The Modern Art Idiocy

I have always made my living by making things. That is why I refer to myself as an artisan not an artist. But after the objects I make leave my studio, I have no emotional connection to the pieces, because the manipulation of materials to satisfy an inner urge, that I have no control over, is my driving force.

I know it's hard for most people to understand the mind that "designs" because it represents a type of freedom that to some is alien and frightening; Especially to those whose operating system is order and control.

I long ago stopped caring what others thought about my work or me as a person. Being struck by the muse to create is transcendental and spiritual. I feel blessed that circumstances allowed me to pursue my passion and be exceptionally rewarded financially at the same time.





[edit on 15-2-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by Skyfloating

Value may be 70% subjective (at the most) but I wouldnt subscribe to the popular notion that it is 100% subjective.
If it were we would prefer excrement to a day at the beach and sea.

Copsophiliacs do. Its their subjective appreciation of poo that gives it value. Apparently there are those who will supply it in a setting that adds further value... for a fee of course.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Value may be 70% subjective (at the most) but I wouldnt subscribe to the popular notion that it is 100% subjective.
If it were we would prefer excrement to a day at the beach and sea.

Copsophiliacs do. Its their subjective appreciation of poo that gives it value. Apparently there are those who will supply it in a setting that adds further value... for a fee of course.

That's why emotional or ideological engagement is by no means art.
Art is about ethics, because it destroys subjective arbitrariness.

i don't think there's just colors in the images. i see something else, like faded into the background. perhaps he painted over previous paintings he didn't like or perhaps it is intentional? like the red and dark blue (?) squares. i think there's a face in the red square, just off the left side. it looks very forlorn and lonely. it reminds of a person standing at a window, and all you see is part of the head, partially concealed by the frame of the window to one side. or it could just be digital artifacts

reply to post by Skyfloating

So artists look at the pictures and see the entire context of art-history and thus have a much greater appreciation of what to me appears as a mere blot of color.
Very Interesting.

Sod it, I'll bite
Whether this was pure sarcasm or not, you're on the right track. Obviously, not "the entire context of art-history" but that portion of it, & the socio-political & philosophical environment, that lead to the creation of works that inspired them. Maybe a bit more if they studied art at uni also.
I'd say that if anyone who doesn't get "Modern Art" wants to, you'll never really undertand its place unless you get at least some clue about the Dada movement. Probably pointless & maybe counterproductive to just dive right in to heavy art crit tho. There's a jargon that, to many, sounds like intellectual masturbation (some of it is, imo). It can be off putting.
Check out what you can see from the Renaissance upto mid 1800s near to you (in chronological order). Research those pieces: the artist, their technique, the ideas they were surrounded by; go see the works. Dont blast through the gallery, hit the cafe, the gift shop & call it done. Just go see the pieces you researched. Spend time looking at them & consider what you know. Hit the cafe & go back for another look. When you feel like you understand how individul styles became schools, move on for a look into the Impressionists. Now you undertand the rules & how & why they began to be broken.
Dip into Dada. Sadly, we'll lose most by the wayside here, because Dada cannot be understood outside the context of a burgeoning of political movements & many cannot but make value judgements based on their own polarised beliefs. Still, if you persevere, you'll be equipped to take on any of the schools that became known as "Modern Art".
Just to freak yourself out, at that point, check out Hieronymus Bosch!
Teacher -

[brainfart]

A law should be passed that anyone purchasing a work of art should pay a percentage of the price to the artist (if living) or to their estate (if not).

[/brainfart]

That would put a justifyable crimp into the machinations of the greedy and provide a lasting benefit to the artists themselves.

eh, there's too much to reply to here. But I can tell you as an artist, Rothko's work is very good. I appreciate it because of the time, effort, and energy he put into his work. Thousands and thousands of incredibly thin layers of color built up to make these seemingly simple pieces. Additionally, you can't tell by the picture, but much of his work was done on a very large scale.

I guess after you study art for years, you learn to appreciate these things in a different way.

As for Duchamp, his urinal piece was groundbreaking in the postmodern art movement because once we created 'found art', it marked the end of art. It's been suggested that there will never be a new medium because we can now take any object and call it art. Bringing up a more interesting point, "What is art?". If any object can be called art, then what criteria does it need to become art? It's now impossible to determine what is technically art and what is an ordinary object.

It's incredibly fascinating. I still prefer Renaissance style artwork, but post modern is good for a philosophical mind-f*#@

reply to post by whaaa


If you think that is art, well I guess it is in the yey of the individual. I write poetry and have built many steel sculptures, I give my art away, I feel if you sell it , it cheapens it or makes it worthless. If it is priceless, how can you sell it?

Visit;

www.art1a.com...

He is a good friend of mine and HATES the art crowd, he has never had a regular job and sells his artwork in Europe instead of America. Although he has sold some work in San Fran and New York. The politics of the art crowd drive him nuts, he's a regular joe who loves motorcycles and riding. You'd never know he was an artist.

Originally posted by masqua
[brainfart]

A law should be passed that anyone purchasing a work of art should pay a percentage of the price to the artist (if living) or to their estate (if not).

[/brainfart]

That would put a justifyable crimp into the machinations of the greedy and provide a lasting benefit to the artists themselves.

Do you not know how to draft a contract when you sell your artwork? You state that every time the piece is sold you get 5%-15% of the sale. Many top artists do this. There doesn't need to be another useless and unenforceable law.

reply to post 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?

Yet you have previously criticised work for being simplistic & called the artist's integrity into question for what you perceive as a lack of due diligence, for want of a better phrase. If the purpose of art school is to turn out artists who are as good as they can be, then by your previous argument, they should only produce work which amply demonstrates a fine attention to detail etc. thus demanding more rules, eh?
Btw, have you any idea how difficult it is to produce a flawless straight edge on a stripe of colour with a paintbrush? That's some attention to detail right there.

I think part of the issue here is that the terms “art” and “artist” have been devalued. Traditionally art” was synonymous with craft. It meant that those that we traditionally recognize as artists (Michelangelo, Da Vinci, et al) were true craftsmen; skilled and talented persons that produced objects that few, if any, others could. We recognized this by applying the title of artist to them.

Now we have those trying to defend these modern works by attempting to bend the definition of art to creations that anyone could do and bestowing the honorific of artist to any hack. There is nothing special about them.

I love the reasoned and impassioned explanations to those of us who lack the taste and vision to appreciate this crap. Would the defenders of this ‘art’ be willing to concede that someone was a ‘genius’ because they can say the alphabet and add 2+2? Would they be willing to call someone an ‘athlete’ because they can catch a ball? Can one claim the title of ‘chef’ because they can boil an egg? Of course not. It would be ludicrous because those are simple acts that almost everybody can replicate – just like those paint smears. To even use the term ‘artist’ in the same breath as these non-talents is to diminish the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by Skyfloating reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

I appreciated your last post very much. But its almost as if only after so and so much talking and persuasion by people like you do I start seeing merit in Rothko and similar. Its as if that merit is not inherent but has to be talked-into-existence artificially.

No, the merit is there, its you that needs to be talked into giving the work enough consideration to see it. Its the same kind of thing as attempting to convince kids to eat broccoli!

HYPE...
most modern art... especially post-80's... is an excuse for elitism.

my "art":


more here...
fuzzynews.110mb.com...

Art is everywhere. I had the option of having art on on my credit card so I picked Monet's Garden. I occasionally get compliments on my credit card and how pretty it is. Maybe its from growing up with a wonderful garden around me. Go figure.

I was not familiar with Rothko's work until today reading this post. I was thinking of abstraction, maybe take an image of sunlight on water or light through leaves or reflecting off leaves, now remove other stuff and you have an abstraction. Now think of those images as the light changes. Maybe sunlight on buildings over the course of the day, maybe with the shadows mixed in. Okay.

I did an image search on Rothko's images and what jumped out at me is that that what he mostly does is windows with the shade half drawn. It almost looks like a study of color with a limited subject. Page after page it looks like double hung windows with a shade drawn under different lighting.

I lived in the city once and it was double hung windows I saw out my windows. This is my interpretation of Rothko's work. He does have other works, and they are variations on the rectangular world of the city I would guess.

So the price is 72 million, so what, money recirculates. Salvidor Dali was crazy like a fox.

reply to post by DangerDeath

That's why emotional or ideological engagement is by no means art.
Art is about ethics, because it destroys subjective arbitrariness.

Actually, I was commenting on monetary value per se. Not specifically of art, nor artistic value. I should have been more clear.
The truth is tho that in a capitalist system, regardless of any universal, intrinsic or objective value which we may discern or apply to anything, the price tag is purely subjective.
Most stuff is valued at the price someone will pay for it. Any other value which something may be deemed to have is irrelevant unless the thing is owned by somebody rich enough to refuse to sell it unless their own subjective impression of its value is matched in currency.
Art is no different. Its a commodity, the same as beans, guns, the ability to reach people with a message or even human misery.
US$72 million? Seems excessive to me, but then I dont know how much money this Sheik has. Perhaps he has a collection that was missing a Rothko to be representative of the 20th century. Perhaps he already has 1 & wanted another to put on the opposite wall. Perhaps it was just for the expectation of profit.
Seems to me that a painting might well hold its value better than the US$ in the near future & who better than David Rockefeller to take those US$s & put them into something that the US Govt would bail out if it went bust? Win win deal...

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by buttking
this dude is good.

I guess you don't "get" art.

I don't get a lot of art, but I would like to understand.

Can you articulate what is "good" about these paintings? What exactly do you like about them?

Art is a source of energy and as such will outlive you.
Because you are simply a consumer and not a creator.
Change yourself and you will understand. Otherwise, it will escape you.

Great point.

When you understand the process by which art is created it will open your eyes to the world. For heavens sake we, the people, are an art form in ourselves. Everything in the precious universe is a manifestation of creativity and energy.

To the OP.

Don't feel like you "do
not get art". I have a BFA and I
really hated modern art history
and never understood the theory
behind it.

I had some really cool professors
who just got to the point of laughing
at me when it came to this time
period.


Bunkin Drum;

I know that things really got weird
during and after the Dada movement,
but then again I never liked VanGohs
work either. I did like some of Munchs
work (spelling).

There was one modern German artist
I did some rearch on who was pretty
laid back and not stuck on himself.

If I remember right his name is George
Baselitz? His novelty is he paints trees
upside down. I don't get it but people
buy it. When asked about the money he
makes and who owns his work he just
said "look at all the other crap they hang
up there as well.

This is not Idiocy - well it is, but they call that:
Decadence

de.wikipedia.org...

Or Simple:
Dumb chicks with fur coats or diamond lips



A normal symptom of Endtime

or this:



[edit on 15-2-2010 by cushycrux]