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 what it is. The contest isn't describing itself as about art and I imagine that almost none of the participants are even thinking about art. That's not even what it's about. What is the point in calling it art?
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…
> I think modern art is I think what you are describing is "art I don't really see the merit of". Modern art - as understood by most people - encompasses Van Gough through Matisse, Hockney through Warhol. Is the work of Dali an "allergic reaction"? How about Roy Lichtenstein? How about Jackson Pollock? How about Tracey Emin? Where do you draw the line here? If you draw the line at the point where you stop seeing the…
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?
By "like big canvases of entirely purple", you're probably referring to Yves Klein, who I think is actually a bad example for what you're getting at. Klein was interested in a kind of total, pure experience of color. He worked with a paint chemist to create an especially vibrant blue color ("International Klein Blue") which, to a pre-television era, would have actually been quite mesmerizing. Klein was also a legitim…
I have a rule about art. It doesn't have to be everybody's rule; it's just mine. If the artist creates something that he would want for himself, for his own living space, even if he knew that nobody else would ever get to see it, I'll accept that it's art, even if I can't stand it. If the artist is working on commission, the rule applies to whoever commissioned it. If it's something he would want for himself for his…
I don't know, people make lots of things they want in their houses for purely practical reasons. Does that really make them art?
I guess you are only applying this rule in a negative way - if people DON'T want what they produce then it's not art to you?
Hi. Amateur writer here. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "getting" art. Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1]. Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional arti…
I disagree. Especially with art where I know the artist, I get where they are coming from. I can appreciate their intention, their insight, their craft.
That's distinct from the feeling, and just as valuable to me.
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…
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 recently-created thing.
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.
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…
Though I agree that modern art is mostly pointless, I actually have prints by Rothko and Pollock. I've dashed through countless modern art museums around the world, but there are a few artists and styles that consistently make me stop and stare. I can't explain why I like these works. I didn't know nor care about the artists' background or philosophy. I didn't buy it to impress anyone or make myself look artsy. Oddly…
I don't know if it is art. I have nice wallpaper and I look at nice advertisements. Are they art?
note: if you read one part of this, read the last paragraph. "I paint objects as I think them not as I see them." - Pablo Picasso "Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol I do not buy the "this isn't art, I can do this. art requires skill" train of thought. firstly, if we appreciate skill then we are not appreciating art. we are appreciating a craft. to appreciate art we must appreciate creativity. who's th…
If art required craft, that would not imply that art was reducible to craft. I don't even know where you get the premise that art and craft must be mutually exclusive.
I don't see why an engineer cannot be an artist, particularly if everything is art.
Precisely! One might suggest that good art is, in this case, also a good left wing hack: subtly influencing HN-geekdom toward extra-dimensional thought and philosophy is a pretty effective guerilla 'force multiplier' (to borrow a neologism from the right-wing militiarization pundits) against negative trends in modern society. Ideas are as objects; hold them in your mind, turn them and examine from all directions.
Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces. The author here looks at trees but misses the forest. Most people look at art as if they are portfolio pieces in dribbble.com. (Hmm, I like this icon, Hmm, I don't like that color). But art does not merely reproduce the beauty of forms, instead, it gives language to the "soul" so that it may speak. Protip: Keep an open mind.
That "Protip:" thing is really condescending and irritating.
I don't understand how ordinary language can't give language to the soul so that it may speak. Especially if what the soul wants to say is something like "I am hungry."