I think the vast majority of abstract art is bullshit.
I've gone for years believing this and when one of my longtime friends became an "abstract art painter" in last 6 months and got featured in some small time gallery, i lost whatever respect I had for him. It's really crappy and to borrow a long time cliche, a five year could have done it. Normally, I'd post this on FB under his next post but I'm too lazy to fight the inevitable 20+ accusations of being a "hater". Its art for the unskilled and the lazy, because you don't have to be good and you don't have to explain your "art". Its like if Leo Spacemen became an artist.
For someone who's entire meaning of life's work is to be daring, stimulating and ioccassionally controversial - "artists" sure do hate criticism.
Last edited by Araysar; 12-29-2013 at 01:04 AM.
Was at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney earlier this year and saw some truly shit pieces. One was just a 10x10 grid of red paint on the wall.
It's shit. It's shit. It's shit.
My mother in law on the other hand just started painting after she retired. Like just took it up as a new hobby at random. She paints the most wonderful nature pictures I've ever seen. That stuff deserves to be in an art gallery, not some asshole who made a dildo out of toothpicks.
After the camera was invented artists have been trying to figure out wth their purpose is anymore so we jackson pollack.
There is a museum near me that has some amazing metal work in it. Tons of incredible bronze work. Also some really cool stuff like a life size bison statue made entirely of bicycle chains. Stuff that required tons of time to do, and a lot of talent. Then you find some real stupid shit. One piece was so bad that I had to go up to the lady behind the counter and ask her how a bowed sheet of metal with a red X on it was put into a museum that houses amazing bronze work. She said that all pieces are chosen by the museums board members.
So here is how I think this plays out. The "artist" presents his creation to the board and says something stupid like "this piece represents mans growing reliance on industry" or something equally nauseating. All of the museum people in the room have a desperate need to justify the fact that they got a degree in fucking art so no one wants to be the person that says "I don't get it", or "It is a piece of metal with red paint on it...". So everyone just nods because they "get it", and a piece of "art" that probably took 5 minutes to do gets to sit in the same room as some real masterpieces.
This thread would be better with pictures of the works of Araysar's friend.
I like Neoclassical arts.
The best art in the world is communist/socialist statues and shit.
Yuri Gagarin tribute
Seriously, that shit is awesome.
Also, one of the greatest losses when FoH went away was the movie house thread about the movie My Kid Could Paint That. Lot of great discussion of art there and what a total crock of shit abstract Pollock style "art" is.
It's the devil's advocate's day for me as I don't care much about abstract painting and I am ready to recognize there is an important social component to the success of some artists BUT, as an exercise of the mind, consider this: Probably all of you enjoy some music that has no lyrics. So you enjoy abstraction. Abstract painting is like music except it uses color and space instead of sound and time. It shares notions of mood, texture, rhythm even...
Modern shitass art only became popular because the CIA didn't want the commies to have more popular art during the Cold War.
Modern art was CIA 'weapon' - World - News - The Independent
Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.
Last edited by Szlia; 12-31-2013 at 12:00 PM.
Abstract art always seems like trolling to me... like I am the only one who doesn't "get" it.
Glad I'm not alone.
One day I hope to be as attractive and well spoken as Tuco!
I agree. We have this family friend whose brother started making these terrible splatter-paintings. He then put a ridiculous price tag on them, spewed out some bullshit about their "meaning" and used some of his past business connections to get them up in galleries. Now he sells these paintings for up to $10-grand with as much training and skill as I had when I splatter-painted in Kindergarten.
abstract art in Soviet Russia became obsolete as the revolution took root. Stalin and bunch of commies decided abstract art was bourgeoisie bullshit and commissioned concrete vision of art which the common men can understand. there are numerous examples of soviet abstract art before the Stalin era.
an understated ensemble that puts the "b" in subtle
Last edited by Caliane; 01-01-2014 at 04:03 PM.
Composition IV leaves me pretty cold, but it is an interesting and important piece when you put it back in the context of both Kandinsky's evolution and art history.
But there's some actual structure there. This giant pile of bird droppings sold for a record $140 million in 2006.
This splash of diarrhea went for $11.7 million in 2004
Here we see a canvas that someone spooged on before letting their poodle walk through, $20.5 millon in 2012.
And this is a nice example of spilled ashtrays and a small splash of your mom's period blood, $58,363,750 in 2013.
That brings us to another question.
Should art involve a degree of craftsmanship? Or can art be effortless for everyone to create?
I have not checked the documentary (yet), but I hope the author - a Cambridge PhD in Philosophy specialist of aesthetics - had nothing to do with the abstract/description on Vimeo because even with my minor art history knowledge I can see the factual errors in it (most notably discarding the notion of sublime).
I get the idea that removing lyrics from a song makes it much more abstract but you really can't group the noisy pieces of shit in this thread with all the great works of music that had no lyrics.
A bunch of ~INTJs sitting in a gaming forum talking shit about abstract art is pretty cliche but I'm with Araysar and Fanaskin, so much modern art is a pile of shit and it's because cameras replaced the artist's historical role.
There's a ton of these prank videos but it's pretty effortless to just insert random shit into a contemporary art gallery and people will believe it belongs.
When an effortless prank is able to supplant your artwork, maybe it's time to rethink what belongs and doesn't belong in a gallery.
Last edited by Tuco; 01-01-2014 at 09:36 PM.
I have a problem with most conceptual bullshit. Damien Hirst is a fucking hack.
People want to call video games art to legitimize it as a medium but thats a hard sell.
games are just a story telling medium like books. if you want to call books "art" you can do that i guess, but there is a common idea on what is meant by "art" and it typically refers to visual arts, not performing arts or literature - and thats really whats being discussed here. advertising, illustration and architecture are all examples of visual arts.
I dont consider video games art. And one good game isnt going to magically turn it around for the whole medium littered with games like Quake, Super Mario and Pac-Man
Are Gucci jeans that cost $500 a pair 10x more durable and better than a pair of $50 levis? What about their $600 cargo pants?
I like art. I even like some abstract art. I think it has value as social, political, and cultural commentary.
Pollack examined new territory, and made interesting commentary. When you ask what the use of art is when it has lost its historical purpose. Pollock responds with that. He says art is emotion, that it is a snapshot of energy of creation. Pollock isn't about aesthetic value or the merit of skill. It was an innovative response to an interesting question, and for that reason I think it's good art.
The problem is that a lot of abstract art doesn't express anything interesting. Like the OP has a blank canvas in a gallery. Sure it's making a statement about the nature of modern art, but it's not a particularly interesting or novel statement. On the other hand you've got the modern art of weiwei, who I hold in very high esteem, which does pose interesting commentary.
So, art does ask the viewer to have both a knowledge of its history and for a willingness to explore the philosophical implications in a really awkward way. When people, who have every reason not to be interested in the questions posed in that particular format, decide they don't care, you get this feedback loop of insular ideas that leads to the depressing state of modern art.
Pollack was a fucking drunk who drove drunk and had murderous intent. Good thing he only murdered himself.Pollack examined new territory, and made interesting commentary. When you ask what the use of art is when it has lost its historical purpose. Pollock responds with that. He says art is emotion, that it is a snapshot of energy of creation. Pollock isn't about aesthetic value or the merit of skill. It was an innovative response to an interesting question, and for that reason I think it's good art.
if the definition of "used" is previous ownership/use then an art piece definitely has been "used"
i dont really have a stake in this particular line of argument, i'm just pointing out the gigantic logic holes you exposed yourself to by attempting to equate worth/value/quality with price and then apply that from art to mass produced commercial goods.
the only thing that price measures is how badly someone wants something, and that desire not always rooted in reason/logic.
I also think fashion is an art.
The rate of deterioration of a painting is not in the same ballpark as a article of clothing that sees weekly use.
but there is a deterioration, regardless of how big or small. so "used" should factor into a price
i am not sure why you insist on pursuing this idiotic line of argument or what is it you're trying to demonstrate
Staring at a painting is not the same as wearing a pair of jeans.
I should point out that keyword "experience" is the slippery slope that lead to abstract, dada, avant garde, modern art and shit.
Personally I feel its the artists primary job to MAKE you experience some specific response. that is the point. that is the point, to make sure everyone that looks at it, "gets it". The problem with that is, well everyone or just your intended audience? and well that, "you aren't my audience" is a giant loophole for shitty artists to justify their ineptitude. or even revel in it.
1) The gamut in abstract art is about as large as the gamut in music (and I'll pretend you were not dissing Steve Reich). For every hyper 'noisy' Jackson Pollock painting, there is an intense monochrome by Yves Klein or the serenity of a composition by Mark Rothko, etc, etc. The linearity of music, the fact it is an art of time, allows us to maybe project with more ease a kind of narrative continuity to it, but it is in no way less abstract than abstract painting. A C flat on the harpsichord in a Bach piece represents nothing other than itself; the sound you get when you press that key of the harpsichord. Yet, there are moods, there are movements, there are conversations in musical pieces. That's the power of abstraction (and an enigma to neurologists and sociologists): music cannot show sadness or tell sadness (or joy, or loneliness or rage) but it still can communicates it.
2) The idea that the camera replaced the painters' 'historical role' is assuming that their role was to make a realist representation of reality. You will find that outside some artistic movements delimited to specific times and specific places it was never the case.
3) As a general rule I hate pranks, because it's social manipulation + editing. In that specific case, an exhibition is curated so the visitors come with the expectation that someone, most of the time more knowledgeable than them on the topic of the exhibition, selected a number of artworks. With that frame of mind, most visitors will give the benefit of the doubt to what they see. Maybe they'll like it, maybe they won't, maybe they will find it worthy to be selected, maybe they won't, but they'll assume due diligence from the curator and, as such, will try to find in each piece what is supposed to be interesting (I confess that I often fail). A prank piece will be approached with an open mind, which is more a testament to the curiosity of the visitors than a proof that they are dumb or that modern art is stupid. In the particular example shown in the video, some might even like the piece, because there is something light, fun and incongruous about it (which, depending of the exhibit can be a nice change of pace), they might also like the prank itself as a performance commenting on art.
As a conclusion, an abstract visualization of a piece of 'noise' music, both requiring a high level of craftsmanship. WARNING DO NOT PLAY LOUDLY: Lucio Arese | Yu Miyashita - Mimic - YouTube
I can experience incredulity or indifference looking at the shittiest and banal art in the world. I am experiencing something, but is that a worthwhile experience? I should be experiencing awe, amazement, when I see art - and not experiencing "why did this asshole draw this?"
and of course video games can be considered art
I enjoy Surrealism, I think Dadaism falls into the modern abstract art bullshit rubric
Uhh stuff like abstract art is equivalent to Gucci clothing.
the color and the size of my dick is art.
The sheer overwhelming glory of Red, Orange, Tan, and Purple brings a tear to the eye...
Yeah, I don't know why this bullshit infuriates me so. Maybe that's what these "artists" were going for, mission accomplished I guess. People that vehemently defend this shit and perpetuate it by assigning value to it are worse than the fartsniffing wine snobs out there.
As a foreword, I'll say that I chose this video because I found Arese's really stunning especially when you consider the complexity of the music he turns into visuals, but I am not a huge fan such extremely aggressive 'noise' music, so I'll confess it was mild trolling on my part (Arese has other video of the same type I could have linked with music I enjoy more, there is even one on Gould's rendition of the Aria of Bach's Goldberg variations - Bach did not come out of nowhere in my previous post).
So... what's the value in a noise piece like Mimic. The genre as a whole is part of a galaxy of movements that aims at deconstructing our expectations of what music is. It explores different sounds with different textures, different scales or even abandon tonality, structure, rhythm. A noise piece like Mimic reduces music to some sort of raw energy, it's all speed, all movement, every time the chaos seem to coalesce into some sort of structure, that structure explodes. There is also a whimsical dimension to it as, suddenly, something like a sped up silent movie soundtrack appears (something we associate with slapstick comedy), playfully mocking our expectations. It's not a music to dance to (that would fill hospitals quickly), not music you could use a background, not music that is made to be pleasant really, but an intellectual construction designed to be listened to carefully and with focus, making it difficult to enjoy for too long a stretch (there are some noise musicians that do very intense and very long performances though turning it into a mental and physiological ordeal - in the ritual initiation sense of the word for some and the torture sense for others!). Note these comments are for this particular type of noise music as there also are very soothing pieces of noise music and also a lot of electronic music that uses noise elements to add a particular texture of frailty or chaos.
As for the difficulty in creating it... how many bars are there in these 106 seconds? Even if some raw material is performed and improvised on analog machinery (which might require a low level of skill) organizing that material and cramming it into these 106 seconds, maintaining the intensity, leaving room for the silent suspensions, managing the spatiality of the sound through panning and reverbs, having all these construction-deconstruction loops, finding or creating the mock music and inserting it in the composition... all of that is pretty far from "hey I can do that" territory. I am not a noise music creator though so there is the possibility I am looking at the complexity from the wrong end of the binoculars. What I mean is that a simple process might have resulted in a piece that happened to be this piece, even if it would have taken very complicated process to get this specific piece and not another piece)...
And to answer Araysar, I don't see how it is relevant, but no I am not a girl (I resisted the trolling urge to answer by a very rerolled 'not yet').
The idea of deconstructing our expectations of a product seems like a convoluted way of saying that he's providing the opposite of what we'd expect or want. Deconstruction pieces always seemed like the artistic equivalents to puns or plays on words, cheap ways to poke fun at the medium. The idea that he's exploring different sounds, textures, scales etc falls flat because it's mostly noisy distortion which is the opposite of what we want to hear when we hear music. It's the sound that is emitted when the sound crew fucks up the stage or a plug is pulled from an amplifier. As for the idea that this music which can not be enjoyed as music but must be listened to carefully and not for long betrays the fact that it's so shitty it can't be enjoyed for any purpose nor can one pretend it's not shit for very long before it must be turned off.
And to the difficulty this seems like the texas sharpshooter's fallacy. If you throw a bunch of distorted sound effects onto a canvas of a one minute track you can easily point to moments of silence, intensity and pretend it's more than what it is.
Tuco, go out and have yourself a good year.
It's funny because I read the wikipedia entry on Kandinsky yesterday and he had this mystic notion of the avant-garde artist as a prophet. He visualizes it as the artist being able to feel the tip of inverted pyramids that expend in the future. In less poetic terms, the idea is that the avant-garde of today is exploring things that may be incorporated in the mainstream of tomorrow. What we want to hear and what we expect to hear are mostly social constructs, so exploring other territories opens the possibility of finding new things that some might like even if they did not know they would because they did not want nor expected it. I also disagree with the notion that if something is unpleasant or too challenging it is bad. I am not a big music guy, but I have some tracks I listen from time to time that are like an adventure of their own and require a headset and full concentration to enjoy (I am specifically thinking to an ambient track by Fennetz that sounds a bit like you're superman in the middle of a jungle, super-hearing everything). Good in small doses is something that applies to a number of great things. Anyway, I like the idea that not all musics have the same purpose and that not all musics are experienced in the same way.
As a bonus I tried to find that track by Pan Sonic that uses the sounds you get when you touch with your fingers the end of live sound wires, but I failed, so instead you get a good example of insertion of noise elements into a track that both give a kind of melancholic vibe to it (it sounds a bit like an old dusty vinyl record) and an instability (the rhythm section trips and falls down the stairs): Alva Noto Opiate - Opto File 1 - YouTube
Last edited by Szlia; 01-02-2014 at 02:42 AM.
Haha, fucking rofl at the look on his face in those pics with him and the framed works of "art."
and these dog paintings still look better than anything my friend drew
If you are talking about it, even if only to shit on it, then it's art.
Its the artists job to connect with the audience. Not he audiences job to connect with the artist.
If the artist is creating art for themselves, and expects the audience to come to them, or jump through hoops to understand it. they failed. Art is communication. The entire point is to communicate your feeling, idea, whatever to others. If you are not doing that, you didn't do it well enough. The idea or feeling you want to communicate can be very simple. Sometimes its just "pretty" or like the Soviet statues, "pride" and "confidence". others might be more complex and tell a narrative.
Like this classic.
"the treachery of images"
"This is not a pipe."
It is a painting of a pipe. (or in this case, a digital image display via pixels on your screen of a painting, of a pipe..) The text in this image makes it quite clear, after a moment of possibly wondering on the riddle. But like any good riddle or puzzle, once you figure out the answer, its obvious, and no other answer makes sense.
There is no debate on author intent.
Which I suppose is another issue.. Should art be simply taken at face value, or should the authors life be a factor on how their work is read?
Last edited by Caliane; 01-02-2014 at 03:01 PM.
- Bleeding Cool In Conversation With Shia LaBeouf - Bleeding Cool Comic Book, Movies and TV News and Rumors
"Authorship is censorship"
Also, holy shit, that guy is a giant douchebag.
Last edited by Caliane; 01-02-2014 at 07:14 PM.
Originally I posted this in the FSR before I found this thread. This was painted by a guy who murdered his girlfriend/wife (?) while he was living next to my friend. She grabbed the painting after the cops cleared the place out and gave it to me as a late birthday present. It looks like shit but it has an interesting back story so I keep it around.
Lawl he literally sold people shit and made money doing it.
These last examples are not very good:
- There is a whole field in art called "outsiders art", that is creations by people with no formal training in the fine arts, people who do not consider themselves to be artists, people with mental conditions, but more importantly, people that create things ex nihilo, without any pre-conceived notions of what art should be and how things should be done. A number of XXth century artists tried to find that degree of freedom, that raw energy, and were inspired by outsider arts, children drawings, etc or experienced with psychoactive drugs. That's why a painting by your murderous neighbor can look a bit like a Basquiat.
- If you find there is something ironic about Manzoni's shit being worth more than gold, that's pretty great because that was pretty much Manzoni's point!
- What Brown is doing is not plagiarism. As explained in the quotes of the io9 article, Brown's process is to take a pocket book cover and turn it into a monumental painting (it looks like it's about 3m by 2m), which changes totally the relationship the viewer has with it. Obviously, when you compare a small jpeg of the original work with a small jpeg of Brown's version of it, Brown's contribution is lost, because the sense of scale, the added details, the confrontation with a painting in the context of an exhibition, cannot be in a jpeg.
I mean, I am creating digital files. and they are PRINTING them. That is totally transformative. Why are they paying me?
That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Enlarging something is not an original work.
Thats like taking a Lord of the rings, and changing the font(hell, Ill even say you made a new font for it), and claiming authorship. A new font would in fact, totally change your perception of how you read it.
Christ, copying artwork by hand is the work of every art forgery in existence. That is what you are saying is original works.
Last edited by Caliane; 01-10-2014 at 03:04 PM.
When people start talking about art being bullshit (and I agree it is), I always think of the difference between renaissance sculptures versus modern art sculptures.
When it comes to art, I know very little. I know I like certain painters and sketch artists because of their style, but I know nothing of their techniques or how they learned it. When it comes to me putting something down on paper or canvas, I can do it all.. almost. I am my own worst critic. Once I complete something, I don't like to look at it for extended periods of time because then i find it's flaws and I begin to hate the piece. So much so, I have destroyed some of my pieces, telling myself I would redo it, but I never do. When I was younger, I tried making a name for myself. I sent portfolios to studios and magazines and publishers hoping someone would bite. When I see shit like abstract art, I want to barf. My worst pieces I have done look better than that shit. I was never taught how to do what I do, I just know how to do. It rustles my jimmies to no end knowing there are people like OP's friend or Jackson Pollack that have zero artistic talent and make a living off of it. Or at the very least get it into exhibits.
I had a chance a few years back to get some of my stuff out there and I didn't do it. A friend worked for a web design company here in Dallas working on John Deer stuff and some video games and he sent me some samples of stuff for a game. The stuff looked good, but I knew I could have done so much better. She had been hired for contract work and my friend was trying to get my foot in the door as one of their permanent artists and wanted me to submit stuff for that game. I never did. I think I was afraid of the rejection.
Anyone have a link to the artist that was posted on the FoH board about 4 years ago? He had a thread that was started in 2001 or 2002. he could barely paint and shade a cube and within 10 years, he was doing shit with canvas and paper that looked like the statues in the above post. I think his name on the message board was Mind Candy or something like that. I have tried looking for it before and I cannot find it. He lives and has a studio here in Dallas as well.
Last edited by Brad2770; 01-10-2014 at 05:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)