Live data from Hacker News

I don't "get" art

vice.com

11–20 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#11
PROTIP: Tracey Emin is a Professor at the Royal Academy. It's art that a lot of the art world considers "good art".

This Emin person has gained tons of attention by displays so ridiculous that people thought they must be brilliant since no one had thought of doing something so utterly devoid of talent before.

From the Wikipedia article:

"In 1999 she was a Turner Prize nominee and exhibited My Bed — an installation, consisting of her own unmade dirty bed with used condoms and blood-stained underwear."

And engineers are supposed to be the scruffy, smelly disgusting masses of humanity.

Re: I don't "get" art

#12
post #4

In order to comply with Godwin's law I just want to recommend the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

I have heard it argued that the fact he was in favor of realism in art had the opposite effect on the rest of the world who wanted to create as much distance as possible. Which is possibly the strongest invocation of Godwin's law to date...

PS: A few artists and art historians have mentioned that with the decline of the patronage system few people would pay for art that took a log time to create. And with the invention of photo's artists needed to create a steady stream of original works with minimal effort. Thus, modern art with a focus on emotions that side steps the need for a lot of time on any one piece.

Re: I don't "get" art

#13
I never got art until I started doing it myself. The internalization of the creative and technical processes of it are, IMO, crucial to "getting" it.

And like one might expect, I still only really "get" art that has a close enough analog to the work I do. So... sculpture? Right out.

And like others have brought up, art is contextual. One fundamental fallacy I see people make is that all pieces of work need to be conceptually complete and self-contained. A lot of good art can only be appreciated in aggregate.

FWIW, I don't "get" any of the art in the article either, save for the photograph of the woman. It's important to know that for photography geeks, it's often not about the subject, but rather about geometry, tonality, color, and more abstract notions. After all, there's a huge genre of photography dedicated to the everyday and the banal, whose only real claim to anything is beauty in composition and light.

As with all art though, there are territories that are incredibly facile, and therefore tend to be heavy-handed. Pictures of kissing couples, that "ring in a book with the shadow of a heart" thing wedding people use all the time, portraits of the homeless, etc etc. Stuff that's conceptually and technically been done to death, and IMO makes the artist appear more self-absorbed than anything else. Likewise, my gut reaction to the "money against the vagina" shot is "how obvious and ham-fisted", but that's just me. It's a me-too "exploration" of a topic that's been explored to death, without adding anything new to the concept or discourse.

In general, if you want art that you might find personal connection in, look at artists without an ego the size of the moon, and run far, far away from ones that do.

Re: I don't "get" art

#14
post #9

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.

Except that EVERYONE has a dog in that fight, and it seems to be different for just about everyone. That's the fascinating thing about it. When you take away the labels (who made it or the period in which it was created) peoples tastes seem almost arbitrary.

Taken from a larger point of view, it's incredibly complex. Particularly when it gets all tangled up with societies social systems that rely on art to identify cultural similarities and social patterns. After all, every middle schooler knows you better like insert band X or else you're a loser.

Re: I don't "get" art

#15

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.

bad art is very contextual

Much like how a bad joke need to be explained and people ignore and get annoyed by bad elevator music. But, feel free to listen to that used car salesman selling that just like new 1971 pinto.

Re: I don't "get" art

#16
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I enjoyed them a lot years ago but it seems like they could be in a bit of a rut. Their travel documentaries are indeed pretty great.

Re: I don't "get" art

#17
Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces. The author here looks at trees but misses the forest.

Most people look at art as if they are portfolio pieces in dribbble.com. (Hmm, I like this icon, Hmm, I don't like that color). But art does not merely reproduce the beauty of forms, instead, it gives language to the "soul" so that it may speak.

Protip: Keep an open mind.

Re: I don't "get" art

#18

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.

It is alleged that the CIA sought to influence Western art, coordinating the bankrolling/support of artists (including Warhol if I remember correctly) that represented a depoliticized vision of art. A potential cultural/intellectual enemy of capitalism was neutered by the transformation of institutionally championed art into a game of conceptual accounting rather than reflection on the human condition.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862070296/lewrockwel...

Re: I don't "get" art

#19
The percentage of art qua art that is bullshit pretension simply used as a signalling device for an in-crowd of self-congratulatory people is not 100%.

But it's also not 0%.

Fortunately, I don't need to care. The art qua art crowd are welcome to their signalling parties and occasional strokes of insight, and I'm welcome to think the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer was really rather artistic, and by and large we two need not even cross paths to growl and yip at each other like two little teacup poodles viciously defending their turf on the matter of whose definition of art is correct. Viva la freedom.

Re: I don't "get" art

#20
Art is incredibly subjective, but a gallery opening is potentially the worst place to experience art. You are socially obliged to look at each piece, not just scan past the ones you don't think appeal to you (which is easy to do at a museum or online).
Post reply on HN