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

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#191

Post by wazoox »

scott_s wrote: post #181
mturmon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I went to the MOMA recently, and one piece was literally a piece of cardboard with some silver spray paint and a few holes in it. My response was, "I could have done that. There's no art to it." That and many other pieces could have benefitted from an explanation. I see no problem with people "reading their way" through a museum. I did that at the Met, because I was curious about the background to many of the paintin…

There is a large branch of modern art, "conceptual art", which is precisely dedicated to making art of anything, just a concept. Typical examples are ordinary objects, sometimes not even transformed (for instance, a water bottle on a column). It can be traced back to the 1917 "ready-mades". There, the art is in the intention of the artist and nothing else. Sometimes you may feel cheated. Sometimes, it's brilliant. That's art. Like for everything else, 90% of it is simply mediocre.

Re: I don't "get" art

#192

Post by wpietri »

joseph wrote: post #57
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…

Imagine if someone took programs written for the Obfuscated C contest and boxed them up for sale to the general public. Art that is "movement Z is a reaction to Y, which in turn is a reaction to X" might be fine for artists to circulate amongst themselves, but the problem is that it is sold to people who have no such insider knowledge, yet like to pretend it is somehow relevant to them.

If you're saying that people sometimes buy stuff for reasons other than truly appreciating it, sure, I'm not going to disagree. But that's not just true about art; it's an endemic problem with humans buying things.

Indeed, I worry less about it with art than most other things. Most art I've seen is produced by people who are sincere about it. Their art may be bad, or at least not my thing, but they're not going to spend a month making something without meaning to them.

I think most of the real scams in the art world are at the very high end. E.g., I think Damien Hirst is a marketing genius and a weak artist. Chihuly too. But if you're going to drop $10k-$10m on a piece of art, I'm just going to have to trust that you know what you're doing.

Re: I don't "get" art

#194

Post by wpietri »

pdeuchler wrote: post #67
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…

"movement Z is a reaction to Y, which in turn is a reaction to X. The artist is grappling with themes A and B, and exploring materials C, D, and E." I don't want to see reactions. I don't want to see an artist grappling with themes. I don't want to see an artist exploring new materials. I want to see a master displaying his work that exemplifies concrete themes and ideas. In other words, I would like to see defined,…

Ok. Then that's the kind of art you like. I think where people go wrong is confusing "art I like and art I don't" with "art and not art".

I also like masterworks, but I'm just as interested in the human process that produces the art.

Re: I don't "get" art

#195

Post by wpietri »

nextstep wrote: post #52
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…

Of course he's trolling! It's Vice magazine. How does nobody seem to get this?

Perhaps you could explain the context? In most magazines articles are meant to be taken at face value, so if Vice is up to something else it would be pretty easy for people not to know that.

Re: I don't "get" art

#196

Post by crasshopper »

temuze wrote: post #72

Hi. Amateur writer here. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "getting" art. Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1]. Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional arti…

> I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece.

Really? I'm a non-artist and I find all that old stuff (pre Turner I guess) extremely boring. How many frikking paintings of the Virgin Mary and Jesus do I have to endure. They all look the same to me, same even with the Dutch masters fruit and skulls. (Wow, how interesting, a pear. Not.)

OTOH, maybe if I had some education I would appreciate the historical significance (see, she's raising her left pinky? That was a snub to the patron)

Re: I don't "get" art

#197

Post by wpietri »

starship wrote: post #80
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…

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…

Art is undeniably faddish, and there is definitely a political element; I wouldn't want to deny that.

However, that's sort of like going to a natural history museum and expecting to see the whole ursine evolutionary history and ecology explained next to every bear. There will be a little plaque with the basics, but the typical viewer knows a lot of the basics and is a repeat visitor, so they are expected to learn these things over time.

These days I'm perfectly happy to bring up Wikipedia when at a museum.

Re: I don't "get" art

#198

Post by geon »

b0rsuk wrote: post #103
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…

And that's why I dislike "art" - because too often the only thing that makes something art is a label. Without it, it would be a skippable youtube video. His comment about the photo of a woman sitting in a chair is spot on. Nobody would give it five seconds if it was in somebody's summer collection, because it does look like a boring holiday photo. The article's author may have cherry picked, but it's true that art l…

> value aesthetics more than art. (...) something that looks nice

"Aestethics" doesn't really require anything to look good.

Personally, I think LMFAO[1] and Robyn[2] looks absolutely terrible. But that tickles some part of my brain, and I enjoy the aestethics of it, in all it's uglyness.

[1] http://www.starsentertainment.com/media/articles/images/l/m/...

[2] http://plusmen.blogspot.se/2011/06/rye-rye-never-will-be-min...

Re: I don't "get" art

#199

Post by crasshopper »

starship wrote: post #80
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…

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…

Imagine this. You read a novel and really enjoy it, interpreting some facet of the work as X. Later in an interview, the author suggests (or says outright) that the facet was actually Y ≠ X. That facet=Y would worsen the novel for you.

You go back to the novel and reread all relevant passages. You decide that not only is facet=X an internally consistent interpretation within the canonical text, but that facet=Y would lead to a contradiction. (Hey, authors are fallible and don't necessarily imagine non-contradictory worlds.)

So what is the "ontological" status of the interpretation where facet=X and the interpretation where facet=Y? Throw in that possibly either the author's intention isn't easily described in extant words, or that the author had no specific intention regarding `facet`, or otherwise multiple conflicting interpretations can still claim validity. Maybe the authors, artists, musicians are smartest to let audience members enjoy the work for their own personal reasons, without ruining a perfectly fine interpretation some individual takes.

Ahem. 'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy.

Re: I don't "get" art

#200

Post by wpietri »

altrego99 wrote: post #100
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 beg…

Art is history. You can't avoid it.

Artists grow up seeing art. They learn the techniques of the previous generation. But then they strike out on their own, doing something new. They spend decades exploring, growing, and changing.

I do seriously think that there are a lot of video games that are totally unapproachable unless you've played a lot of other video games. Try it sometime: take somebody who doesn't play games and sit them down with some top games. The amount you have to explain is incredible. To somebody here I can say "tower defense with shooter elements and a complicated skill tree". For a non-gamer, that's a ton to figure out; without coaching they'll just poke at it for a bit and walk away. But that's ok, because the audience isn't the non-gamer.

And then there are the games that are full of cultural references or in jokes. Upgrade Complete may be mildly enjoyable on its own, but the reason it gets such a high rating is the brilliant play with the many tropes and ideas of modern video games.

That's art. And contemporary art is generally like that but more so. Video games have to function as games, but art can be what it wants.

Post reply on HN