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.

Lovecraft didn't exactly exert a great deal of effort in his attempts to get published nor did he write things necessarily aimed at mass appeal. Those stories he wrote that were clearly for money or were serialized he himself criticized. I think it's fairly clear that his goal with writing was to achieve mastery in the horror genre and in doing so he frequently pushed past preexisting boundaries.

On the other hand King puts ghostwriting mills to shame with his body of work which includes many, many, many mediocre novels that only achieved success because his name was stamped on the cover. I honestly think a lot of his novels should have been short stories. He is talented, but he also has a talent for milking a modicum of an idea dry. For example, Cujo is 120,000 words, twice the length of Carrie. It's nearly as long as The Twin Towers (150,000). How does a bloody story about a rabid dog turn into that?

Despite his verbosity and purple prose Lovecraft kept his ideas relegated to the proper format.

King has a different, pulp style. Comparing King to Lovecraft is comparing a factory to an artisanal shop.

King crafts for a wide audience. He makes easily consumable entertainment. (I'm a King fan)

Lovecraft made art, for himself primarily from my limited understanding. They're made for different audiences.

I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.

Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.

The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did

it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.

Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.

Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.

Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.

the_scotsman wrote:


it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.

#Yanggang



Despite my flippant joke about UBI, this is an incredibly important point. However, when artists were clothed, housed, and fed by patrons, the art they created was expected to meet the needs and wants of the patron.

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.

Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.

The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did

it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.

Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.

Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.

Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.

Ohh I know about Roman Sculpture - its always amusing to see the pristine white marble - but most sculpture was wanted to look vivid and alive - nut again creating a sculpture is not like abstract art - the latter may (apparently) require imagination (or the ability to BS) but it often does not require a craft or skill. Lobbing paint onto a canvas, an unmade bed or other obvious stunts that are worshipped and encouraged by critics.

Actual skills in any area other than communicating the intent or meaning behind the work (it often can't speak for itself when its empty and completed in seconds ready for the next pay check) is now looked down upon by the art world - anything that might require effort or skill is considered inferior and who propogate the abstract as the only true art form in galleries, ehibitions and of course at schools and colleges.

I am not sure how many abstract artists are children of the rich - some will be but not all I don't think.

TV, Film and other forms of entertainment can also be art - again its often a select few who sneer at such work - the more people like it - the more it must be disdained in favour of what they consider "true art".

Hell painting miniatures or creating art for fantasy sci-fi worlds can a art - but again few in the art world would consider it so.

Actual skills in any area other than communicating the intent or meaning behind the work (it often can't speak for itself when its empty and completed in seconds ready for the next pay check) is now looked down upon by the art world - anything that might require effort or skill is considered inferior and who propogate the abstract as the only true art form in galleries, ehibitions and of course at schools and colleges.

This is patently false. Unless you are talking about mass produced art like Thomas Kincaide or something?

TV, Film and other forms of entertainment can also be art - again its often a select few who sneer at such work - the more people like it - the more it must be disdained in favour of what they consider "true art".

Hell painting miniatures or creating art for fantasy sci-fi worlds can a art - but again few in the art world would consider it so.

Yes, you are right! 100% film, TV, and other formats can be art. I didn't realize there was an argument about that?

the_scotsman wrote:

And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did

This is extremely funny. Thanks for sharing.

Fundamentally, art is simply a form of expression. And like any form of expression whether it's an oil painting, a 140-character tweet, or a signed toilet by some wealthy French intellectual, it becomes open to interpretation as soon as it's released into the wild.

When you release a piece of art, usually there will be some people out there who will 'get it'. Many will be apathetic towards it. A few people might even be offended by it. You probably had some idea about what you intended to communicate with your artwork, and what makes it worth creating, and worth sharing. But there is no guarantee that your communication will be successful, just like there is no guarantee that when you tell a joke to a stranger, the stranger is going to laugh.

Much of the popular distaste for modern art stems from the fact that a lot of the more indulgent forms of abstract expression were never intended function as the attractive, beautifully-crafted objects most people expect when they think of art. To use Duchamp as an example again:

...he had rejected the work of many of his fellow artists (such as Henri Matisse) as "retinal" art, intended only to please the eye. Instead, Duchamp wanted to use art to serve the mind.

If your definition of good art is something that displays meticulous craftsmanship and conventionally appealing aesthetics, Duchamp's work is going to seem pretty silly. Not only that, but if all you see is hyper rich people paying millions of dollars for pieces like his signed urinal, while also giving off the impression that you don't have enough taste or culture to understand its value, you're going to feel pretty annoyed. It's like being in front of an in-crowd telling a bunch of in-jokes to each other. There is a distinct air of smug superiority which makes outsiders feel left out.



So we arrive at a few important philosophical questions. Should art be for everyone? Is good art only art that is understood by all? Should the value of an artistic work be judged soley by its popularity? Its gross revenue? The amount museums are willing to pay for it? There are no definitive answers here.

Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.

Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.

So anything understated or simple isn't art?
That's an... interesting... limitation.

No, understatement and simplicity can absolutely be themes in and of themselves. Understatement and simplicity are often some of the hardest themes to execute well and when done right they can be sublime.

artific3r wrote:
No, understatement and simplicity can absolutely be themes in and of themselves. Understatement and simplicity are often some of the hardest themes to execute well and when done right they can be sublime.

And if the themes _aren't_ understatement or simplicity, but they're just done in an understated or simple way (ie, not 'powerful' or 'novel?')

I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Voss wrote:

Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.

So anything understated or simple isn't art?
That's an... interesting... limitation.

Understated and simple are not antonyms of powerful and novel. It is completely possible for something to be both understated yet powerful, or novel yet simple.

Case in point from the world of science: the idea that the acceleration of a dropped object is independent of its mass was novel, powerful and simple.

artific3r wrote:
I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Halloween themed anything.

One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, no matter how garish, tacky or unskilled it is, and the latter is not.

Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'

Voss wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Halloween themed anything.

One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'

The words were that if something is both powerful and novel while reinforcing the theme of the piece then it would be a strong piece of art in the personal view of artific3r using the metric of theme, not that they are requirements to be art at all.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Voss wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Halloween themed anything.

One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.

From the statement that 'powerful and novel' is art. and that is the _ONLY_ metric.

Voss wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Voss wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Halloween themed anything.

One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, and the latter is not.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what artific3r said.

From the statement that 'powerful and novel' is art. and that is the _ONLY_ metric.

That is not what was said. This is what artific3r said:

Personally speaking, I judge art, literature, films, games, tweets, pop culture, and all other forms of creative expression by one metric only, and that metric is theme. Does the work reinforce its theme in a powerful and novel way? If so, it is a strong piece of art.

The metric used is theme, not being powerful and novel. Something which fulfils the theme and is both powerful and novel (new) is strong art. And all of that is, in the very first two words of the quote, admitted to be their own personal metric, not a universal one. They do not claim that it is the only metric which exists, just that it is the only metric they personally use.

And again, powerful and novel are not antonyms for understated and simple.

One point to make re: old and ancient art, literature etc etc

"gak post" is only a modern word, not a modern phenomenon.

Voss wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I don't follow. Can you give me an example?

Halloween themed anything.

One has pumpkins and witches all over the place (a strong halloween theme), the other has little touches of autumn and obscured figures (an understated one).
The theme for both is Halloween. From what you're telling me, the former is art, no matter how garish, tacky or unskilled it is, and the latter is not.

Alternately, neither are art because neither are 'novel'

That's a great example. The kind of garish, tacky Halloween decorations you see at the grocery store are usually pretty cliche. That kind of stuff is not novel even though it has a strong theme. It is certainly still art, but I wouldn't call it very strong art.

Whereas your second example sounds more like strong art. Little touches of autumn and subtly obscured figures are not something you usually think of when you think about Halloween decorations. That element of novelty is what gives it more of an artistic quality. It makes a statement by being understated, by NOT being the typical garish stuff you're used to seeing. That's novelty. That adds to the "conversation" of Halloween decorations. It doesn't just repeat what's already been said. That understatement is exactly what makes your second example seem stronger artistically. It has more expressive power precisely because it's not just repeating tired cliches like the tacky, garish stuff you're used to seeing.

Incidentally, this is a lot of what the modern art movements explored in the 20th century. People were tired of the hyper-realistic rendering and beautifully painted landscapes of the past few centuries. Artists had 'solved' that style of art, so producing more of it wasn't really adding to the conversation. Abstract expressionism, and everything that followed was the direct response to that style. That's a conversation. That's progress.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
One point to make re: old and ancient art, literature etc etc

"gak post" is only a modern word, not a modern phenomenon.

Ha, I love this.

Rosebuddy wrote:
One point to make re: old and ancient art, literature etc etc

"gak post" is only a modern word, not a modern phenomenon.

Have an exalt my friend.

Diogenes, I think he is looking at you!

On the topic of viral meme status, have an article on the inexplicable proliferation of a theme in medieval literature- knight vs snail.
Seriously.

https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2013/09/knight-v-snail.html

I'm inclined to the literal interpretation myself- I'm not so certain that 13th and 14th century scribes were engaging in the broad social commentary that these critics are envisioning. But I know monasteries relied on gardens, and that those scribes pulled garden duty only to find their afternoon would be spent plucking snails. So drawing pictures of those snails getting what was coming to them is hilarious!

Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.

Definitely agree with this with a bit of a reword: "Art is for everyone, but that doesn't mean every piece of art has to satisfy everyone."

People's reaction to art is an incredibly personal one. Sometimes a piece of art moves you and you really cannot explain why, that doesn't make the emotional response you had to it any less genuine or powerful.

As a lighthearted example I point to this scene from Parks and Recreation:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Art absolutely should not be for everyone. Not everyone is going to have the qualities necessary to appreciate every single piece of work described by someone as art.

I disagree with you saying that art should not be for everyone. . . I would say art is for everyone, but everyone has a different, personal reaction meaning. . . well, "different strokes for different folks"

the_scotsman wrote:I don't know why I expected anything except for a couple pages of people congratulating each other on their incredibly brave opinion that some vaguely defined "modern art" is bad and that people don't appreciate "the classics" anymore, but, here we are I guess.

Spoiler:

Let's talk about 'the classics.' Roman sculpture for example. Pretty much everything you know about Roman Sculpture is based on the modern perspective that the ancients were enlightened, dedicated, traditional geniuses, who really understood how to ART AN ART.

The fact that nearly all marble roman sculpture was painted to a bright, garish quality akin to what a 6 year old might produce was a fact that was vehemently fought against in the modern artistic community for decades. And much of the damage to facial features, heads, arms, etc from roman statuary is that the nobility treated their family's statuary as a form of ancestral instagram. It was a common practice to replace the hair, or the nose, or the item the statue was holding with a different one to make your relative look more similar to the current fashion, or an important political figure you wanted to be associated with. Usually this was done with cheaper material which would crumble before the statue did

it was common practice in centuries past for a rich sponsor to essentially entirely feed, clothe and house the most talented artists for the creation of their works. In the modern era, we have established a more intelligent, enlightened form of society. Now, we treat art as a worthless leisure activity and the only people who can pursue art with all their time and energy are those who don't have to work to eat.

Like so many things, we don't sort by talent anymore, we sort by how rich your daddy is.

Also, the toilet in a museum that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody loves to bring up as the prime example of 'degenerated modern art' was done in 1917. If you think 'modern art sucks' and think of that signed urinal, your definition of 'modern' also condemns monet.

Tl;dr - conceptions of what is 'classic' art are flawed, conceptions of what is 'modern' art are flawed, maybe you'd have less gakky 21st century artists if we ever decided to pay people for art outside of the entertainment and advertisement industry so we didn't just get all our art from the spoiled progeny of the richest 1% of the population.

Goddamn I wish I could exalt this comment more than once.

You don't have to LIKE the art, but it *is* art - and maybe our artistic understanding would all be better if "high" art wasn't mystified and kept in the hands of an elite few, and our artistic understanding was further included in education beyond "old = good".

Let me reword that.

Art is for anyone, not everyone.

Case point: Rap. A large segment of the population dismisses rap in its entirety due to the use of vulgarities and subject matter in many, but not all, songs. Would you argue that rap is for everyone?

 trexmeyer wrote:
Would you argue that rap is for everyone?

Yes, yes I would. Because rap doesn't have to be that way.

 Super Ready wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Would you argue that rap is for everyone?

Yes, yes I would. Because rap doesn't have to be that way.

Spoiler:

Of course, you realise I am now legally required to bring Professor Elemental into the thread

I have trouble understaing OP's question. What is a "value"?

As for art, I've always thought art is anything that elevates above the mundane, ie. highly subjective by its very nature.

I'm not the least bit surprised manchilds who are into transformers and "paint-by-numbers" 3D colouring books have no regard for "modern art". Modern art affectionados dont get what you are into either. (this paragraph was intentionally "edgy" and confrontational, as a counterargument for the 100k $ turd haters).

Which is why I don't think art can ever be something which is not subjective.. if it doesn't make you feel awesome inside, it's not "art" to you.

I think most artists want you to feel something when you are exposed to their creations. Any inherent "value" beyond that goes into specifics of the piece and it's creator.

My father is an artist. He taught me everything there is to know about being one. Its a state of consciousness above all else (and can be very dangerous if fed back too strongly into itself). In this state of consciousness, you transcribe things you experience into a form of sorts. Its communication but one which has no formal and globally understood language.

Another interesting analogue to art could be 40K's depiction of "warp". Psykers are the artists, and some people are psychic nulls, others more or less sensitive to it etc. You can manifest its power's, but it can also use you and devour you into it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Of course, you realise I am now legally required to bring Professor Elemental into the thread

I had a feeling SOMEONE would. This does reflect another side of art that I usually enjoy... mixing and melding of styles in order to create new ones. Standing on the shoulders of giants, if you will.
It's how we got rock n' roll, you know!

Stating that rap doesn't have to be that way and then linking white rappers is subtlety racist.