The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I don't understand why it's necessary to judge people based on what may or may not move them

Your post is beside the point of this thread.

Do you understand the art of manipulative salesmanship, for example being talked into lashing out 72 Million when all that was wanted was some approval from society?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by l0k372 Wow! I predict you're going to get some flaming for posting that! Star for you...

reply to post by Skyfloating


now you really are being insulting Sky

rethink that one please

I am not an idiot

are you?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Much of art buying, music buying, movie buying is based on marketing and hype and not on the intrinsic value of the product.

The idea behind this thread is that its like that with some of Modern Art.

You say

"Why dont you accept that other people have a different taste"

and

"If you dont recognize what it is, you dont like it"

However, neither am I intolerant toward the unfamiliar, nor am I unaccepting of those with different tastes.

Thats not what this is about.Its about the manipulation of worth.

Britney Spears may be "Bestselling", but is she really good?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

See, there's a lotta background in art that you need to explore before you call down on Picasso or Van Gogh or Rembrandt or Mark Rothko.

That sounds like "you are not entitled to criticize if you did not study art" - to which I agree a little bit, BUT: We are humans too, with life experience.

I did not study art history and therefore my understanding is not refined enough to see the details others supposedly are seeing (I do see the hues in Rothko though) but I can pass judgement on whether I think Rockefeller and the Sheik from the OP have been ripped off or not.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating Ahh Sky, what a masterful board member you are. Tell me, did you need the points to get on RATS or something?
Anyhoo, I hope you do keep your "vow"

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Ahh Sky, what a masterful board member you are. Tell me, did you need the points to get on RATS or something?
Anyhoo, I hope you do keep your "vow"

Beyond a certain point flags and points are irrelevant and one is driven by curiosity.

Curiosity sparked by questions such as "Why is she nodding at what the art teacher says about Rothko with those big respectful eyes when in fact I know she hates Rothko? How did that transformation occur?"

or

"Why did he buy the picture when it is clear he doesnt like it. Only to brag that he has a picture by that artist?"

_______________________________________

I will keep that vow. You inspired the idea. I can "get" that the pictures may be good objects of spacing-into another state.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating Actually, from a professional point of view, Britney Spears is a mediocre vocalist & a competent dancer. The production of her tracks however is excellent. Much as it makes me want to vomit to have to admit it.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
The production of her tracks however is excellent. Much as it makes me want to vomit to have to admit it.

Is it excellent? Or is it formulaic:

1. Steal MIDI-Melody from 1920s, speed it up to 120 BPM
2. Sample random Beat.
3. Add strings.
4. Use Compression and more Compression still.
5. Record Britneys Voice.
6. Attach pretty face to Album Cover.

reply to post by Skyfloating Well thats all good then. A tip on Pollock: there's a wierd kind of semblance of symmetry to some of his work. Its kind of like you think you've got it, then you look more closely at some bit & realise that what you expect isn't there, but what is seems to evoke another symmetry from elsewhere... & so on. Again, its worth just gawping at & letting your mind relax.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


That kind of stuff is enjoyable. Lying on the floor, staring at a carpet. Lying in the grass, examining the ground. Getting lost in grandmas tablecloth.

I didnt realize I could also have this for a steep price.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
[Hey, maybe thats the actual purpose of galleries!

Hold on, I think you're missing out on something...

You're missing a big part of the "art" experience by walking into it with attitude. When you go to an exhibit, you need to leave your attitude at the door, open up and just force yourself to enjoy it... Heh.

Seriously.

Even if it's the really disgusting "dirty diaper" exhibit. Remember that one? The artist took her kids' diapers, full of shît, and squeezed 'em between two panes of glass. Sealed it with epoxy, no doubt, and framed it. Oh, yeah, took the exhibit on tour, got a government grant and made some money.

That is what I call Junk, because it's not "Art"... Some people will say: "Art is anything that evokes an emotional response."

No. That's not true. THAT definition is an excuse for the dirty diaper exhibits. It's an excuse for the junk that passes as art and that receives government grants.

Art, as I always say, is an inspiration. And I see inspiration as an external force entering the body and going directly to the hands, okay? Plug into the sky, baby! I know when I'm painting, I go to a groove and stay there, and you can't get me out of it with dynamite.

Junk is uninspired. Junk is mechanical, cut-and-paste, commercial graphic stinky junk. And I know wherefrom I speak, because I've worked extensively in "fine art" and "commercial graphics" for most of my life.

Unfortunately, junk graphics pays the bills, while inspired Art is often left to rot.

Lotta people say, "Hey, look at me, I'm so arty and farty and my art is definitely inspired!" But, no, you can see that their art is NOT inspired. It looks dead, lifeless. It's junk.

Man, this is way too much breathing of the vapors of Delphi.

However, there always comes a time when you have to pretend you're enjoying a Junk Display, not to be confused with an Art Exhibit. I fein enthusiasm at such events.

No, everything out there is not "art" under one big umbrella. Junk does exist.

But Mark Rothko was inspired.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 2/16/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Rothko Ma$terpiece:

Compared to something nice:

Given a choice between those two, I'd rather come home and look at the Rothko every day. It asks more questions than it answers, and what I see in it becomes a reflection of my own current state of mind.

I'm working on hanging a show of my art right now... It's costing me about $200 per piece to print & mount the pieces on the materials I want and at the size I want. I hope to sell the works for $1500 each, and I think that's a fair price. (If I sell 3 or 4 pieces, it will pay for the printing & mounting of the ones that don't sell, and I'll at least break even, and in this case, the gallery's not taking a cut because they're a non-profit that operates on grants & endowments...)

Now, I saw the Gregory Colbert Ashes & Snow photo show in New York five years back, and his prints (granted, a fair bit larger than mine) were selling for $150,000 each.

Were they gorgeous and breathtaking? Did they change the way I look at photography as an artform? Yes. Were they worth $150,000 a print? Maybe not, but you had celebs snatching them up for that price... Brad Pitt & Jennifer Aniston had one (don't know who got it in the divorce...), I think Samuel L. Jackson bought one, etc.

Considering how many pieces were in the show, the scale of the work itself, and the fact that he built the gallery for the show and had to lease the land to put it on, maybe $150,000 per piece was what he needed to break even if he sold a handful of works. I couldn't say for certain.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Given a choice between those two, I'd rather come home and look at the Rothko every day. It asks more questions than it answers, and what I see in it becomes a reflection of my own current state of mind.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, everything out there is not "art" under one big umbrella. Junk does exist.

But Mark Rothko was inspired.

Alright, alright Granted

I rest my case.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Ashes & Snow photo show in New York five years back, and his prints (granted, a fair bit larger than mine) were selling for $150,000 each.

Wow, very nice work (in my humble, non-educated opinion).

If you care to post one of your works...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you care to post one of your works...

When you "come out" to ATS about your secret identity as a published author, I'll take off the mask and show people my art, and my IMDB & AllMusic Guide entries. I get enough crap for being a Mason on this board that I really don't want the nut-jobs hunting me down THAT easily.

[edit on 2/16/2010 by JoshNorton]

reply to post by Skyfloating We could be here for weeks talking about how the layering of samples has taken over from traditional orchestration & still never reach a consensus as to whether any particular example is good or not. Believe me when I tell you tho, there are hundreds of thousands of people these days who can do what you just described, myself included, but the difference lies in the subtleties.
WTF? In a Britney track? Exactly. So subtle in fact that unless music production is your profession, you'd never notice. For instance: to make a vocal like hers stand out & at the same time hide its deficiencies requires quite a lot of seeming "space" in the mids, but it must also be underscored cleverly with just enough distraction.
Also, "impact" moments need to be set up more than once. Its not enough to use a single "sign post" because she hasn't got the depth of expression to keep carrying it off right to the final chorus. The idea being that the audience are brought to a more heightened anticipation so that when the vox splash hits, it hardly matters if its not fantastic, its gratified expectation.
On top of that, they use some pretty clever recaps to suggest her voice, even tho keeping it to a minimum, some of which are juxtaposed against orchestration in a manner that her actual voice wouldn't survive. It all gives the impression that she's a lot better & doing more than she is.
Is it art tho? That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings & arrows of outrageous teen idols, or cut off our noses to spite our faces?

reply to post by JoshNorton

Now, I saw the Gregory Colbert Ashes & Snow photo show in New York five years back, and his prints (granted, a fair bit larger than mine) were selling for $150,000 each.

You don't need money to have that!
Bravo!

reply to post by Skyfloating Doesn't cost you much, or usually anything except getting to the gallery, eh? Let the rich get whatever imagined kudos they want from owning a famous work. They always end up wanting their name next to it in a "Kindly lent by..." tag at a public exhibition sooner or later.