Least favorite style of art.

What is your least favorite style of art?

For me, anything weird and hippish that a Grateful Dead stoner lady would put on her alter an burn an incense stick is just gross.

Also, really really bad art deco.

What is it for you?

I really hate modern art. All of that...funky, "out there" stuff REALLY grinds my gears.

I was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2006 and I remember getting so irritated with the modern art section. It irritated me so much that someone would paint a huge canvas one color and have like a little dot somewhere and it was symbolic. I also remember seeing a huge white canvas with a date written across the middle in black. I hate stuff like that. If it needs so much explanation later, then it's not worth it.

I just find it really pretentious and obnoxious. I don't see that kind of stuff as art.

I really hate modern art. All of that...funky, "out there" stuff REALLY grinds my gears.

I was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2006 and I remember getting so irritated with the modern art section. It irritated me so much that someone would paint a huge canvas one color and have like a little dot somewhere and it was symbolic. I also remember seeing a huge white canvas with a date written across the middle in black. I hate stuff like that. If it needs so much explanation later, then it's not worth it.

I just find it really pretentious and obnoxious. I don't see that kind of stuff as art.

t3hrubikscube

What about stuff like Jackson Pollack or abstract expressionism?

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]

I really hate modern art. All of that...funky, "out there" stuff REALLY grinds my gears.

I was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2006 and I remember getting so irritated with the modern art section. It irritated me so much that someone would paint a huge canvas one color and have like a little dot somewhere and it was symbolic. I also remember seeing a huge white canvas with a date written across the middle in black. I hate stuff like that. If it needs so much explanation later, then it's not worth it.

I just find it really pretentious and obnoxious. I don't see that kind of stuff as art.

muay_thai_demon

What about stuff like Jackson Pollack or abstract expressionism?

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself. A painter who spends three seconds on a painting and then an hour talking about its significance should consider changing his career to author in order to at least be honest about what he's doing.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]

I really hate modern art. All of that...funky, "out there" stuff REALLY grinds my gears.

I was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2006 and I remember getting so irritated with the modern art section. It irritated me so much that someone would paint a huge canvas one color and have like a little dot somewhere and it was symbolic. I also remember seeing a huge white canvas with a date written across the middle in black. I hate stuff like that. If it needs so much explanation later, then it's not worth it.

I just find it really pretentious and obnoxious. I don't see that kind of stuff as art.

t3hrubikscube

What about stuff like Jackson Pollack or abstract expressionism?

There's emotion and feelings behind those paint splotches.

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself.

GabuEx

I disagree.

Context can be very enlightening.

There's emotion and feelings behind those paint splotches.muay_thai_demon

I disagree.

Context can be very enlightening.

muay_thai_demon

Of course it can.

But if the work is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself. A painter who spends three seconds on a painting and then an hour talking about its significance should consider changing his career to author in order to at least be honest about what he's doing.

GabuEx

I also hate really trendy art catering to the masses, like the funky creature in those Art Institute commercials. Doesn't matter what it is, if I can feel the trendiness off it, I hate it. I don't like being marketed to.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I disagree.

Context can be very enlightening.

GabuEx

Of course it can.

But if it is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I disagree.

Context can be very enlightening.

GabuEx

Of course it can.

But if the work is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself. A painter who spends three seconds on a painting and then an hour talking about its significance should consider changing his career to author in order to at least be honest about what he's doing.

DrSponge

Of course it's creative.

But let's be honest. If a person spends more time talking about a work of art than making it, that person is not a painter, a musician, or whatever else. That person is a writer, and should stop lying about what he's actually doing. In situations like that, the alleged work of art is really nothing more than a prop to illustrate what he's talking about.

I'm sensing there are a lot of misconceptions about abstract art in this thread.

[QUOTE="DrSponge"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself. A painter who spends three seconds on a painting and then an hour talking about its significance should consider changing his career to author in order to at least be honest about what he's doing.

GabuEx

Of course it's creative.

But let's be honest. If a person spends more time talking about a work of art than making it, that person is not a painter, a musician, or whatever else. That person is a writer, and should stop lying about what he's actually doing. In situations like that, the alleged work of art is really nothing more than a prop.

[QUOTE="DrSponge"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I can't stand any work of art that cannot stand by itself as an appealing or interesting work in its own right. Having a dialog for it that will enrich a viewer or listener's experience is fine, but in my opinion it absolutely must be able to stand by itself, as well. If the work of art needs a two-hour dialog before a viewer or listener will have any hope of understanding, appreciating, or enjoying it, then quite frankly the only work of art there is the dialog, not the piece itself. A painter who spends three seconds on a painting and then an hour talking about its significance should consider changing his career to author in order to at least be honest about what he's doing.

GabuEx

Of course it's creative.

But let's be honest. If a person spends more time talking about a work of art than making it, that person is not a painter, a musician, or whatever else. That person is a writer, and should stop lying about what he's actually doing. In situations like that, the alleged work of art is really nothing more than a prop to illustrate what he's talking about.

Of course, then he's expressing an idea, which, in a way, is maybe more important than the art itself.

I'm sensing there are a lot of misconceptions about abstract art in this thread.

muay_thai_demon

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I disagree.

Context can be very enlightening.

Of course it can.

But if the work is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Of course it can.

But if the work is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?

I also don't like wussy art, like art of people and emotions of people giving into their weaknesses and being wusses.

Turns me off.

I don't like the oldy style Van Goth stuff. I like modern art because it's light, it's crisp and clean. It's complements your wall painting, where olde stuff complements your grandmothers flowery wall paper.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Of course it can.

But if the work is absolutely unenjoyable or inunderstandable without the dialog providing that context, then quite frankly I would call the artist an author, not whatever he or she is attempting to pose as.

jimmyjammer69

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?

Apparently, art has a strict definition.

I also don't like wussy art, like art of people and emotions of people giving into their weaknesses and being wusses.

Turns me off.

muay_thai_demon

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I'm sensing there are a lot of misconceptions about abstract art in this thread.

t3hrubikscube

I love abstract art.

I love that it doesn't mean anything concrete.

I can forget about things that are concrete and just "feel." I can get lost in it, it calms me down.

There's some hacks who try to be funny by mocking abstract art by just throwing paint on a wall, but they're naiive and I suppose not really artists at all, just comedians, making fun of those that actually have a passion.

I don't like the oldy style Van Goth stuff. I like modern art because it's light, it's crisp and clean. It's complements your wall painting, where olde stuff complements your grandmothers flowery wall paper.

Evil_Saluki

If you're painting something, you're a painter. Having to explain a piece of art shows the depth that the artist has thought at to come up with the idea, the painting is the idea in picture form. How can you just paint a specific idea without explaining it as well? Art is meant to make a person feel emotions, to make them think.DrSponge

Being a painter implies that you spend the majority of your time painting when you're working on something. If 1% of your time is spent drawing a line and 99% of your time is spent talking about it, then no, I would not particularly call you a painter. I would call you a writer, or perhaps an actor, but not a painter.

If someone wants to paint a line on a canvas and then talk about it, by all means, go ahead; I just wish people would not lump their props in with paintings that actually took a lot of time and which was the main expenditure of effort on the part of the creator.

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?muay_thai_demon

In the interest of space I think it would be best if I did not discuss my thoughts on some of Duchamp's... um... exhibits.

Apparently, art has a strict definition.muay_thai_demon

Yes, I am an art elitist, and quite frankly I offer no apologies for it. :P

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

So you don't like Marcel Duchamp, then?

DrSponge

I think I'm with GabuEx here... if it's only significant in context and not enjoyable as a standalone piece, then it's catering to a really small elite and it's already outside my definition of art. I don't believe surrealism wouldn't have existed without "Fountain" (urinal to the rest of us), and it's just an example of artists and critics laughing at the naivite of the art buying public.

If someone wants to paint a line on a canvas and then talk about it, by all means, go ahead; I just wish people would not lump their props in with paintings that actuallytook a lot of time and which was the main expenditure of effort on the part of the creator.GabuEx

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"][QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I'm sensing there are a lot of misconceptions about abstract art in this thread.

muay_thai_demon

I love abstract art.

I love that it doesn't mean anything concrete.

I can forget about things that are concrete and just "feel." I can get lost in it, it calms me down.

There's some hacks who try to be funny by mocking abstract art by just throwing paint on a wall, but they're naiive and I suppose not really artists at all, just comedians, making fun of those that actually have a passion.

[QUOTE="DrSponge"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] If you're talking about the guy who placed the urinal in an art gallery, then I hope I'm not alone in dismissing at least some of his "work" as crap.jimmyjammer69

I think I'm with GabuEx here... if it's only significant in context and not enjoyable as a standalone piece, then it's catering to a really small elite and it's already outside my definition of art. I don't believe surrealism wouldn't have existed without "Fountain" (urinal to the rest of us), and it's just an example of artists and critics laughing at the naivite of the art buying public.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

I also don't like wussy art, like art of people and emotions of people giving into their weaknesses and being wusses.

Turns me off.

DrSponge

No. Here's an example.

It doesn't mean anything. It's a girl blowing a bubble, to me, it's just boring, stark, sterile.

The artist could explain that this is daily life in the day of a girl who deals with a lot of regular things yada yada but I'm so tired of hearing about the world, I don't care.

Here's one that I do like:

The texture and the roughness is so beautiful. It's soothing, the blue, even though it's a cool color, is warm, and I feel like I could be swallowed by the sea and drift away.

A painting can be as incredibly detailed as you want and still need explanation. DrSponge

My complaint is not with paintings for which there is an explanation; my complaint is with paintings that need an explanation before they can even be remotely understood or appreciated by an observer. If a painting could be easily reproduced by a five-year-old and requires an hour-long explanation of why it actually isn't just the splatterings of a toddler, then I submit that the art therein is not the painting, but the dialog built around it. To act as though the painting itself in such a situation is what should be appreciated is, in my opinion, an insult to those who pour their hearts and soul into making paintings that truly are works of art in their own right even without the explanation that fleshes them out and enhances a viewer's appreciation and enjoyment.

There was a story a while back of a person who took note of just what I've been saying - that some of these paintings could be done by a toddler - and managed to fool the entire world of art critics into believing that there was some deep meaning behind paintings that in actuality were nothing more than the random splotches of a playful kid. If we are to believe that the paintings themselves are the result of some deep, purposeful actions on the part of the painter, and thus should themselves be appreciated as art, that should not be possible. I submit, therefore, that the art is the dialog and the artist is a writer.

QED. :P

You know what, I just want to say that I don't even understand why I'm being argued with. I've never once disrespected the art that I do not like. I do not like it because it does nothing for me, and that's just who I am. I don't care if other people like it or if it does something for other people, but it doesn't for me and I feel like I've been pretty respectful of things that I don't even like. I just want to throw that out there.t3hrubikscube

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I apologize, sometimes I just get carried away.

My comments about the abstract misconceptions weren't directed at you.

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]You know what, I just want to say that I don't even understand why I'm being argued with. I've never once disrespected the art that I do not like. I do not like it because it does nothing for me, and that's just who I am. I don't care if other people like it or if it does something for other people, but it doesn't for me and I feel like I've been pretty respectful of things that I don't even like. I just want to throw that out there.muay_thai_demon

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I apologize, sometimes I just get carried away.

My comments about the abstract misconceptions weren't directed at you.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]You know what, I just want to say that I don't even understand why I'm being argued with. I've never once disrespected the art that I do not like. I do not like it because it does nothing for me, and that's just who I am. I don't care if other people like it or if it does something for other people, but it doesn't for me and I feel like I've been pretty respectful of things that I don't even like. I just want to throw that out there.t3hrubikscube

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I apologize, sometimes I just get carried away.

My comments about the abstract misconceptions weren't directed at you.

You mentioned music?

You mentioned music?muay_thai_demon

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]You mentioned music?t3hrubikscube

You write music?

You write music?muay_thai_demon

If that anime/manga thing counts, not that i have a personal grudge against it, or actually hate it.

But it grinds me gears when that was what everyone was submitting back then in my Arts and Design class.

[QUOTE="muay_thai_demon"]You write music?t3hrubikscube

Really? Do you have a sound sample?

Really? Do you have a sound sample?muay_thai_demon