Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by the_traveler, Sep 12, 2017.
Why Modern Art is Vacant - Quillette
I found that an interesting read and agree with the author completely. I am amazed that it was written by a student.
Like Ferlingetti "might" say - you get so constipated at high altitudes or perhaps high attitudes. (badly paraphrased from #6 - Coney Island of the Mind).
Art is dead, art needs rules. I found it presumptuous and foolish. Art is art partly because it defies those conventions and can expand how and what we see.
Well put Ted.
My daughter is an occasional artist and paints in what I call an abstract style, but when I "see things" in her work she always comes back with "I didn't paint it about anything. But if that's what you see, fine!"
My interpretation of abstract is parallels my understanding of post-modern--it's anything you want it to be. I'm probably jaded by the post-modern researchers I have worked with over the past 35 years, who incorporate post-modern research "methods" into their research . . "we'll know what we are looking for when we find it!"
With art it is not so much "looking for something" but rather "representing something" and that something is not an object when it comes to modern art.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, then. I see so much junk that is supposed to pass for art just because the "artist" says it is. Maybe it is art to them. But not to me. Guess I'm just a closed-minded old man.
...which leads to much junk science.
Jim, I am completely with you on junk art and junk science. Completely. My statement about it being anything you want it to be was my way of trying to say what you said so firmly!
My daughter paints to relax, and not to exhibit or share, and she has thick skin.
I've found it interesting how art and craft have intersected over past 50 years of my observation. What I remain impressed with is the creative outpouring I've always seen during that time. In the last few years there has been a local revival of ceramic work of exceptional beauty at reasonable prices. The Berkeley Potters Guild works and the annual Glass and Pottery Show in Palo Alto have been outstanding in both quality and originality.
I still need to collect a velvet, dogs playing poker painting for the parlor, my collection is incomplete.
So, you have the velvet Elvis?
I want to add Big Momma Thornton to the collection first, but I can't find her on velvet, just vinyl. Doggonnit!
Just don't start making fun of my dogs playing poker painting.
It's a revered cultural artifact, keep loving it! Every time I see one I smile. Perhaps not be the height of art, but I can't knock smiling!
At the end of the day, one man's Dogs Playing Poker is another man's Impression Sunrise.
I'm going to take the devil's advocate role here, partly in fun, partly being serious.
For me, the article flew off track here:
"The fact is that from the time of Marcel Duchamp’s urinal to Damien Hirst’s pickled shark and beyond, the only people able to afford these modern art pieces have been the elite. An elite who, afraid they might fall behind the latest trend, nod their approval at a giant sculpture of a pair of buttocks (a Turner Prize-nominee), eager to show that they, like their elite friends but unlike the masses, “understand.” '
Seriously, who but the elite can afford ancient/old art either? Any "serious" art? Anyone here own a Rembrandt? Degas? Picasso? Michelangelo? Da Vinci? No? I didn't think so. Just because a piece of art has stood the test of time doesn't mean it doesn't belong to the "elite" category. In fact, I'd argue that the older and more well-known the piece, the more "elite" it becomes...
Quite seriously, the "elite" have always been those who "nod their approval" at the art of their time... thus creating the demand for the art of their time. The Medici. Kings. Patrons of astranimical wealth. Even the Roman Church during it's hey-day. All of them either "nodded their approval" or directly commissioned art during their time, thus creating what was the "art of the day." Modern are is no different.
On a similar note, I find "art" as a medium to be among the most snooty. I can just see a crowd of critics gathered around the statue of David, critiquing it according to their own individual standards. "He looks too tall." "He's too white." "His ehem is waaaay to large!!! Seriously, is that realistic?" Photography can fall into this category, sometimes, but I'm thankful that I personally have not come across this "elitist" attitude too often in this regard.
"There is nothing new under the sun."
Ok, years ago I was asked to photograph a rich businessman's art collection for insurance purposes. I was a friend of a friend so I was asked to take the photos. He DID have a Rembrandt.... He also had a Jason Pollock, why? because he loved the art works and he had the money to collect what he liked. So he wasn't an "elite" who was nodding approval, he just loved the art.
Yes, here is a lot of things happening in the art world I don't understand or even care to understand, but that is my option one of 7+ billion opinions on the planet. People who study art, those who know and who care are perhaps better judges of what is art.
I do take exception to the quote "there is nothing new under the sun" - The D850 is new and is the most awesome camera ever...
alexis and Georgie Beagle
" mom? What is an "ehem"? " - Georgie Beagle
Whether some efforts are art moving in a new direction ios best seen retrospectively.
What isn't meaningful dies out, what does represent new thought remains to challenge people's minds.
I don't believe that art can be created without skills, talent and intent.
People need talent to drive skills and skills to demonstrate talent and insight.
Accidental attractive things are just that, accident.
I don't have much appreciation for abstracts because the intent is just too difficult to separate from accident.
A year or so ago, unintentionally I insulted an abstract artist who had asked if I liked her work and, taken aback, I said it was 'decorative'.
Put simply... art is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at it and don't like it you can simply not look again. We all see things differently which is why I can look at a Van Gogh and see nothing more than kindergarten finger painting where others see a masterpiece. You have to admit, with regard to Warhol, that was some MASTERFUL salesmanship on his part!!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
If it tells you anything about where I'm at with art, and by art, it seems like we are talking mostly about paintings, I'm a Norman Rockwell fan for sure.