Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

Discuss books, film, tv, music, games and all other arts here.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#81  Postby NineOneFour » Apr 23, 2011 10:16 am

Tyrannical wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:Honestly, when one gets to the point that one's political stance is so thorough that it extends to what art you find tasteful or distasteful, it's time to take a step back and re-assess your priorities in life, because something is definitely out of whack.


I had no idea you were such a cultured art aficionado :think:


I sort of am. It's more to the point that I've been where you are and it's not a healthy place to be.

I suppose to a boorish Philistine such as myself it's just where you take a piss :(

Image


It certainly can be either.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#82  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 10:34 am

def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I don't think it should be. Taking your example of film you used in reply to Tyrannical, it's not like watching one scene, instead what you're demanding is that one should watch all of Kurosawa's films in order to understand the "true meaning" of Seven Samurai. I think each work should stand on its own merits, unless it's part of a designed series of works meant to be viewed together.

Compare something like Duchamp's urinal to Turner's The Fighting Temeraire or The Slave Ship. The emotionally evocative and stirring nature of the Turners, and his technical ability to transmit such aesthetics through paint is enough in and of itself. It doesn't need meaning behind it or postmodern analysis for it to be great - it just is great. The same cannot be said of the urinal.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#83  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 10:40 am

Still not art, but certainly more thought provoking than the original.

Image

Art :think:

Image
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#84  Postby Mike_L » Apr 23, 2011 11:52 am

"The Fountain" falls into the category of "found art".
Did Duchamp give due credit to the person who clay-sculpted the master from which that urinal (and presumably 100's of thousands of others) was molded?
The title of the piece relates to the form, and that form was created by someone else. Likewise, whatever meaning the viewer attaches to the piece is very much influenced by the form.... and that form was not created by Duchamp. So that particular artwork (and all other "found art") is the product of a collaborative effort.... one in which the "collaborator" is usually not knowingly involved.

Yes, I know it's all about "context". And if Michelangelo Buonarroti had simply placed a hunk of unworked marble in a church, dispensing with workmanship in favour of "context", then we wouldn't have this today....

Image
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14333
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#85  Postby Mike_L » Apr 23, 2011 12:01 pm

Tyrannical wrote:Still not art, but certainly more thought provoking than the original.

Image

Excellent! :lol:
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14333
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#86  Postby NineOneFour » Apr 23, 2011 12:19 pm

Tyrannical wrote:Still not art, but certainly more thought provoking than the original.

Image

Art :think:

Image


I think both of those are quite clever and qualify as art.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#87  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 23, 2011 12:42 pm

AndreD wrote:
def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I don't think it should be. Taking your example of film you used in reply to Tyrannical, it's not like watching one scene, instead what you're demanding is that one should watch all of Kurosawa's films in order to understand the "true meaning" of Seven Samurai. I think each work should stand on its own merits, unless it's part of a designed series of works meant to be viewed together.


Duchamp's "Fountain" was one of the early works of the Dada movement - to view the work without understanding the Dada movement is like watching a single scene from a movie.

AndreD wrote:Compare something like Duchamp's urinal to Turner's The Fighting Temeraire or The Slave Ship. The emotionally evocative and stirring nature of the Turners, and his technical ability to transmit such aesthetics through paint is enough in and of itself. It doesn't need meaning behind it or postmodern analysis for it to be great - it just is great. The same cannot be said of the urinal.


What do you mean the same cannot be said of the "Fountain"? Without background knowledge or understanding of what those paintings are depicting, they lose all meaning and impact, they aren't even particularly nice to look at. The "Fountain" is great, undeniably it's an incredibly moving piece packed with emotion and meaning - I'd argue that it has more emotion in it than the two paintings that you have mentioned.

People who dislike the ridiculousness of abstract art and the shit that gets pumped through museums just to make some money should love the "Fountain", it embodies everything you're arguing for.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#88  Postby def » Apr 23, 2011 12:49 pm

AndreD wrote:I don't think it should be. Taking your example of film you used in reply to Tyrannical, it's not like watching one scene, instead what you're demanding is that one should watch all of Kurosawa's films in order to understand the "true meaning" of Seven Samurai. I think each work should stand on its own merits, unless it's part of a designed series of works meant to be viewed together.

Compare something like Duchamp's urinal to Turner's The Fighting Temeraire or The Slave Ship. The emotionally evocative and stirring nature of the Turners, and his technical ability to transmit such aesthetics through paint is enough in and of itself. It doesn't need meaning behind it or postmodern analysis for it to be great - it just is great. The same cannot be said of the urinal.

That's fair, my metaphor wasn't quite correct. I was trying to highlight the context necessary to enjoy it.

I don't find it to be a beautiful object, I would much rather stare into a Turner. But I enjoy thinking about and considering something like Fountain. It stimulates in a very different way. It's a different kind of art. One is very sensual, and the other more intellectually stimulating. I like them both.

I think if I focused 100% on aesthetic beauty, it would be like focusing on one group of flavors in my mouth, or the notion of rhythm versus melody in music; European music used to glorify melody, and demonize rhythm. I can't choose one part, I like the whole.

I can wholly agree that Fountain is not really an aesthetically satisfying thing unto itself, in a vacuum (if that's some of what you were saying).
Square Comix on sale! http://gumroad.com/ianm
Square Comix on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SquareComix
User avatar
def
 
Name: LEGO ninja
Posts: 1407
Age: 45
Male

Country: 日本
Japan (jp)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#89  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 12:49 pm

People who dislike the ridiculousness of abstract art and the shit that gets pumped through museums just to make some money should love the "Fountain", it embodies everything you're arguing for.


I do, and most museums I've been to have a line of six replicas of the "Fountain" in a dedicated room.
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#90  Postby ElDiablo » Apr 23, 2011 1:46 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote: Duchamp's "Fountain" was one of the early works of the Dada movement - to view the work without understanding the Dada movement is like watching a single scene from a movie.


People who dislike the ridiculousness of abstract art and the shit that gets pumped through museums just to make some money should love the "Fountain", it embodies everything you're arguing for.

Great points.

If you (in the general sense) want to have a serious discussion about the art that is considered Art, you have to study the period it was created in and what came before it. Take a study of the Impressionists, their art was seen as primitive by the art community at the time. Today those same artists are revered for the walls they broke down. The argument, "any one can do it misses the context that at the time no one was doing it.

Art is not divorced from the culture it's created in: it is an expression of perspective or views, it evolves as we evolve and some artists infuse enough change in the expression to create new genre. Artists like Picasso, Warhol and Pollock changed the artworld's and the public's view of art. In my opinion, it's not a small feat to add a new language to the world.

The whole "a monkey could do it" says nothing about the validty of abstract art.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#91  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 1:53 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
AndreD wrote:
def wrote:
The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I don't think it should be. Taking your example of film you used in reply to Tyrannical, it's not like watching one scene, instead what you're demanding is that one should watch all of Kurosawa's films in order to understand the "true meaning" of Seven Samurai. I think each work should stand on its own merits, unless it's part of a designed series of works meant to be viewed together.


Duchamp's "Fountain" was one of the early works of the Dada movement - to view the work without understanding the Dada movement is like watching a single scene from a movie.

AndreD wrote:Compare something like Duchamp's urinal to Turner's The Fighting Temeraire or The Slave Ship. The emotionally evocative and stirring nature of the Turners, and his technical ability to transmit such aesthetics through paint is enough in and of itself. It doesn't need meaning behind it or postmodern analysis for it to be great - it just is great. The same cannot be said of the urinal.


What do you mean the same cannot be said of the "Fountain"? Without background knowledge or understanding of what those paintings are depicting, they lose all meaning and impact, they aren't even particularly nice to look at. The "Fountain" is great, undeniably it's an incredibly moving piece packed with emotion and meaning - I'd argue that it has more emotion in it than the two paintings that you have mentioned.

People who dislike the ridiculousness of abstract art and the shit that gets pumped through museums just to make some money should love the "Fountain", it embodies everything you're arguing for.


The urinal isn't packed with emotion and meaning at all - it requires an official explanation in order to gain any insight into it, without that it's a fucking urinal. I understand that there was a wider meaning behind it, but that's completely separate from the quality of the art itself.
As for the Turners, most people understand what weather, sea, and ships are; so no additional explanation is required. It doesn't really matter that one of the paintings was a commentary on the slave-trade, the official reason isn't required to enjoy the painting and gain subjective emotional insight into it. Though at least one can see that there are shackled drowning men in the water, which is more than what the urinal gives you about its true meaning. That you don't even find them attractive to look at probably best explains why we're unlikely to change each other's mind.

I guess I just have conservative aesthetics :dunno:.

As an aside, I guess the Dada nuts would count my responses as a win. Afterall, I've had an emotional reaction to it in the end! :lol:
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#92  Postby Goldenmane » Apr 23, 2011 3:23 pm

AndreD wrote:The urinal isn't packed with emotion and meaning at all - it requires an official explanation in order to gain any insight into it, without that it's a fucking urinal.


No it isn't. It's a urinal tipped over. Piss in it, and it pisses straight back on you.

And that's something that's clear to me with only a basic fucking understanding of how urinals are supposed to work. I wouldn't know shit about Dada or whatever it's supposed to be. I can spell it, but that's it. But it is immediately obvious to me that that is one urinal you don't want to piss in. The in-hole and out-holes are reversed.

As an aside, I guess the Dada nuts would count my responses as a win. Afterall, I've had an emotional reaction to it in the end! :lol:


Indeed. Though i know nothing of Dada nuts. Who was Dada?
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#93  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 3:32 pm

Goldenmane wrote:
AndreD wrote:The urinal isn't packed with emotion and meaning at all - it requires an official explanation in order to gain any insight into it, without that it's a fucking urinal.


No it isn't. It's a urinal tipped over. Piss in it, and it pisses straight back on you.

And that's something that's clear to me with only a basic fucking understanding of how urinals are supposed to work. I wouldn't know shit about Dada or whatever it's supposed to be. I can spell it, but that's it. But it is immediately obvious to me that that is one urinal you don't want to piss in. The in-hole and out-holes are reversed.



So what? If it was properly attached to a wall you'd be pissing on your shoes. All its orientation says to me is that it's a way to put it on a pedestal without it falling off.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#94  Postby Mike_L » Apr 23, 2011 4:29 pm

Goldenmane wrote:Who was Dada?


Image

No wait, wrong spelling. :grin:
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14333
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#95  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 4:37 pm

AndreD wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
AndreD wrote:I do enjoy the aesthetics of many of the artworks you posted, especially the aboriginal, pottery, and native American-style examples. Hell, early Greek geometric style is amongst my favourite pottery and it's pretty much nothing more than interesting patterns. It's more the Warhols, the Hirsts, and Malevichs which I dislike - those minimalist abstract shapes and items just don't do anything for me.


Warhol was brilliant! Argh, you're killin' me here, AndreD. It's like saying you like poetry, particularly limericks because they're funny, but you don't think Bukowski or Kerouac were really poets because their stuff doesn't rhyme.. The best part of art is the meaning and ideas behind it, not the splashes of paint or the pretty images.


:grin: I'm not saying these people aren't artists (anyone can be an artist), just that I don't think their work is particularly good so it doesn't appeal to me.
I disagree that all that matters is the meaning behind it. The art should have the potential to evoke significant emotion in the viewer in and of itself and/or be aesthetically pleasing, not merely exist and then have it explained by an associated note, in my opinion.
To follow your analogy, I do think that poetry should follow certain rules, like having a meter - I can't stand that free verse shit. Like striking random keys on a piano might be thought of as music, it isn't pleasant to listen to and as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't be missed if no one ever did it again.

If one wishes to solely express their ideas without incorporating a relatively superior aesthetic quality then I think they should write prose, it's the most suitable format for expressing ideas whilst aesthetics plays a secondary role.



Yours is just like Tyrannical's--a matter of taste.

Like what you like, dislike what you dislike. Extend effort where you wish to extend effort. Have an opinion--just don't ever consider that your opinion has as much merit as that of someone who actually knows something of the subject and does choose to extend the effort to know about it.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#96  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 4:41 pm

def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


    :this: very succinctly said. :clap:
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#97  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 4:43 pm

def wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:
def wrote:
The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I could put a picture of Duchamp in the urinal, and then film myself pissing into it :ask:
Perhaps I've underestimated the power of modern art :think:

You could do that, but it wouldn't mean anything. I don't care to see some anonymous Internet guy piss on a photo.
Learn about Duchamp, learn about who he was and what he did, and then come back and tell us there's no visceral feeling from that piece.

It's not like Duchamp hadn't made technically incredibly beautiful pieces before and after. Those pieces put the urinal in context. That context makes it a tremendous piece.

Your interpretation of the piece is akin to watching a single pivotal scene of a movie, and saying it had no weight because you didn't see the scenes before and after. It's fair for you to have your opinion, everybody's got one, but it's not a particularly enlightening one. You're not even trying to get it. Frankly it's not even one pleasant to engage.

In my first post in the thread, I fully acknowledged that the current gallery/museum system is (I forget the words I used) somewhat of a fraud, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your debate style.


Tyrannical would refuse to have a visceral feeling just out of spite.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#98  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 4:46 pm

tuco wrote:So .. what purpose does it have to call something art, pseudo-art and no-art? What is it good for?

I am not sure about others - and I do admit to being a boor, heck I am even damn proud to be one -, but I do not really care how something is labeled, what I care is how I feel when experiencing that something.

So .. is this labeling to tell me how should I feel
?


Discussion.
Because people like to talk about stuff and share opinions about stuff.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#99  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 4:51 pm

AndreD wrote:
def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I don't think it should be. Taking your example of film you used in reply to Tyrannical, it's not like watching one scene, instead what you're demanding is that one should watch all of Kurosawa's films in order to understand the "true meaning" of Seven Samurai. I think each work should stand on its own merits, unless it's part of a designed series of works meant to be viewed together.
The only response to this revelation is....So?



Compare something like Duchamp's urinal to Turner's The Fighting Temeraire or The Slave Ship. The emotionally evocative and stirring nature of the Turners, and his technical ability to transmit such aesthetics through paint is enough in and of itself. It doesn't need meaning behind it or postmodern analysis for it to be great - it just is great. The same cannot be said of the urinal.

No, you can't say the same about Duchamp's urinal for yourself. The limits that you seem to want to be in place for everyone; limits under which you--and only you--labor. So what?
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#100  Postby tuco » Apr 23, 2011 4:54 pm

Gallstones wrote:
tuco wrote:So .. what purpose does it have to call something art, pseudo-art and no-art? What is it good for?

I am not sure about others - and I do admit to being a boor, heck I am even damn proud to be one -, but I do not really care how something is labeled, what I care is how I feel when experiencing that something.

So .. is this labeling to tell me how should I feel
?


Discussion.
Because people like to talk about stuff and share opinions about stuff.


Perhaps. Perhaps it is also to serve those who profit from it. I mean, what is the point of being an artist, to make a living as one, and not to have own work recognized as art? Possibly someone abnormal who cares not for money, fame, social status and appreciation, and creates just because .. it is fun.
tuco
 
Posts: 15550

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest