The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by akushla99
I remember a gallery opening of my own paintings, which were, cynically, all priced at a million dollars.

I think I may just try that myself at my next showing. Should create a bit of buzz...

Great idea.

I have been in the business of making, selling and marketing art for a very long time. Both thru festivals, gallaries my own and other peoples and a sage piece of advise was given to me by a very famous gallery owner in Santa Fe by the name of Elaine Horwitch [may she RIP] in regards to my representation in her gallery.

"When in doubt, raise your prices"

I may be late by a ridiculous margin here, but as a musician and photographer, I'm going to say that attempting to debunk any type of art, no matter how "simplistic", "effortless", and "talentless" it appears, and even /whether or not there was actually effort or talent involved in its creation/, there's no point in trying to argue the objective quality of a piece of art. In the two years that I've been a recording musician, teaching myself all along the way without outside aid, I've recorded 22 albums of music. I can safely say that the most recent 5 have all been created straight from 2 cataclysmic events in my personal life that impacted my /emotions/ drastically, 3 of which were during the span of the first event, and two of which were created after the second; one almost entirely in one weekend.

Art is expression, and when an artist decides to create art, whether it's from true universal realization or emotional cataclysm, or just because they feel like nailing a urinal sideways to a piece of plywood, it's art, it's been created, and it exists. As it exists, so does it become showcased and viewed in one way or another. Art affects everyone in different ways; there's a reason that artists will claim that some people simply don't "get true art"; you can chalk it up to pretention all you want, there's a basis when someone looks at a piece of art and trashes it without at all knowing the story and drive behind the art itself, and is then told that "they just don't get it". Art is subjective, and it's personal. Even if I grabbed two buckets of paint, dropped them on a canvas, and decided that this was a joke and there's no meaning; and then sold it for thousands of dollars, the buyer must have had a reason to buy the effortless nonsense I just created. Even if the /ARTIST/ doesn't have an artistic connection with the art, that doesn't make it any less artistic. The possibilities that art unlocks for the human psyche and emotional complex are infinite to any given person; getting seriously angry over it simply reflects a lack of comprehension of the basis of art and emotional expression/absorption in the first place.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by akushla99
I remember a gallery opening of my own paintings, which were, cynically, all priced at a million dollars.

I think I may just try that myself at my next showing. Should create a bit of buzz...

Great idea.

You are free to use it in any configuration you choose...

You get to exercise some dramatic arts while you do this...insert a hard luck story...anonymously tip off the local rag about a secret exhibition with paintings at a million bucks each!...free advertising...you may just also get someone who will beat you down from a million...he he...

...'ok, I'll take 50 grand...but that's my last offer'

Akushla

Color can act on the very center of our being. Of course no one knocks the marketing research that leads fast food ops to have a red and yellow color scheme in their dining room. Ever heard someone say "soothing" as in this is a "nice, soothing blue, good for baby's room or waiting rooms"? When one is seeking advice from some Home Depot employee on what paint chip they like for what utility..... Hmmmm, no one scoffs at the parsing of hues, "I don't know, I just don't LIKE that shade of green, honey".......

These Rothko works are meant to evoke FEELING. Different for each viewer, but on the same side of the emotional scale for the respective works, as in people generally get a similar feeling or at least not joy when the mood is dark. One is meant to really take the painting in, not just wander past it for 10 seconds at a gallery or museum, only to be nonplussed and not convinced of the artist's talent or vision. Of all the artwork commonly accepted as part of the "high" art world; collected by galleries, tastemakers, lauded or lambasted by critics, etc. Rothko's color field paintings are certainly NOT among the "rubbish" which coaxes me into suspecting the art world is just a racket, propped up by the elite willling to go to any level of criticism or convincing (urinal) to manipulate what classless heathens with no culture will find as "decorative" or to deride what those idjits find aesthetically pleasing enough to purchase en masse, in the form of commemorative plates &/or limited edition holiday "prints".... (*barf and wink)

Skyfloating, what are your favorite colors? When I was a teenager, I loved purple. Royal purple... now I wouldn't paint a room purple; I believe it is because I am more experienced in life in general and am attracted to what are arguably more "mature" colors. Similar to not eating fishsticks and baloney sandwiches everyday, I think aesthetic appreciation naturally develops over a person's lifespan. The above point is not as succinct as it could be, but I do feel it's worthwhile to include in this post.

Consider the synesthete, one who experiences a crossing of the senses; for instance, sound being linked to color. From personal experience, I can tell you that Rothko's works are very poignantly assertive in their scale and hues. If the artist had titled his works with emotionally evocative words, perhaps people here would deem his work more valuable as true high art with redeeming intrinsic value, because they could see "Yeah, I guess this looks like the colors of an "Angry Wife" or "getting" a blue painting called "Peace"....

Originally posted by kkrattiger
Color can act on the very center of our being. Of course no one knocks the marketing research that leads fast food ops to have a red and yellow color scheme in their dining room. Ever heard someone say "soothing" as in this is a "nice, soothing blue, good for baby's room or waiting rooms"? When one is seeking advice from some Home Depot employee on what paint chip they like for what utility..... Hmmmm, no one scoffs at the parsing of hues, "I don't know, I just don't LIKE that shade of green, honey".......

These Rothko works are meant to evoke FEELING. Different for each viewer, but on the same side of the emotional scale for the respective works, as in people generally get a similar feeling or at least not joy when the mood is dark. One is meant to really take the painting in, not just wander past it for 10 seconds at a gallery or museum, only to be nonplussed and not convinced of the artist's talent or vision. Of all the artwork commonly accepted as part of the "high" art world; collected by galleries, tastemakers, lauded or lambasted by critics, etc. Rothko's color field paintings are certainly NOT among the "rubbish" which coaxes me into suspecting the art world is just a racket, propped up by the elite willling to go to any level of criticism or convincing (urinal) to manipulate what classless heathens with no culture will find as "decorative" or to deride what those idjits find aesthetically pleasing enough to purchase en masse, in the form of commemorative plates &/or limited edition holiday "prints".... (*barf and wink)

Skyfloating, what are your favorite colors? When I was a teenager, I loved purple. Royal purple... now I wouldn't paint a room purple; I believe it is because I am more experienced in life in general and am attracted to what are arguably more "mature" colors. Similar to not eating fishsticks and baloney sandwiches everyday, I think aesthetic appreciation naturally develops over a person's lifespan. The above point is not as succinct as it could be, but I do feel it's worthwhile to include in this post.

Consider the synesthete, one who experiences a crossing of the senses; for instance, sound being linked to color. From personal experience, I can tell you that Rothko's works are very poignantly assertive in their scale and hues. If the artist had titled his works with emotionally evocative words, perhaps people here would deem his work more valuable as true high art with redeeming intrinsic value, because they could see "Yeah, I guess this looks like the colors of an "Angry Wife" or "getting" a blue painting called "Peace"....

very great points. i agree with what you are saying here. side with you indeed.

though... mature colors is a personal and preference stance/very subjective. im sure you know that. i can see loud chromatic colors/day glows being mature depending on context.

what are mature colors to you?

I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

Originally posted by OhZone
I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

It's nice that you think that; alternate opinions are always great, although it'd be nice if you didn't state your opinion as if it were ultimate universal fact regarding the Rothko work.

Originally posted by OhZone
I'll say the Rothko work evoke feeling.
That of utter dismay.

They are proofs of brainwashing in this area, as are the piles of junk called "sculpture".

so why do you feel they evoke a feeling of utter dismay????? can u articulate that further?

and yes like the previous poster pointed out for you ... it is subjective.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I insist upon the equal existence of the world engendered in the mind and the world engendered by God outside of it. If I have faltered in the use of familiar objects, it is because I refuse to mutilate their appearance for the sake of an action which they are too old to serve, or for which perhaps they had never been intended. I quarrel with surrealists and abstract art only as one quarrels with his father and mother; recognizing the inevitability and function of my roots, but insistent upon my dissent; I, being both they, and an integral completely independent of them.

How about this one?




Semiotik Theorie by Joachim Pleachka.

It concerns the artist's quest for meaning in modern life. The mustache of the artist has an insect-like quality, bringing to mind antennae, reflecting our interconnectedness with nature. The uninhibited naturality of the mustache allows it to explore the depths of the mind. The mustache points towards a bottle of absinthe and a skull, which symbolizes Freudian thanatos impulses inherent in the human psyche. The sky-scraper on the side is a critique of the corporate world's dominance of our media. The ambiguous nature of meaning is symbolized by the cloud and the sun. The cloud is either is the process of uncovering the sun or of blotting out the sun. Much like the cloud, the monocle of the artist reflects the limits of our vision, only one eye has the power to focus. It also is a powerful inquiry into social paradigms, it exclaims "why should one eye be granted sight while the other languishes?" Overall, the entire work explores the intellectual richness of paradox, its "flat" aesthetic serves to raise a multi-layered analysis of the human condition.

Pavel Jerdanowitch Painting Contest Results

I have seen much better art than this.

Hell, I've done better abstract art than this in Minecraft.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why a black bar is to be considered art.

Medieval artists were better than this.

Wow.

Art is like trolling. You do it to get a response from the viewer. When you guys go "this is #, this isn't art" you are actually validating the work.

Originally posted by krossfyterso why do you feel they evoke a feeling of utter dismay????? can u articulate that further?

and yes like the previous poster pointed out for you ... it is subjective.

May be. But the subjects who appreciate abstract art themselves can't tell it from the paintings produced by animals.

You can thank Warhol for the modern art movement. Where half talented artists can pawn off anything as modern art. What Warhol was good at was generating publicity around his art, making people want it. Modern art is a lot like fashion, and if you can put a brand name on it, it sells. Warhol fuzzied those lines.

Personally, if my 6yo can do it, it isn't art.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Art is like trolling. You do it to get a response from the viewer. When you guys go "this is #, this isn't art" you are actually validating the work.

There are also scientific criteria. You might find of some interest this statistical inquiry into modern art.

It looks like someone doesn't like Rothko's paintings and decided to make their own version...

Rothko vandal arrested over defaced painting

A man calling himself Vladimir Umanets claimed that he scrawled a message on the painting hanging in London’s Tate Modern, but insisted he was “not a vandal” and had in fact added to the work’s value.

Source

Op im with you on this one. I think 99 percent of modern art is bs. Inlos Angeles they have MOCA the cities modern art museum. Sligo there one day and simply can't believe the rap that is being called art there. One exhibit was just a 2x4 glued to a board with some brads hammered in halfway. Another exhibit was titled women or something similar. It was a closet/ bathroom with shoes everywhere and tampons painted red hanging from the ceiling. Wtf! How is that art?

Wanna make a bet if we got a time machine with famous painters like Renoir or monet to look at this stuff they would judge it to be a bunch of crap too. Some modern art is just so grotesque and visceral I actually get grossed out looking at it. It's it art it crap.

Originally posted by ArMaP
It looks like someone doesn't like Rothko's paintings and decided to make their own version...

Rothko vandal arrested over defaced painting

A man calling himself Vladimir Umanets claimed that he scrawled a message on the painting hanging in London’s Tate Modern, but insisted he was “not a vandal” and had in fact added to the work’s value.

Source

How do you know that he did not add value to that painting? May be it got better.

Originally posted by simus
How do you know that he did not add value to that painting? May be it got better.

Sure, why not, eh?

Back in the good old days of iconic religious themes, a painting ruined by such a scoundrel would certainly carry a penalty of being publicly drawn and quartered. The perp would likely have wound up being 'Installation Art' in the city square, horses and all.

Very popular at the time, that kind of colourful expressionism.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by simus
How do you know that he did not add value to that painting? May be it got better.

Sure, why not, eh?

Really, why not? When one can't tell these masterpieces from monkey-work such suspicion is warranted.

Originally posted by masqua
Back in the good old days of iconic religious themes, a painting ruined by such a scoundrel would certainly carry a penalty of being publicly drawn and quartered. The perp would likely have wound up being 'Installation Art' in the city square, horses and all.

Very popular at the time, that kind of colourful expressionism.

The execution you described was for high treason. That guy would just get a whipping.

Originally posted by simus
How do you know that he did not add value to that painting? May be it got better.

That's what he said.