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

141–150 of 271 posts

Re: I don't "get" art

#141

Post by Mesmoria »

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…

Watch this documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/this-is-modern-art/

Re: I don't "get" art

#143

Post by adeelk »

leot wrote: post #78
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…

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.

Re: I don't "get" art

#144

Post by urbanjunkie »

Wow, there's a lot of hate for Tracey Emin here, from people who probably know little about her work.

All I will say is that I have several of her pencil sketches in my house, and they are poignant, provocative, angry and fragile. To me, they are art. If you don't think they are, that's fine, but try to not let your frustration at not having a reaction make you belittle those that do.

Also, anyone who walked around and saw some of Damien Hirst's work before the Sotheby's auction a few years ago might been stunned at some of what was seen. The shark in a tank was a spectacular piece but a lot of that was in how it was staged and presented.

Art is a very personal thing. There's plenty of stuff I really don't like, but if others do, that's fine.

Re: I don't "get" art

#145

Post by yaix »

Very good read. And, btw:

"Art is anything you can get away with."

Or, in other words, it's about making money out of crap, sometimes literally.

Re: I don't "get" art

#146

Post by yaix »

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…

>>A lot of modern art is like that.

As much as I would like to agree with you, but, no, it isn't.

Re: I don't "get" art

#147

Post by bane »

cdavid wrote: post #120
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…

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 observe as the man on the street barely holds back snickers and gafaws at the absurdity of some of the work.

I'm reminded of a tour through the Vatican art collection, perhaps one of the finest in the world. The crowds were bunched around some of the great statuary and paintings (even ones they didn't formerly know). Near the end of the tour, the viewer is thrust into the modern art collection. The crowds suddenly stop bunching and most people can't wait to get through it.

This seems on its face backwards. What should be more relevant to the modern viewer, statues of a dead religion in a language nobody natively speaks or religious art made by their peers and contemporaries?

Re: I don't "get" art

#148

Post by macspoofing »

Mesmoria wrote: post #141
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…

Watch this documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/this-is-modern-art/

I'll check it out.

Coincidentally I watched two docs recently that touch on the topic of what "modern art". "Exit through the Gift Shop" and "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?", both were pretty good.

Re: I don't "get" art

#150

Post by macspoofing »

commieneko wrote: post #85
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…

Whether you like a work is a purely subjective experience. There's no Art Guy In The Sky handing out ribbons. It's up to each of us to decide what we like and don't like. Having said that, the best way to learn to appreciate visual art is to learn to sketch. You don't have to become Leonardo, but simple observational drawing is a great way to train your eye and brain to see better and as a side benefit you will under…

>It's up to each of us to decide what we like and don't like.

Is that really true? Because there seems to be an implicit hierarchy of art. It isn't all subjective, otherwise art critics would be out of work.

>Having said that, the best way to learn to appreciate visual art is to learn to sketch.

I'm not knocking visual art, in general. I'm a terrible painter, so I can certainly appreciate the tremendous skill and talent it requires to create a masterpieces. What I'm referring to is art that seems to be art, only because other say it's art. In the article, there's a photograph of a woman sitting in a lawn chair. Why is that art and a random photo of me doing the same thing, not?

Post reply on HN