a 2-year old make this? Or someone in solitary confinement at the MIFFA (Mental Institution For Failed Artists)?
Seriously, if someone wants to convey emotion and power, it should be done in a way that has actual meaning. Throwing swatches of paint against a canvas for 2 minutes hardly qualifies as art but more like an attempt to make art of of kitch and to milk a ****load of money out of it.
You can conve emotions without making your work look like ****. :doubt:
-
Oh come on. Thats like if I write a book with only the word "window" repeated 65,143 times. Its probably going to "provoke conversation" between the sensibe majority who views it as a piece of crap, and the elitist, "intelletual", snobish minority who thinks that its the greatest piece of literature ever.
And if I manage to get an art gallery to display it, and go around the country on a book signing tour, that doesn't make a great artist, it makes me a great businessman (or if you prefer, swindler)
Frankly, this is a slap in the face not only to the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, who spent their lives creating art, but also to even the lowlist art student or comic-book artist, who put in 15 hour days just to get a tiny gallery somewhere in the middle of nowhere to display their art.
It probably took less than an hour to put the garbage bag together, and in addition to the substantial money he's recieving for it, he is also paraded around the "art community" as some sort of genius.
-
Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh come on. Thats like if I write a book with only the word "window" repeated 65,143 times. Its probably going to "provoke conversation" between the sensibe majority who views it as a piece of crap, and the elitist, "intelletual", snobish minority who thinks that its the greatest piece of literature ever.
[/b]
The fact that the "snobbish minority" likes it and majority does not does not dimish it's value - people value different things, and populism in art is prety horrible.
I watch birds. Majority of people do not and do not even value my hobby as useful. Birdwatchers use expensive optics. Is my hobby meaningless? [Yes, this was a horrible strawman, but you get my point.]
And if I manage to get an art gallery to display it, and go around the country on a book signing tour, that doesn't make a great artist, it makes me a great businessman (or if you prefer, swindler)
[/b]
Sometimes the two are not readily separable. If people like to see and read your book, you have managed in something - expressing yourself and finding people who think like you. Maybe.
Frankly, this is a slap in the face not only to the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, who spent their lives creating art, but also to even the lowlist art student or comic-book artist, who put in 15 hour days just to get a tiny gallery somewhere in the middle of nowhere to display their art.
[/b]
So? Michelangelo and Da Vinci did pretty much totally different kind of art, as does the art student. Irrelevant to value of this piece.
It probably took less than an hour to put the garbage bag together, and in addition to the substantial money he's recieving for it, he is also paraded around the "art community" as some sort of genius.
OH NOES IT TOOK TOO LITTLE TIME GRRRRR STUPID ART FAGS
Now, seriously, what has time it took to take the garbate bag and fill it with trash to do with the value of this piece? For an experienced guy it takes 2 minutes to pretty accurately sketch some dude's face into paper, then additional 30 minutes to color it up (I am taking these number outta my ass, FYI).
-
Originally posted by vyper
Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.
... like being forced to wear humiliating clothes, eat bad food, being punished for some reason we don't understand etc.?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.
I disagree.
Taking a step out into the void and making a judgement about something based on one thing... I find his picture/stuff rather boring. You might see childhood memories, but I see a house, with snow. Maybe... I don't know, maybe I could say 'it says something about man and nature living in harmonious bliss' or 'it says cottages are cool' but... I'd be lying if I said I really *knew*, if I really had an idea of what it means. In truth, "I don't get it".
In contrast, I like the Pollack picture. I get a feeling of... maybe anger, rage, or maybe frustration perhaps, or triumph, or any of the feelings that are connected with POWER. The broad, long 'brushstrokes' streaking across the canvas, striding the board like a colossus... I'm not an art critic, this might not be the Establishment's feelings on the matter, but to me, that's what I get out of it. A demonstration of power... like a Tesla coil, y'know?
But... and this is perhaps quite important... when I look at Kinkade's picture, do I stand legs apart, openly cupping my testicles, and declare "This is not Art!"? Do I say "He doth slap his willy in the face of the Artistic Greats, and his mother didst perform oral sex on orangutans!"? Do I say "A Mockery and an Idiocy this is, and It pleaseth me not! Be rid of It!"
No, 'cause I have a realistic perception of the influence I have in defining words and the world: i.e. Me. I'm perfectly justified in saying 'I don't like this' or 'This means nothing to me, I feel nothing, sense nothing... I am dead inside,' but I can't say 'No one should like this, it is crap' or 'This is not art, [what I say] is art'. I certainly don't think that anyone who doesn't get Pollack is dumb, nor that anyone who gets Kinkade or Herr Metzger is crazy, nutso, stupid, doesn't know the *real* meaning of art...
Maybe that's just me.
-
Blaise how old are you? I'm not piss taking I'm serious, I'm wondering for a reason.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Blaise how old are you? I'm not piss taking I'm serious, I'm wondering for a reason.
17.
-
Might be a teen anger thing that's yet to finish that draws you to Pollack.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Might be a teen anger thing that's yet to finish that draws you to Pollack.
Obviously so. Can't see how I missed it. Good thing you managed to tell me that my opinions are based on hormones and not, like, me analysing the way I feel when I look at something. Boy, I could have made a fool outta myself there and no mistake! Hey, one good turn deserves another - remind me to, when you express an opinion on something, write it off as something else entirely, sticking you down a rung on the ladder of humanity!
Thanks again, doc!
-
I love it when someone reinforces my own point.
;)
-
Piet Mondrian
Red, Blue & Yellow
1930
Oil on canvas
(http://skolenettet.no/kunstweb/kunstweb2d/bilder/store/mondrian.jpg)
Dan Lebl
The Essence of Man
2004
MS Paint
(http://home.cogeco.ca/~llebl/mondrian2.gif)
edit: the reason my colours aren't better is because I'm working in Paint, which only has 256 colours. The reason I didn't use Photoshop, in which case my colours would have been identical to his, is because my HD is full and photoshop wouldn't open, "scratch disks are full".
-
Originally posted by vyper
I love it when someone reinforces my own point.
;)
No, that wasn't teen anger. That was the mildly-pissed off response of somebody who doesn't appreciate being dismissed because 'he's a teenager', nor indeed the act itself - of discarding somebody's thoughts just because of one single aspect of the greater whole of the person.
Don't you realise how insulting
Originally posted by vyper
You don't hold your opinions because you're an individual person with individual feelings, memories, personality traits... instead, you only think those things because you're an object, a part of some gigantic faceless wall of an attribute... I do not consider you an individual, I dismiss you because you are young/old black/white fat/thin left/right gay/straight north/south rich/poor smart/dumb city/farm science/art
this is? How really, *really* annoying? How intellectually despicable and small-minded?
Hmmph. Chances are, you're just going to chortle away at the dumb teenager who doesn't even realise that he's just a big ball of fury and anger, nothing more... a raging monster that doesn't appreciate the beauty and placidity and in-terr-es-tin brushwork of Starry Night, (http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0612.htm) non-complex, non-person reducible-to-a-single-attribute creature that he is.
A question for *you*, buckwheat: what would you have said if I'd been 37? Or 62? Hey, I'm gonna retire in a couple of years, and I like Pollack's work! What you gonna do now, mister? What easy dismissal of my opinions would you use there? Senility, perhaps? What?
-
If you'd been 37 or 62 I'd have just said you had **** taste. :p
Tbh, you're just reinforcing my point by making such an issue of it.
In addition - people DO hold certain opinions because of thier background and life, it's part of the human condition.
-
Originally posted by vyper
If you'd been 37 or 62 I'd have just said you had **** taste. :p
How very arrogant. Would you happen to be God?
Tbh, you're just reinforcing my point by making such an issue of it.
Well, not really. I was aiming for 'self-righteous crusader', not 'angsty teen'. Regardless, I have a tendency to be sarcastic when confronted with idiocy.
I take it that you would be okay with me saying that Tiara's opinion is completely down to her being a woman?
In addition - people DO hold certain opinions because of thier background and life, it's part of the human condition.
What? Really?
While I don't doubt that people are, at the very least, shaped by their experiences, if not defined by them, I think it's just a tad more complicated than 'you're an angsty teen, therefore you like Angry Angry Pollack'.
-
You're seeking complication where none exists.
-
<''(^)><| ™
There. Art. Crap. And spam all at once.
Everyone has their own opinions. Whether you like it or not. Get over yourselves. Please.
Just because BR thinks it's art, and Vyper thinks it's rubbish, we have to have a thirty something post page arguing about it.
You two will never agree on what is or isn't art.
You're not even arguing about the issue any more, either. It's become a childish "The reason you like it is you're a dumb kid' thread. STOP IT. NOW.
I really wish I was a mod sometimes, to end threads like this.
-
Originally posted by vyper
You're seeking complication where none exists.
You attempt to reduce where such reduction requires omission.
Unless teenagers are 1-dimensional creatures whose sole motivation, feeling, so on so forth is anger, only anger and nothing but anger, in which case there is nothing to omit. I'd like to see you try and prove that, along with explaining all of the junk that necessarily entails it (like when does somebody stop being 'a teenager who only likes stuff because he's angry and so is it' to 'an adult who is an actual person').
'Course, what I'd really enjoy is for you to stop dodging stuff and address your blatant act of... *shudder*... ageism. Yeah, I know, now I sound like a hippy activist... that's life, I'm afraid. Oh well.
No, really. Pursuing arguments about what I would have thought were simple concepts is what I do for a living. It makes me evaluate the tenets that I hold dear and, if necessary, discard those that have no merit and no basis in fact. First, it was 'what is art?' Now it's 'can you reduce teenagers to a big ball of anger and nothing else of note?'
-
Originally posted by Raa
Just because BR thinks it's art, and Vyper thinks it's rubbish, we have to have a thirty something post page arguing about it.
Hey, I'm the one arguing for 'everyone's opinions are valid', not 'your opinion doesn't count because you are 17 (and coincidentally disagree with me)', damnit. I am the soldier of tolerance!
-
I never said you weren't. I agree with you. I hate the sack of trash exhibit. But who am I to decide what is and isn't art?
-
Originally posted by Raa
I never said you weren't. I agree with you. I hate the sack of trash exhibit. But who am I to decide what is and isn't art?
Oh.
Damn. I was kinda hoping for another argument. Oh well.
:) :yes:
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
You attempt to reduce where such reduction requires omission.
Unless teenagers are 1-dimensional creatures whose sole motivation, feeling, so on so forth is anger, only anger and nothing but anger, in which case there is nothing to omit. I'd like to see you try and prove that, along with explaining all of the junk that necessarily entails it (like when does somebody stop being 'a teenager who only likes stuff because he's angry and so is it' to 'an adult who is an actual person').
'Course, what I'd really enjoy is for you to stop dodging stuff and address your blatant act of... *shudder*... ageism. Yeah, I know, now I sound like a hippy activist... that's life, I'm afraid. Oh well.
No, really. Pursuing arguments about what I would have thought were simple concepts is what I do for a living. It makes me evaluate the tenets that I hold dear and, if necessary, discard those that have no merit and no basis in fact. First, it was 'what is art?' Now it's 'can you reduce teenagers to a big ball of anger and nothing else of note?'
It was recently proven that until 18 years old at least, teenagers hadn't developed the ability to process emotions of themselves or specifically others.
-
[color=66ff00]Vyper, can the flamebaiting.
To judge someone by their age hints that you're the reading a book by it's cover type.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by vyper
It was recently proven that until 18 years old at least, teenagers hadn't developed the ability to process emotions of themselves or specifically others.
Proven? Nah, all thats changed is that now, those people yelling about "no good teenagers and their music; not even music, its just noise" seem to think they have a shred of credibility. Even though I agree with you on the whole art thing, don't make stupid generalizations.
What does "process emotions" mean anyway?
-
Originally posted by vyper
It was recently proven that until 18 years old at least, teenagers hadn't developed the ability to process emotions of themselves or specifically others.
1) Doesn't mental maturation continue into early twenties or something? Is what I heard, although perhaps that's to do with something else or is now incorrect.
2) More relevantly, while this may indeed be true, I don't see how this leads into 'a teenager only likes things because he sees his anger reflected in it'. While it might be a valid (real, actual) reason for liking something - the 'seeing one's emotions reflected in something else' part - I don't see why it is that this is the only reason why teenagers might like something.
-
I don't mean to bother anyone but mental maturation lasts till you're dead :p
-
I thought one was s'posed to reach one's full mental development then? Like, the process that makes a child mentally different from a teenager from an adult ends then? Or something?
-
Plus, I know teenagers that could give lessons in maturity to some older people on this board.
"This is art!!"
"It is not!!"
"Is so!"
"Is not !"
etc...
:p
-
[q]Vyper, can the flamebaiting.[/q]
Okay, Maeg, I've been here for two years plus and I've never been accused of flame baiting. I'm just not taking him on in his arguments that I don't see a point to, and conveying backups to my own.
-
I don't know, I was trying to be viciously mordant and sarcastic back there.
-
Both ways work.
-
[color=66ff00]You're conveying that you have a better grasp of the subject just by proxy of being older.
That seems more of a sweeping generalisation than a coherent argument to me.
[/color]
-
[q]That seems more of a sweeping generalisation than a coherent argument to me.[/q]
1 - I'm saying his perspective is different, and that I won't like the "angry" picture for the same reason.
2 - That still doesn't qualify as flame baiting.
-
To return to the original point of the thread... :nervous:
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
why they didn't just leave note This is not garbage but meh.
:lol: That made me think of the Magritte painting:
(http://usuarios.lycos.es/magrittefan/images/works/magritte4.jpg)
Translation: "This is not a pipe."
Actually, art aficionados might find the two exhibits similar in more ways than one. :nervous:
-
I suppose that from my own point of view, Art should be recognisable as such, you need to be able to look at it and say 'someone was getting creative there', even if you don't like it, you can still recognise that someone has tried to create 'Art'.
That's why I consider Pollack and artist, even though it looks a bit odd, it is an expression of emotion, a feeling that someone had a passion for what they were doing, that is what I consider Art.
If a bag of rubbish can be mistaken for...well.... a bag of rubbish, then it, at least in my opinion, could not have been projecting any kind of creativity or emotion.
-
On a slightly different tangent...
Re: Mondrian, Red, Yellow, and Blue. You may (or may not) be familiar with the basic principles of color, form, and composition that all art students learn in their first studies. But they are of supreme importance, moreso than simply the subject matter. The paintings of Vermeer and his contemporaries, for example, are on the surface simple portraits of everyday life, but as art they are fascinating for their composition and use of light and form to draw the eye in certain directions.
What Mondrian did was to keep the composition and do away with the subject matter, retaining the ultimate meaning of the art while minimizing it to its basic components and moving it into the abstract. Where you may see just some squares is where you would also see just a woman in a rocking chair; what art critics see is a composition.
Furthermore, Mondrian is considered genius because he was revolutionary. It may be no big deal for you to put down some lines and colors, but for someone to do this in 1960 and call it 'art' was totally new and highly controversial.
You could say the same thing about Mies van der Rohe's landmark Seagram Building in New York; you can say, 'Any moron can build a glass box' but looking at the architectural precidents he was building on, you can understand that the idea, the concept, the totally new and different theories behind the art made it genius. It was something the world had never seen before, which is why your crude imitations can never have the same impact that the original art did when it appeared.
Goober: Excellent point made with le pipe. Magritte is an outstanding example of how art can be stimulating.
-
Only the artist knows whether or not it is art. If a work stems from a genuine feeling or thought that the artist has, then it is art. Now, you can make a strong argument for the case that art fails if it cannot make an emotional or intellectual connection with many people, but to disregard anything as worthless simply shows a lack of desire to put thought into something. You don't have to like it, (I sure don't like a lot of it), but art demands a lot of its audience-- it requires you to make a conscious effort to think about what it is you're seeing, and not to disregard or embrace it based on first impressions or preconceived ideas.
Thomas Kinkade, however, spits out his paintings in formulaic motifs and hires a workforce to do touch-ups on them. They are tacky pictures with not an ounce of thought put into them and if we were to flush them all down the toilet, we would, in my opinion, have rid ourselves of the most obscenely awful things ever to plague our civilization.
-
That documentary where they took one of the most famous modern art critics and presented him with a bunch of pieces, half of them by famous modern artists, and half of them by children, mental patients and the show's own staff (I think it was that, at least) then asked him to identify which where the actual modern art pieces, and he was completely unable to do so says it all, in my opinion.
Art should require not only insight and emotion, but also skill. Throwing paint randomly at a canvas doesn't require skill. Filling a bag with rubbish doesn't require skill. Of course, it may make you think, but a car crash can make you think, and most sane people wouldn't consider that art.
-
(http://armchaircritic.typepad.com/the_armchair_critic/images/Poker.jpg)
Thats Art. *Runs off screaming*
-
Originally posted by Styxx
That documentary where they took one of the most famous modern art critics and presented him with a bunch of pieces, half of them by famous modern artists, and half of them by children, mental patients and the show's own staff (I think it was that, at least) then asked him to identify which where the actual modern art pieces, and he was completely unable to do so says it all, in my opinion.
:lol:Art should require not only insight and emotion, but also skill. Throwing paint randomly at a canvas doesn't require skill. Filling a bag with rubbish doesn't require skill. Of course, it may make you think, but a car crash can make you think, and most sane people wouldn't consider that art.
I'd agree with that. :)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
That documentary where they took one of the most famous modern art critics and presented him with a bunch of pieces, half of them by famous modern artists, and half of them by children, mental patients and the show's own staff (I think it was that, at least) then asked him to identify which where the actual modern art pieces, and he was completely unable to do so says it all, in my opinion.
Art should require not only insight and emotion, but also skill. Throwing paint randomly at a canvas doesn't require skill. Filling a bag with rubbish doesn't require skill. Of course, it may make you think, but a car crash can make you think, and most sane people wouldn't consider that art.
:nod:
Anyone remember the Turner Prize winner who sold a crushed up ball of A4 for about 10 grand?
Now that's art (not the, er, 'piece', but the scam of getting 10 grand for it....)
-
Awesome.
So if I were to grow a goatee and wear a beret, I could sell a smashed VHS cassette on a plinth for a tidy sum?
-
Call me unsophisticated, but to me, art has to look good. Things like DaVinci's The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's Pieta or Sistine Chapel, are beautiful and have always been seen as such. Obviously, no one debates that these pieces qualify as art. Also, as someone said above, they required great skill to be made. I consider Kincade's pieces art because they are good-looking and because, like them or not, they did require some skill. On the other hand, we have modern "art" like that trash bag or that "painting" with the big colored blocks that a 5-year-old could have made with a set of finger paints. These should not be considered art; they have no aesthetic value, and they required little to no skill.
I disagree with Ford Prefect saying that art can only be considered as such in the artist's eyes. If that were true, every young child's crayon scribbles would be framed and in museums; to the child, it's art, right? :p To me, art has to be declared as such by the general public, not by some "elite" art critic. I remember my high school history teacher telling about his visit to an art museum. The one hallway he was in had a ceiling that was painted blue. He thought nothing of it, until he saw a descriptive sign stating that the ceiling was a piece by some "artist." Give me a break; painting a ceiling blue does not make you skilled in art. I could do the same with a can of house paint and a roller. Personally, I think the ultimate test of skill of an artist should be the ability to paint things, such as portraits and landscapes, so realistically that you can't tell whether or not it's a painting. I'm not a big fan of abstract or impressionistic art, but I will say that it is art. Modern art, however, is trash, much like that bag :p. I like to think of it as an "Emperor's new clothes" scenario: no one wants to seem "uncultured," so they keep calling this crap art.
P.S. Of course a smashed VHS tape would be art! Just put an unwoven cassette tape and a scratched CD next to it, and you're set. We can call it "A/V Nightmare" :p.
-
I think you are bang on there Mongoose. Most of the artists that are truly considered 'great' were extremely critical of their own work, since they were perfectionists, so nothing was ever good enough. I think it was Van Goch who destroyed some of his own works in a fit of rage that he was such a 'poor' artist in his own opinion.
Art is defined by people, not artists.
-
My point is that there is a difference between recognizing that something is art and liking it. I actually agree with you that art ought to be somehow aesthetically acceptable, but just because an artist chooses not to abide by that criterion does not make him a phony. Do I want to view an exhibit that consists of arranged trash? Not particularly. Hell, my favorite artists are Monet and Renoir. But that doesn't mean that every ugly piece was created by some pseudo-intellectual who wants people to call him an artist. If it was created to express a genuine feeling or thought, it is by definition art.
-
It's not so much 'ugly', I'm seen some quite horrible looking pieces in my time, Dali, alongside some absolute works of genius produced some absolutely atrocious stuff, at least in my opinion.
I think the word 'pointless' would be more apt. it's like taking something that is mundane and, for the purpose of art, keeping it mundane and trying to add a pretty tag onto it to give it purpose. Mundanity has a place in Art, I'll agree, but this, to me, is a pointless piece.
Even if he's arranged matters so that there was, say screwed up bits of red paper in the bag that spelt 'Art' from a certain angle, at least he would have made an effort, and wouldn't need a written explanation of what this piece means.
-
Well yes. If you need to write an explanation of what the point of your art is, then I would say it has failed because you haven't succeeded in conveying your idea through the chosen medium.
-
The thing is, as you said that there is Art wherever you look for it, not only in sculptures and paintings, but in beehives, anthills, the grain of wood, anything you can look at that inspires a feeling of creativeness within yourself.
I agree with you that you cannot define 'Art', that is because Art defines itself by it's longevity, my own thought is that Art starts out as 'Media' and if it stands of the test of time, then it matures into what we consider Art. So time will really answer these questions far more effectively than we can :)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Might be a teen anger thing that's yet to finish that draws you to Pollack.
I see way more passion and artistic merit in the Pollock over the Kinkade (sp?). Art is not merely about aesthetics, it is the representation of the state of mind of the artist. The Pollock for me is an angry picture, the use of colour and texture give it a dark and brooding feel whereas the landscape picture just leaves me feeling nothing, it looks like a christmas card.
-
I give up, you're all philistines.
-
How is having an opinion on something as wildly subjective as art make anyone here a philistine?
I could agree if people here were denouncing the cultural value of all art be it (subjectively) good or bad but no one is, it's merely differing perspective on what art actually is. My personal opinion is that art is anything that means something to the artist, that has a point to it, even if just for that one person, art is not limited purely to the technical skill of the artist but more to the passion, devotion and vision of a human being.
However, I think that if you're going to have this kind of argument over something so very, very subjective as art, you're going to have another politics or religion thread on your hands.
-
LOL Not really, I'm 32, so my Teen Angst has transformed into Mid-life crisis ;)
As I say, I don't like Pollacks works, but I can see emotion in what he is doing, Is it merely paint throwing by an impotent tantrum-thrower, or is it an expression of artistic anger? I don't know.
imho Bags full of rubbish are not art, Half a horse/sheep etc is not art, posing human corpses like some kind of macabre puppet show is not art.
But then I have seen carvings that are little more than 'blobs', paintings that are little more than splashes, which have captured my imagination.
-
Let's put it this way: if there are any more janitors around, that piece of media will never survive long enough to be considered "art." :p
-
Vyper didn't like my Kinkade comment. :D