The Modern Art Idiocy

Shucks I only do digital art and photos.



She is poison angel. A yearning for our inner soul
to fly away to far off places we've never been and explore
the meaning of our existence.

I just wanted an out of focus angel.


Cough I tried!

reply to post by [davinci]

A similar painting was purchased by the Canadian government several years ago, there was a massive outcry when people found out that 1.3 million dollars had been paid for a painting of three stripes (a humour/commentary TV show did a trip to a hardware store in order to put it into persepective).

This is a revenge of artists for all the misunderstandings and ignorance they suffer from society

Originally posted by uncle_benja
You guys are so ignorant. I am no professional, but I know enough about art to tell you that art is not always about aesthetics, but is usually centered around emotions that can rise from viewing the piece.

Why do I feel more Emotions reading ATS than looking at those pictures?

Originally posted by Sunsneezer
But to brush off abstract art or Picasso as rubbish is literally ignorant. The most simplistic looking pieces of art are often the ones with the most elaborate though process behind it. Besides, a lot of abstract art is huge, full of texture and sometimes actually engaging when you stand in front of them instead of watching a tiny picture of it on your screen.

Deep colour and contrast are fantastic things to behold. Not denying that. Im just saying that I could get significantly better pieces for $1000. In fact, I have - they are hanging at my place.

These guys spend their lives researching and developing visual theories, creation methods, and further the commentary about art itself. You might not understand it but they still deserve recognition and respect.

Is it that we are "too dumb to understand" or that some of you have fallen for high-sounding descrptions and price-tags?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Perhaps your brain is more attuned to the emotive content of writing (linear) than to abstract (ambiguous) art. Or, you have a lot more experience in translating emotions from words than from pictures...a combination of the quirkiness of being human mixed with a much more sophisticated knowledge in one thing over the other. Perhaps.

Originally posted by epitaph.one
Honestly, this thread is just riddled with ignorance. Art doesnt have to be a self portrait or a landscape, you may not like it, but with ignorance abound, your opinion doesnt mean anything. beauty if in the eye of the beholder.
To say these artists just paint a few bold blocks and hang it on a wall is complete bull#. Modern art peices have just as much thought and purpose as any impressionist or realist. shrug im done.

Id like to put this post of yours beside this one, for contrast:

Originally posted by StevesResearch
This is just further proof of how pretentious the art world is.

I'm an artist myself (Digital/Conceptual Artist) and when I look at paintings like these I laugh at the lack of talent and imagination displayed, then when I read about the amount they sell for I'm appalled. This garbage sells for a fortune while quality art barely gets noticed.

I know this is all subjective but let's be honest here the examples in the op look like something a 5 year old could paint.

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
To Skyfloating- I genuinely dislike your perspective. I consistently find your perspective and expression disgusting despite whatever over-hyped "quality" found in your posts. Pretty much every thread you start I dislike. I find your opinions mundane and trite yet manipulative and shallowly intended to garner popularity within the structure of ATS flagging and starring. -Not only is this the equivalent of many people's feeling towards some artists but my honest and sincere feelings evoked by your posts.

As they say in this thread "Since you react to my posts, they are art"

the art world seems to be full of people who have had their heads up their arses for so long that putting feces on their walls feels completely natural.

great art is universal, by definition. anyone who starts talking about "high art" are somewhere between a liar and a spineless idiot.

the liars were told, at some stage, that "high art" had to be studied and understood before it could be appreciated. after many years lost in the attempt to find the merit others assured them existed, they eventually started to pretend that they could see what they were supposed to see.

the spineless idiots either don't have the balls to tell the liars that they're full of crap or they have too much invested in over priced colour samplers to admit the truth.

not that it matters, it's not my money. i'll buy what i like and what i think is important. if you think the emperors clothes are so nice that $72million seems a reasonable price, i have a whole warehouse of suits i can let you have at a knock down price.

[edit on 15/2/10 by pieman]

"De gustibus non disputandem." If you don't like a painting, you don't have to buy it. Would you pay seven million dollars for a painting of Elvis on velvet? Personally, I like the Rothkos... though they were over-valued at auction. Collectors pay astronomical figures for art because they want people to notice them: conspicuous consumption. Most art museums in the US are private, not for profit entities and can spend their money however they wish. Paying astronomical prices for well known works is a marketing strategy for them. It's like a zoo having a panda.

Originally posted by masqua
So, we are left with the blinders on, focussed on a few examples of 'bad art' with which to ridicule millions of artists who have poured out their hearts for over a century.

Shallow thinking.

Its not artists being ridiculed here. As members of society have the right to question the allocation of massive funds to mediocre works. If anyone is being ridiculed in the OP its David Rockefeller, the Sheik and the Curator mentioned.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Meesterjojo
I agree to some degree- regardless of interpretations of Rothko, he's never been my cup of tea...though he decorates a chapel just fine (here in Houston we have the Rothko Chapel, long story, and you wouldn't comprehend it).

I hope one day before you die that you make some effort to understand and appreciate, or at least keep an open mind towards things you don't understand, again, laughably, because of what ATS is all about if nothing more.

Also: lol, you're an idiot.

Im open toward the fact that I may be an idiot and I wrote this thread with some trepidation of being exposed as an idiot. But throughout this thread hardly anyone was found who agrees with the value-tag-given to these specific paintings - so at least Im not a lone idiot.

Originally posted by MoothyKnight


This fine piece is obviously the epitome of art since its on the top of the f-ing price list.... Van Gogh at least got some love on that list.. It says the $140 million price tag was inflation-adjusted so I'm calling shenanigans

Im telling you its a Conspiracy. Having that be the height of human achievement is pure Mockery.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by ThrIII
If something appears ambiguous then educate yourself with regard to the subject to a clearer level, if you can be bothered. If it still doesn't interest you personally then move on to something that does.

Mundane trash such as the stuck-bubble-gum mentioned earlier being given high value does interest me.

Any heartfelt creation has integrity, however "ugly".

Is it heartfelt to splash some paint on paper or stick bubble-gum to a window and call it fine art?

Originally posted by Conal
Interesting post. I take it you have no background in Art whatsoever which obviously makes you an expert.

You are mistaken.

answer me this..have you ever stood in front of one of these paitings?

Yes. Its just a few color stripes. Admittedly rather pretty, but nothing "only a genius could paint"

I guess not because if you had your post would not exist.

Again, mistaken.


[edit on 15-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

in a nute shell:

Fine Arts has shifted its entire focus on concept. Fine Arts is more about process or the meaning of the work, which is what the thousands of talentless hacks manipulate to their advantage towards the previous generation of talentless hacks. They all agree with each other about BS theory that honestly wouldn't help them do anything besides fuel the next BS explanation of their work (i.e. one single brush stroke on a giant canvas or something).

One thing that would absolutely piss everyone off here is appropriation. Artists who take other Artists previous work and do something stupid like take a picture of themselves in front of it, or maybe if it's a photograph of something, they will darken it slightly or some times even just put it in a weird frame.

Fine artists tend to criticize more organized forms of artistry like designers, illustrators, and generally anyone who uses technical ability extensively. there are always exceptions but those truly great visionaries will only be copied and appropriated to provide a comfortable life for someone who truly does not deserve it.

and the people in the fine arts world eat it up. their peers, the people who show their work, the people who buy it.

it's a culture of stupidity that goes beyond race, gender, or political allegiance. Fine Art is someone's obscure definition of cool, which is I'd say is a fair assessment of it.


my girlfriend goes to art school, my best friend goes to art school, my close circle of friends go to art school. I was going to be a photographer in the Fine Arts program at OTIS until I heard learned about the art scene. I still go to my friends' openings, but good god, keep that BS minimalist sh*^ out of ATS.


I could go on for a very long time about how awful these people are!

Originally posted by B.Morrison
art school graduates become art teachers because they lose the raw talent, it gets beaten out of them and remoulded as 'rules'.

Art school drop outs notice this raw talent slipping away, drop out, and remain TRUE artists.

just my 2 cent, based on 7 or so years of personal experience.

I also have the impression that art school is not exactly what it could be. Too many rules. How can art prosper with so many rules as to what art is allowed to be and what not?

To those of you saying "its all subjective", "its all invididual" etc:

Is it purely subjective that living at a beach+sea is better than living in a nuclear-trash-dump?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by B.Morrison
art school graduates become art teachers because they lose the raw talent, it gets beaten out of them and remoulded as 'rules'.

Art school drop outs notice this raw talent slipping away, drop out, and remain TRUE artists.

just my 2 cent, based on 7 or so years of personal experience.

I also have the impression that art school is not exactly what it could be. Too many rules. How can art prosper with so many rules as to what art is allowed to be and what not?

depends where you go and what you want to do. ther are schools with programs and majors that basically let you do whatever you want for the junior and senior year. then there's dudes like product design majors and video game designers who have a strict regimented education, usually, with senior year mostly being the completion of one big project.

reply to post by Skyfloating


What's a "nuclear trash dump"? And yes, it is subjective.

Originally posted by ThrIII
Perhaps your brain is more attuned to the emotive content of writing (linear) than to abstract (ambiguous) art. Or, you have a lot more experience in translating emotions from words than from pictures...a combination of the quirkiness of being human mixed with a much more sophisticated knowledge in one thing over the other. Perhaps.

Or perhaps I can sense lack of heartfelt commitment in the artist who smears poo over a wall and declares it art?