Random ramblings about Bullshit Art

[Legendsmith]

Fuck I just want to learn how to draw faces and realistic animal and how to shade with a pencil. Turns out that's advanced art, so I feel like I wasted a whole term.

That's the entire art curriculum in NSW, just learning about art styles and expression. It's utter BS. I wasted a year in art class, wondering when we were going to get onto drawing, painting, shading, etc techniques.
Same with the photography curriculum. You spend more time making stuff to photograph than actually take photos, the only useful thing they teach is how to develop film. There's nothing about depth of field or any technical stuff that would actually help us take better photos. Most of the time people already know what they want to photograph, but they don't know how to do it. Same with art. I KNOW what I want to draw, but my skills aren't that great.

BUT ANYWAYS onto abstract art. I personally think it does not take skill to make abstract art. I'm not saying its ugly or not art, I'm just saying its easy. Oh well abstract art is supposed to mean something to the viewer All art is! A painting of a guy could be boring to you, but look at surreal art. Its like abstract art but with actual skill involved. Some of it is mind bending to be honest.

You speak the truth here.

 

[Blueruler182]

I'm not even going to bother reading it because the answer is always the same in this case.

Art is subjective.

Of course.

Good art? Less so.

A work of art is an execution of an idea. If the idea is truly transcendent, the execution can be minimal - as in the case of a very clever modern or abstract piece. If the execution is extremely intensive, the idea can be relatively simple - as in the case of an intricate and skillfully crafted piece.

When people feel compelled to defend something as art, we're typically dealing with a mediocre idea executed simply. Yes, it's technically art - but it's crap. Half the population could have thought of it, and 99% of us could execute it. It shouldn't be hanging in a gallery or a museum.

Your definition of crap is different than mine. Though they may price art, there's no such thing as good or bad art. It's for each individual to decide for themselves. There's no majority, there's set parameters, there's simply art. Because, no matter what, at least one person thinks it's an artistic expression of something or another.

In essence, I find your view on the whole to be incredibly narrow and the fact that these pieces are hanging in a gallery is proof that, while your opinion on the pieces is very valid, the fact that you claim it is crap altogether for everyone and should be called so is misinformed and ignorant. Because other people do have opinions that differ from yours.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm not even going to bother reading it because the answer is always the same in this case.

Art is subjective.

Of course.

Good art? Less so.

A work of art is an execution of an idea. If the idea is truly transcendent, the execution can be minimal - as in the case of a very clever modern or abstract piece. If the execution is extremely intensive, the idea can be relatively simple - as in the case of an intricate and skillfully crafted piece.

When people feel compelled to defend something as art, we're typically dealing with a mediocre idea executed simply. Yes, it's technically art - but it's crap. Half the population could have thought of it, and 99% of us could execute it. It shouldn't be hanging in a gallery or a museum.

Your definition of crap is different than mine. Though they may price art, there's no such thing as good or bad art. It's for each individual to decide for themselves. There's no majority, there's set parameters, there's simply art. Because, no matter what, at least one person thinks it's an artistic expression of something or another.

In essence, I find your view on the whole to be incredibly narrow and the fact that these pieces are hanging in a gallery is proof that, while your opinion on the pieces is very valid, the fact that you claim it is crap altogether for everyone and should be called so is misinformed and ignorant. Because other people do have opinions that differ from yours.

If you want to boil the basic elements of art down to something so hopelessly inclusive that the word no longer has any meaning whatsoever, I suppose that's your prerogative. I think it's a pointless take because you're essentially neutering conversation on the topic. When every single piece, from Twilight to Lady Gaga to Sex in the City 2, can hide behind the shield of "art", there's no point even talking to another person about their respective merits or lack thereof. They've always got a nuclear option primed and ready to defend themselves. I think that's bullshit.

The one seemingly unassailable position I'll continually espouse is this: if it's hanging in a gallery or otherwise on display, it stands to reason that it should be worthy of display. It should, in some manner, stand out from the environment, and in a way that is extraordinary. A good idea can go a really long ways in elevating a work of art. So can fantastic execution. When the two are married together, you have a timeless piece. When both are lacking, you have disposable crap.

In my experience, people don't feel the need to defend good art because good art is rarely under attack. They understand that a very clever idea, very skillful execution, or some combination of the two produced this work, and that makes it worthy of appreciation. With other art, one aspect (either concept or process) seems "cheap", and this is where you have debate, opinion, subjectivity, all that. Though arguably flawed, these pieces are still important. Last, and certainly least, is the "art", which is comprised of shallow or basic ideas executed with minimal skill or effort. It's crap, and anyone with common sense who is not related by blood to the creator will tell you so.

 

[Motti]

the most bullshit piece of art I've seen is called 'untitled' and is nothing but a blank piece of canvas. For some reason I can't fathom, it's hanging in the national art gallery in Canberra. Go figure.

 

[Waif]

Well, it is true that nearly anyone can draw abstract art, non-objective art would be the easiest. Though representational artworks have an incredible amount of depth to them. Still life paintings are some of the most realistic paintings I have ever seen. Though art is, in my opinion, more than feelings, skills, or image. It's actually an outlet for man's need to create, in this way, art is whatever you make it to be. So while mainstream art has become so mimetic and categorized, the essence of art will forever remain, pure and untouched.

 

[Blueruler182]

I'm not even going to bother reading it because the answer is always the same in this case.

Art is subjective.

Of course.

Good art? Less so.

A work of art is an execution of an idea. If the idea is truly transcendent, the execution can be minimal - as in the case of a very clever modern or abstract piece. If the execution is extremely intensive, the idea can be relatively simple - as in the case of an intricate and skillfully crafted piece.

When people feel compelled to defend something as art, we're typically dealing with a mediocre idea executed simply. Yes, it's technically art - but it's crap. Half the population could have thought of it, and 99% of us could execute it. It shouldn't be hanging in a gallery or a museum.

Your definition of crap is different than mine. Though they may price art, there's no such thing as good or bad art. It's for each individual to decide for themselves. There's no majority, there's set parameters, there's simply art. Because, no matter what, at least one person thinks it's an artistic expression of something or another.

In essence, I find your view on the whole to be incredibly narrow and the fact that these pieces are hanging in a gallery is proof that, while your opinion on the pieces is very valid, the fact that you claim it is crap altogether for everyone and should be called so is misinformed and ignorant. Because other people do have opinions that differ from yours.

If you want to boil the basic elements of art down to something so hopelessly inclusive that the word no longer has any meaning whatsoever, I suppose that's your prerogative. I think it's a pointless take because you're essentially neutering conversation on the topic. When every single piece, from Twilight to Lady Gaga to Sex in the City 2, can hide behind the shield of "art", there's no point even talking to another person about their respective merits or lack thereof. They've always got a nuclear option primed and ready to defend themselves. I think that's bullshit.

The one seemingly unassailable position I'll continually espouse is this: if it's hanging in a gallery or otherwise on display, it stands to reason that it should be worthy of display. It should, in some manner, stand out from the environment, and in a way that is extraordinary. A good idea can go a really long ways in elevating a work of art. So can fantastic execution. When the two are married together, you have a timeless piece. When both are lacking, you have disposable crap.

In my experience, people don't feel the need to defend good art because good art is rarely under attack. They understand that a very clever idea, very skillful execution, or some combination of the two produced this work, and that makes it worthy of appreciation. With other art, one aspect (either concept or process) seems "cheap", and this is where you have debate, opinion, subjectivity, all that. Though arguably flawed, these pieces are still important. Last, and certainly least, is the "art", which is comprised of shallow or basic ideas executed with minimal skill or effort. It's crap, and anyone with common sense who is not related by blood to the creator will tell you so.

I'm going to use a comic book reference because it's the one thing I can use off the top of my head. There's an artist out there named John Romita Jr. His figures are decent, his style is a cartoony take on old-style comics that looks moderately unrealistic and there's a large number of people who argue that he has no place drawing at Marvel because of it. There's another school of thought who thinks, as I do, that while his figures and such are cartoony and not particularly realistic, he does one thing that a lot of other artists lack. He's able to make a story seem epic. Now, the general feel towards his work is that he shouldn't be doing this, but there's a small group of people who see that he's an excellent storyteller and, like myself, believe that his work is absolutely amazing and will buy his stuff simply because he's on it.

There are arguments on art. Your opinion is valid TO YOU. There are others who are going to disagree, and arguments will ensue on art that some people find lacking because it brings up the emotion to start an argument. The fact that you think a piece with the ability to bring out emotion in a person is less art than the one that people, whether or not they like it, aren't passionate enough to argue about seems like an incredibly shortsighted view on the topic.

The fact of the matter is: Art is subjective. That's your opinion, that's nice, no need to start preaching it. And, speaking as someone who's actually in the art field and drawing reality as opposed to abstract, I can safely say that I know what I'm talking about here. So long as someone will buy it and appreciate it, it's art.

 

[BonsaiK]

things

A piece of art, like a piece of music, is first and foremost, an expression of a creative idea.

A successful piece of art/music/whatever, whether modern or traditional, is one that expresses the creator's idea the most successfully. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's using the method that took the most skill to accomplish (although it might).

Sometimes a song with three chords sounds better than a song with over 100 chords, because sometimes getting straight to the point is better than beating around the bush.

Likewise, sometimes a really simple piece of art hits the spot because the idea behind it has been expressed with shockingly succinct effectiveness, in a way that a picture of three dogs playing billiards that was very technically difficult to paint but was lacking in ideas, originality or creativity, despite the technical skill involved might not.

 

[Queen Michael]

One problem I have with people who diss modern art becuase it's easy to make is that they think that what makes art good or bad is how tricky it is to create. That's not what matters, what matters is how nice it is to look at.

Let's say you see two paintings. One requires you to be pretty skilled to paint, and is a 8/10 in terms of beauty. The other one requires you to be unbelievably skilled to paint, and is a 6/10 in terms of beauty. Obviously the first one is greater art. (For the sake of the discussion I'm ignoring "depth and message". Just assume the paintings are equals on that point.)

 

[Eldarion]

/snip

You think thats easy? I'm a photographer. *Point* *click* *shoot* Well.....I'm done. I can get paid for doing something this easy?

 

[Queen Michael]

I guess this entire debate can be summed up with the question "Who do you prefer? Pablo Picasso or Norman Rockwell?"

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

snip

I agree with almost everything you said there. Especially the opener about writing 'deep' poetry. Personally, I just make a reference or two to things, and it becomes awesome.

For me, a good piece of art is something that is heartfelt from the creator and that the general public doesn't have to be read into too hard in order to obtain something from. Take the Mona Lisa for example. A passerby can look at it and appreciate it for its realistic beauty.

Deeper meanings demand analysis, but I believe true art should have multiple layers of complexity, with the top layers easily decrypted by anyone.

I couldnt agree more, art should be beautiful on EVERY level. I should look at it and say "this is beauty" i should analyse and think "this is the depth of the human soul". If there is a viewpoint at which the art has no meaning, iether analysed or just looked it i dont think it can be classified as true brilliant art. Look at the mona lisa. Its fantastically painted, its a wonderful piece of art. Then analyse it. Look at her expression, what does it mean, it seems so serene, like a kindly smile of a parent, it seems so human. I think you are correct in saying the true appreciation of beauty doesnt need to be looked for very carefully, it should push itself out of the art, showing itself clearly. Then there can ALSO be hidden meaning. Having only one detracts from the piece.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

to show you how easy poetry is, I will type a poem off the top of my head

There once was kid named Lee
who knew nothing about art theory
every scribble she made
got her a good grade
while my best mark was a C

To be fair, you also chose a limerick.

I think the different types of poetry only control the rhyming. I could tell the same 'story' with a ABAB rhyme scheme or other. Limericks are usually funny so I thought it would fit in this situation.

Well, I was just pointing out that limericks are one of the simplest forms of poetry. Writing a sonnet with proper meter would be more difficult, and an epic would rival a novel if you keep meter and rhyme through the whole thing.

I accept your challenge. I'll edit this post with the new and improved poem.

A girl named Lee, came up to me
she wanted to see what I made.
I told her it was a work of art
which will give me the highest grade.

She didn't understand. She said, "listen man,
art isn't about how good it looks.
You have to put your feelings within the canvas
its not clear and blunt like a book."

I thought about it, just for a bit.
I knew skill was more important.
I told her that it was just nonsense.
She sighed for I didn't know what she meant.

On the judging day, she came up to say,
"I've finished my painting, come see."
All I could see were scribbles and dots,
but to my surprise she got a B.

It was my turn to shine, and about time.
I showed the teacher my beauty.
She said, "this doesn't make me feel anything
I'm afraid I'll have to give you a D."

How about:

Ever since the dadaists,
The cubists and the futurists,
unleashed upon the planet earth
art of no intrinsic worth,

art teachers in the public schools
have treated art as though the fools
believed it of no great import
that students now should hold the fort

and gain the skills the masters earned
to bring forth what within them burned,
though many years they had to toil
before it showed up in their oils.

And here today in class I sit
next to this non-artistic git
her name is Lee, and as I swear
her head is full of naught but air.

For years I have worked at my craft
working on it as a raft
to take me from this lonely land
of canvas untouched by skilled hand.

But Lee through all this working time
has simply doodled on the spine
of books that could have taught her how
to draw what, in the here and now

she cannot get out of her head.
Now what she draws, with talent dead
are simply scribbles of the sort
that Jackson Pollock once brought forth,

while mine are done with greatest care
as though Leonardo himself were there
but always when we get our grades
the teacher haughtily explains

that Lee has shown her inner self
but mine's a picture for a shelf
to be forgotten in the week
because a camera better speaks

to the sort that wants to see
this sort of wonderful beauty.
And what grades do we get in class,
from this teacher (such an ass)?

Lee gains as the teacher's pet,
a grade that I could never get
a perfect "A", woohoo, yippee...
the best I ever get's a "C"!

 

[Deleted]

snip

That was... beautiful. *sniff*

much better than mine

 

[Queen Michael]

snip

That was... beautiful. *sniff*

much better than mine

I just LOVED this! I thought this kind of poetry-duel didn't happen for real!
My contribution shall be this simple poem:

Modern KONST
är KONSTig.

It's in Swedish.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm going to use a comic book reference because it's the one thing I can use off the top of my head. There's an artist out there named John Romita Jr. His figures are decent, his style is a cartoony take on old-style comics that looks moderately unrealistic and there's a large number of people who argue that he has no place drawing at Marvel because of it. There's another school of thought who thinks, as I do, that while his figures and such are cartoony and not particularly realistic, he does one thing that a lot of other artists lack. He's able to make a story seem epic. Now, the general feel towards his work is that he shouldn't be doing this, but there's a small group of people who see that he's an excellent storyteller and, like myself, believe that his work is absolutely amazing and will buy his stuff simply because he's on it.

You're really backing what I'm saying here. His ability to make a story appear "epic" is a talent for concept; his ideas shine through even if the style of execution isn't to everyone's liking. Even on that count, the guy has obvious skill. Even if I hated his stuff (I don't), there's no arguing he's got technique.

There are arguments on art. Your opinion is valid TO YOU. There are others who are going to disagree, and arguments will ensue on art that some people find lacking because it brings up the emotion to start an argument. The fact that you think a piece with the ability to bring out emotion in a person is less art than the one that people, whether or not they like it, aren't passionate enough to argue about seems like an incredibly shortsighted view on the topic.

I'm not debating the existence of really shitty art. I'm saying there's valid and invalid art. That a piece brings out an emotion, even disdain, isn't enough to classify it as art. Not unless you're inclined, as so many seem to be, to broaden the definition to the point of no meaning. Sorta defeats the point of definition in the first place - ya know, to define. I'm emotionally responsive to almost everything, on some level, but that doesn't make everything art. It just means I'm an emotional person with respect to the majority of stimuli.

The fact of the matter is: Art is subjective. That's your opinion, that's nice, no need to start preaching it. And, speaking as someone who's actually in the art field and drawing reality as opposed to abstract, I can safely say that I know what I'm talking about here. So long as someone will buy it and appreciate it, it's art.

First of all, no one cares if you work in the field of art - including you. By your definition, everyone creates art all the time, often without being conscious of the act, and everyone's take on it carries the same weight. Your opinion is no more informed or valid than that of anyone else. I disagree with that. As an artist myself, I recognize certain forms and techniques at work, and this heightens my appreciation and (I believe) my ability to classify art. If you work in the field, I trust your judgment a great deal more than the average person. That, right there, is putting certain value to the quality of art.

You really don't seem to disagree with my take on a fundamental level. Art is the execution of an idea. The quality of the art has primarily to do with its degree of difficulty from the conceptual or procedural challenges. It's a balance between the two, although a really fantastic idea or brilliantly skilled execution can elevate a piece on its own. The only frustrating bit is when someone takes a bad or plain or common or hackneyed idea, executes said idea with appalling simplicity or cheap shortcuts, and then declares it "art" for all the world to appreciate. No. It's shit. It's no more impressive than a child's crayon drawing - and no more worthy of hanging in a gallery either.

At some point you have to actually draw lines and boundaries in this world if you want anything to make a lick of sense. It's fantastically easy to just label it all art and move on, thinking you've done your due diligence. I don't think you have. I think that's a cop-out, a lazy solution to a complex question.

 

[Blueruler182]

I'm going to use a comic book reference because it's the one thing I can use off the top of my head. There's an artist out there named John Romita Jr. His figures are decent, his style is a cartoony take on old-style comics that looks moderately unrealistic and there's a large number of people who argue that he has no place drawing at Marvel because of it. There's another school of thought who thinks, as I do, that while his figures and such are cartoony and not particularly realistic, he does one thing that a lot of other artists lack. He's able to make a story seem epic. Now, the general feel towards his work is that he shouldn't be doing this, but there's a small group of people who see that he's an excellent storyteller and, like myself, believe that his work is absolutely amazing and will buy his stuff simply because he's on it.

You're really backing what I'm saying here. His ability to make a story appear "epic" is a talent for concept; his ideas shine through even if the style of execution isn't to everyone's liking. Even on that count, the guy has obvious skill. Even if I hated his stuff (I don't), there's no arguing he's got technique.

There are arguments on art. Your opinion is valid TO YOU. There are others who are going to disagree, and arguments will ensue on art that some people find lacking because it brings up the emotion to start an argument. The fact that you think a piece with the ability to bring out emotion in a person is less art than the one that people, whether or not they like it, aren't passionate enough to argue about seems like an incredibly shortsighted view on the topic.

I'm not debating the existence of really shitty art. I'm saying there's valid and invalid art. That a piece brings out an emotion, even disdain, isn't enough to classify it as art. Not unless you're inclined, as so many seem to be, to broaden the definition to the point of no meaning. Sorta defeats the point of definition in the first place - ya know, to define. I'm emotionally responsive to almost everything, on some level, but that doesn't make everything art. It just means I'm an emotional person with respect to the majority of stimuli.

The fact of the matter is: Art is subjective. That's your opinion, that's nice, no need to start preaching it. And, speaking as someone who's actually in the art field and drawing reality as opposed to abstract, I can safely say that I know what I'm talking about here. So long as someone will buy it and appreciate it, it's art.

First of all, no one cares if you work in the field of art - including you. By your definition, everyone creates art all the time, often without being conscious of the act, and everyone's take on it carries the same weight. Your opinion is no more informed or valid than that of anyone else. I disagree with that. As an artist myself, I recognize certain forms and techniques at work, and this heightens my appreciation and (I believe) my ability to classify art. If you work in the field, I trust your judgment a great deal more than the average person. That, right there, is putting certain value to the quality of art.

You really don't seem to disagree with my take on a fundamental level. Art is the execution of an idea. The quality of the art has primarily to do with its degree of difficulty from the conceptual or procedural challenges. It's a balance between the two, although a really fantastic idea or brilliantly skilled execution can elevate a piece on its own. The only frustrating bit is when someone takes a bad or plain or common or hackneyed idea, executes said idea with appalling simplicity or cheap shortcuts, and then declares it "art" for all the world to appreciate. No. It's shit. It's no more impressive than a child's crayon drawing - and no more worthy of hanging in a gallery either.

At some point you have to actually draw lines and boundaries in this world if you want anything to make a lick of sense. It's fantastically easy to just label it all art and move on, thinking you've done your due diligence. I don't think you have. I think that's a cop-out, a lazy solution to a complex question.

You've completely misinterpreted what I said and I'm getting incredibly frustrated trying to sway you on a view that's hard-packed into your head. It's actually like trying to argue with a John Romita Jr. fan and it's...

Oy, fuck it... Believe what you will...