The Modern Art Idiocy, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 83 times

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 03:57 PM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by Skyfloating

I like the first one, it reminds me of a pause button

Honestly if the rich want to pay obscene prices for something a drunken dog could paint by dragging its butt over canvas that is their business. I'm more worried about people who con the poor out of money like: politicians, corporations, new age/2012 cons, religion, generally anyone willingly perpetuating known lies to make a buck.

Kinda gives you a window into the mind of the Elite who buy this stuff, if the art is this simple maybe their minds are too.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 03:58 PM by Asktheanimals

Mmicheal is right. You cannot possibly judge Rothko's paintings from what you see on a computer screen. To see the work in it's original state is truly the only way to begin to try to grasp what the artist was doing. Rothko's work dealt with color, hue and shape primarily while intentionally omitting other aesthetic factors. He was truly a revolutionary in his explorations of color which, in person, can convey feelings that you cannot get from seeing it on a computer screen.
Much of what we call "art" falls short of the mark whether we call it modern art or anything other label. I do think standards have dropped over the years with the seemingly absolute rejection of realism.
I have been working in art for 30 some years now and all I can say is that the market is a crapshoot. If someone important likes you, you're "in", otherwise you're nobody. If the gallery owners and critics can make up a bunch of important sounding blather to accompany your work they can sell it regardless of what it is or how it was done. I've seen canvases of stuff pulled from vaccuum cleaner bags in hotels and called "representative of thousands of lives" bs etc.
Crazy stuff! Sliced horse carcasses, jesus in urine...............
Much work that I didn't appreciate when young I have come to admire - van gogh, rothko, mondrian. The difference between then and now has been education and taking the time to actively seek what I have been missing (I still don't like warhol).
If you find you absolutely hate some artwork try to find SOMETHING good about it. If you can't that's ok, not everyone likes the same things. It takes all kinds to make the world go round as well as art. Better to put up with the awful than have no art at all. There's room for everything somewhere.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:01 PM by curioustype

reply to post by Dock9

Just read your post - interesting, as otherwise I'd have guessed it might be easier to maintain than say highly textured De Kooning, or Rauschenberg.

I guess the copyright, market value and desire to own it must outweigh those fears for now, I guess enough money thrown at it will keep it going somehow, even if it has to be cryogenically stored or re-engineered by nano-bots!

Does anyone know how investment in art is doing currently (in midst of ongoing concerns about depression/recession/market instability/crisis/imminent war escalations)?

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:04 PM by Someone336

It gave you a reaction, did it not?

Art isn't there to 'make you feel good', it doesn't serve the will of people, it's there to cause a reaction.

Seems like it did exactly what it was supposed to!

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:07 PM by Skyfloating

reply to post by masqua

I enjoy the few works I have seen by you more than any of the big names you mention.

People are deceived by names that have been made-big. Once word gets around that they are "big", this de-activates the viewers ability to look at a picture without that "he's big" BIAS.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:08 PM by Dock9

Re: Rothko and poor paint quality:

I was visiting the section with all the Rothko's and Newman's, one thing really hit me about the one particular painting from the Seagram Mural job he did. How crappily it had been painted.

As you can see in these pics. The one painting from the Seagram murals has got some pretty crappy paint that Rothko used in these paintings. I don't know what the hell kind of paint he had used on these paintings. But it sure wasn't artists grade oil or acrylic paint.

I've heard many stories about how he was always using cheap materials in his paintings. Which is not what one should be doing when you are a serious painter as he was. You can look in these pics and see where one section of paint has bled through the rest of the paint on top of it. It almost looks as if someone had taken a torch to that section to make the other paint seep through the top coat.

See more at link:
jeffreycollinspainter.blogspot.com...

And here's a comment posted online in response to others who claimed to see in Rothko's canvasses the 'face of God and mystery of the universe':

"Seeing the face of God" and the "mystery of the universe", please! These are merely the smearings of pigment on canvas from a man who was three doughnuts short of a baker's dozen.

But because nobody could ever figure out what he was doing and he was given so many grants to pursue his message-less works, his work was eventually deemed acceptable.

Of course, he was fussy and particular about his precious lighting – how else could he command attention to his insignificant and boring works.

His works are described as "Do it yourself". Do what yourself? There were maybe a handful of people who liked or even cared for this man's work. But now we are supposed to sit up and take notice of this insipid man's paintings. It is not something I will notice in my lifetime. Centuries from now they won't be studying them in art school.

As in all things deemed 'art', opinions vary

I don't mind Rothko's stuff. It asks nothing. It's open to interpretation. It doesn't dazzle or intimidate with technique or skill. It's just something to break up a blank expanse of wall and easily persuades that if you could be bothered, you'd knock out a few dozen yourself ... or get the kids to do it for you out the backyard

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:11 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Someone336
It gave you a reaction, did it not?

Well, I could poop on your head and get a reaction out of you ... I hardly think you'll interpret it as art ... will you?

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:14 PM by Someone336

reply to post by schrodingers dog

I personally wouldn't, but I'd imagine somewhere someone would claim that it was an act of art. Direct action! Art is subjective, no?

P.S. - Please don't poop on my head

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Someone336]

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:16 PM by Asktheanimals

I wanted to second the commentary about Masqua's paintings - he is a terrific artist, people go check out his work!

For anyone who thinks it's so easy to create what Rothko did - HAVE AT IT. Send us the pics when you're done please.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:17 PM 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.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:21 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I personally wouldn't, but I'd imagine somewhere someone would claim that it was an act of art. Direct action! Art is subjective, no?

Very true ... and therein lies the primary reason why this sort of conversation is all but always circular and somewhat moot. The 'art' nomenclature is itself an extremely abstract one (some would say there is marketing intent for this alone), for me it has to be someone's original creation and it has to move me beyond that which I have felt or considered, it triggers emotions both known and unknown, it makes me pause, clarifies the soul, crystalizes sentiments for which words don't exist, it is memorable, and it must be above all honest ... But that is merely my singular interpretation of the word. In the end, money notwithstanding, who am I to judge what moves or doesn't move another soul.

P.S. - Please don't poop in my haad

We shall see ...

[edit on 14 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:24 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Someone336
It gave you a reaction, did it not?

Art isn't there to 'make you feel good', it doesn't serve the will of people, it's there to cause a reaction.

Seems like it did exactly what it was supposed to!

Its less the art that is the object of criticism (or cause of reaction) and more the value assigned to it.

The reaction should be to the art, but the way its played, it seems to be about other things than the art itself.

Someone mentioned money-laundering? Can you tell us more about that?

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:24 PM by Dock9

I worked briefly in an art-gallery touted as being 'The most prestigious private gallery in Australia' (or it could even have been, 'In the Southern Hemisphere')

In fact, it did contain works by internationally-recognised artists, current and past. Lovely location, overlooking the marina and sea

A particular artist, again well-recognised and lately very popular, was featured prominently in the short time I was there. The gallery was the hub of the well-heeled arty crowd and also patronised by visiting Japanese and tourists generally

The popular old artist attended a number of invitation-only gatherings which were extensively covered by the media. He was that season's new-black and dutifully posed for the cameras with this or that socialite. When the cameras left him alone, he was cantankerous and appeared impatient with the show that had required him to pose in black beret and cravat, etc

We did a brisk trade in his pastels, to the extent tourists -- motivated by the local news, no doubt -- were walking in off the street and buying matching pairs of his pastels 'as an investment'

All the pastels featured the same waif-like faces with enormous eyes, usually in greys and framed in bare pine. They weren't cheap ! And we only displayed two at any one time, as well as being primed to advise 'tyre kickers' that these were the 'last two' and a 'very valuable investment, considering the artist is now of advanced age'. We didn't need to 'sell' them. They walked out. Then we replaced them with two more such 'valuable rareties'

One day I had reason to go to the back store-room, which I had never before entered. Sigh. Stacked floor to ceiling with the bare pine frames all containing hastily knocked-out 'waifs' with 'big eyes' -- just rough outlines, really. Bulk Lot. The old guy must have been churning them out in his sleep. Guess he figured he should make hay, after all those days in Depression-era garrets, living on lentils

Disillusioning though, at the time

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:26 PM by Dock9

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Someone336
It gave you a reaction, did it not?

Well, I could poop on your head and get a reaction out of you ... I hardly think you'll interpret it as art ... will you?

I'd like to vote this for Post of the Week (if such existed)

Second line is: I LIKE the above post. It's perfect !

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:32 PM by Someone336

reply to post by Skyfloating

Well, with statements likening Rothko to "a mere blob of stripes" that "any gradeschooler could paint", it sure sounds like you are criticizing the art itself.

But I agree with you on the lunacy of the price tags of art. I'm one of those people who believe that the commodification of art has been a major blow to the very concept of art - the plight of modern music, I think is a grand example of this. But, as S-Dog pointed out above, "it has to move me beyond that which I have felt or considered, it triggers emotions both known and unknown, it makes me pause, clarifies the soul, crystalizes sentiments for which words don't exist, it is memorable, and it must be above all honest", so the stuff I consider bland and mindless may incite an emotional reaction from another.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:33 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Rothko's work dealt with color, hue and shape primarily while intentionally omitting other aesthetic factors. He was truly a revolutionary in his explorations of color which, in person, can convey feelings that you cannot get from seeing it on a computer screen.

I really do want to understand this. He was "Revolutionary in his use of color" - how so? Ive seen his work in real-life. Ive been to galleries - many of them.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:33 PM by curioustype

reply to post by Skyfloating

Re: 'He's Big' deception - indeed, but he is really big due to his specific place in time/history which will never be replicated, and is therefore 'Big' in terms of the cumulative wake of material written about him, images published, marketed and sold etc...a guaranteed market (until perhaps it stops getting taught/exhibited).

If Mr Rothko (MkII) suddenly re-materialised and began creating the same works now, and even if MkI had been wiped from human experience and history, I agree MkIIs chances for fame, recognition or art-historical or cultural significance could be expected to fall way short of anything we see of Mr Rothko MkIs legacy, and chances are MkII may fail entirely to find a market/funding to complete his original portfolio as it was at all, without deviating aesthetically to accommodate his contemporary buyers or critics.

Indeed, it is likely that this would be the case for a very heavy majority of artists in (western) art history. Even great classical masters would find themselves working in the margins, consigned to obscurity and achieveing fractions of the prices of their MkI counterparts?

Relic, provenance, commercial potential, documented places in art/cultural history, wake of influence, poster sale ratings for past 30 years, that's the key I think?

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:37 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
who am I to judge what moves or doesn't move another soul.

Originally posted by Someone336
Art is subjective, no?

Its not at all about that. Its about those subjective value judgements being manipulated by "whats in" and "who is big" and what elitist bought which painting.

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:37 PM by flymetothemoon

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Skyfloating

I like the first one, it reminds me of a pause button

Honestly if the rich want to pay obscene prices for something a drunken dog could paint by dragging its butt over canvas that is their business.

You definitely sound like one of those who never went to art school.
Ironically many people who got a opinion (i respect) like that, would never have any idea how to or what to create in case they were told to paint a "pause button" as you call it

reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 04:39 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by curioustype

If Mr Rothko (MkII) suddenly re-materialised and began creating the same works now, and even if MkI had been wiped from human experience and history, I agree MkIIs chances for fame, recognition or art-historical or cultural significance could be expected to fall way short of anything we see of Mr Rothko MkIs legacy,

Good point - especially considering that "bright colours" are no longer anything new; they are commonplace.