Renzatic on 28/3/2009 at 16:43
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
Exactly.
Paradoxically, it seems to me, one of the surest signs of a great, sophisticated piece of art is that the "common man" can still recognize its value. He might not know
what exactly is valuable about the particular work - all the little nuances of meaning which the artist has put into it - but he is still able to have some appreciation, however small, of what it's about.
This is my opinion of the matter.
Anytime I look at modern art, I find it too abstract, too self referential, and yeah, a I'd say little too smug and ironic for the sake of irony. I could be looking at a painting, rendered in excruciatingly fine detail, of dog shit on a sidewalk, and all I'd think is that's alot of talent gone to waste on such a banal and crude subject. Of course, someone will inevitably come about and explain to me the suffering of the artist, the hidden meaning behind the painting, the history of the dog shit movement, and so on and on such, and I'll end up thinking that it might have a valid (or I daresay
relevant) message to portray, but that still doesn't make it good art.
Great art, at least in my admittedly uneducated and ignorant opinion, gets you in the gut first, then makes you appreciate it more when you learn of it's techniques, history, and meaning. Merely good art is usually just one or the other.
fett on 28/3/2009 at 16:58
What Renz said. I'd venture to guess that your run-of-the-mill dog shit artist is probably working on a federal grant so he can paint dog shit, snort coke, and bang his boyfriend without having to get a real job. And the folks who nod and speak of how great the dog shit is are probably in similar situations, especially if they are art critics.
The only abstract stuff I like is usually Fauvist because the colors are usually so vibrant and fun. Me dumb at art but me like pretty colors.
Thirith on 28/3/2009 at 17:12
For me this is very much a "yes, but" conversation. Yes, some (much?) modern art is about as deep as a puddle, and yes, some (many?) art critics are perpetuating this whole "emperor's new clothes" thing.
But at the same time many people look at modern art and say, "Huh... My dog coulda painted this. It's crap. Next!" Just like many people might have a sip of 16-year old Lagavulin and think, "Meh. Give me bourbon any day. This stuff is over-priced, over-rated crap." Or many people might play Thief for five minutes and go, "Booooo-ring. If anyone needs me, I'll be playing Unreal."
Not everything that is interesting and deep and worthwhile will wow an uninformed audience within the first ten seconds. Some, if not a lot of it, will require some sort of effort on the part of the audience. This effort can take different forms, but let's face it, many people don't *want* to put in an effort. They want instant gratification. And if they don't get it, they consider the object that didn't give them instant gratification a pile of shit. Which says very little about the object in question (which may or may not be a pile of shit).
I'm sure that most if not all of us here care deeply about something that was dismissed by lots of people because it didn't instantaneously blow their minds. Let's not be blind to the same effect in genres or media that we care little about.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/3/2009 at 17:40
Art?
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpgWhy or why not?
It's a rather beautiful work, Christ bathed in that eerie yellow light. Hypothetically, divorce it from its history and explain how you can
objectively dismiss it as "not art."
Now consider the context*, and explain how that is not part and parcel of the "work of art" beyond what is on the page.
*The explanation of its subversiveness is contained right in the title, so it's not like one needs to go running off and read ten texts in order to understand this - unless you can somehow come up with an argument that the title of a work of art merits no consideration when discussing its validity and meaning?
------------------------------
By the same token, the descriptions many of you are applying to "Art" would mean that Metallica and Britney Spears are Art, and Philip Glass, John Zorn and John Cage are not.
Justify this.
Kolya on 28/3/2009 at 17:59
That's not art, because I don't like it. You'll have to come up with something better than a man nailed to a tree.
Jason Moyer on 28/3/2009 at 18:14
It's art if there are people willing to engage in empty, heated debate about whether or not it's art. Also, having someone pay cash for it helps, but is not necessary as long as a critic can be convinced to look at it at least once.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/3/2009 at 19:02
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
explain how you can
objectively dismiss it as "not art."
Quote Posted by Kolya
That's not art, because
I don't like it.
You take failure to a new art form.
Thirith on 28/3/2009 at 19:53
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
You take failure to a new art form.
I think he was being ironic there.
I *hope* he was being ironic there.
No one can write that and truly mean it if they've got enough brain cells to breathe.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/3/2009 at 20:07
I figured that was a possibility, but I wanted to create my own little self referential forum performance art piece, exploring the nature of interaction and misunderstanding.
It'll be showing at MoMA in June.
fett on 28/3/2009 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I figured that was a possibility, but I wanted to create my own little self referential forum performance art piece, exploring the nature of interaction and misunderstanding.
Trust me, your selection for a participant is dead on.
But expect a week of pissy, threatening PMs. You're also going to be off someone's friends list PERMANENTLY bud.
