[video=youtube;lNI07egoefc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc[/video]
I hate how he completely dodges the question at 2:13, but he also makes some good points.
I'd hate to be a student of this guy.
Unless all art aims for realism and beauty, which is just blatantly wrong, his points are incredibly unsupported, ignorant and overused.
Oh no wonder. Its by the same channel that made that "War on boys" video that got posted a while back.
so he uses the figure skating analogy to say art can be objectively measured yet goes on to decry the critics and galleries for measuring it in a way he doesn't like?
This guy is stupid.
If you think certain pieces of modern art are bad then that is a perfectly valid point of view, a point of view that I share myself in some cases. But that is all it is, a point of view.
The problem with certain modern art galleries is that they are closed minded - pushing one style of expression over all others. But what he is suggesting is the exact same thing. If we truly wish to encourage and explore art we should be open to it in all of it's forms.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45902421]so he uses the figure skating analogy to say art can be objectively measured yet goes on to decry the critics and galleries for measuring it in a way he doesn't like?[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that figure skating at the Olympics is of pure competitive nature and that art is not a contest.
Had to open a window in my room that video made everything so fucking stuffy.
ofcourse modern art is still art, art is changing and has always been changing since the beginning of man, theres no doubt about that.
the biggest issue I have and probably bugs most other people who think modern art sucks is that it gets the attention it [b]doesn't[/b] deserve.
If you honestly think a canvas thats painted completely white deserves to be put in a gallery/museum and is "better" than some mediocre landscape painting then you piss right off because thats absurd.
People spent less time and effort and more time on the nonsensical "meaning" of a piece, best way to describe most modern paintings imo
I'd rather say that standard of effort has gone down rather than standard of quality because beauty really is in the eye of the beholder and beauty is subjective.
[t]http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/27333/article_5a5de27da4ee55f0_1336470943_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg[/t]
This is art installment that caused a bit of a stir in the UK a few months ago. With beauty being in the eye of the beholder some people considered it art, I can understand that and accept that. I honestly believe though that zero effort went into this. Just like that Michael Angelo and the rock comparison in the video. Its effort vs zero effort, not quality vs lack of quality. Art is subjective, effort is objective.
[img]http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/this-post-is-art-sells-90k-665x385.png[/img]
modern art can be anything.
modern art =/= contemporary art
I'm art
also this asshole sounds like your average "i could shit on a canvas" dumbfuck who clearly has a very narrow knowledge on arts. i'm going to quote myself on a post i made in a thread lately.
[quote]how can someone disagree with this post tbh baffles me. i would love to write a post explaining art history to you fellas but what's the point? i hope i don't shatter your dreams when i tell you back in the 17th century those giant, super detailed panels weren't all painted by one person. they hired a bunch of people from the academy specialized in specific topics (hands, heads, landscapes, architecture, etc) to do the full paintings for them, and they'd sign them afterwards. there was very strict (almost none) true poetic to any art work by the artist before the 19th century when romantism came along breaking all the chains, and then came photography and the only reason you have masters like van gogh, monet, even fucking picasso is because people were willing to do new shit. van gogh didn't sell a SINGLE PAINTING on his lifetime because his work was dissed.
see this?
[t]http://mesosyn.com/pp-e1.jpg[/t]
it was done by picasso. same guy who made this:
[t]http://www.museoreinasofia.es/sites/default/files/obras/DE01840_0.jpg[/t]
this is a picasso study on deconstructing a bull:
[t]http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2010/02/picasso_bull.jpg[/t]
now you know what's the most fucking insane thing about this study? people would never really stylize something to this point in purpose before modernism. AT ALL. i mean it. if something came out this stylized it was instantly considered BAD. nobody ever fucking doodled a stylized bull before because they felt like it was irrelevant or pointless. this dude brought such forms and representations like this to the table.
these two:
[t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tJfjqQNckdQ/UKAJCj4cklI/AAAAAAAAAkU/bdTme-qN4-I/s1600/Going+West.jpg[/t] [t]https://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/benton_people_of_chilmark.jpg[/t]
were made by jackson pollock, who INVENTED action painting pretty much:
[t]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg[/t]
my point is: give these people a fucking chance, trust me: they're trying. it's not like this dude doesn't have a whole study/research and most importantly a written project to hand in to the institution that is going to expose his work (most museums will refuse your work, even if it's got an amazing idea behind it if you can't truly make a good project for it).
contemporary artists want to bring new stuff but it's SO HARD to do nowadays because it feels like everything has already been done. and yes, there's a lot of shitty contemporary art but it's just BOUND to happen, just like (going to repeat myself) there's a lot of shitty music, tv shows, products and pretty much everything that comes out of creative work.
there's a lot that goes into contemporary art, and what you're doing right now is sitting on your ass making fun of somebody's work. because this is exactly what websites that post "~lel modern art~" want you to do. the media loves and has loved ridicularizing art of its time for the last couple centuries.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;45902832]I'm art[/QUOTE]
I am become art
It's not bad, it's just no longer based in technical skill.
The way I understand the shifts in art is like this.
Painting used to be how we recorded things. You'd get people (well, rich and influential people, which are the only people we really talk about when we talk history) who wanted to record themselves, their home, their land (and to a lesser extent, their pets), and the only way to do that was by hiring an artist to draw or paint these things. It was like that from the cave-painting days all the way up to the late 1800s when cameras happened.
Cameras were big. Suddenly it was massively easier to capture images. And so nobody bothered with painting any more: it was slow, often inaccurate, and like ever generation that there has ever been, people wanted the new flashy stuff instead of the old boring stuff.
So painters had to find a new way to stay in the game.
You got abstraction, impressionism, cubism, dadaism, etc, etc, and a gradual push towards a much stronger emphasis on concept rather than realistic painting or sculpture. The aim was to explore ideas rather than just be able to copy down onto paper the thing that you were looking at.
So you got people very early on asking 'what is art?', and you got people like Duchamp nicking a urinal, signing it and putting it in a gallery. You got people asking 'what does it mean to be human', and making art that skews the body or frightens the viewer. Or disgusts them. Art became something that wasn't about 'wow that's a pretty picture', but about 'how does looking at this [I]thing[/I] that the artist has decided they want you to see and think about make you feel?'.
The best definition of art that I've heard was by Roy Ascott: [B]'Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences'[/B]. What I ended up doing as an art student who is interested in telling stories, is I'd look at the piece of weird-ass art and think 'what could be the story behind this?'
And so I'd see this sculpture by Jeff Koons
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/358918663_70473e0a72.jpg[/IMG]
Or this sculpture by Tracy Emin
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Emin-My-Bed.jpg[/IMG]
And instead of just rejecting it as boring or weird or 'oh I could do that', I would ask what story could be behind it. And so I had [I]my[/I] way of enjoying art. And that's I recommend you find for yourself.
For me art is anything that creates an emotion in a person, the fact this man has made a video showing his distaste to modern art shows that it has a purpose, whether you like or hate certain types of art it doesn't mean they're not art.
I like art that's interesting to look at. If someone just takes something never intended to be art and says it's art it's just really boring.
Not that this guy isn't stupid.
If his standards were universally accepted, all art would be basically the same. There would be a lot of skill involved, but honestly, how many ways can you pose naked people?
i blame Andy Warhol, he pretty much invented the whole concept of pop-art
but then again some of his stuff is really great
but to compair michel angelo's david to a monument with a rock suspended above the ground is stupid and missing the point.
art is ment to convey something and if it does then who cares what it looks like
[editline]5th September 2014[/editline]
some of the preformance art though is getting kinda stupid but its not too bad
While art cannot be objectively good or bad in the strongest sense, we as human beings have come up with aesthetic rulesets based on our inherent ideas of beauty. As the man states in the video, modern art follows its own set of aesthetic rules. The problem is with how superficial this new ruleset is.
As he states, a lot of modern art seems to be governed by shock value, or whether or not the art does anything that hasn’t been done before. There’s also some weird social placebo effect in action here. People like modern art because everyone else does.
Modern art also doesn’t seem to value actually expressing its ideas through the art itself. Talk to many modern artist about their pieces, and they’ll spin up some big social message they’re attempting to convey. If you were to poll the average viewer on the meaning of an assortment of modern art pieces, I think their answers would be way off the mark of what the artist was actually trying to convey.
Of course, it’s also common for modern artists to hide behind this idea that their piece is not meant to convey anything in particular at all, that viewers are supposed to come to their own conclusions entirely. I think their true motivations for accommodating this value is just so they don’t have to try, so they can be lazy and be praised for it.
Now, ultimately, what system of deciding what art is good is up to you. Personally, I’d rather judge art in accordance with the old value system at this point. I don’t get much of anything out of most modern art, I don’t feel inspired or entertained at all by looking at it. Establishments which judge art in accordance with certain rulesets are inevitable. I'd want them judge according to an aesthetic ruleset as close as possible to my own.
I’m sure you all judge movies, books, or games according to some set of rules. Why should exhibited art be any different? It’s not stuffy to enjoy art that conforms to a certain set of base rules. I guess if there’s such thing as a good or bad video games, video games can’t be art.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;45903061] how many ways can you pose naked people?[/QUOTE]
believe me, plenty...
[t]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03022/Spiderwomancrop_3022870b.jpg[/t]
Cameras throws art into an identity crisis - why do realism if a photo can do the job better than you ever can?
[editline]6th September 2014[/editline]
Also what a dick. Impressionists were fucking awesome.
He just doesn't get it.
Just another guy trying to objectify beauty... Because he's the one man out of twenty thousand years of civilization that's found the way to do that, right?
This isn't a new argument. People like to criticize what they don't understand. Always have. Hell, even the Sistine Chapel had critics.
defening 'ho!
[QUOTE=heyo;45903150]While art cannot be objectively good or bad in the strongest sense, we as human beings have come up with aesthetic rulesets based on our inherent ideas of beauty. As the man states in the video, modern art follows its own set of aesthetic rules. The problem is with how superficial this new ruleset is.
As he states, a lot of modern art seems to be governed by shock value, or whether or not the art does anything that hasn’t been done before. There’s also some weird social placebo effect in action here. People like modern art because everyone else does.
Modern art also doesn’t seem to value actually expressing its ideas through the art itself. Talk to many modern artist about their pieces, and they’ll spin up some big social message they’re attempting to convey. If you were to poll the average viewer on the meaning of an assortment of modern art pieces, I think their answers would be way off the mark of what the artist was actually trying to convey.
Of course, it’s also common for modern artists to hide behind this idea that their piece is not meant to convey anything in particular at all, that viewers are supposed to come to their own conclusions entirely. I think their true motivations for accommodating this value is just so they don’t have to try, so they can be lazy and be praised for it.
Now, ultimately, what system of deciding what art is good is up to you. Personally, I’d rather judge art in accordance with the old value system at this point. I don’t get much of anything out of most modern art, I don’t feel inspired or entertained at all by looking at it. Establishments which judge art in accordance with certain rulesets are inevitable. I'd want them judge according to an aesthetic ruleset as close as possible to my own.
I’m sure you all judge movies, books, or games according to some set of rules. Why should exhibited art be any different? It’s not stuffy to enjoy art that conforms to a certain set of base rules. I guess if there’s such thing as a good or bad video games, video games can’t be art.[/QUOTE]
so in your opinion, self reflective art is inherently of no value because no one cares enough to think about it?
Why is Modern Art so Bad (to me)?
[QUOTE=Flameon;45903993]Cameras throws art into an identity crisis - why do realism if a photo can do the job better than you ever can?
[editline]6th September 2014[/editline]
Also what a dick. Impressionists were fucking awesome.[/QUOTE]
Because the amount of skill required to do said paintings and the level of detail with what tools you get.
To me art can invoke emotions, but so can farts or even light or colors so to me its not really art till any skill is combined with expressing said emotion. Every artistic medium requires some kind of actual physical/mental skill, but modern art has avoided it for the most part with stuff like dancing on butter in an dress, shoving expired spaghetti Os up your vag while chanting, literally shitting in an can, or the golden child of having dancers run around with canes or carts while banging their metallic dick against another bar with a rapist face. Maybe i'm not cultured enough but to me it seems like people just act like they love it to feel like they themselves are cultured.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45910069]Because the amount of skill required to do said paintings and the level of detail with what tools you get.
To me art can invoke emotions, but so can farts or even light or colors so to me its not really art till any skill is combined with expressing said emotion. Every artistic medium requires some kind of actual physical/mental skill, but modern art has avoided it for the most part with stuff like dancing on butter in an dress, shoving expired spaghetti Os up your vag while chanting, literally shitting in an can, or the golden child of having dancers run around with canes or carts while banging their metallic dick against another bar with a rapist face. Maybe i'm not cultured enough but to me it seems like people just act like they love it to feel like they themselves are cultured.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you didn't describe "modern art" there at all. You described performance art, and that's an entirely different category altogether. So... I think it's pretty safe to assume you don't actually know what modern art is.
To that end, modern art isn't even a thing anymore. It's all contemporary art now, since these terms don't describe a single aesthetic or movement, but a period in art history.
If you feel like reading up, here's a link to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_periods"]Wikipedia's page on art periods[/URL]. Art is a far more varied thing than most people think, lumping everything made in the past 20 years into "modern art" does it a great injustice, and is just completely, objectively wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.