Support NeoGAF

[Aquamarine]

So do something different.

I think it's pretentious because modern art is full of these types of examples.

You have otherwise-worthless, extremely simplistic works get hyped up, sold for exorbitant amounts of money, shown off in museums as the pinnacle of modern art greatness, bragged about by enthusiastic curators and art critics who say he "details the absolutely brilliant, intricate nuances of the cascading blue."...just because it was made by some guy in the late 1890s who did something new. Let's not talk about the fact that it's just a pathetically simple solid-blue colour. Oh no...it's supposed to be worth SO much more than that.

 

[Jitters]

I dislike quite a lot of different art forms now that you bring it up.

 

[Confidence Man]

That's where the context / history / reputation argument is brought back in.

I could make a painting that's just a solid blue colour right now. But I go to the museum and offer it they'll reject it because I'm a nobody who didn't pioneer the "painting solid blue colour avant-garde radicalism" genre.

The merits of the piece are thrown out of the window. One solid blue colour piece is worth $100,000 because it was made in the late 1800s by super famous artist #235, and my nearly-identical solid blue colour piece is worth nothing because "it's just a mere imitator."

Why can't I go and get a baseball at the store right now and sell it to a collector? It's just as good as any other baseball.

 

[nailbombxx]

You don't refuse to believe people genuinely like them, you just assume they've been deceived into liking and paying too much for them, which is a pretty condescending attitude to have when your opening argument is "it's pretentious." You don't like these paintings because they don't fit into your notion of what "legitimate art" is because they're just "solid colors." Which is kind of a pretentious attitude, when you think about it.

No, there is nothing pretentious about displaying standards. A pretentious attitude would be to faun over things that destruct any sort of convention just for the sake of doing so while not having any other redeeming qualities.

 

[potam]

Most people aren't self-absorbed enough to think that splattering some paint on canvas is worth anyone's time or money.

 

[dekline]

Performance art.

Performance art...

Performance Art.

Performance art.

 

[MidnightCowboy]

Most people aren't self-absorbed enough to think that splattering some paint on canvas is worth anyone's time or money.

Jackson Pollock is awesome.

 

[Aquamarine]

Performance art.

 

[Raptomex]

Anime. According to everyone I talk to that's too broad since there's SO many different kinds. I don't see the difference. So I'm just going to say Japanese cartoons/animations. Nothing really against it, it's just not for me.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Well yes, of course. Modern art is all about turning everything on its head! The ones calling it pretentious are actually the pretentious ones! The fact that you hate it is what gives it so much meaning to everyone else! The fact that it took no talent to create is a well-crafted statement about the value of taking the time to create anything!

I think it's pretentious because modern art is full of these types of examples.

You have otherwise-worthless, extremely simplistic works get hyped up, sold for exorbitant amounts of money, shown off in museums as the pinnacle of modern art greatness, bragged about by enthusiastic curators and art critics who say he "details the absolutely brilliant, intricate nuances of the cascading blue."...just because it was made by some guy in the late 1890s who did something new. Let's not talk about the fact that it's just a pathetically simple solid-blue colour. Oh no...it's supposed to be worth SO much more than that.

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of most modern art. It just irritates me that the only argument you ever see against modern art is either "it's pretentious" or "it's easy," and the only examples people can come up with are fucking Piet Mondrian paintings. Newsflash: his body of work does not speak for the entirety of modern art, nor does it even come close to representing it visually. The number of modern artists who do the solid-colors or shapes-n-squares thing pales is dwarfed by the amount of other styles under the modern umbrella.

Oh shit! Van Gogh! Fuck that lazy untalented asshole. I bet the whole cutting-his-ear off thing was some performance art bullshit too.

Fuck you, Matise! I bet you never even looked at a Loomis book!

Look at this Russian asshole. I bet he knocked this out over a weekend or something.

You fucking tit, Chagall. Have you ever seen a Rembrandt? Jesus wasn't green. 0/10 see me after class.

You dipshit, Giorgio. Everyone can tell you just ripped off the Japanese cover of ICO.

No, there is nothing pretentious about displaying standards. A pretentious attitude would be to faun over things that destruct any sort of convention just for the sake of doing so while not having any other redeeming qualities.

You should direct your anger at dadaism.

 

[Plywood]

Interior Semiotics.

 

[K.Sabot]

One more for performance art.

At least I can get something out of abstract physical art, like a wallpaper.

 

[potam]

Jackson Pollock is awesome.

Sure, some of his stuff is interesting looking, but his paint splatter stuff is the definition of "I could do that if I wanted to." There's no way he looks at a blank canvas and envisions what the final product will look like exactly. It's the powerful art collectors and dealers who have dictated that his work is special and worth millions, not his skills.

 

[UncleSporky]

Why can't I go and get a baseball at the store right now and sell it to a collector? It's just as good as any other baseball.

What do you mean, you can't? Of course you can. You just need to be that special kind of imaginative, persistent asshole who can build a story around nothing, and tell it to enough of the right people to make it news.

"Man buys ordinary baseball, uses it to play one game with his son and signs it 'the American people,' highlighting the importance of the country's average citizen in the proliferation of sport and memorabilia in our nation's historical DNA."

That's a few hundred thousand, right there.

Connections, man. Get some people to spread your story and you can probably do this with every piece of sport equipment out there.

 

[Aquamarine]

Why can't I go and get a baseball at the store right now and sell it to a collector? It's just as good as any other baseball.

Signed baseballs aren't displayed in galleries as "art."

 

[XANDER CAGE]

What do you mean, you can't? Of course you can. You just need to be that special kind of imaginative, persistent asshole who can build a story around nothing, and tell it to enough of the right people to make it news.

"Man buys ordinary baseball, uses it to play one game with his son and signs it 'the American people,' highlighting the importance of the country's average citizen in the proliferation of sport and memorabilia in our nation's historical DNA."

That's a few hundred thousand, right there.

Connections, man. Get some people to spread your story and you can probably do this with every piece of sport equipment out there.

That'd probably fall more under postmodern art, but nice try.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Most people aren't self-absorbed enough to think that splattering some paint on canvas is worth anyone's time or money.

Thats a really awful thing to say. There is a lot of human playfulness on display in those paint splatters. You then go on to imply the only reason anyone would do something like that is for money and attention which is a position of absolute ugliness.

You wanna talk about self-absorption, lets talk about the guy who just assumes artists creating art are self-serving, devious assholes only in it for the money and fame. How dare they? What makes them so important? Wheres my parade? Yes, you see through it all, observant one.

I'm literally flipping you off right now.

 

[nailbombxx]

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of most modern art. It just irritates me that the only argument you ever see against modern art is either "it's pretentious" or "it's easy," and the only examples people can come up with are fucking Piet Mondrian paintings. Newsflash: his body of work does not speak for the entirety of modern art, nor does it even come close to representing it visually. The number of modern artists who do the solid-colors or shapes-n-squares thing pales is dwarfed by the amount of other styles under the modern umbrella.

You're not really helping your argument, as most of your examples show the lacking of skill that most people associate with modern art, which soon became standard.

Contrast these paintings with academic artists like Bouguereau who were geniuses of anatomy, figure, form, and the manipulation of the material... and then you realize that their only redeeming quality is their novelty, which stopped being impressive and interesting long ago.

 

[UncleSporky]

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of most modern art. It just irritates me that the only argument you ever see against modern art is either "it's pretentious" or "it's easy," and the only examples people can come up with are fucking Piet Mondrian paintings. Newsflash: his body of work does not speak for the entirety of modern art, nor does it even come close to representing it visually. The number of modern artists who do the solid-colors or shapes-n-squares thing pales is dwarfed by the amount of other styles under the modern umbrella.

It's pretty obvious that nobody is talking about those guys. You sure went to a lot of effort just to say you disagree because of semantics, because people are using one wrong word.

When people say they hate no-talent modern art, they aren't saying that all modern art takes no talent to create, they're saying they hate the specific modern art that takes no talent to create.

That'd probably fall more under postmodern art, but nice try.

See, you're still doing it. What a waste. I didn't even classify the baseball under any sort of artistic banner.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

You're not really helping your argument, as most of your examples show the lacking of skill that most people associate with modern art, which soon became standard.

Contrast these paintings with academic artists like Bouguereau who were geniuses of anatomy, figure, form, and the manipulation of the material... and then you realize that their only redeeming quality is their novelty, which stopped being impressive and interesting long ago.

Matise is probably the only selection out of what I posted who even remotely classifies as "lacking skill," and if you want to argue against the rest of his body of work be my fucking guest. If you're seriously arguing that Giorgio Chirico's art is a novelty I don't really know what to tell you.

Bouguereau's work is absolutely incredible but art would be pretty fucking boring if traditionalist classical art was the only standard we judged things by.

It's pretty obvious that nobody is talking about those guys. You sure went to a lot of effort just to say you disagree because of semantics, because people are using one wrong word.

When people say they hate no-talent modern art, they aren't saying that all modern art takes no talent to create, they're saying they hate the specific modern art that takes no talent to create.

See, you're still doing it. What a waste. I didn't even classify the baseball under any sort of artistic banner.

It's not semantics. People are making broad statements about an entire school of art based pretty much on Piet Mondrian and Jackson Pollock, which is about as informed as yelling "I hate movies!" because you didn't enjoy Titanic or Mullholland Drive.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Performance art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02W2QMLHUQ

 

[GloveSlap]

The lack of focus on formal/technical qualities has brought down the standard of art.

Contemporary/modern sculpture.



This was installed a year or so ago on my campus. It disappoints me every time I walk by it.

This one isn't THAT bad, but I hate allot of this stuff too.

Tons of them seem to focus on making a small everyday object really big. Wow, a giant stapler!. Well done!

 

[dekline]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02W2QMLHUQ

...It's like a bad trip.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

You're not really helping your argument, as most of your examples show the lacking of skill that most people associate with modern art, which soon became standard.

Contrast these paintings with academic artists like Bouguereau who were geniuses of anatomy, figure, form, and the manipulation of the material... and then you realize that their only redeeming quality is their novelty, which stopped being impressive and interesting long ago.

Wow that is a boring painting.

I prefer every single modern art piece posted in this thread to that. I don't care for their knowledge of anatomy or anything else you posted.

 

[Confidence Man]

Signed baseballs aren't displayed in galleries as "art."

The semantics are irrelevant. Your argument was that you personally can't create a replica of a painting and have it recognized as having the same significance as something like a Barnett Newman. The argument is flawed in that you can't evaluate the worth or significance of an artwork outside of "context / history / reputation" any more than you can a baseball. There is no intrinsic value outside of it's functionality.

 

[HappyBivouac]

Spoken Word can be good. All art has good and terrible examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vmHjJ7LYE

I still would rather have just read that from a page in a book.

Also, "a banal exploration of the subject matter at best" seems about right.

 

[ronito]

Van Gogh and Matisse = modern art. You heard it here!

 

[nailbombxx]

Matise is probably the only selection out of what I posted who even remotely classifies as "lacking skill," and if you want to argue against the rest of his body of work be my fucking guest. If you're seriously arguing that Giorgio Chirico's art is a novelty I don't really know what to tell you.

My point is that beginning with impressionism, while they had some neat ideas, the movements onward there felt less and less need for any sort of artistic integrity or precision, the standards began to degrade. Of course there were some exceptions especially in the realm of Surrealism.

Bouguereau's work is absolutely incredible but art would be pretty fucking boring if traditionalist classical art was the only standard we judged things by.

Absolutely, I agree. I judge art on the combination of skill, style and the sublimity of the image. For example, Bouguereau is one of the artists who displayed absolute masterful talent yet still having dreamy and fantastic images. He is sort of a bridge between neoclassical and romanticism.

I just feel that most impressionism and modern art lack this amount of talent that could only be displayed by masters. Lowering the standards for quality of art never should have been the path taken, considering there was 500 years building it up to that point before modern art tore it down.

EDIT:

Wow that is a boring painting.

 

[UncleSporky]

It's not semantics. People are making broad statements about an entire school of art based pretty much on Piet Mondrian and Jackson Pollock, which is about as informed as yelling "I hate movies!" because you didn't enjoy Titanic or Mullholland Drive.

Actually people are mostly saying "I hate this bed," "I hate this display of big interlocking rings," and "I hate Yoko Ono screaming." It's pretty much exactly like saying "I hate Titanic" or "I hate Mullholland Drive."

But sure, you win. Nobody can say they dislike modern art anymore. Let's invent a new word for what we actually dislike. We'll call it likely-easy-to-create-but-built-up-as-something-more-than-it-really-is-and-seemingly-overvalued-overly-deconstructive-and-probably-damaging-to-other-forms-of-art art. Artworks falling under this banner are specified by the people who decide they belong there, so you don't get to say "nuh uh you're also unfairly criticizing such-and-such actually good piece." We will use this term when discussing art in the future so it doesn't offend your sensibilities.

 

[bishopp35]

Matise is probably the only selection out of what I posted who even remotely classifies as "lacking skill," and if you want to argue against the rest of his body of work be my fucking guest. If you're seriously arguing that Giorgio Chirico's art is a novelty I don't really know what to tell you.

Bouguereau's work is absolutely incredible but art would be pretty fucking boring if traditionalist classical art was the only standard we judged things by.

I think that part of the frustration with modern art is defining exactly what is the standard for modern art ? With Van Gogh, someone can make an argument why his use of color is is genial , but I fell like with modern art we don't get any metric of comparison.

 

[potam]

Thats a really awful thing to say. There is a lot of human playfulness on display in those paint splatters. You then go on to imply the only reason anyone would do something like that is for money and attention which is a position of absolute ugliness.

You wanna talk about self-absorption, lets talk about the guy who just assumes artists creating art are self-serving, devious assholes only in it for the money and fame. How dare they? What makes them so important? Wheres my parade? Yes, you see through it all, observant one.

I'm literally flipping you off right now.

I literally don't care. I guess it's unfair to place the blame solely on the artists, since it's the dealers and collectors who drive up the prices to insane heights.

btw, if they aren't doing it for money and fame, why don't they do it anonymously and give it away?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Actually people are mostly saying "I hate this bed," "I hate this display of big interlocking rings," and "I hate Yoko Ono screaming." It's pretty much exactly like saying "I hate Titanic" or "I hate Mullholland Drive."

But sure, you win. Nobody can say they dislike modern art anymore. Let's invent a new word for what we actually dislike. We'll call it likely-easy-to-create-but-built-up-as-something-more-than-it-really-is-and-seemingly-overvalued-overly-deconstructive-and-probably-damaging-to-other-forms-of-art art. Artworks falling under this banner are specified by the people who decide they belong there, so you don't get to say "nuh uh you're also unfairly criticizing such-and-such actually good piece." We will use this term when discussing art in the future so it doesn't offend your sensibilities.

I don't think you have much room to talk about my offended sensibilities, considering you entered this thread specifically to sarcastically deride "modern art" with really weird accusations. It seems like you're way more offended about the mere existence of paintings you don't like.

People talk in specifics about things they love, and in general about things they have nothing but cursory knowledge of. If someone said they hated rock music because they heard the Arcade Fire one time and didn't like them, we'd be having the same conversation.

 

[Aquamarine]

The semantics are irrelevant. Your argument was that you personally can't create a replica of a painting and have it recognized as having the same significance as something like a Barnett Newman. The argument is flawed in that you can't evaluate the worth or significance of an artwork outside of "context / history / reputation" any more than you can a baseball. There is no intrinsic value outside of it's functionality.

The distinction here is "art."

In this context we have four objects:

- Bouguereau's Dante and Virgil in Hell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...5-1905)_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg
- A otherwise worthless solid blue colour painting shown at the MoMA http://i.imgur.com/kZIOUT6.jpg

- A baseball signed by Babe Ruth
- An ordinary baseball


+ Dante and Virgil in Hell is worth $300,000 and is shown in a museum as art. In particular, it's considered "one of the finest examples of Realism."
+ XYZ famous artist pioneers a new genre of art with a painting that's nothing but a solid blue colour...it's worth $300,000 and is shown in the MoMA as art. In particular, it's considered "one of the finest examples of modern art"

+ I could paint something similar to Dante and Virgil in Hell. It takes me 1,000 hours to create after years of studying classical art. People would admire it for its merits, that is, it's technically gorgeous, shows a strong command of form and beauty, it took an incredible amount of skill to craft, it's expressive and dynamic, and it's filled with raw emotion. It's "art."
+ I could paint a painting that's nothing but a solid green colour in 10 minutes---very similar to the solid blue colour painting except it's a different colour---and everyone would dismiss it as worthless, despite it being "art."

+ I buy a regular baseball from a store. It's worth $2.00. It's not considered art by any modern art curator / art critic, and it's never been displayed in the MoMA
+ I buy a super-rare, old baseball signed by Babe Rush from a collector. It's worth $200,000. It's not considered art by any modern art curator / art critic, and it's never been displayed in the MoMA


This is the discrepancy between the different scenarios.

 

[Drain You]

Interpretive Dance.

I just don't get it.

Nailed it. Even just "organized" dance stuff in general. I dated a girl in college on the dance team and it was just terrible.

 

[entremet]

Haters of modern art are just mad they didn't find that hustle.

Sure you can do it, but can you sucker a millionaire to buy your crap? Nope!

 

[nailbombxx]

Haters of modern art are just mad they didn't find that hustle.

Sure you can do it, but can you sucker a millionaire to buy your crap? Nope!

Modern artists were just mad because they were mediocre.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Nobody who gets real steamed about """"modern art"""" should google Yves Klein.

 

[UncleSporky]

I don't think you have much room to talk about my offended sensibilities, considering you entered this thread specifically to sarcastically deride "modern art" with really weird accusations. It seems like you're way more offended about the mere existence of paintings you don't like.

I think you need to read more carefully. I entered this thread specifically to post the Red Wheelbarrow poem, which I found pretty pointless back in college. After that I never said a single word about modern art except in reply to you.

In fact, it seems like quite the opposite: you're defining modern art as the things I'm deriding, when I never specified anything of the sort. I dislike very specific things, and I made those things clear without calling out any particular era or form of art.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I think you need to read more carefully. I entered this thread specifically to post the Red Wheelbarrow poem, which I found pretty pointless back in college. After that I never said a single word about modern art except in reply to you.

In fact, it seems like quite the opposite: you're defining modern art as the things I'm deriding, when I never specified anything of the sort.

Well yes, of course. Modern art is all about turning everything on its head! The ones calling it pretentious are actually the pretentious ones! The fact that you hate it is what gives it so much meaning to everyone else! The fact that it took no talent to create is a well-crafted statement about the value of taking the time to create anything!

You didn't specify it, I suppose - just implied it sarcastically and about as subtly as... well, a modern painter.

 

[ronito]

You didn't specify it, I suppose - just implied it sarcastically and about as subtly as... well, a modern painter.

Like Van gogh? Oh oh and rembrandt?!

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Like Van gogh? Oh oh and rembrandt?!

We all know who the best painter is.

 

[UncleSporky]

You didn't specify it, I suppose - just implied it sarcastically and about as subtly as... well, a modern painter.

Why in the world would you assume that I was ever talking about ALL modern art, which you already demonstrated contains a larger breadth of works than the specific art I was criticizing?

It's almost like you identify modern art with the stuff I was deriding, rather than with the broader body.

 

[ComputerMKII]

I hate Murakami.

Seriously, what the hell was that shit?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Why in the world would you assume that I was ever talking about ALL modern art, which you already demonstrated contains a larger breadth of works than the specific art I was criticizing?

It's almost like you identify modern art with the stuff I was deriding, rather than with the broader body.

I dunno, maybe because the post I quoted said

Well yes, of course. Modern art is all about turning everything on its head! The ones calling it pretentious are actually the pretentious ones! The fact that you hate it is what gives it so much meaning to everyone else! The fact that it took no talent to create is a well-crafted statement about the value of taking the time to create anything!

Considering you didn't indicate at any point that you were actually just talking about a small subset of modern art, I think you can forgive me for assuming you were criticizing the larger breadth of work.

I hate Murakami.



Seriously, what the hell was that shit?

I've seen My Lonesome Cowboy in person. It's 10 times creepier in real life.

 

[UncleSporky]

Considering you didn't indicate at any point that you were actually just talking about a small subset of modern art, I think you can forgive me for assuming you were criticizing the larger breadth of work.

That was criticism of your attitude, not artwork. See further up that page for actual derision of art, free of any classification.

 

[nailbombxx]

I love this thread, lol.

 

[SystemBug]

lol at minimalism haters.

 

[Gustav]

Opera is easily the worst. Followed by performance art and interpretive dance.

 

[PBalfredo]

Using the bed as an example , I can totally see how that bed would represent Tracey Emin's depression and that the whole bed represent a powerful symbol for her.

But for me to appreciative that art , not only I needed the backstory , but even then I still just saw a bed that someone suffered on. I still don't know what her intentions were, I guess that she wanted to represent her pain? I think with modern art there is a disconnect on what the art represent to creators and how they share the experience with the audience.

This right here. Some of this stuff might have a deep personal meaning to the artist, but unless there is someone around to explicitly explain the artist's intentions to the audience, they are never going to guess what it was on their own, because the "art" sure isn't going to communicate it. Art is a vehicle for communicating meaning to an audience, and if the art in question can't communicate to the audience, then it's a failure on the artist's part. And when the artists are criticized for their failure...

Oh but it's supposed to look awful and make you hate it. It has caused you to briefly consider what appeals to you and what does not, what has meaning to you and what does not, and why it might not. By eliciting a mental response from you, it has forced you to participate in the critique of art, which is the intended message of the art itself.

The artist thanks you for your cooperation.

Some modern art seems to operate on real life Troll Logic.

 

[Aquamarine]

Nobody who gets real steamed about """"modern art"""" should google Yves Klein.

Looked the guy up.

My eye is twitching right now