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

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Patent lawyers are inventors? Real estate lawyers are builders? Law as a field of words, ABOUT things other people do. Ditto philosophy and criticism.

That said, if an actual inventor were to attack something said by a patent lawyer for misunderstanding invention, id listen. Ditto when an actual artist attacks philosophers of art (as many writers HAVE criticized Derrida based literary theory) Id listen. When folks who arent artists, and seem to be unsympathetic with what most contemporary artists are doing, attacks a philosopher, i take it no more seriously than when a technophobe attacks patent lawyers.

Art is far more subjective than being a doctor or a lawyer or any other group that uses technical jargon.

All jargon is exclusionary, lawyers, doctors, etc., get paid making that jargon understandable to the layman.

Art types do not even attempt to make their jargon understandable.

Which pretty much makes it exclusionary.

ACK!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes and no. It's a rather complex situation, it seems. Much of this junk appears to be supported by a relatively narrow clique of people who have read Derrida too much and think deconstruction is somehow a worthwhile activity. In terms of relative numbers, they're tiny, but that tiny percentage of such a huge population is still a substantial community. Supported by an intellectual elite who babble stuff about subverting paradigms, they've managed to give a gloss of respectability to an otherwise absurd conceit.

The phenomenon is different from, say, the DaVinci Code, which appeals to ignorant armchair historians with a boner for conspiracies and cover-ups (though it borrows a lot from academic revisionist historians who will see credibility in any source that says something new and might be twisted to support their ideology). Anyway, lame art is a more hoity-toity pleasure, since it requires being able to show off a big vocabulary and engage in borderline-nihilistic philosophyspeak. It's a mass subculture, like Goths or "Emo" only appealing to a very different demographic.

This image of the art world as being a collection of 'hoity-toity' elitist intellectuals is quite baffling to me. It seems to only be perpetuated by people who don't even patronize galleries, attend artist talks, or even show an interest in it all. All the artists I have met are the most down-to-earth people, yet there is always such a great intimidation of them.

WRT wannabes, I'm saying that the current state of little prospect of getting rich is due to an influx of wannabes. A really successful artist can get a lot of money, so it attracts a lot of attention. Much of this attention is not, strictly speaking, talented, so people looking for the next big thing have to wade through oceans of crap...think "American Idol." Except, since this is a more superficially intellectual field than pop music, people presumptively attract more attention not by being pleasantly bland but by being radical, totally different. Revolutionary ideas can have a powerful appeal, even if the revolution is stupid.

Can you name three exceptionally wealthy visual artists? A really succesful artist can hope to get a living wage. The vast majotiry get close to nothing - living off minimum wage jobs and geting government grants to fund their work. Having an arts degree essentially makes you an over-qualified bum.

For example: the Shakespeare paper I mentioned earlier (the one about "contemporary discursive networks") went on to try and say that all discussion of "secrets" in the Bard's canon are really repressed vaginal imagery. It's ridiculous, and her support for the point was illogical and threadbare, but by patching up the numerous holes with big words, voila! Not only does it appear brainy, but people who decipher it and catch on to its game can write equally jargon-filled papers refuting it and saying Shakespeare is really all about hatred of homosexual tailors. Thus a whole industry of academic gibberish is born, and there's no limit on the number of remarkable startling discoveries that can be made every year. If the field of scholarship had been limited by reality, people would still be talking about points that can be inferred from the actual works, which isn't as impressive to outsiders.

Without having read the article you are using as an example, I think it's safe to say that what you are talking about is not someone who is saying that "shakesepeare is really about..." but is actually just puting it into a contemporary context and giving it a new interpretation.

As has been said before, there is no 'correct' interpretation of art. Shakespeare was written a long time ago, and society and culture has changed dramaticaly. It's pointless to try to establish some sort of absolute of how everything must be viewed, for all of time, forbiding anyone from bringing a new perspective anything.

What was that about a stagnation leading to mediocrity?

I don't know enough about the modern art scene to be sure, but I can easily envision a similar process creating crap like crowds of people chortling at a urinal labeled "fountain." Massive numbers of people can be artists if anything can be art...but they can still feel like artists by hiding the stupidity of it all behind metaphysics. This is only possible in the industrialized world, which has a large number of educated people and a small number of jobs that really require education.

Oh give me a break. Only possible in the industrialized world? Abstracted and conceptual art has been around since before the dawn of time.

[CrONoS]

@General Ludd
About the pictures you posted:
This "arts" or "religious tools" were created thousand years ago. At a moment where humanity based their representation of the world, on sensation and the overwhelming influence of subconscious(or the projection of the psyche on the material world). I dont think this is our goal to return to this arts, or to try to produce an arts exclusively based on sensation.

It's not bad at all, but these are not appropriate form at all for our society(and culture). Which are based on the intellectuality of Greeks philosophers and the theologians from the middle-ages. Anyway, that's another topic.


My problem with modern arts... and it's the big problem.

It doesn't lead me to beauty, to the grace of beauty, to the divine! And if an art is not able to made me touch to beauty, I do not want to look at him.

Modern art have lost his contact with "reality"(by the will to avoid form) and at the same time, for me, as a christian, they have lost the goal toward some "ideals"(eg:beauty, divine).

Modern arts have defining itselfs as a goal. "The goal of art is art itself". I wish you understand what I try to say! And that's why the artistic elite, are the only one who can appreciate this arts.

But anyway, you're an art students, why dont you show up your works???

see ya

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A scientist or a lawyer who uses jargon is an expert. OTOH, a philosopher, an artist, or a literary critique writing in the vocabulary of his discipline is a pretentious ass.

One problem is that, ultimately, the scientist or the lawyer provides something that most of us consider usefull or essential. Engineers and doctors have their jargons also, but they cure disease and build buildings: most of us don't really care about what they say and how they say it as long as they provide services that are usefull. And we can all easily agree that they do provide such services (yes: even the lawyers...)

One problem with art is that its effects and rewards are highly subjective. As far as most people understand it IMO, it is there to provide pleasure - mostly - or provoke something else at the emotional level. When it doesn't do that for most people, it is questioned or dismissed.
Artistic jargon exists only by and for those who create and use it. At a certain level, artistic benchmarks, rules, schools of thought etc... are there for those who "operate" in that sphere only.
I understand that these people can assign to Red Square a meaning, interpret its message in a certain way and then determine its worth accordingly. But for most people it is only that: a red square painted on a white background. The painting in itself provides nothing else: its meaning or value is artificially created by those who decide that it will have that value, for reasons of their own, according to rules only they know, and that appear completely artificial to anyone else.

Anyway: got to go back to work.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Richelieu


One problem is that, ultimately, the scientist or the lawyer provides something that most of us consider usefull or essential. Engineers and doctors have their jargons also, but they cure disease and build buildings: most of us don't really care about what they say and how they say it as long as they provide services that are usefull. And we can all easily agree that they do provide such services (yes: even the lawyers...)

One problem with art is that its effects and rewards are highly subjective.

Artists create culture. I don't think there's anything subjective about the value of that. A society where everything is analyzed and engineered, but is never thought of and questioned or celebrated, seems pretty bleek to me.

This "arts" or "religious tools" were created thousand years ago. At a moment where humanity based their representation of the world, on sensation and the overwhelming influence of subconscious(or the projection of the psyche on the material world). I dont think this is our goal to return to this arts, or to try to produce an arts exclusively based on sensation.

I don't think it is something we would have to 'return' to, as we have never left it. What can art be based on, if not sensation?

But anyway, you're an art students, why dont you show up your works???

Sure, here's a really poor photo of an instalation I did:

[General Ludd]

A scultpure using found objects:

[Arrian]

I'm with Tubes on Jargon.

I love History. My best friend is currently working on his PhD in History at Brown. He occasionally shows me stuff he's reading (and writing, for that matter), and honestly, many of these academics really do go out of their way to use words that 99% of the population has never even seen before (or invent new ones) when normal words would work as well, or even better! It *is* pretentious. There really isn't any other explanation for it. I can't give you a specific example right now, so if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. But IMO, some people would rather try to show how smart they are by displaying their vocabulary, than actually discussing the topic.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

And a ceramic mug:

[Whaleboy]

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.

You seem to have this peculiar neurotic obsession with people "fluffing up their egos"... in other words pursuing humanistic intellectual/artistic fields. I can't think of a single subject like that where you haven't accused someone of pretention or sophistry (sic).

Indeed, it seems that it is only this prejudice that supports your argument, since I can see no other evidence from your part to support your assertion. I think you can do much better .

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..

Again it seems to come down to your strange view that artists/philosophers et al are somehow leaches on the public purse, draining funds from society that should be used to solve its "real" or at least, more practical ills. Frankly, I find that idea at best ignorant, at worst idiotic. If you look at every society in the history of civilisation that has displayed a high level of happiness, liberty, economic productivity and wealth; you'll see that a healthy, vibrant attitude to the arts has been at the centre. Similarly, if you look at history's many authoritarian, militaristic, unhappy and poor societies, you'll see at best an artistic vacuum, and at worst blatent anti-intellectualism.

Remember that fundamentally, if "you" don't like this art, and aren't in the market for it, by itself that fact does not mean that others "should" not be in that market, or that the market should not exist.

No one gets a fine art degree with a priority of making money. Anyone who enroles with dreams of wealth will quickly realize their mistake and drop out within the first year or two. A great number of exhibiting artists still require a 'day job' to support their art practice. Very few artists can break the poverty level, let alone get rich. And the few who do get rich (such as warhol) seem to become deeply resented by most people.

Well yes that is true... I think a lot of people like Elok are very keen to overplay the amount of resources that go into the arts... I would argue it's not enough.

This is because jargon is supposed to be a specialized language used to quickly discuss complex subjects. Scientists and lawyers deal with a lot of those, and the jargon is essential for, say, specifying which part of the body they're discussing in medicine (anterior? medial? distal?). When the jargon is apparently standing in for simple subjects...no. I recently read a paper on Shakespeare that referred to "larger contemporary discursive networks." Because, of course, "what his peers were saying about the subject" sounds so PRIMITIVE...

Again I think you have the wrong attitude here. Specialised language operates on the assumption that those who are using it understand the same. That's absolutely fine within philosophical circles, or medical circles, or legal circles. You'll see that a "technical" philosophical book is meant for people with a background in philosophy, who should therefore understand the terms so the writer needn't sacrifice his conciseness in order to be comprehensible to the layman. Someone who isn't familiar with these fields can do one of two things;
They can read an introduction to that field, or they can research the meaning of these words.
If they can't be bothered to do either, then the writer can hardly be blamed for their lack of comprehension!

I think you also need to realise that there isn't some sort of boundary between "normal English" and "jargon". Sometimes, you need to use certain words and certain sentence structures depending on the context. Yes, some people do go over the top with it, but that doesn't automatically mean that they're somehow pretentious snobs trying to show that they're better than everyone. Remember that different people have their different styles as well. I know I personally can be more formal than others when I'm writing but that's no big deal, it's not a foreign language or anything.

It's something that you can be flexible with when you're talking about visual art. I'm not trained in visual art so I can only describe it on the effects it has on me, which can get almost poetic. You might say that's the ultimate in pretension but I'd disagree. Someone who is trained can be more technical about it; but you don't really need to use language to describe a piece of visual art.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok
Just trying to read the definition of "ontology" can give you a headache.

That's because philosophers themselves don't actually know what they're talking about.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm with Tubes on Jargon.

I love History. My best friend is currently working on his PhD in History at Brown. He occasionally shows me stuff he's reading (and writing, for that matter), and honestly, many of these academics really do go out of their way to use words that 99% of the population has never even seen before (or invent new ones) when normal words would work as well, or even better! It *is* pretentious. There really isn't any other explanation for it. I can't give you a specific example right now, so if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. But IMO, some people would rather try to show how smart they are by displaying their vocabulary, than actually discussing the topic.

-Arrian

Youre right, jargon sucks. For example, once here on 'poly we were in the Civ2 forum, and one of the diety level players was discussing how hard it was to launch before 1800 using OCC if you had bad luck hut popping. who should bust in to this discussion but a settler, almost certainly a DL, who said OCC was an exploit. He compared the use of OCC in Civ2 to other TBS games, and then he said that Civ2 was a product of western approaches to meaning.

Western approaches to meaning - what a shmuck!! Why couldnt he have just explained what he was talking about in English?

[lord of the mark]

ludd - i like the two sculptures more than the installation. I particularly like the mug.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Artists create culture. I don't think there's anything subjective about the value of that.

A culture is created by everything that comprises it. Art is 1 element only, and art that is considered abstract to members of its own culture... well i can't imagine how it would appear to anyone from the outside...

A society where everything is analyzed and engineered, but is never thought of and questioned or celebrated, seems pretty bleek to me.

Where is that coming from? What does it have to do with anything i said?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Youre right, jargon sucks. For example, once here on 'poly we were in the Civ2 forum, and one of the diety level players was discussing how hard it was to launch before 1800 using OCC if you had bad luck hut popping. who should bust in to this discussion but a settler, almost certainly a DL, who said OCC was an exploit. He compared the use of OCC in Civ2 to other TBS games, and then he said that Civ2 was a product of western approaches to meaning.

Western approaches to meaning - what a shmuck!! Why couldnt he have just explained what he was talking about in English?

Oh how funny you are, LoTM.

We used to have a topped thread in the CivIII general or strategy forum to explain the abbreviations to newbies. Somebody put in the effort to not shut them out, see.

I will certainly concede that the intended audience matters. If your intended audience is a bunch of academics, obviously jargon is less likely to irritate your readers. But there is still something to be said for "plain" English, even amongst academics. Especially since, at some point, you may find yourself speaking to a bunch of laypeople and will need to get your point across w/o the jargon.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm with Tubes on Jargon.

I love History. My best friend is currently working on his PhD in History at Brown. He occasionally shows me stuff he's reading (and writing, for that matter), and honestly, many of these academics really do go out of their way to use words that 99% of the population has never even seen before (or invent new ones) when normal words would work as well, or even better! It *is* pretentious. There really isn't any other explanation for it. I can't give you a specific example right now, so if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. But IMO, some people would rather try to show how smart they are by displaying their vocabulary, than actually discussing the topic.

-Arrian

sometimes you use differnt meaning because the ordinary language has ambiguities you want to exclude. Even then lay people have tendency to misinterpret it - words like demand and supply for instance, which have precise meanings in economics that are not quite the same as what lay people mean. Ive spent a fair amount of my life putting economics in "lay terms" for various purposes, and its NOT easy to do that, esp without doing violence to the economic ideas. I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who finds the need to use a specialized vocabulary, and who gets lay people who 1. complain about the jargon but who then 2. when presented with simplified language, try to draw conclusions from the simplified language that contradict the technical findings.

laypeople - cant live withem cant live without em.