The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Slaughtering children is not inherently of the same value as lovingly caring for them.

That's comparative value. Not inherent value. Something with "inherent value" doesn't need to be compared with something else to illustrate its value.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

It has become painfully obvious that this thread has degenerated into the finer points of precisely how to have an opinion about art, which fails to astonish. As an attempted stitch-in-time, I had interjected as much irrelevancy as I could muster without getting dinged. As they say, you can't stop a cock fight once it starts.

I really wish I understood what you mean with this paragraph. It sounds very interesting and I'm curious, but I'm afraid I'm simply not smart enough to understand it or else it's going over my head for some reason. Sadly.

My participation in this thread was to answer the question posed in the OP. Not to tell anyone how to have an opinion. Or to start a cock fight. I have no cock in this "fight". See, I don't know if that's what you meant or not...

In any case, it's an interesting thread, and as an artist myself, I value the discussion of finding value in art. There's a lot of art (Monet, for example) that I find worthless and even irritating. But I understand and accept that many find his work beautiful. And I have no need or desire to put HIM down or to question the value of his art or the people who find it wonderful.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That's comparative value. Not inherent value. Something with "inherent value" doesn't need to be compared with something else to illustrate its value.

Yes, of course. The point being made is that value is not entirely subjective, but that there is an inherent or NATURAL value-system built into humans.

Normally you can pretty much condition kids to believe one thing or another. But some things are already there from birth, before you condition them.

Show a newborn child a few paintings...let it decide

Originally posted by Skyfloating
... there is an inherent or NATURAL value-system built into humans.
...
Show a newborn child a few paintings...let it decide

Do you think a newborn child would pick a Monet over a Rothko? Because I'm not at all sure that he would. A newborn child might very well pick the simplistic and colorful Rothko over this confusing mess (my judgments):



And if he DID pick the Rothko over Monet, would that mean that our 'natural value system' gets corrupted or conditioned to appreciate the Monet as we age, because it supposedly makes more sense?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It was simply commenting upon the sudden slide from discussing beliefs about what makes art into the territory of discussing beliefs about beliefs (about what makes art). Hairs were starting to be split about respecting beliefs versus tolerating beliefs.

Suddenly I had a vision of people standing in elegant gowns and handsome tuxedos at an exhibition, sipping the most expensive champagne, arguing over the minutae of everything imaginable and forgetting about enjoying the exhibition entirely. I freaked out.

reply to post by Skyfloating

The same principles apply to everything else. With maturity you will start asking yourself what the difference between inflated value and real value is and as you do, you will become more adept at living.

well Skyfloating - at least you didn't call me Grasshopper

so...who or what determines inherent value?

with maturity, one might learn not to dodge a direct question

just sayin'

:-)

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
It was simply commenting upon the sudden slide from discussing beliefs about what makes art into the territory of discussing beliefs about beliefs (about what makes art). Hairs were starting to be split about respecting beliefs versus tolerating beliefs.

I see. I'm sorry if I perpetuated that slide. It wasn't my intention. I read the OP and then answered, without reading the 40 pages in between.

I freaked out.

That just proves it happens to the best.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I LOVE that Monet. Absolutely Love it. Odd, isnt it? Some of my conditioning is compelling me to like it, some of your conditioning is compelling you not to like it.

_________________________________________________________

One would have to conduct experiments on perception prior to conditioning/marketing vs. after.

But my sneaking suspicion is that most children will cry when a Bee stings them and stop crying when their mother soothes them.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Show a newborn child a few paintings...let it decide

This is how a newborn child sees that Monet.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/ff51afc65f3e1779.jpg[/atsimg]

And the first Rotko from the Opening Post.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1002769202395b96.jpg[/atsimg]

Is Rotko making art for babies?

reply to post by Skyfloating

I did a piece today, oil pastels on canvas, plen aire, the canvas was numbered and registered for the competition. First time for me plen aire and oil pastel on canvas.

impressionism is not for everyone, I am going to find out if it is for me. Actually, I found out I like it, and I am happy with it.

Will it sell?
If it is the last piece hanging, and there are no buyers, what is the value?

Damn, this is making me nervous. Sunday is coming.....

Making art is about process not product; a concept that non artist have a hard time grasping.
When struck by the muse, the exercise of a personal aesthetic is a passion, more akin to making love
than manufacturing and artifact. It's like acid; if you haven't experienced it; no amount of description can do
the actual experience justice. It's an event Beyond language.

I make art because of the pain and the ecstasy inherent in the creative process. It's not a competition sport of who is better or makes more money for the real artist making art. It's about expressing your soul, your reason for being. I don't care if you judge me or my art because ultimately it has nothing to do with you. I never ever think of the audience that may see my shows.
That's why the art of children is so endearing because they haven't been corrupted by the academics or the marketplace.

reply to post by whaaa

It's an event Beyond language.

I just loved that

I make art because of the pain and the ecstasy inherent in the creative process.

sometimes I don't make art for those same reasons - something that's also difficult to explain to someone that hasn't experienced it

but it's always in my head - always

it may be that art is completely unexplainable - I love it

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

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

can you prove this?

Of course I can't. It only takes one self-abuser in an attic somewhere to prove me wrong. But I make things for a living, as well as for pleasure. I'll leave it to those who know my work to decide whether I'm an artist or not, but I have lived all my life among artists and creative folk. What I'm saying here is that I understand the psychology. Even the most modest, the most antisocial and reclusive of artists wants people to see her work and be impressed by it.

I know a man of considerable creative talent. His gift is decorative rather than artistic but it is undeniably there. He works all the time, too. He never exhibits his work publicly, never sells any, never accepts commissions. In fact, he is deeply reluctant to let anything he's worked on leave his house--a kind of overprotective father to the children of his brain.

Still, whenever I visit him, he always pulls out his latest work to show me, and watches closely to see my reaction to it. The guy couldn't care less whether the general public cares about his work or whether or not they even see it, but he cares for my opinion, and that of a few other close friends he trusts.

I repeat: the artist who doesn't want praise and success for his or her work has never been born.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
you are sure? the motivation is the same for everyone?

The only other motive I can think of is creating pornography for one's personal titillation.

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

Not bad, just not good enough. An inferior outcome. Tell me, is anyone ever completely satisfied afterwards?

who is this stuff for - ultimately?

Ultimately? The artist, of course. It gets him laid, makes him money, boosts its self-esteem.

Other people find uses for it, too.

why art?

Ultimately, it is a fitness advertisement. A type of male sexual strategy.

I agree this begs the question of why there are female artists, but that isn't really so hard to answer.

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

Yes, I think I can honestly say that. I may write shopping lists or personal meditations of some kind, but I would not waste time making them original, or touching, or shocking, or beautiful.

However, this situation never obtains in real life, because one can always fantasize about being discovered and appreciated after one is dead and gone.

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...?

Of course it does. And then someone else reads it and is impressed and the warmth and tingliness rise by orders of magnitude.

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

Where does this meaning come from? Think about it.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
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.

It's time you good folk lost your innocence.

Please read this:

Hands up for Hirst: How the bad boy of Brit-Art grew rich at the expense of his investors

Originally posted by NIcon
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."

All of us who create things have evolved personal strategies to deal with the pain of a poor reception. Yours is a very good one.

Originally posted by Stewie
To judge art, or to make the determination whether something IS art, you have to be an artist.

Rubbish. This would mean that art is for artists only.

So, if you are not an artist, your viewpoint has no value to an artist.

Rubbish. Are you sure you're an artist? You can't be a very good one if you only listen to what other artists tell you.

No European would travel to America to "study" art, lol.

Rubbish. They do it all the time.

Replies should be limited to artists only, and all WILL be judged.

Judge this one, then.

reply to post by Astyanax


The art establishment is just what is says on the can - The Establishment
I understand it all too well.
Even the CIA had to get its grubby fingers on ART in the 50s
You say it is not an artists fault if they are one of the chosen ones for media hype and the rewards of fame
I say they have zero integrity and sell their souls to Saatchi and the like - they love crap that is void of any real substance and meaning and Intelectu-lies with terms the common man can not grasp
So what is good art - That is a personal choice SO WHY do we listen to so called experts who merely express personal likes and dislikes

www.michaeljohngriffiths.com...

Originally posted by Ian McLean
I don't think art can be put in a box. But, I think one common metric of "great art" is its universality: how it speaks to the human condition. Great art expresses itself in a language intrinsic to the human condition and speaks to something deep within all of us.

I disagree. In fact, I think this is noble-sounding nonsense. All art speaks to the human condition. Really bad art sometimes says quite a lot to it--witness the popularity of undo's unicorn ladies, or those chalk artists who paint trompe l'oeil images on sidewalks.

The greatness of great art certainly does not lie in its universality--Goethe's Faust is about as great as art can get, but if you can't speak German you ain't gonna get it, because Goethe's German doesn't translate well.

Great art is simply art that sets out to do great things, and succeeds.

Some of the criticism of "modern art" is valid, though. Its language has become too specific. Not accessible to the general public, but rather to an increasingly narrow culture. An attenuated conversation, the significance of which is becoming more and more irrelevant to the general public.

Artist who depend on the patronage of the wealthy couldn't care less about the general public. Those of us who depend on ticket sales and retail publication for our incomes do, though--on the whole, we tend to despise it.

reply to post by artistpoet

Not sure how your reply relates to my post, or to anything else I've said in this thread (though you never know; I've said a lot in it).

As for Michael John Griffiths' work--are you he?--I would say it was high quality illustration rather than what I'd call art. You probably disagree; that is your right, and I would not dream of taking it away from you.

The CIA have their hands in everything, I'm sure. They even discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not kidding--the first Westerner to see and recognize the value of a sample of the scrolls was the CIA bureau chief at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv back in 1949 or whenever it was. He had a sideline in antiques dealing and was introduced to a Bedouin who had some old scrolls for sale. The man had a sample. The CIA agent took it up to the embassy's flat roof, unrolled it and had a look. A few bits got blown away in the wind. The agent was even more blown away.

The name of the CIA man, incidentally, was Miles Copeland. One of his sons, named Stewart, later became famous for hitting Sting and other things.

reply to post by Astyanax

Your reply has been reviewed. It has been found to be without merit for the following reasons.

Failure to follow the rules for replying. (Must be an artist.)

Failure to understand sarcasm. (Must be intuitive.)

You may choose to establish credibility and attempt a reply in the future. Please note, the same rules apply.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


that photograph of the german shepherd (your dog?) in your avatar is 100 times more interesting and artistic (to me) than the rothko painting. really well done, moody, intelligent (look at the face! that's an intelligent dog).