I don't "get" art

I just came home from the Seattle Erotic Arts Festival. I hung out and listened to this year's judges talking about their decision process. Some pieces were unanimous decisions, some were the subject of arguments, some went in the show because everyone had a strongly REVOLTED reaction to them. Art's a complicated thing.

Re: I don't "get" art

#8

Post by zalew » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #5

zalew wrote: post #3

I don't "get" Vice's articles.

Vice occasionally has some good stuff, but this is pretty vapid. Most of the art world is crap. Most of anything is crap. Not a recent development.

Most of their written stuff I came across was some rather shallow critiques with a few f-bombs here and there, like they pretend they don't care but makes it look like they care too much.

I liked their 'Vice guide to...' travel documentaries though.

Re: I don't "get" art

#9

Post by zalew » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 1:52 AM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #7

PROTIP: not everything you find in a gallery labeled as "art" is necessarily GOOD art. PROTIP: Your idea of what makes for "good" art may not coincide with someone else's. I just came home from the Seattle Erotic Arts Festival. I hung out and listened to this year's judges talking about their decision process. Some pieces were unanimous decisions, some were the subject of arguments, some went in the show because ever…

> Art's a complicated thing.

No it's not. There are only 2 kinds of art: the one you like and the one you don't.

Re: I don't "get" art

#10

Post by mynegation » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 1:55 AM UTC

Art, especially modern art is very contextual. Warhol's grocery carton sculptures were created during the golden era of advertising and globalization of trade, for example.

Art is also very subjective. Some like simplicity, some like complexity. Some like clarity, some like stories and implicit context. Some like subdued colors, some like saturated hues.

This makes art very complicated. That is why art history exist.