I don't get art.

[Xeon_OND]

Well, thanks Anid. :D

Btw, do you guys here go to those art museums and look at those what I would call "un-readable art"?

Meaning like, all you see are a total mesh of colors as if the artist just splash buckets of paints of different colors onto it and declare it a masterpiece.

I mean, I can appreciate stuff like Mona Lisa and all, but how anyone can even decipher those really un-readable art paintings is way beyond a human like me.

Pretty much everyone's sketchbooks here, even the worst ones, are way more "humane-looking" than those "artistic" paintings. :D

[Elwell]

Did you read the whole thread?

[Jeff Hall]

If I may throw my two cents in, going back to the start of the thread, we have to put these things into context. Granted, some works of art require a bit more effort to do that than others. The fact is, Piet Mondrian was a brilliant artist, and a superb draughtsman. He could draw anything, and I mean anything. He was best know for his floral paintings. In fact, that’s how he made his living, selling paintings of flowers. The problem was he hated painting flowers. He was interested in other ideas, but abstract works were not selling at that time.

You should look at his whole body of work too. Everybody fixates on the squares with the red, yellow, and blue, but there was a whole process to get to that. So he eventually distilled it down to a simple, orderly composition of lines and primary colors, and that was the point. Mondrian envisioned a world where people would be surrounded by rational, ordered beauty, and would behave themselves. In contrast it was felt that nature, with its irrationality, and irregularity encouraged the animal side of humankind, which led to violence and war.

War was at the heart of it, you see. This was after World War I, one of the deadliest conflicts in human history. In the beginning, people were actually optimistically thinking the war would change things for the better. They weren’t prepared for the 15 million dead, and the unprecedented devastation. Afterwards, for a while, artists felt they had to break from the past. They thought that working together they could create a new world, but only with some radical, revolutionary art. It started in Russia, after a few years Russia went the other way, but their work inspired De Stijl in the Netherlands, and then enter Mondrian. Now you look at his work, Broadway Boogie-Woogie for instance, the title itself tells you something. Broadway. Broadway is in New York. Mondrian was inspired by the rhythm of the city, its streets, and buildings. They’re sort of laid out in grid fashion, aren’t they? With lines and squares.

It all happened again with Pollock and his group, the abstract expressionists. We dropped a couple atomic bombs on Japan, and that was a real game changer for folks back then. Think about where you were on 9/11. Wasn’t there just a few minutes when you were a bit out of sorts? We were in the Nuclear Age now, and this was scary shit. There was no way these guys were ever going to go back to painting flowers, or anything like that. They had some things they needed to get off their chest, and they needed new language to say it.

And even knowing all this, we don’t have to like it. That was then, this is now. Maybe it’s all just a curious artifact of the past. But at least we can appreciate what it was they were trying to say. And that’s all art is really, communication. Look at Marko Djurdjevic’s Marvel work. That’s more accessible, but even he is communicating in a way that hasn’t been done before. And there was a bit of controversy at first, as I understand. Not such a radical departure, obviously, but it’s the same thing.

Sorry to get so long-winded. And thanks for sticking with me if you’re still reading this.

[Avarwen]

Pollock arrived at his dip work through a long and well documented process over a ten year period. He didn't just toss paint around for a laugh, and he wasn't some untrained moron off the streets either.

There are more artists and scientists alive today, than have ever existed in the whole of history. The sum of all human knowledge is now doubling every five years. Yet in an infinite universe, our understanding will never outstrip our ignorance. It is never easy to take leap into the dark and make something new, because there is far more yet to be invented than we can possibly imagine. A hundred thousand years does not amount to a single note in the cosmic symphony. Human creative endeavor, by definition, will always be new compared to the universe.

Pollock did something new and was thinking outside of the box when he did so it that's why his style of panting was unique at the time. Now IMO it just does not feel the same if someone else does it. My problem with abstract expressionism is that no matter how I look at most works I can't connect to them for the most part. I may like the use of colors but that's about as far as it goes. For me abstract art doesn't make me feel anything. That doesn't mean it's not art simply that it's not art that I can get into. Everyone's perception is different some people and look and an abstract work and see all sorts of beauty and meaning and others like me only see lines and colors. Maybe in the future I'll find a work I can relate to but for now the point of abstract is lost on me.

[Anid Maro]

Finally did my first read through of the thread, and it was as good as I'd hoped it would be. Pages 5 to 8 were particularly good with the discussions between JasonWClark and Kev Ferrara standing out most at the moment. Chris Bennett's comments were also quite insightful, as well as many others.

I'll be bookmarking this thread and reading through it again in time to catch what I missed on my first pass. Not many threads on the internet are worth reading through, but this one certainly was.

P.S. All the discussions of Foucault and Wittgenstein make me feel even more bitter towards my poor education (at least in my opinion). I barely recognize Foucault's name and had never heard of Wittgenstein, and I feel cheated for that fact.

Let it be known, if you care at all for your own education then start doing your own research. Then beat your teachers with any essential books that you had to scout out on your own. :P

When I've got a moment I think I've got a copy of Aristotle's "Politics" that I have to dig up and take a gander at.

P.P.S. Oh, and Tom Wolfe is very enjoyable to read.

[Jeff Hall]

There's another component to the story. We went from the Depression to the Cold War, and the political and cultural ideologies of the time had a great deal to do with the decline of Regionalism of the 1930’s and the ascendency of abstract art in the 40’s. And you had this mix of corporate patronage, for good and evil, and the appropriation of art as a political weapon. You could check out Prof. Serge Guilbaut. It’s a fascinating story really. And the abstract art, and the art that preceeded it are not so different as your teachers would have you believe. Abstract art owed a great debt to Regionalism. Jackson Pollock and the Regionalist painters before him subscribed to the idea of socially responsible art. But Pollock’s attempts at social reform were ignored for political reasons. We were more interested in hunting down communists. Because they were everywhere, you know. Check out the 1948 Presidential Election. That set the tone for political life in the U.S. for a while. You could probably draw some interesting parallels to what’s been going on here lately.

I like history in case you were wondering.

[derelic7]

You're right about that, of course. Maybe "draftsmanship" would be a better word? Either way, I wonder if Pollock had the skill to make those shapes fit together in an elegantly representational way. My unresearched impression is that he didn't.

"Elegant" and "fit together" are subjective expressions.

Abstract art is awesome. Sometimes good ideas need a little explaining.
They tease, tickle and boggle the mind.. At least for those willing to open to it.

Art exists for art's sake. As much as I like Concept art, it isn't art, it's purely functional. Illustratory prostitution. The pursuit of beauty in truth is what makes it worth a damn.

Then again, it took me a few years of being in in the abstract and avantgarde music movement to appreciate the abstract visual arts in the same way.

[Jeff Hall]

You're right about that, of course. Maybe "draftsmanship" would be a better word? Either way, I wonder if Pollock had the skill to make those shapes fit together in an elegantly representational way. My unresearched impression is that he didn't.

He absolutely could. He was a student and close friend of Thomas Hart Benton, and even adopted some of the mannerisms of his teacher for a while before he started doing his own thing. People assume his action paintings are just simple drips and drabs, and they think, "I could do that." People were saying that back then too. But they weren't just saying it, they were trying it, and failing. There were lots of imitators, but no one could capture the same vitality that Pollock had. So love him or hate him, there's clearly something more there, and you can't do it. Even if you could, you didn't, he did, and there's no escaping that.

[Avarwen]

"Elegant" and "fit together" are subjective expressions.

Abstract art is awesome. Sometimes good ideas need a little explaining.
They tease, tickle and boggle the mind.. At least for those willing to open to it.

Art exists for art's sake. As much as I like Concept art, it isn't art, it's purely functional. Illustratory prostitution. The pursuit of beauty in truth is what makes it worth a damn.

Then again, it took me a few years of being in in the abstract and avantgarde music movement to appreciate the abstract visual arts in the same way.

I disagree IMO it's art but with a different function. It's like illustration many people don't think it's art because it doesn't depress you or make you look deep into your soul or make you think at all for that matter. But the same can be said of any art form. For some realism isn't art because it doesn't make them feel a thing.Abstract is that same way some people see it as trash and non-art because they don't understand it.

Also animation, comics and video games are seen by many as lowbrow tripe not fit to even be considered as art. Who's right here no one is we all have different views of art. No one view right art is to big to put into one little box. I try not to buy into the whole "this is art and this isn't" debate because it all ends in bad tempers hurt feelings and people hating an art form for the wrong reasons. I say to each his own. If we stopped trying to define what art is and actually did some art we'd all be better off.

[derelic7]

I disagree IMO it's art but with a different function. It's like illustration many people don't think it's art because it doesn't depress you or make you look deep into your soul or make you think at all for that matter. But the same can be said of any art form. For some realism isn't art because it doesn't make them feel a thing.Abstract is that same way some people see it as trash and non-art because they don't understand it.


I know I was kinda heavy with the "it isn't art" bit, but to me, the art of Concept Art doesn't reside in the intention of the work, which is to make something sell, but in the pursuit of design and beauty behind that intention.

To me, art is most easily defined as premeditated noise. Which constitutes a lot of things.

[TASmith]

"Many people don't think illustration's art because it doesn't depress you or make you look deep into your soul or make you think at all for that matter."

I've seen tons of examples of illustrations that do all these things. The reason why some fine artists and others look down on illustration is that your not just using your own voice. You're illustrating someone else's voice or idea, usually for commercial purposes. Like Dean Cornwell's illustrations of stories by Hemingway. Those were Hemingway's stories and not Cornwell's. In every illustration there's a question of the artist's involvement and interest in the project. I think in Cornwell's case, he seems to have loved the stories, and loved painting for them, and getting paid for it just makes it all possible. In other projects, when you're selling something like coca-cola or a breakfast cereal, or preparation H, I imagine one would be in it more for the money.

I got called out once in a class for illustrating a scene from a book by Stephen King. I forget if the professor said, "that's not art, that's illustration," or if she just said, "but that's not what we're doing, that's illustration." Something like that. To me it just sounds petty. If I hear a really good idea, and I want to call attention to it through art, that's valid to me. It doesn't matter who said it, just give that person credit. To me, art is all about the ideas, and not at all about self aggrandizement.

[Gerulaitis]

Not to forget - illustration can provide a different POV to the story and even bring something of its own, even new concepts and ideas, to the whole piece. That's what editorial illustration often does. It can be in dialogue with the text. And its form is often quite personal. Especially nowadays when we have a dazzling amount of various "styles" and approaches in illustration.

"The reason why some fine artists and others look down on illustration is that your not just using your own voice."

I'm not convinced that's the reason. Lots of illustration artists nowadays have a very personal "style" or "voice" as you say. Just sift through Drawn (http://drawn.ca/), then say those illustrators don't use their own personal voice, while somehow keeping a straight face.
Perhaps "...not working on the content and ideas that are truthfully important to the artist, instead commercially selling their focus to work on expressing ideas and content of others" would be a better wording?

About the "that's not art, that's illustration," and "but that's not what we're doing, that's illustration.": I come across this mentality quite often, especially since I do in fact want to be an illustrator, and I study at a place where most lecturers are fineartists. Imho, what they mean by this and have against illustration is that "illustrative" illustration only "shows" something, and is NOT a work in its own right, for its own sake and purpose, truthful to itself, artist's self-expression, with its own reason for existence, self directed (as in - "is what it is, and is notable for what it is"), with its own original/creative approach, pursuit of some form of truth, etc... When being illustrative, you don't make a conceptually independant piece of its own. With that mentality lots of (but not all) concept art would not qualify as "art" (but it would certainly qualify as design; that's what it is, imho. How art could be more important than design or vice versa? Can't compare apples to oranges). I don't agree with the view that "illustrative" is always bad, though - illustrative means is only one of the many ways to approach ideas, with its own benefits and drawbacks. One could conceptually drag illustration closer to fineart by justifying why this particular approach is needed (however, it won't avoid the initial hard-wired gag-responce fineartists have whenever seeing illustration), sometimes even coming up with an interesting form is enought to convince (like this (http://www.booooooom.com/2009/03/16/frank-gonzales-glitchy-bird-paintings/)).

And for some reason I felt these two relevant:

http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/c1b418328376edaf99acec10f0c733af0977f621_m.jpg

http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/b4e9b0345b921b7f7d326ef6871244c385ff9fcc_m.jpg

Most fights happen when the word "art" means different things to different people.

[TASmith]

"I'm not convinced that's the reason. Lots of illustration artists nowadays have a very personal "style" or "voice" as you say. Just sift through Drawn, then say those illustrators don't use their own personal voice, while somehow keeping a straight face."

I completely agree with you, but that's just our opinion. That same professor I had would say, it's not really your voice. :P Re-read what I wrote.

"The reason why some fine artists and others look down on illustration is that your not JUST using your own voice."

As in, your voice is in there, but there's also someone else's that's dominating.

[CaNiBaLe]

thats right why not having both

[kev ferrara]

Jeff, all the stuff you are talking about was already well underway in the U.S. before WWI. The illustrators were already being pilloried prior to 1900 as sell-outs. And abstraction was taught in school long before the abstractionists/graphic designers/cartoonists dispensed with the realistic aspect to artistic expression.

Also.... it was always evident that Mondrian was a graphic designer. His flower paintings are graphic designs.

And Picasso's realistic paintings are very boring, although extremely competent in terms of pattern and execution. Picasso, also, only found himself after realizing he was graphic artist. He was not a talent like Brangwyn, Sorolla, or Sargent... artists who could paint realistically and expressively at once.

But it is true that WWI made cartoons/Graphic Designs all the rage, as people really wanted some escape. They had seen enough of "deep" thinking, given its association with Empires, particularly the War-Crazy German one.

kev

[Slothboy3000]

I'm personally not one for alot of 'modern' art, although I can certainly understand that although it's not to my tastes, that's not to say it isn't art (with some exceptions - i.e killing chicks?! Shit in jelly?!)
In regards to illustration being seen as a 'lower art' because of it's use...what about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Is that not just a big commission, illustrating scenes from the Bible?

[Wiggins]

I'd like to chime in.

I'd toss in the notion that such things are art and music are, in my mind, 100%

- subjective -

It is what it is, to you, at the time you see it, for any number of reasons, unique to you, and you alone. That is why you "like" or "dislike" something, and everything in between those.

Why is that artist showcased in galleries all across the world's museums?
Well, for the reasons above, because those who coordinate and manage said galleries happened to sit on the "like" side of the fence. Also, the whole world of fine art galleries is a depthless chasm of rules, committees, collectors, dealers, curators, and directors, to know why something is hanging on a wall somewhere, you need to know how that specific gallery works, and what it's initial aims were, to understand how that art "fits" there.

(Art/ Work is a wonderful book that can give some insight on how that works, how the world of "working" fine arts majors have to make their living if they want to exhibit their things in galleries....it's an entire courtship process, that can literally take years)

Why are they considered famous or groundbreaking?
Again, because the people who write/wrote/will write the publications singing the praises, didn't ask every human being on the planet and tally the score. They categorize based on where their preference sits, and probably also in relation to where the general consensus has sat for years and years. You won't find an art history book being read at a fine arts school ten years from now that states "You know, we were wrong, the Mona Lisa is actually garbage, we're really bored of it."

Also, consider, how MANY pieces of art, right now, exist in the world, from the multi-million dollar pieces in galleries, like stuffed sheep in a glass box (how long did that take?) down to the scribbles with perfect cross hatching on someone's Post-It notes they jotted down while on hold with their ISP about lowering their needed internet speed to save money that month.

All art has a place, and it's the job of the artist to push that piece into whatever spotlight it can get, if that's the intent. And maybe it's not, maybe people start seeing it after your dead, and eventually you're in the art history books, and your children's children's children's children are shaking hands with the curators thanking them for finding their relative's work worthy of a gallery, and they let the comment slip "to think he just scribbled these things down wile posting on the internet!"



It's a huge world, and the modern art world? Man, there's no certainty about it, I find that really fascinating.


Sorry for ranting, just wanted to put in my two cents, however pertinent or not.
I just hope that everyone can learn things, about what they like, and what they do not like, and just keep making art, in spite of anything else.

[cassowary]

I'd say because they don't represent anything. I kind of have a small bias where I say a painting HAS to have some kind of subject, person, scene, concept, or I tend to just flat out reject it.

What??

Hey, I'm the last person who would say that art should be something other than meaningful, but seriously? Geometry is math, is science, is nature, is life itself in implication. Math is art; you have no thing in nature or life that does not bear some mathematical implication. You cannot have form without function, just as you cannot have function without form. You must grasp both function and form to understand the kind of art you're talking about. Same with this mathematical formula, which is conversely related;

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8738/goldenspiral.gif

[Flake]

My bad,cranky mood, not the best day. I shall retire
See ya on Sunday.

[TASmith]

I've been looking through the net for any other insights and I found this:

http://artgallery.yale.edu/pages/whatisart/what_openhouse.html

I like the first and third quote.

[AzusaPesant]

Now, IMO, the creativty dosent need to meet the skill for it to be a great drawing.

Now with some art, you can tell that the artist didnt think or had to have any skill involved when they draw a lame drawing:
-Think of some french rich dude putting a dot on a white canvas and calling it art and selling it for billions, but some how it has great symbolic meaning.

And at times people with great skill can be bland:
-Some dude that only draws mucles, diffrent poses, but lacks the creative thought or understanding of symbolism to make a great composition.


But to tell you the truth, im more partial to knowing what the dude drew on the paper by observation, my eyes, art is for your eyes, so that your brain can interpet it.

[Randis]

Art is a language.
For me the image must be able to speak for itself, it can translate a story, emotion or a mood.
Some images may take more time to be understood while others are more obvious but it is solely up to the image to keep you focused until you get the meaning and not to a 3th party.
Unless there is some cultural, historical or religious background I am not willing to read long assays to understand the meaning of an image. An image that is not able to speak for itself fails in my eyes.
The message does not always have to be complex; it can be something as simple as a nice composition, a couple of triangles, a nice shape, and some pleasant color.
Like any other language art only works if it is understood, pretending to understand something you do not is far worse than being honest.

[TASmith]

"A good book doesn't give up all its secrets at once." Stephen King, if not word for word. I think art can be the same way, at times.

[Randis]

A good book doesn't give up all its secrets at once." Stephen King, if not word for word.

[WORLDCLASSken]

Isn't that considered abstract art????

[Randis]

http://www.artsjournal.com/artopia/2009/02/poop_art_manzoni_sono_buoni.html

http://riseinruin.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/canned-shit.jpg

[Black Spot]

Wonder if anyone has been tempted to use a can opener just to check.

[Syle]

Haha...cans of shit. I love it. In my opinion, the artistic point of that piece isn't the cans themselves, but rather the reaction that is seen after their construction. The madness that ensued. Probably classifies as reactionary art or something silly...

Great thread by the way, read the whole way through.

[TASmith]

Randis, sorry, I'm confused. That's what I said.

[Randis]

I think they symbolize the content of some "art" and also the way the content is contained.

[TASmith]

That's why I said, "at times." Different art serves different purposes.

[Writerof]

Without these pioneers, art would still be a field of observation, not imagination.



And by that sentence you throw away centuries of work inspired by the greek mythos, the byble, and more of these art by observation....

Observation is a tool. You learn shapes. You apply yuore knowledge of the one observed towards youre owne fantasy.

Classical art is by no means traditional in its subjects. To say that Da vinci is a boring artist without imagination becuase he painted by observation and without vision is absurd.

[TASmith]

"And by that sentence you throw away centuries of work inspired by the greek mythos..."

No, and neither did the first modern masters, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Guaguin, Picasso, Matisse, Mondrian... even if it appears so to the untrained eye. Certainly, the works of all artists throughout history show a great deal of imagination. What Kab was saying is that, due to this modern and postmodern age, we artists have greater freedom than we did to make whatever we want. What you'll notice as you read through this thread, and what I find it so fascinating, is that almost every post here has an element of truth and error to it - no matter how informed or educated the writer.

[lumar]

a lot of that abstract uber simple art is bad.

mondrian compositions are awesome

[Lakeland]

The more abstract art is, the more interpretations you can add to it.
White square on a black background can be 100 things. And thats whats it all about. Bunch of art wannabes making theory on a piece of crap.
Like the guy in the 3rd post said : Money + Hype.
Word.

[TASmith]

I just found this on the New Yorker

[Anid Maro]

White square on a black background can be 100 things.

Actually, I disagree. A white square on a black background is only one thing, a white square on a black background.

Well... maybe it could be another thing: A black square with a square hole on a white background. :)

More interpretation can be applied to a Bouguereau painting than some modernist stuff in my opinion. Not that it matters, I've never ranked "confusion" as a desirable quality in art anyway.

[ajvenema]

The more abstract art is, the more interpretations you can add to it.
White square on a black background can be 100 things. And thats whats it all about. Bunch of art wannabes making theory on a piece of crap.
Like the guy in the 3rd post said : Money + Hype.
Word.


its not like I know the perfect answer, but posts like this are plain stupid. I hope you read a bit back in the text and learn some stuff. It sounds like you just don't have a clue about art history.
a strange closedminded unknowing statement...

[Lakeland]

its not like I know the perfect answer, but posts like this are plain stupid. I hope you read a bit back in the text and learn some stuff. It sounds like you just don't have a clue about art history.
a strange closedminded unknowing statement...

ok. I respect your opinnion. However, let me rephrase my self:

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3756/88388029.jpg

I just made this awesome image in Paint.
Put me in a museum please. If you dont, I can always say, You dont have a clue about art history and you are a closeminded sod. :)


I acknowledge that some modern works were experimental and brave and cutting edge at the time, however you cant worship them just because those painters showed other painters where NOT to go with art. Sure they could be a source of inspiration. Many non modern works have their roots of inspiration in modern art: I acknowledge that to.

SO how about that: Say Im this big artist, a non modern painter, and I discover a new quality in my art, my works are a breakthrough. Asked on what triggered me I say: my works were inspired by a rock lying on a red brick, next to a dog's morning poo. Should humanity put the rock, red brick and the poo in a museum?

[Anid Maro]

I just made this awesome image in Paint.
Put me in a museum please. If you dont, I can always call say, You dont have a clue about art history and you are a closeminded sod. :)

I've seen better, actually. That image probably wouldn't make it to a museum for technical considerations alone. Believe it or not, not every modernist/minimalist/whatever artist was a money grubbing choad, some even knew what the hell they were doing.

Ironically, one of the criticisms I've heard leveraged against figurative art is that any bozo can just doodle a naked model, so non-abstract art wasn't really artistic. Kinda like your implied notion (via your "masterpiece") that any bozo could throw some geometric shapes together and call it art, but it really isn't.

[Two Listen]

I do not like the word art anymore. The world has ruined it for me. With all its..."freedom" and "interpretation". It's such a broad term, it practically has no meaning, and in doing so is up in the air for people to tie any and all meaning to it.

People should know by now. There is no label for this. There is no one descriptor, no effective term of reference, no universal quality other than perhaps "existence". I see very little point in even trying to use the word "art" effectively.

All the same things that make "art" beautiful, make it confusing, depressing, complicated, and sometimes really fucking frustrating.

I use the term "artist" only to describe myself when someone asks, it's quick, and gets about as much information across than if I actually took the time to explain. But I really don't like it. I don't strive to be an artist. I don't strive to do art. I strive to do a lot of things there are a lot better words for.

Remind me not to use the word art anymore. By this point, there's very little of one.

[darkwolf29a]

I think anyone who has never read a book about abstract or modern art is REALLY missing the point of those images.

I saw a painting once of a black line on an offwhite canvas....hanging in the San Diego Museum of Art. At the time...I didn't get it and I though it was junk. But, that painting did do one thing for me...it made me a student of art, all kinds of art. Since that time, about 6 years ago now, I have been reading all the books I can find on different art periods, history, etc.

See, what I've found, is that if you want to understand a painting like Mondrian's, Pollock, etal, you have to understand the culture surrounding the work. Once you understand that...you can truly appreciate the painting/image/sculpture for what it is...until that point, you are only grasping the tip of the iceberg...or less.

And if you think it's junk...you show a significant lack of understanding of the subject.

[tobbA]

I've seen better, actually. That image probably wouldn't make it to a museum for technical considerations alone. Believe it or not, not every modernist/minimalist/whatever artist was a money grubbing choad, some even knew what the hell they were doing.

Ironically, one of the criticisms I've heard leveraged against figurative art is that any bozo can just doodle a naked model, so non-abstract art wasn't really artistic. Kinda like your implied notion (via your "masterpiece") that any bozo could throw some geometric shapes together and call it art, but it really isn't.

Still, far stranger things have made their ways into museums. Like the case where a monkey made a painting that sold for millions, and then they find out a monkey made it, and suddenly it isn't at all as spectacular is it was in the beginning. Seems to me that modern art is more about keeping up the illusion that your particular piece is worth something than actually making something worthwhile.

It's a bit like the 'song' by tenacious D where Jack Black only plays one note and then calls it a finished song. "Anybody could have wrote that!" "Yeah, but guess who did write it? Me, baby, me!"

Or like medieval philosophy. "How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?"

The second part of your statement is just untrue.

I'm not saying all modern or all abstract art is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that a lot of it is.

I think the new definition for art should be, "doing something completely random and getting payed for it."

[Elwell]

Art is a language.
For me the image must be able to speak for itself, it can translate a story, emotion or a mood.
Some images may take more time to be understood while others are more obvious but it is solely up to the image to keep you focused until you get the meaning and not to a 3th party.
Unless there is some cultural, historical or religious background I am not willing to read long assays to understand the meaning of an image. An image that is not able to speak for itself fails in my eyes.
The message does not always have to be complex; it can be something as simple as a nice composition, a couple of triangles, a nice shape, and some pleasant color.
Like any other language art only works if it is understood, pretending to understand something you do not is far worse than being honest.

There are many different languages. Just because someone is speaking a language you don't understand, doesn't mean it's gibberish.
However, once you learn the language they're speaking, you may still find that they aren't saying anything worth listening to.

[Anid Maro]

Still, far stranger things have made their ways into museums. Like the case where a monkey made a painting that sold for millions, and then they find out a monkey made it, and suddenly it isn't at all as spectacular is it was in the beginning.

A'ight, I'll grant that some museums are more gullible than others. So yeah, if you find the right fool you can sell 'em the Golden State Bridge. Also this is less an criticism of art than it is of the art market.

Seems to me that modern art is more about keeping up the illusion that your particular piece is worth something than actually making something worthwhile.

A cursory overview of recent art history would debunk the idea that "modern art", as a whole, is about creating the illusion of value. Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock), for example, does not fall into the "writes more than he paints" cliché with paintings such as No.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948). The only meaning I've seen Pollock attribute to his paintings is explanations of his own mental state and approach while creating them, even the non-numbered titles he put on some drip paintings are the essence of brevity. Not a lot of illusion going on with Pollock, you see what you get.

Even assuming that your statement about illusions is an appropriate characterization, there is hardly any monopoly to be held on illusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren).

The second part of your statement is just untrue.

What? The criticism I listed about how figurative art isn't art according to some people? Which part is untrue, that figurative art isn't art or that I've heard such a criticism? If the latter, well then you tell me what I've heard.

Determining the "artistic qualities" of something is pretty difficult to do, especially given how broad the word "art" is. However it isn't too hard to imagine an argument behind the statement that figurative art isn't artistic, it would basically state how the rote copying of the world around you lacks creative effort and amounts to the artist being nothing more than, as I believe Elwell has put it, a "meat camera".

Of course this is a simplistic and faulty characterization of figurative art, but certainly no more so than the characterizations being made of abstract art (e.g. "doing something completely random and getting payed for it").

I'm not saying all modern or all abstract art is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that a lot of it is.

I'm not saying that all modern or all abstract art is great stuff, I'm just saying that you can't talk so broadly about anything without jamming your foot into your mouth.

I'll let someone else do the dirty work of tearing that last statement of yours apart.

[ajvenema]

ok. I respect your opinnion. However, let me rephrase my self:

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3756/88388029.jpg

[QUOTE=Lakeland;2583364]I just made this awesome image in Paint.
Put me in a museum please. If you dont, I can always say, You dont have a clue about art history and you are a closeminded sod. :)


funny joke:) it has no qualities, its easy to see you barely thought about it. Besides, the time where an artist could impress with this kind of abstracts is not anymore i think. We are past that point now i think, altough im not sure of that.


I acknowledge that some modern works were experimental and brave and cutting edge at the time, however you cant worship them just because those painters showed other painters where NOT to go with art. .

How can you tell where art should go? there ISNT a place art should go i think. Of course 'art' is hard to describe, but maybe the more abstract stuff is more worth of the name 'art' as very realistic figurative art is, that should be more like 'craft' like a woodworker, you have a set of rules, techniques, and you just have to learn those to become one. Of course this is an over the top statement but you get what i mean i think. I think art is about freedom, not about rules. especially when so much stuff is done already. Why just do what the old masters did for us? I really don't see the use for new rembrandts. As i don't see the use for new pollocks and mondriaans.

Sure they could be a source of inspiration. Many non modern works have their roots of inspiration in modern art: I acknowledge that to. SO how about that: Say Im this big artist, a non modern painter, and I discover a new quality in my art, my works are a breakthrough. Asked on what triggered me I say: my works were inspired by a rock lying on a red brick, next to a dog's morning poo. Should humanity put the rock, red brick and the poo in a museum?

should humanity put all those models from realistic painters in a museum? should they place the actual turkey from a still life in a museum?

your statement sounds like you really think figurative art is the top of art, the highest spot on the pyramid? there is a difference between inspiration from things you see or think, or inspiration from other artists. Those abstracts are not in a museum because they inspired other painters, they are there because they stand for something. they were a breakthrough. they are important for art history. you have to know about the whole art history to understand where art is now. You can't just take away the abstract art because you don't really think its beautiful anymore. It's like throwing away giotto, because of leonardo ,rafael and michelangelo.

longest post ever for me i guess:)

oh, and for tobba:

'I think the new definition for art should be, "doing something completely random and getting payed for it."'

its not random, maybe 'new' . do something new, revolutionary and you will probably be succesful. big chance in a time where people are used to the thing that once was revolutionary, people like you will come and say its crap and boring.

If its really as easy as you say, i would go for it if i were you! 2 hours a day random crap for lots of money, and 8 hours left for 'real' art!

[ajvenema]

oh, and what would you guys think about stuff like this one from Daniel Richter. Can't really say its abstract, but its not really close to the old masters either... still i think he got where he is now via both pollock and rembrandt...

[jetpack42]

I'd recommend reading the first chapter of John F Carlsons "Guide to Landscape Painting" which talks all about what art is and why.

"Intentions have no place in art; only results."

[stabby2486]

Looking through this thread, one of the main defenses on modern art's behalf is that it did something new. Well, truth be told, just because something is new doesn't mean it's any good. In fact, it can be a flaming pile of garbage. I mean, some abstract art is actually really cool, sometimes just the design of something can stand on its own without referring to something real. But when someone is just splattering paint on a canvas or painting a bunch of squares, without exhibiting any sort of effort at all, it just becomes pretentious.

[cro-magnon]

who's afraid of red, yellow and blue?