This thread is great modern art
I don't "get" art
71–80 of 271 posts
Re: I don't "get" art
#72Hi. 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 artistic styles to develop an emotional connection with a viewer. That is, the viewer doesn't need to "understand" or compare a piece to reality to have an emotion from it.
For the most part, I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece. However, many people mistakenly believe that this appreciation is "getting" art. After all, you think "wow, that must have taken forever" when you see the Sistine Chapel.
However, that's just one emotion art can give you and it's a mistake to limit art to that. It's this belief that caused pieces that are potted plants on pedestals or red squares on large canvases to be alienating - "dude, I/my five-year-old could have done that!"
So let me put it this way - there's no such thing as "getting" art. Either it made you feel something or it didn't.
Re: I don't "get" art
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
bad art is very contextual Much like how a bad joke need to be explained and people ignore and get annoyed by bad elevator music. But, feel free to listen to that used car salesman selling that just like new 1971 pinto.
No… all art is very contextual. Picasso's most famous work, Guernica , has many contexts to which it can be interpreted—not least of which the Spanish Civil War, upon which it is a meditation. Yet, for me, the only context that matters is that I think that Picasso's Cubist period (of which Guernica is a part) is a horrible waste of his talent, which is much better demonstrated in his blue period. Basically, I don't c…
I think that Guernica transcends it's medium and genre. It still affects me as a political and moral statement more than anything. (I actually like a lot of cubism, but then, I'm an animator.)
My favorite story about Guernica, no idea if it's true or not, concerns the time when Picasso was living in Paris during the German occupation. The Gestapo like to visit his studio and harass him, but he was just a bit too internationally famous for them to just eliminate him.
One visit the SS guy was walking around, berating Picasso about his degenerate art when he came across a postcard of Guernica. (At that time the painting had an international reputation and was being held in America for safe keeping.)
The Gestapo guy picked up the postcard and shook it at Picasso and asked, "Did you do this?"
To which Picasso replied, "Oh no, you did."
I read it on the internet and heard it on TV, so it must be a true story.
Edit: Here's Simon Schama telling the story on a BBC documentary on art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVycXNUh6YU
Re: I don't "get" art
#74I personally believe art's purpose is to create and distribute beauty. By extension, a secondary purpose would be to distribute that beauty to the masses, and to further increase the "net beauty" of the world, if you will. In no way, shape, or form is "My cunt is wet with fear" beautiful. This is simply an artist trying to be shocking and radical, but without the courage to actually do so in a meaningful way, is simp…
> I personally believe art's purpose is to create and distribute beauty.
With that definition, yes, "my cunt is wet with fear" would not qualify as art. However, there are a variety of definitions of art. Look at Tolstoy - he says something is art if there's an emotional link between the audience and the artist, or at least, that an art piece "affected" a viewer. In that definition, the emotive reaction of the "my cunt is wet with fear piece" (one of disgust and confusion) could qualify it as art.
Re: I don't "get" art
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
No… all art is very contextual. Picasso's most famous work, Guernica , has many contexts to which it can be interpreted—not least of which the Spanish Civil War, upon which it is a meditation. Yet, for me, the only context that matters is that I think that Picasso's Cubist period (of which Guernica is a part) is a horrible waste of his talent, which is much better demonstrated in his blue period. Basically, I don't c…
I think that Guernica transcends it's medium and genre. It still affects me as a political and moral statement more than anything. (I actually like a lot of cubism, but then, I'm an animator.) My favorite story about Guernica , no idea if it's true or not, concerns the time when Picasso was living in Paris during the German occupation. The Gestapo like to visit his studio and harass him, but he was just a bit too int…
You just edited the post but at 30ft wide I was a bit skeptic about anyone "shaking" Guernica at Picasso :-)
Re: I don't "get" art
#76Hi. 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 also think that something fails to be art when it is not intended to illicit an emotion reaction from others. Perhaps many of the artists in that exhibit chose things that gave emotion to themselves and made no attempt to create empathy in others. Or maybe they were going after a small subset of the audience - who knows?
Re: I don't "get" art
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Guernica transcends it's medium and genre. It still affects me as a political and moral statement more than anything. (I actually like a lot of cubism, but then, I'm an animator.) My favorite story about Guernica , no idea if it's true or not, concerns the time when Picasso was living in Paris during the German occupation. The Gestapo like to visit his studio and harass him, but he was just a bit too int…
You just edited the post but at 30ft wide I was a bit skeptic about anyone "shaking" Guernica at Picasso :-)
I originally had it as a "print" but the Schama story had it as a post card. My post always pointed out the painting was in New York.
Re: I don't "get" art
#78I'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 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.
Re: I don't "get" art
#79Anything without appropriate context is hard to "get."
Think of how often you have to explain something to someone when they react unfavorably. The problem with the pieces in this collection is that they are lazy. They don't come from a sense of expression; they use shock value to get their effect, and the result is often met with hostility.
I had a similar reaction when I saw a fluorescent light on the wall as a piece in the Met in NYC.
Re: I don't "get" art
#80I'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…
That makes very good sense. The problem is, a lot of us have been to modern art museums, where you'd think that next to every piece there would be an explanation as to the X, Y, Z, A & B that you mentioned. But there never is. So why is that?
You must admit, it's not a crazy idea that they are being intentionally opaque because the decision of what art is "great" and what is "crap" is not being chosen out of merit, but by the whims of an insider few. Is it really so hard to believe that the artists who are considered "hot" right now are just better at working over these insiders who pick the winners and losers?