Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by nostromo


Remember, you're not talking to philosophers. Using philosophical jargon is not the best way to be read and, most importantly, be understood by them.

True, but the problem is that some posters here have developed the habit of making statements full of philosophical présupposés, like "art has to be comprehensible to everyone", or "art is communication", and then escape the task of defending their points when faced with criticism.

But I don't think that so-called postmodern thinkers had that much influence on contemporay artists like Picasso, Kandinsky, Pollock or Rothko.

Indeed. I'd rather say that those artists participated in a certain ideological trend, without necessarily being conscious of it. In fact it would be closer to reality to say that it was their artistic intuitions and their works that led academics in many fields to develop a theory of postmodernism (and not the other way around).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Oncle Boris: HA!

The intention of the artist does not matter.

[Traianvs]

Lots of good arguments from different viewpoints here

My problem is that most postmodern art doesn't give me visual satisfaction. I know that for many, such as lotm, it does look cool, but most postmodern artists are boring in my eyes. I have visited countless modern art museums and time and time again I'm wondering what the hell I'm doing there.

Am I supposed to feel anything when looking at a pile of discarded junk, or a white painted box simply standing there?

Some people here advocate that such postmodern art should be valued at face value for what it expresses. Okay, so what then if that art doesn't seem to express anything in my eyes? Munch's 'Scream' surely does express something without knowing the background of the artist and his conditions, and the same goes for many of Picasso's works etc. But Duschamp's urinoir doesn't stir up anything in my mind, other than wondering what or why it is lying there. Anyone who does see something in such objects are in a constant LSD trip but hey why not.

The matter is different if I am given explanation as to the why and the how of those pieces of art. The life cycle, the history of its conception. That's the main problem: only then can it be appreciated (anyone who understands junk in some way is out of his mind). Deconstruction of art is in my eyes the end of it: Simply because it can't express anything unless it is explained. Of course this is my opinion on this (like I said: trippin people might see this differently ).
Brèf: there is no personal interpretation possible because the object is art because it is called art, and that's the perfidious aspect of the whole postmodern art... It has the pretension of being art because the authors claim it to be, not because it is seen by others to be so.

However, all the art before that could be appreciated because of some inherent quality such as composition, colours, skill, etc. On top of that the art always has a meaning of some sort. You won't find a single piece of art (or it's got to be very exceptional) that doesn't have a meaning of some sort. l'art pour art is a recent phenomenon.
True enough, many pieces of that art cannot be understood now without explanation either. All art has a context of course, but that art doesn't specifically need it because at least it has some face value, while postmodern art often requires explanation. Otherwise I could think that this lightbulb here is art as well (it's also human-made)...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. Alot of what looks blah now, didnt when it was first done. Cause nobody had done it before, said this was an image worth looking at as art. We cant recreate that moment, but that doesnt mean it wasnt there.

An example of this that comes to my mind is Keith Harring, and I don't think 'his time' has completely passed, in my opinion, as his imagery is just as powerful now, if not even more pointent. He was a new york graffiti artist in the 80's His work may be considered by some as "unskillful" or "something that a five year old could do" but his imagery is none the less extremely powerful. His characteristic stick-like figures have no distinguishable features at all, and because of that, they become a respresntation of anyone and everyone - like the figure shown on a street sign, it is something that you can simultaneously identify with yourself and everyone else.

In the early 80s he began to plaster the city with newspaper headlines reading things like "Reagan Slain by Hero Cop" and "Pope Killed for Freed Hostages" these fake headlines became so prevasive and unsettling to some people that they began to be systematically searched out and torn down.

Shortly after, drawings of babies and dogs beganto appear on the black paper put over expired ads in the subway. At first they would seem quirky and cheerful, but as they multiplied and covered the subways they would start to become unsettling. He then began to add new imagery and reconfigure the figures untill they grew into someting that was absolutely frenzied and apocalyptic in it's imagery.

[lord of the mark]

the above is made out of junk. But its totally cool, and you need to come to DC and see it.

[lord of the mark]

or look at this canvas

http://hirshhorn.si.edu/collection/highlights_work.asp?ObjectNumber=92.22

[lord of the mark]

[Elok]

Well, if you like I'll just say "it's bad art" or "it's ugly art." Mox nix, really. I've always found most still-lifes boring, but it's not that there's anything special about the subject in such paintings. Nobody, that I know of, ever saw a bunch of fruit and knickknacks lying around and thought, "this is an historic occasion, I must preserve it for posterity!"

Rather, the fruit, baskets, jugs etc. are arranged to give a play of colors for the painter to try and represent. Whereas Warhol...just painted the can, and with no apparent appreciation of any beauty in it, just to act smug about having made a cute'n clever point. You could have a still-life with a Campbell's can in a cupboard with the door held open at an angle that makes an interesting shadow fall across it...IIRC, Warhol's is just standing there against a white background. If you want to split hairs, I guess it counts, but it's not GOOD art, no...

(That's my graceless way of conceding the point.)

[mactbone]

What I'm seeing is more people arguing that the art isn't good. That's a far cry from arguing "that's not art."

It's cool that you don't think some art is any good. We all have different tastes. Just acknowledge that it's not art that you like and move on.

BTW, was the pedestal designed by a human at some point? I know I've seen really cool columns before - maybe this was a spiffy column.

[Barnabas]

"--- I think very poorly of someone who buys an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, installs a florescent light on it, hangs it on the wall and calls it "art"---"

[Whaleboy]

You missed the subtlety of the point. The fact is that art students with sufficient training can recreate masterpieces that are very hard to detect as a copy. So if thousands of no-name art students can do it, why is it still art?

That comes back to my point that art needn't necessarily be only about the intentions of the creator, but also the intentions of the audience.

he fact is, there is no creative energy going into a red square (like the thing above) that I can discern. It's just a damned red square on a canvas.

To your cynical mind, perhaps. Think, why would an artist create such a thing? Is it an elaborate trick to the audience, con some sucker out of thousands of dollars/pounds? Or is it to stimulate these kind of questions in the audience... That the artist can manipulate you into asking "is this art?" is possibly a sign of its own success, and by struggling to understand it, you're proving his point. That's smooth .

[General Ludd]

The Red & Black squares remind me of the 2d design course I had last winter, where most of the assingments involved created compositions with differently coloured squares. The purpose was to focus on basic concepts of colour theory and compositional elements without being distracted by the form. Aside from the tedious colour mixing, creating the compositions while being limited to using a single predefined form was alot of fun, and really helps you to think about how the depth, repetition, scale, line, ect.. of the composition can create a relationship and dialog between forms, even if they are completely abstract and otherwise meaningless.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The Red & Black squares remind me of the 2d design course I had last winter, where most of the assingments involved created compositions with differently coloured squares. The purpose was to focus on basic concepts of colour theory and compositional elements without being distracted by the form. Aside from the tedious colour mixing, creating the compositions while being limited to using a single predefined form was alot of fun, and really helps you to think about how the depth, repetition, scale, line, ect.. of the composition can create a relationship and dialog between forms, even if they are completely abstract and otherwise meaningless.

What is it exactly that you do?

[General Ludd]

I don't have photographs or scans of any of my 2d work, but I can recreate an example in paint.


The assingment for this project was to create a 'sudden change of direction' using contrasting colours whether it be from left to right, up to down, or in and out. We also had to mix the paints from primary colours.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To your cynical mind, perhaps. Think, why would an artist create such a thing? Is it an elaborate trick to the audience, con some sucker out of thousands of dollars/pounds? Or is it to stimulate these kind of questions in the audience... That the artist can manipulate you into asking "is this art?" is possibly a sign of its own success, and by struggling to understand it, you're proving his point. That's smooth .

None of the above. It appears to be a ruse developed to allow people with no genuine artistic talent or vision to fluff up their egos by dressing themselves up as sophisticated hipster-intellectuals/critics and babbling nonsensical jargon. The fact that a whole industry sprang up to support the ludicrous charade seems baffling, but given the substantial number of people who get Fine Arts degrees in the industrialized world, the relatively low percentage of those people who have actual talent, the scarcity of real jobs that can use a Fine Arts major, and the fact that a lot of our real jobs have been outsourced to China et al anyway, it's not unlikely that the whole industry is subsidized by society, selling a useless product to meet an invented demand. I mean, if they can use that strategy to sell Pet Rocks and five-bladed razors, they can probably sell imitation elegance even better. Especially when imitation elegance has such appeal and sells so high...