# A theory on interpretive problems with Modern Art **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 21, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004 "2007-09-21T16:56:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/81 "2007-09-26T15:49:44Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] The problem with much of modern art is that it does _neither_. It strives, or rather pretends, to “increase conciousness” by repeating ad nauseum the stale symbolic tricks that have been recycled now for decades. Putting a toilet on the wall - increases conciousness by its _shock value_, questioning the value of art itself, which was a very valid thing to do - once. Pulling similar tricks _now_ = no real shock value, no increase in conciousness, stale, boring and worthless as “art”. [/QUOTE] Yet people (not necessarily critics, but Man on the Street)are _still shocked_ by a _Piss Christ_ or _Elephant Dung Madonna_ or _Chocolate Jesus_ or _Decomposing Sheep Foetus_ or whatever. Kind of gives the lie to the notion it’s all so “First Half of the 20th C.” doesn’t it? Sure, there are rip-offs of Mondrian or Rothko in every lawyer’s reception room or hotel lobby. Doesn’t make them not art, just bad art. Still valid, just valueless. Look, I agree that a part of Modern Art is the business side of things (I blame that cunt Saatchi) - I’m totally with the [Stuckists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism) on this - but that doesn’t mean Modern Art in-and-of-itself is soulless or valueless. It means Saatchi is a parasite, and his favourites are responding to the market. Doesn’t invalidate all MA work outright, though. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/82 "2007-09-26T16:20:06Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Yet people (not necessarily critics, but Man on the Street)are _still shocked_ by a _Piss Christ_ or _Elephant Dung Madonna_ or _Chocolate Jesus_ or _Decomposing Sheep Foetus_ or whatever. Kind of gives the lie to the notion it’s all so “First Half of the 20th C.” doesn’t it? Sure, there are rip-offs of Mondrian or Rothko in every lawyer’s reception room or hotel lobby. Doesn’t make them not art, just bad art. Still valid, just valueless. Look, I agree that a part of Modern Art is the business side of things (I blame that cunt Saatchi) - I’m totally with the [Stuckists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism) on this - but that doesn’t mean Modern Art in-and-of-itself is soulless or valueless. It means Saatchi is a parasite, and his favourites are responding to the market. Doesn’t invalidate all MA work outright, though. [/QUOTE] Don’t agree. Some ‘average men in the street’ may be shocked by _Piss Christ_ and the like, but increasingly I don’t even think _that_ is true - because it has been done and done again. You would have to have been living under a rock not to at least know this stuff goes on. Moreover, to my mind at least the point of art (of this variety at least) is not to offend the uncultured, an enterprise of dubious worth, but to shock the _self_ into increased conciousness. Walking through a gallery now, there is little that has this effect. I also do not think “all of modern art” is invalid. I do however think that we are in a period of significantly diminished creativity in this respect. Many truly creative people are simply doing other things, because by and large MA of the ‘high art’ variety is moribund as a creative enterprise. Every endeavour has its golden ages and its doldrums. We are in the doldrums of high art right now, where the best use many can think of the enterpise is, seemingly, to mock the plebes. ---
**Author:** ![Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Key_Lime_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/83 "2007-09-26T16:55:54Z")
For me it’s all about technique and effect. The art (of all ages) that impresses me the most is art that shows a mastery of both. It provokes something in me, makes me pause. Then I wonder how they did it, and then upon inspection (or some reading) there is clear evidence of ingenious and sophisticated craftsmanship. Some of the contemporary artists who do this best, for me, are: Richter Gursky Jeff Wall Serra Chihuly (duck & run) previously: Chagall Hopper Rothko The most successful artists, IMO, are those able to develop new techniques to provoke specific effects. I’m also able to appreciate a lot of art that doesn’t have that immediate “effect”, after I learn more about their intentions. But I invariably see them as less successful because they didn’t grab me in the first place. Technique without effect is utterly unimpressive (Donald Judd, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/84 "2007-09-26T17:47:11Z")
**CJJ** \*, when you talk about items “assembled randomly”, what do you mean? Are you talking about Andy Warhol’s Brillo boxes? My aesthetics professor said that, too, that it was just a random group of boxes. I remember banging my head on my desk in reply – there IS a visual experience to be had, with that kind of art. A question of context, of color, of scale; the choices that Warhol made when he picked that particular box, that number of them, arranged them in that way. It IS a visual experience, NOT just an act of irony or mocking or whatever. [QUOTE=Malthus] Don’t agree. Some ‘average men in the street’ may be shocked by _Piss Christ_ and the like, but increasingly I don’t even think _that_ is true - because it has been done and done again. You would have to have been living under a rock not to at least know this stuff goes on. [/quote] Doesn’t that, in itself, speak to the value of his work? > [@](#): > > Every endeavour has its golden ages and its doldrums. We are in the doldrums of high art right now, where the best use many can think of the enterpise is, seemingly, to mock the plebes. You may be right about the doldrums. But which galleries are you going to? Is the toilet in the corner still packin 'em in (so to speak)? [Artnet](http://www.artnet.com/Top300Artists/Results.aspx) keeps a list of the “Top 300” selling artists – really interesting, to see where the money is being spent. The New York wannabees may indeed be wasting everyone’s time. As to “mocking the plebes” - ha! [Exhibit A,](http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet) [Exhibit B](http://www.bobross.com/), [Exhibit C](http://www.onestroke.com/demo/pages/OneStrokeComm/FP_SeasideCanvas.html). I blame Edward Rothstein. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/85 "2007-09-26T18:12:29Z")
[Does this guy](http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-3-06.asp) say basically the same thing you’re saying, **CJJ** \*? I don’t know if its his tone or specificity, but for some reason I find it easier to accept his complaints than I do yours. Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/86 "2007-09-26T18:13:02Z")
[QUOTE=fessie] Doesn’t that, in itself, speak to the value of his work? [/quote] I don’t see how. Are you saying noteriety is in itself validation? If that is the case, isn’t Paris Hilton the greatest artist _ever?_ > [@](#): > > You may be right about the doldrums. But which galleries are you going to? Is the toilet in the corner still packin 'em in (so to speak)? [Artnet](http://www.artnet.com/Top300Artists/Results.aspx) keeps a list of the “Top 300” selling artists – really interesting, to see where the money is being spent. The New York wannabees may indeed be wasting everyone’s time. > > As to “mocking the plebes” - ha! [Exhibit A,](http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet) [Exhibit B](http://www.bobross.com/), [Exhibit C](http://www.onestroke.com/demo/pages/OneStrokeComm/FP_SeasideCanvas.html). I blame Edward Rothstein. No-one argues that Kinkade is “high art”. He, and those like him, produce works that appeal to some, yes, just like kitchy religious art appeals to some. They don’t pretend it is anything other than sentiment and decoration, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that (albeit not my taste). The problem as I see it with MA is that it is _supposed_ to be doing some conciousness-raising, introducing the educated audience to ideas, forms, textures, and experiences that leave them excited, inspired, _moved_ in some manner emotionally or intellectually. Truly great art creates awe at the capacity of humanity to transend its limitations of time and place - while art is a product of culture, truly great art may transend culture, projecting a power that can effect people at great removes from those who created it even when its meaning is totally obscure to the viewer (think of the Cro-Magnon rock paintings, great Chinese calligraphy, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or even the work of M.C. Escher). There is little ‘high art’ created these days which has the power to do this, and to my mind this is a shame. I honestly cannot think that people a thousand or ten thousand years from now are going to look back on “Piss Christ” and experience anything approaching awe. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/87 "2007-09-26T18:40:16Z")
[QUOTE=Eonwe] But the difference between an actual sunset and a photo of one is that the photo has been presented to you because someone felt that that specific image had value of some sort, would you agree? As soon as you insert that intercessor into the process who is selecting what it is you look at, that persons intentions must certainly be significant in the experience of viewing art. [/quote] I don’t necessarily agree. If a person can look at a sunset, and decide to impart some meaning to it regardless of any “intent” in the sunset, then a person can look at a picture of a sunset, and decide to impart meaning to it regardless of the intent in the picture. > [@CJJ\*](#): > > You are not incorrect because you disagree with the commonality of interpretation. You may be incorrect because your interpretation does not account for certain factors present in the work, or because it makes connections that aren’t really there; the way to figure that out is to mount the argument, defend it, and see if it moves consensus. Sorry, but it seems you’ve just ended back up at what you disavowed at the beginning of your paragraph. If I can’t change the consensus, then my interpretation is incorrect, because it disagrees with the commonality of interpretation. > [@](#): > > But even if it doesn’t, you’re free to continue mounting your argument; I personally would consider the exercise pointless unless I took the feedback from other critics as an opportunity to re-examine my interpretation. But if I decide my subjective experience trumps all, I become the annoying crank at parties who just won’t shut up about his wacky conspiracy theory (not to say I’m far from that as it is ). I don’t believe I ever said you should not incorporate other people’s ideas into your own interpretation. > [@](#): > > Discussion about art doesn’t just inform you about other viewpoints; it ought to get you to re-assess your own, based on the plausibility (read: objective justification) of these alternative viewpoints. Otherwise its just–and I apologize for the vulgarity here–masturbation. I agree entirely, except where you equate plausibility with objectivity. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/88 "2007-09-26T19:56:10Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] Why? Well ultimately I loathe it for the same reason that I loathe psychism and the same reason that I loathe televangelism: it’s snake oil. This seems patently true to me. These things all take money from people on the pretence that they are producing something of value without ever being able to provide any objective evidence at that this is true. And yes, modern art takes money form people. Our taxes pay for museums and they pay for the art displayed in those museums, they pays for museum staff, they pays for college lecturers, they pays art grants and so on and so forth. Modern art takes money, and it takes money on the basis that it is producing something of worth to society. [/quote] And this makes modern art different from classical art… how, exactly? I mean, with quacks and faith healers, there _is_ an objective standard against which you can measure their claims: does the sick person under their care get better? The claim being made by an artist is, at it’s base, “You’ll like my painting.” If this claim is false, obviously, no one’s going to buy the painting. So where does fraud come into it? > [@](#): > > There is a rather blatant “Emporer’s new clothes” scam going on. As I said, I have only a cursory interest in modern art, yet I have lost track of the number of examples where the elite were caught out talking shit, when the it was discovered blithely stated that the fact they were talking shit wasn’t important. To give an example that has stuck in my mind “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” by Picasso. Thousands of words were written in the importance of this painting and the importance of the positioning of the figures, particularly the squatting figure. It was attributed to sexuality and gender relations and all sorts of crap but one thing that everyone agreed on was that the positioning had a very deep and special significance selected specifically by Picasso to provide message. Just read the WIkipedia article to see what I mean. Years after Picasso’s death someone going through is old junk found that the picture was direct copy of a cheap mass produced postcard of some African women. The positions hadn’t been altered from the original. The woman was squatting simply because she was pounding millet in a bowl. Picasso had plagiarised someone’s postcard photo. When this was discovered nobody was pilloried, nobody was sacked, nobody was even embarassed. They simply stated that the work was still important and that Picasso had known the significance of the original composition in the photo and that was why he reproduced it. It is rare to even find a critique of the work that mentions the postcard, yet I have seen reputable books with reproductiions of the postcard and the painting and there could be no doubt that one is copied from the other. In an internet search I could only find one passing reference to the fact that he used [” postcards of African women for models”](http://www.paultrachtman.net/pdfs/matisse_picasso.pdf). Your complaint here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, Picasso used a postcard as a reference for one of his paintings. How does this invalidate his painting? Are you suggesting that Picasso was unique, or at least unusual, in this practice? I assure you, he was not. Most representational artists use models or photographs of models in their work. > [@](#): > > A classic “Emporer has no clothes” scenario. The art elite had produced and swallowed so much bullshit on the work based on nothing that they had to keep saying it even when it was provably untrue. And this isn’t an isolated incident, including one discussed on these boards 12 months ago about a critically acclaimed and hung artist plagiarising works. I assume you’re refering to the Todd Goldman incident? [I’m passingly familiar with it myself.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=416086) I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove about modern art, though. Goldman’s fraud doesn’t invalidate the critical praise he received, it just means that the praise was misdirected, and should have gone to the artists whose original works he was stealing. > [@](#): > > But what these few incidents do more than anything else is show there is no reason to accept that the rest of modern art is not just bullshit. It is almost impossible to prove that the industry is bullshit simply because there is no external reference. If in those rare cases where we do find an external reference it turns out to be bullshit, yet the industry continues on regardless that doesn’t give me any faith in the rest. The whole industry is no different to postmodernism, or many modern literary trends. All have been similarly proven to be so much “emporer has no clothes” baloney by some examples that the industry then dismisses as “atypical” or “irrelevant”. Wait a minute, postmodernism has been disproven? Er… how did that work, exactly? How does one disprove an abstract philosophical approach to interpretation? I don’t see how that would even be possible. > [@](#): > > When this sort thing happens, when the people who control the industry and decide what should be displayed and so forth, are shown to be producing nothing but hot air why should I give modern art any credit? We are told, as in the OP, that the art can only be appreciated by people with a background in modern art. When we find out that the people who have the most education and longest background in art have been blowing smoke up each other’s arses where does that leave us? The uneducated can’t appreciate it, yet it seems that any appreciation that the educated have is nothing more than mutual masturbation. Man, people keep using the term “masturbation” like it’s a bad thing. What’s up with that? Anyway, I don’t believe that you need to have an education in modern art in order to appreciate modern art. I know this, because I don’t have an education in modern art, and I love the stuff. > [@](#): > > Which brings me to my next reason for viewing modern art as snake oil and a promulgation of ignorance: why isn’t there any independent confirmation of the abilities of the people making the rules? Who are the people making the rules? What rules are they making? What sort of test do you suggest be used? Who would administer it? What do you do to people who don’t pass the test, but still insist on having opinions about art? Are you thinking prison terms, or just stiff fines? > [@](#): > > We are told that modern art can only be appreciated by the educated. But what evidence is there that even the educated can actually appreciate the art rather than simply stroking their engorged egos at public expense? When I was in Australia in the early 90s there was a kerfuffle when some modern art piece (sculpture IIRC) was displayed _upside down_ at the National gallery and nobody noticed for several days. I have heard of similar incidents elsewhere though never form reputable sources. To me that says a lot. If the educated tramping through couldn’t even recognise it was upside down then how could they appreciate it? How could they appreciate it? Well… they looked at it… and they decided wether or not they liked it. Sorry, but your question doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. > [@](#): > > Why is it impossible to do a simple double blind test on this? Give a group of the modern art elite, especially gallery directors, a collection paintings to examine. Then get their assessments. If the majority don’t give the same assesement then their is clearly an emporer’s new clothes event happening here. If the educated can’t reach independent consensus on modern art then it isn’t a case of only the educated can appreciate the art. It tells us that nobody can appreciate the art. Has this ever been tried? And if not why not? What do you mean by “appreciate?” The way you’re using the word doesn’t make any sense to me. > [@](#): > > I have seen many modern art pieces that are, quite simply, nonsense. You can see a couple of examples [here](http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/06/euroupdate_2_is_science_art.php). A blank canvas? A posterised reprint of a journal article? Are people supposed to have respect for this nonsense? No. No one is supposed to have any reaction in art. However, just because you didn’t have a particular reaction doesn’t mean that no one could ever have that reaction. Art is subjective. People value different things in it. Some people place a high value on concept and intellectualism. If you don’t value those things, then you’re not going to care for works that emphsis those elements. But it doesn’t mean that people who do value those elements are deluded or fraudulent. It just means they value different things than you do. > [@](#): > > Am I supposed to believe that with sufficient education this suddenly becomes deeply meaningful? And if this is the case then the question I have to ask is, why have any respect for it? You’re really hung up on this education thing, which is, IMO, a red herring, but let’s say that it’s true. How does that make it less worthy of respect? A Stephen Hawking dissertation doesn’t make much sense without a whole hell of a lot of education. Does that mean that quantum physics, as a whole, is unworthy of respect? > [@](#): > > Anyone over the age of 6 could have produced those works, seriously, anyone. And yet, not just anyone did. Even simple ideas need someone to think of them first, and the fact that we had so many centuries of art before anyone thought to create these particular works indicates, to me, that they’re not really so simple after all. > [@](#): > > Does it really surprise the people in art circles that art that could be produced by a 6 year old gets no repsct? Or that the average person is suspicious when they are told that they just can’t appreciate” such blatant nonsense because they are uneducated? Surprise, no, but it does slightly depress me. Modern art really isn’t that hard to understand, but there are so many people who simply refuse to even try, prefering instead to issue blanket insults against anyone who disagrees with them, implying that they must be either stupid, or dishonest. This sentiment is so common among people who dislike modern art that it remains a constant source of amazement to me that it is the\* pro-art\* crowd that somehow gets tarred as elitist. BTW: it’s spelled “emperor.” ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/89 "2007-09-26T20:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] If I can’t change the consensus, then my interpretation is incorrect, because it disagrees with the commonality of interpretation. [/quote] Let me clarify once again that a person most definitely can move the consensus. Conversely, consensus opinion can move the personal interpretation; that is the whole point to exploring the meaning or intent of a work. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe I ever said you should not incorporate other people’s ideas into your own interpretation. But if it’s all just personal, subjective experiences, how does that occur? If I have my interpretation, and someone else comes along with a substantially different interpretation, why should I take their opinion more seriously than my own if it is entirely based on subjective experience? At the risk of being offensive, let me quote back a few things you’ve said in this thread: > [@Miller](#): > > “If I see a particular painting, and am deeply moved by it, why does it matter in the least if anyone else was moved by it, or if the artist intended me to be moved in the way that I was?” > > "When you ask someone, ‘What does this painting mean to you?’ the answer does not shed light on to the nature of the artist, it sheds light on to the nature of the interpreter. > > “All artistic criticism is ultimatly a statement of likes and dislikes, no matter how much verbosity it is crouched in. By recognizing the ultimate subjectivity of art, you (hopefully) avoid argument via consensus, in which a dissenting voice is dismissed as ignorant or uninformed simply because it departs from the mob view.” > > “Art is entirely subjective…no opinion on a work of art is more valid than any other opinion on a work of art.” I don’t see how these statements can be reconciled with the practical task of “incorporat(ing) other people’s ideas into your own interpretation.” Now, I don’t doubt that you probably do incorporate other people’s ideas into your own interpretation, but you do this according to some criteria. Maybe it’s because the person airing the opinion has an air of intelligence or is sexually attractive, but I would really hope that it’s because you compare what they’re saying to what you see in the objective artwork the person is ostensibly discussing, and you recognize the thing they’re describing. So two different people then have a shared interpretation, based on some objective criteria agreed upon in the work of art. How is this process then–the appreciation of a work of art–entirely subjective? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/90 "2007-09-26T20:08:18Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Seems to me to be a classic case of _appealing to authority_ - to paraphrase, ‘I’m an expert, so my views have more weight’. That is all very well where the “expertise” is in something like physics, where right and wrong can be weighed and measured - I’d believe an expert physicist where the question involved, say, nuclear reactions. It cuts no ice, however, when the expertise is in a subject where the _experts themselves_ adamantly claim there are _no_ objective standards. If so, how can they be “experts” and in what sense is their “expertise” worth anything? [/quote] The art critic’s expertise lies in explaining their viewpoint in an interesting and intelligent manner. It does not lie in a superior facility at liking art. > [@](#): > > The problem with much of modern art is that it does _neither_. It strives, or rather pretends, to “increase conciousness” by repeating ad nauseum the stale symbolic tricks that have been recycled now for decades. Putting a toilet on the wall - increases conciousness by its _shock value_, questioning the value of art itself, which was a very valid thing to do - once. Pulling similar tricks _now_ = no real shock value, no increase in conciousness, stale, boring and worthless as “art”. This post is the first place I’ve ever heard that the primary purpose of modern art is to increase conciousness. I’m not ever entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Are you talking about art, or Starbucks? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/91 "2007-09-26T20:17:47Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No. No one is supposed to have any reaction in art. However, just because you didn’t have a particular reaction doesn’t mean that no one could ever have that reaction. Art is subjective. People value different things in it. Some people place a high value on concept and intellectualism. If you don’t value those things, then you’re not going to care for works that emphsis those elements. But it doesn’t mean that people who do value those elements are deluded or fraudulent. It just means they value different things than you do. Perhaps part of this dispute has come about because we are using different definitions for “appreciation” with respect to art. I’m claiming that “appreciate” and “like” are two different things. I can certainly recognize and appreciate the artistic qualities of Picasso’s _Les Demoiselles d’Avignon_, but I don’t necessarily want a copy of it hanging in my home, nor would I go out of my way to see it in person if I happened to visit New York. OK, that last statement may not be completely true, as I do like looking at art in person and think the experience is much richer than viewing a print, but I don’t really have a longing for it, as opposed to the enjoyment I get browsing thru the Impressionist and post-Impressionist wing of the Chicago Art Institute. It’s my contention that this facility to “appreciate” art can be developed in an intellectual way (not necessarily that it favors intellectualism, but rather that it’s something that can be honed by the usual tools of the intellect). The rest is simply taste, and as Juvenal said _de gustibus non est disputandum_. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/92 "2007-09-26T20:21:24Z")
[QUOTE=CJJ\*] Let me clarify once again that a person most definitely can move the consensus. Conversely, consensus opinion can move the personal interpretation; that is the whole point to exploring the meaning or intent of a work. [/quote] I understand that, but moving the consensus is generally not going to happen overnight. Let’s say that I have a decidedly minority view on a particular work of art. I attempt to convince other people to see it the way that I do. How long can I work at moving the consensus before my position becomes objectively incorrect? If one wants to change the consensus, obviously, one has to take a position in opposition to the consensus. But you’re saying that the validity of any opinion of art can only be measured by how many people agree with it, so any interpretation that doesn’t agree with the consensus is invalid, and therefore can be discounted, so that the consensus can never move. You’ve set up a perfect Catch-22. > [@](#): > > But if it’s all just personal, subjective experiences, how does that occur? If I have my interpretation, and someone else comes along with a substantially different interpretation, why should I take their opinion more seriously than my own if it is entirely based on subjective experience? At the risk of being offensive, let me quote back a few things you’ve said in this thread: Simple. If you like their interpretation better than your own, you adopt as much of their interpretation as you care for, either incorporating it into your own interpretation, or replacing it entirely. And if you don’t like their interpretation at all, you ignore all of it. The point is, the other person can’t prove, in an objective sense, that their interpretation is more valid than mine. The closest they can come is to create an interpretation that is more suited to my entirely subjective criteria than the one I was able to create on my own. > [@](#): > > So two different people then have a shared interpretation, based on some objective criteria agreed upon in the work of art. How is this process then–the appreciation of a work of art–entirely subjective? Because the shared interpretation _is not based on objective criteria._ It’s based on subjective criteria that both people happen to have in common. If you like asparagus, and I like asparagus, we haven’t just demonstrated that asparagus is objectively good. We’ve just discovered that we share some of the same subjective biases. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/93 "2007-09-26T20:25:39Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] The art critic’s expertise lies in explaining their viewpoint in an interesting and intelligent manner. It does not lie in a superior facility at liking art. [/quote] Don’t know what you mean. Where did I say the expertise of art critics lies in “liking art”? The point is that, unlike other “experts” whose opinion is based on mastery of an objective body of knowledge, there is no particular reason to favour the views of such critics over those of anyone else. > [@](#): > > This post is the first place I’ve ever heard that the primary purpose of modern art is to increase conciousness. I’m not ever entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Are you talking about art, or Starbucks? Not sure what this snark is. Starbucks? I don’t get the attempted humour here. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/94 "2007-09-26T20:29:13Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Don’t agree. Some ‘average men in the street’ may be shocked by _Piss Christ_ and the like, but increasingly I don’t even think _that_ is true - because it has been done and done again. You would have to have been living under a rock not to at least know this stuff goes on. [/QUOTE] And yet Sweet Jesus gets Cavallaro a quasi-death threat from the Catholic League on live TV _this year_. So no, it is true, people can still get their buttons pushed very easily. [QUOTE=Malthus] Moreover, to my mind at least the point of art (of this variety at least) is not to offend the uncultured, an enterprise of dubious worth, but to shock the _self_ into increased conciousness. Walking through a gallery now, there is little that has this effect. [/QUOTE] Dubious worth to you - to others, holding up a mirror to Society’s foibles is the point. Neither of you has a monopoly on meaning. [QUOTE=Malthus] I also do not think “all of modern art” is invalid. I do however think that we are in a period of significantly diminished creativity in this respect. Many truly creative people are simply doing other things, because by and large MA of the ‘high art’ variety is moribund as a creative enterprise. [/QUOTE] I’ll agree that for gallery/competition art this isn’t the most exciting time (again I blame that prick Saatchi) - I think a lot more exciting things are happening in lowbrow and related art fields, like ICC. But there is still exciting stuff happening if you know where to look for it. Plus this sort of criticism (not you, in general) never confines itself to just current works, but all of Modern Art - witness **Blake** ’s opinion of Picasso. You can say what you like about Pablo, but “moribund” would only get you laughed at. Never mind that we are out of the Modern Art period by several decades. [QUOTE=Malthus] Every endeavour has its golden ages and its doldrums. We are in the doldrums of high art right now, where the best use many can think of the enterpise is, seemingly, to mock the plebes. [/QUOTE] It’s the Postmodern Preoccupation, Plebemockery. Why should fine artists let musicians, directors and writers have all the fun? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/95 "2007-09-26T20:33:06Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Who makes up this consensus that decides? [/QUOTE] Whoever is participating in the game. Say a group of friends get together in the park to play football. They decide that each side gets three downs instead of four and that the ball is dead when it hits the ground – no fumbles. Are they still playing football? The NFL would say no. The players in the park would say yes. That’s what a lot of this “THAT’s not art!” talk boils down to. A passerby stops and looks at a group of people playing football in a park. He doesn’t know their history, he doesn’t know the rule discussions they’ve had in the past, and he doesn’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. All he knows is that the game they’re playing violates the rules of football _as he understands them_. “THAT’S not football!” We ALL get to decide what the rules of art are. But if you start looking at art made with a very different audience in mind you may discover that they’ve decided that the rules are different than what you think they are. Or even what you think they should be. But that doesn’t mean that their rules are a scam. Or that they’re poseurs or elitists. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/96 "2007-09-26T20:35:29Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Because the shared interpretation _is not based on objective criteria._ It’s based on subjective criteria that both people happen to have in common. If you like asparagus, and I like asparagus, we haven’t just demonstrated that asparagus is objectively good. We’ve just discovered that we share some of the same subjective biases. [/QUOTE] You may well _say_ that someone can be as moved, inspired, enlightened, and awestruck by an instillation art featuring a vial of piss as by the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or by random screeting as by a composition by Mozart, but I find it very difficult to believe. Yes, there is a great deal in subjectivity in art. Just as one may prefer asparagus over brussels sprouts, one may prefer one style in art over another … but those pushing for _total_ subjectivity _without any possible objective component_ are in effect arguing that one may equally well prefer the taste of shit, and thus that there is no reason not to eat shit on a regular basis (or have it hanging in our art galleries). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/97 "2007-09-26T20:42:35Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Don’t know what you mean. Where did I say the expertise of art critics lies in “liking art”? [/quote] Well, then at what (in your view) are art critics claiming to be experts? > [@](#): > > The point is that, unlike other “experts” whose opinion is based on mastery of an objective body of knowledge, there is no particular reason to favour the views of such critics over those of anyone else. Oh, sure, that’s what I’ve been saying this entire thread. > [@](#): > > Not sure what this snark is. Starbucks? I don’t get the attempted humour here. I was joking that the easiest way to increase your “consciousness” is to drink a cup of coffee. Because it wakes you up, you see. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/98 "2007-09-26T20:45:06Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] And yet Sweet Jesus gets Cavallaro a quasi-death threat from the Catholic League on live TV _this year_. So no, it is true, people can still get their buttons pushed very easily. [/quote] So someone managed to offend the feeble-minded into getting a death threat. That makes it all worthwhile? > [@](#): > > Dubious worth to you - to others, holding up a mirror to Society’s foibles is the point. Neither of you has a monopoly on meaning. I disagree. I have a monopoly on meaning, as far as I’m concerned. It pisses me off that high art is crap these days, and I would very much like to see this not be the case. > [@](#): > > I’ll agree that for gallery/competition art this isn’t the most exciting time (again I blame that prick Saatchi) - I think a lot more exciting things are happening in lowbrow and related art fields, like ICC. But there is still exciting stuff happening if you know where to look for it. I know there is exciting stuff happening. Just not very much of it, and it is out of the mainstream. > [@](#): > > Plus this sort of criticism (not you, in general) never confines itself to just current works, but all of Modern Art - witness **Blake** ’s opinion of Picasso. You can say what you like about Pablo, but “moribund” would only get you laughed at. Never mind that we are out of the Modern Art period by several decades. I’m obviously not using the term “modern” in its narrow meaning in reference to art. > [@](#): > > It’s the Postmodern Preoccupation, Plebemockery. Why should fine artists let musicians, directors and writers have all the fun? Because it is boring and its been done? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/99 "2007-09-26T20:49:15Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Well, then at what (in your view) are art critics claiming to be experts? Oh, sure, that’s what I’ve been saying this entire thread. [/quote] Maybe, but I wasn’t replying to you. Go back, read my post in context. > [@](#): > > I was joking that the easiest way to increase your “consciousness” is to drink a cup of coffee. Because it wakes you up, you see. Oh. Well then, yes, I do think high art should be like unto Starbucks. 😃 It should “wake you up” to new possibilities, to awe, to new experiences. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004/100 "2007-09-26T20:54:11Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] You may well _say_ that someone can be as moved, inspired, enlightened, and awestruck by an instillation art featuring a vial of piss as by the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or by random screeting as by a composition by Mozart, but I find it very difficult to believe. [/quote] If a person tells you he likes the vial of piss better… well, so what? Why would he lie about that? > [@](#): > > Yes, there is a great deal in subjectivity in art. Just as one may prefer asparagus over brussels sprouts, one may prefer one style in art over another … but those pushing for _total_ subjectivity _without any possible objective component_ are in effect arguing that one may equally well prefer the taste of shit, and thus that there is no reason not to eat shit on a regular basis (or have it hanging in our art galleries). Well, one good reason not to eat shit everyday is because you, personally, don’t like the taste of shit. But if someone comes along and says there’s nothing they love more than sitting down to a big bowl of poo… well, who are you to tell them their wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-theory-on-interpretive-problems-with-modern-art/420004.md?page=6)