Random ramblings about Bullshit Art

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

That was... beautiful. *sniff*

much better than mine

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.

Thanks guys, I had fun writing that. @Queen Michael: I ran your poem through a translator. It was partially garbled, but what came out was "Modern arts queer." Would it be "Modern art is queer?" Nice wordplay if that is how it works out; a bit off color, but effective.

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

I disagree very much.

Heck, I don't even entirely agree with it. That line was mostly aimed at dada, which literally means "nothing," and represented the idea that everything, especially art, was meaningless and worthless. I threw in Cubism and Futurism partially because they were a part of the shift to what we see today in the art world, but mostly because it allowed for my meter and rhyme scheme to remain intact while still being relevant to the poem as a whole.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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...

I think you've said what countless others always say in this discussion - art is 100% subjective, and my attempts to classify or define it are futile. Lazy nonsense.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

The whole "Is this (good/bad) art?" discussion is BS, if you ask me, but here´s how I see it.

It´s easy to be a self-proclaimed artist and it´s easy to write bad poems. Picture a carpenter with education and years of experience. From the way he uses his tools to create the most elegant wood carvings, you might call him an expert. Now, if I tried to create a similar wood carving, it would most likely be crap (and I would probably injure myself while making it). An expert might appreciate my work as a work of an individual, but not as a work of a professional, or a piece of art. The same applies to modern arts. Art is an institution upheld by experts, and it´s the experts who, in the end, decide which piece of work is good enough to be "art" and thus get passed down to future generations. You, OP, and I may not see what´s going on in Pollock´s paintings (Mind you, I actually like few of his works), but someone certainly has, which is why he is known and appreciated even today.

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

This, however, will be forgotten by everyone, I´m afraid.

Modern art object may be something as mind-numbingly simple as empty white canvas. Sure, it doesn´t require skill to do it, but it does require a vision (and massive balls, to put that on display). For that "painting" to become a real piece of art, another person with the same vision, and lots of money, has to like it. It´s as banal as that.

...I kinda forgot where I was going with this. So, the bottom line; Abstract art is more about visions rather than skill. For a piece of art to be "art", a group of experts is required.

This, whatever it is, is not to say you, a viewer, cannot have any kind of artistic sensibility and thus cannot say "This is/isn´t art". Of course you can, but in the grand scheme of things, your vote doesn´t count. Your personal experience is yours alone.

 

[HoverWhale]

West. Triumph, I fill in my sack. Apples with.
Here, I dream with an opened eye. I sleep can.
Once there, it am filled with the falling water.
Wake, and the embarrassment. Oh no, it is again.

So basically, I reckon that if you combine poetry with Engrish, you get something resembling a possible writing form of abstract/modern art. The difference is; it's a lot better. Actually, a writing form of abstract/modern art would probably just be a list of words. It's only when you vaguely try to form sentences that it gets good. Maybe that's what abstract/modern art needs to do; try to have some form. Hm...
Actually, then it would probably just come out as the sort of thing school children have to write for homework (the ones without talent, that is).

I definitely get what you're saying though. If you throw red paint at a canvas and say it's about war, and that the red is all the bloodshed, then you're a kid trying to be an artist (who also has some understanding of war). If you do the exact same thing, but follow it with the claim that it's abstract or modern and a little minimalist, then you're a genius. Blagh, I say!

 

[Jonluw]

When I hear modern/abstract art, I think of Jackson Pollock.

http://www.google.com/images?q=jackson%20pollock

Pictured: random paint splatters that look like they were made in less than a minute "art"

Hey, I made a picture like that once! My mom threw it away. I could have earned som good money from that...

 

[DreadfulSorry]

snip

Ok, at the risk of sounding like an art snob, I have to get some things off my chest about this thread. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but there are some things you said that I don't agree with. I am an art student, so take what I say with a grain of salt, please.

I have done many "abstract" art assignments for my classes, and personally, I find them to be more difficult and stressful than the technical assignments. It is one thing to be given a still-life display or a model and have your professor say "alright, now start drawing"; it is another thing entirely to have your professor tell you: "make a piece using only three to five small black squares and one to three larger gray squares" (which is just one of the assignments I have been given before).

When doing abstract art, a good artist will put just as much thought and planning into their piece as someone who is painting a realistic portrait. Whether people believe it or think it's a bunch of bullshit, there are strict rules to aesthetics, and these rules apply to ALL forms of art, abstract or not. Many artists rely on their own internal intuitions when it comes to composition, but those who are trained artists will be able to recognize these rules with every piece they create, and use them to their advantage. One of my art professors put it bluntly: "we teach you the rules now, so that you know how to properly break them later."

An abstract artist puts as much thought into composition, form, color, texture, lighting, and balance as the technical artist does, and to dismiss their work as easy, trivial, or worthless is nothing short of the gravest insult a person can give to an artist.

 

[VanityGirl]

In school I took AP art both general AP art and 3D art. (3D art=sculptures and stuff)
I will say that I HATED when some student threw together some stuff and said "Well this represents the darkness of the human soul". The teacher would normally say "wow, fascinating" and give them a good grade.

However, another girl in the class could make beautiful works of art, but the teacher would always say "You need to put more meaning in your work". She said that to a painting of a young child reaching for a seed in an old farmers hand. It was a beautiful piece. I wanted to punch my teach in the face.


Modern art=fail.

 

[Kagim]

Whether something is art or not isn't subjective, whether it is good or not is.

What makes something art?

Art is something that can communicate ideas without saying them. Take that wretched 'my bed' picture up there. That? Is not art. Why? Because just on looking its nothing more then a bed messy bed. In order to understand anything about it you have to read the description. So the image itself doesn't mean shit. Its useless without a description. You can stare at the bed for sixty hours and unless you physically pick up the menstrual blood panties or smell the piss and cum sheets all your get, is a messy bed.

That's not fucking art. That's snake oil bullshit.

So what is art. Someone uploaded a picture his computer drew with a program he made.

Spoiler

Is that art? Sure. Why? Its pretty, it makes me think of stained glass. I like it. I don't need a description to enjoy looking at it. I wouldn't need a description to hate it either. He describes how he made it but not what it means or why its 'deep'. Nothing is required to appreciate how simple it is.

As for this...

Spoiler

Versus...

Spoiler

Why is the first one considered shit and the second one considered good? Because the first one is the guy just throwing blotches and the second one clearly had some thought process. The first one probably took a good twelve seconds. Maybe a minute if he had a cramp. The second one, while still a completely random painting, has defined images and shapes. The artist at least thought about each brush stroke at least in passing. The second one had some care taken to it.

 

[Blueruler182]

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...

I think you've said what countless others always say in this discussion - art is 100% subjective, and my attempts to classify or define it are futile. Lazy nonsense.

Either you're trolling or you're an ignorant, arrogant, ass. I tried to fucking end it, but you just wont let it go.

Art has never been defined. NEVER! What you see in a museum takes the label in the public view as art simply because it's in a museum and is considered art. Because of the lack of definition as to what art is, anything can be art. Art is 100% subjective. Painting? There are techniques for the field, but that's not the whole of art. Painting can be pushed down to the techniques and given value on that, but the art of it can't. Music is considered art, and there are notes and such that can be judged and one could move on from the music field, but the art of it is subjective. The closest thing to a definition to art is something people do that they have passion with.

Now let it drop there and stop being the aforementioned ignorant, arrogant, ass that I've come to believe you are.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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...

I think you've said what countless others always say in this discussion - art is 100% subjective, and my attempts to classify or define it are futile. Lazy nonsense.

Either you're trolling or you're an ignorant, arrogant, ass. I tried to fucking end it, but you just wont let it go.

Art has never been defined. NEVER! What you see in a museum takes the label in the public view as art simply because it's in a museum and is considered art. Because of the lack of definition as to what art is, anything can be art. Art is 100% subjective. Painting? There are techniques for the field, but that's not the whole of art. Painting can be pushed down to the techniques and given value on that, but the art of it can't. Music is considered art, and there are notes and such that can be judged and one could move on from the music field, but the art of it is subjective. The closest thing to a definition to art is something people do that they have passion with.

Now let it drop there and stop being the aforementioned ignorant, arrogant, ass that I've come to believe you are.

Good lord...

Did I find a sensitive spot? And knife you there? It's a discussion, friend.

There are two arguments at play here, so it's important to be precise.

1) What is art?

Art is pretty clearly anything created. If it occurs naturally, it's not art. This is a suitably broad definition, but it serves. There's a creator. He, she, or they have an idea. This idea is expressed through a medium. Others experience the creation and draw their own ideas from it. Pretty straight forward.

2) What qualifies as good art?

A lot of people take the easy road on this one and simply chalk it all up to subjectivity. I understand this logic perfectly, but it's too easy/cheap/lazy for my tastes. I think it is quite reasonable to establish some basic ideas about what constitutes good and bad art.

First, let's acknowledge that "good" is a relative term. Without "average" and "bad", "good" has no meaning. So what determines the relative values in this case? I look at it statistically and separately for both core aspects of art - the concept and the execution.

Execution is easier to criticize. If an average person can easily reproduce a work of art, the quality of execution is minimal and, subsequently, has little impact on the value of the piece. A stick figure drawing, for instance, has little or not value as art in terms of execution. By contrast, a photo-realistic painting demonstrates tremendous skill and is therefore valued, at the very least, for its execution - because relatively few people can accomplish such a feat.

Concept is the trickier bit because ideas are ethereal/immaterial, but I firmly believe probability and statistics can, hypothetically and theoretically, help. If everyone in the world were to produce an idea this very moment, the smartest or cleverest 5% would likely stand out from the rest. I believe this holds true in art as well. While it's impossible to measure, people intuitively sense whether or not an idea belongs in this mythical "top 5%"; when I deem something intelligent or clever, it tends to be something I could not imagine without the help of the artist. Are all rare ideas "good"? No. But are all "good" ideas rare? I believe so. If they were common, they'd be "average".

Some examples... a photo-realistic painting of a bowl of fruit is "average" art. The execution is brilliant, but the concept is poor. Change that fruit to rotten fruit, and now you've upgraded the concept; it's a better piece. Reduce the appearance to cartoon-quality and you've downgraded the execution; it's shit.

Stick figures doing nothing? Shit. Stick figures doing something interesting? Average. Stick figures doing something brilliant? Good.

Woman singing repetitive, unimaginative hook over and over again with auto-tune (which can make just about any voice work)? Garbage. Woman singing that same hook with natural talent? Average. Woman singing challenging, meaningful lyrics with natural talent? Good.

The challenge in discussing art objectively stems from the fact that the quality of every piece is a product of execution and concept as well as the fact that one can inform the other. But it's a challenge. It isn't so impossible that no one should ever bother to try.

 

[Blueruler182]

Snip

First I'd like to apologize for the outburst. I now see the way you're looking at it, purely in a logical sense. My personal belief is that art isn't logical, but I do see where you're coming from now. Before it seemed like you were just trolling, but the new explanation makes perfect sense. I actually agree wholeheartedly with the logical point you made, it makes perfect sense. From a logical standpoint, you're absolutely right.

 

[unoleian]

If art is subjective, why is it so hard for some people to make a living as an artist. And why is it so easy for some people with just a little effort?

People who think that this

Spoiler: A bad attempt at abstract expressionism

is just as good as this

Spoiler: The Mona Lisa

are wrong in my eyes. Sure the scribbles could mean a lot more but I see skill>meaning. Skill is meant to be praised because not everyone has it. Why praise something you could do yourself, if you see your childhood in a painting of lines, paint your own lines and go on a nostalgia trip.

My complaint is that art is not about technical skill anymore, only art has become its the simplest medium. Books, movies, games, songs all require skill because they are more complex than a painting.

My biggest gripe is 3D art that's just a few things put together. For example, a bike covered in chocolate. That's not art, there was no input other than putting chocolate on a bike. Something as simple as that should not be worth any money. A bike MADE of chocolate, that's art because it took skill to do it. And its more interesting because it will obviously be stylized.

That first image is a terrible mess of scribbles. There's no compositional balance, no feeling, it looks like someone had a field day in MS Paint. (ed- I find it hard to believe that's a Pollock. It lacks the density and sense of color that his usual [http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/10/large_pollock8.jpg] works [http://www.poster.net/pollock-jackson/pollock-jackson-composition-7900450.jpg] carry.)That's the problem with that image. It takes real skill to make a random mess of scribbles pleasing to the eye. And, really, most good abstract expressionist-stlye works DO have real thought put into the composition and color choice.

You're making the mistake of confusing art with craft. Books, movies, etc. are at their essence a craft, and only rarely cross the line into the realm of art. A bike made of chocolate is the same thing. A fine exercise in the craft of chocolatiering.

Anyone can make a mess of scribbles and attempt to call it art, but only real art attempts to convey a meaning or concept alongside the produced piece, be it a painting, drawing, sculture, 3d model, installation, conceptual thesis, or what have you. Something doesn't have to be a technically executed masterpiece like the Mona Lisa to qualify as art. Nor, does it have to necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. But what it DOES need to do is attempt to explore a deeper meaning than simply "pretty lines on a page."

Only good art does that. Self-serving art or doodles in notebooks rarely qualify.