The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by ToHoldaPigeon
You've just got to love the Rothko. He was at the right place at the right time in the art world. His ultra minimal approach was the first conscious attempt to call two colors on a canvas a finished painting. He didn't have bad taste in color compositions. It almost makes me want to paint my walls in a rothkosian manner.

Is the only specialness or uniqueness here that it was not done before?

"Nobody has ever sold a blot of paint and then another blot of paint as art before, thats what makes it worth Millions"

I can understand $7000

I coul even understand $70 000

Maybe even $700 000

But not $7 Million and even less $70 Million. I consider this a loss of perspective on human worth and value.

Originally posted by whaaa
If I might make a comparison...

I absolutely detest Rap "music" but far be it for me to rag on Rap artists or disparage their efforts to express themselves. Some Rap artist are making obscene amounts of money. Guess what...."its none of my business"

The difference with rap-music is that there was actually some effort invested into making it.

What effort is there to pour two or three colors of paint on a piece of paper?

I am an "Abstract" Artist and have been painting and thinking about the subject my entire life, with the exception of accepting a brief teaching post (in modern art) at Cambridge University I have been a painter for the last twenty years.

If something appears ambiguous then educate yourself with regard to the subject to a clearer level, if you can be bothered. If it still doesn't interest you personally then move on to something that does.

Any heartfelt creation has integrity, however "ugly".

Still...different people different tastes, no problem! Regardless of Art, isn't really "big money" usually corrupt in some way?



This, I think, is well said...

"Then again the great artist, besides aiming at perfection of form searches for truth. He never, in any of his works, allows what he knows to be false to remain. If he believes a work to be false in any part he will change, destroy or abandon it. The longer he works the more exacting he becomes in the demand for what is true. This insistence upon truth is of great importance today. The invention of atomic weapons is a far less sinister threat to human happiness than the discovery of the power of untruth. The realisation this it is possible to influence millions by the deliberately told lie is one of the most dreadful threats that civilisation has ever been compelled to face. The atomic bomb in itself is harmless. But the untruth, or the deliberately fostered ignorance, that inflame a nation may, at any moment, cause it to be dropped. Only truth can combat falsehood, and the artist is a champion of truth".
"Without truth there can be no freedom. Art honors the spirit of man, his intellect and his feelings, and would have them free".

Chapter XI "Art And Education"
Page 154, Paragraph 2

H.Caudwell
The Creative Impulse
London
Macmillan & Co. Ltd
1951

Wow, good job at "denying ignorance", ats, I'm truly impressed! "I don't understand something, therefore it MUST be complete crap". What makes your taste in art so exquisite, what makes your opinion more important than that of millions who visit art museums and can appreciate modern art?

Art is subjective, different people will like different things, just like with music, according to their personality and upbringing. YOU don't "get" abstract art, fine, there are others that do, plenty of them in fact, what makes YOUR opinion more important? Why the bashing?

When it comes to plastic art, I prefer abstract ones. They say so much more than classical art, they capture something behind the simple form and colour of things. The "essence" of reality if you will. In the words of Constantin Brancusi,

"What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things... it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating its exterior surface. "

and

"When you see a fish you don't think of its scales, do you? You think of its speed, its floating, flashing body seen through the water... If I made fins and eyes and scales, I would arrest its movement, give a pattern or shape of reality. I want just the flash of its spirit."

You show a bunch of .jpgs and you expect people to judge modern art by those? You can't judge a painting by a 100x150 .jpg image on your screen. It's like trying to write a book review after reading just the foot notes of that book. Seriously, when it comes to plastic art appreciation, the internet is pretty much made for lolcats.

And you guys are even bashing on Picasso and Van Gogh? Your preschool child could paint better? Well then I suggest you buy the child some canvas and oil, they'll surely become rich and famous since art is so facile that anyone, literally anyone can do it.

I understand, you don't get/like/agree with abstract art. Which is really normal, not everyone must like everything. But calling it "idiocy"?

I never understood why sloppy art was regarded in such high esteem myself.

However, in true ATS Conspiracy Theory, the Rockefeller sale to the Sheik of Qatar sounds like a political payoff somehow. I bet there is more to their relationship than the sale of this painting. 72 million for that is just unbelievable.

I like the post about money laundering. Who knows how much drug money has been laundered through the art world.

Is it tax deductible? Maybe it’s a write off. If you buy it and donate it to a museum maybe you write off the amount.

Ya, that sounds more like it, tax shelters, money laundering, and then there are those who just seriously have no taste.

Originally posted by afterschoolfun

Throughout my year in the art program, I learned that getting a A meant having skills, AND a silver tongue, if you could come up with "the meaning" and how it "represents" all sorts of things, a finger painting would suffice. The people behind the plain canvases no doubt could write a book about each painting.

Isnt that so? I learned in this thread that apparently its not just about what is seen but about the meaning that is ascribed to it by the artist, buyers, value-makers.

We had a controversial painter named Malesević Tapi who sold his pictures abroad for huge prices, even though he had no real reputation. He had some ties with mafia and was later accused of money laundering, he died during police interrogation taking the investigation case to his grave.
He claimed to be a mason and interestingly even wrote a book about some conspiracy stuff. So now we've god the Mafia, the Masons, money laundering and general conspiracy involved. It wouldn't surprise me the paintings themselves have something to do with illuminati .

It looks like selling these pictures still is probably the best money laundering technique. But it makes you wonder how advanced it is, since we're talking about transactions of millions of dollars, not couple of friable hundred dollar bills...

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Now think of The Simpsons. Whether you enjoy The Simpsons or not, you understand it, right? Even tho, much of what makes it work is not just the images & dialogue, but the references to western media & american culture. This is often reinforced by guest voice-overs.
If you didn't have any understanding of the references, it would just be a simple narrative cartoon. However, the sum total forms what might be called a "meta-language", which you understand specifically because its distilled from your culture.
The gallery space I mentioned above is the same. Its just that to understand the meta-language of references & progression that make up that selection, you have to understand the history & culture in which various schools of art developed.

So artists look at the pictures and see the entire context of art-history and thus have a much greater appreciation of what to me appears as a mere blot of color.

Very Interesting.

Its important to understand that its not that great modern artists cannot create representative art, say landscapes, still life or portraits, its that they've chosen not to. Its been done. They're trying to say something that speaks to us here & now in our rapidly changing world.
Sometimes its a load of bollocks. That doesn't mean that everything we dont immediately understand is bollocks.

All well put - you make a good teacher.

Originally posted by silent thunder
In my opinion, "fine art" today is mostly a way for the sons and daughters of the new moneyed aristocracy to amuse themselves...and in a sense, art has always been that way. Fortunately, with movies, computers, photo, design, and so on, we have other ways of pursuing real beauty. Canvas painting's descent into abstraction and conceptualization is a reflection of its increasing irrelevance.

Very well put. I get more high browsing through Flickr than through art galleries.

This is the best source I could find regarding Tapi, translated via Google:
B92 - Many Faces of Dragan Maleševic Tapi
I translated the title myself, the B92 agency is one of our most respected MSM sources.

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
Lots of great art requires deep thought, introspection, knowledge of the artist, his techniques, or the philosophy of the time. "high art" is not for decorating, but it's not an elitist term either. you don't have to accept it. no one will make you, but it takes effort, and if you reject it without trying, you may be missing something beautiful.

I meditated on the Rothko paintings while falling asleep last night and I could, for the first time glean at least a little bit of merit from it. I think Id be willing to pay $70 for how it made me feel.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Then we came to the main hall there She and I saw this large 8 foot by 10 foot painting prominently displayed.

I took my kids 9 and 10 (age not quantity lol) to a museum, a local artist had a display there. One piece was a poorly painted foot around a meter tall and had a price tag of £600.

Even at their age my kids war positively shocked that so much money was being asked for this "cartoon foot" and my daughter commented "Six hundred ! I will do 2 feet for five pounds"

We lived in a small 2 bed stone cottage right on a traffic intersection, the garden was more or less 4 paving slabs at the front. When we returned home my kids went out the front with some canvasses and paint and spent the afternoon trying to help totally broke Dad raise money by shouting at passing cars trying to sell their paintings at £ I.99 3 for £5.


My kids could not understand why their paintings, which were no less anatomically accurate than the "Giant Cartoon Foot" did not interest anyone at a bargain price.

To this day whenever my kids see art they never fail to make a comment on the the giant foot and shake their heads lol, I can always count on my kids to point out obvious truths.

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Art is a source of energy and as such will outlive you.
Because you are simply a consumer and not a creator.
Change yourself and you will understand. Otherwise, it will escape you.

I do create, I work creativiely every day. When I see or sense that love and effort were invested in something, I consider that something art.

A lot of modern art appears cynical to me, as if the painter is saying "Here you idiots, I smeared a piece of paint across a page and its art"

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by 212019156
It had more to do with exploring the question of whether or not art requires intention or not.

And does it require intention or not? Id be very interested in your view.

Interesting post. I take it you have no background in Art whatsoever which obviously makes you an expert.
answer me this..have you ever stood in front of one of these paitings?

I guess not because if you had your post would not exist.

I am no painter myself nor some art critic..I can barely draw which is exactly why i would not post something like this unless i actually had the first hand experience of the painting. It's kinda like criticising a piece of music by listening to a few bars.

Stick to what you know.

I appreciate your post though, it moved me to write.

I LOVE Duchamp's Fountain.
I love the idea of it. Because that's what it's all about: ideas, concepts - in this case, the concept of Art. (So no, it wasn't exhibited to “spite the critics”, although that was one of its side effects. It was exhibited to make people, the audiences of 1917, question the idea, the concept, the purpose of Art.
And it worked - clearly it still is working... )

Conceptual art in general is one of my favourite genres. It stimulates me and makes me happy.
And Mark Rothko (not a conceptual artist) is one – just one – of my favourite painters. (And yes, seeing his work, especially in person, can be something of a religious experience.)

I could go on (and on) and explain it; I have done so many times in the past.
But I think it would be much better and productive for everyone to try and find an answer to the question:

WHAT IS ART?


Or to answer Paul Delaroche's reaction to the advent of photography, in 1839: “Painting is dead!”

Was it?
Is it?
How could that be?
What is the purpose of painting, in the first place - what can it do that photography cannot?

Art works should - and do (if they are art) - question and answer on their own.
They don't need my voice.











[edit on 15-2-2010 by Vanitas]

art school graduates become art teachers because they lose the raw talent, it gets beaten out of them and remoulded as 'rules'.

Art school drop outs notice this raw talent slipping away, drop out, and remain TRUE artists.

just my 2 cent, based on 7 or so years of personal experience.

-B.M

P.s) the guy who is selling bags of poo as art which actually makes money each year therefore actually being a good investment, says he did it to prove that the art world is retarded, he himself said his human poo making machine isn't art. yet there it is, smack bang in the middle of an art gallery pumping out #. literally.

It's kindof funny that you bring this up... I've seen simple-looking paintings like these that have been sold for very large amounts of money and wondered why I, with no artistic experience, couldn't just produce similar art and become a millionaire. But regardless, art is art... Some people will like a particular work, other will hate it... It's largely an individual thing. If someone wants to pay millions of dollars to hang a simple color combination on their wall, so be it. I kindof think all art should be free and available to anyone who wants to claim it as their own, but we live in a world of material possessions and money.

I reckon appreciating art is similar to food, in that you can walk into an expensive restuarant and pay rediculous sums of money for a miniscule amount of food and even though it's delicious it still leaves you begging for more, but then what's delicious for me may not be delicious for you and if I was one of the many starving people in this upsidedown world I would think a meal of any sort, especially a restuarant meal would be like heaven - my point is it all depends on your perspective.

reply to post by colloredbrothers


Art can be anything, it could be a brush stoke on a canvas, or a portrait of George Bush. Just because we don't understand it does not make the artist an idiot. There may be deeper meaning beyond the simple surface.