On one hand, the exhibition in question is kind of bizarre, and with no explanatory notes, it's hard to understand what's going on. On the other, complaining about how lame it is just because you don't understand it is, in itself, pretty lame.
Am I weird in thinking modern art works a lot better on film than in a static exposition, or is that just my video-centric brain playing tricks on me?
The concept that disliking a work of art means that you don't understand it is one I disagree with. There's bound to be stuff you find is shit in any medium even if you know what the artist is aiming at.
On that second point, it's your personal taste. I don't think a preference on that difference is especially objectionable to me.
I don't know about "anything". For instance, it's a little odd to me to view something such as naturally occurring phenomena as art, since, excepting an interpretation that it's a god's work of art, there's really nothing conscious that is responsible for it taking that form.
I guess you could make the argument that the fact that there's something humans didn't bother to alter is in itself an incarnation of our will and in some cases our skill. But really, if you dilute the meaning of the word that far, it becomes a pretty useless term.
You might as well start calling them "thing galleries" and the only difference would be that it sounds less fancy.
Gelzo: True, but it seems like he's discounting this solely because he doesn't understand it, not always because of the aesthetic qualities of the work. Upon thinking about it some more, honestly, the exhibition didn't look all that bad. Sometimes art just isn't that deep.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
My criteria for art is rather simple:
1.) Does it serve a practical purpose? Like (for example) does it try to open a window to another time or actually be thought-provoking without being pretentious or retarded?
2.) Is it pleasant to look at?
If it's either of these two things, it's probably art!
Here is how a New York art critic defines art:
1.) Will my opinion on this piece be considered profound or be laughed at by the champagne-sipping set of the city?
2.) How big is the name of the person who created this visual atrocity? (bonus points for celebrity)
3.) How long can I keep getting paid a lot of money for spouting verbal diarrhea that these fools will lap up?
4.) He used _what_ as a medium?
5.) Is this medium considered profound like donkey turds, or passe/cliched like vaginal blood?
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Exhibition art isn't particularly accessible. Television, movies, video games, books, comics, music; all intended for public consumption without needing to make the audience go out of their way to experience it.
That said, I personally consider art to be anything that people do that isn't out of pure necessity; carpentry and cookery and fencing is artistry.
There is quite a bit of ass-kissing and keeping up with the Joneses in the art world, but then, that's true of the entertainment industry, too; look how many reviewers rarely give out negative reviews for politically-sensitive releases, especially in music and games, because they (the publisher, usually, but sometimes other critics or the tabloids) might say something. Movies have a long history of opinionated reviewers that don't let the studio brass or particularly egotistical creators scare them, so they actually get a pass here. (They also have a long history of cheap cash-ins and shoddy knockoffs, so...)
But for quite a lot of this stuff, I have looked at it, tried to comprehend it, and have simply ended up saying "why?"
Even when I do get it, I still usually end up saying "why?"
I think the most "out there" artist I like is Thomas Chimes, and that's not saying much anymore.
I honestly do find it weird that I can't seem to grok any meanings behind exhibition art as opposed to say, music, or visual art, or video games, or really, almost any other medium.
I'm currently in an art college and I still don't get most pieces
Hell, one classmate made two needlefelt dolls depicting a scene where a wolf was about to rape a woman, which was apparently inspired by Game of Thrones
Because her "art" is disgusting. I'm not a fan of modern art in the slightest, it makes me very sad to see the beauty in art lost to a bunch of modern day self-important idiots. And I have to say Emin is one of the worse. I'd seen some of it in the Tate a few years back and felt such sadness at what's happened to art as the years pass by. But I will say I think some modern art sculptures are just incredible.
So yeah, any bitch who takes a photo of herself rubbing monies on her snatch and being paid for it is a PROSTITUTE not an artist.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
I found a nice oil painting of apples the other day for $5. It was painted in the phillipines in 1952 (according to the signature in the lower right.) It's not the world's GREATEST painting of apples, but it IS a painting of apples, and I love paintings of apples.
I don't understand what it is about art people don't like that inspires such aggression.
I saw an art installation the other day. A guy had taken all these video clips of people talking and making sounds, and fast-forwarded them at different speeds so that they produced the sounds of various different birds. It sounded really lifelike, too.
It wasn't beautiful to look at, but it sure was interesting. Clever, too.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Fouria well, a few semesters ago my art professor for painting was finishing up this beautiful abstract piece that was a sort of juxtaposition of an adobe dwelling and wide southwest sky among other things. Absolutely gorgeous, something he has poured countless hours of work into. This a man who has dedicated his entire life to art and teaching it (and the love of) creative art to other people. Anyway he showed me this piece and remarked that he might fetch up to $1000 to $2000 for such a work. The night before I was talking to one of my friends who runs a gallery in Detroit who explained that he just sold a piece which was nothing more than (literally) a few slaps of paint on the canvas to the tune of $15000.
That kind of pretentious crap in the art world really does bother me a lot. It's at least balanced out by the fact that for every huckster who gets rich off of crap like that, there's thousands of people who do art simply for the joy of it and for other people's enjoyment.
That's a little silly, I guess, but it doesn't actually stop other people making art or even making money off their art, unless the suggestion is that the money spent on the lazy work would otherwise have been spent on better art, which doesn't necessarily follow.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I think the idea might be that some of the art scene (as some of the examples show above illustrate) seems very "Emperor's New Clothes" and even many art aficionados seem to think so. And, a bunch of people pointing out that the emperor is clearly naked while a minority stand around and talk about how "gorgeous his robes are" has got to be pretty irritating.
I guess I'm just more than a little uncomfortable with that perception because art is a specialized field which I haven't studied.
I know some people say similar things about a lot of the critics and theorists I've had to study for my English lit course, when I know from having read and studied them that at least some of the things being attacked do have a meaning beyond what those attacking them tend to give them credit for. And it's frustrating because it's often quite difficult to explain the point of particular things to people who don't have and aren't interested in the context.
I suspect that Tracey Emin, like several other popular British artists I could mention, is overly reliant upon attempting to shock audiences who are no longer so easily shocked, and is currently cruising more on fame and prestige than talent. But, you know, maybe there is more to it than that. There seems to me to be a nasty catch-22 surrounding modern art where if you haven't studied it your opinion is uninformed and taken less seriously, and if you have studied it then you're "one of them" and assumed to have been brainwashed, so any expression of appreciation for a type of art that's not intuitive is dismissed on one grounds or another.
I don't think there are any people I've seen who I'm convinced really mean it when they say they would kill or maim some artist if they met them. It's just emotional rhetoric.
Talk is cheap. It usually takes quite a lot to overcome that psychological barrier holding you back from unprovoked violence. Especially if your life is so cushy that you can afford to spend time bitching about art on the internet.
Incidentally, I would sure as hell sell out my artistic integrity if it meant I could make thousands practically effortlessly. I'd deserve that money more than the fools who buy the shit.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Incidentally, I would sure as hell sell out my artistic integrity if it meant I could make thousands practically effortlessly. I'd deserve that money more than the fools who buy the shit."
Hence, my earlier comment. It's not really Tracey Emin's fault that people think a tent with the names of the people she's fucked sewed on it is worth anything. But there's still a guilty party, here.
Well, yeah. But it's very emotional rhetoric, isn't it? It's angry rhetoric. That's what I don't get.
Also I thought the thing with the rubbing money on her vagina was kind of amusing in a "haha, fuck you" kind of way, although it obviously wasn't clever.
There's no 1:1 relationship between the words people say and their emotional state. That you're this perplexed by it suggests to me that you're reading more butthurt into it than is actually there.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
That's something of a point, if it comes up all the time.
Though, I think some of the posts point out quite well where the vitriol is coming from. Modern art often seems to involve far less work to create, and nets people far more money.
If the modern art camp can't counter with anything more than "you just don't GET modern art", anger is understandable.
Comments
"My cunt is wet with fear" is hilarious, though.
My criteria for art is rather simple:
1.) Does it serve a practical purpose? Like (for example) does it try to open a window to another time or actually be thought-provoking without being pretentious or retarded?
2.) Is it pleasant to look at?
If it's either of these two things, it's probably art!
Here is how a New York art critic defines art:
1.) Will my opinion on this piece be considered profound or be laughed at by the champagne-sipping set of the city?
2.) How big is the name of the person who created this visual atrocity? (bonus points for celebrity)
3.) How long can I keep getting paid a lot of money for spouting verbal diarrhea that these fools will lap up?
4.) He used _what_ as a medium?
5.) Is this medium considered profound like donkey turds, or passe/cliched like vaginal blood?
That said, I personally consider art to be anything that people do that isn't out of pure necessity; carpentry and cookery and fencing is artistry.
I find most exhibition art incredibly pretentious, with a handful of exceptions, tbh.
You also have...."stuff" like For The Love of God. Which is just....why.
Perhaps pretentious is a bad word to use.
But for quite a lot of this stuff, I have looked at it, tried to comprehend it, and have simply ended up saying "why?"
Even when I do get it, I still usually end up saying "why?"
I think the most "out there" artist I like is Thomas Chimes, and that's not saying much anymore.
I honestly do find it weird that I can't seem to grok any meanings behind exhibition art as opposed to say, music, or visual art, or video games, or really, almost any other medium.
*shrug*
Hell, one classmate made two needlefelt dolls depicting a scene where a wolf was about to rape a woman, which was apparently inspired by Game of Thrones
All I could think was, "...Uh... Ok?"
They're hipsters! All of them! That's why their art needs to be different!
/brilliant revelation
So yeah, any bitch who takes a photo of herself rubbing monies on her snatch and being paid for it is a PROSTITUTE not an artist.
Sweet.
I found a nice oil painting of apples the other day for $5. It was painted in the phillipines in 1952 (according to the signature in the lower right.) It's not the world's GREATEST painting of apples, but it IS a painting of apples, and I love paintings of apples.
Criteria of "pleasant to look at" met, at least
I saw an art installation the other day. A guy had taken all these video clips of people talking and making sounds, and fast-forwarded them at different speeds so that they produced the sounds of various different birds. It sounded really lifelike, too.
It wasn't beautiful to look at, but it sure was interesting. Clever, too.
Fouria well, a few semesters ago my art professor for painting was finishing up this beautiful abstract piece that was a sort of juxtaposition of an adobe dwelling and wide southwest sky among other things. Absolutely gorgeous, something he has poured countless hours of work into. This a man who has dedicated his entire life to art and teaching it (and the love of) creative art to other people. Anyway he showed me this piece and remarked that he might fetch up to $1000 to $2000 for such a work. The night before I was talking to one of my friends who runs a gallery in Detroit who explained that he just sold a piece which was nothing more than (literally) a few slaps of paint on the canvas to the tune of $15000.
That kind of pretentious crap in the art world really does bother me a lot. It's at least balanced out by the fact that for every huckster who gets rich off of crap like that, there's thousands of people who do art simply for the joy of it and for other people's enjoyment.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I know some people say similar things about a lot of the critics and theorists I've had to study for my English lit course, when I know from having read and studied them that at least some of the things being attacked do have a meaning beyond what those attacking them tend to give them credit for. And it's frustrating because it's often quite difficult to explain the point of particular things to people who don't have and aren't interested in the context.
I suspect that Tracey Emin, like several other popular British artists I could mention, is overly reliant upon attempting to shock audiences who are no longer so easily shocked, and is currently cruising more on fame and prestige than talent. But, you know, maybe there is more to it than that. There seems to me to be a nasty catch-22 surrounding modern art where if you haven't studied it your opinion is uninformed and taken less seriously, and if you have studied it then you're "one of them" and assumed to have been brainwashed, so any expression of appreciation for a type of art that's not intuitive is dismissed on one grounds or another.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I still don't see why she should be wrapped in it and kicked down a hill, though.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also, kicking people down hills sounds funny.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also I thought the thing with the rubbing money on her vagina was kind of amusing in a "haha, fuck you" kind of way, although it obviously wasn't clever.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
This seems to happen whenever the subject of modern art is raised.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis