Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not too long ago, painters/sculptures would create something because of the beauty and within that there would be a message. Like look how beautiful it is or they would create something of a horrible emotion they have gone through and that others could relate to. However, as the years have progressed it seems like artists rather than being creative and original have turned to insulting the masses. For example, there is an art work in Chicago where the sculpture built half torsos of people. And it is suppose to be representing how the "masses" walk aimlessly about their lives. Do you not see what is so insulting in that? I could understand it if it were something different. Like that one painter that use to paint rich people's faces green to show that they were fake. However, he did it without coming off as a douche. You can look at his paintings and enjoy it.
This art work in Chicago, cannot be liked because its just boring and ugly. Is it because artists have run out of ideas or something? Or that the new type of art is not even in paintings or sculptures anymore but film? I just fail to respect most artists because it seems like most are trying to remind us how we are all "blind," but what does that make them?
I don't see why you think those sculptures in Chicago you mentioned are offensive. Can you explain? There are people out there who are totally pretentious about art, those people I just stay away from, I have no use for that snobbishness. Then there are those who will explain it & will be totally real & down to earth & not snicker at you if you don't seem to get it. I like certain pieces of art because I like the way it looks, regardless if there's a message or not. Pretty simple for me that way.
Now contemporary art, that I just cannot get into. To have a blank canvas & put some splotches on it & call it art & then everyone else praises it? No thanks. Or to place a bed in a room at the museum & place speakers around that play the sound of a beating heart? No, give me a break. My friend loves that stuff, I can't stand it.
I don't see why you think those sculptures in Chicago you mentioned are offensive. Can you explain? There are people out there who are totally pretentious about art, those people I just stay away from, I have no use for that snobbishness. Then there are those who will explain it & will be totally real & down to earth & not snicker at you if you don't seem to get it. I like certain pieces of art because I like the way it looks, regardless if there's a message or not. Pretty simple for me that way.
Now contemporary art, that I just cannot get into. To have a blank canvas & put some splotches on it & call it art & then everyone else praises it? No thanks. Or to place a bed in a room at the museum & place speakers around that play the sound of a beating heart? No, give me a break. My friend loves that stuff, I can't stand it.
I find those sculptures in Chicago offensive because of what you mentioned about contemporary art, sort of. I feel that the works were not made to show beauty but to be pretentious. Like a sort of snob about people, "yeah look at them they are all slaves, blah blah blah". I don't see the work as art. But just a Polish "artist" trying to make a fortune by being unoriginal and pretentious.
Not too long ago, painters/sculptures would create something because of the beauty and within that there would be a message. Like look how beautiful it is or they would create something of a horrible emotion they have gone through and that others could relate to. However, as the years have progressed it seems like artists rather than being creative and original have turned to insulting the masses. For example, there is an art work in Chicago where the sculpture built half torsos of people. And it is suppose to be representing how the "masses" walk aimlessly about their lives. Do you not see what is so insulting in that? I could understand it if it were something different. Like that one painter that use to paint rich people's faces green to show that they were fake. However, he did it without coming off as a douche. You can look at his paintings and enjoy it.
This art work in Chicago, cannot be liked because its just boring and ugly. Is it because artists have run out of ideas or something? Or that the new type of art is not even in paintings or sculptures anymore but film? I just fail to respect most artists because it seems like most are trying to remind us how we are all "blind," but what does that make them?
Art is art.
You don't like some of it. I don't like some of it.
One of us thinks that art he doesn't like is "just boring and ugly". The other one of us isn't so self-centered that he sees art that he doesn't like as somehow bad/flawed/elitist.
You don't like some of it. I don't like some of it.
One of us thinks that art he doesn't like is "just boring and ugly". The other one of us isn't so self-centered that he sees art that he doesn't like as somehow bad/flawed/elitist.
It's really not all about you, you know.
I know its not about me. But just that people tend to like some really bad crap. And I think the main reason for that is from marketing and not because they have any actual talent.
Art in America has never been valued very highly, except in financial terms, buy a piece today and sell it much later for a whopping profit.
For Americans art is crazy things done by insane people, or elitist people. Reason is that Americans are not very interested in culture, that is evident in America's daily life.
In the 1930s the Surrealists made a cultural world map, America was deleted; Canada shared a border with Mexico.
I'm of the opinion that the reason why the art of the past is considered so much better than the art of the present is because there's a difference between 'great art' and 'not-great art'.
Great art endures, all else is forgotten.
And amazingly enough, Art is not about beauty. It may utilize it, but it's not a requirement.
Art is simply a type of language which the creator uses to convey a message. And artists have been conveying ugly and insulting and controversial messages forever, going all the way back to grafitti on the walls in ancient Rome. Heck, before that: drawings on cave walls.
I will go so far as to say that you do have at least some semblance of a point here: that it's usually the less-talented artists who create things merely for shock value, since that's always easier than creating something meaningful.
But this dynamic has been away for a long time; it's nothing new under the sun.
Not too long ago, painters/sculptures would create something because of the beauty and within that there would be a message ...
... This art work in Chicago, cannot be liked because its just boring and ugly. Is it because artists have run out of ideas or something?
Says who? Who are you? A world renowned Art scholar and critic? You don't like something so do you expect everyone to agree with you? Art, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80
I find those sculptures in Chicago offensive because of what you mentioned about contemporary art, sort of. I feel that the works were not made to show beauty but to be pretentious. Like a sort of snob about people, "yeah look at them they are all slaves, blah blah blah". I don't see the work as art. But just a Polish "artist" trying to make a fortune by being unoriginal and pretentious.
I think your pontifications, without citing your scholarship and credentials, is the very height of pretentiousness. You are entitled to your opinions, and you can express your views on this forum, but frankly I am unimpressed by your ramblings without an explanation or extrapolation on why you hold those opinions ... why not post some pictures of the works that you find so offensive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80
I know its not about me. But just that people tend to like some really bad crap. And I think the main reason for that is from marketing and not because they have any actual talent.
Oy vey! Oh, I get it ... what you like in Art is sublimely magnificent, but what others admire is "bad crap."
This kind of nonsense has been expressed over the centuries ... from one generation to the next. The "Philistines" ridiculed and denounced Rembrandt - his style and technique ... the French Impressionists ... the Expressionists and Surrealists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oy vey! Oh, I get it ... what you like in Art is sublimely magnificent, but what others admire is "bad crap." 
