Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

behavioralscientist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#151

Post by ionwake »

paganel wrote: post #67

Whenever people discuss about contemporary art I get reminded of these incredibly poignant Soviet war paintings [1] which manage to partially describe what the atrocities on the Eastern Front meant for the people involved, but which are nevertheless a lot less well-known compared to contemporary art "darlings" like Jackson Pollock whose works don't tell me absolutely anything and who had his career propped up by the…

Thank you so much for your post. I knew about the former but have never seen these paintings before thank you.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#152

Post by skybrian »

redunculous5 wrote: post #111
ggggtez wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to consider is that being a case of the emperor's new clothes is intentional . Consider The Fountain again: The artist had the audacity to put a urinal in a gallery. It's not so much that this was a particularly lovely piece of ceramic (though some may think so). The point is the meta-awareness that urinals don't belong here . The rule-breaking is the art. The fact the emperor has no clothes is the exact re…

But at what point does daring rule-breaking degenerate into mere gimmickry. I guess I can understand why piece generated so much interest in it's time, but since then we've been subjected to a relentless parade of urinals, cow corpses, faeces, signed brillo boxes etc. At this point we've seen the emperor naked ad nauseum

Sure, if it's played out, you have to do something different. It's the logic of publicity: whatever gets people's attention works, until it doesn't.

I think this is an interesting way to approach art, actually: you can walk through a museum admiring artists for how they were able to get away with something different.

Although, in this age of memes, maybe it's more interesting to see what holds lasting attention?

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#153

Post by thundergolfer »

jvs0n wrote: post #120
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #99

>How? Replace the corporate ladder with a social bridge. We never work in isolation—even when we think we do. Our collective definition of success requires us to think about the ways that our work impacts others. Collectivists hate art. Capitalists love art. If you look at socialist countries like Cuba, there are 0 artists. You must get approval from the government to make a "Creative Production" https://havanatimes.…

What an offensive comment. Socialist countries don't have art and artists? lol. Some of the greatest musicians, filmmakers, visual artists were from the Soviet Union

Not to mention the myriad anti-capitalist artists the produce great work within capitalist economies.

That comment is so absurdly wrong I wonder what kind of person has the ignorance and gall to make it.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#154

Post by foldr »

paganel wrote: post #67

Whenever people discuss about contemporary art I get reminded of these incredibly poignant Soviet war paintings [1] which manage to partially describe what the atrocities on the Eastern Front meant for the people involved, but which are nevertheless a lot less well-known compared to contemporary art "darlings" like Jackson Pollock whose works don't tell me absolutely anything and who had his career propped up by the…

The Soviet War paintings you link to are well executed but seem completely unoriginal to me. I can't see any reason why these paintings would be famous.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#156

Post by TLAFanBoy »

PowerfulWizard wrote: post #92
paganel wrote: post #67

Whenever people discuss about contemporary art I get reminded of these incredibly poignant Soviet war paintings [1] which manage to partially describe what the atrocities on the Eastern Front meant for the people involved, but which are nevertheless a lot less well-known compared to contemporary art "darlings" like Jackson Pollock whose works don't tell me absolutely anything and who had his career propped up by the…

So, I personally get an emotional response to Pollock, especially that particular one, I actually have a MoMA catalog on my bookshelf with that entry bookmarked with my admission ticket from 2010 when I went to see it ( https://imgur.com/a/hFBR7Nu ). The size is a factor as well, there is no way to look at it on a computer screen that is close to how you look at it in person ( https://www.moma.org/wp/inside_out/wp-co…

I also get an emotional response to Pollack, similar to the emotional response I get to the painting of a colored square done on the TV show "House Refabbers" where they take a canvas, paint a background in one color and then a square on the background in another color.

It's not a deep emotion, of course, it's a fleeting sensation, really, like smelling a flower or listening to a "boop boop" sound effect on the tram. It's a trite emotion, which is the best way to describe the reaction I get to Pollock - trite.

I think that particular Pollock piece would make for a great panel or wallpaper in a basement. There's a certain movement and a not-unpleasant interplay with the colors - again, similar to the "boop, boop" on various public transportation system sound effects.

You can call it "art" sure, I think "craft" would be better, or perhaps "decorative arts" is probably the best way to describe Pollock. I recall a youtube video of the painting of a countertop in a kind of "hip, modern" kitchen that had a similar aesthetic.

Of course those Soviet paintings of WWI are far more meaningful than Pollack's visually not-unpleasant background color mix.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#157

Post by TLAFanBoy »

"Displayed at an angle and out of its normal context, it was oddly beautiful"

I disagree, the toilet was not "oddly beautiful" and displaying it at an angle and out of its normal context didn't make it any more "oddly beautiful."

It was a sort-of clever "troll" mocking the pretentiousness of the "art crowd" and it's significant because 100 years later the "art crowd" is still, how to put it? "Butthurt" over Duchamp's mockery of them.

The "troll" stung so bad that 100 years later they are still embarrassed, even humiliated, by it. 100 years of terrible nonsense and thousand-word essays of bullshit and they still haven't gotten over it.

Which I guess means that Duchamp made a piece of very significant art.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#158

Post by Aeolun »

TLAFanBoy wrote: post #157

"Displayed at an angle and out of its normal context, it was oddly beautiful" I disagree, the toilet was not "oddly beautiful" and displaying it at an angle and out of its normal context didn't make it any more "oddly beautiful." It was a sort-of clever "troll" mocking the pretentiousness of the "art crowd" and it's significant because 100 years later the "art crowd" is still, how to put it? "Butthurt" over Duchamp's…

Maybe if we sent in a more beautiful urinal?

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#159

Post by catherd »

iguy wrote: post #132
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These paintings are interesting as a sort of juxtaposition of the soviet "Socialist Realism" style with the harsh reality of war. They are also clearly technically adept. Jackson Pollock's paintings are interesting because he was the first to apply his technique in a studied way. They don't translate well to the digital era, but there is a certain arresting physicality to them when you see one in real life. Many of t…

Pollock is an odd target here in a way, because the man was actually skilled, he produced things which proved hard to copy. Unlike a lot of later very-abstract artists, who really were all about their timing / positioning / contacts etc. I would have to google a lot but there was a nice mathematical investigation of this, in which the summary was something like that he produced a very consistent scaling of details fr…

Also seems like if you're going to rate a painting purely on how much of a rush it gives you to see it, having a subject matter like war that kicks right at the base of your humanity and then comparing it to an abstraction is a bit of a rigged game... I mean even I could probably write a country song dealing with really simple subject matter that would make my mom cry, it's how people are built to react to stuff like that. But it doesn't mean I'm a great artist.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#160

Post by perl4ever »

ggggtez wrote: post #138
fginionio wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays, rule-breaking is no longer provocative. It's derivative. We all got the memo: there's no set definition of art, it doesn't need to be skillfully made, it doesn't need to be beautiful, it can be offensive, blah blah blah. It's not clever any more. I respect Duchamp. He made his point so eloquently that none of the imitators are adding anything to the conversation.

See Banksy's "Love is in the Bin". People are still excited when artists break convention, even if it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected.

"it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected."

I just found something!

https://designyoutrust.com/2016/07/guy-paints-over-shit-graf...

Post reply on HN