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
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...
"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."
edit on 15-9-2010 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)