The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Viral
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

"Yeah the difference between Picasso and the schmucks today..."

With all due respect, I would say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. Zero. Zilch. I will say to you that an overwhelming majority of today's successful artists have extremely strong foundations, and execute work requiring immense technique and skill, all of which are acquired only through years and years and years of labor. I say this not because I believe it to be the case; I say this because I KNOW it to the be the case. I know lots and lots of bad artists, a few good, and I'm very familiar with the contemporary 'scene.'

Now, Picasso was an art prodigy, and essentially mastered the premises of classical art education when he was 12-years-old, so I'm not suggesting that there are many (or ANY) artists working today who were that precocious as children. However, I will tell you that a huge proportion of contemporary artists possess an "insanely good" set of skills. The idea you suggest, that the "vast majority of modern 'artists'...can barely form simple objects much less a landscape or a human being" is simply factually wrong. You must have an extremely narrow or limited idea of what contemporary art is if you really believe this.

Certainly there are artists out there who are not virtuosos. So as it is with ALL artforms. There is room for all skill levels, assuming the art itself is successful in its intent. Just as there's room for musicians who flawlessly play Bach at the same time there is great value attached to folks who play rough-hewn punk rock.

By the way all - I enjoyed this Discussion. Im not as strongly anti-modern-art as it appears but only playing "devils advocate" so that an interesting Discussion may come from it.

I do believe value/worth are distorted in Modern society and I do believe that is somewhat of a Conspiracy, but I dont want to be pegged as the Art-hater here, because thats not true.

Its been one of the most fascinating Discussions Ive had here, Ive learned a lot.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

I wonder, too, whether this progression into modern art is a distraction to keep us from focusing on messages that are well hidden within medieval art. There is much symbolism to be dissected there. And the art has been hidden around the world in various places where it has never been photographed nor gathered together. With internet, these pieces of the missing puzzle are beginning to come together.

However, I think there is much to be explored in the symbolic hints that have been left to us from the past. But with the distraction of continuing to move forward, the past remains unexamined.

As a matter of fact, that is one thing I would like to see more of here at ATS. Finding out through this thread that there are so many artists on this board, I would love to see a section where we could post ancient and historical artwork and talk about the symbolism and relevant meanings. We need an ATS art gallery so we can discuss these things.

Is there a conspiracy in medieval art? I think so. I think there are many hidden messages which were left as a communication that might be understood in the future (which is now). I think the only reason these works have not been destroyed is because the information has been well disguised. And I think it would require a team with higher perception and sensivity to decipher these meanings.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by Alethea]

Originally posted by Alethea
Is there a conspiracy in medieval art? I think so. I think there are many hidden messages which were left as a communication that might be understood in the future (which is now). I think the only reason these works have not been destroyed is because the information has been well disguised. And I think it would require a team with higher perception and sensivity to decipher these meanings.

While I will grant that there is symbolism in a lot of older paintings, I would stop short of calling it "conspiratorial" in any way. The symbols may have been personal to the artist or his patron, but to imply conspiracy requires a greater level of communication between said artists than I think existed.

(You want to be hit over the head with symbolism, check out Durer's Melencolia from 1514... (if you click on the image enough times it will get you to a pretty large scan...))

I cannot sit here and watch people defend this madness!

I'm a musician and at one point, was very much in love with art, but took another form of is as my love; music!

I ask anyone of you, go to an art museum, or art gallery and look at the paintings and crafts, look at it from a million perspectives, and ask yourself if you haven't created something more brilliant as a kid! I dare any of you to do that!

I've frequented many galleries and too often have I seen some brush strokes, some wood shavings, an aluminum coil wrapped around a eyeball and people pay thousands of dollars for it. Why? Because it's fine art? Because it conveys a story? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and THIS is what art is. Nothing else! Anything can be artistic, but it all depends on who's looking at it. Sometimes it sucks, and sometimes it's mind-blowing, and other times, it's not considered a damn thing!

If anyone sees a picture and does not like it, they have the friggin right to do so. There is no standard in art; it cannot be measured! ...so don't sit there and tell me, you need to look "harder", or that it's justified. It's justified for those who see it as such, and may God(or whatever you believe in) bless those people, because surely their eyes are cursed.

I have seen many abstract pieces of art that speak volumes, while others that say absolutely nothing at all(hey, maybe that was the point, aye?), but I remember one time, at an art gallery I visited last year, an artist had about 50 or so pieces up, and one of her pieces really struck me. It was abstract, but so detailed...if you looked at it, you can see many creatures and shapes(many humanoid) in the piece. It was genius. That piece sold for 25,000, I remember distinctively. Another piece, by the same artist was what I consider bullocks, and it was selling for 175, 000 dollars. You can literally see it took way less work to achieve, way less materials were used and honestly, probably took about $300 of material and about 20 minutes to create. The previous, very detailed piece was a lot bigger and I'd say took about a few hours to do...but strangely enough...the piece for 175,000 was SOLD, while the other piece just hung there. I was puzzled! In fact, I think the artist herself didn't mind. It seems as if, with the right attitude, branding and marketing some artists know how to sell anything. It's as if, the crappier the piece, the more people into that snobby BS like it. Hey, if I knew how easy these people were, I'd be peddling them the same crap for thousands of dollars my self!

It seems to be more so a game of status than anything else, when it comes to "fine art". Location is another huge factor, the art gallery was in the west of Trinidad(where all the folks with the money to spend reside). You take that bomby painting, selling for 175,000 and drop it in the ghetto and people would take a piss on it, I can guarantee you that! In fact, if I were to find some of my old pieces I did in my teens(and they sucked), broke into that art gallery at night, and hung it up there, with a price tag of about 60,000, I'm sure I'd make a sale in about 2 days. And THAT is ridiculous! If anyone bought some of my old pieces for that much money, I'd be very grateful, that people are that stupid!

No one has the right to set the standard on what is art exactly. BUT, people know beauty when they see it...so yes, it may be art, but ain't a damn thing beautiful about it, by any means, because I said so!

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
No one has the right to set the standard on what is art exactly. BUT, people know beauty when they see it...so yes, it may be art, but ain't a damn thing beautiful about it, by any means, because I said so!

I think I can set the standard.

Art is born of Inspiration. Look closely at the word inspiration — yep, that's exactly what I mean. It's an energy that flows through you, as a spirit.

More than one master has observed that Art does not spring forth from our animal brains. It is channeled from, I dunno, another dimension. Some people have antennae for it, others do not. Art cannot be learned.

Art happens when the channel is open and the energy is flowing.

No, Art is not the same as commercial graphic design. Graphic design may aspire to Art, the same as any activity may aspire to Art. But graphic design is, essentially, just a drawer full of tricks that can be juggled to produce a desired effect on a given deadline.

I know, because I've done it for over 30 years. And that aint Art.
When you dread it, it aint Art.



— Doc Velocity




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

To any real artist this kind of work is down right insulting. Kinda like MMA fighters, who were althetes of other sports but couldnt cut it, so they turned to MMA. Art history is not the same as creating art, regardless of what you know about the history and trends in art, YOU CANT BE A COWBOY IF YOU DONT GET S#!T ON YOUR BOOTS! Any real artist knows what kind of time you put into your work. Days turn into a blur, running together like the paint you put on the canvas. Minutes pass like seconds and before you know it days weeks or months have passed. I once worked for 72 hours straight with nothing but caffine. As the stone or clay block in front of you has the small pieces cleaned away or the blank canvas is filled time becomes relative... I like to call it time traveling. You start with nothing, days weeks and months later time has passed, you suddenly become aware of the amount of time you put into the work and it shows. I am not the only artist who does this, but when I look at another artists work(s) I spend the same amount of time looking at it as it took the artist took to create it. These look like unfinished works to me, nothing more. I knew another artist who "REALLY LIKED GOLD SPRAY PAINT" he would work really good for about a half hour, the he would come down and crash out and leave his work unfinished... they looked erily simialr to this... but he never tried to sell them though... even he had more sense than that.

REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS ART NEED NO LONG WINDED EXPLANATION, IT SHOULD BE IMMEADIATLY UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYONE. IF YOU NEED SOMEONE TO TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS...CHANCES ARE ITS NOT ART.

I have spent my life dedicated to creating art from drawings and paintings to sculpting. This makes me sick to my stomach! I and a few others have acheived public sculpture projects, something that Leonardo and Michaelagello did not acheive. And we are unknown. We sell our prints, poster, shirts and postcards in the vein hope to fill our empty bellies as we live the starving artist thing to a T. Pseudo artists create work like this, becasue anyone with real talent and skill does not condone this type of work. To many artist the highest form is to convey a message with no words...real artists look to animators and human form based works as the pinacle of art. Something that speaks across all langauges. As well see people everyday everywhere we go. There is no better subject to speak to people than to use the one subject everybody knows. And becasue we see people every day we know when things are not right. And to an educated eye you can tell whether or not the artist has has secondary training. Its like telling the difference between coke and pepsi, if you drink either regularly you will know.

I have studied art history and helped a Dr. John Montgomery's thesis in his docotrate degree at the University of New Mexico. What we entailed in his thesis was in direct opposition to this MODERN ART SICKNESS for lack of better terms. He literally spat in the faces of the entire art dept. But his arguement was not something you could argue with. His arguement did not fall far from the tree, as the title of the post says it all. As a joke he presented a canvas with a simple red dot I had painted, at first the panel gushed about it, until he informed them it was created for the sole purpose how easy it is to impress them as the whole painting was a joke. If you are impressed by this.. then you are easily impressed. Art is creativity in physical form to show others. One of the Dr. Mongomery's statements about how art and society are intertwined. The art produced of the particualr time mirrors the society that produced it.

Many here on ATS know full well what is about to happen as the western world falls apart becasue of our love for "FIAT ARTICLES" aka fake money... and looky looky FAKE ART! This painting is further proof we need to be flushed down the toilet if this is the pinnacle of artisitic creativity

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I like you, have a knee jerk reaction and think, if my preschooler can do it, I am not paying for it and millions is ridiculous.

on the other hand, the broad statement could exclude simple sculptures that are exquisite.

Which comes down to, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

there is fashionable art, like those pieces. Just like fashion it is popular and people like it and pay too much for it just like a chanel scarf simply because it says Chanel.

ON the other thand, there is breathtaking fashion, that shows talent and an incredible eye that can decorate the body with taste. That makes you suck in your breath. That is worth 2,000 a dress.

But then you have bombshells.

This is hard for me to say coming From Pittsburgh but I can't figure out the deal with Any Warhol.

When I play with my toddler I do a couple of watercolors on construction paper and hope one day, someone will take pity on my poor twisted soul and give my kids 12 million for my art.

Originally posted by Hopllyte
To any real artist this kind of work is down right insulting.

Funny that other real artists have a different opinion.

I guess it means that it depends on personal opinion, just that.

This makes me sick to my stomach! I and a few others have acheived public sculpture projects, something that Leonardo and Michaelagello did not acheive.

What do you mean by "public sculpture projects"?

Sorry, but the rest of your post looks more like what we call here in Portugal "elbow pain", and that can be translated, in this case, as a "light jealousy".

Originally posted by Hopllyte
]REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS ART NEED NO LONG WINDED EXPLANATION, IT SHOULD BE IMMEADIATLY UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYONE. IF YOU NEED SOMEONE TO TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS...CHANCES ARE ITS NOT ART.

Knock yourself out, hot shot. Tell us what the Mona Lisa means... Not what it is; not what it depicts; but what it expresses. Should be easy, right? Or if it's not easy, it isn't art?

I have one final suggestion to add to this thread then I'm done.
Art may have no rules but aesthetics do. There are biologically-based reasons for why things might look balanced or not that pertain to our sense of vision. I am a firm believer in the Gestalt school and one of the great researchers and writers was a man name Rudolph Arnheim. It's a long, difficult read but I would heartily suggest reading his book "Art and visual perception".
This book provides a sound, logical basis for why aesthetic factors work or don't in a given piece of art. If you are a teacher or serious artist there is no better book ever written on the subject IMHO.

Skyfloating - Thank you for starting this thread, it has been fun and informative and very enjoyable.

TO THOSE WHO THINK ROTHKO CAN"T PAINT - Do you enjoy classical chinese music? Tastes are culturally biased products of the environment we grow up in. IF YOU DON'T LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN NOTHING NEW CAN EVER COME IN.

I bid you all a fond farewell and I"ll see you in another thread!

Originally posted by JoshNorton

(You want to be hit over the head with symbolism, check out Durer's Melencolia from 1514...

YES! Durer "knew things"!

As a matter of fact I have some images of his work in an ongoing thread and would really like in-put on more of the symbolism. Forgive me for plugging my thread, Skyfloating, but I really would like some of these artistic ones to help decipher the meanings in these art pieces.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Skyfloating

Im not as strongly anti-modern-art as it appears but only playing "devils advocate" so that an interesting Discussion may come from it.

a little late for that now

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

a little late for that now

Not at all, its been fantastic fun and even continues to be good on this page...hilarious even.

reply to post by Skyfloating


good one Sky

:-)

reply to post by Skyfloating

Speaking as a college educated artist, I have to say I'm with you!
So many artists have such a high opinion of themselves and their work, and it's not always deserved.
We had a professor that kept an easel and paints set up in the gallery so that anytime someone said, "what's so great about that? I could do that" he'd point to the canvas and say "please demonstrate". Finally, one grandmotherly lady snapped back, "I don't need to demonstrate. Everybody sh1ts... do want me to do that too"?

The easel was removed soon after.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Same with Picasso - like SLAYER said, I know what I like and its certainly not Picasso.

I find more appeal in some of the ATS-Avatars posted here than in Picasso.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Still feel the same about this one?




There is a big, big difference here. Picasso was a master draftsman and could sketch anything he wanted to to perfection. He chose not to do so in his later years. Some other painters have no choice because they are lacking the technical prerequisites.

A trip to the Picasso museum in Barcelona, Spain, completely changed my attitude. The guy was a genius. No doubt!

Most of the artists of medieval times where in fact craftsmen they were not compensated for their creative minds, but they were employees of the aristocracy or the church. Tribal art was not for individuals to be recognized, but often have totemic or clan significance. There are so many forms of art.

The renaissance (rebirth of learning) meant they learned from classical art how to create a correct image and perspective (liner perspective Brunelleschi)

Photography inspired impressionism (think Monet) which started the 'modern' play on art not having to be a religious or humanistic replica. It was about an impression, so we start to see art becoming a expression of thought. The 20th is when art really became expressive, and not a craft.

How much do we pay for an idea? Should there be price limits on someone thoughts? These thoughts are representative often of society, tangible in a way that a history book is not.

Art is not required to be a craft. Talent isn't defined by the exact depiction of a object. The freedom to express with an image is to me almost a replication of divine purpose.

That said, I worked in a gallery/museum for a few years and whilst I loved Duchamp, Jackson Pollock , Whitely, Preston, Matisse, Lee Krasnor, Picasso, Rodin, Grace Crowly , Artur Boyd and so on..... I struggled with the price of paintings. I do believe there should be no price limit to thoughts, but on the same hand I am left wandering why do we have to pay for them ?



[edit on 16-2-2010 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

No, Art is not the same as commercial graphic design. Graphic design may aspire to Art, the same as any activity may aspire to Art. But graphic design is, essentially, just a drawer full of tricks that can be juggled to produce a desired effect on a given deadline.

I know, because I've done it for over 30 years. And that aint Art.
When you dread it, it aint Art.

this made me smile

part of me wants to argue with you - and I could

but you know what?

I'm just going to go ahead and say - amen brother

"when you dread it - it ain't art"

I may have that tattooed on my forehead

except - sometimes I dread painting too

now what?

:-)

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
I do believe there should be no price limit to thoughts, but I wander why do we have to pay for them ?

I could answer that question, but it'll cost ya.


I don't know from art, but I know what I like. There's an art community in southern Indiana where the artists display what is to me some really spectacular stuff. Most of it is pastoral, rural, nature scenes. I've always been a real fan of watercolors, and all 3 generations of the Wyeth family. I also really like Norman Rockwell and especially the work he did for the Saturday Evening Post.

I like a lot of illustrators, like Frank Frazetta for example, and also in that same vein really enjoy the pulp mag art from the 20s -60s. Even some abstract and "op art" type stuff (Vasarely is a personal favorite). It all has one thing in common - it evokes something emotional in me. The best art to me is something greater than the sum of its parts. For me to truly appreciate it, it also has to include looking like something that took some effort. If it looks like something I could do (and that's an extremely low threshold), I'm not so impressed. Almost undoubtedly, if it's anything hanging anywhere it's something I couldn't do. A mediocre high school art student is capable of churning out something at a level well advanced beyond anything I could do.

Not that any of that is to the original point of the thread. How the hell does a red rectangle cost 70 mil? My opinion, it's the wealthy people's version of Old Maid. If you're the one holding it when everyone decides it's passe, you lose. Not to worry, just manipulate some commodities markets and cut the gruel rations to the peasants. You make it back in no time.