I'm just gonna point out that a lot of these works are made through a process very similar to a "stream of consciousness" - no thinking is involved, the deal is to make yourself not think, just do what your brain is processing at that time. Babies in general do things this way, and the goal is to a certain degree to return to this mindset. But I still don't value them highly as art, neither as do I value Joyce as a writer.
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]1/11 :lol: That says a lot about modern art. Maybe, or it could simply say a lot about your visual literacy. Either way, I'm sort of wondering how many people here have actually had significant experience with this kind of art, and have studied it to any kind of remotely serious degree. I could ask about your credentials, but I'm not gonna bother.
I got 8/11. Art and whether it is good or not is subjective and while some can appreciate modern or contemporary art, others will see it as just a bunch of paint tossed (brushed) on a canvas. Others may prefer Da Vinci over Picaso. There is no one way to look at art and no two people will look at a painting the same way.
I got 8/11. Art and whether it is good or not is subjective and while some can appreciate modern or contemporary art, others will see it as just a bunch of paint tossed (brushed) on a canvas. Others may prefer Da Vinci over Picaso. There is no one way to look at art and no two people will look at a painting the same way.
WhiteKnight77
People can look at things however they look at things, but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. If nothing else, art is primarily about communication. And communication cannot work when the speaker and the listener aren't operating on at least some of the same "rules". I'm not denying that there's an element of subjectivity involved, but this stuff is NOT as subjective as many people tend to make it out to be.
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]1/11 :lol: That says a lot about modern art.MrGeezer
Maybe, or it could simply say a lot about your visual literacy. Either way, I'm sort of wondering how many people here have actually had significant experience with this kind of art, and have studied it to any kind of remotely serious degree. I could ask about your credentials, but I'm not gonna bother.
If a normal person, with no specific art education, looks at a painting and can't tell it apart from a toddler's drawing, something's wrong. If you really NEED art education to tell them apart, clearly something's wrong.
I got 8/11. Art and whether it is good or not is subjective and while some can appreciate modern or contemporary art, others will see it as just a bunch of paint tossed (brushed) on a canvas. Others may prefer Da Vinci over Picaso. There is no one way to look at art and no two people will look at a painting the same way.
WhiteKnight77
I don't think anyone would look at Picasso and say it was painted by a toddler. That's not what this is about. This is a whole other level.
I got 8/11. Art and whether it is good or not is subjective and while some can appreciate modern or contemporary art, others will see it as just a bunch of paint tossed (brushed) on a canvas. Others may prefer Da Vinci over Picaso. There is no one way to look at art and no two people will look at a painting the same way.
MrGeezer
People can look at things however they look at things, but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. If nothing else, art is primarily about communication. And communication cannot work when the speaker and the listener aren't operating on at least some of the same "rules". I'm not denying that there's an element of subjectivity involved, but this stuff is NOT as subjective as many people tend to make it out to be. I don't know... You might be right about the communication being the most important thing, but for a lot of people, a very important element is also some form of display of skill of the artist - i.e. display of something that would set him apart from most people and tell those people that they couldn't make a work of art like that without extensive practice / immense talent.
When it comes to works of art like the ones in OP's link, many people (including myself) seem to be missing that element (at least to certain degree). The ideas behind those pictures, the methods which the artists have decided to use,... might be amazing (once explained to laymen like me), but as long as (substantial group of) people will have a feeling like "yeah, I could probably do that too with a bit of practice", there will always be people who will challenge the quality / value of such art.
And maybe there should be. Because only in the environment in which works of arts, which do not display the author's unique and superior skill / talent properly, are chellenged, the works of arts which do so can be properly distinguished and appreciated.
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]1/11 :lol: That says a lot about modern art.MrGeezer
Maybe, or it could simply say a lot about your visual literacy. Either way, I'm sort of wondering how many people here have actually had significant experience with this kind of art, and have studied it to any kind of remotely serious degree. I could ask about your credentials, but I'm not gonna bother.
If a normal person, with no specific art education, looks at a painting and can't tell it apart from a toddler's drawing, something's wrong. If you really NEED art education to tell them apart, clearly something's wrong.
nunovlopes
Again, art is communication. Communication is directed. Spanish-literate people write for the spanish-literate, French-literate people write for the French-literate. Why exactly would art be designed to be understood by the "normal" person when "normal" people aren't the target audience?
I don't know... You might be right about the communication being the most important thing, but for a lot of people, a very important element is also some form of display of skill of the artist - i.e. display of something that would set him apart from most people and tell those people that they couldn't make a work of art like that without extensive practice / immense talent.
When it comes to works of art like the ones in OP's link, many people (including myself) seem to be missing that element (at least to certain degree). The ideas behind those pictures, the methods which the artists have decided to use,... might be amazing (once explained to laymen like me), but as long as (substantial group of) people will have a feeling like "yeah, I could probably do that too with a bit of practice", there will always be people who will challenge the quality / value of such art.
And maybe there should be. Because only in the environment in which works of arts, which do not display the author's unique and superior skill / talent properly, are chellenged, the works of arts which do so can be properly distinguished and appreciated. SciFiRPGfan
I think what you're failing to grasp is that this work is not for people like you and me. See, there's this very common phenomenon in which artists start off producing works that are more realistic. They master the techniques required to make people look like people and ducks look like ducks. Then they get bored with that, they feel constrained by it, and then they just start doing things however they want. Look at Pablo Picasso as an example. I'm willing to bet that for at least some of these artists, they aren't trying to "demonstrate skill" because for them they've already demonstrated it. They've already gone through that stage in their work, they've already demonstrated their skill to their audience (who happens to be the fine art community, not you and I), skill is a foregone conclusion. Now granted, I'm still not saying that these works of art are any good. I wouldn't know. But the existence of such works make a lot more sense when we come to the realization that these artists probably aren't trying to communicate with us.
4/11 and i'm kind of glad as I think the basis for judging art has deteriorated over the last 20 years to the point that you could crap on a piece of paper and call it art, and it would be accepted as a thing of beauty.
4/11 and i'm kind of glad as I think the basis for judging art has deteriorated over the last 20 years to the point that you could crap on a piece of paper and call it art, and it would be accepted as a thing of beauty.
4/11 and i'm kind of glad as I think the basis for judging art has deteriorated over the last 20 years to the point that you could crap on a piece of paper and call it art, and it would be accepted as a thing of beauty.
To address the 'art literacy' discussion that has been running through this thread: what's wrong with judging art based on it's aesthetic appeal? It's a visual art form, you might need a thorough understanding of art history to fully appreciate the stylistic nuances or historical significance of a certain painting, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody shouldn't be able to look at it with no background information and like it just because they think it's painted well / looks pretty. Judging something as bad art because you don't like the way it looks is a perfectly valid observation. I like some low art (Takashi Murikami, Kozik, Coop, grafitti artists like Sam Flores) for no other reason than I like the way their work looks. I think Mark Rothko is sh*t, and the fact people have written countless essays on his brilliance, and the fact his work hangs in art galleries, doesn't convince me that it's good - and that I have to like it or I'm some kind of cretin.
I think what you're failing to grasp is that this work is not for people like you and me. See, there's this very common phenomenon in which artists start off producing works that are more realistic. They master the techniques required to make people look like people and ducks look like ducks. Then they get bored with that, they feel constrained by it, and then they just start doing things however they want. Look at Pablo Picasso as an example. I'm willing to bet that for at least some of these artists, they aren't trying to "demonstrate skill" because for them they've already demonstrated it. They've already gone through that stage in their work, they've already demonstrated their skill to their audience (who happens to be the fine art community, not you and I), skill is a foregone conclusion. Now granted, I'm still not saying that these works of art are any good. I wouldn't know. But the existence of such works make a lot more sense when we come to the realization that these artists probably aren't trying to communicate with us. MrGeezer
But, to say the least, I think that we (the laymen) can commentate on / criticize the discipline / style as a whole IMO. At least within our limited knowledge and perspective. After all, whoever disagrees or has better knowledge, can always step in and offer superior (in terms of knowledge and understanding) perspective.
The lack of knowledge on "our" part mostly means that we can't judge how well are artists doing within the parameters and goals of their particular style / discipline. But, I think that we can still say (without embarrasing ourselves), that we don't like said style / discipline as a whole as long as we can state relatively reasonable justificiations.
For example, somebody in the comment section in that article hinted, that the purpose of modern art might actually be to "recapture the creativity and playfulness of children's art" (or something like that). If that was the case, then yeah, most people would probably agree that the artists really did excellent jobs, because those pictures indeed did resemble pictures drawn by children. That said, that would not (and should not) prevent anyone from saying that while they think that the authors might have done an excellent job at imitating children's art, they do not like those pictures, because they do not consider "imitating children's art" a discipline / direction worthy enough of being praised (or something like that).
Now, like you said, "we" don't know the actual reasons why those pictures look the way they look, but chances are, that even if "we" did, some of us would still criticize them and I don't think that there would be anything wrong with that. Otherwise, people would practically have to preface all their criticism with disclaimers that they are aware that the author might have not made the criticzed work of art with their preferences in mind and that there might be other people who like such work of art / style and whatnot, which sounds pretty impractical to say the least.
[QUOTE="MudoSkills"]To address the 'art literacy' discussion that has been running through this thread: what's wrong with judging art based on it's aesthetic appeal? It's a visual art form, you might need a thorough understanding of art history to fully appreciate the stylistic nuances or historical significance of a certain painting, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody shouldn't be able to look at it with no background information and like it just because they think it's painted well / looks pretty. Judging something as bad art because you don't like the way it looks is a perfectly valid observation. I like some low art (Takashi Murikami, Kozik, Coop, grafitti artists like Sam Flores) for no other reason than I like the way their work looks. I think Mark Rothko is sh*t, and the fact people have written countless essays on his brilliance, and the fact his work hangs in art galleries, doesn't convince me that it's good - and that I have to like it or I'm some kind of cretin. Sure you can judge it because you just like it or hate it, I'm just saying that without any kind of understanding about the actual work, such judgements are pretty hollow. There's some of this stuff that I like and some of it that I hate, but with this particular style of art I seriously don't know what I'm looking at and thus am in no position to say if it's good or bad.
I agree. I can't really distinguish between toddler paintings and this modern junk. I'm not much of an artist myself, but if a toddler can do these paintings, then I'd hardly call them true works of artistic talent.
Log in to comment