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

[Fake Boris]

Always pleasing to see that the people who've got no clue about human culture either control nuclear arsenals or couchsupport them as armchair generals.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Pretention is to demand arbitrarily applied standards of the work in order to exclude those who don't fit into a narrow category

Where the hell are you getting your definitions from, son?

Pretensiousness is "boastful self-importance", especially when unjustified.

The simple fact is that most people, even most thinking people, are unmoved by abstract art. The pretension of the art establishment is that their opinions are unimportant because they simply don't have the expertise necessary to understand the art. The pretension is exploded when it is shown, time and time again, that reputable art critics themselves cannot distinguish art produced by supposedly skilled artists and "art" produced by orangutans, 5 year-olds or even by accident (as in this case).

[Fake Boris]

If you accept the idea that art does not have to be artefactual and can be natural, then why would you reject an object on the basis it wasn't intended as art?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The simple fact is that most people, even most thinking people, are unmoved by abstract art.

You've done a survey then ?


I've seen people very moved by Monet's late water lily paintings, and by Turner's 'Rain, Steam Speed' .

[KrazyHorse]

a) I think that when extending the definition of art beyond deliberate creative works intended to communicate with other human beings one must be extremely careful.

b) The people who accepted this work were obviously under the impression that it was "artifactual", as you put it. The message they received from it was therefore most definitely not the same message they would have received if they had known the origin of the "work". The fact that the product of random chance can so easily approximate deliberate art is a sad statement about the state of the artistic world today.

[molly bloom]

Rain Steam, Speed:

[molly bloom]

What they said about Turner:

Academic painters continues to complained that Turner had lost all form in a haze of light. Although his paintings became more abstract in expression he was able to maintain a delicate balance in the structure of elements within his paintings...something that was hotly debated as time went on.

http://ellensplace.net/turner4.html

Turner does interior decorating:

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You've done a survey then ?


I've seen people very moved by Monet's late water lily paintings, and by Turner's 'Rain, Steam Speed' .

I didn't say that all people are unmoved by nonrepresentative art. I know people who are. I also know a much larger set of people who aren't, a set to which I happen to belong.

My point is simply that art cannot be solely aimed at the art community. The lack of coherent, objective standards is not a reason to reject art as an endeavour; it is, however, a reason to base our judgment of works of art on the effect they have on society as a whole, and not simply on the very limited set of people who have appointed themselves as art experts.

[Fake Boris]

There is some sense to a, but I don't agree at all with b. The fact is that artifactuality is a significant chunk of today's discourse about art. Art critics are well aware that a lot of what they consider art can be found in the forest or made by a 5 year old.
I'm quite willing to bet that the guy who did the 'mistake' does not feel ashamed. After all, this incident is a striking, pragmatic instance of contemporary art: self-reference, metadiscourse, etc. It's an avatar of an abstract problem, and thus is interesting in itself.

[KrazyHorse]

It also makes nonsense of supposedly academic criticisms like this one:

Although his paintings became more abstract in expression he was able to maintain a delicate balance in the structure of elements within his paintings

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There is some sense to a, but I don't agree at all with b. The fact is that artifactuality is a significant chunk of today's discourse about art. Art critics are well aware that a lot of what they consider art can be found in the forest or made by a 5 year old.
I'm quite willing to bet that the guy who did the 'mistake' does not feel ashamed. After all, this incident is a striking, pragmatic instance of contemporary art: self-reference, metadiscourse, etc. It's an avatar of an abstract problem, and thus is interesting in itself.

What a mass of semi-sensical propositions.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, I note that neither Monet nor Turner were totally abstract. There are obvious representations of real-life objects in their works...

[Fake Boris]

Perhaps, but you're assuming that gallery selectors take all works as being artifactual, which is simply false. You may not care about the rest (it's not like your reaction surprises me), but you're wrong on this basic issue.

[KrazyHorse]

So you think that the people judging the piece knew that it had been submitted as a complete statue and that the bare plinth was a result mishandling, but they decided to cut the originator of the original piece a fat cheque anyway?

Where's the cut for the incompetent worker who separated the plinth and the bust?

[Fake Boris]

Quite the opposite actually... probably didn't know, and probably don't give a **** either because absurdities are not uncommon in the field of contemporary art.