patrick.net

Photo realism is primarily for a time before cameras.

Claiming abstraction is somehow lesser is claiming instrumental music is inferior to music with lyrics.

Dan, looks like a demonstration in mental fortitude and hydration. I hope the artist was assisted, otherwise it seems far less "fun".

Dan8267 says

Jackson Pollock's Ejaculate Number 37 isn't a demonstration of skill?

It is not.

Unless he did them all on the same day. Then I'm impressed.

But it's still shit as art.

True art sends a message that isn't easily confused.

http://www.canstockphoto.com/illustration/middle-finger.html

I guess Normal Rockwell would be the arch-typical artist that modern artists love to hate because of his realistic paintings of everyday life and somewhat sappy portrait of the family on Thanksgiving day, but of course I like them. More than those, I like the art of Coles Phillips, little known today because he passed away 90 years ago this year at only 47 at the height of his career from heart disease. His paintings were ubiquitous on the covers of Colliers, Better Homes and Gardens and also used in advertising by such brands as Mazda Lamps and various motor cars:

He also pioneered what was known of as the fadeaway painting:

Coles Phillips's last illustration, published post-humously:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pLx-tl35tCA/UFq1qMesXmI/AAAAAAAAPeg/8aON5OO_5N8/s1600/Call+Of+The+Wild-Coles_Phillips_43+via+warchild13.com.jpg

Another famous illustrator I like is Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966) who was also famous for his illustrations from the late 19th through early 20th centuries that were used to sell picture frames. He also illustrated a collection of Mother Goose stories in 1917 that is still in publication today:

I have his most famous print Daybreak from 1924:

https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/daybreak.png

And who could not be delighted by the art of John Held, Jr. that so perfectly illustrated the fads and fashions of the 1920's jazz age!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XsHJr4nAs3w/UZtq6cSbsgI/AAAAAAAAA9U/YxHAMl-VygQ/s1600/John+Held+Arrow+Open+Back.GIF

When someone produces a completely white painting, should we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they see something we don't?
Give them a place in a museum?
https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C

Dan8267 says

No painting will ever be better than a high form factor printout of a photograph.

Really ? How sad for you. You probably would never find a truly great photographer that agrees with you.

I guess I hope that you mean that it won't be better at capturing an exact realistic scene better than a high form factor photo. But that's not what art does or is supposed to do.

errc says

Who's the new broad, TL?

No clue. Found her at random. More pics of that nice soft busty chick, @Errc. My type.

marcus says

If I don't understand art, or it is not interesting even on an aesthetic level to me, then I declare that it is not art.

Why ? Because I have a big ego, and I have declared myself arbiter of such things.

Everybody's got an asshole.

Thanks Marcus for proving the point:

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Did you ever notice anybody who tells you meaningless crap is meaningful themselves have no idea what the meaning is, even if they lie and throw some random shit out there to cover up their pretentious scam?

They just say it's meaningful, apparently to someone. Who? What does it represent? We can reverse the argument: "It's just art because I say so without any argument to back it up."

I knew some pretentious person would make this "It is, because it is, because my college profs told me it was." argument.

If modern art is art, then static, interpaced with utterly random sounds of car horns, penguin farts, screeching machinery, and sonic booms, played without ANY rhythm, harmony, or melody (or drone or any kind of pattern or interval) is music.

Dan8267 says

This is a beautiful painting because it is detailed and realistic. However, there is an artist who his far more detailed and realistic than even Rembrandt. His name is "your smartphone's camera". And that guy can paint amazingly realistic images in under a second. And he never gets tired. He's the best artist ever.

True. But in the 1600s this was as close to hi-res photography as you can get.

Then there's this guy.

Thunderlips' Art Test is also a test for Skepticism and willingness to Question Authority.

"This is Art"
"It's just paint thrown against a canvas or wall. It has no meaning or utility, demonstrates no technical ability. A Baboon could make this."
"It's Art."
"Why?"
"All the smart people say so. Whatever people do is art."
"What reason/justification do smart people give for everything is art?"
"Educated, Smart people told me anything people do is art so it's art."
"Yes, but why?"

In other words, Educated in terms of how to think, vs. Educated in terms of "I want to seem wise myself, so I ape those whom I am trained to believe are wise have said."

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

marcus says

If I don't understand art, or it is not interesting even on an aesthetic level to me, then I declare that it is not art.

Why ? Because I have a big ego, and I have declared myself arbiter of such things.

Everybody's got an asshole.

Thanks Marcus for proving the point:

FU T-Lips.

I'm not in total disagreement, and yet I am. When I look at modern art that I think I or someone else of very moderate talent could have done, I'm still sometimes interested. IT's not that I think it's interesting becasue others tell me I should. although I guess it is a factor in my being open minded about it. I just think a lot of visual art that you see in museums and galleries is interesting. In the end I might decide with many pieces that I don't like it that much and many pieces are not that interesting to me. Often well over half of it I ultimately decide doesn't do much for me. But that's still an open minded process. I'm not going to declare that becasue I don't like it, that it's bad, any more than I am going to declare about 70% of classical music I've heard as bad, just becasue it's not my thing.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

"It's just paint thrown against a canvas or wall. It has no meaning or utility, demonstrates no technical ability. A Baboon could make this."

I think there is a good chance that was part of the point. You will notice this didn't become a sustained trend with many artists making a living making this kind of art.

marcus says

I think there is a good chance that was part of the point. You will notice this didn't become a sustained trend with many artists making a living making this kind of art.

Because without CIA funding, there is no market for it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

The only other market for this rubbish is Airports and Corporate Decor so as not to offend or trigger anybody by putting up inoffensive, meaningless color slops, like blue and orange rectangles.

When I go to an art museum, I feel like there are sort of two primary groups that works fall in to for me.

1)Beautiful

2) Interesting

I gravitate to the stuff I think is beautiful, but I spend a fair amount of time with the interesting stuff too (a bigger category). This includes great historical art from periods I'm not as fond of. Part of the interesting category, is stuff that I don't get and am curious about which is distinguished from stuff I don't get but also don't feel compelled to to give a second thought to (for whatever reason). You're gonna get overloaded with the visual stimuli, so it's always okay to say "nah" to some of it.

In my opinion, It's best done kind of alone, even if you're with someone. Perhaps just stopping to compare notes once per room or whatever.

By the way this subject reminds me of a question, thinking about people looking back in the future.

What comes after postmodern ?

I guess according to Trump and the Trumpeters, maybe it will be a period called "NoArt."

marcus says

Really ? How sad for you. You probably would never find a truly great photographer that agrees with you.

And on what do you base your assertion?

In any case, you are free to disagree with my opinion, but I have no reason to accept yours either. Photographs are beautiful and make excellent paintings. In fact, I have several hanging in my office that I got printed out on canvas, and everyone agrees they are awesome. The fact that you cannot see that is your loss.

For those who disagree with Marcus and are interested in turning a photograph into a painting, there are quite a few good services out there that do just that. I recommend EasyCanvasPrints.com‎. I sent my parents several such canvases of their grandchildren. They loved it.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

True. But in the 1600s this was as close to hi-res photography as you can get.

Sure and in the 1600s it made perfect sense to have portraits painted. All the way up to the start of the 20th century when photography started getting good. Painting, however, is an obsolete technology.

Dan8267 says

For those who disagree with Marcus

I didn't say I dislike photographs. You might notice I even referenced great photographers.

Dan8267 says

Painting, however, is an obsolete technology.

No. People see things differently and it's sometimes fascinating the way others see things. IT's a form of expression that was never only about capturing an image. But I agree that there must be some connection between the progression of photography and the art world taking a lot of art painting rapidly in to surreal and abstract directions.

I think Marcus demonstrates exactly the kind of pretension bullshit regarding art that Thunderlip's was addressing in the original post.

Okay.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

If modern art is art, then static, interpaced with utterly random sounds of car horns, penguin farts, screeching machinery, and sonic booms, played without ANY rhythm, harmony, or melody (or drone or any kind of pattern or interval) is music.

If those examples of A.E. above, are completely discordian and random looking to you, you need your eyes checked. Pollock and Kandinsky often seem to have some sort of alien language, rhythmic pattern, quality to their work. Klee and Rothko are jaw droppingly amazing with color. I love getting to see their pieces. Calder is visual and physical balance. Nothing like getting to force a little air on those and watch them move too. Yves Klein you actually have to see in real life to really appreciate, but his blue, and the way it is applied, produces some really funky illusions.

Rauschenberg would love this discussion. The debate on what art is, what should be in a gallery, is exactly what the White Paintings are about.

marcus says

If I don't understand art, or it is not interesting even on an aesthetic level to me, then I declare that it is not art.
Why ? Because I have a big ego, and I have declared myself arbiter of such things.

Ok, I agree with you, but when a moron produces a completely blank canvas and justifies it by claiming 'light is enough for us', do we leave it him the benefit of the doubt, buy his art and put it in a museum, or do we declare ourselves arbiters and call it the BS it obviously is?

Rew says

Does it matter if there is a faker? At a book club if someone is representing a false love of a book they read, and being disingenuous, who does it harm?

I guess it arms the taxpayers that pay for MOMA, or the credulous visitors that gets defrauded.

Hera' if you think paintings must be windows, and not objects themselves, than I guess you call BS.

There are some things that cannot be 'done again' in human history and have the same relevance. Dada isn't trying to make something visually pleasing. It's trying to up-end the concepts of art itself. It was born as a reaction to nationalism and class post WWI.

Heraclitusstudent says

Rew says

Does it matter if there is a faker? At a book club if someone is representing a false love of a book they read, and being disingenuous, who does it harm?

I guess it arms the taxpayers that pay for MOMA, or the credulous visitors that gets defrauded.

How has a visitor been defrauded? lol ... The museum curators get to put on a show. They change it up often from paintings in their stable and others that travel or get loaned.

"I didn't like it."
"That wasn't art."

Who now is the pretentious one?

Rew says

Dada isn't trying to make something visually pleasing.

I'm not saying art has to be visually pleasing.

Rew says

It's trying to up-end the concepts of art itself.

Trying to define the concept of art is not art. Making a painting as a logical conclusion to a series of paintings is not art. It's maybe a point about the history of art. But not art itself.

In fact I would interpret it a giant middle finger agitated at other artists, the entire world of art, and spectators in general.

Rew says

It was born as a reaction to nationalism and class post WWI.

It doesn't say anything about nationalism and class, because well... it doesn't say anything.
It contains literally no information - at an information theory level.

Rew says

How has a visitor been defrauded?

Because visitors pay and look at this, scratch their heads, feel nothing, know it's not art.
The artists presented, are in fact artists: Con artists.

Ironically a fully white painting would pass thunderlips Janitor whitewash test.

Rew says

If AE is bothersome to people, watch out for Dada

Dada IS art. It has a meaning and communicates an idea.

C'est ne pas un pipe: This isn't a pipe, but a representation of a Pipe.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ironically a fully white painting would pass thunderlips Janitor whitewash test.

"Back to the drawing board."

Heraclitusstudent says

It contains literally no information - at an information theory level.

Why did the CIA fund it?

I guess because it's the very antithesis of Socialist Realism, which wouldn't be either Capitalist Realism (perhaps something like Norman Rockwell) or even Capitalist Imagination. But not representative of reality, or an idealized reality, or anything material, or really having any point of view at all.

Dan8267 says

Jackson Pollock's Ejaculate Number 37 isn't a demonstration of skill?

I think I would call it a handcraft.

The argument is boiling down to : abstract expressionism contains "no information or ideas" but Dada does. I'm not sure how anyone can get to such a conclusion. Compare the above works.

Hera' Dada isn't trying to tell you what WWI, nationalism, or class is, it was seeking to uproot and make the current sensibilities which existed uncomfortable and obsolete.

Best thing the CIA has ever paid for, if any of it is actually substantiated.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because visitors pay and look at this, scratch their heads, feel nothing, know it's not art.

The artists presented, are in fact artists: Con artists.

I don't know. I think there are a lot of different ways to think about it. On the one hand it's definitely absurd, especially when someone pays millions for an all white painting. They're paying for a collectible historical piece. I agree it's absurd, and wouldn't buy it if I were a billionaire. But I get the historical significance.

I've seen the 3 panel one, I think when it was at the art institute. When you've been looking at many dozens of paintings and you come to that, it's funny. I don't fancy myself one who's going to place a particular meaning on it, or even try, but the juxtaposition in a Museum is interesting - funny as I said. IT's kind of the most extreme version there is of "anybody could do that." Nobody is going to deconstruct what art is further than that.

It has it's place in art history. It was clever.

Art is art because it challenges our perceptions and forces us to rearrange what we take for granted when we observe it. Historical art is important because it represents the evolutions of coeval cultures and is informative of the people of the times.

That means almost by definition current art has to be different from what came before that we are already familiar with. It also implies that current art that succeeds in making us challenge some aspect of our perceptions or prejudices is an item of shifting fashion and can be deemed successful by a launch into popularity.

That being said, most art is crap. The art that isn't crap, and even a lot of the art that IS crap, tend to stratify, with the upper echelons of art purely manufactured by opinion synthesizers as "veblens".

Veblens: "It is caused either by the belief that higher price means higher quality, or by the desire for conspicuous consumption (to be seen as buying an expensive, prestige item). Named after its discoverer, the US social-critic Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929)."

In other words, it exists for the purpose of displaying the wealth and status of the buyer by being expensive for no other reason than the expense, itself. The expense and uniqueness represent exclusivity.

Do you really think that richfucks spend time communing with their art objects, other than to consider their exclusivity, expense, status or even possible monetary appreciation?

Ceffer says

In other words, it exists for the purpose of displaying the wealth and status of the buyer by being expensive for no other reason than the expense, itself. The expense and uniqueness represent exclusivity.

What about museums, public sculptures, interesting architecture, etc ?

marcus says

Ceffer says

In other words, it exists for the purpose of displaying the wealth and status of the buyer by being expensive for no other reason than the expense, itself. The expense and uniqueness represent exclusivity.

What about museums, public sculptures, interesting architecture, etc ?

What about it? I never said there was no such thing as good art. Jackson Pollack would amount to an almost purely synthesized artist, with no particular meaning except he was able to ride an opportunistic promotional art world tsunami at the time and it stuck. Whenever you hear the art swells try to talk about how he is "important", it sounds like more babble than usual.

"Is that a Pollack, Winthrop?" "Oh, no, that's just the painter's drop cloth left over from when I redecorated!"

Since art is artifice, which means both craft and lies, then I declare art to be (in this modern age) earnest depictions of things (not abstract nothings) which could not be captured in a photograph!
Anyone can snap a picture of a chess board, or a hand, or a pool of water, but only an artist can produce a picture of that chessboard floating above the water with a disembodied hand moving the king.
Create art that COULD be, in some universe, or create art that is symbolic of ideas. That's the new modern art.

Rew says

WWI

Traumatic historical events inspire art, probably none more graphically than in the First World War:

http://madefrom.com/history/world-war-one/painting/

Marcel Duchamp's 1917 "Fountain" in comment 45 was an early example of an artist's attempt to shock simply for the sake of shocking. This continues to the present day ad infinitum as one artist tries to outdo the former in transgressing boundaries. What is left to do after every religious, societal, traditional value has been transgressed and there's nothing left to shock the senses is pretty much where we've been for nearly four decades.