Students left a pineapple in the middle of an exhibition and people mistook it for art - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202287]That standard makes all art critique and discussion impossible. I'm sure literally any piece of art can be enjoyed by someone (as sown by this pineapple).[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, I was just saying that it classifies as art, and if it works for someone then that's fundamentally all that matters. Art critiquing is important but is obviously subjective. At the end of the day it's what you get out of it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202345]That's why I asked for clarification. I want to truly understand your positions. People can genuinely believe something all they want, but unless they can explain it, then it's not real knowledge. It's just them emoting. His response was to say that it is mumbo-jumbo. I'm not quite sure how to take that.[/QUOTE] I'm not very interested, personally, in Pollock's work, so I can't explain it either. But you were shitting all over it last page too, before you asked for any sort of explanation, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume this is more about a prejudice against "artsy" thinking in general than it is about you having a problem with this specific clarification. Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm not looking for anything you'd happen to post on FP, anyway. What I hope for is that next time you end up talking modern art with some hippy friend, you keep those *potential* prejudices in mind and stay open to other interpretations of art

[QUOTE=duckmaster;52202321]If art worked for everyone then it wouldn't be art now would it.[/QUOTE] I don't know if that's really a defining factor

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52202402]I'm not very interested, personally, in Pollock's work, so I can't explain it either. But you were shitting all over it last page too, before you asked for any sort of explanation, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume this is more about a prejudice against "artsy" thinking in general than it is about you having a problem with this specific clarification. Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm not looking for anything you'd happen to post on FP, anyway. What I hope for is that next time you end up talking modern art with some hippy friend, you keep those *potential* prejudices in mind and stay open to other interpretations of art[/QUOTE] So expressing disagreement is now "shitting all over?" I said that I don't get what the guy meant and gave a reason why I didn't get it. Do I need to treat people with baby gloves and affirmations before I disagree with them?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202345]That's why I asked for clarification. I want to truly understand your positions. People can genuinely believe something all they want, but unless they can explain it, then it's not real knowledge. It's just them emoting. His response was to say that it is mumbo-jumbo. I'm not quite sure how to take that.[/QUOTE] By mumbo jumbo I meant avant garde. Maybe one day the technique for painting without touching the canvas will be refined to the point that you find beauty in it, and there will have been no other way to have created it. Until then please don't assume that people who like it are posers. One of the limitations of introducing such a degree of randomness into the process is that this might take forever for such a work to ever be created, let alone surface. In that sense this genre is bigger than life, perhaps forever doomed to stay experimental. In the meantime you get to find delight in the unruly shapes made possible by this technique, and when they make one you like (they have probably already made one you would like), you'll know how it was made possible.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202398]No it doesn't, I was just saying that it classifies as art, and if it works for someone then that's fundamentally all that matters.[/QUOTE] That raises an interesting point of discussion. Why does something being considered art by one person classify it as art? Is it not fair to say that something being considered 'not art' to some person would classify it as 'not art' through the same principle?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202421]So expressing disagreement is now "shitting all over?" I said that I don't get what the guy meant and gave a reason why I didn't get it. Do I need to treat people with baby gloves and affirmations before I disagree with them?[/QUOTE] There's quite a bit of ground between "treating people with baby gloves" and "I see more emotion in construction work than I do in this art", but if you think acting like you've never had a human interaction in your life is the way to further your argument, go right ahead

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202345]That's why I asked for clarification. I want to truly understand your positions. People can genuinely believe something all they want, but unless they can explain it, then it's not real knowledge. It's just them emoting. His response was to say that it is mumbo-jumbo. I'm not quite sure how to take that.[/QUOTE] Not everything can be adequately explained with words

[video=youtube_share;BgQfz2a0JfQ]http://youtu.be/BgQfz2a0JfQ[/video]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52202433]There's quite a bit of ground between "treating people with baby gloves" and "I see more emotion in construction work than I do in this art", but if you think acting like you've never had a human interaction in your life is the way to further your argument, go right ahead[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying that flippantly. When looking at a construction worker in the hot sun I see a representation of the human condition. I see a man who goes to work every day doing backbreaking labor out of the love that he has for his family. I see sacrifice, I see determination, etc. There's a lot of emotion there, an emotion that, in my opinion, is much more real than the splattering of paint into an indecipherable scramble that is impossible to truly understand without being told. [editline]8th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202437]Not everything can be adequately explained with words[/QUOTE] If you can't express something, then you shouldn't expect people to take it seriously. It's something within yourself that applies only to you. There's a big difference between, "This piece of art is filled with emotion," and, "I feel emotional when I look at this piece of art." One can be discussed and the other really can't.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202465]I wasn't saying that flippantly. When looking at a construction worker in the hot sun I see a reflection of the human condition. I see a man who goes to work every day doing backbreaking labor out of the love that he has for his family. I see sacrifice, I see determination, etc. There's a lot of emotion there, an emotion that, in my opinion, is much more real than the splattering of paint into an indecipherable scramble that is impossible to truly understand without being told. [editline]8th May 2017[/editline] If you can't express something, then you shouldn't expect people to take it seriously. It's something within yourself that applies only to you. There's a big difference between, "This piece of art is filled with emotion," and, "I feel emotional when I look at this piece of art." One can be discussed and the other really can't.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that lack of explainability it doesn't invalidate it

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202488]I'm just saying that lack of explainability it doesn't invalidate it[/QUOTE] It also doesn't make it valid, and the way we decide whether ideas are valid is through discussion. If you can't explain your idea, then we can't discuss its validity. It has no meaning outside yourself.

true

Pollock was essentially the poster-child for Clement Greenberg's definition of "Modernism" in which the art should be THE ART and nothing more. No hidden meanings, no arbitrary interpretations. It should just be the paint on the canvas. While you could say that Pollock put a lot of himself into the specific movements and splatters that he chose to put on there, it's hard to see into his works any further than just "this is a mess of colors", mostly because that's probably what was intended. If you wanna read more on Greenberg's strict modernist approach, check it out here: [url]http://www.theartstory.org/critic-greenberg-clement.htm[/url] I basically hate his approach entirely lol but Pollock's work is, at its core, what Greenberg wanted when it came to "modern art". No kitsch, no meaning, no politics, no controversy. Just "purity".

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202465]I wasn't saying that flippantly. When looking at a construction worker in the hot sun I see a reflection of the human conditions. I see a man who goes to work every day doing backbreaking labor out of the love that he has for his family. There's a lot of emotion there, an emotion that, in my opinion, is much more real than the splattering of paint into an indecipherable scramble that is impossible to truly understand without being told.[/QUOTE] And how much of that is just you projecting? What if that one construction worker is an abusive husband, or actually a lazy prick doing half-assed work? You see what you want to see, yet you have a problem with it as soon as it gets artsy.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52202505]Pollock was essentially the poster-child for Clement Greenberg's definition of "Modernism" in which the art should be THE ART and nothing more. No hidden meanings, no arbitrary interpretations. It should just be the paint on the canvas. While you could say that Pollock put a lot of himself into the specific movements and splatters that he chose to put on there, it's hard to see into his works any further than just "this is a mess of colors", mostly because that's probably what was intended. If you wanna read more on Greenberg's strict modernist approach, check it out here: [URL]http://www.theartstory.org/critic-greenberg-clement.htm[/URL] I basically hate his approach entirely lol but Pollock's work is, at its core, what Greenberg wanted when it came to "modern art". No kitsch, no meaning, no politics, no controversy. Just "purity".[/QUOTE] To be honest, I'm fine with that. People can make splatter art that's pleasing to the eye. My problem is with the claims of emotion, meaning, etc.

Conversely, you can read about Harold Rosenberg's approach which refutes Greenberg's entirely: [url]http://www.theartstory.org/critics-greenberg-rosenberg.htm[/url] [editline]8th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52202510]To be honest, I'm fine with that. People can make splatter art that's pleasing to the eye. My problem is with the claims of emotion, meaning, etc.[/QUOTE] Honestly, if there is any emotion present in Pollock's paintings, it's not in the painting itself, it's in the effort it took to make them. Pollock's works were usually GIANT and took a lot of effort and consideration in terms of color, form, and density of paint. But they were all technical elements, not emotional ones. Pollock probably had feelings about the process, about finding the colors, about mixing them and applying them in such a way that he felt it was "complete", but to say that there's emotion in the work ITSELF is missing the point of Pollock's particular brand of abstract expressionism. Which is to say, there IS no point beyond those technical elements and the essential "purity" of the piece being represented by the bare minimum technique of paint + color + canvas. That's it, really. Pollock himself was a pretty emotional person though.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52202507]And how much of that is just you projecting? What if that one construction worker is an abusive husband, or actually a lazy prick doing half-assed work? You see what you want to see, yet you have a problem with it as soon as it gets artsy.[/QUOTE] He could be, you're completely right, but I don't know all that. So I choose to see the glass half full instead of half empty. Whether I'm right about that specific individual is fairly irrelevant, though, because the idea is a real one. There is real sacrifice and determination in those kinds of jobs. There are real people who fulfill the image I gave. It's concrete and applicable. It makes me question my own motivations and determination. What real emotion can you get out of paint splatter beyond what you're imputing onto it?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202526]He could be, you're completely right, but I don't know all that. So I choose to see the glass half full instead of half empty. Whether I'm right about that specific individual is fairly irrelevant, though, [B]because the idea is a real one.[/B] There is real sacrifice and determination in those kinds of jobs. There are real people who fulfill the image I gave. It's concrete and applicable. It makes me question my own motivations and determination. What real emotion can you get out of paint splatter beyond what you're imputing onto it?[/QUOTE] But don't you see how your "real idea" is completely arbitrary? Putting the worth of manual labor on a pedestal is perfectly valid, but so is any other interpretation. The artistic value is still entirely up to you.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202526]He could be, you're completely right, but I don't know all that. So I choose to see the glass half full instead of half empty. Whether I'm right about that specific individual is fairly irrelevant, though, because the idea is a real one. There is real sacrifice and determination in those kinds of jobs. There are real people who fulfill the image I gave. It's concrete and applicable. It makes me question my own motivations and determination. [B]What real emotion can you get out of paint splatter beyond what you're imputing onto it?[/B][/QUOTE] Well, it depends. For example. Say you're looking at this piece: [thumb]https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.102072225.7556/flat,1000x1000,075,f.u3.jpg[/thumb] In comparison to this piece: [thumb]http://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/autumn-rhythm.jpg[/thumb] Now Pollock's intent may have been bare bones, but a person can put a lot of meaning into the colors, into the complexity of the splatters, and the size of the piece itself. The first one, to me, seems much happier because of the brighter colors than the second one which seems a little more disjointed and dysfunctional. Probably because it reminds me of TV static which is kind of unnerving to me. It's all up to personal interpretation. You see a sort of beauty in a construction worker's hard work. Some other people see emotion in colors and gestural movement. Neither is wrong.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52201578]Why hate it, whats it done to you? It is just a pineapple on a table[/QUOTE] I don't hate the subject, I hate the people who pretend to "understand" it believing that it makes them superior to others somehow

[QUOTE=damnatus;52202557]I don't hate the subject, I hate the people who pretend to "understand" it believing that it makes them superior to others somehow[/QUOTE] that sounds like projecting

give it enough time, maybe someone will take a shit on the floor or in an exhibit and bam, it's some profound statement about life brought to you from the charismatic asshole of some dude playing a prank and getting rich off of his literal shit

[QUOTE=RikohZX;52202577]give it enough time, maybe someone will take a shit on the floor or in an exhibit and bam, it's some profound statement about life brought to you from the charismatic asshole of some dude playing a prank and getting rich off of his literal shit[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit[/url]

[QUOTE=Pascall;52202548]:alien:[/QUOTE] also it's worth mentioning beyond his splatter art jackson also made some stuff that was obviously supposed to represent an actual figure but distorted and weird, and not something that's supposed to make you [I]just[/I] feel an emotion, like the she wolf [T]http://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/the-she-wolf.jpg[/t] it's a wolf with tits, and while it's hard to tell at first glance your brain sort of pick up some of the more subtle features and start making out what it is, and i think this really shows his true talent in making the audience know what they're looking at without realizing it, if that makes sense.

[QUOTE=Perrine;52202592][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit[/url][/QUOTE] well shit

[QUOTE=Perrine;52202592][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit[/url][/QUOTE] The original ironic shitpost.

sometimes I wonder how many people who "hate what art is nowadays" have ever stepped foot into an art gallery

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;52202671]sometimes I wonder how many people who "hate what art is nowadays" have ever stepped foot into an art gallery[/QUOTE]I have, I saw a pile of shredded paper, and a photo of someone's fence that the artist had vandalized. I can't really take anyone who tries to find deep meanings in stuff like this seriously. Same goes for that invisible art thing someone posted in this thread.

Yet another thread in which dozens of people who know [i]literally nothing[/i] about art history or basic theory weigh in on the contemporary scene. [QUOTE=megafat;52201931]If all art could mean anything and everything, what's the point of art? It's all become redundant.[/QUOTE] The point is to say whatever the artist wants to say. What's redundant about that? [QUOTE=27X;52201981]Modern art is pretty much a clique/cult you have to join to get the filthy filthy lucre, and actual 'art' has nothing to do with it, where art is proceeding ahead is in the digital space.[/QUOTE] Correct to a certain extent but there are snobby cliques in any field you enter, not just art. There is an incredibly large market for art that isn't and shouldn't be lumped in with the pretentious shit. And though the digital space is revolutionizing artistic practices it's not particularly important in the field of "fine art" now. [QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;52202012]Art seems to primarily be recursive in it's meaning these days. It's all self-referential in some way or another.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. Contemporary art is so deep down the rabbit hole of theory that it's difficult to carve out a new space without making it relative to other theorists and movements. [QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52202073]I hate how pretentious modern art movements are. They're not about talent, capability or execution; but self-important meta-commentary (or lack thereof, cos that also counts, ffs). Art is no longer about [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg/800px-Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg"]paintings attempting to achieve realistic lighting[/URL], or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina"]marble sculted so it seems as soft and malleable as flesh[/URL]. The whole process has been cheapened by people who put urinals on exposition, supposedly because it's all (meta)commentary on the medium, with no talent behind it. This stunts proves exactly that, and art snobs eat it up.[/QUOTE] Maybe because we as a species have moved on past realism? If [i]all[/i] art was still renaissance-era realism you don't think it'd get a bit stale? There is a certain merit to (realistic) works of incredible craftsmanship but it falls flat on its face once you get past "wow it looks real". Over the last 150 years art has moved away from this because anyone and everyone can learn to do this and so it becomes meaningless and redundant. Contemporary art is about proving a point and understanding things that cannot or should not be described otherwise. [QUOTE=lintz;52201564]this is why i cannot stand the state of modern art as it is sure you could make an argument for this being actual art while being a parody of modern art but that's the fucking problem[/QUOTE] That's the point. You could even argue it's being used to laugh at the contemporary art scene (which is literally aligning with your viewpoint so why the fuck be mad at it?). If you don't feel it then just don't participate. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52201769]I'm not a fan of this kind of 'modern' art because there is usually zero rationality behind what the art is and what it's suppose to represent. The artist can just get a brick, place it in a glass case and declare it representative of minority struggles in Europe or whatever, on top of having zero skill in creating the item. Placing random objects together shouldn't be considered art, especially when what its representing is so abstract from what the objects actually are. That's just clutter made by someone uncreative.[/QUOTE] Nowhere does it say you have to have any level of craft skill to be an artist. Just because you can't appreciate art that isn't an impressive technical feat doesn't mean artists who work more in theory aren't talented. And your brick example is incredibly silly. What if it was a brick used to murder someone? What if it was a brick from a building destroyed by a drone strike? What if it was a brick from the twin towers? There are literally infinite possibilities in which that could be an interesting work of art. [QUOTE=RikohZX;52202577]give it enough time, maybe someone will take a shit on the floor or in an exhibit and bam, it's some profound statement about life brought to you from the charismatic asshole of some dude playing a prank and getting rich off of his literal shit[/QUOTE] Just because it can happen and just because it can somehow be rationalized as art doesn't mean it's good art and it DEFINITELY does not mean getting paid. Look, just because you don't understand the artist's intentions doesn't mean it's not art. Just because it's art doesn't mean you have to enjoy it or even respect it. There's plenty of art in this world that I hate but it is art all the same. Don't get me wrong, there is a shitload of pretentiousness and overly-precious artists in the art world today but there always has been, and trust me, other artists can more often than not tell them apart. There is more genuine and interesting art in this world than you know because just like every other kind of media only the shitty or sensationalized ever get published in the public sphere. You just have to sift through the bullshit (which is what art theory courses teach you to do) [editline].[/editline] [QUOTE=Flubbman;52202723]I have, I saw a pile of shredded paper, and a photo of someone's fence that the artist had vandalized. I can't really take anyone who tries to find deep meanings in stuff like this seriously. Same goes for that invisible art thing someone posted in this thread.[/QUOTE] Perhaps there was context to it that you missed. Or perhaps it was actually just pretty uninteresting even to other artists. Not all art is good art but it's still art.