Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
it was ruled as not art because it was simply a mason/bell jar with a crucifix inside it, filled with urine

Lolz at the ''it was ruled as not art''. I mean, the only way that could be made funnier would be if it was written by Terry Pratchett in Ankh-Morporkian : "It was ruled as Notte Arte''

While there is no clear definition of, you must put X amount of hours into a piece for it to be considered art, I think that it should be fairly clear to the casual observer that effort was indeed made.

And what if genius doesn't require efforts?

 Fafnir wrote:
Reminds me of a time back in one of my early art courses where I'd be given a 2-3 week assignment, assemble some random junk within the last half-hour before class, and when it came time to present, just throw together a half-assed explanation combined with more bs thrown in from what the rest of the class tries to infer. Got myself an easy A-.

That said, just because it's abstract or possibly even 'plain' looking doesn't take away its artistic merit. For example, one of my favourite artists is Piet Mondrian.


And keep in mind, it's not through a lack of technical skill that artists produce works like this. Both Mondrian (above) and Picasso happened to be very competent at more traditional styles as well. They chose to develop specific styles for very specific reasons.

I took a fundamentals of art class with a focus on painting (I called it finger painting for dummies, my professor didn't like that description until one day he caught me using my fingers to blend colors ). We were given two artists to study at one point, and we had to copy 2 of their works... I got Mondrian and Pollock... Unlike Mondrian, I had to use tape and straight edges to reproduce that piece... fether was damned anal retentive about his work, and it shows.

 Alfndrate wrote:

I took a fundamentals of art class with a focus on painting (I called it finger painting for dummies, my professor didn't like that description until one day he caught me using my fingers to blend colors ). We were given two artists to study at one point, and we had to copy 2 of their works... I got Mondrian and Pollock... Unlike Mondrian, I had to use tape and straight edges to reproduce that piece... fether was damned anal retentive about his work, and it shows.

Hum, I dread to imagine, which Pollock did you copy?... And how?

 Alfndrate wrote:

I took a fundamentals of art class with a focus on painting (I called it finger painting for dummies, my professor didn't like that description until one day he caught me using my fingers to blend colors ). We were given two artists to study at one point, and we had to copy 2 of their works... I got Mondrian and Pollock... Unlike Mondrian, I had to use tape and straight edges to reproduce that piece... fether was damned anal retentive about his work, and it shows.

He would regularly work to the point until he was physically incapable of continuing any further. I tried that once. 22 hours. Never again. I can't imagine how that can be someone's normal.

As for Pollock... he got really drunk (like... holy gak drunk) and threw around lots of paint.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I took a fundamentals of art class with a focus on painting (I called it finger painting for dummies, my professor didn't like that description until one day he caught me using my fingers to blend colors ). We were given two artists to study at one point, and we had to copy 2 of their works... I got Mondrian and Pollock... Unlike Mondrian, I had to use tape and straight edges to reproduce that piece... fether was damned anal retentive about his work, and it shows.

Hum, I dread to imagine, which Pollock did you copy?... And how?

This one:


Because of the whole premise behind Pollock's drip paintings, my professor would not let me do them because they would be impossible to recreate.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Because of the whole premise behind Pollock's drip paintings, my professor would not let me do them because they would be impossible to recreate.

Ah, makes sense.

I personally find that for something to count as 'art', it needs to prove itself either in expression (aesthetic) or in technique. A sculpture I find ugly and absurd may well be created using the skills of a master craftsman and be something I can appreciate for it. Likewise, a simpler piece may be far more evocative of emotion or beauty, and that is what would qualify it as art in my eyes. A masterpiece combines the two, both the skill/intricacy of the piece and the aesthetic it embodies, with a dash of originality.

In such a way does art transcend the medium. A book of simple writing but tremendous poignancy and emotion may be considered art, and a musical piece that I dislike the sound of may have the most staggering detail and intricacy in its composition to qualify it.

Modern art tends to be quite boring and pretentious on both accounts though. It's simply either bland repetition and regurgitation of earlier pieces, or the bizare idea that art is entirely subjective and a pair of socks tied together with a condom somehow qualifies as it. Originality is the best spice, and when 'Triple Sock Knot' piece is lined up with 'Dirty Bedroom' and 'White Trash Curry Kick', you begin to wonder if these 'artists' haven't missed the point somewhat.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
it was ruled as not art because it was simply a mason/bell jar with a crucifix inside it, filled with urine

Lolz at the ''it was ruled as not art''. I mean, the only way that could be made funnier would be if it was written by Terry Pratchett in Ankh-Morporkian : "It was ruled as Notte Arte''

Lol, I suppose that the better term would be disallowed... Giuliani was semi-quoted as saying that if he could do it, then it isnt art.


The whole "found art" movement never made any sense to me whatsoever.... And my comments about effort obviously don't necessarily apply to ALL artists, i mean, good photographers see things differently from regular people, and know how to get the best shot without much "work" per se, but the guy who can pee in a jar and put a cross into it is no artist.

Honestly, I think "is it art" is just a bad question. "Is it good?" is really the only question worth asking, and the one people are really asking when they try and talk about what really is art.

Effort and skill are often claimed, but this argument leaves out the often tremendous effort made off the canvas. I have to admit I didn't really get Picasso until I saw The Woman with Yellow Hair;


It is the simplicity of the painting that gives it its meaning - that simplicity shows the grace and beauty of the subject in way that a more complex painting couldn't. Picasso was capable of and had in his earlier career produced work with much more complexity and detail, so it wasn't that he couldn't or was unwilling, he just chose the style that best suited the subject. On the other hand, you can look at Baroque paintings and see tremendous effort and technical skill... it was simply expected of the painters of the time. But is it really great art when a person is painting as they are simply because that is what is expected of them. The tricks of light and perspective might be fascinating to look at it, but if they're simply there because that is what was expected of the artists of the age, and not actually part of what the artist was trying to say, is it actually good art?

The other subject often claimed is meaning, that a work has to mean something important. But what is meaning anyway? Does it simply have to have a meaning intended by the creator, and what if that meaning jars from how people view the painting? Another of my favourite paintings is by Seurat;


The guy made that painting with literally no meaning intended. It was an experiment in style, attempting to show how painting with dots could produce a lighter image than with brushstrokes. It's a much loved painting and one that holds, I think, incredible power - an image of pure contented bliss... but it was entirely unintentional. Seurat attempted to recapture the success of Sunday Afternoon dozens of times, with the same technique and method, but none of them ever came all that close. So I don't think there's any really sensible way to include 'meaning' as an important element in art.

So really, just drop the question. It's art, or it isn't.... doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not it's good. And that approach means we don't have to get stuck in yet another debate over what is, or isn't art, and instead we can just cut to the chase and say Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and all the rest of that shock value mob make stuff which is bad. Doesn't matter if you call it art or not, because what it really is is crap.

Honestly I find Tacy Emin's bed piece more interesting and memorable than a lot of other art pieces I wouldn't call it crap though same with Hirst's shark tank.

This is a good site for structured art.

http://www.artrenewal.org/

 Fafnir wrote:
Reminds me of a time back in one of my early art courses where I'd be given a 2-3 week assignment, assemble some random junk within the last half-hour before class, and when it came time to present, just throw together a half-assed explanation combined with more bs thrown in from what the rest of the class tries to infer. Got myself an easy A-.

That said, just because it's abstract or possibly even 'plain' looking doesn't take away its artistic merit. For example, one of my favourite artists is Piet Mondrian.


And keep in mind, it's not through a lack of technical skill that artists produce works like this. Both Mondrian (above) and Picasso happened to be very competent at more traditional styles as well. They chose to develop specific styles for very specific reasons.

You see, I don't mind this piece of work, it works. However there is no way that I would think it's a great piece of artwork or that it's worth 1,000's or millions of pounds. To me it's a piece that you could pick up at The Range (similar to Wallmart) to use it to brighten up a room, plus it's theme is totally neutral. It's the same as the Tracey Emin My Bed scene, it's something I'd expect to pick up from one of the old Athene shops from the 80's.

In fairness I would imagine it's not the artists that are the problem, it's those art critics that pontificate about a piece or the idiots that spend millions on them.

The thing is, a painting like that is worth quite a bit, and for very good reason. First off, Mondrian's work was likely one of the major inspirations for grid based minimalist design, making his work truly historic. What's more, his work was extremely deliberate. Every single line and colour used was meant to have an extremely specific purpose, and he'd put an enormous amount of time making sure that each element was absolutely perfect. While not as obvious as a more complex image, a great deal of technical skill went into each painting, as everything had to be perfect.

Awesome, I still wouldn't pay more than a thousand or two for it. Now obviously that number goes up as my discretionary spending goes up, because the amount of hours it takes to pay for it is roughly the same but the monetary value is different. The real problem in the art world is rich people.

Then again I always found Communist art somewhat endearing in a "soulless but it means well" way.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Then again I always found Communist art somewhat endearing in a "soulless but it means well" way.

I find propoganda posters of all eras and origins quite interesting as well, as often times you can literally see that they are trying to create a particular emotion or feeling from the viewer (usually a Nationalistic pride in one's country)

Then again, I also enjoy 19th century and early 20th century print advertisements as well, particularly for Shows (circuses, burlesque, theaters, etc.)

Le Corbusier placed a toilet pan in an art exhibition to show the artistry of its form and also as a hit at the pretentions of the art world.

This at least was original.

When people like Tracy Emin leaves a mess its because they are hacks who cant do art and do something random call it art and have pretentious types praise it out of fear they will be called uncultured if they don't.

As for Hitler, his methods may differ but he was onto something regarding most modern art and his artistic integrity is one point of his character I can't really find fault.

Some modern art I love but it has to appear natural or supernatural, Soviet propaganda art is a particular favourite of mine, however most forms of cubism looks like a heap of body parts in a serial killers wardrobe and is of about as much merit..

 Orlanth wrote:

As for Hitler, his methods may differ but he was onto something regarding most modern art and his artistic integrity is one point of his character I can't really find fault.

What, like, the fact that he couldn't get propertions well enough to draw a person, didn't get accepted in Art School because of it, produced very mediocre paysages, and then went on to characterize non-representational art as degenerate? Yeah, right, sure, that's integrity alright.

Sorry, some things are not art. Some people just do/create crazy things to get attention - such efforts are not worthy of recognition.

I wanted an easy A for one of my classes, so I took a digital art class (studying it, not creating it). I got to see some really cool and technically skillful productions, designs, light exhibits, etc.

I also saw a lot of random video, sound/noise, and visual displays mangled together - we were meant to praise some of this trash - I'm not being harsh either some of it was really just a video of people on stage screaming, clashing pots and pans with strobe lights... uhuh.

 Wolfstan wrote:
You see, I don't mind this piece of work, it works. However there is no way that I would think it's a great piece of artwork or that it's worth 1,000's or millions of pounds.

Art and the stupid prices people pay for it are two entirely different things. Fortunately no matter what stupid price someone pays, most art doesn't end up in private collections, but instead is let out to galleries where we can still see it. So who cares if a painting was bought for 30 million, you or I can still make a gold coin donation and see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for Hitler, his methods may differ but he was onto something regarding most modern art and his artistic integrity is one point of his character I can't really find fault.

Except that integrity was just another of his stupid little political power plays, another stupid little feud with a group he deemed not good and proper Germans who saw the world exactly has he did. Which has as much artistic integrity as the people who hated Harry Potter because it teaches about dark magic. Or those numpties who complain about To Kill A Mockingbird because it uses the n word.

Art is what you feel is art, not what some high snobs consider art.

I personal have problems with created art where i don't see some effort in, some color blobs on a canvas and calling it an "extential expression of the being in the state of flux", is all fine and well, but to me it still looks only like some color blobs on a canvas.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Art is what you feel is art, not what some high snobs consider art.

I personal have problems with created art where i don't see some effort in, some color blobs on a canvas and calling it an "extential expression of the being in the state of flux", is all fine and well, but to me it still looks only like some color blobs on a canvas.

Once again... Honestly, I think "is it art" is just a bad question. "Is it good?" is really the only question worth asking, and the one people are really asking when they try and talk about what really is art.

I feel like modern art is in a bit of a conversation with itself. Well, I guess that's just a presumptuous way of saying I don't feel included.

Well, since modern " art" indirectly killed my uncle, I'm going to side with Hitler on this one.

 Soladrin wrote:
Well, since modern " art" indirectly killed my uncle, I'm going to side with Hitler on this one.

You always side with Hitler.

 Soladrin wrote:
Well, since modern " art" indirectly killed my uncle, I'm going to side with Hitler on this one.

This sounds like a good story....

Art is everywhere.

In my opinion, the only thing that makes art really mentionable is where you see it. Looking at a Rembrandt on a computer screen, it's no more artistic than a picture of Loli Feet with honey all over them. If you see the same pieces in a gallery, full size and framed, you're going to be inspired in some way that is different than what you saw on the screen. I don't think you would find large-prints of loli fetish in a gallery anywhere, unfortunately.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Art is everywhere.

While true, I feel that there are obviously varying degrees of art.

For instance, that brand new, glass rectangle of an office building is far less artistic than the Empire State Building, or Notre Dame, or Buckingham Palace.

Many people who are snobbish about art will tell you that Picasso is far better than Jack Kirby, simply because comic book art is considered Pulp Art, and therefore is inferior to an "actual" painter.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

As for Hitler, his methods may differ but he was onto something regarding most modern art and his artistic integrity is one point of his character I can't really find fault.

What, like, the fact that he couldn't get proportions well enough to draw a person, didn't get accepted in Art School because of it, produced very mediocre paysages, and then went on to characterize non-representational art as degenerate? Yeah, right, sure, that's integrity alright.

Not all artists can do the same things. Hitler painted still life, and by and large did a good job.
Actually Vienna rejected him because of his politics, understandable really, Hitler definitely had the artistic talent, as his painting shows, for most artists being good at some types of art but not others is no excuse not to consider them an artist, or reject their entry to art school, unless you want it to be an excuse.
Lets put it another way, an example for you, Banksy stencils because he cannot draw freehand. Is he not an artist then?
Also some musicians cannot read music, to a traditional musician not being able to read music means you are not a real musician, and while a lot of the boy band crap cant real music and have no talent there are many famous performers whose fame is justifiable who cannot read music and definitely do have a musical talent. One example if Jason Kay, lead singer of Jamiroquai, there is no excuse not to consider him a talented musician, whether you like him or his music or not, but he cannot read music at all and has admitted as such on several occasions.

 Orlanth wrote:
As for Hitler, his methods may differ but he was onto something regarding most modern art and his artistic integrity is one point of his character I can't really find fault.

Except that integrity was just another of his stupid little political power plays, another stupid little feud with a group he deemed not good and proper Germans who saw the world exactly has he did. Which has as much artistic integrity as the people who hated Harry Potter because it teaches about dark magic. Or those numpties who complain about To Kill A Mockingbird because it uses the n word.

 Orlanth wrote:

Lets put it another way, an example for you, Banksy stencils because he cannot draw freehand. Is he not an artist then?

One of his NYC pieces looks like freehand:

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually Vienna rejected him because of his politics, understandable really, Hitler definitely had the artistic talent, as his painting shows, for most artists being good at some types of art but not others is no excuse not to consider them an artist, or reject their entry to art school, unless you want it to be an excuse.

As I understood it, they did reject him for his inability to draw/paint a proportional human figure. From what reading I've done has suggested, the school was VERY big on their students being able to paint the family portraits of the rich and famous, and viewed all other painting subjects as inferior or would come along after schooling, in which portrait skills would invariable sharpen the landscape skills (which is a load of bollocks really)

IIRC, Hitler didn't really become a political extremist until after his time in WW1, and especially after his failed Beer Hall Pusch.