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

151–160 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#151

Post by chris_p »

leot wrote: post #78
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…

There are ideas, notions, feelings, etc. that cannot be adequately expressed through statements alone. Hence, art.

Therefore, books and literature aren't art, since they express ideas, notions and feelings with nothing but words. Wait, what?

Re: I don't "get" art

#152

Post by drhowarddrfine »

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 wholeheartedly agree with the article. He doesn't get it. Period. My wife doesn't get programming either but she won't write an article about it.

Re: I don't "get" art

#153

Post by dudurocha »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #149

Banksy's film "Exit through the gift shop" explored this argument well I though, indeed took it to the next meta-level and asked "how can you rip-off a modern artist's work?". http://www.banksyfilm.com/

I watched this weekend. And is a perfect form of critics on how easily is for people say and think that 'this is art', 'this is not', 'this is genius'. The scene when Mr. Brainwash is selling the arts is amazing. People call him and ask for the prices and he is like " The can with colors? 24.000$, The Elvis with a toy: 18000$" And after he says to the interviewer : " I'ts like gold, you look to the piece and say a price. And people will pay for it."

Re: I don't "get" art

#154

Post by peteretep »

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…

> I think modern art is

I think what you are describing is "art I don't really see the merit of". Modern art - as understood by most people - encompasses Van Gough through Matisse, Hockney through Warhol.

Is the work of Dali an "allergic reaction"? How about Roy Lichtenstein? How about Jackson Pollock? How about Tracey Emin? Where do you draw the line here?

If you draw the line at the point where you stop seeing the artistic merit, and if you start defining art from that purely subjective view point, you're surely missing out. What about artists who fall just past the line where you see the artistic merit? Is it possible you just don't understand that work? Will you start to define art as purely mechanical skill? If not, where will you define it?

I leave you with: https://xkcd.com/793/

Re: I don't "get" art

#155

Post by jberryman »

_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.

The camera actually has told us a lot of unexpected things about "what is art?" e.g. Objectivity is a lie, accurate representation alone is worthless (the snapshot is not art unless the artist says so), representation is boring, there are no "beautiful things", etc.

Re: I don't "get" art

#156

Post by chalst »

urbanjunkie wrote: post #144

Wow, there's a lot of hate for Tracey Emin here, from people who probably know little about her work. All I will say is that I have several of her pencil sketches in my house, and they are poignant, provocative, angry and fragile. To me, they are art. If you don't think they are, that's fine, but try to not let your frustration at not having a reaction make you belittle those that do. Also, anyone who walked around a…

I agree with you: I think Tracey Emin is more sophisticated than most make out.

I confess, though, that I was amused when I read the bit about her tent going up in the Momart fire.

Re: I don't "get" art

#157

Post by mattgreenrocks »

olavk wrote: post #108
waterlesscloud wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's really going to bake your noodle later: Is it more sophisticated to have broad acceptance of contemporary art or to call out bad attempts at art that are relying on your need to feel sophisticated for acceptance?

Problem is, you need to have a good understanding of contemporary art before you are able to call out bad attempts.

And modern art tends to presuppose that the viewer has the necessary context, often neglecting the aesthetic hook.

Re: I don't "get" art

#158

Post by sunir »

batista wrote: post #130
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'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…

If you believe adults don't troll with complicated pieces, you probably don't get Tracy Emin.

While I wish I was trolling you right now, I am being serious.

Re: I don't "get" art

#159

Post by moron »

I don't "get" sports. I do not understand the appeal of watching a bunch of dudes run around a field trying to get a ball in a goal. Not to mention all the evidence we've seen of what sports like football and boxing do to the bodies of athletes. (Or what that may imply about the organizational bodies and spectators of those sports.)

But, I don't get to pretend like the sports world is full of pretentious dickheads. Kinda funny how that works. Somehow what "normal" people do is always right and good and creative stuff is degenerate or snobby bullshit.

Post reply on HN