I don't "get" art • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't "get" art

#131

Post by _feda_ » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:23 AM UTC

hetman wrote: post #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 v…

Stellar post.

You're not completely correct when you say realism has been done. First of realism is alive and well today, but it's presence is diminished for good reason, most notably the camera. Nothing has changed the face of art quite like the invention of the camera, a great example of technology's transformative influence on culture.

Re: I don't "get" art

#132

Post by philip1209 » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:25 AM UTC

_feda_ wrote: post #129

philip1209 wrote: post #29

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.

I was just trying to express that I didn't play alone in my basement. The trip was actually through a US State Department program.

Re: I don't "get" art

#133

Post by Tichy » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:33 AM UTC

It is art because it is in a gallery. Also I think it is not the single pictures that are the art in this example. The art is the whole thing: people looking at nonsensical pictures wondering if they are art.

Reactions like that article are exactly what that kind of art wants to provoke.

Not that I personally have a nerve for it...

Also it reminds me about an analysis of the popularity of football that I read yesterday: football is popular because it is irrelevant. You can get high on emotions without any side effects on your real life. Maybe some "art" servers the same kind of purpose. The article also states that football is approaching the popularity of "weather" as a conversation topic.

Re: I don't "get" art

#134

Post by colonel_panic » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:44 AM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #58

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…

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…

What separates Rothko and Pollock from the artists in the link is that other people have tried to capture what they captured, and failed. I never got it until I finally saw other rectangle blobs and other paint drippings. There is at least something there to be felt.

Tracey Emin, on the other hand, is nothing more than a name, as demonstrated by this masterpiece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Nicholas_Serota_Makes_an_Ac...

Re: I don't "get" art

#135

Post by hetman » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:45 AM UTC

_feda_ wrote: post #131

hetman wrote: post #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 v…

Stellar post. You're not completely correct when you say realism has been done. First of realism is alive and well today, but it's presence is diminished for good reason, most notably the camera. Nothing has changed the face of art quite like the invention of the camera, a great example of technology's transformative influence on culture.

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest realism is no longer an interesting art form. It is certainly well established, and perhaps this is a testament to the fact it has plenty to offer. I was simply attempting to bring across that many artists are more interested in less familiar uncharted territory in which to push the boundaries of new exciting ideas.

Re: I don't "get" art

#136

Post by shrikant » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:57 AM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #21

I knew my wife was the woman for me when we visited the Tate Modern on our first date and both walked out after 30 minutes agreeing that it's all garbage. [and went to Greenwich park and observatory which is awesome] Art is the ultimate example of social proof at work. Another great one is wine. I live in the Bordeaux winelands and the only difference between Premier Cru wines like Chateau Margaux at $400 a bottle an…

My SO and I promised ourselves to give an honest shot at trying to grok the exhibits in Tate Modern, but this set was the final straw for us: http://www.flickr.com/photos/appelogen/5179792842/

Re: I don't "get" art

#137

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 9:58 AM UTC

Art is just communication.

The thing that sets art apart from mundane examples of communication (such as perhaps instructions for a tax form) is that art typically is evocative of emotions and feelings. Or perhaps complex thoughts that must be arrived at indirectly.

Art is really no more complicated than that. But there is so many different ways to achieve communication through different forms. Sometimes people are prone to over-simplify art, or to try to make art objective, or to try to make a firm boundary between "high art" and mundane art, but none of that is possible. Art is inter-personal, and can mean different things to different people. Guernica, for example, could have a different impact depending on ones personal exposure to warfare and violence. And that of course means that trying to put in place objective standards about subjective communication is fool-hardy at best, as is trying to create some sort of ranking.

You don't have to like all art and it's fine if not everyone likes the art you like.

It's fascinating to me that the same applies to cuisine and we accept it just fine. Some people like sushi, some people don't, some people like steak, some people are vegetarians. Art is the same way. Liking some types of art may make you appear more sophisticated in some circles (such as liking red wine and salmon vs twinkies and big macs) but in the end it's all just personal preference.

Re: I don't "get" art

#138

Post by brazzy » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 10:01 AM UTC

hetman wrote: post #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 v…

I don't think anyone here will claim that art is about realism. And I think "indulging in a perceptual experience" is an absolutely brilliant definition of art.

The problem is that a lot of modern art, which includes some of the pieces in TFA, fails that definition as well because it relies too much on insider context. Art that is designed to be "understood" in a way that requires a 5-page explanation to someone not familiar with ideas and trends known only to people in the modern art industry is not a "perceptual experience", it's a riddle game with a very limited target audience.

Truly great art may have such aspects as well, but they take a backseat of the "perceptual experience" aspect, which makes it recognizable as art to almost everyone, even of they don't understand everything the artist did.

Re: I don't "get" art

#139

Post by elorant » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 10:07 AM UTC

A few years back I was visiting MNCARS (Madrid) with a friend of mine who had no understanding of art whatsoever. He didn’t like my decision to visit the museum and I could tell he felt a bit uncomfortable. So I told him we should try something of an experiment. We would choose a painting, stare it for a while and then exchange opinions. And that was what we did, we chose a large painting and after watching it for a couple of minutes I asked him how he felt about it. “It makes me feel unease” he told me. “I don’t know why but it makes me sad, frustrated, in despair. I just want to take my eyes away”.

The painting was Picasso’s Guernica . Years after my friend told me that this single event had a significant impact on his life.

So my opinion is that if art needs explaining then it’s not art.

Re: I don't "get" art

#140

Post by johnchristopher » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 10:22 AM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #21

I knew my wife was the woman for me when we visited the Tate Modern on our first date and both walked out after 30 minutes agreeing that it's all garbage. [and went to Greenwich park and observatory which is awesome] Art is the ultimate example of social proof at work. Another great one is wine. I live in the Bordeaux winelands and the only difference between Premier Cru wines like Chateau Margaux at $400 a bottle an…

I believe modern art (which I am not into) suffers from an anti-intellectual approach anytime the subject pops-up in my circle of technical friends.

On the other hand I went to an art school for a year and met a lot of incredibly elitist wanna be into Klein and the like that would never show up in history of arts class where they could have learned why some weird paintings were important stepstones in art (but they were capable of admiring the piece for two hours in the museum, go figure).

Well... Let's get back in 1863, France for a little thought experiment: s/Tate\ Modern/Salon\ des\ refusés/ s/Greenwich park/Jardin\ du\ Luxembourg/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_d%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe That was a huge scandal at that time, people were screaming their children could draw better (yes, already in those times). Although a lot of social proof is going on as well it advanced art and few are calling it garbage nowadays.

To be clear I enjoy observatories much more than painting exhibition :)

Note: I think this wikipedia article lacks some important pieces of information and doesn't go very deep into the anlysis of that painting.