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

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yet we have to pay experts big money to detect copies of great masters.

Only to determine that they're genuine, not that they're art. I t takes nothing away from my appreciation whether i look at the Mona Lisa or a skillfull reproduction of it or a photography of either.

[Nostromo]

DanSed in my head. I thought I was getting a thumbs-up...

There you go, free of charge

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Only to determine that they're genuine, not that they're art. I t takes nothing away from my appreciation whether i look at the Mona Lisa or a skillfull reproduction of it or a photography of either.

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?

[Fake Boris]

And I bet the ignoramus in this thread will ignore my long post and keep BAMming on points I have already addressed.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


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?

They're making a copy. They're not making an original. There was creativity when it was first made. A copy-cat does nothing but immitate and duplicate.

Now, if it is expanded upon, that's a different story.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by nostromo




There you go, free of charge

Two for the price of none...thanks

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


They're making a copy. They're not making an original. There was creativity when it was first made. A copy-cat does nothing but immitate and duplicate.

Now, if it is expanded upon, that's a different story.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question being discussed. The point here is to show whether or not a lot of people can do it. In no way we're having a debate about copies and originals.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

See, I only looked at that particular section. I can't be buggered to go through the last few pages.

Its all about the knee-jerk. I'll excuse myself from your discussion now. Sorry for the interruption.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


They're making a copy. They're not making an original. There was creativity when it was first made. A copy-cat does nothing but immitate and duplicate.

Now, if it is expanded upon, that's a different story.

that was my point. The fact that a 6 year old has the technical skills to make a particular abstraction, does not mean the 6 year old could have conceived or composed it.

The question for any given work is whethere it was creative when composed, NOT the technical skills involved in execution.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Oncle Boris: HA!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Which is completely irrelevant to the question being discussed. The point here is to show whether or not a lot of people can do it. In no way we're having a debate about copies and originals.

On the contrary, it's perfectly relevant. There are very few things that cannot be replicated given enough concerted effort. We can make synthetic diamonds that take experts to detect, but diamonds are still nice. While we're at it, we can take photographs or plaster molds and recastings or whatever to duplicate any piece, but that doesn't matter.

It's the creative energy going into something that makes it art. The 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. It's possible that there is something going on and I'm just missing it, but in cases like these I apply the "Zippy the Pinhead protocol": if dozens of perfectly bright people from various walks of life see nothing special about it, and the only people who do see something special about it are experts who can only explain why it's special in a spew of jargon that, when decoded, reads like pothead-speak ("are we real? Is art real? What is 'is?'")...well, I just assume, by default, that the people who think it's good are intellectual masturbators. The ol' Burden of Proof is on the people who think random crap is worthy of the name of art.

I don't think all abstract/modern/(insert label here) art is "not art." My mother brought back some really fun pieces from an aspiring painter in Haiti, with gorgeous colors and shapes. They don't represent a thing, and they're beautiful. I don't think of Duchamp's LHOOQ as art, because he didn't do anything special--but I do think of it as an amusing practical joke. But a can of soup is a can of soup. It asks the question, "what is 'art,' really?" to which the obvious answer goes, "well, I'll tell you what it isn't: it's not a can of soup. Get a job, you hack."

[Nostromo]

And I bet the ignoramus in this thread will ignore my long post and keep BAMming on points I have already addressed.

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.

That said, I mostly agree with what you wrote. But I don't think that so-called postmodern thinkers had that much influence on contemporay artists like Picasso, Kandinsky, Pollock or Rothko.

If modernism is the tradition of breaking with tradition, then, after a while, its obvious you'll have nothing to break away from. When modernism ran out of steam, artists had to break with that tradition. That's where postmodernism comes in, as I understand it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok


On the contrary, it's perfectly relevant. There are very few things that cannot be replicated given enough concerted effort. We can make synthetic diamonds that take experts to detect, but diamonds are still nice. While we're at it, we can take photographs or plaster molds and recastings or whatever to duplicate any piece, but that doesn't matter.

It's the creative energy going into something that makes it art. The 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. It's possible that there is something going on and I'm just missing it, but in cases like these I apply the "Zippy the Pinhead protocol": if dozens of perfectly bright people from various walks of life see nothing special about it, and the only people who do see something special about it are experts who can only explain why it's special in a spew of jargon that, when decoded, reads like pothead-speak ("are we real? Is art real? What is 'is?'")...well, I just assume, by default, that the people who think it's good are intellectual masturbators. The ol' Burden of Proof is on the people who think random crap is worthy of the name of art.

I don't think all abstract/modern/(insert label here) art is "not art." My mother brought back some really fun pieces from an aspiring painter in Haiti, with gorgeous colors and shapes. They don't represent a thing, and they're beautiful. I don't think of Duchamp's LHOOQ as art, because he didn't do anything special--but I do think of it as an amusing practical joke. But a can of soup is a can of soup. It asks the question, "what is 'art,' really?" to which the obvious answer goes, "well, I'll tell you what it isn't: it's not a can of soup. Get a job, you hack."

1. first of all, youre looking at a reproduction on the internet. Many geometrical pieces are done on large canvases, where they look a helluva lot more impressive. Really, you need to actually go to a museum, you cant always rely on the net.

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.

3. Beyond that its a question of color and composition. Maybe that is NOT the best composed red shape, and you dont have to like it. But it takes some attention to determine that, not just dismissing it cause its a red square.

4. The soup can thing is funny - i presume youre talking about Warhol? Since it was NOT abstract, it was NOT a found object, it was NOT performance art. It was simply a painting of something someone would eventually eat - a subject artists have been doing for centuries, except they painted a pile of fruit and called it a still life. Now I DONT like Warhol, but why exactly is a painting of a can of soup not art, but a painting of an apple is? Some paintings are bad, and nothing special. Thats been true since painting was invented. Yes, there was mediocre are in the Renaisance (sp?). But people dont go around saying it wasnt art - they just say it was bad. Why does saying something is poorly concieved or executed mean its not "art"? Probably cause beginning with the romantics we've had a cult of "art" so saying something is art means its got spirtual values, should be worshipped, etc. So we cant talk about bad art, we can only say something is NOT art. Which gets confusing when artists make art that IS stretching the boundaries of what art is. But its all very silly. Of course there can be bad art, just as there is bad music, and bad architecture.

[lord of the mark]

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.

That said, I mostly agree with what you wrote. But I don't think that so-called postmodern thinkers had that much influence on contemporay artists like Picasso, Kandinsky, Pollock or Rothko.

If modernism is the tradition of breaking with tradition, then, after a while, its obvious you'll have nothing to break away from. When modernism ran out of steam, artists had to break with that tradition. That's where postmodernism comes in, as I understand it.

I think many of the movements that constituted modernism were more than that though, they had a specific idea of what that rebellion from tradition was about. and its the specifics that Pomo has rebelled against. (specificialy the idea of art as a superior mode of truth, capable of changing society) While I see weaknesses in the modernist claims, I think we've definitely lost something in the retreat from their ideals.

[lord of the mark]

"if dozens of perfectly bright people from various walks of life see nothing special about it, and the only people who do see something special about it are experts who can only explain why it's special in a spew of jargon that"


Most of the celebrated modern art ive seen has had many people whove liked it who werent professional art critics.