The Modern Art Idiocy

reply to post by ArMaP


hey does she have a gallery?

linky?

Accidents and Amateurs

reply to post by OhZone

I may have created a masterpiece last week when I ran my brush over an old board to clean off the excess paint before washing it.

I have often noticed how beautiful the accidental splatters, spills and daubs that are the by-product of painting can appear. The splashes of paint on an used palette or painter's rag often look like little abstract artworks themselves.

Perhaps this really was the genesis of abstract art; some painter looked down at his messy palette or studio floor and had an inspiration that changed the world and how we see it--well, some of us, anyway--for ever.

*

reply to post by undo

in traditional paint, if you have put the pupil in the eye of your subject in the wrong place, you have to paint it all over again in the right place. in graphic programs, if the pupil is out of place, you can just select it with the selection tool, copy it, and move it to the spot you want to put it and paste it in new spot.

And this is just one of the reasons why, for serious artists and art lovers, digital manipulation remains inferior to traditional techniques. Image manipulation destroys two vital attributes of art: the effect of happenstance and the traces of the creative process that form a vital part of the effect and appeal of art.

Erasure is never merely a matter of making things disappear: there is always some detritus strewn about in the aftermath, some bruising to the surface from which word or image has been removed, some reminder of the violence done to make the world look new again. Whether rubbed away, crossed out or reinscribed, the rejected entity has a habit of returning, ghostlike: if only in the marks that usurp its place and attest to its passing. But writing, for example, is already, long before lead hits pulp, a question of erasure, an art of leaving out. Every painting, said Picasso, is a sum of destructions: the artist builds and demolishes in the same instant.

--Brian Dillon, The Revelation of Erasure, TateEtc. No. 8

For these reasons, it is difficult to make meaningful art with digital techniques. But it certainly isn't impossible. Here's an example shown in the article quoted above.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f117f2956e4c.jpg[/atsimg]
Aziz & Cucher, George from Dystopia series, 1995

*

An unvoiced assumption of those who've been posting images of tattooed women, unicorn ladies and other kitsch in this thread is that mastery of technique is an indispensable attribute of artistic talent, and that an artwork that is not executed with consumnate skill is an artwork that has failed.

For example, when I spoke earlier of flaws a poor artist may fail to spot in their own work, undo thought I was speaking of physical flaws--smudges and so on--in one of her paintings. I wasn't, and nothing could be further from the truth than the naive assumption that an imperfect work is a bad work.

It might have been so during the Renaissance, when the techniques of rendering a three-dimensional scene realistically on a two-dimensional surface were being explored and perfected. In those days, painters developed perspective with the use of grids and artificial vanishing points, and experimented with various lighting effects, the camera obscura and so on. They would argue endlessly over how best to paint things like drapery, clouds and fire, all of which were notoriously difficult to capture visually until the invention of photography. Stochastic or rapid processes usually are; note how unconvincingly Caravaggio renders the blood spurting from Holofernes's neck in the painting I posted earlier.

The thing is, that was all done and dusted six hundred years ago.

Technical perfection is old hat. What we expect from art now are feeling, insight and humanity. The true artist, though he may live by selling his artworks, is never a professional; art is an amateur pursuit, and flaws that to the naive viewer seem to detract from the quality of a work actually add value to it in the eyes of the initiate.

I'll offer an example from a different art form: music. Anyone listening to Dylan's Blood on the Tracks realizes, I hope, that they are in the presence of genius at the top of its game--but what's that funny clicking sound you keep hearing during 'Shelter from the Storm'? Guess what: it's Dylan's coat buttons banging against the back of his guitar.

A professional of the sort so praised by the kisch lovers on this thread would have re-recorded the track. Dylan, realizing that the take was as good as it was ever going to get, declined to do another. As a result we get an electric rendition of a brilliant song, plus a few clicks and clacks; almost literally, a few drops of blood on the track.

Yet again, my sympathies to those who cannot see or understand these things. But they can--if they wish to--always learn.

[edit on 2/8/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


well i still had happenstance even with graphic programs lol
so i don't think it's that big of a destroyer of all that is error.

reply to post by undo


I don't think so (I know my brother made a site for her small art school, but I think it doesn't have any of her works), but I can try and see if she wants one.

I know she has several photos of their paintings and many photos (she's also a photographer) already scanned or originally digital.

On Saturday she was even commenting about how difficult it is to take photos of the paintings because they never show things as we see them in real life. In the case she was talking about the photos showed much more the texture of the canvas than what she could see while looking at it.

Edit: I just asked her and she confirmed that she doesn't have any, she is waiting for some of her works to be registered by the organisation that helps authors with copyright problems, she doesn't want some of her works (created for specific clients) to appear in the Internet without being registered.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Technical perfection is old hat.

True, in the sense of recreating a scene with photographic realism sans the pesky lensing effects. Some paintings I've done from photos using grids have lensing which is immediately obvious to a viewer. On this scene, the buildings seem to loom over the street as if they were perusing the cat walking by:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/805e68792bfc.jpg[/atsimg]

Dreary... but important to me since I was bringing an old black and white photo of my birthplace into colourful life. I could never sell the piece for two reasons. It's personal and it's an awful painting. It has no meaning to anyone but those persons who know the building intimately. However technically correct, its only 'place' is in my home to remind me of my roots.

What we expect from art now are feeling, insight and humanity. The true artist, though he may live by selling his artworks, is never a professional; art is an amateur pursuit, and flaws that to the naive viewer seem to detract from the quality of a work actually add value to it in the eyes of the initiate.

Well said. Fine antique furniture is ruined by removing the patina created from centuries of use; the value drops significantly. It's that human interaction which gives that 1840's oak desk character. To strip it down and paint it would be a crime.

So it is with art... little screw-ups, nicks and splatters speak of it's creation and are a direct connection to the creator. I look at a Van Gogh and see the immediacy of his brush strokes... no hesitation at all. Mistakes are either left alone or reworked while the paint is wet. For him, it was all about the 'flow'. The work is pure poetry flowing from his mind in an uninterrupted stream.

Had he toiled over the finest details, that outpouring of brilliant colour and movement would have been horribly crippled.

I've often thought that the artist is 'absent' from the best creations, whether it be paints, music or writings. It flows through them rather than from them.

oh...

masqua and Astyanax :-)

ArMaP and undo -

now we're talking

this is the sort of conversation I live for

unfortunately I can't jump in now

that will teach me to get on ATS and start reading when I don't have any time :-)

this is the sort of discussion that might help out anyone that would like to better understand the Rothkos of the world

reply to post by masqua

Dreary... but important to me.

Not dreary at all. Evocative, indeed. So you went through a Photorealist phase to get to where you are today?

It's amazing to me to see how many here on ATS are "artists" of some kind. Lots of replies from people who actually create artwork, and what an incredible diversity of points of view! No wonder so many pages in this thread.

While I also consider myself an "artist", I think it might make for a more valuable contribution to the thread, if I focused more on the "commercial" side of the issue. With so many millions of dollars chasing artwork, perhaps it makes sense, not to mention, it's a bit less subjective than commenting on "art" in general. Although, I will probably be tempted to comment on the greater issues before all is done...

I have sold art, including modern art, ever since my chance meeting with a gentleman who had moved out West from New York, as he was winding his affairs down. He had actually run a well-known art gallery in New York City for a decade, prior to his "retirement". His particular passion was modern art, and he specialized in Picasso, and could tell you everything you could ever want to know about the artist.

Up to that point, I really knew very little about art, much less "modern" art, and quite frankly, I was probably guilty of some of the more or less typical ignorance regarding the matter. But, soon, I was making money selling pieces out of this man's collection, and was forced to take it seriously!

No, these were not pieces commanding "millions", but a step down from there, very good quality original works, but perhaps with provenance issues, apocryphal signatures, etc. Still, there is a very vibrant market in this segment, considering the very pricey alternatives.

To give some idea of what I'm talking about, imagine a very well-done drawing, on very old paper, with a very good signature of the incredibly famous Picasso. Further, it also has other desirable characteristics as well, it is "dated", it conforms to what is known about that period, it perhaps compares favorably to known works, etc.

If such a thing had it's complete provenance, or if Maya Picasso had given it her imprimatur, it would command millions. But, absent these, it may now "only" command $10,000. Or $5,000.

This very same piece of paper could be worth $5,000, or $2 million. Sort of amazing, but understandable considering the market, and considering artwork is an "investment" too, meaning it's resale value is part of the valuation to begin with.

And now from the collector's angle. Perhaps you are a "successful" entrepreneur. You're not exactly rubbing elbows with the Queen, or the Rockefellers, but you are still worth "millions". Perhaps you own several homes, and take pleasure in appointing them in a manner consistent with your station. Also, perhaps you entertain on a regular basis, or have neighbors who you are quite sure are much wealthier than you are.

This is where that "snob" factor comes in. The nouveau riche generally try to "ape their betters", using the old expression. When they invite Dr. & Mrs. So-and-So, their neighbors, over for dinner, they better be able to show some refinement, and that goes beyond your delightful young 3rd wife's sometimes unpredictable diction (especially after a few glasses of wine!). Often, these folks have seen how the "other half" lives, and they desperately want it. Perhaps they were invited over to the Chairman's home, and noticed the "Picasso", or the Vlaminck gracing the walls.

And so, there is a vibrant segment of the market that will always show strong demand from this group. And is $10K a "lot" of money, if the alternative is $2 million? Certainly not. Because what happens in reality is that these people will buy your "Picasso", and very soon be telling all their friends about it, in some "off-hand" casual way, to be sure. They easily get their $10K out of it.

All this is probably more or less obvious, but when you are selling to these people, there are times when the whole thing seems rather "surreal", if I dare use the term. But this is actually only the beginning of the reality behind this mindset, that represents such strong demand, not for the artwork per se, but for the status that is attached to it. Because it isn't so much different higher in the food-chain.

In the Rothko example, of course there is an Arab billionaire who has fallen all over himself, to kiss the hand of Lord Rothschild! Just a few colors on canvas? $72 million? Who cares! It was owned by HIM! If the sheik aspires to be in that league, there are things that are expected. Money is no object. As my former art gallery director friend would repeat to me often, so I would understand, "A million dollars is a penny to these people."

And then, beyond all the obvious. While beauty should always be in the eye of the beholder, what will be more or less "officially" considered as art amongst our masters, may not in fact be what they would personally prefer themselves. Even the powerful Rothschild clan may be playing their part in the overall societal shepherding of the masses.

Just as there is apparently a real agenda for "dumbing down" the masses, there may also be an agenda for "subverting" that which the average person wil consider as "art". The Nazis may have been partially correct in their assessment, although they played their role too, as usual, our masters are ahead of the curve.

I've already read replies addressing this issue, so I won't go on, but I sometimes wonder about all the art that is NOT being sold, at all, for any price by the elite. Anyone else ever wonder what about this too?

I think that if we ever really got into some of these other details, we might be surprised to find that the seemingly diabolical elite do have a "good" side. Many have great "preservationist" sensibilities, and regard themselves as mere "custodians" of some of these things (not a bad attitude really). We might be surprised to find that many sales, at the highest levels, do not involves public auctions at all. Rather, it is the highest of the elite, amongst themselves, ensuring that some particular thing, will always have a "good home".

And yet...Somehow, I don't think this applies to the Rothko! Yes, Rothschild takes his $72 million, accepts fealty from his vassal, but could care less if a desert dust storm should one day bring ruin upon the piece. But would he be so casual about one of his precious Old Masters?

Ah, just speculation from an 'umble servant...

JR

Art that'd make King Saul weep.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by masqua

 

art produced in graphic programs do not have texture or "originals". i wonder if there's a program that can add texture to the print, based on your choices? interesting, i didn't even think of that. you'd have to print off a copy of your own work with the texture added just so you could show it as an original from which prints could be made!

Thats just it , you can add textures , blocks , embedds , to a digital work , but you need a proper printing person and printer, who can set this stuff up,think of all the book covers with embossing ,guilt press,textures etc, and thats just book covers......used as an example because its what I know about..lol and I am hopefull we can all think of an example of texture in print?
If not here are a few examples , both mass produced and ltd release

theprodesigner.com...

[edit on 3-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by gambon]

Plastic cactus playing with a hula hoop.

From the "Ceci n'est pas un casino!" exhibition at the Casino Luxembourg - Forum for contemporary art.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Very cute, SD. Thanks for posting this.

Let's see how many people think their kids could even have thought of that, let alone created it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Very cute, SD. Thanks for posting this.

Let's see how many people think their kids could even have thought of that, let alone created it.

Methinks it should be clutching a bottle of tequila and a pistol.

You're never only just a hat.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Could you write your comment, please? I have no doubt it is interesting, but havent' the time to waste watching videos.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Could you write your comment, please? I have no doubt it is interesting, but havent' the time to waste watching videos.

Sure, but the latter part of my comment about the hoola cactus is the song.

They Might Be Giants
Hovering Sombrero (from Mink Car, Fully English Lyrics here)

Hey hovering sombrero
Gently waving in the air above the meadow
Softly floating in the sky outside the window
Hovering sombrero don't be shy

Don't... don't be shy
Don't be... terrified
When you take yourself for granted
Feel rejected and unwanted
Know you're never just a hat
You're never only just a hat, you know
Hovering sombrero
Hovering sombrero

Time is flying like an arrow
And the clock hands go so fast they make the wind blow
And it makes the pages of the calender go flying out the window one by one
Til a hundred years are on the front lawn
And the old familiar things are mostly all gone
But the old sombrero just keep hovering on
Hovering sombrero hover on

Don't be burdened by regrets
Or make your failures an obsession
Or become embittered or possessed
By ruined hopes remember

When you take yourself for granted
Feel rejected and unwanted
Know you're never just a hat
You're never only just a hat, you know
Hovering sombrero
Hovering sombrero

(No, those guys aren't litigious nor aghast at sharing so posting that won't be an issue)

that's not art! now THIS is art. mwahaha.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Many thanks. Nice lyric, by the way.

i dunno, might not be original but it's original! i'm kinda leaning away from the idea that already been done does not equal, can't be original

song title: since i gave up hope i feel alot better

Lyrics

Enter the young idealist
Chasing dragons to slay
Exit the hustler
Packing up his M.B.A.

Freshmen scream in a classroom
Was there a sound?
First degree in the vacuum
I'm on college ground

Took a class, big fun
Modern ethics 101
First day learned why
Ethics really don't apply

Prof says, "One trait
Takes us to a higher state
Drug free, pure bliss
Get your pencils, copy this"

"Life unwinds like a cheap sweater
But since I gave up hope I feel a lot better
And the truth gets blurred like a wet letter
But since I gave up hope I feel a lot better"

Top of the class sits Ernest
He was brightest and best
Till the professor lured him
To the hopeless nest

Now he lives for the shortcut
Like a citizen should
Tells the class with a wink
"Only the young die good"

He says, "Ideals? Uncouth
Fatalism needs youth
Eat well, floss right
Keep the hungry out of sight

Save face--nip and tuck
Praise yourself and pass the buck
And don't forget the best advice
Everybody's got a price

"While the world winds down to a final prayer
Nothing soothes quicker than complete despair
I predict by dinner I won't even care
Since I gave up hope I feel a lot better"

Nazis plead in a courtroom
"Pardon me, boys"
Profits fall in a boardroom
Did they make a noise?

Someone spreads an affliction
Company's nice
Someone sells an addiction
Puts your soul on ice

Half wits knock heads
Candidates in double beds
Good guys defect
"I can't precisely recollect"

Teacher's pet theory's fine
If you're born without a spine
Can't you spell wrong?
Sing it to him Papa John

"While the world winds down to a final prayer
Nothing soothes quicker than complete despair
I predict by dinner I won't even care
Since I gave up hope I feel a lot better"

Mr Rothko is one of my all time faves and I defy anyone to sit in the Tate Modern Rothko room alone and not feel a true positive emotion.

Great works of art in any genre evokes and imparts great passion, and passion in it's purest form imbues great vigour and love.

I myself will not try and define a great work as it is of course personal to each and every one. I studied art , I sell my art and am now on a journey with new conceptual art and I feel alive, I feel charged and it feels pure, however I would not tell a person that has a painting of a bunch of grapes that the work they love and admire is corny and trite, I may look at the work and admire the technical skills and time labored to achieve, would I hang it on my wall..probably not.

Great artists are not defined by external goals and it's intention is not to debase. I can not comprehend how the belittlement of an artistic master through means of the mental health baloney again can serve any other purpose but more self aggrandizement.

True emotions are real and raw and honest and most works will “create” in the viewer, that is the intention.


I have oft thought that if I was very wealthy I would buy a leonardo drawing.. just to hold it in my hand.

Now is it the money or the style that offends skyfloating? Because I can surely say the costs are minuscule when in context. How much is spent on pap for TV and movies that robs people of what is real and true.

So you dont like Rothko.. dont look at it then...no story here...