The Modern Art Idiocy

reply to post by undo

That would be Peter Max, one of my favorites!
BTW, I like art with a message as well.

reply to post by undo

i'm just offended when beautiful or even (apparently) mediocre art is considered of less value than something that took a couple minutes to create, simply because of who did it in the first place.

what does time have to do with anything?

effect is king - we don't get extra points for labor

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


well if i posted a red square here as my art, would you think it was an amazing thing and pay me a few mill for it? and if not, why not?

reply to post by undo

well if i posted a red square here as my art, would you think it was an amazing thing and pay me a few mill for it? and if not, why not?

you asked the wrong person

:-)

first - people want so very badly to establish what art is really worth - it is worth whatever someone is willing to pay

same as a can of beans

but that's only if we're talking about money

you want an honest answer to your question? Are you willing to accept it as it is?

if I loved your red square - and I had a million dollars - and I didn't need that million dollars for something else - you bet I would

I've spent money I didn't really have to spend on things just like that red square

so, as an artist - maybe you're missing the point of art

but then, that's unfair of me - I can't see what you see - or don't see

get it?

P.S. I really do dig the red square - for real - so you did ask the wrong person

reply to post by Stewie


yeahh him. and thanks. i loved all the vibrant primary colors and swirlies and free flowing geometric shapes. it's happy art. speaking of which, look at this cute little thing i found on deviantart. it's called orange juice sea.

fc01.deviantart.net...

or this one in subtle colors (different artist) but has the same sorta feel to it.

fc05.deviantart.net...

and this one, without a doubt, took longer than 5 minutes to splash some red paint on a square canvas, and it shows

th03.deviantart.net...

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


so a purple heart or a yellow triangle interest you ?
i can whip one up real fast.

reply to post by undo


:-)

funny

and yet - not so much

because it means you think - seriously - that the red square is just like that

nothing much

and that somehow, I am so simple - I would buy anything :-)

go on - you can say it - we're all thinking it

here's the thing though - it is nothing much - to you

snobbery all the way around - from both sides

I see beauty where you don't

so, I must be deficient in some way

close enough?

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


paint a red square. hang it on your wall. there you go.

you're just buying the person who painted it, cause he/she is famous, not the actual art itself, which is not art, it's a popularity contest

reply to post by undo

you're just buying the person who painted it, cause he/she is famous, not the actual art itself...

presumptuous

...which is not art, it's a popularity contest

and a little naive - or just disgruntled

art is competitive - like it or not

popularity is part of the deal. Being popular doesn't guarantee value - but it doesn't rule it out either

let me ask you something - who is the better artist? Van Gogh or Andrew Wyeth?

Your personal opinion - even if you don't care for either really - you must like one more than the other

Originally posted by undo
you're just buying the person who painted it, cause he/she is famous, not the actual art itself, which is not art, it's a popularity contest

As Spiramirabilis said, the value of a piece of art is based on what people want to pay for it, that's why you have paintings from the same artist with very different market values.

And what is art, after all? One definition that I like to use (and with which my sister, an artist herself, painter and photographer, agrees) is that art is something made on purpose that doesn't have any use except being the target of other people's senses, so a red square that someone paints with the specific idea of being an art piece is also an art piece.

Sure, some people will like it, some people will not, but that happens with everything.

Is it worth a million dollars? If you take into account the materials; if you take into account the time spent, probably not; but if you take into account the use of the mind of the artist, something that nobody can replicate and that the artist him/herself cannot completely replicate either, then, for better or for worse, that's an unique piece, and as such is priceless.

Market value is a different thing.

Edit: I like your painting, but it has some things that I don't like. U2U me if you want to know my detailed thoughts about it.

[edit on 27/7/2010 by ArMaP]

I have never in my life seen a more beautiful set of squares. The second one actually caused me to have a full blown epiphany.

Moving on though, modern art is ridiculous... and whats even worse is when your town decides its appropriate to spend £5000 on a 12 meter high metallic feather in the hope that it will make the place more attractive. And in all seriousness, it looks more like a disturbingly large collection of steak knives attached to a metal pole. :shk:

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


well i happen to like van gogh and wyeth so i wouldn't prize one more than the other, but i would probably hang them in different rooms if i owned them. personally, i see nothing wrong with van gogh's abstractions, i enjoy his textures, particularly the starry night painting. it just wasn't popular when he was alive, cause popularity is a fickle thing that probably has more to do with who ya know than what you can do. and that ain't art either, as van gogh has proven. the fact people support art because of who painted it, rather than the skill, tangibility or depth of message, proves that the art world is not the art world. it's a high school beauty contest

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What are we "not getting"?

I curate a 'proper' gallery in real life. For once I'm actually half qualified to talk about something here on ATS. Some of you will no doubt think this is all utter rubbish.... welcome to the world of 'art speak.'

The idea behind colour field paintings was to be deliberately as abstract as possible by creating work with a complete lack of form. In Rothko's case his colour field work is generally interpreted as a portrayal of the range of human emotions using only colour and shape. It was intentionally primitive, with the canvas being representative of a 'window into the mood of the artist.' What Rothko called 'the sensitive viewer' would then reinterpret that mood based on their own associations between emotion, colour and form.

Abstract expressionism was a reaction to pre-war art which saw the canvas as a window to illustrate form ie a nice watercolour mountain, a bowl full of sunflowers, a view from a window etc. Instead the colour field work was what Newman called "a vehicle for an abstract thought-complex."

Put simply, you "don't get it" because you're seeing the art as a literal thing (ie colour and shape on a canvas), rather than thinking abstractly about the concept behind it. It's not something to be looked at, it's more something to be thought about and felt.

That's what makes this thread brilliantly ironic - in an abstract way you do 'get it' because it's brought out emotion (bemusment and borderline anger? ) and stimulated abstract thought in the sense that you're attempting to make sense of something that deliberately has no easy avenue of interpretation.

With almost all art movements the clue is literally in the name... in this case 'abstract expressionism'. In Rothko's case, an abstract expression of emotion, in Picasso's it was more an abstract expression of visual cues. In any case, don't take it literally.






[edit on 27-7-2010 by eightfold]

reply to post by undo

it just wasn't popular when he was alive, cause popularity is a fickle thing that probably has more to do with who ya know than what you can do.

I own a french press and at one time had a lunch box with Van Gogh's Starry Night on each

His work is so popular it almost defies explanation - it's everywhere - instantly recognizable by almost everyone

so popular that we almost can't see it anymore for what it truly is

Who did he know? When was he known? What could he do?

...and that ain't art either, as van gogh has proven. the fact people support art because of who painted it, rather than the skill, tangibility or depth of message, proves that the art world is not the art world. it's a high school beauty contest

So - Van Gogh is popular because of who he is - not what he did?

Are you sure about that?

Think about it - he changed the way people look at the world - forever

But not while he was alive

How did he do it?

You like him - are you the only one then with this ability to see the skill, tangibility or depth of message?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


okay, let me explain this better.

they won

and then summarily had the win taken away because of who they didn't know.

is art, art, or is art who ya know or don't know?
is art art if you're a liberal and but not if you're a conservative?
is art art if you're a conservative and not a liberal?
is art art if you're a specific religion or not a specific religion?

if all those things play a role in determining what is and isn't art, i fear someone who makes such decisions has totally lost the concept of art.

I just want to interrupt to link in a new thread that seems relevant:

Pictures Bought for $45 at Garage Sale Worth $200 Million.

A painter bought $45 worth of old glass negatives at a garage sale, later confirmed to be the work of Ansel Adams, estimated worth $200 million.

As is the case with the millions spent on a Rothko example in the OP, it raises questions about the monetary value placed on artwork. In both cases, the current market value will reflect a number of things not intrinsic to the work itself, including the importance of the artist and of the individual work to art history.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Whether you like them or not, Ansel Adams and Mark Rothko have both had profound influence on art made since, and people are willing to pay for a piece of that. In my opinion that doesn't make their art better as art, aesthetically, or intrinsically, just in terms of monetary value (which fluctuates a great deal based on what's "in" at the time.

As has been said any number of times, the monetary value of a piece of art is whatever someone is willing to spend on that piece at that time. Just like a can of beans, as Spira likes to say

“It is not your paintings I like, it is your painting.”

- Albert Camus

reply to post by Skyfloating


I both do and don't get modern art.

Because it is visual and because visual art normally depicts things we are used to seeing, I agree that modern art can be perplexing.

The turning point comes, though, when you compare it to music. Music is the exact same as art but through the ears. Modern music does not sound natural. It does not depict natural sounds, everything is new and fresh and electronic, but because people are more sensitised to this medium of art, people expect it.

The main problem is that visual art is too pretentious and inaccessible for the masses to truly become desensitised to. For example in this current state people will not see, let's say a minimalist modern piece as they would a minimalist electro record

reply to post by undo


I'm afraid you didn't explain it better

if all those things play a role in determining what is and isn't art, i fear someone who makes such decisions has totally lost the concept of art.

so, let me see if I understand you - you think art should stand or fall on its own merits?

:-)



[edit on 7/27/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


yep, and a red square is not a work of art.
i mean, okay, it's a work of art in that the artist took the time to paint red on a square canvas. i'll give it that. but to fetch the prices it does? sorry but did you say you were interested in a purple heart, blue diamond, green clover, or yellow star? i can sell ya a box of lucky charms for a few million dollars, once i'm famous ya know. of course, it'll look the same as all the other boxes of lucky charms, which are only about 3 dollars, but i'll sign it.

of course, i would autograph your cocktail napkin for free, but we won't talk about that, because we're all about selling my name at the moment, in the most ridiculous way possible because it makes a statement about how much money ya have. and since ya got that much, might want to consider it a future investment in my ability to buy boxes of cereal and resell them at exaggeratedly marked up prices, for their artistic value, and just give me the money now. i'm sure you understand that i'm talking about your ability to see future talent ya know and it will prove beyond a doubt that you are not only rich but an innovative thinker! whatcha say. hmm?