Live data from Hacker News

I don't "get" art

vice.com

121–130 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#121
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…

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…

Many people broke down and cried when looking at Rothko works. Certainly it doesn't have that effect on me (mild boredom), but you dismiss their effects to easily.

Re: I don't "get" art

#122

I personally believe art's purpose is to create and distribute beauty. By extension, a secondary purpose would be to distribute that beauty to the masses, and to further increase the "net beauty" of the world, if you will. In no way, shape, or form is "My cunt is wet with fear" beautiful. This is simply an artist trying to be shocking and radical, but without the courage to actually do so in a meaningful way, is simp…

I'm not sure that art has to create beauty. I can understand why a statue of Jesus submerged in piss is art (it makes a statement and is intended to shock and disgust), but flowerpots on pedestals doesn't evoke any emotion aside from disdain for people who consider it art.

Re: I don't "get" art

#123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have a rule about art. It doesn't have to be everybody's rule; it's just mine. If the artist creates something that he would want for himself, for his own living space, even if he knew that nobody else would ever get to see it, I'll accept that it's art, even if I can't stand it. If the artist is working on commission, the rule applies to whoever commissioned it. If it's something he would want for himself for his…

I don't know man, I probably wouldn't even want forks (picking something of "obvious" utility) in my house if I were the ONLY one in the world who knew about them. What would guests think? That I'm some kind of weird food-impaler, maybe a closet Sadist. If people didn't use forks, choosing to have forks wouldn't be a foregone conclusion at all. Even all by myself.

You entirely undervalue the social context of objects, including objets d'art.

Re: I don't "get" art

#125
Art is expression and communication. Some get touched by the message, some don't. If some people like to pay big bucks for art, just let them.

Some might say Tracey Emin is a bad artist. But I think here message is very clear: pain from being raped and losing 2 kids. It's a sad message.

Like Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid) I like to say: "Worrying about “Commercial vs. Artistic” is a complete waste of time.".

Re: I don't "get" art

#126
if you're buying art and putting it on display in your home - don't think about the narrative of the artist. think about the narrative the buyer might have had, when he saw the picture. I believe most people who spend a lot of money do so because they want to express something about themselves.

Re: I don't "get" art

#127
That kind of reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rb3Pc8a2CM

What makes a guy who draws blobs or squares on a canvas his ENTIRE career, sell paintings for a million dollars while another guy who draws blobs or squares is never heard from? Is it really all about the end product, or is it more about the relationships? And if it's the latter, then what is "artistic" about the paintings when it's about knowing the right people at the right time?

Re: I don't "get" art

#128
A lot of people (including in this thread) seem to have this idea that art is about realism. The more a piece of art, or its components, bear a resemblance to reality, or the more technically difficult the methods involved in its execution, the more worthy it supposedly becomes as "true" art.

But this is totally missing the forest for the trees. Art is ultimately about indulging in a perceptual experience. The true value of art is that it can do this not only by stimulating our senses in satisfying ways that are already familiar to us, but more so than this, art can fundamentally change the very way in which we perceive reality. Now it should be clear that in many cases even the definition of what constitute aesthetic beauty is fluid and often learned, as a result aesthetics become inseparably linked with the perception altering aspect of art.

This is what made the Renaissance artists truly great, not just more realistic looking pictures, but the shift in perception that allowed the realism to be seen. The invention of perspective is probably the best example and is such a fundamental shift we take it for granted today that perceiving it is not an innate ability but learned. As an example, people from cultures lacking contact with the modern world do not see realism in photography the way we do, they see what is actually in front of them: a flat surface with colourful smudges.

Realism has been done, it is fairly well established in the realm of the familiar. Many artists have moved on seeking new ways to open up and challenge our perceptions. It shouldn't come as a surprise that without foundation or context, the viewer sees nothing more than some "colourful smudges" in modern art.

This ability to make new things visible to us, is what makes art arguably as important to advancing our society as engineering or some other more "respectable" vocation.

All of this is not to say the world of art doesn't have its share of pretenders or rich people more interested in using art as display tokens of their status, rather than an actual interest in its meaning. However, it's very easy to succumb to the allure of denouncing anything we don't understand as therefore having no value.

Re: I don't "get" art

#129

From the engineers prospective, I understand the reason for what you are saying. However, I've always made an effort to exercise the left side of my brain for balance. I played cello for a decade in childhood and toured Europe; currently, I compete in salsa performance (after having been the most lead-footed lame dancer four years ago). What I've learned is that expressing my creativity allows for introspection. The…

As a european I find it funny that you associate touring europe with exercising your left brain. I don't mean that maliciously I just find it funny.

Re: I don't "get" art

#130
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…

>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.

Can we not accept people having different views than us (and quite reasonable ones at that) without bringing up the BS notion of "trolling"?

Trolling is what 15 year olds do at 4chan, not what a normal, adult, blogger does in an extended post with various examples and arguments.

>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 hackers sit down and study those works of art, they're not just posing. A lot of modern art is like that.

No. The obfuscated C contest is more akin to traditionalist art. It's not conceptual and it needs serious chops. It's just that the presentation of it is twisted (so, more like Dali, or Archiboldo, etc...).

Post reply on HN