Modern Art: "I could have done that..."

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Modern Art: "I could have done that..."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/modern-art-i-could-have-done-that-so-i-did-9042501.html

    This is a long piece and slightly curved, but it's worth the time, raises some good points about influence, and reads relevant to some of our discussions here about art, aesthetics and so on.

    Basically, the author is saying that technology and abstraction have enabled millions to become 'artists' in their own rights (sort of).  To wit:

     

    "So, for many art forms, it is indeed true that "anyone could do that", in the sense that anyone has the technology or technique to hand to execute the idea. It has become possible for more and more people, often untrained, to express their creative imagination as doing so has become less and less dependent on technical expertise.

    However, not everyone can have the ideas, the eye or the ear to come up with something worth making real. That core of invention remains elusive, beyond most of us most of the time. The best answer to the moan "I could have done that" remains "but you didn't". No one else came up with the geometric lines and block colours of Mondrian before he did, not because they lacked the skill, but because they lacked the vision. Technology and trends in art have not, therefore, made really good art more democratic, they have simply widened the membership of the elite."

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    It's not so much I could have done that as what special abilities or talent are apparent in the creation. Vision? What about those who have vision and create something never to have it considered Art. There must also be a component of skill or talent that sets the creator apart. And why does everything we consider creative need to be called Art with a capital A? There are plenty of craftsmen who create beautiful things but we do not need to label all of it Art. The broader a definiton we give any word that has special significance, such as Art, the more we dilute the meaning of the word. Great Art should be elitist, not democratic. Artists should belong to an exclusive club where entry is very difficult.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's not so much I could have done that as what special abilities or talent are apparent in the creation. Vision? What about those who have vision and create something never to have it considered Art. There must also be a component of skill or talent that sets the creator apart. And why does everything we consider creative need to be called Art with a capital A? There are plenty of craftsmen who create beautiful things but we do not need to label all of it Art. The broader a definiton we give any word that has special significance, such as Art, the more we dilute the meaning of the word. Great Art should be elitist, not democratic. Artists should belong to an exclusive club where entry is very difficult.

    [/QUOTE]

    There are a few questions in here:

    - special abilities/talents don't need to be apparent to all viewers to exist.

    - vision can be one thing to make something artistic, but it's not the only thing; technical skill can be just as important.

    - the distinction, I think, is not between artist/non-artist, but more between artist/hobbyist...or as the article states: dedicated/dilettante (And creativity vs. technical skill).

    - in part, a lot of people can acquire the skills necessary to make "art", but only a few actually go further enough to make "great art".  (same goes for artisanry and crafts, IMO) 

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    Well, I'd say that as to a lot of modern, more particularly the "contemporary" art, I not only could have done it and freely concede that I would not have the "vision" to do it because it is garbage, imo.

    A few wooden blocks on the floor? A rope hanging from the ceiling? A single black dot on a white canvas?

    I'm proud not to have the capacity to envision assembling such things and presenting them as art.

     

     

    The Mondrian fellow, however, does have some 'cool' things that share some similarities with my doodling, ie:

    http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/vjferfer/vjferfer1102/vjferfer110200007/8866530-abstract-3d--piet-mondrian-style--image-produced-with-2d-and-3d-software.jpg

     

     

    As I argued in the past, I think "art" is one of those terms at the very fringe of language. Language has meaning because of common agreement as to the objects to which a term refers (Quine). That is not true of "art," yet "art" is still used as a term. Wed use it without being able to agree on what is and is not art.

    I'd call the above "art" in a loose sense of the word. It's closer to the edges (is a neat design 'art'?). Whereas the Sargent exhibit in the MFA is at the very center of 'art'.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    There are a few questions in here:

    - special abilities/talents don't need to be apparent to all viewers to exist.

    - vision can be one thing to make something artistic, but it's not the only thing; technical skill can be just as important.

    - the distinction, I think, is not between artist/non-artist, but more between artist/hobbyist...or as the article states: dedicated/dilettante (And creativity vs. technical skill).

    - in part, a lot of people can acquire the skills necessary to make "art", but only a few actually go further enough to make "great art".  (same goes for artisanry and crafts, IMO) 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    if special talents /abilities aren't apparent how do we know they exist? What makes them special should be apparent in the creation itself. There should be an element of "I couldn't do that." Otherwise, it will be hard to convince the viewer that there is anything special going into the work. I can look at a capenters work and see the skill it takes and know that I don't possess that skill and thus be impressed. If Art becomes so inscrutable as to elude the laymen's grasp then it becomes too much an article of faith, a faith that the average person shouldn't be expected to have.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, I'd say that as to a lot of modern, more particularly the "contemporary" art, I not only could have done it and freely concede that I would not have the "vision" to do it because it is garbage, imo.

    A few wooden blocks on the floor? A rope hanging from the ceiling? A single black dot on a white canvas?

    I'm proud not to have the capacity to envision assembling such things and presenting them as art.

     

     

    The Mondrian fellow, however, does have some 'cool' things that share some similarities with my doodling, ie:

    http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/vjferfer/vjferfer1102/vjferfer110200007/8866530-abstract-3d--piet-mondrian-style--image-produced-with-2d-and-3d-software.jpg

     

     

    As I argued in the past, I think "art" is one of those terms at the very fringe of language. Language has meaning because of common agreement as to the objects to which a term refers (Quine). That is not true of "art," yet "art" is still used as a term. Wed use it without being able to agree on what is and is not art.

    I'd call the above "art" in a loose sense of the word. It's closer to the edges (is a neat design 'art'?). Whereas the Sargent exhibit in the MFA is at the very center of 'art'.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I like your thinking!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    I can write a story. So can anyone.

    Can you write a story that anyone would want to read?

    I have drawn thousands of cartoons, I have thrown away about 99%. Some of the ones I would have thrown out are hanging up here at work ( some people think they are great artwork!!!). To me they are disposable doodlings that I did when I was very bored. I can draw cartoon figures better than some "artists" that have cartoon strips in newspapers. I have the occasional "funny" idea that leads to few laughs. I couldn't come up with one a day or even 15-20 per year. 

    This is where Matty's "not everyone can have the ideas" comes into play. 

    There are people who draw very well, can they create "cartoon art?"...not without funny ideas. I think Charles Schulz is brilliant with his idea for Peanuts which is a monumental cartoon which has spawned T.V. specials, parade blimbs and his characters have been used to sell life insurance among other things. His cartoons are very simple , I was drawing Charlie Brown, Snoopy and Linus at age 9 or 10. I am sure many others could also, but , could you put the right humor to the drawings?.....it's not as easy as being able to draw.

    I think many of you can play guitar. Could any of you who do play have written the music of Jimi Hendrix?....not only is the playing incredible but that songs are quite unique and very imaginative....just having Hendrix's abilities would be ,less than half the battle.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    Just wrote a full-bodied response and hit reply and the wonders of (BDC) technology saw to it that the entire content of my essay went POOF! 
    So after I collect myself, I will try to repost.   Copying and pasting.  

    Just a warning to anyone else who is going to write a comment.   Ugh.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    if special talents /abilities aren't apparent how do we know they exist? What makes them special should be apparent in the creation itself. There should be an element of "I couldn't do that." Otherwise, it will be hard to convince the viewer that there is anything special going into the work. I can look at a capenters work and see the skill it takes and know that I don't possess that skill and thus be impressed. If Art becomes so inscrutable as to elude the laymen's grasp then it becomes too much an article of faith, a faith that the average person shouldn't be expected to have.




     

    I think part of the fraying of the term "art" has to do with the recent S H I F T  from trying to represent things to trying to represent concepts.

    (Yeah..you can't type S H I F T....that's apparently a bad word)

    The latter is where people have room to hang a rope from a ceiling (I did see that in MOMA) and call it "art" because it represents the toiling climb of life. Or maybe ropes swing, so it represents changing back and forth. (or maybe the artist is just having a laugh on us because it does not and was not meant to represent anything).

    Or the person who set up a life-sized garage sale or whatever it was, and viewers were to literally participate in a garage sale. But it was put in a big room in an art museum, so, it was called "art".

     

    Shake of the head, wag of the finger.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    There are a few questions in here:

    - special abilities/talents don't need to be apparent to all viewers to exist.

    - vision can be one thing to make something artistic, but it's not the only thing; technical skill can be just as important.

    - the distinction, I think, is not between artist/non-artist, but more between artist/hobbyist...or as the article states: dedicated/dilettante (And creativity vs. technical skill).

    - in part, a lot of people can acquire the skills necessary to make "art", but only a few actually go further enough to make "great art".  (same goes for artisanry and crafts, IMO) 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    if special talents /abilities aren't apparent how do we know they exist? What makes them special should be apparent in the creation itself. There should be an element of "I couldn't do that." Otherwise, it will be hard to convince the viewer that there is anything special going into the work. I can look at a capenters work and see the skill it takes and know that I don't possess that skill and thus be impressed. If Art becomes so inscrutable as to elude the laymen's grasp then it becomes too much an article of faith, a faith that the average person shouldn't be expected to have.

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, that they might not be apparent to everyone doesn't mean that someone else may not be able to recognize the skill/ability involved.

    Mondrian is a good example (used in the article).  If 'anyone could have done that', then they would have, but they didn't, so the difference is in the vision demonstrated by doing it "first".  Even so, he came by these creations after years of training, mentorship and experimentation (i.e. with cubism) that goes unnoticed or unconsidered in the work as presented.

    A novice might look at a wooden chest and be unimpressed, while someone with a little more knowledge might see dove-tail joints, inlays, precision or rare materials that elevate the chest above other, simpler examples of the form.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    if special talents /abilities aren't apparent how do we know they exist? What makes them special should be apparent in the creation itself. There should be an element of "I couldn't do that." Otherwise, it will be hard to convince the viewer that there is anything special going into the work. I can look at a capenters work and see the skill it takes and know that I don't possess that skill and thus be impressed. If Art becomes so inscrutable as to elude the laymen's grasp then it becomes too much an article of faith, a faith that the average person shouldn't be expected to have.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     




     

    I think part of the fraying of the term "art" has to do with the recent S H I F T  from trying to represent things to trying to represent concepts.

    (Yeah..you can't type S H I F T....that's apparently a bad word)

    The latter is where people have room to hang a rope from a ceiling (I did see that in MOMA) and call it "art" because it represents the toiling climb of life. Or maybe ropes swing, so it represents changing back and forth. (or maybe the artist is just having a laugh on us because it does not and was not meant to represent anything).

    Or the person who set up a life-sized garage sale or whatever it was, and viewers were to literally participate in a garage sale. But it was put in a big room in an art museum, so, it was called "art".

     

    Shake of the head, wag of the finger.

    [/QUOTE]

    The article raises "conceptualism" as one of the factors (along with abstraction and technology) that has led to this and other trends in art.

    Some installations are indeed more artistic than others.  Some are 'garbage', e.g. 'bad art'.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    The article raises "conceptualism" as one of the factors (along with abstraction and technology) that has led to this and other trends in art.

    Some installations are indeed more artistic than others.  Some are 'garbage', e.g. 'bad art'.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And therein lies the rub. Who decides what is real art or what is garbage or bad art? The person who creates the so-called bad art can claim that we simply don't have the capacity or enough learning to see the art.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    The article raises "conceptualism" as one of the factors (along with abstraction and technology) that has led to this and other trends in art.

    Some installations are indeed more artistic than others.  Some are 'garbage', e.g. 'bad art'.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And therein lies the rub. Who decides what is real art or what is garbage or bad art? The person who creates the so-called bad art can claim that we simply don't have the capacity or enough learning to see the art.

    [/QUOTE]


    The people who "created" Disco can claim that I simply don't like music that is made for gyrating senselessly to lyrics that repeat themselves endlessly....and they would be right. 

    To me it is "bad art" , but I will begrudgingly refer to it as "art."

    Perception is everything. I don't like something therefore it is "bad" ...to me. You don't like something , therefore it is "bad" to you. 

    You are a Patriots fan ( hypothetically, of course), the Patriots lose to Denver. You don't like this, therefore it was a "bad" game. An impartial fan watches the game and enjoys it. To that fan it was a "good" game.

    I may be straying a bit, but I look at Dali's paintings and I see "good"....because I like it, I see good when I look at a Van Gogh....because I like it. I see "bad art" when I look at an Andy Warhol or a Pablo Picasso ...because I don't like it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    The article raises "conceptualism" as one of the factors (along with abstraction and technology) that has led to this and other trends in art.

    Some installations are indeed more artistic than others.  Some are 'garbage', e.g. 'bad art'.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And therein lies the rub. Who decides what is real art or what is garbage or bad art? The person who creates the so-called bad art can claim that we simply don't have the capacity or enough learning to see the art.

    [/QUOTE]

    We decide for ourselves as viewers based on our own experiences, no matter how they line up with the artist's.  Meanwhile, the critics apply their own standards, and we can choose to accept or refuse those standards on our own.  

    The artist is ultimately responsible for making the work compelling enough to bring the viewers on board to their ideas.  Consensus is next to impossible, but in rare cases, it happens...resulting in 'greatness' that we can acknowledge, even though we may not like it very much.

    For better or worse, the artist seeks some kind of reaction, even if it's no reaction at all.  Saying "that's garbage" may or may not be what they were looking for, but it's still a reaction.

    I tend to think art reflects ourselves at any point in time: some good, some bad, but most is just mediocre, run-of-the-mill, re-hashing, derivative, etc.  And like ourselves, first impressions may not ultimately define the work for future artists and generations.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I may be straying a bit, but I look at Dali's paintings and I see "good"....because I like it, I see good when I look at a Van Gogh....because I like it. I see "bad art" when I look at an Andy Warhol or a Pablo Picasso ...because I don't like it.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, that's good, because you're applying a subjective standard (like/dislike) to what you see and not necessarily what people are telling you to like or dislike.

    That all four of those artists are important in terms of art history is irrelevant to your enjoyment/unjoyment of the works.

    I would say that a fair amount of people fall into the 'i don't know' category merely because of lack of exposure to enough ideas to give their own standards merit, but that's not the artist's fault.  In the case of modern art, sometimes the intentional vagaries or weirdness of the art are not balanced by exposure to other weirdness that makes some modern art pretty tame, boring or unoriginal.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    The "article" was nothing more than a blog post to me.  The guy who wrote it is not much more than a small-minded, self-aggrandizing little twit.    Additionally, he says the same thing over and over in the article when once would have been sufficient.  We get it.  

    In the big picture, the 'I can do this" or the "anyone can do this" crowd are missing the point, no matter where they go, or what they see.  Know why?  Because in saying that, they are really the "all about me" people, and the "me" people are more concerned about comparing themselves, their skill, and in some cases, their woeful lack of knowledge, against a work of art, instead of focusing on the art and asking, "what makes that so great?  why is that piece of crap in the National Gallery?"  :)  and asking questions about it, they judge it, perhaps after looking at it for 5 or 10 seconds.  Now, do you want to know why a professionally trained curator, art expert, historian, etc., might have moved heaven and earth to have that work of art in that gallery, or do you want to know what some jerk off the street thinks of it, or worse, tells you "he could do that", too??

    Have I made myself clear here?!   hahaha.   :) 

    I have made no secret that I read reviews and critiques --- NOT to develop my taste -- but to learn the what, why and wherefore of what someone who has studied, been trained, etc., has learned and will hopefully impart in a critique.  In the Boston Globe, Sebastian Smee does this (most who follow him love him)  on a periodic basis in his "Frame by Frame" column, where he takes a work of art and describes, reviews and discusses what makes it "what it is" (sometimes that's also explaining why it's controversial, or banal, too) -- and he gives the reader an appreciation they would likely not have without  the benefit of his expertise.  Do I always like the paintings?  No, not at all.  Is it his "opinion" ??  Yes, of course.   Is it definitive?  Unlikely.   But it's a darn good benchmark, I can tell you that much. And I am never sorry I read his critique or explanation because he sheds light on everything he writes about.   Smee is a renowned art critic, who has won a Pulitzer for art criticism, and he's a treasure the Globe is lucky to have.   Once you read someone like Smee, you become a convert. 

    But back to the "I can do this" contingent.  This is where the blogger really blows his cover IMO:

    "What perhaps makes me unusual is not that I entertain such thoughts, but that I did go off and try doing it myself. My medium was the most accessible of them all: photography"

    Firstly, he did nothing "unusual" -- he entered some photos in what was seen as a contest, moreorless, or a competition, so why he thinks he's done anything unusual, I have no idea.  It's not as though he put together a porfolio and tried to get a curator or art gallery to look at them, in which case, he never would have gotten in the door.  :P

    But what it really smacks of is turning a walk through a gallery or museum into competition, judgement call, and not even having the humility to think that somehow, someone, somewhere, must know more than he does for that work of art to be there in the first place. (in his case, photographs, specifically). 

    No, I am not saying I think that the "experts" are God(s), nor do I like what I see just because I know there's a "reason" for it to be there -- but I have the humility to at least say, well, I don't get that ... and not trivialize it.   Look, I've seen the same crap in museums that everyone has (and plenty of it has been in the DeCordova), but the thing for me is that, I wouldn't even *want* to make any of it, even if I could.  :P

    We live in a world where just about everything gets trivialized and belittled.  It's very discouraging to see the disrespect and lack of acknowledgement that is accorded to people in certain fields of study.  

    I'm not saying that I disagree with the contention in the "article" where it's stated that there are people who have natural talent (God given? DNA given?  Whatever ...) that comes out of nowhere, without training on any level, and that many people have a flair for what they do, that is also natural. 

    However, for me, the entire "I could do that" mentality has nothing to do with the object or the action that is "doable", but rather is about and feeds on the mentality that if you can copy cat something, that not only means you're "doing" it, but that you're succeeding at it.   And that's not what it means at all.  

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You are a Patriots fan ( hypothetically, of course), the Patriots lose to Denver. You don't like this, therefore it was a "bad" game. An impartial fan watches the game and enjoys it. To that fan it was a "good" game.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it means that the other team cheated or the refs made bad calls.  Get with the program. 

    The impartial fans do not matter, in fact, they are annoying. 

    This is where any maturity I have amassed goes out the window, BTW.   :D

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In the big picture, the 'I can do this" or the "anyone can do this" crowd are missing the point, no matter where they go, or what they see.  Know why?  Because in saying that, they are really the "all about me" people, and the "me" people are more concerned about comparing themselves, their skill, and in some cases, their woeful lack of knowledge, against a work of art, instead of focusing on the art and asking, "what makes that so great?  why is that piece of crap in the National Gallery?"  :)

    I tend to think "I can do that" is just another idiomatic way of saying "why is that piece of crap in the National Gallery?"

    ie, it's "crap" because the speaker recognizes that he could do it despite having no skill or training. It's a me-centered way of expressing the point, but I'm not sure that that defines their approach to art.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In the big picture, the 'I can do this" or the "anyone can do this" crowd are missing the point, no matter where they go, or what they see.  Know why?  Because in saying that, they are really the "all about me" people, and the "me" people are more concerned about comparing themselves, their skill, and in some cases, their woeful lack of knowledge, against a work of art, instead of focusing on the art and asking, "what makes that so great?  why is that piece of crap in the National Gallery?"  :)

     

     

    I tend to think "I can do that" is just another idiomatic way of saying "why is that piece of crap in the National Gallery?"

    ie, it's "crap" because the speaker recognizes that he could do it despite having no skill or training. It's a me-centered way of expressing the point, but I'm not sure that that defines their approach to art.

    [/QUOTE]
    In the "article" it most certainly wasn't.   The guy with casual photography experience decided the photographs he saw were no better than his.   It was literal; he set out to prove this as he entered some photographs in a competition, to see how they would par up.  As I pointed out, this was really no big deal because they get thousands of entries, yet he made it sound like he was sticking his neck out.  He wasn't.   He was being judged against amateur competition, not against the any photographs that were curated. 

    And it still beckons to "it's all about me" even if it's a figure of speech.  It's belittling.  Yes, it's saying, "I could do that, and if I can do it, it doesn't take much ..."   -- how do they know?   The fact it's become a common figure of speech across the board makes a statement, at least it does to me.  Philosophically.   It would be preferable to just spit it out: "IMO, that is a piece of crap" or "I don't like that" whatever, giving an opinion.   Instead, "I can do that" implies it takes no talent, or skill.  Not the same thing. 

    The flip side is to say it in fun, such as when you see an athlete do something phenomenal, and you say, "hey, I could do that ..."  oh, sure. 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    I don't think the issue is whether art is good or bad or easy or hard to grasp but what makes it art in the first place? Even if am enlightened to the why's and the wherefores of a work it doesn't mean that it is art. Just because someone had a concept, an idea, and uses certain skills to create it does not mean it is art. To me, the term "bad art" is bit of an oxymoron. The broader we make the definition of art, the more vague the meaning of art becomes. If art is all creative expression, the question seems to be, "what isn't art?" 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    Wow, a lot of good posts on this thread.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    I think there's a tie-in here somewhere with the infamous Revolution 9.  You could possibly raise an argument that it was just a random bunch of recorded sounds whacked together, and that therefore anybody could have done the same.  I once recorded an FM radio while I switched the stations.  Pretty stupid, really, but at the time I thought I was doing something artistic.

    But with Revolution 9, we're talking John Lennon, and he has so much credibility as an artist that you almost have to have faith that what you're listening to had artistic intentions, and merit of some sort, even if you don't like listening to it.  And some people actually enjoy it (like jesseyeric).

    Just more fodder for discussion...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think there's a tie-in here somewhere with the infamous Revolution 9.  You could possibly raise an argument that it was just a random bunch of recorded sounds whacked together, and that therefore anybody could have done the same.  I once recorded an FM radio while I switched the stations.  Pretty stupid, really, but at the time I thought I was doing something artistic.

    But with Revolution 9, we're talking John Lennon, and he has so much credibility as an artist that you almost have to have faith that what you're listening to had artistic intentions, and merit of some sort, even if you don't like listening to it.  And some people actually enjoy it (like jesseyeric).

    Just more fodder for discussion...

    [/QUOTE]


    Having that faith is what I question at the root of why something should be considered art. And it also touches upon my point that the work should stand on its own, without reference to the author. I vew all things with some degree of skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. I feel the burden is on the artist to draw me into their work, to make their work so compelling that I pay attention. It is not up to the audience to find the artist, but the artist to find the audience.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think there's a tie-in here somewhere with the infamous Revolution 9.  You could possibly raise an argument that it was just a random bunch of recorded sounds whacked together, and that therefore anybody could have done the same.  I once recorded an FM radio while I switched the stations.  Pretty stupid, really, but at the time I thought I was doing something artistic.

    But with Revolution 9, we're talking John Lennon, and he has so much credibility as an artist that you almost have to have faith that what you're listening to had artistic intentions, and merit of some sort, even if you don't like listening to it.  And some people actually enjoy it (like jesseyeric).

    Just more fodder for discussion...

    [/QUOTE]


    Having that faith is what I question at the root of why something should be considered art. And it also touches upon my point that the work should stand on its own, without reference to the author. I vew all things with some degree of skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. I feel the burden is on the artist to draw me into their work, to make their work so compelling that I pay attention. It is not up to the audience to find the artist, but the artist to find the audience.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're assuming a few things: 

    First, that you're the audience the artist is trying to reach.  No artwork can be everything to everyone, and it's folly for any artist to even try.

    Second, your skepticism is a barrier to you approaching an artwork with an open mind.  If you hate cats, then see a painting or sculpture of a cat, your personal bias is already at work.

    The artist-viewer relationship has to be somewhat mutual.  I'll grant that a big part of the artist's job is to get the work to where it can be seen, but that's easier said than done, even in the digital age, where some works do not translate as well to video.

    Last, how can you be sure you're giving the work the attention it deserves?  Can you look at a painting for 10 seconds, credibly pass judgment, then move on?

    There's no doubt that the definition of art can be a fickle thing, but not nearly as fickle as peoples' tastes.  Any artist deserves the opportunity to state their case for what they're presenting for view, and you can accept or reject as you wish.  But you can't abdicate your own responsibility as a viewer to try and understand what you're seeing (or hearing, or feeling...).

    In art school, we learned how to defend our work by making a statement and then listening to the critiques of others with an open mind but without taking things too personally.  As students, we weren't always good at it, but in the process, we learned what worked, what didn't and a little about ourselves we were trying to express.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Modern Art:

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Having that faith is what I question at the root of why something should be considered art. And it also touches upon my point that the work should stand on its own, without reference to the author. I vew all things with some degree of skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. I feel the burden is on the artist to draw me into their work, to make their work so compelling that I pay attention. It is not up to the audience to find the artist, but the artist to find the audience.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your position is well stated and I certainly respect it.  I can only really relate this to my own experience.  In the case of the Beatles and Revolution 9, when that album came out, I had a passionate love for the artist already in place, and yes, a faith in their abilities to deliver musical magic.  I was taken aback by that particular piece but I tried to understand it and appreciate it, at first.

    What you're saying is that you can set aside all your history with the artist and view everything as if it was 'from square one'.  I question whether anyone can completely do that, psychologically speaking, but again I respect your position. 

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share