The Modern Art Idiocy

page: 7
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Ok, so I started reading this thread and was amazed by the art bashing. ALL of the first page was art bashing. I'm not much for Rothko myself yet was really put off with how hostile the majority (of this thread at least) is towards art.

Then I went back to the original post and realized it was by Skyfloating.
To Skyfloating- I genuinely dislike your perspective. I consistently find your perspective and expression disgusting despite whatever over-hyped "quality" found in your posts. Pretty much every thread you start I dislike. I find your opinions mundane and trite yet manipulative and shallowly intended to garner popularity within the structure of ATS flagging and starring. -Not only is this the equivalent of many people's feeling towards some artists but my honest and sincere feelings evoked by your posts.




[edit on 14-2-2010 by Moonsouljah]




posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by uncle_benja
 


Too true, some art is meant to be ugly. That Picasso with the naked ladies bashed earlier? He meant it to be distasteful and obscene. It represented the allure of the prostitutes but the illness they carried. In truth, He got what he wanted out of all of you. Ugliness is a fact of life and for some is a more compelling subject than beauty. Certain subcultures literally feed off of what is considered "Ugly" but most. Gothic subculture comes to mind. Industrial music is a great example of this anesthetic as well. The grotesque as beauty.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Damn and here I am dreaming to sell a piece for 1000 bucks that took me a month.

As an artist trying to get a career going myself, i'm tempted just to play right into it some times you know? Well art aint about money for me but it would help!!

72 million... even like.. 10 000 is like wow.. that's a lucrative art career...

but now lets add another 0 to that 10 000.. ok now another... ok.. keeping going..



haha whatever, doesn't bother me none. But i'm glad someone did a thread like this. It reminds of those links advertised on the MSN home page. The top most expensive hotels in the world was a good one ! 50 000 per night. Damn.. does it come with an alien hooker?

edited to add:
nothing wrong with the guy's art, but the price!!!?? Damn I would feed the world with my well thought out rectangles. All art appreciation is subjective but 72 mil is just tooooo damn much. (for ANYTHING, except alien hookers)

[edit on 14-2-2010 by CavemanDD]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Art should make you think, provoke emotion and conversation. In that sense I guess these pieces worked ...
That said I personally would prefer something that is also pleasant to look at.




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
To an artist, their work, whether it's music, literature, sculpture, painting or through any other medium you can think of, is the whole-hearted expression of life as they've experienced it, resonating throughout their whole being as they are immersed in the experience of creating something meaningful.

To the viewer, it either produces a sympathetic vibration or it doesn't.

To all those who have never bothered to do anything creative in their lives, I feel sorry for you because you've not yet felt the joy, nor the amazement, of finding something within yourselves that you never fathomed was there.

People bemoan the state of something they call 'modern art'.
That's hilarious.

As if art is something that is thumped out of an assembly line by a series of bored workers in a factory.

:shk:

Look at the paintings done thousands of years ago in deep dark caves. Bison, horses and aurochs, true to shape and colour are represented in fabulous detail. The art of earliest man is vibrant and alive whether you are studying the ritualistic representations of the San of South Africa or the delicate vases of Early Kingdom Egypt. In ancient Crete, dolphins danced in crystal waters to decorate walls in homes. Brilliant works in textiles and pottery were common throughout the Americas. Pre-Roman Britain was famous for intricate ornaments crafted with such amazing ability, a skilled jeweller would be hard-pressed to do the same today.

I find today's art no better or worse than that which was produced in antiquity. It's a river that swells or drops according to the size and prosperity of the population and the ability to take the time to dream. There are no good or bad periods of art, there are only good and bad artists.

And yet, some will scoff at a century worth of art by pulling a few specimens from the ocean of work, saying they represent it all and dismiss everything else because of it.

Really... ?

Well. I have to say it. If it wasn't for art, we'd still be surviving on nuts and berries, getting eaten by lions or leopards. Art is what gave us civilization. It gave us language through vocalized calls. It gave us the printed word through the creation of symbols. It gave us society and structure because creative men and women wondered about what would be best for us and acted upon the thought. Someday, our creativity and inventiveness will, I hope, take us to the stars and THAT, I believe, is our collective Ultimate Destiny. If it wasn't for the our inventiveness and creativity, we'd be lost, imprisoned on a sole planet and at the mercy of the next Extermination Level Event.

Think about that for a minute...

Now think about that child scribbling on a piece of paper with crayons. Then think about those young people who can't seem to help themselves but create fantastic music which, in turn, excites the hearts of their peers. Think of people in their middle and later years working away at anything that takes their fancy as a hobby.

All those people, from toddlers to old farts, are ALL being creative. They are artists. It's hardwired into our brains and we just can't stop ourselves from making things. So, the next time you see a piece of artwork you don't like... just walk on by and ignore it. The artist won't mind because he will only see a person with a scowl walking by in a colourful Hawaiian shirt, wearing Reeboks without socks and tanned hairy legs sticking out of a pair of Dockers shorts. That artist just might believe it a sign that the end of a civilization is at hand and be inspired to capture the scene as a symbol to awaken the world to an impending doom.


Modern Art is a generalization without true merit. It's a meaningless phrase representing a century of work, which, unless one is completely knowledgeable of its depth and scope (and that would take several lifetimes to learn), they would never be able to accurately comment upon.

So, we are left with the blinders on, focussed on a few examples of 'bad art' with which to ridicule millions of artists who have poured out their hearts for over a century.

Shallow thinking.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The way I always understood modern art is this, its about doing something that has not been done before.

Think of the process and the mind of an artist who truly creates something THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

So much has already been created so its about expanding the mind to a point of such uniqueness it becomes brilliant.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   


This fine piece is obviously the epitome of art since its on the top of the f-ing price list.... Van Gogh at least got some love on that list.. It says the $140 million price tag was inflation-adjusted so I'm calling shenanigans

[edit on 2/15/10 by MoothyKnight]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Comming in late hear but I cannot resist. To the OP: you are missing something but it has nothing to do with your eye for art. 98% of the population do not get it. Ever heard of there is more to it than meets the eye. It applys here. That is all I can say.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hey I like Van Gogh! How did he get dragged into this discussion? I like the swirls he used and the sunflowers.

He did not sell any paintings while he was alive. I wonder what he would think of the prices his paintings fetch now?



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   


Or am I missing something? Am I ignorant?


All signs point to yes.

Understanding art is directly related to your intelligence.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Very few people appreciate art...very few people also appreciate a glass of wine in its full complement of tastes.

Art is wine, its not about just chugging it in 3 seconds out of a tin can, its a multilevel immersion of a focused sense.

in saying that, of the original 3 posted, I quite like the first two..I find the 3rd crap....but spending more than a few grand for any of them I think is a bit silly.

Art is worth only how much someone will pay...so there is no such thing as overpriced or underpriced art.

one final hint about looking at abstract art...stop looking at it like its paint on a canvas...use the same vision you use when cloudwatching...but instead of the shape changing, allow your perception to change and view the shape different.


(parents own a art gallery...I was born and raised knowing how to view art...paid the rent)



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Very few people appreciate art...very few people also appreciate a glass of wine in its full complement of tastes.

Art is wine, its not about just chugging it in 3 seconds out of a tin can, its a multilevel immersion of a focused sense.

in saying that, of the original 3 posted, I quite like the first two..I find the 3rd crap....but spending more than a few grand for any of them I think is a bit silly.

Art is worth only how much someone will pay...so there is no such thing as overpriced or underpriced art.

one final hint about looking at abstract art...stop looking at it like its paint on a canvas...use the same vision you use when cloudwatching...but instead of the shape changing, allow your perception to change and view the shape different.


(parents own a art gallery...I was born and raised knowing how to view art...paid the rent)


pffft

get over yourself.

its oil on canvas, that it !



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wtfhuh



Or am I missing something? Am I ignorant?


All signs point to yes.

Understanding art is directly related to your intelligence.




I would disagree...there can be some rather backwoods ignorants out there that have a appreciation towards sophisticated art...and some highly intellectual people whom have little use for "random splashes of paint on a canvas"...



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by venividivici

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Very few people appreciate art...very few people also appreciate a glass of wine in its full complement of tastes.

Art is wine, its not about just chugging it in 3 seconds out of a tin can, its a multilevel immersion of a focused sense.

in saying that, of the original 3 posted, I quite like the first two..I find the 3rd crap....but spending more than a few grand for any of them I think is a bit silly.

Art is worth only how much someone will pay...so there is no such thing as overpriced or underpriced art.

one final hint about looking at abstract art...stop looking at it like its paint on a canvas...use the same vision you use when cloudwatching...but instead of the shape changing, allow your perception to change and view the shape different.


(parents own a art gallery...I was born and raised knowing how to view art...paid the rent)


pffft

get over yourself.

its oil on canvas, that it !


and a book is just ink on paper...

try to elevate yourself...



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
By definition of 'artists' a murderer could cut up a body and let the blood run in several directions and call it art.
It IS therefore 'art' if the one creating it says it is.
If one who creates something says it is 'art' then it is.

Shows you how sick in the head many people are about art. It's a disease that creates a mentality that says you cannot possibly critisize the work and so many go 'wow' and 'awesome' to try to show they understand when in reality they could create the blobs they poaid millions for themselves.

A pile of trash in an art gallery was thought to be 'art'. My God, I can create 'art' emptying my rubbish bin on the street. Littering is therefore ART.

So therefore my conclusion is that artists are as dluded as climate change activists and all at PETA and Sea Shepherd are. Mind you thatd elusion could be considered 'art' too.

So I sign off having created 'art' myself in a picture in your mind of what you'd like to do to me if you disagree with these words.... that an I have to go becaiuse the toast has popped... oh my God there's a face if Elvis on my toast!



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Artificial value? True.

Don't blame the artist? Sometimes true.

You need to research the ethnicity of the artist, the dealer and the customer connections. Also, when it comes to stuff like this, the money changing hands could be for the art,,,,,,, or could be for something else. Ehhhhhh????



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thank you for posting the pics. They were met by my eyes at a most convenient time and brought me a moment of joy. 72 million dollars could not buy that moment back for me. Nothing further of consequence to add to this thread.
Again , thank you.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Sooooo pretty much if you don't understand, or appreciate, something it's 'idiocy'?

Nice. Isn't that the very sort of thing 9/10 of the threads on ATS wherein someone is crying because 'everyone' is fighting, about? Not understanding one another, name calling?

I agree to some degree- regardless of interpretations of Rothko, he's never been my cup of tea...though he decorates a chapel just fine (here in Houston we have the Rothko Chapel, long story, and you wouldn't comprehend it).

I hope one day before you die that you make some effort to understand and appreciate, or at least keep an open mind towards things you don't understand, again, laughably, because of what ATS is all about if nothing more.

Also: lol, you're an idiot.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
someone with either academic or practical experience within a field will have greater appreciation for difficult works than a layman. Non-musicians judging John Cage or Philip Glass pieces are on par with non-artists judging Rothko or Pollock.



True. Of course with modern art many of us are not sure if that much subtlety and effort was invested...



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
But here's the problem-Value is subjective. To you that might not be worth 72 million but to some it is. As for the people proclaiming they can do better-Stop talking smack and do it.


Value may be 70% subjective (at the most) but I wouldnt subscribe to the popular notion that it is 100% subjective.

If it were we would prefer excrement to a day at the beach and sea.





top topics
 
84
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join