The Modern Art Idiocy

reply to post by ArMaP

I see art as something that depends on our senses to exist...

so, an idea is nothing without a vehicle?

do we each assign value to a message or idea based on our individual interpretations and experiences – or by how much we like or dislike the vehicle?

if we can’t appreciate or understand the medium is the message lost?

what interests me about all this is how we decide whether or not it has value

even if we all agree that something is art – how can we ever agree on whether or not it’s good art – or bad?

it seems to me all art is neutral – neither good or bad

That's the problem that appears with the translation of written works, specially poems. When you are translating something into something that can be interpreted by people that were otherwise unable of interpreting it, you become part of the problem, so you may destroy an artistic piece or you may create a new, even better, one.

yes – I love that

but something interesting there – how is it possible that some people are unable to interpret a work of art for themselves? Why would interpretation ever be necessary?

just so you understand – I don’t disagree with this – not at all :-)

let’s put it this way – many people will happily let other people help decipher a poem or book - but most people will look at or listen to other art forms and then decide for themselves whether or not they like it

they decide if it’s good or bad – whether or not it has value

what’s the difference there?

reply to post by Skyfloating


hey Skyfloating - just for grins...

which is the more valuable color - red or blue?

seriously - if you had to spend your money on one and money was no object - which one would it be?

:-)

There was an episode of Dilbert on this.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
so, an idea is nothing without a vehicle?

In cases like this, yes. In the same way a tool that exists only in thought doesn't have any use, art that only exists in thought doesn't have any use either, unless there's a way for the artist to "publish" his/her thoughts.

do we each assign value to a message or idea based on our individual interpretations and experiences – or by how much we like or dislike the vehicle?

I think we value the message by our interpretation, but there's always the possibility that the vehicle, for some reason, distracts us from the message and we are influenced by it.

if we can’t appreciate or understand the medium is the message lost?

I think so, at least the original message, as the artist thought it, is lost, but possibly we create our own message, based on out perceptions and experiences.

what interests me about all this is how we decide whether or not it has value

That's the problem, I don't have any idea of how we do that.

even if we all agree that something is art – how can we ever agree on whether or not it’s good art – or bad?

I don't think there's such thing as bad art; there's art that we can understand, art we can't understand and art technically well or badly produced, but I don't think there's bad art, like there isn't a "bad temperature". All relative and subjective things cannot be bad or good.

let’s put it this way – many people will happily let other people help decipher a poem or book - but most people will look at or listen to other art forms and then decide for themselves whether or not they like it

I think those people are just unsure of their own perceptions, so they need someone else's opinion first to have something to use as a "standard" from which they can create their own presentation of their opinion.

They have an opinion, they just do not want other people to think that they do not know how to express it.

reply to post by ArMaP


wow -

much to say to this ArMaP...

difficult to leave now - but I'll be back tomorrow

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

so, art requires an audience?

No, artists require an audience.

The toiler in his garret whose only satisfaction comes from his pleasure in the work itself--that artist is a myth.

Even the most reclusive, hermit-like of artists wants his work to be known, appreciated, talked-about and argued over. We only ever do this stuff so that other people will look at us and think, 'wow, he da man.'

if I can visualize the painting I want to create in my head - but then never go on to actually paint it - is the idea any less valid because I've got nothing to show for my effort?

Yes. It has no value, because it is just masturbation.

Art subsists as much in the interaction between artwork and apprehender ans between artist and artwork. And you, the artist, can never supply that.

reply to post by Astyanax


:-)

awww...crap - but I guess it was just a matter of time

The toiler in his garret whose only satisfaction comes from his pleasure in the work itself--that artist is a myth.

but Astyanax - you sound so sure?

:-)

can you prove this?

We only ever do this stuff so that other people will look at us and think, 'wow, he da man.'

da man...da man...well, you know where this is going

so - you are sure? the motivation is the same for everyone?

Yes. It has no value, because it is just masturbation.

and there it is - LOL!

so, is masturbation bad Astyanax? Wrong? Very interested in your reasoning - since it sounds kinda judgey... :-)

my whole point is right there (somewhere - let's see if we can find it)

who is this stuff for - ultimately?

why art?

Art subsists as much in the interaction between artwork and apprehender ans between artist and artwork. And you, the artist, can never supply that.

I disagree

OK, I'd like to add - once the art leaves the artist - yes - the relationship changes. Then it is between the art and anyone else - what happens there is something separate

but while the artist and the art are alone together - well, that relationship is unique.

you're a writer - can you honestly say that you wouldn't do it even if no one ever read anything you wrote - ever?

that feeling - a gorgeous sentence, words strung together just so...

doesn't it sometimes gives you a little glow - it make you go all warm and tingly...?

:-)

I know that there is meaning and worth in the act of creation that exists separately from the recognition we might receive when we're finished

even if we are only patting ourselves on the back

so to speak

also - thinking out loud isn't bad - but it's often embarrassing

:-)

reply to post by ArMaP

In cases like this, yes. In the same way a tool that exists only in thought doesn't have any use, art that only exists in thought doesn't have any use either, unless there's a way for the artist to "publish" his/her thoughts.

a tool has a purpose – past thinking about the best way to make the tool (nothing more beautiful than functional art sometimes)

what is the purpose of art?

to me discussing art is a perfect example of when it’s OK to put the cart before the horse – why it might be necessary to do so in order for us to even have this discussion

the cart might be an exceptional cart – but without a horse it’s meaningless

the horse will still be what it is with or without a cart – it’s always going to be a pretty good horse all on it’s own

I think we value the message by our interpretation, but there's always the possibility that the vehicle, for some reason, distracts us from the message and we are influenced by it.

yes - please see the previous babbling and nonsense about carts and horses :-)

I think so, at least the original message, as the artist thought it, is lost, but possibly we create our own message, based on out perceptions and experiences.

the original message is often lost I think – I agree. In fact, I think sometimes the message is a mystery even to the artist. So, when you say we create our own message – I think that might be the most accurate statement. We bring ourselves to the work – I see trying to understand what the artist intended as the beginning of a conversation

a conversation the artist originally might have been having with himself :-)

That's the problem, I don't have any idea of how we do that.

I once had a friend tell me she didn’t know diddly squat about art – whether it was good or bad – whether she even liked it or not. But she did say that if she had the money, she would invest in art – if it was a good investment and it’s value was likely going to increase over time. I think we were discussing the recent sale of a Van Gogh at the time

I asked her if after she bought it – could I pretty please come over and look at it? :-)

value is different things to different people – some people prefer red to blue

I don't think there's such thing as bad art; there's art that we can understand, art we can't understand and art technically well or badly produced, but I don't think there's bad art, like there isn't a "bad temperature". All relative and subjective things cannot be bad or good.

exactly – and when it comes to valuing art, we appreciate technical excellence because it’s something we recognize and understand. We sometimes think that good art is art that looks like something. It’s all we have to go by.

What value can there possibly be in something that doesn’t look like anything?

What value is there in an idea – a thought – a fleeting emotion that can’t be described with words?

I think those people are just unsure of their own perceptions, so they need someone else's opinion first to have something to use as a "standard" from which they can create their own presentation of their opinion.

They have an opinion, they just do not want other people to think that they do not know how to express it.

enough said

:-)

wait – not enough said...

what if those people finally began to see...it’s not just them

none of us really knows what we’re looking at – none of us is sure what any of it means – but some of us enjoy the mystery, the beauty – the implied meaning. Then we are moved to try and understand it and then try and explain what we understand

value might shift around for them – a little

I'm not sure if I believe astyanax's "da man" scenario. I know when I show people my work I am looking for some sort of recognition, but I know I'm detached from the whole process. I show them one work and it's "you don't like that one, well take a look at this one.... no?.... well, how about this one? I have plenty more." And if they don't get any of them, I personally do not feel deficient in anyway. I'm outside the whole process. The point being, I see my work as a particular point at a particular time in a particular place and sometimes I don't even get them anymore years after I did them. I believe,most artists create a work and let most of them loose after they are finished i.e., become emotionally detached. Or am I wrong?

If an artist remains even a tenth of how attached they were while creating the work after it is complete, would they ever be able to sell anything? Or in other words "That was yesterday, but this is today."

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
what is the purpose of art?

To be enjoyed, even if only by its creator.

That's why the thought is not enough, in that case the artist can only enjoy his/her thought of what he/she thinks would be a great art piece.

What value can there possibly be in something that doesn’t look like anything?

What value is there in an idea – a thought – a fleeting emotion that can’t be described with words?

Something like that has only its own value, and it's originality may be also valued.

But for that it needs to be really original.

Originally posted by ArMaP

What value can there possibly be in something that doesn’t look like anything?

What value is there in an idea – a thought – a fleeting emotion that can’t be described with words?

Something like that has only its own value, and it's originality may be also valued.

But for that it needs to be really original.

exactly what I was thinking

Rothko comes to mind

:-)

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
what is the purpose of art?

To be enjoyed, even if only by its creator.

Well, that makes me a major artist around here.

I'll keep that in mind. As always, this internet forum is full of sage advice.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
hey Skyfloating - just for grins...

which is the more valuable color - red or blue?

seriously - if you had to spend your money on one and money was no object - which one would it be?

:-)

I thought that after years of seeing each others avatars on ATS you might have gleaned that I have a personal preference of blue...

reply to post by Skyfloating


there you go - a josher after all

of course - blue it is

how could I have been so thick?

:-)

Originally posted by NIcon
I believe,most artists create a work and let most of them loose after they are finished i.e., become emotionally detached. Or am I wrong?

This is my experience too. I create a piece and then I pretty much forget about it as Im already involved in something new. It might be common for artists.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I create a piece and then I pretty much forget about it as Im already involved in something new. It might be common for artists.

It might be, but then I would be the exception.

My experience is this:

90% of the paintings I've done, I consider naive and sloppy. These reside in dark corners and won't see the light of day until they're either painted over or saved through some added work.

Out of the 10% considered to be 'kinda good' (shown and hopefully appreciated by others), perhaps among them is 1% personally regarded as 'exceptional'.

It is really difficult for me to part with that 1% and most of them now hang on my walls and would never see a gallery unless I was getting desperate for funds.

Originally posted by masqua

It is really difficult for me to part with that 1% and most of them now hang on my walls and would never see a gallery unless I was getting desperate for funds.

Mmmm...the Gems.

Did your recent exhibition go well?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Did your recent exhibition go well?

Yes, it did. Thanks for asking.

Apparently, my colourful series on 'Visioning' was a hit not only with vistors but also with other artists displaying their work.

I really should give credit to Fanshawe College for the success of my presentation. Their 'Fly like Peter Pan' exhibit was a huge draw and took place right beside me. The result of a contest where the winners were placed on a small table (with green background) and videotaped going through flying motions brought families galore also wanting their children a chance to 'get into the picture'.

There was a huge crowd milling about waiting their turn.



Yes... I DID get videotaped but was not included in the above YouTube vid. The very last girl is, imo, the best to view AND shows her flying past the Stratford Festival Theatre which is a 'world famous' venue for Shakespeare plays.

Now, off to email Matt for my own vid.

That was enjoyable to watch.

You could see whether someones imagination was really with the flight or more believing in just lying around.