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

Rt is dum

[QUOTE=Govna;52201869]It's not just a willy-nilly sort of thing. The contemporary art market is unregulated, there's a shitload of money in it, and it's run like a quiet business. It's completely artificial. You have collusion between auction houses (which typically offer guarantees to sellers; "Whether we've sold it or not, we'll pay the estimated price."), private museums and foundations (and collectors of course), lenders (who love to target prospective buyers and are willing to lend generous amounts), etc. Hell, even real estate has a hand in things when it comes to spaces for galleries to be set up in. And then of course there's the obvious side to the artists themselves and dealers. From an economic perspective, it's fascinating to watch this industry bubble the way that it has-- especially because of what nonsense the art itself usually amounts to being.[/QUOTE] I want to believe this. Got any proof?

Just cause people think it's art it doesn't mean people think it's good art. [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 guarantee you not very many, and if they have they really didn't even try to "get it". It's hard to defend contemporary art without sounding like an elitist asshole, but I genuinely believe that if facepunch knew more of the context and history of art progression since the 1900's instead of just h3h3's modern art meme video then it wouldn't get all the shit it does. The problem partially I think is that "modern art" gets put in the same category as illustration or design, but the only connection other than semantics is that they both deal with visual aesthetics. It may sound laughable, but the fact is that without the influence of modern art a lot of the things we take for granted today would be radically different. Also, just like being a good speller isn't enough to be a good writer; a really good technical painting doesn't make it interesting art in itself. Saying this, it's also true that the art market is full of shit the deeper you go into it, but that's true for any form of media that gets overtaken by private markets really.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52201583]lintz. [i]Forum Post[/i]. 8 March, 2017. Electronic Media. Facepunch Museum of Modern Art[/QUOTE] [sp]it's may[/sp]

On the subject of art, have you gentlemen and ladies ever seen photos of Salvador Dali? In every single goddamn one he looks like a man terrified that his moustache may try to kill him if he displeases it.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52203176]On the subject of art, have you gentlemen and ladies ever seen photos of Salvador Dali? In every single goddamn one he looks like a man terrified that his moustache may try to kill him if he displeases it.[/QUOTE] [img]https://lonerwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Salvador-dali.jpg[/img] Here we see the moustache in battle formation, about to teach Babou a lesson in humility.

Didn't he carry a box of fake mustaches to give to other people?

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52202922]I want to believe this. Got any proof?[/QUOTE] Personal experience. My grandparents bought and sold paintings for years just for the hell of it, including some by Hart Schultz (who did mostly Wild West paintings, cowboys and Indians and whatnot) and David Burliuk (the "Father of Russian Futurism"). My aunt and uncle did the same. I actually inherited one of Burliuk's paintings of a house in New York that I've been meaning to sell for a while now. You can investigate this sort of stuff for yourself if you check out companies like Christie's, Skinner's, Sotheby's (in the UK), etc. who auction off art. There was also this guy on YouTube who used to do videos about this stuff, including the history behind the contemporary art movement (which is fascinating, even if the art itself is shit; the [url=http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal]CIA actually was involved with promoting it here in the United States during the Cultural Cold War[/url]), and who was himself an artist who had dealt with Sotheby's before. I can't remember his name, but I'll look for his stuff later on tonight. [editline]9 May 2017[/editline] Found it, was unlisted. There's also advertising for their fine art course at the end. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdneG2nXZEU[/media]

Funny thing is when you learn about art and art history stuff like this doesn't bother you much, I guess it's like the way you guys hate it is the same as how people who don't understand the internet hate troll humour and general internet humour it's a different perspective. Don't get me wrong that doesn't make it any better, I mean it's just like trolling it's still shit but for us ;people who are online we can find it hilarious, it's more of the case that you just get it.

The real art is that someone decided to put the glass case around it, without that it wouldn't be very funny or artistic.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52202186]I am absolutely NOT being sarcastic. I fucking love expressionism, abstract expressionism, and the impressionist movement. If you ever see an action painting in real life, it is just breathtaking: [t]http://kizny.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/6447.jpg[/t] Just look at the emotion! The act of painting is itself the art, one may argue.[/QUOTE] I definitely agree with the "seeing in real life" part. Seeing these pieces in person is a totally different experience. The texure, size, etc, which are all often large parts of these pieces, are completely indistinguishable or left out of digital representations. Everyone should really try to take an art history class or go to a modern art gallery. It's a wonderful and incredibly thought-provoking experience.

[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] Sometimes I wonder how many people that claim "they can feel the emotion in the strokes" have ever held an actual paint brush. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tMtV5p0s4E[/media]

[QUOTE=da space core;52201767]Personally, i dont like like art that took 5 seconds to make. I dont care if its classical or modern style or whatever, if it took considerable effort to create, I respect that. But if you simply sneeze on a canvas and call it a day, screw you for giving artists a bad reputation. Case in point, there was an art competition when i was in high school, and my friend worked really hard on a cool drawing for it. He placed second to a guy who submitted a blank piece of paper, because it was "symbolic"[/QUOTE] there is such a thing as putting too much work in to art (or anything for that matter)

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52203870]I definitely agree with the "seeing in real life" part. Seeing these pieces in person is a totally different experience. The texure, size, etc, which are all often large parts of these pieces, are completely indistinguishable or left out of digital representations. Everyone should really try to take an art history class or go to a modern art gallery. It's a wonderful and incredibly thought-provoking experience.[/QUOTE] I couldn't disagree more. Going to a nearby modern art gallery just left me with a sickening feeling. If anything it was less impressive to see how talentless it was in person.

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204040]Sometimes I wonder how many people that claim "they can feel the emotion in the strokes" have ever held an actual paint brush. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tMtV5p0s4E[/media][/QUOTE] this guy somehow manages to be even more pretentious that the people he's complaining about he's acting like it's some sort of massive conspiracy that this art is popular (and worth a lot), when anybody with even a slight interest in art history can see the chain of events that lead to the current artistic landscape

My only problem with splatter art and its contemporaries are that they are more like running a random generator for art rather than being deliberate about it. You set up starting parameters (color, launch method, canvas size) and then let it go. I can enjoy an abstract piece of art much more if there is more to its creation than physics. For me the works that Pollock does that are less homogeneous are much more appealing to me.

[QUOTE=153x;52202735] 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 [B]because anyone and everyone can learn to do this and so it becomes meaningless and redundant[/B]. [/QUOTE] Wow that's totally right. It's not like people spend decades working to attain their skills. Keep feeling superior without effort. That upside down bowl takes a more intellectual mind than painting the human form.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52201657]I actually made a Facepunch Museum of Modern Avatars at one point. It can go on exhibit there. [video=youtube;sAOPH14tMGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAOPH14tMGk[/video][/QUOTE] oh my god. i remember this. and i also just now remember the comment i left. [img]http://i.imgur.com/n6K43jf.jpg[/img]

all the ppl thinking this is some hilarious 'gotcha' moment calling out modern art on its bullshit are exactly the same kind of people who would get fooled by it if they walked into an art gallery. ...because everyone would get fooled by it. ofc people are going to think something in a glass case in a gallery is art. that's the stock standard way of presenting art that you can't hang in a gallery.

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204080]Wow that's totally right. It's not like people spend decades working to attain their skills. Keep feeling superior without effort. That upside down bowl takes a more intellectual mind than painting the human form.[/QUOTE] I don't feel superior to any of the old masters at all and frankly I envy their talent. But I think a lot of artists today working conceptually touch on things that a renaissance painting doesn't. They're just two different things.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52204095]all the ppl thinking this is some hilarious 'gotcha' moment calling out modern art on its bullshit are exactly the same kind of people who would get fooled by it if they walked into an art gallery. ...because everyone would get fooled by it. ofc people are going to think something in a glass case in a gallery is art. that's the stock standard way of presenting art that you can't hang in a gallery.[/QUOTE] Again, it was left on an empty table and then someone came and put it in a glass case afterwards. It wasn't in glass to start with.

same point still stands, seeing as there's often a mix between glassed/unglassed tables in these places. art gallery + table + object on the table = people thinking its art, unless its so obviously not art (like flyers or something)

I've done a fair bit of art stuff and my personal opinion is anything can be classified as art but that doesn't excuse art that is done poorly/lazily. Sure you can do a performance piece where you scream under a teepee for and hour and say it represents some deep concept (something I've actually seen). But I'm gonna be more interested in what everyone else did.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52204073]this guy somehow manages to be even more pretentious that the people he's complaining about he's acting like it's some sort of massive conspiracy that this art is popular (and worth a lot), when anybody with even a slight interest in art history can see the chain of events that lead to the current artistic landscape[/QUOTE] You watched like 10 minutes of it. How can you possibly know his entire argument in an hour long video? He even specifically mentions the historical progression from the impressionists into modern art, and how, in his opinion, they embraced the wrong message: that breaking the rules was good in itself. He also, ironically, specifically says that it isn't a conspiracy near the end.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52204120]same point still stands, seeing as there's often a mix between glassed/unglassed tables in these places. art gallery + table + object on the table = people thinking its art, unless its so obviously not art (like flyers or something)[/QUOTE] I smell it. The smell of illiteracy. [quote]Ruairi Gray, a business information technology student at Robert Gordon University in Scotland, and his friend Lloyd Jack, reportedly left the fruit at the Look Again exhibition at RGU's Sir Ian Wood building, hoping that it might be mistaken for art. When they returned four days later he found that the pineapple had been put inside its own glass display case at the event. [/quote] Maybe you should read the article next time.

[QUOTE=153x;52204102]I don't feel superior to any of the old masters at all and frankly I envy their talent. But I think a lot of artists today working conceptually touch on things that a renaissance painting doesn't. They're just two different things.[/QUOTE] You outright tried to claim that modern art was people moving forward as a species. And frankly, your claims that the point of classical art was "wow it looks real" shows how little of an understanding you have of it. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/v7MTYTC.jpg[/img_thumb] Emotions you can feel at the mere sight of it. And not simple emotions like "happy sad". You can pretty much immediately know what you are seeing and understand the emotions felt. Fuck, if you want something to interpret then look at the shadows, the skilled use of light and dark by the artist and how it mirrors the tone of the painting.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52204143]I smell it. The smell of illiteracy. Maybe you should read the article next time.[/QUOTE] uh yeah dude thats quote is exactly my point

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204147]You outright tried to claim that modern art was people moving forward as a species. And frankly, your claims that the point of classical art was "wow it looks real" shows how little of an understanding you have of it. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/v7MTYTC.jpg[/img_thumb] Emotions you can feel at the mere sight of it. And not simple emotions like "happy sad". You can pretty much immediately know what you are seeing and understand the emotions felt. Fuck, if you want something to interpret then look at the shadows, the skilled use of light and dark by the artist and how it mirrors the tone of the painting.[/QUOTE] This. Goya's "Third of May" came to mind for his use of color. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Prado_thin_black_margin.jpg/1280px-El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Prado_thin_black_margin.jpg[/t] Gerrit van Honthorst's "The Dentist" is also a good one because of the way he captures human expressions AND his use of color. He had a lot of good ones-- people laughing, playing music, having (apparently deep) conversations, etc. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Honthorst%2C_Gerard_van_-_The_Dentist_-_1622.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204147]You outright tried to claim that modern art was people moving forward as a species. And frankly, your claims that the point of classical art was "wow it looks real" shows how little of an understanding you have of it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/v7MTYTC.jpg[/t] Emotions you can feel at the mere sight of it. And not simple emotions like "happy sad". You can pretty much immediately know what you are seeing and understand the emotions felt. Fuck, if you want something to interpret then look at the shadows, the skilled use of light and dark by the artist and how it mirrors the tone of the painting.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean it to come off that I was saying contemporary art is a direct upgrade, what was meant is that it's the current step in the evolution of art. Each new movement does not invalidate the past. I know these paintings are fantastic and I admire them but that doesn't mean I can't also admire contemporary work too. I'll give an example of what I mean. [t]https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sfmomamedia/media/research-projects/downloads/EdeK_98.298.jpg[/t] Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning Drawing. He got a hold of an original drawing from Willem de Kooning, then erased it and framed it. Anyone who is familiar with de Kooning might be shocked because this would have otherwise been worth a LOT of money, but instead he made a statement on how ridiculous it is that we put such a value on it just because it was a de Kooning even though we can't even tell if the drawing was good. Lots of people think this sort of thing is intriguing. I think it's intriguing. You'd be absolutely correct to say there is no technical barrier to make this kind of art, and you don't have to appreciate it, but that's where we are now. Nobody says you can't like classical painting just because we are past that point in history

Here's the problem with that: you can't know any of that information by looking at the piece. At most, it's an example within a philosophical essay. It is not a piece of art on it's own.