The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

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.

Would you happen to have a link to a good article on this?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Possibly referring to Mary Kelly's Post Partum Document...

Part 1 of the multipart work — "Analyzed Fecal Stains and Feeding Charts" — is probably its most infamous segment, as the subtitle might suggest. Think Dr. Spock crossed with Dr. Freud. Flanked by graphs and tables, the work comprises 28 framed paper diapers chronicling the month of February 1974. A list of what Kelly's baby consumed each day — 2 teaspoons cereal, 1 teaspoon carrots, 1 ounce water, etc. — is carefully typed on each diaper. The list is a caption just beneath a ghostly brown or yellow stain.

Seeing these charts is very different from reading about them in a book, where Kelly's work is invariably discussed in psychoanalytic and other academic language. Those terms are surely legitimate. But they don't come close to conveying how flat-out funny the piece is nor how one's risible reaction to it is essential to its larger meanings.

"Eeewww!" is not an appropriate academic response, but it certainly applies when you're nose-to-the-glass scrutinizing baby poop. (Don't even think about the conservation issues facing the Art Gallery of Ontario, which owns the daily record of infant excretions.) After Italian Conceptual artist Piero Manzoni's notorious 1961 packed and sealed cans containing 30 grams of his own excrement, Kelly's work does come with a built-in artistic lineage. And there's always Freud, who wrote that children recognize feces, as matter that comes from within, as their very first creations.*

This is a classic case of "the emperor's new cloths" . Not sure what moron would pay 72 million for any work of art, but I think there is a "we know more than you, so we can see the beauty" class of people fooling themselves. I laugh at them.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
Sir Winston Churchill

brarew

The more avant-garde a painting is, the more people want to look at it. For some people, the overwhelming incapability to avert their gaze can be interperated as a profound and almost religious experience. Someone with high expectations of art's mind would be tricked into thinking about this piece constantly while away from it and upon returning their sight to it might find that it has become a thought provoking masterpiece. Someone who has seen many pieces of art would be shocked by the simplicity and in that mindboggoling moment realize that it is almost paranormally amazing. Let us, for a moment, think back to Pablo Picasso, one of the most famous artists ever to live because of his defiance against the typical art form. the awkward simplicity in his paintings has inspired millions.

Personally, I like these pieces of art. They're brilliant. I cannot keep my mind from wandering back to the first one with the two solitary lines on a foggy background. Someone with millions in the bank could easily be entranced to buy it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by curioustype


1). During the Fifties/Sixties, there was indeed a somewhat covert government program to 'manage' the emergence of the USA into it's dominant place as the art capital of the (western) world, a position previously occupied by Paris. I believe it attracted 'special' agency interest/funding/resources.

Are you saying the CIA funded Rothko and others? I wasnt aware of that. It would add a whole new Dimension to this.

This is a fact, some of the artists may have been moved more to committ suicide when they found out..why they were so 'successful'...

The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters
Intelligence in Recent Public Literature
By Frances Stonor Saunders. New York: The New Press, 2000. 509 pages.
(A mind blowing book,)

Flicked through so apologies if I miss the point here. These pictures are commonly referred to as the Cafe pictures. They were commissioned to stand out in the darkened rooms of the Four Seasons restaurant. They were suppose to be stand out wall decorations.


However when Rothko saw them he was appalled after they became his babies. He refused to have them hung. Since then they have been shown in gallery light in many museums of art to the dismay of artists and art historians.


I saw these pictures in the Tate Modern where they were set in the light conditions Rothko set. Moving from bright rooms and blinding art, through corridors of white into this mini vacuum of art was astounding.

Okay I hold my hands up and admit I liked them before, but even so I was shocked. Put it this way I had a 3 year old and a 1 year old in a pushchair with me who love the bright arts but screamed and messed around for most of the time. We walked in that room and both just sat on the floor and were quiet. That spoke to me too. My 3 year old at the time, now 8 still talks about that. If that is some sort of art con ten all art is fake.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by The Teller]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by The Teller]

I dont "get" the art, but I do "get" the wealthy art buyers. What was once a tale of the Emperor's new clothes is now about the Emperor's new "art" piece.

reply to post by masqua


that was a nice post M, but what I really want to say is your dream images really really appealed to me, the first one had me entranced longer than I could explain because I still don't know what I was looking at and I didn't care I just enjoyed looking at it....which rarely happens with me. You've also inspired me to try the same thing sometime

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

Originally posted by B.Morrison
You've also inspired me to try the same thing sometime

I hope you do, because it is the purest source of inspiration I can think of.

Regarding the second painting, I have no idea what it 'means' either but am certain that it does signify something buried deep within my subconscious. Each time I look at it, more questions come to mind and I'm now happy to note that it also has an effect on others (considering the responses to it in this thread).

Perhaps it's an 'archetype' common to many people, signifying through a symbol a psychological barrier to say something, or put out to others, that I, or 'we', find difficult to put into words.

Whatever the answer is perhaps doesn't matter so much because thinking about is more important (in that it prompts an urge to 'self-awareness').



[edit on 19/2/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
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]

Tell that to the people who don't dread it! And that is my point! NO ONE, not you, not some man holding a degree, not me, not anyone can set a standard on art and define what it is. I understand your other points, but, that too is subjective. Can animals produce art? Do they have that flow of energy? Who knows! But, I can assure you if you cover a cat in multiple colours of paint, and have it roll around on some canvas...a million and 1 people will find something artistic, or even ingenius about it and even proceed to analyze it and try to understand what the artist was thinking, or feeling, not knowing it was a cat having fun on some materials. So what is art? Sometimes, in fact, it is not even the idea, or inspirational creativity that comes from the mind and is put on the canvas that is art, sometimes, it's the other way around.

I've been a graphic artist for 6 years...and I probably hate it more than you do. lol

I understand your point, and I respect it. But, if it's one thing that cannot be measured, it's art, and that's why I love it.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by sdrawkcabII]

I don't know art, but I know Van Dyke.

reply to post by sdrawkcabII

Funny you say that, have you seen this video?



Is this art?

[edit on 20/2/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP

Is this art?

yup

I've heard all the arguments against it being genuine art - that the elephants were taught to do this...

???

so?

look at the lines - that's all I'm sayin'

also - there are stories that go with each of these elephants. Just like people - they each have their own levels of enthusiasm for making art

one account has an elephant freeing himself from his enclosure at night, breaking into the shed where the paints were kept - and smearing paint on the walls with his trunk - all on his own

he's got it bad - poor dear

I wish him well

:-)

[edit on 2/20/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Skyfloating


I honestly don t know where to start with this post. That a moderator should post this I think reflects badly on ATS. ATS is a place I come to in order to have intelligent stimulating discussion about a variety of unusual topics. But when I see this kind of material doing the rounds I fiind it severely disappointing. This "controvery" about "modern" art is at lest 40 or 50 years old - its very out of date. People have already done this. So called "modern" art (contempoary art) is a pluralistic stream of so many different kinds and types of art that it would make your head spin.

Howerver many of the people attacking abstract art (how passe!) reminded me of a very special exhibition that also happend to attack all the very finest "modern" artists.

en.wikipedia.org...

So you see fellas you are in really good company.

Any country that starts attacking its most innovative artists is pretty much guarnteed to be well on its way to totalitariianism. Its happened time and time again in many countries.

It is true that there was a concerted effort to place American art for political reasons having to do with hegemonyin the early 1970s. I believe James Rosenquist inen.wikipedia.org...

- i could be wrong about that. Pretty sure Robert Rauschenberg s
en.wikipedia.org...
works were maneouvered into a prominent place as well. Cultural hegemony is the most important kind of hegemony politically.The reason was that American hegemony could not be properly increased by abstracts due to thier lack of realistic imagery. In other words, the abstract pieces could not be used as effectively for American cultural propaganda as pop art could. I have not said abstract art wasnt used this way, it was, but that it was superseded in part because pop art was more effective - at least as far as those agencies (possibly the CIA, as this was definately a forieng relations play) were concerned.

Personally I love Rothko and I think that all Americans should be proud of this artist.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Perhaps somebody else has already mentioned this, but in case not...

Your thread made me think of the guy who tried to pay a bill with a picture of a spider. That was such a giggle and who's to say the value he put on it was not reasonable when you compare it to those in your link.

First mentioned and ignored by everyone here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then another thread got some traction here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm glad I'm not the only one. None of those on the wiki page are even pleasant to look at.

I do like some modern art but the prices paid for a lot of them are ridiculous. Anything I can reproduce at home with little effort should be worth little cash.

reply to post by liquidself


Please could you help me out here. I'm not trying to antagonize you or anyone else, but I would really love to hear what it is that you love about the three paintings in the OP. I as an artist can find no merit in these pieces beyond their use as paper to cover a hole in a bedsit wall.

Originally posted by buttking

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The guy had severe drug and alcohol problems throughout his life, which could be a reason his paintings look so dull. And yet everyone raves about him in self-important, pseudo-intellectual art-speak...

uhhh, what? Have you never seen or heard, like all artwork ever created? 99% of art, regardless of the medium is put out there by drug users. It sounds to me like you're trying to blame your perceived dullness as this dude's former drug usage, sorry it doesn't work that way. As someone who has actually seen a bit of bad artwork, this dude is good. If for no other reason that he's doing something not everyone is. I'd prefer to have an H.R. Giger print hanging on my walls, but this dude beats Thomas Kinkade by a mile.

I guess you don't "get" art.

That could explain why 99% of all art work is just crap. I knew there was a reason, but did not know said reason until now.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Is this art?

yup

I've heard all the arguments against it being genuine art - that the elephants were taught to do this...

???

so?

look at the lines - that's all I'm sayin'

also - there are stories that go with each of these elephants. Just like people - they each have their own levels of enthusiasm for making art

one account has an elephant freeing himself from his enclosure at night, breaking into the shed where the paints were kept - and smearing paint on the walls with his trunk - all on his own

he's got it bad - poor dear

I wish him well

:-)

[edit on 2/20/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

And there's the one who recently stomped one of the trainers into a ground pizza art work - guess he decided he had enough being hit by the guy.

I've seen this art show a few times - these are smart animals, I am sure they have an ascetic sense - like all complex animals, they share so many things in common - they are us, just in a simpler way.

They certainly paint better than the art shown at the top.

The beauty of Modern Art is a man can pick up anything in his house, like a glove or a headphone, or draw anything, and exclaim, "This is Modern Art!"

Modern Art represents the freedom of mind and freedom of expression of the Western World. The ability of a people to accept anything as art shows that the people are open minded and thoughtful people...

Well I take that back. It shows that the people are open minded, but not thoughtful, as shown by our most recent Modern Artworks. The Modern Art of today shows just how much free thinking goes on in our tiny minds... just about zero.

You see, art is the expression of one's inner self, and when one man expresses his inner self with worthless blobs, and the general population goes crazy over a few worthless blobs, it shows how little is going on in the minds and souls of all these people. It may sound harsh, but it seems logical to me: If you appreciate random blobs as art, and art is the expression of the inner self, then your inner self is nothing more than a random blob.

reply to post by Amagnon

And there's the one who recently stomped one of the trainers into a ground pizza art work - guess he decided he had enough being hit by the guy.

enough is enough - there's a message that's not easy to miss

too bad not everyone is big enough to say this so succinctly

I've seen this art show a few times - these are smart animals, I am sure they have an ascetic sense - like all complex animals, they share so many things in common - they are us, just in a simpler way.

I really find the idea of certain animals wanting to create art fascinating - there's so much to consider

What is it they see? Do they have a sense of aesthetics?

As I was suggesting above - just looking at their lines...that doesn't come from nowhere

You can only teach so much


[edit on 3/23/2010 by Spiramirabilis]