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

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok

Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

Actually, this reminds me of a workshop I had with Les Manning, someone that could be called a "master". During his demonstrations he routinely botched up and had to start over. Throwing skill is something that comes and goes, there's good days and bad days. If you've been doing it a long time, it will become automatic, if you haven't done it for a while, or in an unfamiliar studio with different clay or a different wheel, it may be more difficult, or you may come to it with new energy, but regardless... he's a walking encylopedia of ceramic knowledge and a talented artist.

I remember a story he told us that seems relevant to this discussion. When he was graduating from school, his final work was a wide selection ofexamples from all the historical periods of the ceramic tradition. It showed his technical expertise - he could make, with perfection, anything that has every been made in the history of ceramics. He prepared it all for his cirtique and, when the instructor came in, he looked at it for a minute and said "it looks like there's the work of 30 different artists here" and walked back out. This of course devastated him, and he spent the next while sulking and just about gave up ceramics right there. But he came to realize what is instructor was saying - that in order to be a an artist, you have to first find yourself in the medium.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Why must art have a "meaning"?

Does "here is a painting of a woman I considered beautiful/inspiring enough to commit to canvas" constitute a meaning, whether the model is known or not, or whether the painting is an accurate physical representation of her, or an idealised version?

If it is inspiring or beautiful it has meaning.

JM

[Nostromo]

Someone mentioned context. Its the crucial element, IMO. Look at the drawing bellow. To us, it looks like stairs. But for the people belonging to cultures not used to the bidimensional representation of tridimensional objects, it doesn't look like stairs at all: it looks like abstract art, like a bunch or lines.

I think some people can't appreciate modern art because they can't it put in the appropriate context. They don't have the vaguest idea what the artist wanted to accomplish or why he wanted to accomplish that.

Not to say that you can't naively appreciate modern art. After all, Picasso and Kandinsky posters sell pretty well.

And that is not to say that there isn't crap out there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Take Warhol's Brillo boxes for instance. He piled some of them in a gallery... and it was art.

It was asserted to be "art," which brings forth an important question: what distinguishs art from non-art?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
But why aren't those you see piled up in a supermarket?

Simple. You just aren't enlightened enough.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Questions like this are super-basic and everyone in the field knows about them.

Circle jerk, anyone?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
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.

So who needs artists, when orangutans playing with poo do just as well?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by duke o' york
It is a different language. It has a certain Je ne sais quoi. Cinq is fundamentally different from five, as is cinque, and funf. The signified might be the same, but the signifier is different, as they're all from different languages.

Well, if it is a different language, you must be able all of its vocabulary to the original language, either directly or indirectly, or communication fails.

Suppose the two languages are P and Q, there must exist a function m, such that m(q) -> p for all elements of Q, for your claim to work. Here q is any element of Q and p is any element of P.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Is it ? I'd say at its most fundamental level it's about expression.

And this is exactly why the incident shows that modern art is worthless. Nothing was expressed! It was the product of chance!

[CrONoS]

The Great debates between Abstract Arts and "Classical" Arts:

Is absracts arts worths something:

Classical Arts:


Abstract Arts:


Now I think we can close the debates!....

[Nostromo]

And this is exactly why the incident shows that modern art is worthless.

So that single incident shows that Picasso's and Kandinsky's work is worthless?

By the same token, you could say that the Piltdown man incident shows that science is worthless.

[Kuciwalker]

Let me clarify: modern art that's really abstract like this was.

[CrONoS]

consider my previous like a joke... butI do think abstract arts have push themselves too far, theres somes goods things in this pieces of ****... I do feel that abstract artists have created arts for themselves.

Like in classical music, serialism have been rejected by the audiences.

Edit:
Arvo Part became popular for this very reasons. In his music, he have succeeded to create a link with his music theory and the old polyphony.

[Nostromo]

Let me clarify: modern art that's really abstract like this was.

Kandinsky is abstract and modern enough, IMO.

If that slate was art, it wouldn't be called an abstract painting, but a sculpture or an installation.

Anyway, the incident only shows that someone didn't do his or her job. You can't condemn the whole field because of that one incident. Unless you can prove these screwups happen frequently.

Again, I'm not saying that there isn't worthless crap out there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by nostromo
Anyway, the incident only shows that someone didn't do his or her job. You can't condemn the whole field because of that one incident. Unless you can prove these screwups happen frequently.

Not only there was a foobar but they even tried to rationalise. Then we have people who helpfully accepted the excuse.

This suggests that the definition for modern "art" is overly arbitrary and subjective. Afterall, a chimp's graffiti has been accepted as art.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

"Given their separate submission, the two parts were judged independently," it said in a statement. "The head was rejected. The base was thought to have merit and accepted.

So the empty base and pedestal were accepted but the head was not. And thus, we get a head-less display. Not only that, the human part was removed and only the earthen materials remain.

Now if THAT isn't art, I don't know what is...

[Whaleboy]

However, if it proves anything, it's that some people look for any excuse to denounce art.

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

I always struggle to accept definitions of a word from someone who cannot spell it.

To be pretentious is to pretend to be something you are not... to operate under a pretense in other words. That would happily cover Ludd's interpretation. Boastful self importance comes under that, but is not necessary to being pretentious.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=pretension

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

I doubt that abstract artists do their work for popular appeal . Nevertheless, as the sheer amount of money in the market demonstrates, there is a demand which as far as any art is concerned, validates it on the merit of others. Just because you dont understand doesn't mean that others dont understand and appreciate either.

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.

This doesn't make any sense.

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).

Asides from your nonsensical use of "pretension", I think that the essence of abstract art is not to be judged based upon the intentions of its creator... in other words, as one might judge a piece of handwriting. Instead I think it's to be judged on the intentions of its audience; a fact that you are very aptly demonstrating by your anti-art stance. That is why it is acceptable for a child or a natural phenomenon to create abstract art.... the piece only needs to stimulate an intention in the audience.

This is undoubtably something that takes some skill, which is why your kid's school art doesn't all hang in the Tate, but it's a wonderfully open thing that allows a great many exceptions.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It was asserted to be "art," which brings forth an important question: what distinguishs art from non-art?



Simple. You just aren't enlightened enough.



Circle jerk, anyone?



So who needs artists, when orangutans playing with poo do just as well?

Don't these statements require a bit more analysis than a few, dare I say, snarky comments?

Oh right. This is why:

Well, if it is a different language, you must be able all of its vocabulary to the original language, either directly or indirectly, or communication fails.

Suppose the two languages are P and Q, there must exist a function m, such that m(q) -> p for all elements of Q, for your claim to work. Here q is any element of Q and p is any element of P.