I don't "get" art • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't "get" art

#251

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #147

cdavid wrote: 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…

That last bit makes perfect sense to me. Look at science or math. What's more comprehensible to the modern layman: something that we learned decades to centuries ago? Or work that's being published this month?

If you go to a general-interest science museum, they mainly cover science's greatest hist of yesteryear.

Re: I don't "get" art

#252

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:23 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #248

_feda_ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 fig…

Sorry this is going to be long, but I'm going to try and explain my...perhaps provincial and unfair...way of thinking about Rothko... First off, there is some truly great modern art being produced these days. I really think it has to do with the maturing of modern art as a field (see #2 below). Some of the recent Russian surrealists are producing astonishing stuff and there is some absolutely wonderful, delicate, scu…

Fantastic comment.

That's the perspective from which I think it's totally legitimate to say: this is shitty art. Not the initial, "I don't get it so it must be crap" reaction. But trying to see so deeply into it that you can see the fraud or the idiocy.

That is why I really love Banksy in general, and especially Exit Through the Gift Shop. He has such a keen nose for fraud and pretense.

Re: I don't "get" art

#253

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

adeelk wrote: post #245

wpietri wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t see an interpretation that makes sense. In fact, I don’t think there is one. I guess you define a “statement” to be a complete sentence, judging by “its title alone isn’t a proper statement”, but titles are rarely statements anyway and the actual contents of the novel, I am sure, are full sentences. We need to use more precise language, instead of hiding behind vague terms like “statements”, if we hope to eva…

I thought he was was drawing a distinction between literal communication and evocation of experience and feeling. E.g., "war is bad" vs Guernica. I take it as linked in that I saw it as an argument for a broad understanding of art. E.g., if a big purple square of Rothko's is evocative, it's still worthwhile art even though any reasonable translation of it to unpoetic statements of it is either null or dull to the point of idiocy.

Re: I don't "get" art

#254

Post by crasshopper » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

crasshopper wrote: post #186

macspoofing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it is good." Sculpture professor whose class I modelled for: "Most people are going to completely ignore your work [that you spent weeks on, had your ego destroyed by peer criticism, fixed, put your soul into, etc] -- or look at it for about three seconds before moving on. If you can hold their attention longer -- if you can make them pause for an extra five seconds, and notice, or…

Related: the jazz educator David Baker has described the progression of learning jazz to first, joining together big, pre-made pieces; then, joining together small pieces; finally (as a master) joining together atoms.

I think something equivalent could be said for programming (journey from modifying a script that already works to understanding the atoms of the language) and there's some close-enough statement that could be made for painting / visual art. The journey from imitation to atom-by-atom originality.

Re: I don't "get" art

#255

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:55 PM UTC

starship wrote: post #246

wpietri wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, I can't believe the top post for this article is by someone who, a little further down one of the threads, basically said "eh, actually I take it all back".

I said no such thing. The point of my post is that understanding a lot of art requires context. I gave two examples of the kind of art people here appreciate perfectly well. I also said that contemporary art is often mysterious to me, and described what happens when I go with friends who do have the context. I did not say I fully get the artwork then. What I do have is have some notion of why people appreciate it.

I at no point said, "Gosh, you can understand all art easily after 3 sentences of explanation". Which you should have gotten by analogy; a layman can't get one of the IOCCC entries after a short explanation, and a non-gamer won't really appreciate Upgrade Complete if it's the first game they've ever played. They can get that there's something to get, but they can't possibly fully understand a work in context until they understand the context.

Re: I don't "get" art

#256

Post by starship » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 12:43 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #255

starship wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I can't believe the top post for this article is by someone who, a little further down one of the threads, basically said "eh, actually I take it all back".

I said no such thing. The point of my post is that understanding a lot of art requires context. I gave two examples of the kind of art people here appreciate perfectly well. I also said that contemporary art is often mysterious to me, and described what happens when I go with friends who do have the context. I did not say I fully get the artwork then. What I do have is have some notion of why people appreciate it. I…

This isn't that complicated. From your original post: > If I go with a friend who understands the context, they can explain to me the history

Either your friend's explanation improved your experience at that museum/gallery, in which case I say "Put it on a plaque", or it didn't because our understanding of art can't be improved by any kind of brief explanation and really you need to "take an art history class" as you directed us to do. So which is it?

My conclusion is this: if including any kind of explanation --short, long, anything-- can improve the average person's experience at a museum or gallery, then they should do so. The fact that they don't makes a lot of people skeptical about the entire thing, which is a shame.

Re: I don't "get" art

#257

Post by crasshopper » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:48 AM UTC

jacobrobbins wrote: post #250

crasshopper wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When M Duchamp put a urinal on display in an art museum it made a novel point that we perceive quotidian things differently just because they're in an art gallery. When [help me here] "installed" a live donkey "to symbolise his inability to come up with a good idea" that's piss. That said there is plenty of excellent modern art. If you live in/near a wealthy city, this is easily verified.

living on a street with 8 contemporary art galleries I can say that 90% of contemporary art sucks. It's just like startups, 90% of them fail. But people who love startups or art keep making more regardless. I think a lot of the irritating attitude is the support of people who all do the same thing. Same way when your friend makes a new web app you're not going to say it sucks even if it does because (a) they're your…

what city?

Re: I don't "get" art

#258

Post by leot » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 2:16 AM UTC

adeelk wrote: post #245

wpietri wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t see an interpretation that makes sense. In fact, I don’t think there is one. I guess you define a “statement” to be a complete sentence, judging by “its title alone isn’t a proper statement”, but titles are rarely statements anyway and the actual contents of the novel, I am sure, are full sentences. We need to use more precise language, instead of hiding behind vague terms like “statements”, if we hope to eva…

Another (less lyrical) way of phrasing it might be:

"P1: There exists X in the set of (ideas, notions, feelings, etc.) s.t. X cannot be expressed as a combination of statements.

Humans get around P1 by using more than mere statements to express themselves. The consequences of their doing so might be called 'art'."

The word "statement", as opposed to "phrase" or "sentence", was used to draw a distinction between mere statements about facts-of-the-matter and literature. The implication was that "statements" are things like "the sky is blue" or "war is bad", from which semantics can be derived through syntax and the grounding of referents. In other words, I'm implying, here, that "literature" is not a simple collection of statements.

But regardless of the status of literature, i.e., even if literature were a mere collection of statements, are you claiming that every feeling, notion, idea (etc.) that can be expressed† can, in fact, be expressed via text/words/phrases? In other words, are you claiming that (a) language can express everything felt, thought, experienced? Or, alternatively, are you claiming (b) that no non-linguistic medium of expression can express that which is inexpressible by language?

†I'd use "communicated", but I fear someone might take the position that "communicate" only has a technical information-theoretic definition.

Re: I don't "get" art

#259

Post by bane » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 3:03 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #252

bane wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry this is going to be long, but I'm going to try and explain my...perhaps provincial and unfair...way of thinking about Rothko... First off, there is some truly great modern art being produced these days. I really think it has to do with the maturing of modern art as a field (see #2 below). Some of the recent Russian surrealists are producing astonishing stuff and there is some absolutely wonderful, delicate, scu…

Fantastic comment. That's the perspective from which I think it's totally legitimate to say: this is shitty art. Not the initial, "I don't get it so it must be crap" reaction. But trying to see so deeply into it that you can see the fraud or the idiocy. That is why I really love Banksy in general, and especially Exit Through the Gift Shop . He has such a keen nose for fraud and pretense.

Right. When I see a Rothko in a gallery I know pretty much immediately it's one of his before I walk up to the info card. And my immediate gut reaction is usually one of incredulity. But like most modern art you have to try and learn about the context of the piece to appreciate it. And the more I dive into the context around his work the less I like it.

I generally like Banksy too. At first glance I like the aesthetic, and then when pondering a work, I enjoy the satire, symbolism, the cultural references and imagery.

And even if the final work is made in a few moments, I know that he spent time, perhaps hundreds of hours building out the stencil set, planning the piece, choosing a subject, etc. for the final image.

Re: I don't "get" art

#260

Post by wpietri » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 3:31 AM UTC

starship wrote: post #256

wpietri wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said no such thing. The point of my post is that understanding a lot of art requires context. I gave two examples of the kind of art people here appreciate perfectly well. I also said that contemporary art is often mysterious to me, and described what happens when I go with friends who do have the context. I did not say I fully get the artwork then. What I do have is have some notion of why people appreciate it. I…

This isn't that complicated. From your original post: > If I go with a friend who understands the context, they can explain to me the history Either your friend's explanation improved your experience at that museum/gallery, in which case I say "Put it on a plaque", or it didn't because our understanding of art can't be improved by any kind of brief explanation and really you need to "take an art history class" as you…

A few minutes of dialog doesn't fit on any sort of plaque. It's interactive, personal, situational.

Also, I didn't say that a plaque-sized bite of text can't improve things. What I'm saying is that you won't necessarily get a work after reading one. Try it yourself. Take one of the IOCCC works and try writing a short paragraph that will explain it to the general-audience viewer.

And I didn't tell everybody to take an art history class. I told you to take one. Because then your arrogant, entitled-to-be-spoon-fed attitude might possibly be appropriate when you're actually paying somebody to educate you.

Modern art museums are not somehow legally obligated to make you happy. (Neither, for that matter, am I.) If you don't like the way museums are run, you have a problem. If you want to understand the art, you can go put in the time like everybody else did.