but yeah i suppose i'm kinda like, is the point in art only to provide artists with a platform? or can it be about what you get out of it, as a spectator or critic of art? i think it can be the latter, and i think people miss that when they suggest that modern art somehow hurts 'real' artists
My own ability to discern and appreciate art is irrelevant. I brought up cases where they got outright punked on their own terms.
Unless you just think the humanities on the whole are worthless, in which case, well, fuck you.
I'm pretty sure that describes nobody on this thread. I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread even thinks modern art is worthless. I certainly don't; I think it's unusually prone to bullshit, but there's been plenty of worthwhile modern art.
My own ability to discern and appreciate art is irrelevant. I brought up cases where they got outright punked on their own terms.
if your terms are that there are no terms can you really have them used against you?
Unless you just think the humanities on the whole are worthless, in which case, well, fuck you.
I'm pretty sure that describes nobody on this thread. I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread even thinks modern art is worthless. I certainly don't; I think it's unusually prone to bullshit, but there's been plenty of worthwhile modern art.
what the art critics went to see, on their own terms, was some interesting art. they went there and they saw some art which they thought was interesting, although the person who submitted it did not. if that's a punking it's a pretty lame one, no?
now if you went along there expecting to admire the work of a talented artist, you're naturally going to have that in mind when you make your assessment of it, particularly if what you look for in art is skill and personal expression. A critic who took that view, upon finding out that what they saw was not a deliberate work of art, might feel embarrassed, but they were only interpreting the art in the light of the information they were given. And if that was the critic's view, they've learned something from the experience: they've learned that art can interest them without needing to be a show of skill or the deliberate expression of a talented individual (at least not a human one)
however i'd be a bit sceptical with regard to how many professional critics this describes these days, those who didn't learn their lesson from the earlier hoaxes i guess?
now the hoaxer, what have they achieved? well they haven't demonstrated that 'the emperor has no clothes' or anything so lofty as that. all they've done is shown that they don't really understand the mindset of art critics, and that they don't think much of modern art
is there some kind of lack of opportunity for traditionalist artists that I'm not aware of?
I know that's the popular narrative but I have no idea if it's actually true. I don't work at a museum.
Late reply while I was putting in some research. But from what I saw, yes, the field is struggling. Business magazines straight-up advise career artists to "be weird" on the grounds that uniqueness sells better than quality.
I suspect a good deal of this is general economic depression hurting just about every luxury purchase, and it's difficult to tell how much until we get over it. Landscapes and traditional wall paintings and such tend to be bought by middle class, who can't currently afford to shell out a grand or three for a wall painting.
what the art critics went to see, on their own terms, was some interesting art. they went there and they saw some art which they thought was interesting, although the person who submitted it did not. if that's a punking it's a pretty lame one, no?
now if you went along there expecting to admire the work of a talented artist, you're naturally going to have that in mind when you make your assessment of it, particularly if what you look for in art is skill and personal expression. A critic who took that view, upon finding out that what they saw was not a deliberate work of art, might feel embarrassed, but they were only interpreting the art in the light of the information they were given. And if that was the critic's view, they've learned something from the experience: they've learned that art can interest them without needing to be a show of skill or the deliberate expression of a talented individual (at least not a human one)
however i'd be a bit sceptical with regard to how many professional critics this describes these days, those who didn't learn their lesson from the earlier hoaxes i guess?
now the hoaxer, what have they achieved? well they haven't demonstrated that 'the emperor has no clothes' or anything so lofty as that. all they've done is shown that they don't really understand the mindset of art critics, and that they don't think much of modern art
That's exactly how I feel, really. We create the value we see in the world.
Comments
i read a lot of borges as being pretty five-layered ironic tho
always keep it 300
I was speaking generally.
what happened was someone told them something was true, when in fact it was not true
joke's on them, people still got something out of the art