Support NeoGAF

[WyndhamPrice]

itt: pretentious is code for "this made me feel stupid."

 

[Cyan]

I would. If only I were a multi-millionaire. I'm an enormous Francis Bacon fan.

I find his work aesthetically pleasing, in the sense that it straddles an interesting line between the figurative and the abstract. Bacon's a "painterly" painter who also uses the techniques of the cubists. I find his figures (often in triptychs, often in cages) to be both full of ominous foreboding and yet sympathetic.

Bacon's works always sell for a ton of money, in part because he's a painter who brings both figurative and abstract work to the same painting, which is easier for some people's palates than a pure abstract artist like Pollack or Rothko. There's a gloominess and unpleasantness to his work that some people find a more accurate representation of who we are as people than his contemporaries. He likes to work with triptychs, which make an impressive hanging for the people buying the art, and he's only a decade dead, which means the various works are actually available to purchase, unlike other artists they might want to collect (like Goya, who painted in similar territory).

The last best selling painting was Edvard Munch's "The Scream" so I suspect there's just a very hot market for darker, less pleasant work. There's also some history involved in the painting, as it's a study of Lucian Freud, anther well known painter.

For those not interested in art history, let me say that if you read Sandman and like Dave McKean's art, you have -- in a round about way -- Bacon to thank for some of it. McKean was profoundly influenced by Barron Storey, who in turn was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon.

Thank you!

 

[SaskBoy]

At the OP art.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

At the OP art.

you're right. that piece of shit wouldn't know culture even if it was covered in his wife's cuckolded foot sweat.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

itt: pretentious is code for "this made me feel stupid."

It's not that at all. It's a matter of people being incredulous that others enjoy and choose to invest time learning about something they don't.

 

[oatmeal]

If not understanding the art world is cool, consider me Miles Davis.

THAT'S THE GROSSEST THING I'VE HEARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!

LET'S GO!!!

 

[TheTux]

I just don't understand modern art.

 

[Desty]

I am going to shit on a paper and sell it as art.

Funny thing is, there is probably one such art piece in the world that someone thinks is worth a lot of money.

How about a can of artist's shit? This is modern art in a nutshell everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

 

[Devolution]

I already said I've seen such paintings in person. I could "lose myself" in my own farts, but that doesn't give the farts any immanent meaning. If the ONLY meaning a work of art has is on the level of the individual, the artist has done zilch. Given color doesn't even symbolize the same things across cultures, even that level of interpretation is denied.

There is meaning to expanding the boundaries of art. Expanding the conceptual boundaries, physical boundaries and just generally eliciting a response.

To the bolded there is plenty of art that has subjects and history that would be lost on people who don't hold those values, know history or give a shit about those particular aesthetics.

You're trying so hard to be elitist and yet you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Fox318]

I always wonder how much works of art like this are purchased as an investment. Isn't the value of the painting driven up almost exclusively by the bidder? I could spend $400,000 on a painting and for the most part that value usually goes up based on currency inflation. If I were to sell that painting again at auction wouldn't I set a sell floor at $400,000?

Couldn't people make a profit by intentionally driving the price up for works of art and later reselling it at what the market precepts is a good investment of money?

Even if it was revealed to be a scam often the story behind the item can drive the price up. Look at the Gretzky T206 Wagner card. Nobody who has bought and sold it has ever lost money on it.

 

[Lazyslob]

I'm preeeeeeetty sure that painting is upside down.

 

[tino]

I'd say Bacon's work is fairly traditional. That's why I'm a bit surprised by some of the reactions in this topic.

I could see why someone wouldn't be impressed by say Pollock or Hirst, but Bacon should be appealing even to the 'my daughter could do that' crowd.

Yeah the painting above you is straight up horror movie poster material, there is nothing non-mainstream about it.

 

[jett]

Fairly certain I will never understand the value people place in this shit.

 

[byropoint]

Haha, I love the inevitable shitstorm and art bashing after someone posts a rothko painting on the internets, art is one of my favourite things to talk and read about, it's fascinating I think. Also, Fracis Bacon is great

 

[GodParticle]

Ok, that balloon dog is fucking awesome haha

 

[Devolution]

Fairly certain I will never understand the value people place in this shit.

You're on a video game forum.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

There is meaning to expanding the boundaries of art. Expanding the conceptual boundaries, physical boundaries and just generally eliciting a response.

Expanding WHAT boundaries? "Oh, you don't HAVE to have subjects, you can just drip paint on a canvas or paint a few solid fields of color!" Well, fucking duh. There's a reason such a thing wasn't done earlier in art history - because it's silly, and bullshit, and would have been ridiculed. All folk like Pollock and Rothko did was jump on a historical bandwagon rolling toward increased abstraction, but they didn't have the skill, talent, or vision to actually use abstraction in a pointed, purposive way. They were mediocre figurative painters who got lucky in finding a historical zeitgeist that they could milk even with a middling level of skill.

Literally anything can elicit a response, but the difference is that artists (great ones, at least) communicate things of specificity, depth, and import. The only thing people like Pollock and Rothko were "expanding" were their own egos, and the egos (and bank accounts) of critics and "experts" who could use the fact that they "get it" as a way to preen.

But beside that, literally everything you're trying to defend the paintings as "meaning" are things external to the work, itself. When people actually TRY to defend, say, Pollock, they foist inane BS like that "fractal" video posted earlier, wherein people recreate Pollock's paintings with a tube on a string and somehow don't see anything amiss in that fact, wherein patterns that are manifestly different at different levels of magnification (and which would likely be mathematically incomprehensible gibberish, if analyzed) are somehow said to be expressing the fundamental laws of nature. The paintings' "meaning" or import exists ONLY for individual viewers, but there is literally no way to mount a defense of any kind of objectivity (i.e. a defense predicated on the art object, itself, without bringing in a lot of intellectual empty "theory" - which is pretty much always BS when considered in the context of art, as one of great art's advantages is the way it cuts through any pre-fabricated ideas about what the world is, or how it should be thought of - or sociocultural exculpation).

To the bolded there is plenty of art that has subjects and history that would be lost on people who don't hold those values, know history or give a shit about those particular aesthetics.

Any art worth anything, in a larger sense, has immanence that transcends time and place. You don't have to know anything about Greek culture to pick up that Greek plays and poetry often touch on themes of familial conflict (however stretched), fate, the nature of heroism, and other themes universal to many societies. Beowulf is a fun read even if you don't understand Scandanavian psychology of the Middle Ages or can't articulate why an epic touching on their mythology is written in Old English. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is beautiful, and touching, regardless of whether or not you're familiar with Arthurian lore or the conventions of Middle English poetics. You don't have to know Christian mythology to appreciate Caravaggio. Beethoven's symphonies sound internationally, regardless of local musical customs and forms. You need not be familiar with World War I to enjoy Paths of Glory. Etc. Might such external knowledge increase your appreciation? Sure, but if such external trappings are REQUIRED for the work itself to have ANY kind of meaning or import, the artist simply has not done their job - or any kind of job, in the case of folk like Rothko or Pollock, whose work required so little skill to make that they are a boon to art forgers the world over. The thing that differentiates artists of consequence from hacks and frauds is that they tap into things that transcend the little fragment of history they're allotted to occupy. In a sense, Pollock and Rothko "did" that, but they did so by putting colors - things that will INEVITABLY produce some kind of response, for the human body is physiologically wired to react to colors, given that, y'know, they're a major factor of perception - in a basically formless melange on large canvases. They are the product of hype and celebrity, stereotypical "tortured artists" whose "mad genius" is simply "beyond" us plebs. They are as literal an embodiment of the whole Emperor's New Clothes parable as I can imagine, and even someone like Kinkade, a painter of greeting card art, had the common courtesy to give his audience SOMETHING, instead of expecting them to do all the heavy work by requiring 100% imbuement of the self to invest his paintings with any kind of deeper anything.

You're trying so hard to be elitist and yet you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

No, I know what I'm talking about. And I know what you're talking about.

 

[Coreda]

Expanding WHAT boundaries? "Oh, you don't HAVE to have subjects, you can just drip paint on a canvas or paint a few solid fields of color!" Well, fucking duh. There's a reason such a thing wasn't done earlier in art history - because it's silly, and bullshit, and would have been ridiculed. All folk like Pollock and Rothko did was jump on a historical bandwagon rolling toward increased abstraction, but they didn't have the skill, talent, or vision to actually use abstraction in a pointed, purposive way. They were mediocre figurative painters who got lucky in finding a historical zeitgeist that they could milk even with a middling level of skill.

I feel like pulling a "u mad bro"

Spoiler

jk

. Let's be honest, most modern things we love would likely have been ridiculed in earlier history. It has already happened time and time again in art itself over the centuries. We may as well all be told to only listen to classical music as the composers and musicians playing are the most skilled.

I think some of Pollock's work is wonderful, as I think Titian's work is wonderful. Just because they are different styles doesn't affect the quality of the work - nor does it matter how long it took either to paint their work.

What an artist's motivation is, how they work, or what they believe matters little. The end result is - whether it's left unappreciated for years or not. If an artist also happened to promote themselves and make money from their work, good for them.

As for the common opinion of "it's abstract, therefore it's stupid", I've seen so many works by artists attempting to make similar art and most of the time it doesn't look great. So the idea that anyone can do it is correct, just not as well as some. Names don't matter, either, I may love something very few others have heard of.

It seems the obstacle to appreciating a lot of such work, and the general negativity towards it, is the auction/valued price of certain famous pieces - or perhaps even the praise a piece may have by some. Personally I couldn't care less how much someone else paid for an artwork, it doesn't affect my opinion of the art (whether good or bad). People have different tastes, and if I had the money I'd be buying works I love, too.

 

[jett]

You're on a video game forum.

You'll have a a point when video game costs $142.4 millions.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Ugly, not even worth a fiver.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

You'll have a a point when video game costs $142.4 millions.

Goes to show rarity creates a ridiculous price.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that art is seen as another form of investment, while not all pieces go for millions, there are those that are bought with the intention of reselling at a later date. Also surprised no one has mentioned Banksy, one of the most controversial artist around today. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/10/14/234023611/collectible-art-at-street-prices-banksy-sells-pieces-for-60

Anyways, it's really all subjective. Yes, skill, knowledge, and craftsmanship can be measured but only to a point, from there on it's up to the viewer to decide how the take in the piece of art.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

What an artist's motivation is, how they work, or what they believe matters little. The end result is - whether it's left unappreciated for years or not. If an artist also happened to promote themselves and make money from their work, good for them.

This is what I am arguing - damn the names, damn the "theory", damn the critics! What matters is the art - what it communicates to the percipient, and how it uses the techniques of its medium to do so. And, I'm sorry, but the physiological sensation of "seeing red", or "seeing splotches", and whatever purely subjective reaction comes of that - overwhelming passion and love, anger, disgust, boredom - are, at best, a minor form of communication, for the works are - considered unto themselves - nigh meaningless on a pretty fundamental level, offering zero communication of any objectivity and transferability. The artists haven't really done anything, and any layperson can create works whose basic value and communication is the same, even if - for whatever reason - you do not "feel" as much. There are any number of online quizzes wherein you can test whether or not you can even tell the difference between famous AbEx artists and, say, smeared pigeon shit, or a four-year-old playing with paints. In the ABSENCE of the intentional fallacy, or of the preconceived bias that "emotion" or "experience" are what art is fundamentally about, rather than communication via skillful expression, such works stand out for what they are.

Edit: Anyway, that's it for me. I have nothing left to say, and frankly, I'd rather not be insulted as "closed-minded" or "clueless" for pointing out that splotches are splotches, red fields are red fields, and that anybody arguing that these things are meaningful because they may vaguely resemble fractals, if you squint and don't actually consider that statement, looks like a living embodiment of Poe's Law, to me.

 

[ElbowRocket]

Its all about status

Its that simple

The owner who bought this pretentious piece of art did it just to show he can

Another example would be in Dubai where the most prestigious car number plate "Dubai 1" goes for 50mil - all that money just for status

 

[Fox318]

You'll have a a point when video game costs $142.4 millions.

If all of the Swordquest contest items still existed then I think they would have the most value of any video game item.

Too bad one of the winners melted down the sword...

 

[Phat Michael]

Its all about status

Its that simple

The owner who bought this pretentious piece of art did it just to show he can

Another example would be in Dubai where the most prestigious car number plate "Dubai 1" goes for 50mil - all that money just for status

Your example is completely wrong. The plate you mentioned is "A 1" and is owned by sheikh Mohammed. At least give non made up examples.

The plate you are talking about is the Abu Dhabi plate "1" which went for 52 million dhs or approx 15 million usd in 2008.

 

[Messofanego]

I knew Silent Hill Downpour box art reminded me of something...

Japanese cover by Masahiro Ito

Head VI

Not surprised Ito cites Francis Bacon as his favourite artist.

 

[siddx]

I don't really get it either so I asked my artist sister and this is what she said to me, so I'll defer to her knowledge of art and trust what she says.

People will always pay ridiculous amounts of money for prestige. Rothko is a big name and therefore, his work comes with a big price. Plus you have to remember that these works of art (minus Koonz) are limited. There wont ever be more then what we have. Price is always connected to quantity. Bottom line people will pay millions to own a famous painter's work.
Rothko and Koonz had specific reasons for making the art work they did. Koonz was brilliant enough to find a way to become a famous artist without ever having to actually make a piece of art. Rothko was seeking balance and questioning what pleases the eye and what doesn't. Essentially he was exploring aesthetics.

 

[God Dayumm]

$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.

I think this a kinda ugly Rothko. The one everyone liked in that other thread was a cherry colored one that pleased the eye

 

[Messofanego]

I'm going to try to dig up a good article I read a while back about "modern art" and why it's bullshit.

edit: Not the one I'm looking for, but this is funny. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/im-sick-of-pretending-i-dont-get-art

Horsewoman, really? This Glen Coco sounds very annoying, from the second response article: OK, Do It: Teach Me How To "Get" Art. But then serious case of Poe's Law in effect or it could all be a joke if "Glen Coco" is a joke as it's a fictional name from the Mean Girls movie.

"You go Glen Coco!"

 

[Winterfang]

Meanwhile in reality.

<=----- Sells 20 dollar portrait, feels the king of the world.

On topic, the painting is fucking amazing, in mesmerized. It must be incredible to see in person

 

[Monocle]

Expanding WHAT boundaries? "Oh, you don't HAVE to have subjects, you can just drip paint on a canvas or paint a few solid fields of color!" Well, fucking duh. There's a reason such a thing wasn't done earlier in art history - because it's silly, and bullshit, and would have been ridiculed. All folk like Pollock and Rothko did was jump on a historical bandwagon rolling toward increased abstraction, but they didn't have the skill, talent, or vision to actually use abstraction in a pointed, purposive way. They were mediocre figurative painters who got lucky in finding a historical zeitgeist that they could milk even with a middling level of skill.

Literally anything can elicit a response, but the difference is that artists (great ones, at least) communicate things of specificity, depth, and import. The only thing people like Pollock and Rothko were "expanding" were their own egos, and the egos (and bank accounts) of critics and "experts" who could use the fact that they "get it" as a way to preen.

But beside that, literally everything you're trying to defend the paintings as "meaning" are things external to the work, itself. When people actually TRY to defend, say, Pollock, they foist inane BS like that "fractal" video posted earlier, wherein people recreate Pollock's paintings with a tube on a string and somehow don't see anything amiss in that fact, wherein patterns that are manifestly different at different levels of magnification (and which would likely be mathematically incomprehensible gibberish, if analyzed) are somehow said to be expressing the fundamental laws of nature. The paintings' "meaning" or import exists ONLY for individual viewers, but there is literally no way to mount a defense of any kind of objectivity (i.e. a defense predicated on the art object, itself, without bringing in a lot of intellectual empty "theory" - which is pretty much always BS when considered in the context of art, as one of great art's advantages is the way it cuts through any pre-fabricated ideas about what the world is, or how it should be thought of - or sociocultural exculpation).



Any art worth anything, in a larger sense, has immanence that transcends time and place. You don't have to know anything about Greek culture to pick up that Greek plays and poetry often touch on themes of familial conflict (however stretched), fate, the nature of heroism, and other themes universal to many societies. Beowulf is a fun read even if you don't understand Scandanavian psychology of the Middle Ages or can't articulate why an epic touching on their mythology is written in Old English. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is beautiful, and touching, regardless of whether or not you're familiar with Arthurian lore or the conventions of Middle English poetics. You don't have to know Christian mythology to appreciate Caravaggio. Beethoven's symphonies sound internationally, regardless of local musical customs and forms. You need not be familiar with World War I to enjoy Paths of Glory. Etc. Might such external knowledge increase your appreciation? Sure, but if such external trappings are REQUIRED for the work itself to have ANY kind of meaning or import, the artist simply has not done their job - or any kind of job, in the case of folk like Rothko or Pollock, whose work required so little skill to make that they are a boon to art forgers the world over. The thing that differentiates artists of consequence from hacks and frauds is that they tap into things that transcend the little fragment of history they're allotted to occupy. In a sense, Pollock and Rothko "did" that, but they did so by putting colors - things that will INEVITABLY produce some kind of response, for the human body is physiologically wired to react to colors, given that, y'know, they're a major factor of perception - in a basically formless melange on large canvases. They are the product of hype and celebrity, stereotypical "tortured artists" whose "mad genius" is simply "beyond" us plebs. They are as literal an embodiment of the whole Emperor's New Clothes parable as I can imagine, and even someone like Kinkade, a painter of greeting card art, had the common courtesy to give his audience SOMETHING, instead of expecting them to do all the heavy work by requiring 100% imbuement of the self to invest his paintings with any kind of deeper anything.



No, I know what I'm talking about. And I know what you're talking about.

This is what I am arguing - damn the names, damn the "theory", damn the critics! What matters is the art - what it communicates to the percipient, and how it uses the techniques of its medium to do so. And, I'm sorry, but the physiological sensation of "seeing red", or "seeing splotches", and whatever purely subjective reaction comes of that - overwhelming passion and love, anger, disgust, boredom - are, at best, a minor form of communication, for the works are - considered unto themselves - nigh meaningless on a pretty fundamental level, offering zero communication of any objectivity and transferability. The artists haven't really done anything, and any layperson can create works whose basic value and communication is the same, even if - for whatever reason - you do not "feel" as much. There are any number of online quizzes wherein you can test whether or not you can even tell the difference between famous AbEx artists and, say, smeared pigeon shit, or a four-year-old playing with paints. In the ABSENCE of the intentional fallacy, or of the preconceived bias that "emotion" or "experience" are what art is fundamentally about, rather than communication via skillful expression, such works stand out for what they are.

Edit: Anyway, that's it for me. I have nothing left to say, and frankly, I'd rather not be insulted as "closed-minded" or "clueless" for pointing out that splotches are splotches, red fields are red fields, and that anybody arguing that these things are meaningful because they may vaguely resemble fractals, if you squint and don't actually consider that statement, looks like a living embodiment of Poe's Law, to me.

I'm glad at least one person here can pull their head from the bullshit pile long enough to tell it like it is. I mean seriously.

 

[pestul]

Francis Bacon is awesome.

I think a lot of the criticism with modern art stems from the analysis of one piece versus taking an artists' entire collection into consideration. You pick one and it's easily mocked with a 'wtf is this shit?!', but if you go to a gallery and see numerous pieces it usually clicks. I guess some will just never get it though.

 

[Darth Sonik]

Threads like these, make me glad to have been brought up with access to to the BBC. The amount of documentaries on Art, Science, Food, History, Politics, Design, Fashion, Architecture, Music, Film, Biographies, Travel, Nature etc. on mainstream channels, have a real impact on how a society views the world.

A lay audience can have a grounding in art history, art theory, art movements, art materials, restoration, authentication & artists. Of course this doesn't work for everyone, but those who wish to learn how the world we live in ticks can really benefit. I'm aware PBS offers similar things but from what I've seen, don't have the same impact on a culture.

In the last few years the BBC's art documentaries have been amazing, here are only a few of those focused on painting with a little sculpture...

Alastair Sooke with "Modern Masters", "The Worlds Most Expensive Paintings" "Treasures of Ancient Rome".

Andrew Graham-Dixon has many excellent series including "Art of Russia", "Travels with Vasari" & "Art of America"

Dr. James Fox made "British Masters" & "The History of Art in Three Colours".

Waldemar Januszczak "Impressionists Painting and Revolution".

 

[Zaphod]

Anyway, that's it for me. I have nothing left to say, and frankly, I'd rather not be insulted as "closed-minded" or "clueless" for pointing out that splotches are splotches, red fields are red fields, and that anybody arguing that these things are meaningful because they may vaguely resemble fractals, if you squint and don't actually consider that statement, looks like a living embodiment of Poe's Law, to me.

Isn't saying that only your opinion of art is correct, by definition, close minded though? Am I somehow an incorrect person because I enjoyed looking at it?

 

[Tertullian]

But the point of pieces like Yves Klein's Blue isn't to show one's craft. It's a piece that is meant to provoke a specific spiritual and psychological experience, and some exhibition of technical expertise would do nothing to further that goal.

Oh come on. "Provokes a specific spiritual and psychological experience"? The word "spiritual" in that sentence is meaninglessly vague, and the word "psychological" is redundant (what experience is non-psychological?). You're defending this as great art that deserves to be hung in a museum on the grounds that it "provokes a specific experience"? I could go around punching strangers in the testicles and call it performance art, and I would be more consistently producing a stronger "experience" than the blue rectangle.

Great art isn't art that provokes an experience. Great art is art that deserves to provoke an experience. Great art isn't art that makes people feel an emotion. Great art is art that merits an emotion. The blue rectangle merits (and in most cases, produces) nothing but ridicule.

Now look, I'm not entirely against modern art. I already said above that I'm open to the possibility that Jackson Pollock is something special, and I've seen other modern art exhibits that have impressed me. But good lord: blue rectangles and urine-colored toilets and giant balloon animals are terrible art. I have never seen a defense of such crap that comes anywhere close to justifying the praise it gets.

 

[Protag]

we're not gonna get anywhere here, are we?

Then why doesnt the expert share some knowledge? There are open minded people here.

 

[Black Door]

Can't wait for my olly moss to be wotth millions

I'd love for him to be revered as a god in 100 years like people do Mucha and his advertisements

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Then why doesnt the expert share some knowledge? There are open minded people here.

your post contradicts itself.

 

[SuperSah]

$86.8 million dollars. I think someone tried explaining why this is so amazing in another thread but I can't remember the exact post.

HEY! That's my kid's pre-school art project there! D:<

 

[tino]

Then why doesnt the expert share some knowledge? There are open minded people here.

This is my explanation: some time around the 18th century, the definition of art changed. It splitted into popular art and "non popular" modern art. It also slowly changed from a propaganda tool for the royalty to having something to say about the society, and then again to having something to say about the art history itself.

Many people who like to hate on the modern art are not aware of this change of the definition of "contemporary art". IMO you have to know a little bit of the origin of the modern art (around the time before the Impressionism movement). Not knowing it its like trying to jump into a current day Marvel/DC comic book issue without knowing any thing about the history of American super hero comics.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

...
That actually took skill, and hard work.

Is the pursuit of surface realism necessarily tantamount to the expression of deeper meaning though? I think it's an understandable urge to respect clearly evident craft but craft alone does not make great art.

 

[Camp Lo]

That ugly ass shit? SMH

 

[Odrion]

As mentioned in the article here is Jeff Koons’s “Balloon Dog” sold for $58.4 million

That owns.

 

[Ominym]

That certainly is a art.

 

[Acorn]

Huh, figured the record would be bigger that that for some reason.

 

[Dawg]

It's in Dutch, but I'm sure you will understand

 

[maniac-kun]

Modern art is so aweful to look at.

 

[computers putin']

I'm not sure that this is a good line of argument. Much better art than this has sold for much less, and there are many factors at play other than pure artistic merit (whatever that even means). Established artists dealing with things that are abstracted to this level of weirdness probably could spend zero effort farting out something and sell it for exorbitant sums while a no-name off the street would be laughed out of the room.

Perception is absolutely everything here. On a technical level somebody could make a painting that was four blue triangles with slightly blurred edges and it would be about on par with half the stuff in this thread. If you knew that they were creating it in a cynical effort to dupe pretentious art critics, you would probably dismiss it out of hand. If you thought it came from somebody who had poured their soul into this abstract expression of something, you might appreciate it as good art. All art requires interpretation to be meaningful since in the end, there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Abstract art takes it to the utmost extreme, where essentially all of the meaning is created by the viewer and not by the artist. I definitely understand why people think its nonsense.

Agreed. It's all about how you perceive a piece of art. Saying "you can't do it" or "why didn't you think of it" is too dismissive for my tastes.

 

[Servbot24]

I honestly can't tell if the people fawning over Kinkade are being serious. I really hope not.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Modern art = "I could do that" + "Yeah, but you didn't."

Photographs replaced our usual paintings. We painted things and people because we couldn't take pictures of them. Now we can, so art has adjusted into abstract techniques. Deal with it.