You can't take kids anywhere these days!

[mwerner]

The "why" of art is a strange and wonderful topic. I once saw a 60 Minutes interview with a New York couple that had an extensive collection of modern art. They were good at spotting rising stars and buying stuff before the artist became famous.
One of the "works" in the couple's flat was a short piece of hemp rope, nailed to a wall. The interviewer, Mike Wallace, asked if this too was a work of art. "Oh yes." the couple said.
"Why?"
"Because_______ (I forget the name, plug in some modern artist)put it there."

I read a great deal of rather silly blather justifying some of the more god-awful stuff thats been done in the name of art. We had the "minimalist" movement, for instance, in which people might cover a canvas with red paint. "It's not about the image, it's about the paint."
Or the the two fellows who declared that their lives were art, and would sell photographs and film of themselves doing completely mundane things like washing their clothes.

A big cutting-edge show in London fairly recently featured such wonders as a shark carcass, cut in half lengthwise and suspended in a tank of water. Someone actually bought this particular piece, and complained to the artist when the water started to go green and the carcass to rot.
"It's my job to make art, not to make it last forever."

Always an interesting scene....

 

[TFin04]

Or the the two fellows who declared that their lives were art, and would sell photographs and film of themselves doing completely mundane things like washing their clothes.

Now, are they the idiots, or are we? They probably made more money washing their clothes then any of us have in a full years work...

 

[Walking Man]

The painting does bring up a question, what makes it worth so much? It looks like something I can do, and I can barely write my own name legibly.

Have you ever seen Phil Hartsfield's sharpened steel bars sell for $800!
Things are sometime worth more than they should seem, but that's just the way it is. Heck, a jerzee worn by a famous athlete can be worth big $$$$$, but it's still just a shirt.

 

[Ilovetoolsteel]

Whatever it is- calling it art is being very generous.

Just for the sake of discussion, explain why the painting in question is not art. Give us your basic criteria as to what makes something a piece of art.

I think that anyone who would pay 1.5 million dollars for that deserves to own it.(a fool and his money...)
Ed. for spelling.

Is it any more foolish than someone collecting mass produced factory made knives?

Any more foolish than someone spending $450 on a field grade combat knife and never use it to cut anything because they don't want to "ruin" it?

 

[Ilovetoolsteel]

The "why" of art is a strange and wonderful topic. I once saw a 60 Minutes interview with a New York couple that had an extensive collection of modern art.

I remember that show, He was a postal worker she was a teacher, their collection was valued at over $100,000 million, they donated the collection to a museum in exchange for a pension till they died.

We had the "minimalist" movement, for instance, in which people might cover a canvas with red paint. "It's not about the image, it's about the paint."

Minimalism dealt with the idea that it was the colors and the composition were what elicited ideas and emotions and recognisable imagery often served to confuse or subvert those ideas or emotions and therefore were unnescesary. For instance an equalateral triangle resting on a flat side elicits feelings of stability, Standing on one of the points it elicits feelings of fear or danger.

 

[orthogonal1]

Paul Davidson -

Actually, it was a reference to a time (late 19th century or early 20th) when gum became popular and it was deemed a serious social issue. We take gum for granted today, but when it was being developed, papers wrote editorials against the sticky stuff.

And they had a point.

When I was a kid, we were admonished for chewing during social functions/gatherings, school, etc. It was treated as a vice by many.

Ah, the good old days.

But the remark was meant with humour.

 

[mwerner]

I thought that minimalism made sense in sculpture and architecture; they pyramids are minimalist sculptures in a way.

But we were even treated to minimalist music. Phillip Glass was a prime exponent of this idea, with compositions that sounded very much like a 45 RPM record stuck in a groove.

Or nothing at all. One composition called for 29 minutes or so of silence, the "music" being the ambient crowd noises.

 

[TFin04]

Is it any more foolish than someone collecting mass produced factory made knives?

I see your point, but its a very impractical comparison.

Knives are practical tools that are a need. Art is just a want.

 

[Triton]

Just for the sake of discussion, explain why the painting in question is not art. Give us your basic criteria as to what makes something a piece of art.



Is it any more foolish than someone collecting mass produced factory made knives?

Any more foolish than someone spending $450 on a field grade combat knife and never use it to cut anything because they don't want to "ruin" it?

To my mind art is something that requires talent, an expression or capturing of expression that no one else can do. Da Vinci created art. Rembrandt created art. Even Dhali in all his weirdness created art. Not everyone can create a Mona Lisa. Not everyone can paint The Night Watch. Pretty much anyone can blob some paint on canvas or nail a rope to a board. Most "modern art" is simply slick marketing sold to the credulous as they desperately attempt to justify their banal existence.

 

[Gigante]

Art is anything and everything.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
And it's worth exactly whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Why should "talent" be the basis for judging art?
And what exactly is talent? That's in the eye of the beholder as well.
Who are you to judge?

 

[FullerH]

It's the birthday of painter Piet Mondrian, born in a small town in the Netherlands called Amersfoort (1872). He began his career by painting windmills, moonlit nights and views of dunes in the style of Van Gogh, but he didn't have much success. Then in 1921, just as Mondrian was about to give up painting for work in a French vineyard, his father died. Mondrian suddenly began to paint the paintings that would make him famous: rigid black rectangles on white backgrounds, occasionally filled by primary colors.

Who would have thought that this style of painting would be desireable. I have tried it and it is rather simple to accomplish since someone else has shown the way. It is even simple for my with my partial color blindness, since Mondrian's style was all in the primaries and secondaries with no subtle tints involved. I happen to find it MOST attractive and so do many others.
Here's an example: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/mondrian/mondrian_blue_plane.jpg.html

 

[Triton]

Art is anything and everything.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
And it's worth exactly whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Why should "talent" be the basis for judging art?
And what exactly is talent? That's in the eye of the beholder as well.
Who are you to judge?

Oh I agree... if you can get some rube to dish out a few million dollars for some paint blobs more power to you!

Note that I didn't say that talent was the basis for judging art it is my basis for judging art. If yours is who can blob paint on canvas I can only ask... how much are you willing to pay? I'll get some masterpieces whipped up for you directly.

 

[FullerH]

Russ, read my post just above your post. It isn't that your copies of his paintings depreciate his. They don't. Remember that he did it first. I may not like Jackson Pollock's work, but I have to appreciate the ingenuity and energy that went into it, just as I appreciate the energy and ability that went into the music of Jimmy Hendrix, even though I personally detest it.

 

[Triton]

Russ, read my post just above your post. It isn't that your copies of his paintings depreciate his. They don't. Remember that he did it first. I may not like Jackson Pollock's work, but I have to appreciate the ingenuity and energy that went into it, just as I appreciate the energy and ability that went into the music of Jimmy Hendrix, even though I personally detest it.

I understand your point Hugh, but to my mind a revolutionary lack of talent is still... a lack of talent. I don't give points for thinking outside the box if the the results of those thoughts is junk. As has been pointed out art is entirely subjective and I in no way claim to be any sort of authority on the subject. I still don't think the painting was irreparably damaged by the admittedly wayward actions of the young man. Heck maybe he was just coming up with something revolutionary. If there was damage simply have him paint a replacement. Want to bet if anyone could tell the difference?

 

[cockroachfarm]

....Pretty much anyone can blob some paint on canvas.....

That is indeed the popular misconception.

I am a writer, but I also have some aptitude with brush, pencil, and camera. I am not particularly fond of "modern" art. Many years ago, I tried to "recreate" a Jackson Pollock painting and, after six attempts, couldn't even come close.

(and anyone who has seen the originals at the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida, will never argue that the man wasn't a "real" painter. You may not like the interpretation of the subject, but the technique is stunning.)

 

[Triton]

That is indeed the popular misconception.

I am a writer, but I also have some aptitude with brush, pencil, and camera. I am not particularly fond of "modern" art. Many years ago, I tried to "recreate" a Jackson Pollock painting and, after six attempts, couldn't even come close.

(and anyone who has seen the originals at the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida, will never argue that the man wasn't a "real" painter. You may not like the interpretation of the subject, but the technique is stunning.)

If I took a bucket of paint and threw it at a canvas from the top of a 20 story building you would be hard pressed to recreate the resulting pattern. That doesn't mean it took any talent to create the original. You could however take your own bucket of paint and lob it from altitude quite easily.

 

[cockroachfarm]

Triton, I take it you're not fond of "modern" art? Neither am I. However, lobbing buckets of paint off rooftops or wrapping boulders in a desert with pink vinyl sheeting qualifies more as "performance" art. I know that art appreciation is very subjective, but I really can't follow any kind of relationship from that to the quite personal work of Jackson Pollock or Dali?

Oh well. Back to my Etch-A-Sketch.

 

[Paul Davidson]

Paul Davidson -

Actually, it was a reference to a time (late 19th century or early 20th) when gum became popular and it was deemed a serious social issue. We take gum for granted today, but when it was being developed, papers wrote editorials against the sticky stuff.

And they had a point.

When I was a kid, we were admonished for chewing during social functions/gatherings, school, etc. It was treated as a vice by many.

Ah, the good old days.

But the remark was meant with humour.

I didn't think you were too serious. My parents are in there 70's and 80's and think that chewing gum should be enjoyed when one is a alone. Since a large group of people in the world can't seem to chew gum or food with their mouth closed it really isn't a bad idea.

 

[Ilovetoolsteel]

I see your point, but its a very impractical comparison.

Knives are practical tools that are a need. Art is just a want.

You don't see that someone buying a tool and never using it is elevating that tool to the level of art? Do you know how many times I have seen in the sale forums "Busse (insert model name here), Never used, never sharpened, never carried, $450 shipped" ?

How much do you need a tool you never used never carried, and never sharpened? It would be different if you only saw it occasionaly but you see it in over half of the for sale ads.

 

[fulloflead]

I guarded art at the STATE FAIR once for school credit. (Art major.)

I couldn't believe how parents would let kids RUN through a museum and jump the velvet ropes around fragile sculptures and pots! I seriously felt like choking the parents.:barf:

But then, when your art "museum" is between the 4H building and someone sheering sheep, what can you expect?

.