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

I don't "get" art

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#91

Post by MultiRRomero »

MultiRRomero wrote: post #88

note: if you read one part of this, read the last paragraph. "I paint objects as I think them not as I see them." - Pablo Picasso "Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol I do not buy the "this isn't art, I can do this. art requires skill" train of thought. firstly, if we appreciate skill then we are not appreciating art. we are appreciating a craft. to appreciate art we must appreciate creativity. who's th…

Also, a lot of modern art is philosophical in nature. It pushes the boundaries on the definition of what is art? Of course, this started over a hundred years ago, so by now the boundaries have been pushed pretty far, resulting in stuff like this.

Re: I don't "get" art

#92

Post by starship »

mturmon wrote: post #89
starship wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes very good sense. The problem is, a lot of us have been to modern art museums, where you'd think that next to every piece there would be an explanation as to the X, Y, Z, A & B that you mentioned. But there never is. So why is that? You must admit, it's not a crazy idea that they are being intentionally opaque because the decision of what art is "great" and what is "crap" is not being chosen out of merit, b…

Some museums will have didactic plaques, or large wall didactics, especially for thematic shows. But for well known artists, or major works, these panels don't make sense. They mean so many things to so different people, that it would be presumptuous to try to pin down a meaning in a few sentences. The panel would leave out more than it could include.

Well...then they can get a bigger plaque.

Remember I'm responding to the person above who was saying there was a very straight-forward explanation and way to understand art based on X, Y, Z, A & B. If that explanation is so straight-forward, they can probably fit it in a couple of paragraphs.

Regardless, I think saying "well its reeeeally complicated, so we're just not going to explain ourselves at all" is pretty indefensible.

Re: I don't "get" art

#93

Post by astrodust »

msutherl wrote: post #65
cynicalkane wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think modern art is what happens when your "understanding art" circuits get into a feedback loop of some kind, there's something going haywire in there. Modern art is the mental equivalent of an allergic reaction. So we get these famous artists who made things like big canvases of entirely purple, and we say it's art because art critics sneezed out a bunch of reasons why it's art. Laypeople look at Rothko and wonde…

By "like big canvases of entirely purple", you're probably referring to Yves Klein, who I think is actually a bad example for what you're getting at. Klein was interested in a kind of total, pure experience of color. He worked with a paint chemist to create an especially vibrant blue color ("International Klein Blue") which, to a pre-television era, would have actually been quite mesmerizing. Klein was also a legitim…

That's the thing with totally out there, nutbar work. Usually there's a story that makes it all make sense, in relative terms.

A lot of artists strive very hard to produce something new which is, at its essence, nearly impossible. The distance you have to go to get somewhere uncharted is vast indeed.

If people think art is easy they should struggle to create some themselves. It will take years to be able to produce something that isn't immediately recognizable as either too unrefined for serious consideration, too obviously derivative, or so done to death it's a cliche.

Re: I don't "get" art

#94

Post by dbbolton »

bfrs wrote: post #54
wpietri wrote: post #48

I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of crappy art out there. However, this article is such bullshit that I suspect the writer is just trolling. For those who are nodding along with this article, consider the Obfuscated C contest: http://www.ioccc.org/ That's art. But it's art that most people in the world can't begin to appreciate. You need years of coding experience to really get it. You need context. When hack…

Obligatory references: If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's art, it's probably bullshit [1] Modern Art - A Skeptical View [2] [1] http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Artsp.htm [2] http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/

I can't help but think of the Postmodernism Generator ( http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ ).

Re: I don't "get" art

#95

Post by mturmon »

mcantelon wrote: post #18
mynegation wrote: post #10

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.ama…

Sure , it's known that the CIA gave money to the Ford Foundation who then gave donations to various literary magazines, art reviews, and visual arts enterprises during the Cold War. It took decades for this to come out, although it was long suspected. "We" needed some bona fide art with an accompanying criticsl rationale to balance that of the Soviets.

One can interpret the whole ethos of the New York School of the postwar years in this way. Heroic individuals like Jackson Pollack striking out and defining whole genres of art, total opposite of the dreary collective approach of the Soviets.

This does not make the art invalid, suspect, or whatever. It should challenge us to look beyond the canonical figures, and to maintain an independent perspective on their work.

Re: I don't "get" art

#96

Post by pnathan »

I've seen the bottom piece in person - the city on fire with the two people flinching from it.

It is absolutely fantastic.

I have no such belief that the rest of this 'show' illuminates anything in the human spirit except foulness...

Re: I don't "get" art

#97

Post by mturmon »

starship wrote: post #92
mturmon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some museums will have didactic plaques, or large wall didactics, especially for thematic shows. But for well known artists, or major works, these panels don't make sense. They mean so many things to so different people, that it would be presumptuous to try to pin down a meaning in a few sentences. The panel would leave out more than it could include.

Well...then they can get a bigger plaque. Remember I'm responding to the person above who was saying there was a very straight-forward explanation and way to understand art based on X, Y, Z, A & B. If that explanation is so straight-forward, they can probably fit it in a couple of paragraphs. Regardless, I think saying "well its reeeeally complicated, so we're just not going to explain ourselves at all" is pretty ind…

The plaques also get in the way of a viewer's own response to the work. Pretty soon people are reading their way through the museum.

Also, for most contemporary art, there is not even a critical consensus about the work. Most artists hate to describe what their work is about. They might say what experience inspired them to make the piece, or the feeling they had when they were making it, if you're lucky and caught an unguarded moment. And there would be as many reactions to the piece as critics who wrote about it. It's a losing game.

It's OK to want it, I'm just mentioning some of the barriers to it ever happening.

Re: I don't "get" art

#99

Post by kenrikm »

I went to design school, I visited Art Basil. Agree++

Seriously, maybe it's because I'm really a hacker that was interested in design but "Art" as in the starving/gallery kind is 99% crap - 1% mind blowing.

Re: I don't "get" art

#100

Post by altrego99 »

wpietri wrote: post #48

I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of crappy art out there. However, this article is such bullshit that I suspect the writer is just trolling. For those who are nodding along with this article, consider the Obfuscated C contest: http://www.ioccc.org/ That's art. But it's art that most people in the world can't begin to appreciate. You need years of coding experience to really get it. You need context. When hack…

Dude, honestly I think you are the one who is probably trolling. I can explain what's nice about ioccc codes to non-programmers easily enough to catch their attention - there's something real going on there. Upgrade Complete is an enjoyable game on its own right, even if you did not know the satire. You seriously think (that other people think) that Kongregate games are shitty and require historical references to begin to appreciate? Think again.

If someone tries, he can inject enough meaning to any artform using historical context, including this http://www.viceland.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/img_85...

But the point is that art should not be confused with history.

Post reply on HN