The Modern Art Idiocy

If those heaps of crap go for millions then I should get billions for my masterpiece!
I call it "Do you see what I C?"





[edit on 8-8-2010 by Achernar]

reply to post by Achernar


If anyone thinks it worth it, then yes, nobody is keeping any millionaires from paying you.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Maybe you should try packaging them in thirty-gramme cans and putting them up for sale in a gallery. After all, it worked for Manzoni.

The page also displays a piece of sh*t as a work of art. Considering you think that its normal for children to prefer excrement to flowers (I sure didnt, I hated the smell of bodily excrements - but hey, each to his own!), I guess you agree that it is Art.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


I quite like idea of the poop cans by Piero Manzoni and find them rather fun. Thats the wonder of art.. sometimes you dont have to "get it" just laugh at it and it is a positive.

I did find many of the tutors at art college full of tripe..it is part of the art degree, how to "talk" about your work. I didn't really buy into the bullspeak, and to be honest it put me off my masters degree, but not art.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To me these paintings are so obviously nothing special that I have speculated as to whether there is some kind of Conspiracy to make a Mockery of the populace by paying reverence and mind-bogglingly large sums of money to mundane smears of paint.

Please, could someone out there help me and show me what exactly Im missing?

Sure, if you want to start a dialogue that isn't opened by you insisting that anyone who genuinely enjoys the work of someone like Rothko has to either be an idiot or a sheep.

You seem to be saying, and maybe I'm reading too much into your initial post, that you feel imposed upon to like this art because professional art critics (who I wholeheartedly detest, for the record) say you should. And I agree with your reaction to that. But you also seem to be taking it out on Rothko and his work, and I think that's misplaced.

In terms of what you find aesthetically pleasing, this is really no different from music. Paintings, like pieces of music, are a matter of taste. I like Steve Reich, but I have friends who think his work is too repetitive. I have friends who like John Cage, but I think his work is too chaotic and dissonant. I like Rothko and Pollock, I don't like Monet and Renoir. If everyone liked the same things, this would be a boring boring place.

The real difference comes in the fact that music hasn't been commoditized to this degree. Imagine if there was only one recording of each piece of music available anywhere in the world with no means of reproduction. Or even a means of reproduction that was noticeably inferior to the original recording. How much do you think the only copy of Beethoven's 5th would sell for? Do you think that people would begin to view those one-of-a-kind recordings as an investment, regardless of whether or not they genuinely enjoyed experiencing them?

I guess what this boils down to is like what you like, forget about the rest, and damn the critics. But attacking someone because of the art they make or the art they enjoy is like attacking someone for cooking or liking a particular food or for playing a certain kind of music or liking that kind of music. It's just poor form. It's just counterproductive.

Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
I quite like idea of the poop cans by Piero Manzoni and find them rather fun.

Then hang it up in your home and present it to visitors, friends and neighbours as a work of art. "Poop in a Can".

I dont think people like Astyanax would actually REALLY purchase and display it. They are just talking.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


well you know i would show it to people and would love to have that in my home, i have concerns about the tin though..does it explode?

My sister has bought the hand written lyrics of Johnny Cash and is on her walls..

.ahh a true master.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Then hang it up in your home and present it to visitors, friends and neighbours as a work of art. "Poop in a Can".

I dont think people like Astyanax would actually REALLY purchase and display it. They are just talking.

They were never meant to be purchased or hung in someone's home. The whole point of many works, especially installations, is precisely that they're exhibited in an art gallery or some other public space, depending on the work in question.
I believe Duchamp's "Fountain" has been mentioned early on; it's a prime example of the intention of many installations.

Context is everything.

And BTW, most pieces exhibited in any top fashion show aren't meant to be purchased or worn either.

OP first post and arguments are very elementary. Someone just needs to take a class in art appreciation. These simple questions are old hat. I can't believe some of the art and abstract art bashing on here.... and most of it is from people who have very limited understanding of what is art. Glad someone finally said everything is abstract. Please students deal with these issues early on in art school by the time they reach grad school (if they go that far) anyone bringing this up is laughed at. I don't mind questioning and discovering non understood or niche situations but doing so and thinking you know what art should be or isnt and having an aggressive attitude along with it just speaks of how mature you are. Why so aggressive? Seriously? Questioning why an art work sells like it does whether right or wrong and not understanding capitalism and totally ignoring the fact of how any item can be given any price that is culturally set for it (a diamond for example) also speaks of how elementary ones thoughts are on the subject. Again its okay to be "new" to these old age art discussions but being aggressive, rude and ignorant also? Thats just childish really. I can't tell u how many times i've heard that old adage of "oh my child can paint that"

"The most common disdainful whisper one hears in an art gallery displaying abstract art is : “It’s all a racket. My kid could paint that.” But could a kid really? This doubt is perhaps best captured by ‘My kid Could paint That’ - a celebrated 2007 documentary about a child genius, Marla Olmstead, whose abstract paintings went on to be greatly appreciated by major art critics and were sold at exorbitant prices. But suddenly a nosy journalist discovered that the kid’s dad was an amateur painter himself and might be offering her more in the way of help than just her artistic genes. It became then a great question of genius vs manipulation, which only viewing the film can answer. (Find the trailer at the bottom of the page).

new-yorker-cartoon-by-harry-bliss.gif But whether Marla really painted those paintings or not, one thing is for sure, the celebrated abstract artists resorted to splatters, squiggles and squares not because they could not draw a decent nude but they have drawn enough of representational art and had evolved beyond that."

one of the best art critics around today "Jerry Saltz" (and no not all art critics are a holes) wrote this article awhile back called "the whole ball of wax". It would do some of you all some good to dig into this guys writings about art...

www.artnet.com...

"The closest I've come to getting a handle on all this is something painter Eric Fischl has talked about. Imagine calling two pets, one a dog, the other a cat. Asking a dog to do something is an amazing experience. You say, "Come here, Fido," and Fido looks up, pads over, puts his head in your lap and wags his tail. You've had a direct communication with another species; you and Fido are sharing a common, fairly literal language. Now imagine saying, "Come here, Snowflake" to the cat. Snowflake might glance over, walk to a nearby table, rub it, lie down and look at you. There's nothing direct about this. Yet something gigantic and very much like art has happened. The cat has placed a third object between you and itself. In order to understand the cat you have to be able to grasp this nonlinear, indirect, holistic, circuitous communication. In short, art is a cat."

reply to post by krossfyter

I will tell you a story.
I work within an art "community" of primarily painters and sculptors. Many are successful, meaning that they do not have to have a "day job" to make ends meet, and some are doing very well. Others are simply doing what they love, and keep their day job.
And then there is the young boy that paints various farm animals and implements. Like a wood screw. Or a rooster looking between his legs. Very crude drawings, in black and gray. Sort of the colors you get when you post comments here on this screen.
This young boy is being exploited by the parents, and one of the local galleries.
His work is priced high (by whom?), and some family friends have made it appear that the little Picasso is selling work (by buying some pieces at shows). They appear to have some success selling to others.
(This same group promotes some other outside work by unfamiliar talent, always abstract, but NEVER gives a second look to the work of many really great talents. Thankfully, we have other galleries that are truly dedicated to displaying fine art, abstract or otherwise.)
If a potential art buyer exclaims that "a child could do it", it could very well be that a child IS doing it. (Not to disparage the art of children, I hope you get my point).
I believe any art "appreciator" should reserve his or her own right to "un-appreciate" art as well, regardless if some art majors or art critics will laugh or scoff as a result. However, I do consider it in bad taste to mouth this criticism in the presence of others. I am not the judge of what others like, only what I like.
Back to the boy, it is a shame that if the parents are successful, his art may never develop naturally, but that CAN be the nature of the business.

reply to post by Stewie



i agree people have a right to un-appreciate art and make and use that has an aesthetic or gimmick. i do recall the various "bad paintings" shows that have been popular in the contemporary art world. however it goes to another level entirely different to un-appreciate art and be vulgar and ignorant about it and ridicule anyone who appreciates it.... even vice versa...(those who are appreciative of art vulgarly ridiculing those who dont understand). That's my point really. Its no longer art that we are dealing with but basic civility and respect for others "preferences" or levels of education. Ignorance has no room anywhere art or otherwise. Ignorance sort of comes form those uneducate/ or educated (typically uneducated i would gather) who are quick to denounce something that they don't understand or is different. As if the whole world should revolve around people with the same ideas or belief systems or taste. The comment "whats so special about it my kid could paint that" thrown at a Rothko painting shows rather transparently that the person throwing around such old hat comments has no education whatsoever in colorfield abstract artwork especially done by Rothko who at the time set a new paradigm. Oh really u think your kid can set a new paradigm in the contemporary art world... have at it lets see how easy that is! (this specific comment is not directed at you stewie but to those who choose to use that old hat saying).

reply to post by krossfyter

I appreciate the reply, for me it clarifies your point a little better and I agree with you. I would bet everybody knows at least one person that tries to convince others on what "art" is and is not. I know one such southern "gentleman" that apart from that tendency, is otherwise very pleasant.
Thanks again for the reply.
Stewie

reply to post by Stewie


and thank you for your reply and being respectful and civil.

look what i came across in a fundamental core design book (basic stuff they teach art students in the beginning) from a book called "art fundamentals-theory and practice". this book is used in 2 d design classes. It's from chapter 4 dealing with shape in a section dealing with the expressive content of shape...


" Our reactions to abstraction and or representation also affect how we interpret any work of art. Many people accept Sheeler's artwork even when the abstraction is more pronounced, because the subject is still recongnizable. However, other people react adversely to simple, non objective shapes like those in Albers's paintings. Unfortunately, viewers who value representational artwork because they can easily interpret the subject matter often fail to see the intellectual metaphor and visual effects of the shape relationships; they don't appreciate how form itself may be the subject matter."

Sheeler's artwork...



Josef Albers...





I thought this excerpt hit right at the heart of a big argument in this post.

thethingsrepublicanshate.com...

Things Republicans Hate. No. 25 Abstract Art
Republicans have a very limited knowledge of modern art. They are aware of a few major works including “That one with the screaming guy”, “The one with the old people holding pitchforks” and “Soup cans”. Republicans usually enjoy paintings of landscapes (Thomas Kinkade) and some sculptures (The Washington Monument, The Lincoln Memorial, The Statue of Liberty). Conservatives are not capable of appreciating Abstract Art. The works of Jackson Pollock and Piet Mondrian will draw the remarks “I could do that. They should pay me a million dollars!” or “My kid could do that, she’s four.” almost 97% of the time. People on the right are fond of people telling them exactly what to think, feel and see (a need that abstract artists do not fulfill). Occasionally, a Republican will enter an art museum (usually as a field trip chaperon). These experiences are usually uncomfortable and confusing for Conservatives. This is caused by the overwhelming liberal population at exhibits and the inability to afford anything in the gift shop. Creators of these “masterpieces” are usually drug-addicts, homosexuals, Europeans and Satanists. Their ‘abilities’ are fueled by hatred for America, Jesus and their fathers. National funding for the arts is primarily through people who do not celebrate Christmas.

reply to post by krossfyter



I think you hit it. The underlying subtext of the thread and the reason for its popularity on ATS.

Why are conspiracy theorists so overwhelmingly right-wing, I wonder?

Perhaps one day neuroscience will provide us with the answers.

reply to post by krossfyter


This is my experience too. The right-winger doesnt really understand art. He's too dumb to understand art. And the left-winger doesnt really understand beauty. he's too hate-filled to understand beauty. Hence you have Nazis destroying good art,and left-wingers worshipping excrement (as seen in this thread).

28.media.tumblr.com...

The above linked picture sais it all really...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This is my experience too. The right-winger doesnt really understand art. He's too dumb to understand art. And the left-winger doesnt really understand beauty. he's too hate-filled to understand beauty. Hence you have Nazis destroying good art,and left-wingers worshipping excrement (as seen in this thread).

One of the greatest attributes of contentious argument is dealing in extremities, which your statement certainly reflects.

On the very morning of the opening of a new showing of my work, this was indeed a discouraging statement to read.

My disappointment is not directed at you alone, but to the political generalizations already specified prior to your post and evident on this page.

It's total BS.

reply to post by masqua


Yeah, it got kind of tiring to be called Nazi, Fascist and Right-Winger for not seeing the Million-Dollar-Value in some of the Art.

Good luck with your pictures - which I really do enjoy.