Fine Arts my a** !

[Kortez]

I just needed an outlet for my rage.

Thing is I went to an art exhibition here in Iceland. It was an exhibition of the final projects from the graduation class of Visual Arts from the Icelandic Academy of the Arts.

Some of things there were quite good, in fact one of the first pieces I saw was incredibly good, it was a music video for an icelandic group called Tristian, the music was incredible and the video fit very well. To be honest this made me feel VERY optimistic about the exhibition.

After wandering around, I realised everything else was utter shite.

It was a bunch of arty farty people trying to express themselves in a creative manner without having the skill or talent to do so. I'm sorry if I'm being a jerk, but I don't think of a piece of meat attached to a iron stick, waving up and down as art.

Someone had glued paper cut-outs to a wall.
Another one had takan black paint and painted very bad (unproportioned and unclear) stick figures on the wall.
Somebody had sewn two 7" dolls, a dinosaur and a cow, having A*al sex.
Somebody had videotaped a close up shot of a massage.


To me this isn't art, and although I realise that there were some good pieces, there was only one piece that was really good, in my honest opinion.

You don't have to comment on this or anything, I just wanted to be heard.

[pibb991]

at the drawing and painting exit show at my school there were maybe 2 people that drew or painted non abstract. ive seen things at shows from meat hanging from pantyhose to an installation where the artist sat in a room with see through walls 10 hours everyday for 5 days ripping individual pages out of books(no lie). in the fine arts world if you paint with a paint brush from life your considered a dinosaur.

[DragonGX]

Yeah.. Theres a TV show they show here and they try to bring on arists, musicians, actors, etc once in a while..

Anyways, this show keeps bringing this famous "Artist" who has done some art work for TV shows ("Friends" is the most prominent)

Anways this ladys artwork is stupid. She has no talent, and honestly I dont see how anyone can like it.. But somehow she has become famous for it.. It really blows my mind. It looks like work that a pre-schooler would do, yet people pay thousands of dollars for her junk.. Its not art at all.. its stupid!

[gekitsu]

over at sijun, i once read a comment by spooge demon (craig mullins) that was roughly like this:

if you wanna work in the field of production art, matte painting or illustration, go to art school, learn from the old masters, acquire skills, practise, practise, practise...

if you wanna be an artist, do everything but don't go to school, visit huge parties instead, produce just some weird stuff and make sure all people see that you are serious about it.

pretty much sums the thing up. :)

[WildSpruceMoose]

LoL nice one gekitsu. I don't want the "artist" title following me around, because I tend to use art as yes a way to express myself, but more so in a functional matter. When people only use it to become an artist and go to parties its humourous. Practical applications of art in the industry video games, movies, tvs, whatever that's where the long term money is :D

[mic]

It's actually very difficult to define what art is these days. Every time I look at things like that, I wonder what it is that drives people to do things like this. If you guys do some research on Modern and Post Modern art, maybe you'll get a better idea why people actually do this type of thing.

I must admit that I have actually seen some pretty interesting pieces of this kind - in terms of execution is concerned, it's relatively easy, but in terms of concept, it's actually very clever (some of them).

There was a whole debate on this in the Art History section of these forums that was started by Lunatique. If you search for "conceptual art" you might be able to find it.

[Erik]

I know why they do that. Because nobody in the art scene cares for quality anymore they just hop on and try to make a buck.

And that works really well for them too.

About the feelings and intentions of the artist, i think that is beside the point. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

[mic]

I know why they do that. Because nobody in the art scene cares for quality anymore they just hop on and try to make a buck.

I think it's a lot more than that (but money does have something to do with it)... I think it's more to do with a break from tradition (and probably a lot more reasons I can't think of).

If we say art can only be XYZ and nothing else, how are we suppose to progress and discover new frontiers??

This has been discussed before so I'm not going to go into it any further

[Signature]

Ninety percent of everything is crap. - Theodore Sturgeon

I remember seing a TV show for kids ... there's an artist who can do really great stuff.
When I saw it he arranged spoons, forks and saltshakers and stuff like that on the ground.
In about 5 minutes there was a stunning image of the eiffel tower
(when viewed from above)

I kinda hate generalizations! Maybe it's true ... maybe the wrong people get famous for their stuff.

[Erik]

I settle for 90% anytime ;-)

Ok, i agree my comment should be toned down. But mic i think that your argument only holds if a. not everybody is running rampant towards the perceived new frontier and b. there is room to perceive that new frontier individually as opposed to having it prescribed by a sort of collective art-board or whatever we might call it that tries to define if the given artist has been meeting the right people.

Of course there are exceptions. I think that if you have any of the great conceptartists on this site arrange eiffeltowers out of spoons and kitchen appliances the result will be far more aesthetically pleasing than if you have a bunch of random modern/abstract artists do it (and then pick from the ones that just graduated their art college, not the picasso's and so on).

Because there you have the large portion that is just doing a trick. (o look i have reached a new frontier i rip pages out of a book for 5 days! -- if i go sit on the pavement and flip over pavement stones for 5 days, that would be *another* new frontier i guess )

*rant* sorry

yeah this discussion is getting old. So let's keep it going we might hit a new frontier ;-)

[otis]

you guys know the real history of exhibition art? A bunch of untalanted "artists" in N.Y. figured out that it's ALL about marketing. So they ran around calling their shit art and the naive public just believed them, even if they never understood it. Now we have mastwers programs in universities atempting to study this shit, and these people hold themselves up on their own pedastools believing they are somthing that they are not.
Either way, some of it is intersting, while most of it is crap.
It's the same thing as lisitening to music that has a rythm and lisitening to another piece that is just noise.

But in the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder..

[boehmke]

This is what I have learned from being in both art and design school (6 year total):

Most of these people we are speaking of here are talentless in art...what their talent lies in is bull-shiting people into thinking what they just made was art. They tell you how tortureous/angst ridden/melencholy/ etc. their lives are. How this is an expression of everything they think and see. They string about 100 words in a row that make no sense to a sensable human being. IMHO if you need to explain your art that much...or confuse someone into thinking its art...your not dong your job as an artist. Art is a visual medium. If you have to explain it constanly you have failed.

[Erik]

I wonder what would happen if i would take a randowm piece of the type of art we discussed and put it on sale on a flea market.

Let's say it gets as much attention as the 1982 Diana Ross LP with scratches and a ripped cover, or a full collection of power ranger toys with one arm missing. Let's say someone would pay 5 bucks for it. That would prove that the BS is required to sell it as art and the BS is 90%+ of the value.

Does that imply that taking the powerrangers and glueing it to the diana ross album and putting it in the window of the gallery would make that sell? No, it has no BS story. (Or the BS stained the gallery so much that putting it in the window implies its art and it would sell anyway ;-) ) Strange.

I could be totally wrong of course but there is only one way to find out. Let's do the exeriment (and yes, that counts as art too!)

[ZippZopp]

i can agree 100 percent with what is being said in this thread. i'm graduating from a good liberal arts school next weekend, and i originally was a Comp Sci major and i changed over to studio arts. now obviously the school i was at wasn't a true art school . the art program really wasn't that great and in turn, i'd say 75 percent of the senior thesis exhibitions were abstract in nature. it really is a joke the way this stuff is done.

i'm not sure the student can always be at fault though, as is the case of my school. generally speaking, it seemed to me that most of the instruction by professors was pushing students into that abstract mode. suffice it to say that the program needs a ton of work, of my 2 and a half years in the program, which included 3 drawing courses (yes 3, thats it) we did figure drawing for maybe 2 or 3 weeks in the introductory drawing class. talk about a joke!

so ultimately, i feel that because the instruction wasn't that great, not only did the professors push students to the abstract mode, but naturally students gravitated toward it because of the lack of training they received.

[MindCandyMan]

Usually history goes in pendulum swings...we gravitate from one thing to another and back again so hopefully since we have run out of "shock value" pieces of art we will start getting back to realism. At least we still have www.artrenewal.org !!!!

I guess I have to share one of my museum going nightmares. Once I went to the museum and there was an exhibit where they showed these items...a sink with dolls legs stuffed up the pipes...half of a room full of big huge plastic noodle looking things...a pile of sand with mirrors behind it...and a tree (inside the museum) with a broken tree house hanging from it. Everyone was frowning at me in the museum because I burst out laughing and I said, "You have got to be kidding me...since when does filling a room with giant plastic rigatoni mean anything???" And all I could think to myself was that someone actually got paid for that crap..makes no sense.

[ZippZopp]

let's hope we will swing back into realism! by the way, great story Mindcandy. i would have loved to hear that in an exhibition!!!

[oglzogl]

I would agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread. Most of the artwork that has been so well recieved by the public (or should I say art world?) in the last twenty or thirty years leaves me baffled. Making art from noodles, meat products or glued dolls really does nothing for me but leave me depressed.

It almost seems that every "fine" artist in the later part of the 20th century felt obligated to be insincere and was more interested in shock value than asthetics.. and the public expected them to act like Andy Warhol or something.

Still, I'd just have to repeat what others have said. It is not all bad. Some of it is beautiful and very well crafted.

Realism, by itself can be just as unemotional and boring as the rest. Think of the super-realism of the seventies. After viewing some of that crap I am left just as empty as I may have been looking at soup cans. Also, the neo-classical artwork of the eighties was just a sham. An insincere attempt.. but it was a realistic sham.

I don't know why I felt like responding here but I did. I have read this thread with some interest since it started.. I just think it is helpful to remember that throughout history, for every great and innovative artist out there (whether they are using an abstract method or a realistic one) there are a legion of hacks out there trying to emulate them. I think it has been that way probably since the first cave painting.

Personally, I think most true innovators have moved from the gallery space anyway. There are so many other ways to get your work out now.. with print and the internet and movies and games and..

[mtw]

I blame it on the art critics. I don't think there's anything wrong with conceptual or contemporary art, but the wrong artists are getting the most publicity. I could be wrong of course, because I'm not familiar with the contemporary art scene.

[ZippZopp]

mindcandy, thanks for the link to Art Renewal....sweet site! i've been kinda bored at work recently, so today i've been reading through everything there and it is really great stuff. anyone who hasn't read it, i'd suggest giving it a read, its really interesting stuff

[mtw]

Here's a short discussion of modern art at Sijun (http://forums.sijun.com/viewtopic.php?t=30950&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).

[Kortez]

oh and by the way, I have to mention this..

One guy had a blank canvas but there were some green marker lines here and there

Apparantly, this was his way of showing that without context, maps don't mean anything. Maps are what we want them to be.

I feel so stupid, I never realised this.

:bsflag:

[ZippZopp]

hahahahaahaahhaahahaha, i can't stop laughing after reading that kortez, thats just too funny

[Leviron]

It kind of makes me wonder, is it worth going to art school anymore. It’s not cheap and it looks like I will be learning crap. $50 000 is not a small about of money for me.

[Android]

here is the best article i have found on the web about this subject






[URL=http://]http://www.artrenewal.com/articles/2003/Don_Gray_Art_Education/don_gray1.asp (http://www.artrenewal.com/articles/2003/Decline_Education/decline1.asp)

[MindCandyMan]

Great article, thanks Andrew. Lays it all out...awesome.

[Lionel]

Am i the only one who this that hates artrenewal's politics with a passion. They seem to want to drag art back to the time of Bouguereau.

I have to admit I hate most modern art with a passion and it seems to have become more to do with interia decoration than art. I mean there is lots of absract stuff I could imagine putting in a room as nice design to add some interest to a wall but not pay these rediculous prices that we have seen. I don't however write all of it just because I think the majority of it should be burnt. There are nugets of gold in them there hills :). For example I have to admit that I don't get Picasso. His stuff just doesn't do anything for me. I have looked round the picaso musiem near Barcilona and thinking that most of the stuff was not at all interesting. However even I can't write of all his stuff. Picasso's Guernica is for me one of the most moving war paintings I have seen. Even Sargent one of my favorate painters never created any war paintings that I think can touch the emotion in this. And this is from somebody who hates Picasso and worships Sargent :).

Looking through the modern masters in ARC wtf are painters like Lucian Freud. There are some tecnically very gifted painters there but they all leave me cold. How can a site talk about modern masters without mentioning imho the greatest living portait artist. I will not say that I dislike the painters there I love some of William Whitaker's stuff but the artist that they have shown there represent such a narrow view of art. I have no problem with people who think that the art on display there is the pinical of art but I strongly object to the atitude that this is the best form of art and we should forget all modern art.

I agree that art education today needs to teach more of the craft of painting and less about self expression. The reasons for this are not that all modern art is crap and worthless but that if you do not teach people the craft of painting then the artist doesn't have complete freedom in which to express their ideas. How can an sombody be a properly tarined artist if they have to limit all their ideas to purly abstract stuff because they lack the necessary skill to produce realistic stuff. I don't beleve that people should produce abstract stuff but they should have the choice of which path to follow. The other thing I have never been able to understand is if somebody doesn't have good painting skills how they can claim that they created the abstract piece on purpose by placing their bruch exactally where they meant to rather than by acident. People shouldn't be sent into the world only being able to create art by acident :).

ARC has done some good stuff for the comunity with stuff like their online musiem which is excellent. But I really wish the would quite with all their politics which are more about trying to enforce somebody else view of what fine art is on everybody. If they were to be come the craft renewal center and help renew the teaching of basic craft of painting I would feel a whole lot more confortable with the organiataion.

To everybody here I EMPLORE YOU don't subscribe to the all this rubish about all art after 1900 being efectivally worthless. There is so much wonderful stuff you will be missing out on if you just take the time to wade through the crap. Liking some modern art is nothing to be ashamed of as ARC would have you beleve. Always keep an open mind and don't spend your life trying to become a human camera. I have one of thouse and it can take several of thouse a second. Rember we are all products of this era. When I close my eyes I don't se inviting nymphs like Bouguereau painted I see xmen, bullet time and and wizard called gandelf. Lets enjoy the past but paint and create the here and now. For me movies and computer games are the really exciting creative things going on now an are the things really stimulating my imagination. I rember the way I felt after seeing the matrix and there are very few paintings that have ever made me feel that way. I love the past but people lets create the future.

[Fipse]

Hi Lionel,

even if I belong to the pepole who like Picasso very much I just have to say that I can subscribe your view of art. There are so many ways getting narrowminded and sometimes even Fluxus can be moving and inspiring. Fortunately there are more colors than black and white ... artists should know that:D

Fipse

P.S. YOu´tre not the only one ... I really can´t stand Artrenewal ...

[Tanika]

I'm not completely closed to modern art. I mean, it's cool and all but not my thing, I don't have a problem with others doing it. The reson I, personally, do not do it, is because it just doesn't seem to have feeling to it. That's also why I do not see why people spend millions of dollars on a chair glued to a table, or an upside down christmas tree taped to a lightpost hanging sideways of the wall. It's great to look at, but why spend so much money on it? I'm a huge picasso fan, sad though how he's most recognized for cubism [spelling?] it was a good era for him, but I wouldn't consider it modern art. He really put emotion into it. ^^
Don't know if anyone watches The Simpsons, but there was an episode about modern art. I guess people will just be people. I'm just going to stick to my ways of art and continue watching everything else. ^^' If anything, guys, you could take inspiration from this and put it into your drawings. :3 Make some good out of modern art. Even if you hate it.

[Tanika]

I don't care what they make, I'm not claiming none of them make real art but I hate how some of them are dissing traditional work or illustration or conceptart, claiming they're the real artist etc. That makes me want to break every bone in their body

Amen to that! I don't mind their art, but when they start insulting traditional work......just......grrrrr....:evilbat:

[tyboogie]

LIonel i agree with you 100 percent

BTW its kinda hard to compare a two hour movie with character develop ment,a plot, etc with a static painting

2 completely diff mediums

BTW

i think the best modern artists DID have a traditional art upbringing

PLEASE dont generalize and say that modern artists are against traditional art--i dont know--since ive been in NY ive seen the most amazing modern art and the worst modern art i could imagine

Ive seen twenty foot black metal walls that had black steel squares on them at diff angles and if you so much as blew on a sqaure it would rotate---it was mesmerizing


then ive also seen hotwheels set broken to bits in the middle of a gallery ( almost added my vomit to it)

like lionel said there is some great "modern" art going on out there

just because its not a figuritive oil painting ( which are among my favs) doesnt mean its modern bullshit





whew!

[mtw]

Originally posted by Lionel
Am i the only one who this that hates artrenewal's politics with a passion. They seem to want to drag art back to the time of Bouguereau.

You're not the only one. Craig Mullins doesn't like them. I gave a link earlier in this thread where he says a few things about that and modern art.

[dbclemons]

I may be one of the few here, if not the only one, who thinks that what's been described here as "crap" is actually worth appreciating. For example, a couple years ago an artist in Britian received a major award for their installation that consisted of an empty room with the lights going off and on. Not many people were happy about that, especially the artists who lost, and in my opinion that was probably the whole point.

I'm happy to say that any work an artist creates and gets paid for is a good thing. More power to 'em. There are sides drawn on both flanks where each one would say their format is more true than the other, and such arguments are ridiculous. It's not one or the other, but all of the above.

As far as skill is concerned, I enjoy a well executed painting as much as the next guy; although, if it's a painting of some model's back, or a flower arrangement, it's easily forgotten. Skill alone only goes so far.

[madster]

Yes, I know how old this thread is...

I read the Art Renewal Center Article, Good Art/Bad Art, Pulling Back the Curtain, (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/ASOPA/bad_art_good_art1.asp) and I started wondering what others felt about Modernism, and whether we are being somehow "brainwashed" into being educated to appreciate certain styles of "Art..."

Personally, I had always thought Jackson Pollock as highly overrated, overhyped, and overegotistical. Then I got to see a real Pollock hung on the wall at the Seattle Art Museum next to Van Goghs, Picassos, Kandalinskis, Mondrians, and others. Up close and personal, I became an instant convert...

Who is to say what talks to the heart, to warrant or validate "Modernism" against Classic Traditionalism? Is it not enough to simply enjoy what you see?

Anyone who's read me ripping a sketch or WIP apart over in Critiques, knows that I am a firm proponent for the "Basics" of Classic Art Skill Techniques, as well as appreciative of original, yet well executed concepts. Yet even though I am a staunch fighter for "Teh Basics," I too, like some surreal and other modernist art if it looks like some time and effort went into it...

~M

[nicolas]

Blame him (marcel duchamp) or his DADA..... :p

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/fountain.jpg

[Dizon]

Yes, I know how old this thread is...

I read the Art Renewal Center Article, Good Art/Bad Art, Pulling Back the Curtain, (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/ASOPA/bad_art_good_art1.asp) and I started wondering what others felt about Modernism, and whether we are being somehow "brainwashed" into being educated to appreciate certain styles of "Art..."

Personally, I had always thought Jackson Pollock as highly overrated, overhyped, and overegotistical. Then I got to see a real Pollock hung on the wall at the Seattle Art Museum next to Van Goghs, Picassos, Kandalinskis, Mondrians, and others. Up close and personal, I became an instant convert...

Who is to say what talks to the heart, to warrant or validate "Modernism" against Classic Traditionalism? Is it not enough to simply enjoy what you see?

~M

I do agree that we should all let the art speak for itself, but I do find it hard to accept a mediocre piece of work. A desire for excellence is really lacking today, and Im just glad that ARC is around to let others know that what they're looking for is still alive and kicking. I take into consideration what happened during the 20th century when people put aside traditional practices in Art for more Avant Garde styles. I have nothing against a "new style", but I find it unfortunate and sad that traditional art was ignored, and, almost became extinct. What happened before definitely had a tremendous impact for students like I am. Students who are unaware but at the same time asking themselves if what they're seeking is still extant.

[magicgoo]

These are the exact reasons I quit taking art classes at my (junior) college. They actually had assignments like "making ideas out of circles of paper." NO!

And I hate these 2 people with a passion:

CHRISTO and JEANNE-CLAUDE (http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/index.html.en)

Rich bastards with nothing better to do than drape cloth every where and call it art.

[S.C. Watson]

Okay, just to refute some of the "nobody in fine art cares about good art anymore" comments, I'd like to suggest Jeremy Lipking (http://www.lipking.com/). He's contemporary, about 25-30 or so, and just jaw dropping. This is fine art.

Other places of interest:

John Pence Gallery (http://www.johnpence.com/)
Peter Adams (http://www.americanlegacyfinearts.com/peter/peter.html)
PAPA (http://www.p-a-p-a.com/)
Morseburg Galleries (http://www.morseburggalleries.com/)
Charles Mundy (http://cwmundy.com/)

...to name just a few.

Now, to clarify, the stuff that Kortez ranted about - he's justified in my opinion. That's not art. It's Kische (?), or just plain crap (though I've heard of that being on display before as well... >:| )

Anyway, enjoy the links above. They are fine artists.
~Oreg.

[Dizon]

Okay, just to refute some of the "nobody in fine art cares about good art anymore"

yes, but the problem is that a lot of people are still oblivious. But Im glad its starting to re-surface more and more.

[Jason Manley]

a few years ago i would have ranted the same arguments against modern art. i was frusterated that so much painting knowledge had been lost in the 20th century which made it somewhat difficult for me to learn. after all, painting was master to apprentice and the modern era pretty much ruined that...who needs to study with a master when the point is to not. and thus the chain of knowledge was broken...about 1920 (though the illustrators continued with traditional studies and appreciation...woot!..then the russians thank god..which this area of study has since migrated to china and is picking up again in the states again)

as the years go on and i grow tired of being awed by the traditional subject matters, i find myself looking at other things. I never grow tired of seeing a new inspiring painting i have not seen by a master, those images can move me to tears, but I personally do not relate well to images of men in robes, women in toga's, and anything along those lines. I can learn from them but I personally rarely relate. Ive never been to a wine and grapes bacchanal, I have never had a fruit bowl and dead rabbits in my house...ya know what i mean?

nowadays, the thought of the things mindcandy describe actually sound cool to me..but not for their execution but for the idea..maybe not how they applied it..but how I could.....they sound cool to me because i can apply them to my art in the future...if you are making a dark painting and designing a horror world for example, maybe the room of plastic poodles, or the tub with doll legs could be the kind of thing that really just makes the world that much more surreal...if you went to someones house and they had that you would immediately assume they were wierd...of course it would all be in execution whether one could make it interesting or not. it doesnt have to be legs stuffed in the pipes...maybe its a kitchen of doll parts..all with black feet...roofing tar..with real toe nailes stuck into them...haha...perhaps the plastic poodle room becomes a childs room with plastic animals instead of stuffed plushies...faces missing...eyes removed...now none of these ideas are really any good but the point is that you can use such things to spring off in your own work if you only look for it.

the markmaking of kathie kohlwitz, the scratched photographs of joel peter witkin, the simple patterns of diebenkorn...all can find a place in your art. the color pallete of a particular kandinsky...ya dont have to like the works but you can ask yourself how they got a feeling or a mood...or why people are drawn to it...you can learn from such things.

point is, traditional arts are often lacking in rich idea development..at least historically. they learned to symbolize...to be narrative...but the subject matter due to history and power and the like is often not as imaginitive as one can be. the 20th century allowed for artists to explore any subject matter..even things no one else finds important. While that had its negatives on art, it also had its positives.

i think my point is illustrated here better...for example..edgar allen poe wrote The Cask of Amontillado after he attended west point..ya know..the story with the guy getting walled up in the wine cellar...well, guess what they found in the wall where poe studied...yeah...a body (no he didnt do it..haha...he was just studying there when it was found and thus had inspiration for a story)....and the idea is that as artists we can learn from life around us..peoples actions..the things we see..and apply them to our art. something that modern art did was break the bounds of subject matter...anything goes right?...which in turn helps artists now.

I read a book years ago with quotes from hundreds of years of artists..all said the same thing for the most part..study the world around you, learn from it, study nature...well that is what we are here to do as artists and seeing other artists works can lead to our understandings of what not to do..or to what is possible. i think one just has to accept that the world has changed and that they have to do their best to learn to understand it as artists.

You can learn from all of art history...regardless of your tastes.


Jason


Usually history goes in pendulum swings...we gravitate from one thing to another and back again so hopefully since we have run out of "shock value" pieces of art we will start getting back to realism. At least we still have www.artrenewal.org !!!!

I guess I have to share one of my museum going nightmares. Once I went to the museum and there was an exhibit where they showed these items...a sink with dolls legs stuffed up the pipes...half of a room full of big huge plastic noodle looking things...a pile of sand with mirrors behind it...and a tree (inside the museum) with a broken tree house hanging from it. Everyone was frowning at me in the museum because I burst out laughing and I said, "You have got to be kidding me...since when does filling a room with giant plastic rigatoni mean anything???" And all I could think to myself was that someone actually got paid for that crap..makes no sense.



hahah..after re-reading, i realized you said "noodle" and not "poodle"...but the point above i make is the same.

j

[Hayabusa]

i recently checked out a Rodin exhibit here in town. Afterwards i decided to wander around and see the other "talents" that were show cased in the gallery. Basically everything else was complete garbage..litereally. One guy had what looked like white paper mache(sp?) shit and wires.....that was his "art". It was literelly crap on wires that you could "interact" with and i guess that made it interesting.

The other "artist" had really stupid photos of nothing. Close up shots of god knows waht (NOT EVEN INTERESTING SHOTS) and shots of himself from various angles with body paint on....wtf?

now ive seen some nice photography and some nice art in my life, but its shit like this that gives other artists a bad name. How does someone get a fucking gallery exhibit with such garbage? Seriously? are people that stupid that theyd let any old shit just get displayed? AND IN THE SAME BUILDING as someone as good as Rodin? Gimme a fucking break.

it seems that these days ur either gunna be doing 100% accurate realism work, or 100% complete and utter crap. There is no happy medium inbetween. FUCK ALL THESE NEW AGE "ARTISTS" AND THEIR RIDICULOUS AND SHITTY "ART".

[Magic Man]

I just needed an outlet for my rage.

Thing is I went to an art exhibition here in Iceland. It was an exhibition of the final projects from the graduation class of Visual Arts from the Icelandic Academy of the Arts.

Some of things there were quite good, in fact one of the first pieces I saw was incredibly good, it was a music video for an icelandic group called Tristian, the music was incredible and the video fit very well. To be honest this made me feel VERY optimistic about the exhibition.

After wandering around, I realised everything else was utter shite.

It was a bunch of arty farty people trying to express themselves in a creative manner without having the skill or talent to do so. I'm sorry if I'm being a jerk, but I don't think of a piece of meat attached to a iron stick, waving up and down as art.

Someone had glued paper cut-outs to a wall.
Another one had takan black paint and painted very bad (unproportioned and unclear) stick figures on the wall.
Somebody had sewn two 7" dolls, a dinosaur and a cow, having A*al sex.
Somebody had videotaped a close up shot of a massage.


To me this isn't art, and although I realise that there were some good pieces, there was only one piece that was really good, in my honest opinion.

You don't have to comment on this or anything, I just wanted to be heard.

They're graduates from an art school, what do you expect?

Its the same for a lot of arty types of schools, a high percentage of graduates from Film School also rock the "Pure utter crap" wagon, I always get dragged along t graduate pic showings and they generally consist of a plethora of "humor" flicks, a smattering of badly done serious flicks, and a handful of innovative flicks.

Its kind of weird sitting there thinking "Jesus...90% of these people re going to spend the next 40 years of their life doing something else", you'd think they'd put in more effort.

[Jason Manley]

i recently checked out a Rodin exhibit here in town. Afterwards i decided to wander around and see the other "talents" that were show cased in the gallery. Basically everything else was complete garbage..litereally. One guy had what looked like white paper mache(sp?) shit and wires.....that was his "art". It was literelly crap on wires that you could "interact" with and i guess that made it interesting.

The other "artist" had really stupid photos of nothing. Close up shots of god knows waht (NOT EVEN INTERESTING SHOTS) and shots of himself from various angles with body paint on....wtf?

now ive seen some nice photography and some nice art in my life, but its shit like this that gives other artists a bad name. How does someone get a fucking gallery exhibit with such garbage? Seriously? are people that stupid that theyd let any old shit just get displayed? AND IN THE SAME BUILDING as someone as good as Rodin? Gimme a fucking break.

it seems that these days ur either gunna be doing 100% accurate realism work, or 100% complete and utter crap. There is no happy medium inbetween. FUCK ALL THESE NEW AGE "ARTISTS" AND THEIR RIDICULOUS AND SHITTY "ART".


an open mind is a wonderful thing man....try it.

read my post to see an example of how you can learn from these "shitty" artists. you dont have to like it...mozart would say that john lee hooker was a horrible musician....right? i mean baroque music is the most difficult and complex music in the world..just like academic realism to some of the more simple modern arts. doesnt mean that blues does not have its place.


j

[Elwell]

a few years ago i would have ranted the same arguments against modern art.
...
as the years go on and i grow tired of being awed by the traditional subject matters, i find myself looking at other things.
...
You can learn from all of art history...regardless of your tastes.

Great post, Jason.

[JERI]

Got nothing against those type of arts (though I really don't understand most of them), in fact I find quite a few of them quite clever.

I just don't like blatant copycats who claim they are doing something really deep and philosophical when it just look like another version of what has been done before.

You know, it's sorta like those copycats on ebay who try to capitalise on a successful sales gimmick. They're never as interesting as the first original one and just look silly and desperate.

[Magic Man]

Blame him (marcel duchamp) or his DADA..... :p

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/fountain.jpg

Those medieval groin guards sure were brittle.

[Hayabusa]

yeh i know what you mean Jason, i read through your post. the only thing that bugs me is that it seems as if the artists take like 1-2min to create their masterpieces, and then think up some lame deep philosophical meaning (and in some instances it makes absolutely no sence) and claim to have a masterpiece only on the basis that they thought up some way to justify their "work". I guess i'm not really disregarding it as art as it just makes me feel like im getting ripped off in a way. I dont see all the technical brilliance that some other people put into their work. I mean sure they can be clever, but why sell yourself short. Why only be clever. Why not be clever AND create a good piece of work at the same time.
Like the exhibit i mentioned. I have nothing against art which has some sort of meaning, but when you compare "modern art" to art that people pour their heart, soul and life into making, it seems like its almost an insult that these modern artists are considered atrists and are put in the same catagory as the masters of past and present.

I must admit that i do enjoy the odd abstract piece here and there, but only if it works well with the wall colors in my living room and the furniture. Thats about as much openness as they get from me. However there is always the odd exception

[Elwell]

Somebody had sewn two 7" dolls, a dinosaur and a cow, having A*al sex.
That actually sounds pretty cool, if anatomically impossible :perv:.

[Taj]

These are the exact reasons I quit taking art classes at my (junior) college. They actually had assignments like "making ideas out of circles of paper." NO!

And I hate these 2 people with a passion:

CHRISTO and JEANNE-CLAUDE (http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/index.html.en)

Rich bastards with nothing better to do than drape cloth every where and call it art.

I can't read this comment and ignore the fact that you totally overlooked the amount of planning, the technical drawings, the calculations, EVERYTHING that goes into Christos work. He makes no profit from his "draped cloth" instead he sells blueprints for his plans. I think he once said that he refuses to let anyone (govermant or otherwise) fund his work because he doesnt want people to think that it's a waste of their taxes.

[magicgoo]

I can't read this comment and ignore the fact that you totally overlooked the amount of planning, the technical drawings, the calculations, EVERYTHING that goes into Christos work. He makes no profit from his "draped cloth" instead he sells blueprints for his plans. I think he once said that he refuses to let anyone (govermant or otherwise) fund his work because he doesnt want people to think that it's a waste of their taxes.

And, I can't read your comment without reminding you that they "thought-out and planned" their umbrella expedition sooooooooo amazingly well, that, well, THEY KILLED A PERSON, LORI KEEVIL-MATHEWS in October of '91.

Yeah, um, those buttholes are total murderers. They need to take the millions of dollars they spend on fabric and lethal umbrellas, and learn to paint at a fine arts school, where surely, they won't be killing anymore people.

[Eyal]

i always said fine art is a bunch of stuck ups triyng to convince everyone they actually have something to say, but they really don't.

if you are thinking to yourself 'fuck, he made a line and he calls this art? and he thinks he's good??'
well, use this as a mirror and realize it is not him trying to prove he's good.. just you.

surprise but some people know they suck, they never claimed other wise, but they still have something to say, in their own strange, corcky way.
try to see it from their point of view.

but ye.. fuck em. :p

[Aether]

Its funny how people who spend no time studying for example painting get to be famous with these sloppy works of art, but maybe the beauty is in the viewers eyes ? :)

[Wolfess]

Finally, some place to express my strong opinions on this delicate subject.

If someone can call a chair in a white room art, then anything can be art. That then ruins the definition of art:

# Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
#

1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

# High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
# A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
# A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
#

1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

#

1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

#

1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.



...Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature....Effort. Not some useless thing that took 5 seconds to make.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art....Study, practice, observation, the true essences of art.

To me, art is something someone has worked on, put effort in, not something that took no effort and puts no pride in the artist. Now artist is a term used very loosely.


Sorry for that long-winded post, but I feel better now, not like it's changed anything...

Oh well, toodles!

Regards,

~Wolf.

[DavePalumbo]

All I have to say is, it may make you feel good to over simplify, but the truth is that there are many representational contemporary fine artists out there who still believe in strong technique, correct anatomy, interesting composition, and all the other things that take years of hard work to achieve. I do find it unfortunate that these artists are often neglected in the public spotlight but this does not mean that all fine art is bullshit.

when I visit a museum, I rarely look at anything painted past the 19th century because museum curators only seem interested in abstract and post modernism. That does not mean that all art from that period is abstract and postmodern. There are galleries here in Philly, as I'm sure there are in every major US city, that focus on well executed representational work. If you look for it, there is good quality painting being done in the fine art market.

[Ilaekae]

Many excellent comments in this thread. Good work all...

Art is, and always has been, a task of problem solving. How do I say this? How do I communicate what doesn't exist that I feel is important to say? How do I make sure my "reader" will understand?

Even attempting to work as an artist without the proper tools and knowledge is just plain stupid. It's the equivalent of trying to fix your car breaks while hurtling down a highway at 60mph, and you have no idea there is even an engine in the car to start with! You need knowledge and awareness of what came before, why it was done, and how. You need to understand why certain materials work the way they do, and how they interact with each other.

Ordering a piece of gee-whiz software off the net doesn't cut it, and definitely won't make you an artist. Closing your mind to what others have done and are doing won't do it, either. How would you know that something being shown you is a useless ineffective piece of shit if you didn't understand what makes it so?

The styles and practices we are involved in also cycle over time. The public is a collective moron as far as artists are concerned. They;re fickle, stupid, ill-informed, easily swayed by the lowest common denominator, and fair game for every con that comes along. That doesn't mean that you should stoop to their level. To the contrary, it's part of your job to bring them to yours. If you refuse to prepare yourself for this "job," you're failing both yourself and the public/client/peer audiences that wait for your input.

No matter what genre title can be applied to your efforts, if you believe in what you are doing, and believe that it truly has a purpose in your life's context, DO IT! Otherwise, your a cheap fuckin' hack and you'll fall be the wayside soon enough.

Question, observe, investigate, read and view, discuss, defend, propose, and do it in a universal way. Ignore nothing. Hide nothing. Forget nothing. Even getting bitten in the ass by a bear is a learning experience. After all that pain, why would you want to forget or ignore it? Those of you exposing yourself to what you consider trash should be applauded. The fact that you KNOW it's trash is a proof that you're doing something right. Those of you who would rather hide in a hole till everything you don't like or agree with goes away are going to be in the dark for a long time. Crawl out, take a good look around, and if your opinion hasn't been changed, stand up on your damn hind legs and shout THAT fact to the world. Hiding won't help you, and it won't help anyone else, either. Your opinions and efforts will.

[Jason Manley]

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0809fetusart09.html

[Hayabusa]

"It's precisely because I respect all life that I did this," artist Xiao Yu said Tuesday. He said the bird and fetus "died because there was something wrong with them. ... I thought putting them together like this was a way for them to have another life."




wow dude...thats like...soo deeep man. how long did it take u to come up with that? Come on now....

altho a bird with fetus head would be a really cool monster in some scary movie. Jason i see what you ment....my argument about it not being valid art still stands. Im siding with Wolfess here

[madster]

For all of the ARC's politics, and policies, they do still manage to display some beautiful works...
this year's winners (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/Salon/winners1.asp#Best%20in%20Show%20&%20William%20Bouguereau%20Award) show works without grecian robes or phony poses, but are as drenched with the richness of the classics, nevertheless.

~M

[light]

Well, I may not like modern art but I still respect it in one manner. Previous to modern art the subjects fine art and conceptual art was limited to but a small amount of things. This modern art, as jason said, broke several boundaries and it does, as such, influence a good portion of the work on this website. The subjects of conceptual art have developed so much as artists can take more liberties and use realistic studies to make completely abstract monsters. My point is, that some of the best art on conceptart.org, it wouldnt exist without modern art. Graphic elements, crazy poses, insane subjects, this stuff probably wouldnt exist, or at least not to this effect without the influence of modern art.

[Dizon]

Well, I may not like modern art but I still respect it in one manner. Previous to modern art the subjects fine art and conceptual art was limited to but a small amount of things. This modern art, as jason said, broke several boundaries and it does, as such, influence a good portion of the work on this website. The subjects of conceptual art have developed so much as artists can take more liberties and use realistic studies to make completely abstract monsters. My point is, that some of the best art on conceptart.org, it wouldnt exist without modern art. Graphic elements, crazy poses, insane subjects, this stuff probably wouldnt exist, or at least not to this effect without the influence of modern art.

yeah, I guess that's true. I just hate it for making things harder for students like I am seeking good training in art. Also, there are these artists out there making half-assed work, especially in where I live. There's not enough desire for excellence these days. Its very dissapointing and sad.

[beyond_the_forest]

the concept behind contemporary art is "theres nothing left to do, so lets all just be wierd"

anyone can have skill now adays, the technical side of creating art has been beaten to death, and what the greats of many years ago could only do, the average person now can do. it's no longer interesting to merely have skilled artists. yet i don't understand why we don't have more combinations of thought and skill. many would argue that contemporary art requires a lot of skill, it's just not for the purpose of "shallow" aesthetics.
i agree with you completely, contemporary art is crap that i'd never put in my home, and unfortunately i am an art student, in a particularly contemporary art school which rewards abstract ideas more than skill and visually interesting subject matter.

[s.ketch]

Alot of people at my school(in my art class) do a bunch of abstract junk. I dont know why everybody does it. I think im the only one(at school atleast) who expresses themselves by doing techincal, concept art type stuff. :\ And the ones who do draw somthing similar to the stuff I do, just draw a bunch of bad american anime crap. :[

[K-17]

The term "art" is empty as far i care. Just pick what you like and go with it. Otherwise trying to be intellectual or artistic or any such bullshit is just a waste of time. If you think what you're doing is a good thing in some way then do it. Period. I think.

[pvrhye]

Jeane-Claude and Christo..... *snicker*

[RobHughes]

Here's an expirience you all might find interesting.

I require a degree to become a classroom teacher in the UK. I have 2 years of Higher education after completing an HND in Illustration at a highly respected institution and need the equivelent of one more years higher education to top up my degree.

So I applied for a fine art course at my local Uni. It was a part time course spread over 5 years. I was asking them, at the interview, to offset the 2 years I already had and my 20 years of commercial expirience to jump me ahead a couple of years. I talked eloquently about my art and my aspirations. I explained how I thrive in the classroom, How much I love new expirience,. That I had read widely and understood post modernism and its place in art and society.

The answer was no.

All that work. All the effort I had put in. My kickass portfolio. The diverse expiriences, my work as a graphic designer, web designer, gallery artist, illustrator, teacher and participant here. All that counted for nothing.

It's not "fine" art.

This happened september the 7th 2005

Y've got to wonder if Leonardo ever went throught this.

Rob

[Dzhangg]

I agree that what you saw was mostly whimsical crap.

Contemporary art is inevitably abstract, sporting things like meat on a stick waving around, but there is also meaning behind things so blatant and abstract. I personally find contemporary figures like Duchamp and Warhol impressive, but you're not really going to see anything of that caliber from people just graduating from Academy.

The contemporary weak artist decides to just put random crap together thinking they've created art, when they have no emotion or thesis to back it up.

I think technicality is very much alive and always will be. Styles are just fads, but the basics of art don't change.