Modern Art is Sh*t

[Kinser79]

(05-13-2016, 06:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Effort alone does not make an artistic enterprise noble or desirable.

Neither does a bunch of fruity art types standing around saying that it is. The piece itself is either noble or desirable or it is not.

Quote: A laborious effort that gets sub-mediocre results is practically worthless.

And an effort that isn't that laborious that gets sub-mediocre results is still practically worthless. Seriously when you can't tell whether something is a painting or a drop cloth (like Jackson Pollack for example) that neither requires much labor and the results are little more than a trolling of the art establishment types.

Quote: Having typed some banal correspondence for forty minutes at 20 words per minute is no better than getting the same results in ten minutes at 80 words per minute.

I would think that most people would have a hard time trying to justify general or business correspondence as art. Rather it is a function of communication, and if the goal is speed, typing at 80 wpm is superior to hunting and pecking at 20 wpm.

Quote:Art is almost certainly trash, no matter what its school, if it simply calls attention to the artist as a person.

Finally something that makes sense from you in regard to art. So then you'll be willing to agree that the vast majority of modern so-called art is little more then sensationalism, publicity, and trying to pass off the scatological and trashy off as art for pure shock value?

Quote: Some artists have been very good at that, without showing much else.

Andy Warhol is a prime example

Quote: If the message proves "I am a creep" or "I am insane", then one must strip the personality of the artist away to determine whether the work stands on its merits.

Yes and for the vast majority modern so-called art it has no merits. There are only so many ways one can interpet a rock or three squiggly lines. Standing there and staring at either will reveal no further information--but I suppose one can look pretentious and self-important while doing it, of course those of us with more than half a brain cell will look at you like you don't have the sense god gave a jackass.

Quote: A far nobler expression of self such as "I am a very ordinary and decent person" also needs be stripped from the artistic effort.

This would imply that there is something wrong with being an ordinary decent person. Is a painting suddenly and magically better if it is painted by a lunatic, or a sociopathic monster? If so Hitler's paintings should be masterpieces. And for the record Hitler was actually a rather decent--if amateurish painter.

Quote: Artists are no less vulnerable to vices than the rest of us (and I could make the case that the person who barely survives as a retail sales clerk or fast-food worker might be able to get away with very few vices because that person is unable to afford them). An artist who has any commercial success at all can get away with much that, for example, a traveling salesman could never get away with.

Most artists that are any good have as few vices as a fast food worker, or retail sales clerk. Alcoholism, drug addiction do not bode well for artistic skill. Neither does madness, though I will admit that Van Gogh was a highly skilled painter before he was committed, and was still half-way decent after he was committed.

Quote: Drawing blocks is not enough; anyone can do that. Drawing blocks that express something interesting to someone other than an artist is another thing altogether. With little effort I could likely paint an image of the periodic table of the elements. Such might involve cubes.

This is coming from a guy who claims that the cubists produced art. They didn't, they mostly painted randomly arranged geometric shapes and claimed it was art after the fact. What is worse is most of them were not actually insane, or even eccentric! As for painting a periodic table of the elements I doubt that would count as art. If it did then so would a photograph of the planet Saturn taken by Voyager I.

Quote:All good art distorts to some extent.

I would disagree. Much of art that is good is strongly realistic. Any distortions should be as much limited to the limitations of the media or the interpretation of the artist.

Quote: If one wants a perfect image, then take a snapshot.

Photography is a form of art. That being said, having a bust made and having a photo made are two entirely different processes, with two entirely different results.

Quote: OK, so good photography takes some timing for desired lighting and some discretion in choosing focus in angle and focus. Heck, even I am at that level. One cannot get a perfect image of a cloud by painting it, and a viewer could never know the difference in an object of such transitory appearance.

Unless you're getting ready to publish a coffee table book of photos this week you are not at the level of some of the most famous artistic photographers.

Quote:I thought the fractal (which involves selection of an image from possible others to be cast off) beautiful. Don't good writers self-edit?

Writing and the visual arts are different creatures which are different yet again from music. That being said, much of fractal "art" is based on algorithm and unless one is planning on saying that computers are capable of creating art through mathmatics would not count. The same is also true of using a discarded microwave magnatron to burn away weaker elements of grain pattern in wood, which as I already pointed out is not art.

Though one could argue that both are beautiful. I know I once waxed poetic about a complicated bit of trigonometry to come up with a firing solution before the computer while I was in the navy. It should be noted that the computing systems on Ohio-Class subs are notoriously out of date.

Quote:The Bouguereau? It's practically boudoir 'art'. Boudoir art can be very realistic, although the reality that it depicts is banal in the extreme.

So any depiction of human nudity must be compared with pornography then, how very puritanical of you. I happen to think the healthy human female form is only superseded in beauty to that of the healthy human male form. Which reminds me the boy left his sketch book on the table--I need to put it into his room before it gives my mother a heart attack. His boyfriend is his favorite subject for drawing.

Quote:...I'd probably go primitive. I've done one canvas, just enough to realize that painting at a certain level needs little effort. Getting really good? it will take more than the three brushes that I have used. I'm going to experiment with brush strokes before I try any coherent image.

I don't think you'd be able to handle being a primitivist. It would stick in your crawl not advancing above mere folk art. Rather, I think you'll end up having to pull off a Jackson Pollack to produce anything you can convince someone else is art. Of course perhaps if you have PBS you might manage to paint happy little trees if you're not totally inept. Don't bother with the human form, most have difficulty with it.