Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

behavioralscientist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#111

Post by redunculous5 »

ggggtez wrote: post #91
umvi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously very subjective, but modern art seems like a case of emperor's new clothes to me, a humble engineer. When I was in college I would see art around campus take the form of random metal shapes welded together, concrete blobs, or Pollock-esque splatters and shake my head. How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? I can look at Michelangelo's "The David" and be awed to the core at how he…

One thing to consider is that being a case of the emperor's new clothes is intentional . Consider The Fountain again: The artist had the audacity to put a urinal in a gallery. It's not so much that this was a particularly lovely piece of ceramic (though some may think so). The point is the meta-awareness that urinals don't belong here . The rule-breaking is the art. The fact the emperor has no clothes is the exact re…

But at what point does daring rule-breaking degenerate into mere gimmickry. I guess I can understand why piece generated so much interest in it's time, but since then we've been subjected to a relentless parade of urinals, cow corpses, faeces, signed brillo boxes etc. At this point we've seen the emperor naked ad nauseum

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#112

Post by krapp »

Izkata wrote: post #105
krapp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? Why are you assuming that modern art is arbitrary, random and has no rules? For that matter, why do you seem to assume the purpose of art is to be "judged" according to some objective set of rules? Have you tried to study any modern artistic movements, or artists, and what those movements or artists were actually trying to express? It seems like you'r…

> Why are you assuming that modern art is arbitrary, random and has no rules? More like inference than assumption, based on occurrences like Pierre Brassau's art. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau

That seems more like a criticism of art critics and the subjectivity of art valuation than modern art as a category, given that most modern art isn't done by chimpanzees.

Although, ironically, the hoax itself makes it a valid form of performance art anyway.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#113

Post by lkrubner »

drcode wrote: post #5

I feel like modern art market is primarily a way for a subsegment of rich people to buy certain intangible goods: These are people that feel lonely, and have low self esteem... They really would like to socialize with cool and charismatic people, and the "modern art scene" is basically a very pricey matchmaking service for them to make friends and go to parties with people that fit this description (i.e. the artists)

I've been in and around the art scene in New York City and I would not describe the buyers as "people that feel lonely, and have low self esteem." Maybe a few, but certainly not most. Many of them have the opposite problem, an extreme self-confidence that comes across as arrogant. As with all things relating to the cutting edge of culture, one needs great confidence to survive, on both the buying and selling side of things.

I have a few art pieces that I'm proud to have at my apartment. Some people think they are ugly, but they are an expression of my tastes, and therefore they are a useful shorthand for communicating those tastes to others, when they visit my apartment. I suspect that a lot of art buyers have the same motivation as myself, they are looking for symbols that can work as a shorthand way of communicating a lot about oneself.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#114

Post by argulazi »

omnimus wrote: post #84
umvi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously very subjective, but modern art seems like a case of emperor's new clothes to me, a humble engineer. When I was in college I would see art around campus take the form of random metal shapes welded together, concrete blobs, or Pollock-esque splatters and shake my head. How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? I can look at Michelangelo's "The David" and be awed to the core at how he…

With invention of photography artists realized that there is no reason to depict reality anymore. But they also realized that there is much more happening than watching image. It is whole experience of contexts, mood of place and the way how the art is shown and all kinds of subtle things. It is not about what anyone can physically do nor if it's easy or hard. It is about the ideas and navigating culture and finding…

Not criticising any art or artists; but don't believe in the camera argument. Paintings do not look like photographs at all; they are often images of things that do not and never have existed. Many of them could only be created using human imagination; and reflect some complex human culture and society at a point in time.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#115

Post by bloomer »

drcode wrote: post #35
Foobar8568 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern art (or just art), it's more a money laundry, tax evasion, asset management scheme than anything else.

I think those play a smaller role, for the following reason: If modern art was primarily about the social aspects, you'd expect most modern art to be stuff like a perfectly blank canvas or a urinal, because those are direct signals of the "coolness" of the artist (who else but a charismatic person can sell a blank canvas?) If art was more about tax evasion, etc, then modern art would probably be more photorealistic o…

The tax evasion argument doesn't seem to follow. It's not the scarcity that you want hard to measure it's the value. Scarcity in modern art is always assured by one of a kind or limited runs. If it's photorealistic it's much easier to judge the value than an abstract composition. How much should a shark in formaldehyde be worth? If it's in a natural history museum, then the price of the shark, the tank and the formaldehyde and any labor to prepare it. If it's in an art museum, who knows? Whatever someone paid for it.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#116

Post by skiw »

umvi wrote: post #74
paganel wrote: post #67

Whenever people discuss about contemporary art I get reminded of these incredibly poignant Soviet war paintings [1] which manage to partially describe what the atrocities on the Eastern Front meant for the people involved, but which are nevertheless a lot less well-known compared to contemporary art "darlings" like Jackson Pollock whose works don't tell me absolutely anything and who had his career propped up by the…

Obviously very subjective, but modern art seems like a case of emperor's new clothes to me, a humble engineer. When I was in college I would see art around campus take the form of random metal shapes welded together, concrete blobs, or Pollock-esque splatters and shake my head. How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? I can look at Michelangelo's "The David" and be awed to the core at how he…

> Anyone with no skill can do random things with random items and call it art.

Others have mentioned this, but I think the key here is that the "skill" you are referring to is what art theorists would call "craft." There is a degree of technical skill that goes into a work of art (e.g. sculpting realistic bodies in marble or being able to draw consistent shapes or human anatomy, etc), but theorists would say that the truth of the art is about what emotions and ideas it expresses in the viewer. In this way, since contemporary art often eschews craft, it can (in one sense of the term), be considered the most pure kind of art.

> How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules?

Keeping the above in mind, art isn't about rules or judgement, but about the personal message it sends to the viewer. Because, after all, what are the "rules" you are ascribing to The David? Realism? If so, then what would you say about impressionist works by, say, Claude Monet?

I say this also as a humble engineer (even if I come off as standoffish, which I hope I'm not), who happened to take a few art theory courses at school, which by no means makes me an expert: so this is just my own experience and perspective.

The most powerful experience I've had with a work of art was with one of Mark Rothko's paintings. Sure, you can look at it as a plain wall of one or two colors in a plain square shape, but when I really got a good look at it for a prolonged period of time, I began to get lost in the colors and appreciated the nuances of the brushstrokes (it also helped that I had read John Logan's play "Red," which is a psychological profile about Rothko's method, which I recommend highly)

All of this to say that, yes, anyone with no skill can do random things with random items and call it art. Because the skill, the things, and the items are not the true characteristics of what art is. I don't think that "Fountain" should necessarily be marked as a masterpiece or objectively hailed as brilliant or anything, but I think to label it as "not art" misses the point (the point that it's trying to make a statement about art as a whole). Art is not about skill/craft, but about communication between the artist and viewer.

That's my perspective on it at least!

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#117

Post by redunculous5 »

paganel wrote: post #100
PowerfulWizard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I personally get an emotional response to Pollock, especially that particular one, I actually have a MoMA catalog on my bookshelf with that entry bookmarked with my admission ticket from 2010 when I went to see it ( https://imgur.com/a/hFBR7Nu ). The size is a factor as well, there is no way to look at it on a computer screen that is close to how you look at it in person ( https://www.moma.org/wp/inside_out/wp-co…

I tried to understand contemporary art, up to a point, there was a time when I used to buy each issue of the FT - Weekend Edition so that I could read Georgina Adam’s articles on what was the hippest thing being transacted and the like, but in the end pretty much all of it meant nothing to me. Reguarding the representation of war, I’m afraid 200-year old paintings don’t do it for me anymore, modern warfare is so much…

FT?

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#118

Post by js2 »

ggggtez wrote: post #91
umvi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously very subjective, but modern art seems like a case of emperor's new clothes to me, a humble engineer. When I was in college I would see art around campus take the form of random metal shapes welded together, concrete blobs, or Pollock-esque splatters and shake my head. How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? I can look at Michelangelo's "The David" and be awed to the core at how he…

One thing to consider is that being a case of the emperor's new clothes is intentional . Consider The Fountain again: The artist had the audacity to put a urinal in a gallery. It's not so much that this was a particularly lovely piece of ceramic (though some may think so). The point is the meta-awareness that urinals don't belong here . The rule-breaking is the art. The fact the emperor has no clothes is the exact re…

I think it's easier to appreciate the skill involved in making a piece of art than it is to appreciate the art piece itself. Some people (myself included), may even prefer appreciating the skill in and of itself, independent of the art.

Further, I think it's easier to comprehend how difficult it must be to produce a realistic sculpture or painting or what have you, compared to an abstract piece. As the piece becomes more abstract, appreciating it requires, I think, a lot more contextual information that the viewer may simply not have.

Of course, some art may just be crap. Who's to say?

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#119

Post by lozaning »

InitialLastName wrote: post #90
umvi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously very subjective, but modern art seems like a case of emperor's new clothes to me, a humble engineer. When I was in college I would see art around campus take the form of random metal shapes welded together, concrete blobs, or Pollock-esque splatters and shake my head. How can you judge a category of art for which there are no rules? I can look at Michelangelo's "The David" and be awed to the core at how he…

Modernism in the arts has a bit of a path-dependency problem that tends to intentionally obscure the "artistic value" of the bleeding edge from the uninitiated, but which can make the art more meaningful to those who are familiar with the context. I'll use jazz as an example, since I'm most familiar with that history. You can start with something as approachable, if disorganized as "Jelly Roll Blues"[0], and polish t…

Oh man, some of the stuff my friends are listening to these days is amazing music, they've got the algorithms to prove it! Something about listening to the notes that aren't played or some such. Music that should be heard, but not listened to.

Check out some of the stuff Mike Gao is putting out with the use of his Polyplayground app.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#120

Post by jvs0n »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #99

>How? Replace the corporate ladder with a social bridge. We never work in isolation—even when we think we do. Our collective definition of success requires us to think about the ways that our work impacts others. Collectivists hate art. Capitalists love art. If you look at socialist countries like Cuba, there are 0 artists. You must get approval from the government to make a "Creative Production" https://havanatimes.…

What an offensive comment. Socialist countries don't have art and artists? lol. Some of the greatest musicians, filmmakers, visual artists were from the Soviet Union
Post reply on HN