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.
I find most of what passes for art nowadays to be boring, non-human, overpriced and essentially BS.
How in heavens name do people really discriminate in modern, abstract style art except to simply say "I like it" or "I don't like it"?
Where are the standards that make the stuff even remotely comprehensible?
That being said, why spend money on it except to impress other art queens?
I think the main problem of today's art (and by extension, today's artists) is they are all about shocking, rattling, tearing people out of their comfort zone and/or "making them see" what the artist feels is wrong with the world. In other words, the focus is negative.
Classic art on the other hand tries to inspire and make the viewer feel good. Sure, it's often more than a bit idealistic and even rather panglossian but the focus in the end is ultimately positive.
Of course there are exceptions on either end but the general "flow" of the art scene seems to be that way to me, anyway.
We don't need a to be manipulated or preached to all the time, nor expect to (more like demand to ) find the hidden meaning in every last objet d'art... sometimes its nice to just see and enjoy a beautiful work just for beauty's sake.
Anyway, I can't stand today's "art scene", but luckily they don't have a monopoly on art itself. Life is too short to waste time as an "art snob".
I saw something on facebook the other day. A quiz. You had to guess whether the painting was done by an artist or by a toddler. Now I am a fairly good art historian but I only got 1/2 correct.
I didn't seen any difference between the finger painting of a toddler and the messy random brush strokes of a real artist.
It seems like both the modern artist and the toddler are doing art for the same reason--for the fun of expressing themselves. Smearing paint onto a piece of paper (or anything) isn't necessarily art. The intent behind what the artist is doing could, arguably, be different from what the toddler is doing--in addition to just having the enjoyment of expression. But it's so hard to decipher any meaning or emotion from it that they might as well just keep it to themselves. Art used to be more than just that.
I find most of what passes for art nowadays to be boring, non-human, overpriced and essentially BS.
How in heavens name do people really discriminate in modern, abstract style art except to simply say "I like it" or "I don't like it"?
Where are the standards that make the stuff even remotely comprehensible?
That being said, why spend money on it except to impress other art queens?
When I was much younger and inexperienced, I did not understand art. I had no concept of what art was, really.
One day, an older friend took me to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. And for the first time in my life I gazed upon a Renoir, a Monet, a da Vinci, and I cried. Literally cried because of the beauty of their work.
I do not find such emotion when looking at modern art. To be honest, I do not even really like Picaso or Van Gogh, it's too "out there" for me" as for truly modern art. Pffffft. Garbage, I'm sorry. It's garbage.
Do the elephants ever get better, in the sense of choosing differently, in reaction to their own previous work? Or do they always produce pretty much the same mindless patterns, according to whatever paints and brushes a human handed them? Without judgment, I am inclined to regard the elephant's products as mere marks, and not Art. It is interesting that an elephant can make such marks, but it would be far more interesting if the elephant exhibited wilful intentionality.
I realize that Picasso can be weird, but anyone who thinks Van Gogh is garbage is ignorant, prejudiced, blindered, something. He is not "modern" in the sense that that epithet is usually hurled; this is no performance artist thumbing his nose at technique or intent. He paints representational subjects in his own peculiar painterly style, working with texture and color. What else are you entitled to expect from a painter?
Do the elephants ever get better, in the sense of choosing differently, in reaction to their own previous work? Or do they always produce pretty much the same mindless patterns, according to whatever paints and brushes a human handed them? Without judgment, I am inclined to regard the elephant's products as mere marks, and not Art. It is interesting that an elephant can make such marks, but it would be far more interesting if the elephant exhibited wilful intentionality.
I realize that Picasso can be weird, but anyone who thinks Van Gogh is garbage is ignorant, prejudiced, blindered, something. He is not "modern" in the sense that that epithet is usually hurled; this is no performance artist thumbing his nose at technique or intent. He paints representational subjects in his own peculiar painterly style, working with texture and color. What else are you entitled to expect from a painter?
Elephant art, well they have to be guided since they don't have hands. Each elephant has it's own
distinctive style and matures over time. Plus this started with 2 contemporary artists. So, this
is abstract expressionism. One can argue the same point regarding Jackson Pollock (although his
were more complex) as a debate about what is abstract expressionism.
I do not think Picasso was weird, actually he was probably the last true artist. Artist defined
as doing something new and never done before. Where on this forum did this someone "ignorant and
prejudiced" poster call Van Gogh's work garbage?
Interesting and from the looks of it I'd say it's another way of those who 'create' art to interpret or visualize an orientation to their world or environment. And it's there that we get an idea that it probably is very diffiuclt to provide a one-size fits all definition of 'art'. So many people, so many worlds, so many 'art looks' so to speak. On the other hand, some better express a vision if you will better than others with their skill.
"Guided," well they have trunks. Are you sure you didn't mean, "taught what to do initially" ?
The person dissing on Van Gogh was just above my previous post.
Thanks for the correction.
Used the term "guided" since it seemed more appropriate because of the Mahouts (a keeper and/or driver of an elephant).
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.
) find the hidden meaning in every last objet d'art... sometimes its nice to just see and enjoy a beautiful work just for beauty's sake.
