The Modern Art Idiocy

I'm a fine art major and I still don't really get this kind of art. It seems like the further you move away from representational art the more the art is about mathematics and design, rather than the skill of being able to represent real things truthfully or creatively.

In this day and age it seems like art is 5% creativity, 10% talent, 35% "meaning", 50% hype.

I still have some sense of hope though if someone like Guy Denning can make a living. He's one of my biggest inspirations. Guy Denning site


edit: wrong link

[edit on 15-2-2010 by liketheplague]

Originally posted by nerbot

Here's some modern art for you:
----------------------
***

***
----------------------
I call this piece "thumb up snobs ass" and it represents the ignorant opinions of a dillusioned mind (20 grand ono)

[edit on 14/2/2010 by nerbot]

I thought it was someone getting their brains blown out. I'll still pay you the $20k.

Skyfloating: I'm with you on the "I don't get it". I've asked that question to many "experts" and they give me a mocking look and an attempt to explain the piece's moving symbolism. I also agree with what Slayer69 said about having my own likes and dislikes. But to call splatter, stripes and what not "masterpieces" is beyond me.

reply to post by yeahright Yeah, I think there's a valid comparison between Andy Kaufman & Dada in that he seems to have been intentionally more than simply "challenging" for an audience. Seems he really did go out of his way to surprise & even shock them.
That said, Dada really only laid the groundwork for what came later I think. I dont think its fair to say that cubism, for instance, is iconoclasm for the sake of it. I dunno tho. I suppose there's some of that in most 20th century movements. Perhaps its analagous to teenage rebellion.
Industrial Revolution - puberty
More sophisticated education
Striking out in new directions (socialism, communism, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism etc)
Being reigned in by the parents (TPTB)
Where are we now? A correctional facility? Feels like it, eh?

Anyone or thing that can create is an artist; therefore, create a big steamy pile of *&it and it's now art! viola!

Originally posted by ratqueen
Anyone or thing that can create is an artist; therefore, create a big steamy pile of *&it and it's now art! viola!

The post-modernist manifesto

Originally posted by JoshNorton
That said... time == effort == value? Think of your favorite photograph.

I wasnt talking about photographs but about paintings. If there are some who want to splatter some paint on canvas and after 1 minute declare a finished piece of art and sell it for Millions, thats fine with me. But I will point out that that may have in fact been the way the picture was made.

For me, subjectively then, it is without value. For others it is obviously of tremendous value.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by nerbot

Here's some modern art for you:
----------------------
***

***
----------------------
I call this piece "thumb up snobs ass" and it represents the ignorant opinions of a dillusioned mind (20 grand ono)

[edit on 14/2/2010 by nerbot]

For the record:

Should this EXQUISITE and MASTERFUL reflection of the modern psyche reach the levels it aspires to in actual cash value The Above Network reserves the first right of refusal to purchase it.

That is all...



Springer...

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Whether this was pure sarcasm or not, you're on the right track.

It cant decide whether its scarcasm or awe. Anyway, I´ll check out Dada.I also do believe that with mental effort I can learn to enjoy any kind of art. ANY kind. But there is also the type of art-art that strikes me to the core, with no effort on my side needed.

I know, I know "thats what I should be looking for".

Maybe Im just trying to understand those who see tremendous genius value in two stripes.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by divinetragedy79

Originally posted by nerbot

Here's some modern art for you:
----------------------
***

***
----------------------
I call this piece "thumb up snobs ass" and it represents the ignorant opinions of a dillusioned mind (20 grand ono)

I thought it was someone getting their brains blown out. I'll still pay you the $20k.

You're thinking of my other piece: "poor man's pleasure" (25k)

-----------------------------------

If you peeps wanna see some REAL modern art, check THIS out:

The Amazing World Of Flame Fractals

Modern, as in: using modern technology, NOT modern, as in "I'm going to explain this in a way that makes me seem more intelligent than you".

Enjoy, and marvel at the incredible creativity of hidden mathmatics.

EDIT: The works I have posted in the link above are FREE. Use them together, use them in peace.

[edit on 15/2/2010 by nerbot]

reply to post by Springer


If you get an offer, can I at least have a mug from the ATS shop?

[edit on 15/2/2010 by nerbot]

Id like to thank all repliers here, sorry I didnt have time to reply to everything. Its been an awesome thread to me with way many more viewpoints on this than expected.

I appreciate Rothko just a little bit more than on the outset. Not enough to feel comfortable with 72 Million for him, but there is a slight shift in attitude.

I still think there may be a conspiracy to distort peoples sense of what something is worth.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I still think there may be a conspiracy to distort peoples sense of what something is worth.

I think it's only good old greed.

When some people see an opportunity of making lots of money without having to really work for it by using some work made by someone else they use it, that's all.

I guess there's a middle-man (or should it be a middle-person, to be politically correct? ) somewhere with a large percentage of all that money.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by buttking
I guess you don't "get" art.

Ive been told I "dont get it" because I dont embrace stuff like the urinal posted previously.

Im really glad I posted though because I can see Im not the only one who doesn't "get it".

Help us out then - what are we "not getting"?

It was made into an Art piece as soon as the Artist had the first thought, then the action then the creation, its the same with the unmade Bed or the Bricks at the Tate in London! PS everybody Say's I could do that after the creation an never before, peace.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I insist upon the equal existence of the world engendered in the mind and the world engendered by God outside of it. If I have faltered in the use of familiar objects, it is because I refuse to mutilate their appearance for the sake of an action which they are too old to serve, or for which perhaps they had never been intended. I quarrel with surrealists and abstract art only as one quarrels with his father and mother; recognizing the inevitability and function of my roots, but insistent upon my dissent; I, being both they, and an integral completely independent of them.

Say what?

A elaborate statement of the artist's unworthiness and own instrinsic lack of worth and talent.

Some translations:

• I suck in the art-fart school way of saying it.
  
• I suck so much that my demented brain mutilates reality into an unrecognizable mishmash of confusion.
  
• You're a rich sucker and I don't see you; I don't even care; just pay up.
  
• I'm a serial-killer of Plato's ideal forms; take that God!
  
• I'm so angry at the world I don't want to touch it.
  
• My mother didn't properly breastfeed me; I am numb.

Ever since I saw the rotating kitchen I despise most modern art.

The lego wall filler earns my respect though

GM

Take it from me, Artist's dont make a piece of work to please everybody!

Originally posted by ArMaP
I guess there's a middle-man (or should it be a middle-person, to be politically correct?

) somewhere with a large percentage of all that money.

I think you're right.

Quite often, the ego's and belief of an artist can be blown WAY out of proportion by those seeking a piece of the pie who bolster their delusions and tout their (non)talents to those around them of equal dillusion...often when a grant is funding a project and backhanders are available.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Take it from me, Artist's dont make a piece of work to please everybody!

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

See 2nd line in my signature and make you own mind up.

[edit on 15/2/2010 by nerbot]

Just for the record. Rothko did not paint price tags
So, don't blame him for those. It's the guys with all the money in the world who are doing this... to Rothko, or anybody else. And they are the masters of inflation.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Let me ask you this; would art still exist if no one was able to perceive it?

Artists would therefore also be blind. The only art created would focus on those senses still available to us.

Music and storytelling (i.e.
) would remain as art.

]

I'm didn't mean perceive as in sight, I meant it as anyone being around to observe art in any way.

Basically what I'm asking is "If a tree fell in a forest but no one was around, would it still make a sound" but from an aesthetic point of view.

This is, at some levels, the classic 'pearls before swine' concept, writ large...

There are certainly artists and artworks out there that defy the average person's sense of quality, aesthetics, etc. Many artists I know suspect too that there are certain artists that have successfully 'pulled the wool' over the eyes of art lovers. Concerning the incomprehensible prices paid for some art these day, one has to understand the longstanding and indelible relationship between projections of wealth/power, and art patronage. It's not as if some Powerball winner is suddenly spending their limited fortune on hyper-expensive paintings. No, it's wealthy people, power brokers, major institutions, etc., who are demonstrating to others and themselves that they have the resources and seeming cultural refinement to acquire the ultimate luxury items.

I'm afraid that the ATS community, if the comments I've read in this thread are any indication, is not full of fine artists or art lovers who appreciate unique visions. By and large, I would say that the comments demonstrate a rather 'common-man' sort of approach to art. By this 'common' standard, Thomas Kinkade is a truly great artist, simply because he best represents the broadest appeal to the greatest number of people. Yet Kinkade is widely touted in the 'art world' as the height of BAD ART. I wouldn't disagree either. He's really good at what he does, but what he does is just so stupid. To paraphrase a wise person (was it P.T. Barnum?), no one ever went broke underestimated the intelligence of the average person.

No disrespect to the person who started this thread, but the idea that a child in kindergarten could produce something as ingenious as the work of Mondrian, Pollock, or Rothko is not only way off base, but also misses the point of art. It is hard to appreciate now, in the year 2010, but all of these artists were revolutionaries in their time. I would formally challenge anyone here who isn't an artist to produce something they imagine equals the power of a Rothko painting, and then get it into major galleries in New York, London, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Berlin, etc.

Every so often, I see the media tout some elephant, or chimp, or painfully young child as the "new Jackson Pollock," suggesting that what they have produced has the same skill, vision and integrity of the so-called modern masters. Never once have I seen a chimp, elephant, or child produce anything even remotely akin to the great abstractionists.

I would further argue that while everyone is entitled to an opinion concerning what they like and don't like, sentiments such as those expressed by this thread's originator highlight a certain, non-pejorative ignorance. I am not saying this person is an ignorant person, generally. I am saying that they are ignorant about the multitudes of reasons that humans create art. Above all, many artists make art meant to exalt the soul in some fashion. Based on my own experience, and decades of admirers, this is exactly what all of these artists whom you deride actually do.

I would also suggest that the original poster is simply lacking the background or mentality for appreciating this kind of art. Either they are insensitive to transpersonal phenomena, don't appreciate humanity's creative spirit, or just has a mind that is closed off from, or immune to, abstract beauty (not PRETTY PICTURES!) and the affective experience of viewing modern art. It is, like sitar music, or Butoh theater, or Brian Eno's ambient genius, simply an acquired taste. I can't help anyone here 'see' what *I* see in contemporary art. I won't ever convince you, intellectually, why this stuff is so great. I frankly feel a little sorry for folks who can't appreciate it. I've enjoyed it as long as I remember enjoying art, and it's made my inner/outer life so much richer.