Live data from Hacker News

I don't "get" art

vice.com

211–220 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#211
post #99

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.

Like a young, coke-addicted Italian fashion model.

Re: I don't "get" art

#212
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%. Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context. Something has to give.

Re: I don't "get" art

#213
post #143
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This statement is meaningless as is and I think if you were to make it precise you would find it ridiculous.

What's wrong with saying that there are some things better expressed in mediums other than text?

Re: I don't "get" art

#214
post #170
post #159

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. K…

>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 Uh, that's what pretentiousness is. Sports fans don't (by and large) act like they're better than you because they understand what's happening and you don't.

No, sports fans really do act like they're better because they understand what's happening and you don't. Maybe you haven't been exposed to this because you understand sports. You will definitely get snotty reactions if you ever let on that you don't know about the basics of football or basketball in the US. I don't care, but this is definitely one of those things.

Re: I don't "get" art

#215
As a (somewhat off-topic) aside, I notice that every picture in the article seems to be slightly askew, and generally by the same angle. Can anybody tell me if there is a reason for this, or is it just an affectation of the photographer?

Re: I don't "get" art

#216
An informative read is The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe (yes, that white suit wearing writer). It's a fairly short book, and written from personal experience in the art world.

He talks about the evolution of art toward something that can only be appreciated if you know the theory behind it, and also about the interplay of the (poor) artist and the (rich) patron and the psychological aspects of what the patron it buying (often: they get to be an "insider", with the whole notion of being an insider being something that the artist has constructed.)

Re: I don't "get" art

#217
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

What's wrong with that exactly? It looks like a fine painting, though quite unoriginal. There is definitely a "snobbery of philistines" who want to not understand modern art because it isn't about pretty pictures. Making pretty pictures has been outdated in the 1840 by photography, and it's been nearly 100 years since Duchamps presented his "fountain". If you like pretty pictures, there are people painting dolphins j…

What's wrong with a wallpaper sampler? There are lots of neat colors and patterns in there too.

I don't understand how you can call out snobbery at the same time that you equate painting from life with dolphins jumping in front of a full moon, and imply that photography made life painting completely obsolete.

Re: I don't "get" art

#218
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement is meaningless as is and I think if you were to make it precise you would find it ridiculous.

What's wrong with saying that there are some things better expressed in mediums other than text?

This is a more precise statement, but you have replaced “art” with “other mediums than text”. Is literature not art?

Re: I don't "get" art

#219
post #147
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP point was not about art being mere satisfaction for art nerds, but that there may be an effort to appreciate it. That's true of most art forms. It just happens that which effort depends partly on the person. It seems that for some reason, people are put off by what's around modern and contemporary art (the social aspects of people participating in it, etc…). Nothing prevents you from going beyond that, appreci…

Re:Rothko Except Rothko was a lousy artist before he hit on the black on black rectangle thing. A study of his development as an artist shows somebody who is almost talent free. I think the point is that much of modern art is so self referential that it has become almost devoid of any sort of external meaning. This is easy to observe. Sit for a few hours in the modern art wing of your local free public museum and obs…

"Except Rothko was a lousy artist before he hit on the black on black rectangle thing. A study of his development as an artist shows somebody who is almost talent free."

I accept that you think he was almost talentless, but he wasn't. I think he was a great talent long before he became well known for the typical rothko stuff, and it wasn't just talent in the modern sense but also in the craft sense, when he was a figurative painter especially of new york scenes (try googling his painting of the new york subway).

Your anecdote about the vatican collection is a good one. But it doesn't mean that modern art is worthless, or even suggest that it is.

There's a lot of subtlety in rothko's brushwork that most people don't pick up on. Really they're large, complex pictures but on a different level from most painting. I saw about 20 of his paintings in the turner/rothko exhibition in London about three years ago, and seeing them in a space that suits them brings out their impressive quality, and it became hard to see them as "just rectangles" or however you want to put it.

Re: I don't "get" art

#220
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re:Rothko Except Rothko was a lousy artist before he hit on the black on black rectangle thing. A study of his development as an artist shows somebody who is almost talent free. I think the point is that much of modern art is so self referential that it has become almost devoid of any sort of external meaning. This is easy to observe. Sit for a few hours in the modern art wing of your local free public museum and obs…

The old statues are more relevant to many people because it is so amazing that they have been preserved and it gives them a window into old things, and because old things achieve a sort of special-object status especially in connection with religion (relics...) Moreover, the old things have already been through ruthless filtering, and the things which remain tend to have more inherent interest than the average recent…

They are beautiful too, in the classical sense, and beauty in the classical, natural sense is the most well-established and accessible kind in art.
Post reply on HN