Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Modern Art Idiocy

page: 45
84
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
Art is anything created with the intent to stir emotions or inspire ideas. Your disgust for those pieces only serves to validate their status as true art.


Let's say I shoot a bunch of people in front of your eyes. I guess that would stir your emotions and disgust you. Is it therefore art?




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa


What do you have against the free market system? If anything.



I dont have anything against the free market. What bothers me are when a few of the "cool kids" set themselves up as "art critics" and drive the market with their often random opinions. Random in the sense that there is no objective standard in abstract art.

That bothers me.

A free market would not have someone(s) at the center telling everyone else what was valuable, and having the power to make it so. People would be making those determinations themselves, based on THEIR needs, wants, tastes and desires.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





This thread is about how a 4 year old as become revered and famous by art lovers for splashing around colors:

4 year old becomes famous "artist" by splashing around colors

...which kind of proves the point of the OP.


proves?

please explain...

hey Sky - wassup?

:-)

so...was the other thread too far away?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Hi Illusions -

The issue is the fact that, alas, there is no 'real or pure or permanent objective 'scietific' standards' for any of the Arts in existence - and there never really was - whether literary, graphic, musical etc. despite the attempts of e.g. the ancient Greeks (e.g. Aristotle in his discussion on 'Drama', for example) to try and formulate mathematical/scientific bases for 'artistic judgment and worth...' or other great thinkers like Leonardo da Vinci (see his unffinished notes on his planned 'Treatise on Painting' from around 1496, where taste and science are treated as a very nebulous combination of ideas).

I have noticed that in this world there are 'theorists' on Art and 'doers' of Art - and rarely do the two understand each other. The 'doers' are mainly instinctual - 'Those who cannot do, teach' etc.

We note that in the Attwood Papers (1785-1787) the great composer Mozart (who like most Composers, was more of a Doer than a Dry Theorist), who often spoke such sentiments to his pupil Thomas Attwood from England who had studied with the master in Vienna from August 1st 1785 to Feb 20 1787 :

Thos. Attwood related this story years later: 'Herr Mozard used to correct my daily Exercises for him by crossing out what I wrote and writing the better version above it. One day he said to me -

' My Very Dear Attvott, I am no Theorist - If I see some Thing that seems wrong, I don't show what Rule is broken - I immediately know eactly how to fix it and do it at once (as you see) - I do not recommend, mein Freund, my own Skolars engage in Dry Study [i.e. of Theory] - it will only confuse und ruin his ability to compose Catileina [melody], the Herz und Seele of Musick ...and if he [should] make an Error, there will All Ways be several Maestri who can point out his Mistake to him...'

Throughout history there have been many thoughtful (e.g. philosophically-minded) persons in the world who have come up with compendia or various ideas to elucidate what are called 'general artistic system standards' (e.g. in Music, we see Fux' Gradus ad Parnassum from the year 1725--who was reacting against what he termed 'stylistic abuses' in what was 'modern musick' in his own day (he targeted mainly opera singers and composers) - what he wanted to do was to attempt to consolidate the long-evolving musical 'system of belief of past masters, especially his own musical hero from 200 years earlier, 'Palestrina, the Light from Praneste') - but like Josef Fux states, when it comes to the subject of artistic 'Taste' (see his discussion 'De Gustu' when he quotes the famous Axiom of Cicero etal 'de gustibus non disputandum est' meaning, roughly, . 'when it comes to Taste, there can be no [coherent] Argument...' in other words, 'for people who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like...'

Josef Fux seemed very frustrated when he saw that people of his own time in Vienna when it came to 'Musick' seemed to like what they liked 'just because they liked it', and could not offer any coherent systematic reasons for their liking it - he noted that all sorts of people tended to be moved by very different artistic things for no apparent coherent logical or systematic reason (at least, according to his methodolgical mind)...

Fux then goes on to list various types of persons who like different types of Musick, much of it which appeared to him to be just so much random noise e.g. 'I know of one individual who ended up living in his home made tree-house and soon became utterly enraptured by the chirping sounds of all the birds he heard there - and who before long, refused to listen to any other sounds than birdcalls - yet this same man could not be emotionally affected by what we call Instrumental or vocal Musick - however beautiful it may seem to others...)

Abstract Art is a reaction to the camera, apparently, which made portrait painting (or any kind of realism-literalism) more or less obsolete to many minds back in the 1890s and later - although to me the Painter or sculptor can do many more subtle things that a camera cannot produce, even so called 'literalistically-realistically' generated paintings).

When one says 'all you have to do is study the masters and you can derive your Rules from them', one sometimes gets clogged up by terms and expressions such as 'Who exactly are the Masters' and 'Why is this master considered a master and not that other one...' and 'what criteria are used to determine what exactly is masterful' in the Arts and once that is decided upon (if ever !!), then what we find is that 'any exact rules' the 'master' actually 'follows' are often countered by so many 'exceptions to the Rule' that we're back to square one again in terms of actual definitions !

For me, I hold to the Theory that : 'I cannot any more tell you what Great Art is any more than a Dog can tell you what a Cat is ... but he'd know it when he saw it !!' (the axiom attributed to Samuel Johnson by his friend James Boswell)

Perhaps being 'exposed' to what the Ages have determined to be Great Art (and this is a moving target) might give the student more insight into what goes into making something great than theorists and their tiresome lists of Rules that must never be broken - all the great masters broke established Rules - all the time - but I suppose it's how they broke them that sets them apart from the common herd !


edit on 26-5-2011 by Sigismundus because: Typing tooo fast can be hazardous to your Theoretical English Spelling 'Methodology'....



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Cool thread....

and I concur, Skyfloating, with your original post.

I am an artistic person myself, but I have never been able to wrap my brain around some of the more abstract pieces. True, it really isn't the artists fault, as they are only painting what they see in their mind and it's really the choice of the public whether or not their work is worthy of making that artist a living.......

I guess if you look at a piece long enough, you can find some "meaning" in it, just as I can look up into the sky and see what I perceive to be Jesus' face or something like that....




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


I think in realism, there clearly IS an objective standard. The further you go from it, the more subjective it becomes.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Hi Illusions -

Sometimes a very talented 'literalist' painter can use his talents literally to paint an 'accurate photo-real' rendition, say, of a tin can on the street - but at the same time, subjectively, he may have missed an opportunity to use e.g. 'a better angle' for his subject, or perhaps he made the image on his canvas too large or too small (previse dimensions on a canvas rendition in painting can often make or break an effect - the same image slightly enlarged or slightly reduced in size can make a vast difference to its 'success' etc.).

So, yes, an artist can literally render an image like a camera lens can at times, but it is the artist's 'subjective choices' that can really make all the difference (can you teach such subtle, subjective vision via Theoretical ('dry') Rules? ) such as exact distance from the object (i.e. POV, point of view), use of diffused lighting effects, specific 'artistic' changes in colour or sharpness etc.

A definition of 'Taste' is very very difficult to put into words - and even harder to pin down is exactly what constitutes 'good taste' or what makes something of 'bad taste' &tc.

It is not so cut and dry as you paint it...as Fux soon learned !



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Let's say I shoot a bunch of people in front of your eyes. I guess that would stir your emotions and disgust you. Is it therefore art?
It may be, to you, if you do it without any other intention than to be "enjoyed".



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
According to you art is whatever I say it is.

If I were an art teacher and I would talk about kittens and then about physics and then about the looks of the desk and chairs for several months, you you think my school would fire me? I could always tell them: "Its art. Art is what I say it is. Talking about the classroom chairs for 5 weeks is art. We`ll smear feces on the walls next week. Its art.".

Is art really whatever anyone says it is?
Having just finished the 2nd year of a 3 year MFA degree program, and having taught a few classes this year, yeah. Those are all valid options.

Not saying they'd necessarily be GOOD, mind you. (Because that's a judgement call. Something's status as "art" isn't (usually) a judgement, but good vs bad would be...)

Want to know one that infuriates me? Cory Arcangel's photoshop gradients. He even tells you how to make one of your very own in the title of the piece... "Photoshop CS: 72 by 110 inches, 300 DPI, RGB, square pixels, default gradient “Spectrum”, mousedown y=1416 x=1000, mouseup y=208 x=42,” 2008, unique c-print, 75 x 113 inches." So you could follow that formula and make the exact same image, and if you're smart, you put his name on it and pocket the thousands of dollars that print sells for...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


72 mil?..

This is one con we should all get into



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by whaaa


What do you have against the free market system? If anything.



I dont have anything against the free market. What bothers me are when a few of the "cool kids" set themselves up as "art critics" and drive the market with their often random opinions. Random in the sense that there is no objective standard in abstract art.

That bothers me.

A free market would not have someone(s) at the center telling everyone else what was valuable, and having the power to make it so. People would be making those determinations themselves, based on THEIR needs, wants, tastes and desires.



No one pays any attention to "art critics" except people that want to or need affirmation. . That is their free will being exercised in choosing to believe a critic or not. Its the same in advertising any product. Believe the ad and buy or pass it by. No one is forcing anyone in a free market to purchase a product; there are plenty of options; it's the same in the art world.

Some of my art/films/sculpture etc. has been absolutely trashed by critics in the media, but someone loved it and bought it. That's the free market being exercised. The critic was free to express his opinion as was the patron to lay down his/her green money.

If a style of art bothers you; don't adopt that style or buy it. Why are the egos so fragile that art, artist, and creative people in general are seen as somehow threatening.

Feel free to criticize art, artist, or anything you want....just don't expect me to pay any attention to anyone that doesn't have a clue as to what they are talking about; especially if it is coming from a jealous or critical nature.

If you think you can do better....do it! Live and let live. Life is much to short to be obsessed with what others are doing; In art, their lives, fashion, sexual preferences, religions or the products they buy.

Here's a thought...

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

edit on 5-6-2011 by whaaa because: PT lives!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
All this ridiculousness on what is/isn't art doesn't even matter. A person doesn't spend 72 million on a painting because they like art. They spend 72 million on a painting because they want a wall mountable status symbol.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Good thread. I always felt the days of Warhol and such were almost planted. The death of fine art seems planned like everything else wonderful that has been altered into some sort of marketing, money making or brainwashing.

I remember when I was in elementary school we went to the art museum. I remember seeing things from Italy from the 1600s-1800s and being blown away. Just in awe at some of the paintings there, and then we would hit the modern art section and I was confused. I remember seeing toilet paper rolls, like a hundred of them all glued to a wooden pole in random locations. It was on display as a special exhibit. I couldn't figure out how it was considered art when some of the older things made my mouth drop as to the talent needed to create, while this tp exhibit, I could have done at home and probably got yelled at and told to clean up the mess.

I guess everything gets dumbed down eventually.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
i dont get it
he makes 72 million from a #ty looking 'drawing'
then slices his wrists because lifes cruel
i hope he spent that money first



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by P-M-H
 


The fact that someone paid 72 millions for the painting doesn't mean he got anything for it.

Most of those millionaire sales are between private owners, so the previous owner is the one getting all that money.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This woman is the perfect example of this subject..
It's called "conceptual art" and if they could get away with it they would take a photograph of their excrement and call it art...and make millions



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Money laundering brings a logic to the utterly illogical.

I just wish I was dishing out artworks for millions. I could/can. Just need those connections



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROBERT3
reply to post by Alethea
 




I just wish I was dishing out artworks for millions. I could/can. Just need those connections


Stop wishing and DO IT. Join us professional artists that are constantly looking for quality representation, galleries, good reviews, agents, festivals,
well attended shows, cultivating patrons thru expensive networking parties, board room meetings and endless phone calls etc.

There is a hierarchy and pecking order in the art world that most aren't aware of and it's more about the business of art than the making of art. You think it's easy and just a matter of connections; making the connections is much, much harder than making the art. It's a world populated by the very wealthy, huge egos, architects, designers, real estate Moguls, builders, collectors, thieves, liars, light weight wannbes and outright charlatans.

It's a competitive world not for the faint of heart, or shrinking violets. It's ugly and mean! It's business.

It can also be very financially rewarding, a wonderful challenge finding your way thru the maze of personalities, media people, critics, and fools.

Luck and physical attractiveness also plays a big part in the art world. It's very similar to the world of entertainment where a well placed BJ both literally and figuratively, can go a long way in establishing your worth as an artist; as much as an MFA.

Get a portfolio together and join us. It's fun!!!! But be warned this business has plenty of causalities, broken hearts, lost souls, alcoholics, drug addicts and suicides. Got the guts? come on then....make some art and try to sell it. The American dream awaits.....
edit on 5-6-2011 by whaaa because: ptptptptp



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Sorry to bump a thread and I know you originally had paintings in mind but here is my addition to the completely ludicrous and illogical idiocy that is modern art.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I would like to issue a challenge to you. I would like to see you recreate either of the bottom two paintings from your OP.

(not the top one cuz i don't like it.. personal thing).

Once you have tried you will understand how difficult it his to get the textures and effects. The "corners" of the red "box" in the second one. Try and you will see and then post your efforts here. If they are so talentless and simple you should have no problem.Oh and you can scale them down of course. These are very large paintings (seeing them online might be part of your problem you might appreciate them more in person)


edit on 13-10-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join