I don't "get" art • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't "get" art

#231

Post by moocow01 » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 5:45 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #172

moocow01 wrote: post #22

The art world is where the bleeding edge of culture can be found. Most of the cultural trends that are commonplace today have origins in the art world. The reason why art is hard to understand by pretty much everyone is that it usually disregards practicality in its original form, and then eventually overtime those same ideas are fused with a more practical viewpoint which brings it into the mainstream for the masses…

>The art world is where the bleeding edge of culture can be found. Most of the cultural trends that are commonplace today have origins in the art world. Citation? I was there for (at least one corner of) the start of the current steampunk trend; to the best of my knowledge modern art( ) had nothing to do with it. Can you give me some examples of cultural trends and their modern-art precursors? ( ) In the sense that's…

I unfortunately don't know much about steampunk but I think I probably wasn't specific enough. There are a number of sub-groups in the art world and I was more referring about that larger group rather than just those that practice modern art that are usually seen in hoity-toity galleries.

For example the whole flash mob stuff got moving originally through performance artists trying to innovate. The underground music scene is another great one in that most of the stuff that gets integrated into the mainstream originally originated from niches of independents far removed from commercial music. Interactive artists probably don't get nearly enough attention by the HN crowd - a lot of them have been experimenting with all sorts of stuff. I can remember 5-10 years back some artists experimenting with peoples movement and technology - somewhat like rudimentary version of kinect.

Re: I don't "get" art

#232

Post by slurgfest » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 5:59 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #222

slurgfest wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you label everything as art, and there is no distinction between art and non-art, then what do you communicate or understand by applying the label?

That's an interesting and excellent question, strawman though it is. The thread you're replying to is an exploration of "Can you distinguish between art and non-art purely via the subjective merit and appreciation of the result?". But the question you're (really) asking is: "Given an attempt to define art, can that definition be widened to include everything, rendering it useless?"

I'm not trying to construct a straw man, I'm trying to talk about the lay of the land. If I have a beef it is with the irrational, undisciplined, non-illuminating, petty dullness of the whole argument.

Because in the many times I have seen this argument, it always seems to go the same way. There is a Philistine sneering at some boring or obscure objects, and there is an angry Defender of Art who treads a fine line between (on one hand) a bland modern schoolteacher's orthodoxy which says nothing can be excluded and (on the other hand) a haughty attitude that the boring object is really better than some other boring objects - you know, to those with REAL discernment - and that the Philistine probably loves airbrush art and Thomas Kinkade and the pre-Raphaelites (hee hee hee). There is a huge dogpile of smug people on the Philistine, whose populist persecution complex is encouraged. The Defender (who often enough is just an undergraduate with a little art history or a 35mm camera), is just fueling the Philistine, and the Philistine is fueling the Defender, and so on forever.

If I am bothered by any specific art, it is the pieces which use yet another random object to draw out this same discussion we have been having for over 50 years.

I don't really object to a totally stoned view of the world where everything is interesting period, and maybe it really is useless to talk about art. That seems to me at least consistent, and not a perpetuation of the same crummy drama used to endlessly propagate the modern orthodoxy. On the other hand, if someone wants to actually try excluding something from art then that also provides a starting point for an actual discussion of some kind.

Re: I don't "get" art

#233

Post by wazoox » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 6:43 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #212

wazoox wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%.

Fair enough.

> Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context.

However, some of the strongest form of art today (prehistoric cave painting) have lost all of their context and hope of being understood. I think we can manage without any explanation most of the time.

Re: I don't "get" art

#234

Post by wazoox » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #217

wazoox wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Yes, but it lacks the artist's purpose.

> 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

Sorry about that; I fell prey to my own intellectual snobbery :)

> and imply that photography made life painting completely obsolete.

Photography made art as an imitation of reality obsolete, at least.

Re: I don't "get" art

#235

Post by bluekeybox » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 6:50 PM UTC

metaphorical wrote: post #105

bluekeybox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces In other words, demonstrating one's affinity (or non-affinity) to a particular group becomes more important than demonstrating individual skills/virtuosity. Nietzsche (whom so many contemporary artists adore, btw) would have some harsh words on such herd mentality.

I was referring to the critiques in the article (e.g. dismissing the works one by one, instead of looking at the retrospective as a whole.) But you raise an interesting point. I'm not sure if groups form because of herd mentality, or if there are parallels in perceiving the modern world. It's hard to say. If I remember correctly, the early Nietzsche (in Birth of Tradegy) discussed the Dionynsian ideal of an artist --…

(Disclaimer: I personally like the individualistic part of Nietzsche's philosophy more than his love for the Dionysian). Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tradegy back when he was under huge Wagnerian influence (an influence he later renounced), and the duality he introduced there between the Apollonian rationality and the Dionysian irrationality basically gave ammunition to the postmodernism movement. That said, although I do think that mysticism/spiritualism has a place in human experience, it is tautologically absurd to rely on it as a guide to areas that are better explored using a rational mind. There are many other ways to look at art; to bring up one example, one could look at art as an attempt at naming that which hitherto remained unnamed, which would place art into the rational realm (although more into the periphery of it than into the center). If I could read German, I would be incredibly interested to read Wilamowitz-Mollendorf attack on "The Birth of Tragedy" (infamous for the fact that it nearly ended Nietzsche's career) because I came believe that the difference between early Nietzsche and a charlatan may be more subtle than many realize.

Re: I don't "get" art

#236

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 6:55 PM UTC

adeelk wrote: post #218

wpietri wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think you're nitpicking pointlessly here. Rather than seeking interpretations that you can be snide and cranky about, seek interpretations that make sense.

Literature is art, but literature isn't just a bucket of statements. Indeed, plenty of interesting literature makes use of things that aren't plain statements. If Upon a Winter's Night a Traveller, for example. Its title alone isn't a proper statement, and the book plays with that kind of incompleteness throughout.

The statement version of the book might be something like, "Incomplete statements can be interesting." But that's not art.

Re: I don't "get" art

#237

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 7:04 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #66

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'll bite...I know very little about art, but I'm willing to be educated. So tell me, by what criteria does one distinguish modern art from garbage? Taking your Obfuscated C contests as an example, even if the source files look like gibberish to your average citizen (or average programmer), you could at least explain why it's special. And it wouldn't be that hard to see, for anyone, why creating a winning entry takes…

If I tell someone those things about the Obfuscated C entries, they still won't be able to tell a good one from a bad one. Different judges will rank different entries differently. Even if judges agree, it's possible that other people will think the judges wrong.

Other kinds of art are no different. Heck, most interesting things are no different. Try listing criteria to distinguish a good programming language from a bad one and see how many people you can get to agree with you.

Re: I don't "get" art

#238

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

starship wrote: post #92

mturmon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some museums will have didactic plaques, or large wall didactics, especially for thematic shows. But for well known artists, or major works, these panels don't make sense. They mean so many things to so different people, that it would be presumptuous to try to pin down a meaning in a few sentences. The panel would leave out more than it could include.

Well...then they can get a bigger plaque. Remember I'm responding to the person above who was saying there was a very straight-forward explanation and way to understand art based on X, Y, Z, A & B. If that explanation is so straight-forward, they can probably fit it in a couple of paragraphs. Regardless, I think saying "well its reeeeally complicated, so we're just not going to explain ourselves at all" is pretty ind…

I don't believe there's a straightforward way to understand art. Sorry if I misled you. That XYZABC bit is generally the summary of a lot of discussion, with explanations custom-crafted for me.

If you want to understand it, go take an art history class. Then you'll have the attention of somebody whose job it is to explain basic art concepts to you. That's not the job of anybody at a typical gallery or art opening.

Re: I don't "get" art

#239

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 7:14 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #212

wazoox wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The stuff that shows up in the MOMA is surely the top 10% for some audience; otherwise a curator wouldn't have bothered with it.

If you're expecting that it should also be in your top 10%, well, then you have created yourself an expectation. If eventually that stops being fun, there are other things you can do.

Re: I don't "get" art

#240

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 7:18 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #206

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…

The obfuscated C contest is very explicitly by and for C programmers - the layman isn't expected to know about it, much less have a positive opinion of it.

Who's expecting the layman to have an understanding and a positive opinion of everything that turns up in museums and galleries? Not the artists or the curators, surely.

If anything, the only problem I see here is the reverse: Laymen are expecting that all those things should be instantly accessible to them with no work.