DescentBB

least favorite kind of art, to put it nicely

edit:
Real art: "I'm just awesome. Melt in the light that reflects off me."

Contemporary art: "I'm making a statement. Statement here! Did you see my statement?"

Never mind that most artists -- contemporary or not -- probably had no concept of a statement in mind except for "hey, this would be cool to paint".

If I was a contemporary artist I would have "statements", but would they would all have nothing to do with the art that supposedly says them. Maybe a bunch of angular red lines could say "I like cheese".

Hm. My wife and I actually like a lot of "contemporary art", at least the kind of stuff we saw at a local art festival recently. [Man, there was some cool stuff this year, especially some of the glass/metal sculpture...]

Sure, there's some ridiculous stuff out there that's more soapbox-expression than artistic-expression, and a few "I'll make this and call it art and sell it for $10,000 to a schmuck", but we've found that's usually the minority.

Foil wrote:Hm. My wife and I actually like a lot of "contemporary art", at least the kind of stuff we saw at a local art festival recently. [Man, there was some cool stuff this year, especially some of the glass/metal sculpture...]

Sure, there's some ridiculous stuff out there that's more soapbox-expression than artistic-expression, and a few "I'll make this and call it art and sell it for $10,000 to a schmuck", but we've found that's usually the minority.

Right.... because only the people that are already famous can make a living pulling that kind of stuff.

I'll start this story by saying that I enjoy art, especially certain types, but tend to keep an even keel about it.

I went to the Philadelphia museum of art fairly recently. As I was strolling around checking things out, I went into one of the corner "out of the way" rooms. The room featured the art of some guy who had made a bunch of "wall sculptures" (I don't know what they are really called). They were pretty cool, and pretty, but IMO they weren't anything earth-shattering. Anyways, it was myself and a couple checking out the room. The couple was basically drooling over this guy's work. I really think that the two were close to having an orgasm over the stuff. I had to leave so that I wouldn't burst out in laughter.... it was comical how incredibly over-the-top the two were being about admiring the work.

Anyways... I guess that just means that art just do that much for me.

I went to the The Museum of Modern Art in New York. Went with much excitement to view the contemporary art. On arrival, I thought someone had played a joke. People would take objects in good working condition and make them unusable for the sake of their "statement" or "perspective" they were shoving in our faces. In the room with paintings they'd draw exactly the same stuff that any high school kid would draw in their math notebook, only blown up to fill a wall: Swirls with crazy looking faces yelling at each other, all in black and white. On the same floor I walked into this dark room where they played a movie that had no plot, color, with random audio clips. The whole floor made me nauseous.
Then, dead inside, I walked down to the floor which contained some of the oldest art in the whole building. It was like medicine for my eyes. The classics, some of which I've before seen only in book or TV, left me impressed and star-struck at the same time.

Only the free-thinking and open-minded can be creative. That's why neither art nor music will ever be as good as it was. When people quit questioning and forming ideas for themselves, they also lose their creativity and individuality.

If I like this do I like contemporary art?



I dislike what this image actually represents and what it was originally used for, but as a stand alone image I think it's epic. Amazing.

What's deemed "art" is always in the eye of the beholder. Actually Issac, those pretty rainbow colored words you captioned with are nice art.

It bothers me when the artist, or curator, doesn't deem it necessary to help the layman understand what the piece means by laying out some understandable context.
I find it to be alienating and elitist TBH. It implies a repugnant assumption that building ivory towers is a valid and ethical exercise.

I like this stuff, i do, i'm glad it's there, but i'm not a fan of feeling like i didn't do my homework. Since time doesn't grow on trees, I sadly don't have the time nor motivation to do said homework, i basically don't have the time nor inclination to gain and defend a self-label of "an Arty", like most people. End result is i tend to be more interested in reading the analysis of others (if that, since that's often even more inaccessible than the original art piece), than in consuming the actual art itself .
It would be nice to have that arty label though, it does seem kinda romantic, and i don't mind wearing turtlenecks (but ★■◆● you Raybans, your modern trendy revival is literally one of the reasons i got my eyes lasered)

Is it normal to be more fascinated by the artist than their art?

rarrarrar angry layman interpretation of art movements. jerbs jerbs jerbs

Yeah, like the piece in Isaac's first post. Some ★■◆●'s way of saying everyone else lack's imagination. The wavelength transforming into another form is much more inspiring to me.

roid wrote:Is it normal to be more fascinated by the artist than their art?

EDIT: Yes it is! I'm getting into reading biographies.

Also, it's impossible for an art piece to be explained by the artist, since it will connect to everyone differently. The Beatles lost their songs with their original meaning once millions of fans had them. As with all music, each song was reinterpreted into each listener's meaning. If you listen to music and imagine your own music video, like I do with all music, we'll never come up with anything remotely similar. So I like the history of the artist, just not his thoughts on what he (OR SHE...) made.

That second image I posted was from a car commercial... Lame... once you see it in action it's still cool, but as a car commercial it takes away all the magic, because it suddenly has a forced meaning.

roid wrote:It bothers me when the artist, or curator, doesn't deem it necessary to help the layman understand what the piece means by laying out some understandable context.
I find it to be alienating and elitist TBH. It implies a repugnant assumption that building ivory towers is a valid and ethical exercise.

I like this stuff, i do, i'm glad it's there, but i'm not a fan of feeling like i didn't do my homework. Since time doesn't grow on trees, I sadly don't have the time nor motivation to do said homework, i basically don't have the time nor inclination to gain and defend a self-label of "an Arty", like most people. End result is i tend to be more interested in reading the analysis of others (if that, since that's often even more inaccessible than the original art piece), than in consuming the actual art itself .
It would be nice to have that arty label though, it does seem kinda romantic, and i don't mind wearing turtlenecks (but **** you Raybans, your modern trendy revival is literally one of the reasons i got my eyes lasered)

Is it normal to be more fascinated by the artist than their art?

rarrarrar angry layman interpretation of art movements. jerbs jerbs jerbs

What the hell is roid smoking? I want some!

"draw me like one of your french girls"

Isaac wrote:

roid wrote:Is it normal to be more fascinated by the artist than their art?

Not at all. I'm getting into reading biographies.

Also, it's impossible for an art piece to be explained by the artist, since it will connect to everyone differently. The Beatles lost their songs with their original meaning once millions of fans had them. As with all music, each song was reinterpreted into each listener's meaning. If you listen to music and imagine your own music video, like I do with all music, we'll never come up with anything remotely similar. So I like the history of the artist, just not his thoughts on what he (OR SHE...) made.

That second image I posted was from a car commercial... Lame... once you see it in action it's still cool, but as a car commercial it takes away all the magic, because it suddenly has a forced meaning.

Don't you find though that making your own interpretation, inevitably makes you feel lonely?
I'm sick of living in my own separate world, it's fruitless. I come up with infinite divergent interpretations of anything, it's an endless timewaster for me, there's literally no end to the possible connections, what's the point.
It quickly arrives at a realisation that "art" as a concept would be superfluous, as if there are infinite interpretations - then (along the lines of an "infinite worlds" concept) there would also exist infinite artworks with the EXACT same interpretation. What would be the point of making art which is distinguishable from anything else. If there are infinite interpretations, then there are infinite arts, everything is art, the concept of "art" is then superfluous. Which i guess is what a lot of this anti-art art movement is about, but it's still displayed in galleries ARSDHASERLJK

I guess what i'm saying is, if someone gave you an infinitely large book, would you actually want to read it?

maybe the solution to the loneliness, is to do art yourself to express one's self and share.
but then am i not just spreading the sickness?

It's sad that advertising is such a major outlet for artistic emotion, since the commercial nature of the message destroys any real emotional relevance to real human beings; and nullifies all integrity, which IYAM is an integral part of any emotional work
ie: car ads. brilliantly executed, lovely vision, but all ultimately merely a trojan designed to inject the highest-bidder's message through your personal barriers. capitalismihateu

roid wrote:

Isaac wrote:

roid wrote:Is it normal to be more fascinated by the artist than their art?

Not at all.

I meant to write, YES IT IS! It's normal.
I haven't read further than this part... just woke up a few seconds ago.

heh, i originally wrote "weird" instead of "normal", but changed it before i posted (afaik). So you musta recieved my brainwave.
...with adobe brainwave reader.
my psychic training is clearly progressing, oh yes

roid wrote:It bothers me when the artist, or curator, doesn't deem it necessary to help the layman understand what the piece means by laying out some understandable context.

This reminds me of the old adage about joke....if you have to explain it then it is not very good. I sometimes think contemporary artists (not all) are trying to find the easy way out. The old Masters took years developing their craft and when they did finally produce something it did not have to be explained. Tonal gradations, color, interplay of light all combined to make a piece of art anyone could "understand" and appreciate.

I'll agree with woodchip on this. I don't find that I need to know the artist or meaning when I see (or hear) art.

roid wrote:Don't you find though that making your own interpretation, inevitably makes you feel lonely?
... I come up with infinite divergent interpretations of anything, it's an endless timewaster...

Normally, I don't feel that I even need an interpretation at all. In fact, I avoid attempts at interpretation altogether, whether my own ideas or someone else's art-exegesis, because they almost always differ from the artist's intent.

If the artist publishes something about their thoughts or intent, cool. If not, I just enjoy it (or not) without looking any deeper for "meaning". Perhaps that's a naive way to approach art, but that's me.

I think that for me, the skill involved in creation is a big part of appreciating art. I mean, I could make something that literally looks just like a Jackson Pollock painting...only it apparently wouldn't mean anything, because I'm not a renowned artist. In contrast, I could sit there for a thousand lifetimes, and yet I couldn't come close to creating the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or the Pieta. The former is just randomly slinging paint around, while the latter are examples of innate talent to the highest degree.

Found some good stuff here.

flip wrote:Found some good stuff here.

x2! Good stuff. I guess do like contemporary

Foil wrote:I'll agree with woodchip on this. I don't find that I need to know the artist or meaning when I see (or hear) art.

roid wrote:Don't you find though that making your own interpretation, inevitably makes you feel lonely?
... I come up with infinite divergent interpretations of anything, it's an endless timewaster...

Normally, I don't feel that I even need an interpretation at all. In fact, I avoid attempts at interpretation altogether, whether my own ideas or someone else's art-exegesis, because they almost always differ from the artist's intent.

If the artist publishes something about their thoughts or intent, cool. If not, I just enjoy it (or not) without looking any deeper for "meaning". Perhaps that's a naive way to approach art, but that's me.

then we're talking about different kinds of art. Not all art is made with aesthetics predominantly in mind. example

Uh, Roid, that's not art, That's a urinal!

it's a famous piece of art
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... s_Fountain

I think you would have just as hard a time convincing me that is art as the artist did when he presented it

roid wrote:

Foil wrote:If the artist publishes something about their thoughts or intent, cool. If not, I just enjoy it (or not) without looking any deeper for "meaning".

then we're talking about different kinds of art. Not all art is made with aesthetics predominantly in mind. example

No, I wasn't just talking only about aesthetics.

I'm simply saying that I put zero value on claims of meaning if it doesn't come directly from the artist. This means I don't worry about my own interpretations, or how a critic views a piece. This applies to all types of art in my book.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that aesthetics is the only thing I consider. Meaning is a big factor for me as well... but only when it comes straight from the artist.

--------

Edit: So, considering your example, Duchamp's "Fountain":
I find it interesting! It's ugly, but I find that intriguing, because Duchamp himself said that piece was simply an attempt to shift focus away from aesthetics. (I of course ignore the rest of the bunk about trying to interpret the title or scrawled word.)

flip wrote:I think you would have just as hard a time convincing me that is art as the artist did when he presented it

yes, that's uh... kindof the entire point we're discussing in this thread dude. Did you see the OP?

Foil wrote:

roid wrote:

Foil wrote:If the artist publishes something about their thoughts or intent, cool. If not, I just enjoy it (or not) without looking any deeper for "meaning".

then we're talking about different kinds of art. Not all art is made with aesthetics predominantly in mind. example

No, I wasn't just talking only about aesthetics.

I'm simply saying that I put zero value on claims of meaning if it doesn't come directly from the artist. This means I don't worry about my own interpretations, or how a critic views a piece. This applies to all types of art in my book.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that aesthetics is the only thing I consider. Meaning is a big factor for me as well... but only when it comes straight from the artist.

--------

Edit: So, considering your example, Duchamp's "Fountain":
I find it interesting! It's ugly, but I find that intriguing, because Duchamp himself said that piece was simply an attempt to shift focus away from aesthetics. (I of course ignore the rest of the bunk about trying to interpret the title or scrawled word.)

i getcha, that preserving of the purity of the original vision, at all costs.
It causes intense frustration though when the artist isn't forthcomming with her desired meaning, and/or is long dead. Also a community of critics (simply by means of more hands on typewritters than one artist has at her disposal) can produce so much more analysis of a work than an artist could provide explanation. Which could be seen as interesting, or just noise, i guess it depends on the ferocity of one's appetite for analysis. I have to admit i can sometimes be on either side of that fence .

That last paragraph is exactly how I feel about analysis of Shakespeare. I'm fairly convinced that the Bard probably intended at most a tenth of what English professors read into his works.

"The curtains were **** blue!"

Foil just touched on why I like literary art so much, because the author, if his work is eloquent enough, will inspire thoughts in others he never conceived of or imagined. That's the beauty of poetry. It's thought provoking on an individual basis.

ehehehehehe http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/032912/

Isaac wrote:
"draw me like one of your french girls"