Postmodern art question

category: general [glöplog]
added on the 2007-12-20 14:34:53 by nitro2k01 nitro2k01
Every activity have a set of rules for the creation of the productions. The set of rules also helps to rate a production by other people; as best as a production fits to the rules, the best the production is. Since some (or all) the rules may be subjetive, then the ratings may be also subjective.

I like that.
Plus "Ce sont les regardeurs qui font les tableaux"
Plus "It is art because it is declared art"
added on the 2007-12-20 15:01:08 by jxn jxn
"L'art pour l'art"
added on the 2007-12-20 17:16:04 by nitro2k01 nitro2k01
jxn: if it's art because it's declared art, anything becomes art, and it loses its meaning. What's art without meaning, pointless fun?
added on the 2007-12-20 17:35:36 by psonice psonice
nosfe: He can call himself anything he likes. I just don't see what purpose that word serves if anything can be arbitrarily classified as art, no matter how ugly and pointless it is.

texel: Classifying a painting doesn't add to its value. Of course, the art community is all about preconceptions and keeping up appearances, never letting anyone know that they couldn't reliably distinguish an Asger Jorn painting from a child's drawing if ever put to the test, and generally, trying to fit in with a crowd that seems elitist and cool because they "see" true artsiness where mere commoners only see squiggly lines and random paint spatters. But they all know the emperor is naked.. or they may actually be delusional.. it's hard to tell sometimes.

BB ImageBB Image
BB Image
BB Image
(Find the valuable masterpieces and the worthless kids' drawings)
added on the 2007-12-20 17:50:37 by doomdoom doomdoom
added on the 2007-12-20 17:57:10 by psenough psenough
OK, so these pictures might not be art then (even if I'd put any of the top three on my wall), but selling them sure is!
added on the 2007-12-20 19:50:32 by linde linde
I think the bottom two are "valuable masterpieces". The bottommost one is sort of mature and the strokes are more firm than in an average kid's painting. The one above that has sprinkles of paint, also something I don't think you'd find in most kids' paintings, at least not in such a well planned manner.
added on the 2007-12-20 19:55:30 by nitro2k01 nitro2k01
I like the last picture with the birds. Don't care if it was painted by a "real artist" or a child..
added on the 2007-12-20 20:12:12 by Sverker Sverker
only one of them is signed, should that be a clue? :P
added on the 2007-12-20 20:56:53 by Maali Maali
The third picture is done by a "real artist", the other three are children's drawings. But it's not really a contest as much as illustrating a point. ;)

Now for contrast, here's something less ridiculous:

BB Image
added on the 2007-12-20 21:09:28 by doomdoom doomdoom
sketches of realism in it == actual art
so where is the threshold einstein? do enlighten us.
added on the 2007-12-20 21:19:08 by psenough psenough
answer ararararayhh aARRHRAHRHRAHRHAH !!!

FUCK Y9U !!! FUCK yyuou !!! FDUDK wd
added on the 2007-12-20 21:20:18 by krabob krabob
Even if krabob is posting drunk, he still makes more sense than some people on this thread..
added on the 2007-12-20 21:22:43 by Preacher Preacher
ps: RTFP. I didn't say it was art or that a random mess of colourful shapes isn't. I don't give a fuck what "art" is. The word is mostly used as an excuse anyway.
added on the 2007-12-20 21:47:43 by doomdoom doomdoom
added on the 2007-12-20 21:56:53 by psenough psenough
ps: If you must have a threshold, then, any artist whose works are easily confused with those of a monkey or a three-year-old child or a severely buggy texture generator should be recognised as such, and hiding behind "but it's ART!" doesn't even attempt to say anything about the value of those works.
added on the 2007-12-20 22:09:45 by doomdoom doomdoom
Battle Droid: That last one is quite nice. It's simple, but unlike many of the pretentious stuff discussed elsewhere, this shows some thought and imagination.
added on the 2007-12-20 22:26:05 by Flunce Flunce
hei man, its your loss if you cant learn to appreciate aesthetical and conceptual value in untechnical pieces.

i just dont see how you can logically generalize that all critics who like untechnical pieces are pretentious. it's irrelevant if the piece could be done by monkeys or 3 year olds. it's not the technical merit that is beeing evaluated by those critics.

buggy texture generators can give some pretty cool stuff actually.
shame that errorism doesnt seem to inspire you much.
added on the 2007-12-20 22:44:54 by psenough psenough
hei man, its your loss if you cant learn to appreciate aesthetical and conceptual value in untechnical pieces.

It's not just about the technical side as the last image proves. It's also about imagination and intent. The effort that goes into someone's art says a lot about their passion for it. I feel that a lot of stuff that passes for art lacks passion and imagination, and it's more about fooling people and reaping the financial rewards.
added on the 2007-12-20 23:00:19 by Flunce Flunce
come on ps..
added on the 2007-12-20 23:00:43 by _-_-__ _-_-__
nicolas: you're right, i'll shut up and go code something instead now.
added on the 2007-12-20 23:05:48 by psenough psenough
I think that's why I like technical and carefully considered pieces more than anything else. I look at them and I'm blown away by the passion of the artist and how much his art means to him.

Some people believed Michelangelo was touched by god because no "normal" man would ever attempt something as grand as the Sistine chapel, some might say he's insane. But it's that human side, or psychological side of art that really fascinates me and which I don't feel from minimalist or cliched splatter/scribble art.
added on the 2007-12-20 23:05:51 by Flunce Flunce
added on the 2007-12-20 23:37:32 by fr33ke fr33ke
what i find impossible to understand is how people can still have a concept of art which is straight from the 19th century.

well, it's always a lot easier to call things pretentios than actually spend time trying to understand them.

added on the 2007-12-21 00:34:27 by nosfe nosfe