|
|
05-27-2009, 01:05 AM
|
|
the internet says I'm right
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Seeing as aesthetics in general and art in particular are very personal and subjective things...
I find plenty of idiotic pretension in both those that claim non-representational art is a load of crap and those that look down their noses at people who fail to be awed and inspired by it.
|
Except nobody is looking down their noses at people who fail to be awed and inspired by it. At least, nobody is doing any such thing in this thread. And, anyway, as much as I personally love such art, I don't necessarily feel "awed and inspired" by it; but then very little in life awes and inspires me.
Rather, I am "looking down my nose" only at those people who dogmatically claim that non-representational art is a piece of crap. I'm not looking down my nose at people who may not "get" such art. It's fine not to "get" stuff. But some people may "get" this art later, with a little more info. Goliath might be an example of this.
|
I didn't mean to say you, specifically, were being snooty, davidm. At least, in this thread the only behavior of the second type has been mostly directed at people doing the first type, so I would agree there. It was meant to be a general comment, because however much I am told about the technical accomplishments or the skill in composition, when I look at most of the paintings posted here I see nothing interesting to me.
__________________
For Science!Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
05-27-2009, 04:26 AM
|
God Made Me A Skeptic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks
No, I was just laughing at davidm. I think he is pretentious. "Of course, maybe I have synesthesia" — LOL
|
How would that be pretentious?
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
|
05-27-2009, 06:46 AM
|
|
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath
But it's just a bunch of fucking rectangles...
|
You're right. And math is just a bunch of fucking numbers.
|
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.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
|
05-27-2009, 06:52 AM
|
|
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Other than the relative size and position of shapes and the choice of color, any two randomly chosen paintings are the same, though.
|
True enough, but what makes most paintings interesting to me is that the objects generally aren't rectangles.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
|
05-27-2009, 06:55 AM
|
|
Dogehlaugher -Scrutari
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
I dunno I like rectangles. Now triangles, don't get me started.
I generally think that a lack of appreciation of non-representational art also means a lack of mind altering drug use.
Fucking triangles.
And Escher, sick to death of Escher.
|
05-27-2009, 06:55 AM
|
|
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
Sure, but the same is true of any question of composition. Composition matters in art, and good composition looks better than bad composition. Imagine that you take a bunch of very high-quality pictures of people, and stamp them onto an image. They're not all the same, but the layout and composition you choose in where you stamp them can make one picture with the same ten people in it look good, and another look bad.
That same difference exists between two paintings of a bunch of rectangles.
|
Yes, I understand that if you take some rectangles in a painting and rearrange them, you'll get another painting full of rectangles. I get that. What I'm trying to say is that I find paintings that consist of rectangles to be utterly boring and worthless.
Ah, it's just like old times! Torrent of flames in response in 3....2....1...
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
|
05-27-2009, 06:57 AM
|
|
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qingdai
And Escher, sick to death of Escher.
|
Actually, before I got trolled, I was going to mention that the only non-representational pieces of artwork that I've ever enjoyed are Escher pieces. Now that I think about it, the reason why I probably enjoy them is that most (if not all) of his works convey some kind of mathematical idea.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
|
05-27-2009, 06:59 AM
|
|
Dogehlaugher -Scrutari
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Am I trolling?
Thanks. I never get that, I was starting to feel left out.
|
05-27-2009, 07:00 AM
|
|
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Oh no, no, no, I was referring to davidm. Sorry for the confusion.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
|
05-27-2009, 07:02 AM
|
|
Dogehlaugher -Scrutari
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
So still left out?
Crap, I even suck at trolling.
|
05-27-2009, 07:02 AM
|
|
the internet says I'm right
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
__________________
For Science!Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
05-27-2009, 10:47 AM
|
|
Mr. Condescending Dick Nose
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks
No, I was just laughing at davidm. I think he is pretentious. "Of course, maybe I have synesthesia" — LOL
|
How would that be pretentious?
|
Didn't say it was, bro. It's not why I find davidm pretentious.
__________________
... it's just an idea
|
05-27-2009, 01:41 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath
Oh no, no, no, I was referring to davidm. Sorry for the confusion.
|
*sigh* I wasn't trolling you. I was doing a reductio of your own position, showing that if you want to say that a non-representational work of art is nothing but "a bunch of fucking rectangles," one could by parity of reasoning say that math is a bunch of fucking numbers. Of course, I should think it would be obvious from the context of this conversation that I don't think math is nothing but a bunch of fucking numbers. But my point is, neither is non-representational art "a bunch of fucking x..."
You might also look a few posts up and see where I say that I thought you were an example of a person who could be persuaded of the value of non-representational art, despite your skepticism.
Oh well, this conversatin is useless, at least to me.
|
05-27-2009, 02:47 PM
|
|
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Other than the relative size and position of shapes and the choice of color, any two randomly chosen paintings are the same, though.
|
True enough, but what makes most paintings interesting to me is that the objects generally aren't rectangles.
|
So, you'd enjoy a painting full of fucking triangles? Qingdai may have words for you.
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. The Mona Lisa isn't a smiling woman, it's a bunch of irregularly shaped areas of various colors. Representational artists arrange those shapes and colors to create the illusion of objects, but they typically also try to create a specific mood or feeling by composing them in a certain way. Nonrepresentational artists just drop the idea that a painting has to create the illusion of objects and try to directly create whatever mood they're after by arranging shapes and colors.
One way to think of it is that all painters work by arranging shapes and colors, but representational artists use the skeletons of imaginary objects as a template for their compositions while nonrepresentational artists do not.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
|
05-27-2009, 04:01 PM
|
|
professional left-winger
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
|
05-27-2009, 04:40 PM
|
|
puzzler
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
I went all through the test and then the stupid website locked up at the end and wouldn't show me any results.
ETA: Oh, I clicked back a few times and got something:
Traditional, Vibrant, and Tasteful
5 Islamic, -1 Impressionist, -2 Ukiyo-e, 2 Cubist, -6 Abstract and -6 Renaissance!
|
05-27-2009, 04:55 PM
|
|
professional left-winger
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
I had a similar issue, I think it wants you to sign up for something.
I ended up with:
Simple, Progressive, and Sensual
7 Ukiyo-e, -2 Islamic, -4 Impressionist, -3 Cubist, 3 Abstract and -9 Renaissance!
|
05-27-2009, 05:02 PM
|
|
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Goliath, I didn't think that was trolling at all. He's just applying your reasoning to a subject you can relate to.
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.
The fact that some people can't see or appreciate those differences doesn't mean they're not there; and it is a little offensive or at least irritating when people insist that people who do are full of shit.
|
05-27-2009, 05:58 PM
|
|
mostly harmless
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nunya
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Besides, Mondrian didn't use a ruler. He just painted that shit with a brush like everyone else. I will personally pay you money, Shake, if you can reproduce 'Composition in Black and White, With Double Lines' as Mondrian did it: on a 2' by 2' canvas using only black and white oil paints.
|
So what if I was able to reproduce that, even using a ruler? Would you know if I didn't tell you otherwise? I don't want to rehash the old debate. I agree it's more a matter of taste, and I wouldn't pay $9.25 for the o.p. piece, because I don't really care for it. That someone was willing and able to pay that much for it, is great for them. If they're happy with it, then fine.
Quote:
Even by your own "talent = what's hard to do" standards you might find Mondrian is way ahead of where you placed him.
|
OK, I can respect that he allegedly (you didn't see him do it, did you?) created this without a ruler. I also know there are other ways of getting a straight line like that.
I guess what I really have a problem with is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
It's not the intrinsic nature of the item that sets the price.
|
No, it's marketing, for lack of a better term.
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?
|
05-27-2009, 06:04 PM
|
|
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake
I guess what I really have a problem with is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
It's not the intrinsic nature of the item that sets the price.
|
No, it's marketing, for lack of a better term.
|
How is that different from the pricing of traditional art, or of any other collectible?
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
|
05-27-2009, 06:22 PM
|
God Made Me A Skeptic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
Sure, but the same is true of any question of composition. Composition matters in art, and good composition looks better than bad composition. Imagine that you take a bunch of very high-quality pictures of people, and stamp them onto an image. They're not all the same, but the layout and composition you choose in where you stamp them can make one picture with the same ten people in it look good, and another look bad.
That same difference exists between two paintings of a bunch of rectangles.
|
Yes, I understand that if you take some rectangles in a painting and rearrange them, you'll get another painting full of rectangles. I get that. What I'm trying to say is that I find paintings that consist of rectangles to be utterly boring and worthless.
Ah, it's just like old times! Torrent of flames in response in 3....2....1...
|
My observation is that there are some which I think are boring and worthless, and some which I find interesting. The relation between the two sets is precisely the relation between the sets of representational paintings I find boring and worthless and representational paintings I find interesting.
If it doesn't work well for you, that's fine. It's personal taste.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
|
05-27-2009, 07:56 PM
|
|
professional left-winger
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake
OK, I can respect that he allegedly (you didn't see him do it, did you?) created this without a ruler. I also know there are other ways of getting a straight line like that.
|
does it really matter whether or not he used a ruler?
Quote:
I guess what I really have a problem with is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
It's not the intrinsic nature of the item that sets the price.
|
No, it's marketing, for lack of a better term.
|
Like it or not, in the end, marketing is what sells anything, really. Many artists find that part of the business really difficult. Other artists are great at marketing, and make OK money at it.
The paintings that fetch millions are usually done by artists that are dead.
|
05-27-2009, 08:27 PM
|
|
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake
Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Besides, Mondrian didn't use a ruler. He just painted that shit with a brush like everyone else. I will personally pay you money, Shake, if you can reproduce 'Composition in Black and White, With Double Lines' as Mondrian did it: on a 2' by 2' canvas using only black and white oil paints.
|
So what if I was able to reproduce that, even using a ruler? Would you know if I didn't tell you otherwise? I don't want to rehash the old debate. I agree it's more a matter of taste, and I wouldn't pay $9.25 for the o.p. piece, because I don't really care for it. That someone was willing and able to pay that much for it, is great for them. If they're happy with it, then fine.
|
If you didn't want to rehash the old debate, why did you start the thread? Why not just write this off as one of those things you don't get?
If I started a thread every time I saw a story about something I didn't get, this would be the most active forum on the whole internets. Obviously, there's something more to it than, "Here is a phenomenon that I don't really understand." Normally, when someone brings something like that up, it means they're either interested in understanding it, or they're making some other point.
The fact that you don't want to start a debate would indicate that you're not interested in understanding it. So what is your point? Obviously, your point is that you consider the painting in the OP, and by extension, other 'modern art' to be lacking value. Don't act surprised or disappointed that people are debating you on that. There's a pretty nasty subtext in there, and it's not unreasonable for people to ask you to address it directly and explain yourself. Nobody came knocking at your door demanding you express appreciation for Mondrian.
You brought it up. Obviously, you have a point. So what is that point?
Do you mean to say that everyone who purports to appreciate non-representational art is either deluded or intentionally faking it? Because that is the clear implication, and it might be a little refreshing if someone just came out and said it directly.
So, why do you think modern art lacks value? What about it makes it inherently worthless, or not worth much? Does the value of art lie solely in how much it looks like some concrete object? If so, why bother with painting at all? You can get really high resolution digital cameras for not much money at all. If the value of art lies in faithfully reproducing real things, paint is a terrible medium.
All art, no matter how representational, relies on elements of interpretation--abstraction and idealization. Everything from Mondrian to daVinci to Kinkade.
Or is it the number of man hours and effort required that gives art its value? Should paintings be valued based on the time it took to create them?
Or is it both? A combination of the technical skill in representing real objects, combined with the amount of effort required to do so? If it is, then the most valuable artwork in the world is probably technical illustrations.
Quote:
Quote:
Even by your own "talent = what's hard to do" standards you might find Mondrian is way ahead of where you placed him.
|
OK, I can respect that he allegedly (you didn't see him do it, did you?) created this without a ruler. I also know there are other ways of getting a straight line like that.
|
This is where the "I could have done that," "But you didn't" argument comes in.
First, I doubt you could actually replicate a Mondrian and fool someone who appreciated Mondrian's real work. Maybe you could, but the way you're talking about it makes me think not.
But I will agree that a relatively unskilled painter might be able to pull off a reasonably convincing copy of a Mondrian. They probably woudn't be able to pull off a reasonably convincing 'undiscovered' work, though. That is, it'd take considerably more skill to replicate the nuance of the design elements and execution, rather than simply copying something that already exists.
Thing is, though, it wouldn't take much more skill than that to do a reasonably convincing replica of a representational painting. There are tons of convincing Mona Lisas out there, and it takes a pretty advanced attention to detail and familiarity with the artist's style to pick out the original from the well done fakes. Just like it would with a Mondrian or a Pollock.
So say you could fool someone with your copy of a Mondrian. I could probably fool someone with my copy of, say, a Parrish or a Modigliani. I have known several people who could fool someone with their copy of a Rembrandt. They could have done that. But they didn't.
It's like that joke about the guy who calls a mechanic to fix his car, and the mechanic looks around, bangs something with a hammer, then hands the guy a bill for $600. When the guy objects, saying all he did was hit it with a hammer, the mechanic hands him an itemized bill that says "Hitting with a hammer - $1. Knowing where to hit - $599."
Quote:
I guess what I really have a problem with is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment
It's not the intrinsic nature of the item that sets the price.
|
No, it's marketing, for lack of a better term.
|
Things always derive their monetary value from 'marketing.' That's what buying and selling thing is. The market. Your position is all about marketing, too.
|
05-27-2009, 11:09 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
Quote:
The prices are about collectability and relate to the entire work and status of the artist. Anyone can scribble on a baseball, but the right scribble by the right person on the right ball might sell for a fair bit. It's not the intrinsic nature of the item that sets the price.
|
QFT.
I have found that anything is basically worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
There's no more rhyme or reason than that, and trying to figure it out will make you nuts.
|
05-27-2009, 11:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Modern art ... again
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.
__________________
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. – Steven Colbert
Last edited by Rationalia; 05-28-2009 at 02:24 AM.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 AM.
|
|
|
|