Whatever happened to real art?

[Al B. Sure!]

Monolith:

this Bosch seems to be a nut... he seems to have got to the point where he'd just paint some crazy random things and call it art. when someone got to decipher a painting, it's not a good sign...

[Ben Kenobi]

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

How does this rule out my definition, earlier in that thread that art should recognise the ideal contained inside the real?

[FrostyBoy]

I'm not really talking of you obiwan18

[monolith94]

"when someone got to decipher a painting, it's not a good sign..."

So are you saying that the best art is immediately apparent on first sight? Are you saying that you'd rather not have a piece of art be ambiguous, leaving you to take your own message from it? Are you saying that art should say "a + b = c, and that's what my painting means"? Am I correct in believing this is your modus operandi?

[Al B. Sure!]

Monolith:

hell yeah... art is communication and what the artist is communicating should be clear... otherwise, they wasted their time

[monolith94]

Art is communication, but you seem to want to stifle that communication - to let it only communicate one thing, for all people. Can't a painting be done by the artist, and say to the artist message A, but be seen by another and be interpreted as saying B? Is that so terrible?

And let's not even get into aesthetics... the most subjective of all arguments!

[Al B. Sure!]

Monolith:

that different interpretation nonsense is bull****. back in the turn of the century, rich snobs wanted to prove their superiority over the industrial workers who were in the cities, the place where all the old art was... so they decided to create their own art that would not be easily understood... only they would 'understand' it; when it fact their understanding was just a facade to pretend that they were intellectuals superior to the common man... so **** this multiple meaning nonsense...

[monolith94]

Interesting. I was under the impression the only thing the rich were interested in was making more money. Of course, you claim that this plot against the common man began in the industrial revolution. Bosch, however, an artist who confounded you, did his work in the medieval ages. You seem to think that the rich have this amazing overbearing had on the art world. This could not be more false - the art community is a very insular place, where critical approval means everything and patronage by the wealthy is a way of simply paying the bills.

You know what the wealthy have always wanted the most of? Portraits. That's how all those artists were able to paint - by decorating rich folks' homes with rich peoples' faces. And of course, these painting contain NO ambiguity. Theory like doughnut - has hole.

Besides, folk art has always been up for interpretation - the TRUE art of the people. You seem to have this knight in shining armor complex - that your some amazing exposer of injustices. The people can look after themselves occasionally, you know.

[Al B. Sure!]

monolith:

A UCLA professor did this show called the history of western civilization and when he got to the late 19th and early 20th century, he talked about how art became this play-thing for the rich that was dominated by plenty of con artists who passed off garbage as art, claiming that it had some profound meaning... the wealthy, obsessed with wanting to seem intellectual, claimed it had a dozen different interpretations and of course, the poor man in the factory never saw these paintings and if he did, he would see a mess


as for bosch... he clearly has technical talent in drawing and painting... but it makes no sense. at least with Durer you could figure it out pretty easy

[monolith94]

Well of course there's alot of crap out there that the wealthy buy up in bundles! There always has been! But that doesn't mean that incredible art has stopped being produced!

So one Professor did one show... big deal. Hell, a show came to my college this year - art from Brazil - and it was FANTASTIC. Utterly mind blowing. The sketches they brought in from the renaissance earlier in the year didn't hold a candle to it...

What can I say, other then that I disagree, and on almost all counts!

[Seeker]

What angers me is the government funding modern art recieves.

If some wealthy collector wants to pay for a bunch of stuff with made up meanings assigned to it, let him.

But DO NOT use tax dollars to buy works such as those bought by the Canadian National Gallery!!

The most famous was Voice of Fire (three vertical bars on a canvas), 10s of millions of tax dollars.

But the latest is just the elitist curator rubbing the publics noses...

Thirty Years of Crap in Contemporary Art

Yes, the 'artist' has bottled his fecal matter in jars and sold the lot for millions of PUBLIC dollars. As a commentary on the sad state of modern art no less.

www.cbc.ca the art section.

Only Beauty is Truth

[Q Classic]

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

how is "rubbish bag" doing any of those things?
or "chrissy caviar"?

[FrostyBoy]

Well the rubbish bag itself was designed by someone.

Then if you wanted to use it in an art piece, you simply alter the appearance of it, or imitate it - but change it slightly.


I don't know Chrissy Caviar

[Q Classic]

chrissy caviar.

i'm more willing to accept justification for chrissy caviar, because that at least involved quite a bit of effort and pain.

however, rubbish bag i can't buy. yes, the trash bag was designed by someone else. but to take a regular trash bag, completely empty, and then put it on display as art...?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Seeker
But the latest is just the elitist curator rubbing the publics noses...

Thirty Years of Crap in Contemporary Art

Yes, the 'artist' has bottled his fecal matter in jars and sold the lot for millions of PUBLIC dollars.

Has there been any move to have him fired?