The Modern Art Idiocy

I wonder how precious Rothko could be become, knowing a 'vandal' expressed...so abstractly, on his painting?

I haven't read the report of this 'attack', but, somehow think the perp was an artist...I may be wrong...

A99

reply to post by akushla99


I cannot imagine any artist - that is, someone who creates ART - ever dreaming of harming a Rothko (or any art, for that matter).

If by "artist" you mean someone who draws, paints or sculpts - but does not necessarily create art - then I suppose it is possible.

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by akushla99

 

I cannot imagine any artist - that is, someone who creates ART - ever dreaming of harming a Rothko (or any art, for that matter).

If by "artist" you mean someone who draws, paints or sculpts - but does not necessarily create art - then I suppose it is possible.

edit on 10-10-2012 by Vanitas because: (no reason given)

That sounds a little confusing...

...and has an implicit assumption that what you call Art - is art...
I reject the assumption...and do not insert my own

As to the determination 'artist'...Situationism (Situationists)...would beg to differ, or better still, the Fluxus movement?!

Having said that, I would not dream of defacing a Rothko...a Pollock, maybe

A99

reply to post by akushla99


Oh, I've written about the concept of art - a lot! - much, much earlier in this thread.
That - a discussion on the subject of art - is what I thought was the most valuable aspect of this thread, as it is the main aspect that modern art itself brings to the forefront.

But I've been done with this thread for more than two years now; and after all the thought and time I had invested in it - all to no avail (meaning that very few seemed to even read or care to think about) - I am... well, done with it.

Still, I'd love to read more about your thoughts on Pollock and why his works are (not) art, in your opinion.
Even if I don't reply, I'd be interested in reading it.



EDIT:

Here are two of my earlier replies (from February 2010) in this thread, in case anyone is interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by akushla99

 

Oh, I've written about the concept of art - a lot! - much, much earlier in this thread.

That - a discussion on the subject of art - is what I thought was the most valuable aspect of this thread, as it is the main aspect that modern art itself brings to the forefront.

But I've been done with this thread for more than two years now; and after all the thought and time I had invested in it - all to no avail (meaning that very few seemed to even read or care), I am... well, done with it.

Still, I'd love to read more about your thoughts on Pollock and why his works are (not) art, in your opinion.
Even if I don't reply, I'd be interested in reading it.

edit on 10-10-2012 by Vanitas because: (no reason given)

Ya...I remember posting in this thread too, earlier on...

Pollock, as I understand, used the most corrosive mediums on badly 'ground' canvas...many of his works are literally developing holes, due to the use of paint - such as metallic paint...

There is a feeling that he was aware of the works' impermanence, and either had no care for its permanence, or continuing historical value...why?...who knows...

I consider what good motor mechanics do...as an artform...I like both Rothko and Pollock...I see no difference actually...'conceptual' art began...waaaay before it became an 'ism'...

There are many factors contributing to what is considered 'good' art (or high art)...skill, timing, prescience, luck...etc...

I myself was blown away by an exhibition of Carravaggio works...old school, I know...point being, how many 'artists' who slogged in attics somewhere, have never been recognised for anything?...brings to mind Warhols '15 minutes of fame'...shrewd operator, that one! (if not a tad obsessional)...instigated that production line called 'the factory'...is it art?

A99

There is a feeling that he was aware of the works' impermanence, and either had no care for its permanence, or continuing historical value...why?...who knows...

Maybe because he was - as Duchamp had been in 1917, with his famous Fountain - aware of the precarious and transient nature of society itself, as a result (the awareness, I mean) of the war?

THAT's modern art: a reflection of society, ON society, and art's role in it.


P.S. Caravaggio is great!
He was a dangerous hoodlum, of course, and not someone I'd like to meet in a dark alley, but great.

Modern Art was a CIA Weapon.

That explains it...

Originally posted by Vanitas

There is a feeling that he was aware of the works' impermanence, and either had no care for its permanence, or continuing historical value...why?...who knows...

Maybe because he was - as Duchamp had been in 1917, with his famous Fountain - aware of the precarious and transient nature of society itself, as a result (the awareness, I mean) of the war?

THAT's modern art: a reflection of society, ON society, and art's role in it.

P.S. Caravaggio is great!
He was a dangerous hoodlum, of course, and not someone I'd like to meet in a dark alley, but great.

edit on 10-10-2012 by Vanitas because: (no reason given)

Well then, we agree
I, however, do broaden my application of the term 'artist'...(not saying you don't!)...I've become increasingly interested in graffiti, of late...the 'defacing' of the Rothko reminded me a little of this...graffitti (or that horrible tagging!)...

I read and reread the Penrose work on Caravaggio...was like a thriller...and as luck would have it, right after I finished the book, the exhibition came up...what a blast!
The detail in these paintings is astounding - palpably unaffected by photography (unlike the photo-realists)...makes it all the more worthwhile...
He was a veritable rascal!

A99

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Modern Art was a CIA Weapon.

That explains it...

That explains what the CIA 'used' it for...

The 'weapon' already existed as artists practicing art...

...and 'modern' art didn't begin with abstract expressionism...

...interesting nonetheless...

A99

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Modern Art was a CIA Weapon.

That explains it...

Who would have thought it... Truman was a Hottentot?



It is a very good article (I thought it had been posted in this thread before), and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of political propaganda.

The key word, of course, is "unwitting".
Pollock & Co. had no idea of how they were being used; but even if they had, there is certainly no causal link between the CIA propaganda and their individual artistic expressions.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Or am I missing something? Am I ignorant? Do I "not have the eye for fine art"?

Yes.

While I agree in some respects that modern art is sometimes controversial, especially when it comes to value, attacking something you don't understand is ignorant.

It's one thing to say that something is too highly valued, but quite another to say that it is worthless because you don't understand it.

I studied art, and my father was an artist. I grew up with art around me 24/7. And even though there are some things that I look at and have to really consider, that is the INTENTION of art. It's about conveying a message or telling a story.

Do you suppose that someone speaking in a foreign language is talking rubbish because you can't understand that language? No, of course not. Just because someone speaks German does not make them an imbecile or their statements meaningless, you just don't understand what they are saying and so choose to pretend that they're not saying anything.

As for the value, how would you value it?

How do you value any property?

Take a look at the house you live in, and value that. You would look at the style of it, the work that has gone into it, the details... then imagine that it is the only house in existence.

Whether you understand it or not, and whether you agree with the value or not, you cannot deny that each of these paintings is an original.

I would also challenge you to paint the same thing, exactly the same, with the same colors, the same brush strokes, the same attention to detail... I'll guarantee you right now that you would fail. You probably wouldn't get the canvas right, and you'd probably be painting it in acrylics rather than oils, you'd probably add too much medium or not enough, you'd probably not be able to mix the right colors to get that specific hue...

It's all subjective to a degree, but the simple fact is that the only people who rant and rave about things like this "not being art" have no education in art and probably have never visited a gallery in their lives.

reply to post by masqua


By the way, Masqua - I am not sure I ever replied to you (because I didn't visit the website for more than a year afterwards), but your two paintings, especially the first one, are a joy to behold.
I mean it literally: my eyes cannot get enough of them.

And thank you for having read my post and paid attention to it.
I appreciate it.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Do you suppose that someone speaking in a foreign language is talking rubbish because you can't understand that language?

I just had to repeat this

nice

(I love this thread)

:-)

reply to post by Vanitas


Thanks for checking it out, Vanitas. Those paintings were all about the 'truth behind the curtain' of our perceived realities. I've moved on from that theme over the past couple of years and am currently swimming in a sea of uncertainty, not sure where to go next. In the meantime, I've traded in my free style for a ruler, compass and set of French curves to carve out a large perspective of a small town downtown circa 1970.

Last Sunday evening, I watched a 2-hour film about Tom Thomson. Two weeks earlier, I visited the Art Gallery of Ontario, in Toronto, and viewed a large collection of his work. I've also visited just about anywhere else his work is on display, such as Owen Sound and Kleinberg. For some reason I truly can't nail down, his style of painting, in the later years of his life, reminds me so much of Vincent Van Gogh (who was my earliest inspiration).

How Thomson will eventually affect my future work is uncertain, but that it will is pretty much assured. The last thing I wan't to do is copy his style and that's the difficulty. It has to show a continuity of my own work.

As a result, I feel like I can't move forward until I've figured out my own progress first.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Do you suppose that someone speaking in a foreign language is talking rubbish because you can't understand that language?

I just had to repeat this

nice

(I love this thread)

:-)

I couldn't agree more.
However, when I wrote practically an "essay" making the exact same point, hardly anyone seemed to bother enough to even read it, certainly not thoughtfully.

Why am I pointing this out?
Because this potentially wonderful thought-provoking thread quickly degenerated into merry abuse of anyone who took the subject seriously.
And there is no reason to believe that the same won't happen again.
This place certainly isn't populated by more thoughtful posters today than it was three years ago.

reply to post by masqua



Oh, you're still here, Masqua! Thank God for that.

Yes, they are an eye-full in the best possible sense.
I'd love to see more of them.

Good luck with your endeavours.
Let the uncertainty lead you (as I know you will).
The seas of uncertainty are the best for swimming towards where we really want to go. :-)

Eric Clapton sells blotches of paint for 21 Million

reply to post by Skyfloating


Look! It's more than just blotches of paint :-)

And I will include a second line because I'm not a mod

:-)

Morning Sky

The other day I spent many hours here - looking at the work of this gentleman:
clyffordstillmuseum.org...

I actually thought about you and this thread while I was there

Also, a star - for making me laugh

Originally posted by masqua
For some reason I truly can't nail down, his style of painting, in the later years of his life, reminds me so much of Vincent Van Gogh (who was my earliest inspiration).

Could it be the way the brush strokes overlap instead of mixing with each other?

reply to post by Vanitas

Because this potentially wonderful thought-provoking thread quickly degenerated into merry abuse of anyone who took the subject seriously.
And there is no reason to believe that the same won't happen again.
This place certainly isn't populated by more thoughtful posters today than it was three years ago.

hey Vanitas :-)

I think this thread is perfect - just the way it is

There's no way to have this chat without the dissenters, naysayers and critics. Whatever else art might be for, it should at least provoke...something

That's what we have here in this thread - people who were done provoked

And, some genuine thinking too :-)