The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by buttking
this dude is good.

I guess you don't "get" art.

I don't get a lot of art, but I would like to understand.

Can you articulate what is "good" about these paintings? What exactly do you like about them?

The twentieth century criteria for historical recognition is Innovation. Until the 1880's it was to be the best at reproducing the world around the artist and the best were the great portrait painters. After 1880, the way to recognition was to be unique and you saw us move the impressionism which if an extremely difficult technique to throwing the paint on the canvas. Pollock was the first to drip on canvas and it took his agent and support, Clement Greenberg ten years to convince it was a new contribution to art. The goal was not longer beauty, or great craftsmanship, it was just to be unique. If you are the first to do something, then you get your foot nor in art history and that makes you collectible. Your art then represents a new movement, not just a unique painting. If you are the first, and then others start doing it, then your value goes way up and with stuff like this, lots of students can do it so they get a lot of followers doing their style.

reply to post by SkyfloatingOK, I'm tired & a bit drunk so I skimmed. I'll be back tomorrow with more. For now, this is my best:
Consider a gallery space with a classical greco-roman marble sculpture, a painting by each of Caravaggio, Rembrandt & Jean Dubuffet, & a Henry Moore sculpture.
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.
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.

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by buttking
this dude is good.

I guess you don't "get" art.

I don't get a lot of art, but I would like to understand.

Can you articulate what is "good" about these paintings? What exactly do you like about them?

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.

Although I personally do like some of Pollack's work, I do have to agree with the OP. This seems more like Homer Simpson as an emergent outsider artist than true art.

A similar painting was purchased by the Canadian government several years ago, there was a massive outcry when people found out that 1.3 million dollars had been paid for a painting of three stripes (a humour/commentary TV show did a trip to a hardware store in order to put it into persepective).

Not even shaded like the OP, just 2 red seperated by one blue.

I would personally say that the true 'value' of this painting can be judged by who didn't want it. The JP Getty museum has been slammed for years by other museums because they started with an endowment of 1.2 BILLION in 1982 (substantially higher now): Curators complain because if the Getty museum wants something, there is no one who can outbid them.

If this was the caliber of art that it is claimed to be, why didn't they buy it?

EDIT:

The idea of money laundering never occured to me with respects to the purchase price. Almost like a 'token' being passed around.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by [davinci]]

I confess I haven't slogged through all four pages of this so forgive me if these points have been made earlier...

I think that by the end of the 1800s, pretty much everything that could be done with a canvas and paint had already been done. At the same time, other forms of visual beauty were emerging (photo, film, design, new architecture, etc). Photography solved the "accuracy" problem, so there was no need for visual artists to concern themselves with high realism anymore. Their art lost some of its purpose.

At the same time, we started to see the rise of "art history," where people began looking at visual art more conceptually. This created a shift where the ideas behind art became more important to the literatti than beauty per se.

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.

reply to post by SLAYER69


At least picasso painted things

Skyfloatings examples show nothing more than a few colours and shapes

I guess I will never get art

Did God paint that? Lmao.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

On February 25, 1970 Rothko’s assistant, found the artist in his kitchen, lying dead on the floor in front of the sink, covered in blood. He had sliced his arms with a razor found lying at his side. During autopsy it was discovered he had also overdosed on anti-depressants. He was 66 years old.

*

The guy had severe drug and alcohol problems throughout his life, which could be a reason he thought his paintings look great. And yet everyone raves about him in self-important, pseudo-intellectual art-speak...

See that's exactly what makes it valuable. In the end the art business has little to do with the aesthetics of the pieces, specially the more recent works.

It's all about uniqueness and the story behind it. No other paint like that would have a tragic story behind it just like the one of this guy.

The rule of thumb on the art world is the work of dead artists worths the double and the art of tormented dead artists even more. And if the art it self if actually above average (not the case here) you can bet that things quickly get out of proportion in terms of pricing.

The saddest part is that these artists are sometimes created and led to their own self-destruction so the ones who "discovered" them can profit. It's a dirty business just like any other.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great thread! I am not fond of Picasso either. I once had an art teacher who wanted us to paint in Picasso's style. I objected and he scolded me rather severely.

Then being angry and hopeing to irritate my teacher I then proceeded to paint a monstrosity of sharks in a feeding frenzy in a picasso style.

He gave me an A+ on that hideous project.

Hi, this is an interesting thread. I went to art school, and I studied classical music, so i "know" a little about modern art. or at least i think i do. i can't really clear anything up as to why art is art. and i can understand why Rothko's work can be seen as childish or whatever. and I can't tell you if a Rothko painting is worth 75 mil. but I can say that there are multitudes of things in the world that become more beautiful with proper explanation or study. for instance, the way an eye works, or a jet engine, or C++ or a Picasso or a Duchamp. 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.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by conwaylemmon]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by conwaylemmon]

reply to post by afterschoolfun


'One of my graduate student teachers told us that we had to learn the basics before we could do projects like he did, "learn the rules before you can break them" And essentially everyone is breaking the rules now.'

That's what I tell my music pupils.
Rules broken through ignorance usually arise from bad technique, but sometimes you can come up with a gem.
Trouble is, many a good idea has been spoilt by the rest of a piece (In my opinion, of course).
Many artists have tried to get back to the innocent simplicity of childhood (I think Picasso was one of those), so saying a four year old could do it would probabbly be taken as quite a compliment by some artists.
I used to hate most modern art before I went to art college, but when I learnt about what was actually going on with it, I found a whole new world opened up before me, and within me.
Now I find a lot of the stuff I used to be into a bit shallow, although I do still appreciate the technique.
I would strongly urge those who have difficulty understanding the more abstract forms of expression to read up a bit on the underlying principles and ideas behind these works, as there is a great deal of pleasure to be gained from doing so. It won't do any harm, and may actually expand the field of enjoyment for some, and where is the harm in that?
Most galleries and museums are free, so enjoy them while you can, because the way things appear to be going in the world, they may not be accessible for much longer.
I feel that enjoyment can be a skill in itself, and the more we learn to enjoy, the better our lives will become as a result.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm a real miserable git some of the time.
Jus' my two penn'rth.

I agree with most of the posters here for the most part. Most of these abstract paintings will never be understood by someone who does not create art. In many ways they are not about the final product. They are more about the exploration.

The art world of the 20th century and part of the 19th century were highjacked by moral relativists. They were going against tradition not only in art but everything else. They were on an individual level on a quest to ask the question "What is art?". If you ever try to define the word art, you will have a difficult time of it.

If you ever look at Jackson Pollock's artwork, on a superficial level you would say a two year old could produce it because he was literally just throwing paint on a canvas. But really there is more to it than that. It had more to do with exploring the question of whether or not art requires intention or not. This does not defend their high price tags, but even though you may think these sorts of peices have no intrinisic value, they do have value in terms of history, because they are a reflection of the time they were produced in.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


Only the living know what life is.

How many times I've heard sincere folks who have probably never stood before an empty canvas say "a preschooler could paint just as bold stripes with just as vibrant colors"...but if so...then you've just discovered the way to fund world class education for all children everywhere. Congats!

But on the other hand.

Having seen many pre-school paintings, I simply cannot agree with this line of thinking. Why? Simply because "they don't" paint vibrant colored stripes etc. They're usually quite messy and confused.

In any case, would you sign your name to something like the very large canvases Rothko 'created', if you had painted them?

Now we're getting somewhere-perhaps. I mean, if you could earn several hundred thousand dollars for "a few days" of painting (whether it's actually 'narcissistic' or not)-would you?

Of course you would! Perhaps there's a wee bit o jealousy in there somewhere, or envy? Hmm, I wonder.

I can tell you this, like 'Free Speech' I'll defend it to the death- even if I don't at all 'like' what so and so said! Same goes for the very subjective world of 'Modern Art'- even though I may just agree with you.

Creativity cannot be experienced or made via assembly line, nor can it be produced, pigeon-holed, intellectualized, or understood, except by those who have 'lived' similar experiences, or by another 'artist' in this case. For creativity is an 'adventure!', a pushing of the 'boundaries' of workaday consciousness- if there is such a thing. Or discovering/synthesizing anything 'new' in any field of endeavor.

My advice to those who haven't walked the mile in the other's shoes is simply this; enjoy to the fullest whatever you enjoy, live and let live, and make no pronouncements on anyone else's life or creations! Seems fair enough:-)

If you don't believe me, take your idea (and it is a breakthrough idea) along with all of the free pre-school, or even kindergarten paintings you can gather up, and go to the next school board meeting in your area and for heaven's sake- tell them how you've solved the problem of funding education for one and all!

Then mt friend, I'll believe your utterances come from someone with a roaring 'fire in their belly!

Enjoy!

P.S. I recommend you don't look at anything by Klee, or Miro !;-)

You guys are so ignorant. I am no professional, but I know enough about art to tell you that art is not always about aesthetics, but is usually centered around emotions that can rise from viewing the piece. Sure, I will admit that those paintings in the first post are a bit childish, but there is a lot more to art then you might think. Give artists a chance and don't knock on their jobs. Their work may look easy, but the expenses of materials, (they can be very pricey,) coupled with the strain of coming up with a good piece can be grueling to the artist. A true artist's work should be something to behold.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by uncle_benja]

It's not idiotic. The market can be idiotic though. Some buyers, sellers and artists are full of themselves. Trends, fashions, fakes... you can't rely on the market to tell the value of art.

But to brush off abstract art or Picasso as rubbish is literally ignorant. The most simplistic looking pieces of art are often the ones with the most elaborate though process behind it. Besides, a lot of abstract art is huge, full of texture and sometimes actually engaging when you stand in front of them instead of watching a tiny picture of it on your screen.

These guys spend their lives researching and developing visual theories, creation methods, and further the commentary about art itself. You might not understand it but they still deserve recognition and respect.

Also, seeing a painting on the internet and seeing one in real life are two TOTALLY different experiences. My father, who is an accomplished artist, has viewed one of the pieces in the first post, and he claims it is absolutely stunning in real life. A photograph cannot capture the texture of a piece. In real life these paintings speak to you, the colours give out a rich warm feeling.

This is just further proof of how pretentious the art world is.

I'm an artist myself (Digital/Conceptual Artist) and when I look at paintings like these I laugh at the lack of talent and imagination displayed, then when I read about the amount they sell for I'm appalled. This garbage sells for a fortune while quality art barely gets noticed.

I know this is all subjective but let's be honest here the examples in the op look like something a 5 year old could paint.

reply to post by crazyinthemiddle


That is "Pop" art. He also bought a 10$ snow shovel from the hardware store and sold it for 13 (or 30) million dollars.
Because it had never been done before.

---------------------

Honestly, this thread is just riddled with ignorance. Art doesnt have to be a self portrait or a landscape, you may not like it, but with ignorance abound, your opinion doesnt mean anything. beauty if in the eye of the beholder.
To say these artists just paint a few bold blocks and hang it on a wall is complete bull#. Modern art peices have just as much thought and purpose as any impressionist or realist. shrug im done.

I know a lady here locally who bought a giant abstract painting of shall we say a "man's private part" and she paid several thousand for it.

It hangs in her dining room. And NO I am not kidding. I don't remember the artist's name but she got it at an auction in New York.

There is no accounting for tastes or what the public will make popular with art.

Not likeing abstract art is not "ignorant". If you don't like it, you don't like it.



[edit on 14-2-2010 by elaine]