Modern art ... again

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

The paintings that fetch millions are usually done by artists that are dead.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

The paintings that fetch millions are usually done by artists that are dead.

Yeah...You'd certainly think so in some cases, but most of the time, paintings which fetch millions are really usually done by artists who, alive when they produced the art, are dead and no longer producing any more art.

I think it is the fact that the artist cannot produce mo' betta' art to reduce the value of the ones that fetched millions.

[LadyShea]

I don't know if this is in the same ballpark for most, but it makes sense to me.

One of my fave poems is Jabberwocky, which is full of totally made up words. The words have no meaning, yet I find they create images and feelings anyway.

Art can do that, without actually representing anything. Sometimes you just feel it.


Your result for What Your Taste in Art Says About You Test ...
Non-conformist, Visionary, and Independent

14 Abstract, 0 Islamic, -14 Ukiyo-e, 12 Cubist, -9 Impressionist and -26 Renaissance!

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Take this quiz to see what your taste in art says about you:

34 Renaissance, 21 Islamic, 30 Ukiyo-e, -31 Cubist, -42 Abstract and -2 Impressionist!

[LadyShea]

Goliath, I'm kinda surprised you don't find any beauty in the painting in the OP. Seems quite mathematical in nature to me. There's negative and positive space created with the color, there's proportions and angles, there are squares as well as rectangles and more if you look at the white space as something rather than nothing.

I know dick about math or art, I am just conveying my impressions of it.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, you'd enjoy a painting full of fucking triangles? Qingdai may have words for you.

If I would, it would only be because all polygons can be triangulated.

You switched words there, in a way that I think shows how what I'm saying and what you're saying are not the same thing. There aren't any objects in a painting, even a representational one...it's pretty much all shapes and colors.

Yes, but they're shapes and colors that, one would hope, look interesting.

The painting in the OP is so laughably hideous that I'm still baffled as to why anyone could defend it as a legitimate work of art.

Consider the following "piece of art" that I made in MS Paint in about 15 minutes. I call it "Parallelograms and shit":



How is this "piece of art" worse than the painting in the OP? I'm not being facetious; I seriously want to know what makes the painting in the OP any more legitimate than Parallelograms and Shit.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Of course mathematics isn't just a random jumble of numbers, just as art isn't just a random jumble of shapes. There's a difference between an elegant proof and a grade school long division worksheet; just as there's a difference between a Picasso and a grade school art project, or a Mondrian and some rectangles you made in Paint.

If ever, in the history of the timelines throughout all possible universes, I had ever uttered anything that might have even vaguely resembled the statement that "art is just a random jumble of shapes," then you might have had something that may have been the spark that would have led to the abiogenesis of life on a planet in a distant galaxy that would have evolved, grown sentient, formed a civilization who could then show that you would've had a point. Maybe.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

If it doesn't work well for you, that's fine. It's personal taste.

Hah! Of all the people in this thread, I surely thought that you'd rush out with both flamethrowers a'blazin'.

After all these years, I guess you still have some surprises, after all. Well done!

[Qingdai]

Sorry Goliath, your art lacks depth (and color). The problem with computer renderings is there also isn't any real texture. I guess that's one reason why paint is nice for art. Computer stuff always looks flat, like those wax mummy things.

Plus too many triangles.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Sorry Goliath, your art lacks depth (and color).

Parallelograms and Shit has just as many colors as the painting in the OP (namely black and white). As far as depth goes, unless you're considering the bumps on the surface of the canvas, each piece of artwork has the exact same amount of depth.

The problem with computer renderings is there also isn't any real texture.

Okay, so imagine that I blurred and pixelated the lines in Parallelograms and Shit. Would that be better?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Goliath

How is this "piece of art" worse than the painting in the OP? I'm not being facetious; I seriously want to know what makes the painting in the OP any more legitimate than Parallelograms and Shit.

What's this term "legitimate" doing here? As far as I can tell, you're the one who's been working on the basis that there's a distinction between "real art" and garbage, whereas several of us defending the Mondrian have been saying that precisely kind of judgement is questionable.

I guess you feel like just because you conjured that quickly to make a point, it can't possibly be real art. But that's not true: you created an image, you made some decisions about what elements would be in it, you had some fairly specific ideas you were trying to make a point about, and you presented it. "Parallelograms and shit" is a piece of visual communication. Congratulations, you're an artist. Maybe not a very good one, or one who can make much money, but an artist nonetheless.

[fragment]

Actually, anyone can play at this game. Here's a pic I did in MS Paint in about 1 minute, I call it "self-portrait with cheesy grin". Does anyone out there think that it's more legitimate than the Mondrian purely because it's representational? If so, why?

[erimir]

Yours doesn't look like it has any intention behind it, other than to be a bunch of black lines.

Mondrian's is a progression from the earlier works, thus lending some insight into what he was going for. But like Kael said, it's hard to appreciate that without having all the works to look at. Furthermore, the fact that his piece was made before MS Paint is relevant. Any schmuck can just do that, as you said. But back then, it was a lot more effort, and thus there was some planning behind his. Mondrian was also the first person to do what he did.

His arrangement is a bit better as well, I would say. Your arrangement of the lines looks somewhat haphazard.

Other than that, there's not a whole lot of difference.

Parallelograms and shit might appeal to some people, tbh. It's not like it's some horribly ugly thing just because anyone can whip it up in a minute. But as for price, well, Mondrian's works are limited and Mondrian is famous. Your paint drawing is not limited, and you are not famous. Hence yours will go for all of $0.01.

Personally, I wouldn't pay that much for Mondrian's painting (and being a painting would also make it more valuable in general than a MS paint drawing), but that doesn't mean that there's nothing there.

But I also wouldn't pay that much to have the Mona Lisa hanging in my house either. Mostly I'm just cheap.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by seebs

If it doesn't work well for you, that's fine. It's personal taste.

If everyone just shrugged their shoulders and put it down to a difference in 'taste' then perhaps there'd be no conflict. But some people will always go a bit further. Here's where I think the problems start:

Originally Posted by Rationalia

Some "understand" what two dimensions can depict when they are not utilized to draw pictures of the familiar, and some do not.

If it's a matter of understanding then those that do are a lot smarter than those that don't. Light the fuse and stand well back!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Goliath

How is this "piece of art" worse than the painting in the OP? I'm not being facetious; I seriously want to know what makes the painting in the OP any more legitimate than Parallelograms and Shit.

It's worse because you totally copied the Union Jack.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Here's where I think the problems start:

If it's a matter of understanding then those that do are a lot smarter than those that don't. Light the fuse and stand well back!

Not really. Understanding is more often a matter of having spent a bit of time studying and thinking about a matter than raw smarts. I'm sure there are many people no more intelligent than I who nevertheless understand a great deal more about a number of things than I ever will. This is particularly relevant in a subject where people are prone to saying things like, "I don't know much about art".

[mickthinks]

I'm sure there are many people no more intelligent than I who nevertheless understand a great deal more about a number of things than I ever will.

Yes, but understanding works differently in different situations, and I think you're ignoring that and confusing the issue. It would help if you were to give an example of the kind of thing you don't understand because you haven't put the time in, but which might also be considered a matter of personal taste?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Goliath

The painting in the OP is so laughably hideous that I'm still baffled as to why anyone could defend it as a legitimate work of art.

Consider the following "piece of art" that I made in MS Paint in about 15 minutes. I call it "Parallelograms and shit":



How is this "piece of art" worse than the painting in the OP? I'm not being facetious; I seriously want to know what makes the painting in the OP any more legitimate than Parallelograms and Shit.

Yours has unpleasant (to me) proportions and comes across as discordant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Yes, but they're shapes and colors that, one would hope, look interesting.

The painting in the OP is so laughably hideous that I'm still baffled as to why anyone could defend it as a legitimate work of art.

Consider the following "piece of art" that I made in MS Paint in about 15 minutes. I call it "Parallelograms and shit":



How is this "piece of art" worse than the painting in the OP? I'm not being facetious; I seriously want to know what makes the painting in the OP any more legitimate than Parallelograms and Shit.

Well, first of all, as fragment already noted, a number of us aren't concerned with creating or discovering a demarcation between legitimate art and supposedly illegitimate art. As long as you slapped your piece together with the intent to express something, even if that something was "Ha ha, look how easy this is!", I'm willing to call it art. Having said that, I don't think it's particularly good art, both because I don't find it visually interesting and because I don't think you successfully expressed what I think you were trying to express. The Mondrian piece in the OP has a number of things going for it that yours doesn't.

Qingdai is correct in saying that your piece lacks (the illusion of) depth. Part of the problem is that you used Paint, which allows you to easily work in pure white and black, and in fact encourages you to do so, since it's easier to use the default colors than to mix something more interesting. I know it's kind of hard to see in a scanned image, but that's not pure black on pure white in the OP. Pure backs and whites don't really exist in nature, so artists rarely use them. Mondrian's colors are more subtle, and make his piece look more like something that exists, whereas yours looks like ink on office paper. You'd also get a bit more depth if you used thicker lines, and perhaps varied the thickness of different lines. The jagged pixelation you get when you make diagonal lines in Paint doesn't help either.

While the Mondrian is very simple and uncluttered, your piece looks crowded, but not crowded enough to make me think that's the point, so the end result is that it just looks busy. I think most of the problem is the horizontal lines overlapping the diagonals and breaking the field into a number of irregular shapes with no particular arrangement. In the Mondrian, the eye is drawn strongly to the square created by the intersection of the larger set of lines. In yours, the eye is drawn all over the place, to the eight spots where the horizontals overlap the diagonals.

Another thing that sort of bothers me is that the diagonals meet at an angle that's just off of square, but not far enough off to create the impression of motion or perspective.

The same criticism applies to the positioning of the place where the diagonals meet. It's far enough off center to break symmetry, but not far enough off center to be interesting, and there's no apparent reason for the position chosen. The intersection in the Mondrian is also off center, but its position creates a space to be filled by the second set of intersecting lines, while yours appears to just be arbitrarily off center.

None of my criticism of your composition is unique to nonrepresentational art, by the way. Imagine that you're sketching out a top down view of, say, a road (the horizontal lines) and a watchtower with four searchlights (the diamond created by the intersection of the diagonals, and the diagonals themselves). Would you choose to place each object in the same position it's equivalent appears in your Paint piece?

I'm not even all that fond of the Mondrian in the OP. I'm just saying that it takes some skill at composition to create something like it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

If it's a matter of understanding then those that do are a lot smarter than those that don't. Light the fuse and stand well back!

Not really, IMO. There are many things that I don't understand simply because I haven't thought about or experienced them. In the case of art, where understanding more a matter of feeling rather than knowing, I'd say that applies doubly.

Originally Posted by Rationalia

Some "understand" what two dimensions can depict when they are not utilized to draw pictures of the familiar, and some do not. No amount of arguing will help a person move into letting images connect strictly to thought.

When it happens that someone who hasn't been seeing what non-objective images can show feels motivated to look at images without looking for tangible things, they start to "get it" without even trying. If not, then not.

This is a debate without a rational resolution.

I think I disagree. If someone is honestly seeking to understand what it is that others appreciate about a piece of art, it can be helpful to have the features that others particularly appreciate pointed out.

[SharonDee]

These discussions on "modern art" and how to interpret pieces are very interesting. Just like the last go-round, I am learning a lot, including what I like and what I don't.

Y'all make me want to find a museum and go see some art or something.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Actually, before I got trolled

Originally Posted by Goliath

Ah, it's just like old times! Torrent of flames in response in 3....2....1...

Originally Posted by Goliath

As I somewhat suspected (and feared), my redoubled efforts to communicate in a civil manner at the have been a waste of time.

Oh well.

HOW MANY RECTANGLES:



I'm sorry Goliath, I'm rage-trolling. This thread had such potential for an explosion but then godfry left. So now the thread is less dumb but also less angry and therefore less good. Come on people. Get mad.

[Shake]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

does it really matter whether or not he used a ruler?

I don't think so. But then, I didn't initially bring that point up. Whether he did or not doesn't make any difference to me. It's the end product that mattered. No one can tell from looking at it whether he did or not. So, who cares?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

HOW MANY RECTANGLES:

[erimir]

So, I was just imagining that falling into a Tetris board...

That would be pretty cool.