The Modern Art Idiocy

EDITED as I just noticed asktheanimals and others have already mentioned in detail about it.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by December_Rain]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Honestly, i have paintings in my house that i have done, that are far more superior to this, i just think its a waste, what happened to real talent? well it doesn't matter, pieces of toast that look like Jesus sell on eBay for 100,000 dollars, i guess people who are rich will spend their money on silly things

Originally posted by light-matter
this is nothing but an attack on liberals! YOU SHOULD BE BANNED FOR ATTACKING LIBEARLS YOU FREE SPEECH HATER! Your speech should be personally banned! You must be one of those Bible thumper people who believes in only Bible art!

I dont like Rembrandt either

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Ive seen chimps paint better stuff than that rubbish"

I have paintings made by elephants ..done in thailand that show more artistic insight than those shown by the OP.

If you watch an artist at work (not the elephant) but my brother who is an impressionist..you can appreciate the "god-like" ability to create something out of nothing that can and does invoke an emotional connection with the work.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by DangerDeath

You, as a skilled member/moderator, knew how to make a "crappy" OP, but it worked fine because the real need for an OP to be successful is to be OPERATIONAL!

I know from personal experience that crappy threads can go far and superb threads go nowhere.

The question to the people in this thread I guess, is: Are values of art-works being manipulated?

Manipulated in this sense would mean to take something that 90% would consider mundane and boost it so that 90% now think its great art.

All you need to do, and that's what artists do, is to hit some apparently "hard" structure and transform it into a spark. You show that nothing is really set in rock, and so give a chance to people to realize that knowledge is an analytic process, which demands an effort to be applied. The trick is to provide them with the energy for that effort, and that is done by creating "difference in potential". Shake their beliefs, and they will look for a firmer replacement, a more reliable ground, which in truth is the knowledge (experience).

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Its not artists being ridiculed here. As members of society have the right to question the allocation of massive funds to mediocre works. If anyone is being ridiculed in the OP its David Rockefeller, the Sheik and the Curator mentioned.

From your OP:

We have criticism of a painter:

So because someone paints "bold stripes" in bright colours he is an important painter? I did those paintings in Kindergarden.

On Rothko's "bold stripes", I can only refer you to the fact that such designs have been central to artwork for thousands of years. It's nothing new.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df021209b3f0.jpg[/atsimg]

The above are inspired by phosphenes and entoptics

Rothko is only recreating the most ancient of recorded art and improving upon it. In much of my own work, I'm doing exactly the same thing.

Examples:

My avatar and a slice of another work-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4497265437f6.jpg[/atsimg]

are related directly to the same fountainhead... visions.

Whether we are discussing Hopi sand paintings, pottery designs, funerary blankets, Ice Man tattoos or the Rothko works, it all relates to that one principle... capturing inner vision by working it onto an external medium.

Once you understand this element, the world of furniture and car designs begin to take on a new meaning.

Think of a modern muscle car. When you see the front end, why do you suppose they look so mean?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fef99b32d0c.jpg[/atsimg]

That's because an artist designed them to look nasty. It's evokes an emotion and transmits power to the viewer. That beemer could be pedal-powered and it wouldn't matter simply because the design alone screams "Get out of my way!"

Reflect upon furniture and it's the same thing:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69c9511cf25d.jpg[/atsimg]

The arrangement sends a message of utility and cleanliness in a bathroom setting. I faintly see a Rothko influence in the lines. That's nothing new, because Piet Mondrian art has influenced modern decoration also. We see it almost everywhere.

I could go on for pages and pages about how artists influence every facet of our lives. Think Rothko's contributions are any different?


And as to the criticism of collectors (from the OP):

Or is he only important because some expert, says he is?

Artists have no dog in that hunt unless they ARE the dog. Go paint! Good dog. Here's a bone. I have nothing to say about either of them other than that they cheapen art.

what is art? isn't it just an interpretation of someones feelings, emotions on canvas? maybe to them this, simple yet delicate delectable pallet of colors, is a masterpiece, where we may see one simple pattern, the originator could see a complex array of visual delight. art is the best representation of ones soul

Originally posted by December_Rain
Beauty is in the eye of beholder.

I keep hearing this, but its not entirely true.

There are qualities which are universally inherent within a sunset that make it more pleasing than poo.

(Not that art has to be beautiful though)

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Alethea
Well, that's a nice instruction piece for art appreciation. But I think this thread is not so much about just the piece of artwork itself. It's the vulgarity of the prices for a very select few. Something about it seems very skewed. There are many good artists that barely eek out a living. How is it that a priveliged few, who show very little time and involvement in the work itself, end up raised to such an incredible level of worth?

That was actually the original main-purpose of the OP.

Well, yes, I know that. I had hoped we would be tracing the money by now.

But what with everyone talking about their nephew who paints better and posting pics of their favorite red barn scenes---I just thought your intention should be reiterated.

But some still don't "get it".





[edit on 15-2-2010 by Alethea]

Originally posted by masqua
Rothko is only recreating the most ancient of recorded art and improving upon it. In much of my own work, I'm doing exactly the same thing.

Curiosity question: If he were done with one painting in 10 minutes, would it at all change your estimation of its value?

I am not saying that Rothko is not art, I am saying its not worth 72 Million. I know what can be done with 72 Million.

Does love/time/effort invested into a work not change its value, not in a subjective sense, but in a universal sense?

reply to post by Skyfloating


It depends beautiful to a individual person? Everyone have their own views to see things. I sometimes look at ants going in a line I find that very beautiful, I look at leaves coz I find it beautiful..u know the countless lines in a leave in different shapes, I look at thorns not a rose, for me that is beautiful where as other ppl wont like it. That's why it's said beauty lies in the eye of beholder.

In simple terms what has been perceived beautiful need not be perceived as such from the other person point of view. Unfortunately its that the people think, they think that if they find someone beautiful,endearing and charming and what not then the entire world must look with the same eyes. Agreed there are some common parameters on which the beauty is defined and in some of the cases it’s that everyone likes or appreciates the beauty of a common thing or person. But then also there are situations in which the people like the different portrayal of the thing or human being in question. some may appreciate the posture, some may appreciate the looks of the eye and some may appreciate the mood and the background variables. It’s just that if particular thing is considered beautiful by all and sundry it just means that the thing has something for all the audience.

Originally posted by l neXus l
what is art? isn't it just an interpretation of someones feelings, emotions on canvas? maybe to them this, simple yet delicate delectable pallet of colors, is a masterpiece, where we may see one simple pattern, the originator could see a complex array of visual delight. art is the best representation of ones soul

Art has nothing to do with feelings as its source. Art is much more about understanding feelings and/or ideas. You can insert ideology into your art, true, but it is not a work of art, it is a work of an ideological mind (and same for emotional "intelligence").

Some people can only see this emotional or ideological "story" in paintings, but they are blind for artist's own interpretation of those.

I'll give one example: Impressionism.

Now, using colors in an impressionist way dates from the oldest times, that is: mixing colors in one's eye rather than on the painting's surface. But, impressionism is truly stressing this technique and its wonders - which is not really part of painting's method.

Impressionism is actually the first avatar of what was later called op-art (optical illusion art). And it developed along this line, because industrial and post-industrial age offered new means to express oneself. New materials (plastic, metals) and new technologies (film, printing, TV, digital technology).

Impressionist's technique is really a decorative technique, and it did win the hearts of people because of that quality alone in most cases.


Another example is Turner. He was an extra supreme expressionist, but "historically", expressionism happened 100 years later as a "movement". "Movement" was something "modern" at that time. And the expressionist method alone was emphasized in its reduced form as the "basic" value, rather than contents of expressionist works.

In truth, Degas was much more an expressionist than impressionist. The true value of his paintings is mostly due his expressionism. But the impressionistic element in his paintings was what really attuned his work with his own time, and so he is considered an impressionist.

The emphasis on the method itself, rather than on the contents, is a reaction to heavily indoctrinated practice of previous historical "movements". Especially works with religious contents, and then in French Revolution times, as well during Russian Socialism - art was polluted with various ideological contexts, and artistic method was considered merely a "craft", a "technique" and its analytical value was totally denied.

And in present time, art is also under heavy attack from consumerist ideology - but by now - you are all aware of it and how it really works.

The purpose of art is not to create pleasant feelings and to make people feel "comfortably numb" (Pink Floyd).

I like 'em!
They show mood and feelings... and I have a skirt
the same colour as the last one.

I knew an artist who used to just throw tins of paint
at a canvas and when he finished and when you stood
back, you could see that it was all just a waste of time.
He was a nice man though.

I like iconic posters that show capitalist mood swings through
the years... Christopher Reeve stood infront of the American
flag, Ben Murphy smiling in the sun or a mohican-haircut
punk rocker stood outside the Houses of Parliment in the UK
back in the 80's.

My best would be the 'altered' portrait of Whistler's Mother
in the Mr. Bean movie.
I don't know if it's art... but I like it!


[edit on 15-2-2010 by A boy in a dress]

I will just add few quotes, no better way to understand

"No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly.”
- Oscar Wilde

"Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman we don't start measuring her limbs."
- Pablo Picasso

"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it."
- Confucius

reply to post by December_Rain


Beauty being subjective and changing in accordance with context and the beholder is understood.

What is less understood are universal quality, value an beauty indicators that apply no matter who, when, where or what.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Those are great quotes December_Rain... and I agree.
I don't know this Rothko... unless it's the fat guy in the
white suit off The Dukes Of Hazzard series...

I do enjoy religeous art... it does show us where we'll
end up if we do wrong, although I also enjoy the more
'Sunday School'-type art of Jesus interacting with the
heathens.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I also have the impression that art school is not exactly what it could be. Too many rules. How can art prosper with so many rules as to what art is allowed to be and what not?

Such rules disappear the minute you enter an MFA program, to be honest.

reply to post by venividivici

pffft
get over yourself.
its oil on canvas, that it !

Pfft
Get over yourself.
Its just ink on a page. It doesn't matter what it says.
Its just mixed tin & copper. It doesn't matter what shape it is.
Its just 1s & 0s. It doesn't matter that it cost US$270 million to make & people love it.
I trust I've made the point that art is more than the sum of its components. Indeed, that's one of its defining characteristics.
Edit to add: lol SaturnFX said the same thing a few posts after! I should read on before I post I suppose...Hey Sky. After rereading, I think anything else I may have added after the "Simpsons meta-language" idea has been said & probably better than I could.Hey Elaine, you said something like "not liking something isn't ignorance" if I remember right? I'd agree that if we understand something & dont like it, you're right: its an informed opinion. If we have no frame of reference to understand something but seek to criticise it, that is the very definition of ignorance.

[edit on 15/2/10 by Bunken Drum]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Curiosity question: If he were done with one painting in 10 minutes, would it at all change your estimation of its value?

Let's put it into context. An artist who has for many years produced minutely detailed work, each piece rendered with intricate designs taking months to finish (much like Klimt), and suddenly he or she takes a massive turn in their work, standing back with a big fat brush fully loaded with black paint and flinging it upon a blank canvas, then, yes, it IS a statement the artist is expessing.

Dali, who I mentioned before, did the same thing on Ed Sullivan so many years ago, splashing dark paint onto a white canvas. I tried to find a vid of that old show, but couldn't. However, back in those days, I so admired his detailed dreamscapes that I was shocked to see him do that. I would pay a pretty penny to own the canvas created on the show because it was a defining statement from an artist who normally puts so much into his work.

He was telling everyone watching, including Ed, what he thought of 'instant gratification' and 'sound bites'. It's the same for me. If you ask me to define what I do in 10 minutes of 'air time', you will only get a 'splash'. If you want to get to the heart, you'd best be prepared for a week of lectures.

How can anyone who has dedicated his or her life to art explain themselves in 10 minutes? Well, they get a fat brsh full of paint, stand back from a canvas, and let 'er go.

That statement has value as an 'instant lesson'.

I am not saying that Rothko is not art, I am saying its not worth 72 Million. I know what can be done with 72 Million.

I understand the underlying principle of your thread completely. However, it's something I can't begin to approach as it is out of my hands. Rothko is dead, he will paint no more. The collection of his life's work is finite and cannot be added to. For that reason alone, to own a Rothko is to be invested in a valued commodity, much like a rare blue diamond. In actual fact, the stone has no utile value other than its rarity. We will pay tens of millions for that bauble the same way we will pay millions for a Van Gogh or a Rothko... because there are only so many and there will be no more.

If you had bought the Rothko for 72 millions, you would do so because you hope to re-sell it at 100 millions a few years from now. You would not hang it in your house, it would reside in a temperature controlled vault, hidden from view until you decide you need some cash.

To collectors, the subjective value is meaningless... they don't give a crap about what the painting represents other than the cash they paid for it. This is why art thieves are willing to cut a canvas out of a frame. They don't have a concern for the work, they only know that if they cut the smile off the Mona Lisa, they could extort millions for its return.

Scoundrels and bankers don't love art, they love the money

Does love/time/effort invested into a work not change its value, not in a subjective sense, but in a universal sense?

time/effort: No, I don't believe it does. One could spend years working on a canvas and have it looking like a dogs breakfast... a total failure.

love: yes. If devotion can be transmitted through art, and it often is, then it has a universal value. It can be done quick or slow. It doesn't matter. i.e. Dali on Ed Sullivan, splashing paint.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Curiosity question: If he were done with one painting in 10 minutes, would it at all change your estimation of its value?

I am not saying that Rothko is not art, I am saying its not worth 72 Million. I know what can be done with 72 Million.

Does love/time/effort invested into a work not change its value, not in a subjective sense, but in a universal sense?

Well, there are a lot of answers to that...

First, it wasn't worth 72 million the day it walked out of his studio. Only 30+ years after his death. Let's say he got paid, I don't know, $20,000 for it originally? (I don't know where in his timeline that particular work falls, but just for sake of argument.)

On a painting, there IS an indelible history of the brush strokes on the canvas. So there's a huge difference in the feel of a piece that changes if it was created with tiny brushes, or giant rollers, or spray cans. In person, you can actually get a sense of what is built up on the canvas. Not that that should necessarily dictate its value in any way, but from a distance the three methods might look identical, and it wouldn't be until you got close that you could really appreciate the particular method of creation.

That said... time == effort == value? Think of your favorite photograph. Chances are, the shutter was only open 1/125th of a second. Why pay a photographer for so little work? Was it skill that caused him to push the button at just the right moment? Dumb luck? (is there a difference?) Henri Cartier Bresson was considered the "master of the decisive moment" in his photos. But who ever saw his outtakes? Maybe he was just a really good editor and knew what to show the rest of the world, and what to throw away?