Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

it's satirical?

I don't start cracking up whenever I use the toilet o.O

Satire isn't humor. Satire is ironically presenting a point to prove the opposite of what you're nominally saying. It *can* be humorous but not necessarily so. Lots of satire can actually be kinda horrifying, if you're say, pointing out some unfortunate implications.

[The Darkling Wolf]

I've never liked any art that didn't require skill to make.

It does require skill. Quite a lot. Just try something like cubism sometime.


Allow me to jump to the defense of modern artists for a moment. They know what they're doing, and it's not meaningless. The sin of most modern artists though is it requires a degree of sophistication (or just the right perspective) to actually see what they're trying to convey, so when most people look at it all they see is a pile of garbage or whatever.

As I mentioned earlier, this stuff is extremely meta. They look at the standards and common occurrences ("tropes" might be an appropriate word in this context) in regular art, and twist them on their head. If you don't understand the background behind their subject matter, you won't understand what they're conveying.

The infamous urinal is a good example. No, the "art" part isn't the urinal itself. It's satirical. It's irony. It's meta. Most people just see a toilet, but the "artistic merit" is something else.

I definitely consider cubist paintings to be art, they take some skill and effort. Plonking down a urinal and claiming that "it's meta" and that people who don't get it just aren't educated enough, is what I consider to not be art.

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't need a degree just to get some enjoyment out of it.


Also, suggesting that someone with a neurological disorder that screws up their Hand/Eye coordination attempt to paint something as a proof that art requires skill isn't particularly nice

[IronyOwl]

Macromeme made me feel warm and fuzzy inside today.

Of course, earlier I got the horrifying pokemon one, which was a combination of fascinating and why would you do this.

[MagmaMcFry]

Spoiler: Rant about Modern Art (click to show/hide)

The problem with modern art is that people think they like to hear stuff they don't understand but sounds smart. Critics quickly learned that the quality of their reviews is measured by the amount of fallacious bullshit they spout whilst appearing to talk about the picture. Artists found out about this and decided to save work time by omitting the understandable parts of their pictures, so that critics don't have to waste words describing the evident (that would make the audience feel that the critic thinks they're stupid). Naturally, not everyone can join the fray, because critics generally don't like spending time on stuff that people didn't put lots of work into (unless the artists are famous), so the quality of modern art is measured by the quality of its artists. But the quality of artists is already measured by the quality of their art, so the only way to become a good modern artist is to get a modern arts degree, which is basically a certification that you can spout above-average amounts of fallacious bullshit about ugly things while using the proper terminology.

Basically, nobody likes modern art, but people are simply too afraid to say that to other people, because then the other people will have an opportunity to make themselves look smart by telling yet other people that the not-other people don't appreciate modern art, which would in turn make the not-other people be socially considered stupid (only by the group, not the individuals, but naturally they're too afraid to point that out), and being considered stupid is generally not appreciated by most people.

[Furtuka]

Finally finished my summer reading essays! Huzzah!

[palsch]

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't need a degree just to get some enjoyment out of it.

While I have a degree, it's in physics and my last art class was back before GCSE. I still enjoy wandering around the Tate Modern every few months.

Some bits are pretty crap, but even some of the simplistic works are pretty impressive in person.

I remember rather enjoying this piece, despite its simplicity. It looks even simpler on that page, but in real life it's size and the slight optical illusion effect was impressive. The same room had this work which takes a not uncommon optical illusion and blows it up to three 2m x 2m panels. You literally can't see the effects in those pictures but it was rather unsettling in the room.

The story behind the urinal (known as 'Fountain', although the original is lost and they currently have a ceramic replica on display) is worth reading. The work itself isn't that impressive. The context and original subversive nature gives it a different meaning. I don't see this as any different from going to a museum and looking at any other cultural artefacts. The object itself is only a tiny part of the story and often the least visually impressive items have the most significance.

Actually that reminds me of one of the Tate's temporary displays; the photomontages of John Heartfield taken from the covers of AIZ magazine in the leadup to the second world war. Contemporary anti-Nazi art that basically charted the rise of the Third Reich. The most powerful image was of Hitler's face, mouth open to consume Europe. Except that the entire run of that issue of the magazine had been censored. Even the copy on display. It had been coated with a layer of black paint, with the original image just visible through it. Made it more powerful than the rest by far.

[kaijyuu]

Plonking down a urinal and claiming that "it's meta" and that people who don't get it just aren't educated enough, is what I consider to not be art.

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't need a degree just to get some enjoyment out of it.

Most definitions of "art" that I've heard do not include "enjoyment" nor "accessibility." You can certainly call it pretentious if you want, but that's not a reason to not call it "art."

Art is far, far more than pretty pictures.

Also, suggesting that someone with a neurological disorder that screws up their Hand/Eye coordination attempt to paint something as a proof that art requires skill isn't particularly nice

Apologies if I offended you in any way. Merely refuting your assertion that this stuff doesn't take skill and asking you to experimentally verify it yourself.


And by the way, if you accept that it requires knowledge to understand (the "need a degree" comment earlier), then you must also accept that this stuff is sophisticated, and thus not "easy enough for anyone to do." Sophistication does not equate any measure of quality of course, but does imply difficulty and skill.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler: Rant about Modern Art (click to show/hide)

The problem with modern art is that people think they like to hear stuff they don't understand but sounds smart. Critics quickly learned that the quality of their reviews is measured by the amount of fallacious bullshit they spout whilst appearing to talk about the picture. Artists found out about this and decided to save work time by omitting the understandable parts of their pictures, so that critics don't have to waste words describing the evident (that would make the audience feel that the critic thinks they're stupid). Naturally, not everyone can join the fray, because critics generally don't like spending time on stuff that people didn't put lots of work into (unless the artists are famous), so the quality of modern art is measured by the quality of its artists. But the quality of artists is already measured by the quality of their art, so the only way to become a good modern artist is to get a modern arts degree, which is basically a certification that you can spout above-average amounts of fallacious bullshit about ugly things while using the proper terminology.

Basically, nobody likes modern art, but people are simply too afraid to say that to other people, because then the other people will have an opportunity to make themselves look smart by telling yet other people that the not-other people don't appreciate modern art, which would in turn make the not-other people be socially considered stupid (only by the group, not the individuals, but naturally they're too afraid to point that out), and being considered stupid is generally not appreciated by most people.

+1. It's mostly just peer pressure.

[penguinofhonor]

So modern art is just a critic/artist circlejerk that leaves most of the audience out?

Looks like it's time for a dada revival.

[kaijyuu]

Essentially.

And dada's pretentious in the opposite direction. "ooh I'm being absurd for no reason whatsoever isn't that awesome"

[MagmaMcFry]

So modern art is just a critic/artist circlejerk that leaves most of the audience out?

Looks like it's time for a dada revival.

No, no, no. That's exactly the wrong direction. Whatever you do, people will necessarily start appreciating it. So the best way to combat stupid art is to make better art: Art that 1) looks awesome, 2) took a decent amount of effort, and 3) has specific context that you can relate to. Essentially, every image ever posted in this thread. And the only reason that modern and postmodern art has survived this long is because it is taught at schools (universities don't matter that much). Now you may wonder why the hell it is taught at school, but we know the reason already: Some idiot at the ministry of education suggested that postmodernism be taught at schools, and the general consensus was "I don't know what the hell he's talking about, therefore it must be important".

Naturally, nobody opposed the decision in fear of looking stupid.

So unless something even more stupid but wiser-sounding comes along, modern art will stay firmly rooted in the education system. Simple solution: Just ignore it.

Edit: Does anybody have an image they found awesome recently?

[kaijyuu]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of "stupid art." It's not working too well.

PS: Why is "looking awesome" a necessity for non-stupid art? That might help me figure out a definition that doesn't involve snobby and arbitrary authorities declaring things "stupid" and "non-stupid."

[Frumple]

And when it produces neat looking stuff that you enjoy? Ignore that, too?

There's not a single standard of art, dude(tte). Folks have been arguing about aesthetics since the BCs for a reason.

Anyway. Only thing I care about when it comes to art is if I like looking at it. Effort expended and context I care zero about, especially the former. If a skill-less non-artist can produce something awesome looking with zippo effort, more power to 'em.

I like zen tangles. I make things that look remarkably like zen tangles by doodling all over the notes I take about various things. It's art in a very oblique way, but it definitely fails the skill/effort and context heuristics.

And that's just me. Someone else can happily be different in what they consider and appreciate as art. No good reason to try to crap over someone else's preferences.

E: The buggery is this nonsense doing in the happy thread, anyway? Can we take the art spat to its own thread?

[Itnetlolor]

Macromeme made me feel warm and fuzzy inside today.

Of course, earlier I got the horrifying pokemon one, which was a combination of fascinating and why would you do this.

Man, this is a refresher. I've been getting repeat failbook and some gifs here and there.

That image is just plain awesome, and would make for an awesome movie/story. The hell your security blanket and plush toys have to put up with, just to let you sleep at night. Stuffed animals, and a protection blanket, up against all manners of night terrors and eldritch abominations. They don't sleep, so you can, child. Appreciate them, and don't be ashamed to honor them when you grow up, by offering them to help your kids in the future.

EDIT:
Okay, this made me laugh.

[Scaraban]

Almost reaching the end of my Unforgotten Realms rewatch festival spanning weeks.