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

[KrazyHorse]

So, why should we support their endeavours with public monies then?

[Fake Boris]

Take Warhol's Brillo boxes for instance. He piled some of them in a gallery... and it was art. But why aren't those you see piled up in a supermarket? Questions like this are super-basic and everyone in the field knows about them. That's why Siro's thread title is completely out of touch with reality. There is no crap involved in this because the problem of the perception of art is a preferred topic of today's artists, just like 3D projection was in the 15th century.

edit: xpost

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So, why should we support their endeavours with public monies then?

Tough question, honestly. You're assuming my opinion is that we should?

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, your contention here is pretty stupid. If a significant percentage of what you define as "art" is indistinguishable from random ****ing collections of objects then I'm going to have to go ahead and say that "art" as you define it is valueless.

Art is communication. When meaningless coincidence is as likely to produce art as is deliberate effort then something has gone terribly wrong.

[molly bloom]

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

Neither was Mark Rothko,or Jackson Pollock. That's not the point.

Monet and Turner created paintings which to all intents and purposes (that is, if you didn't know their titles) would appear to be abstract art.

Same with Whistler, accused of 'flinging a pot of paint' in the public's face.

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.

No, you said 'most' people.

You don't and can't know this for a certainty, so you're talking from personal experience, not basing your judgment on an objective fact finding survey.

My point is simply that art cannot be solely aimed at the art community.

I'm not aware that it is.

on the very limited set of people who have appointed themselves as art experts.

Such as these people:

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

I'm not sure what expertise exactly you're looking for....

A Whistler Nocturne:

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Take Warhol's Brillo boxes for instance. He piled some of them in a gallery... and it was art. But why aren't those you see piled up in a supermarket?

The question is meaningless, because I don't necessarily accept the predicate assumption that Warhol's Brillo boxes were art.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

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

That's essentially what I was saying, in different words.

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.

You don't need expertise to understand art. I don't believe anyone has claimed that, and this incident is certainly not an example of that. It actually shows the exact opposite, as I was previously saying. That mistakes can become art, as you say, shows that the art makes no claims of boastful self importance but is instead born of spontaneity and is open to interpretation. It is opening itself up to discussion and criticism, and shows a willingness to examine anything as though it where art.

The only way that expertise can be seen as a requirement to view artwork is if you focus solely on the technical and stylistic aspects of the work, whether it be through modern compostion, the classical gold-mean, or hyper realism, this sort of pretentiousness certainly is not limited to modern art.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Monet and Turner created paintings which to all intents and purposes (that is, if you didn't know their titles) would appear to be abstract art.

Errr....no (at least not the Turner paintings you posted).

The railroad bridge to the left in Rain, Steam, Speed (or whatever) is obvious, and its existence makes the locomotive visible. I don't even know the title of the second Turner painting, but the archway and some details of the room are quite apparent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Art is communication.

Is it ? I'd say at its most fundamental level it's about expression.

Whether or not anything is communicated is a different matter.

There's a tale of a Muslim who came to Western Europe and saw a painting of a horse.

But having been brought up in a society which eschewed representational painting, he didn't recognise the painting as being of a horse.

The subtlety of pictorial language in Mediaeval religious paintings and altarpieces, or the precise meaning behind Bosch's paintings or Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' may be lost to us now.

So is what is being communicated to us what the artists intended ?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom
No, you said 'most' people.

What the **** are you on, son? I said "most people" and I still say "most people". You said that you'd seen people quite moved by abstract works (which are actually not completely abstract), and I said that while I do know some people who are, I also know more people who aren't. Which means that "most people" I know aren't.

A > B
A + B = 1
=> A > 0.5

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Is it ? I'd say at its most fundamental level it's about expression.

I'd say you are wrong. Art is meaningless if nobody else understands what you were trying to express.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What the **** are you on, son? I said "most people" and I still say "most people".

No need to get snippy.

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

There's what'cha said. Doesn't sound like it's just referring to a select coterie known to you, sounds like it's referring to 'most' people- the world at large, that is.

Art is meaningless if nobody else understands what you were trying to express.

So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

What's the 'meaning' of 'Rain, Steam Speed' ?

Or Whistler's 'Nocturne' ?

Or for that matter, the Venus de Milo ?

How can you know what the artist was intending to express unless they told you ?


If you don't know the complex pictorial language of mediaeval religious iconography, you'll never know the 'meaning' (assuming there is a single meaning) of a Jan van Eyck altarpiece.

What is the 'meaning' of Holbein's 'The Ambassadors' ?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom
There's what'cha said. Doesn't sound like it's just referring to a select coterie known to you, sounds like it's referring to 'most' people- the world at large, that is.

Yeah, and barring the existence of an actual scientific survey I'm going to have to go with my experience and with popular perception.

[KrazyHorse]

So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

If it was expressible in words then we wouldn't need visual art.

But thanks for playing.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

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.

I heard an interview with him on the radio. He was a bit miffed that the sculpture he submitted wasn't considered, but was quite ready to accept the mistake. His only concern was that the incident would reinforce the publics apprehension for art, and the misplaced intimidation of art galleries.

So many people are afraid of galleries because they think that when you enter an art gallery, you are required to walk through and provide some deep analysis of each work, guessing what the artist is intending to say, which is completely ridiculous. Art is displayed to be viewed, not to be read. If art was nothign more than communication, literature would be the only art form. There is no wrong interpretation of a piece of art.