patrick.net

Real art is not only meaningful, it is also a demonstration of skill.

The Pollack is utterly indistinguishable from something created by someone with no skill at all, such as a child. This also disqualifies it as art.

I'd bet there is no art in any museum created by any child under 10, because such a child has not had the time to develop artistic skill.

Yet there is plenty of crap indistinguishable from such children's art.

rando says

Real art is not only meaningful, it is also a demonstration of skill.

Exactly. Art is "Artifice" - the human creation of objects, useful or communicative.

This is why a painting of nature or soup cans is art, but not a sculpture with random angles. The latter serves or illustrates no function or message (emotional or explicit).

This is not art, as it represents no emotion, communicates no message, has no useful purpose:

Who's the new broad, TL?
She looks like my girl :o

Innate understadning doesn't determine worth or value of anything.

Photorealism often doesn't say much more than beyond what a photograph would. Why do it?

This looks like corporate art bought by the kilo, and spread around walls to discourage IT workers to look away from their screens.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

This is not art, as it represents no emotion, communicates no message, has no useful purpose

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.

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.

FAKE ART!

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.

But how do you distinguish public art-appreciation signaling as a claim to belong to the patrician class from actual appreciation? Wine tasters almost invariably rate higher-priced wines as tastier, even when the labels are swapped, as long as they know the price. And they sincerely believe it even when they are wrong.

The obvious conclusion is usually correct: if it looks or smells like shit, it actually is shit, no matter what it cost.

Some of my fave AE below.

I've seen all of these artist's work in galleries, including Pollock above ...

rando says

But how do you distinguish public art-appreciation signaling as a claim to belong to the patrician class from actual appreciation?

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?

Certainly AE doesn't lend itself anymore, or less, to people who want to pretend to like an art style to be 'in the club'.

rando says

Wine tasters almost invariably rate higher-priced wines as tastier, even when the labels are swapped, as long as they know the price. And they sincerely believe it even when they are wrong.

Cost is just a game : a value statement of worth above at cost price of production. So what? If someone likes a $5 bottle of wine better than a $1000, excellent. The reverse doesn't make it wrong, right, or somehow 'bad' for society. It may just make a wine/art habit really expensive for someone.

It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That cost doesn't determine any greater value, for any other person, than the one separated from their money.

Many famous artists die destitute and broken.

rando says

The obvious conclusion is usually correct: if it looks or smells like shit, it actually is shit, no matter what it cost.

If people don't get anything out of the above paintings, that's fine (I tried to stay away from sculpture, but Calder ... too good.) These are all in an amazing historical context which informed much of the design of all the things around me today. I know that, and I have a big fondness for a lot of these artists and their work. Others don't have to feel the same.

If AE is bothersome to people, watch out for Dada. Hell, postmodernism is a virtual landmine of things that bend my brain as well. I find AE much easier to appreciate most of the time.

I'm getting old though. (wink)

You learned to read, and some took literature appreciation courses. You 'learned' to listen to music, and likely exposed yourself to all sorts of different forms. Why would visual arts be any different? In some ways you do have to 'learn to see'.

Edit: Artists are - Klee, Rothko, Kandinsky, Calder, Mondarin, Yves Klein

rando says

The Pollack is utterly indistinguishable from something created by someone with no skill at all, such as a child.

I was going to say the same thing.

In any case, famous art is "valuable" only because its famous. If you had a painting by Michelangelo or Picasso that no one knew was painted by him and there was no evidence to suggest that it was, then that painting would cost $35 at any Walmart no matter how good it was. It could literally be the most artistically significant work they had done, but because it is unsigned and nameless, it would be worth only its intrinsic value of $35 or so.

Most art is bullshit including its valuation.

Besides, I'd rather have a finger painting done by my nieces than a Picasso. The former would have more emotional meaning to me.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

The Night Guard by Rembrandt

This is a beautiful painting because it is detailed and realistic. However, there is an artist who is 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.

No painting will ever be better than a high form factor printout of a photograph. Nature just paints better than any human ever could.

rando says

Real art is not only meaningful, it is also a demonstration of skill.

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

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.