A theory on interpretive problems with Modern Art

[MrDibble]

[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]

Well, believe it - I found the Sistine left me cold. Most Christian religious art that isn’t Bosch, Goya or Bruegel does. Whereas I’ve been quite uplifted by installations of bodily fluid before - OK, not plain urine, but Piss Christ made me giggle, and that’s just a photo of a vial of piss with crucifix. And that guy who did his head with his own frozen blood? Marc Quinn? He’s the only YBA I have time for. Magic.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=Miller]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I have never once said that the validity of any opinion of art can only be measured by how many people agree with it. I have consistently stated that art can and should be appreciated against criteria that can be shared with others, and I have called that criteria “objective”.

Furthermore you present a false dilemma with respect to consensus-moving. To explain, suppose you and I agree there are two opposite shades called “white” and “black”. Then I further argue there is a spectrum between these two opposites mixing the two shades, and that this mixing is commonly called “gray”. What you’re essentially saying above is, because it’s impossible to put a definitive dividing line between “white” and “gray” or “black” and “gray”, there is no such thing as “gray”; with any line I place, you could easily give an example of a shade just the slightest bit whiter/blacker that could plausibly be called “gray”, and so invalidate my definition. Therefore “grey” doesn’t exist, because I can’t define it separately from “white”.

To make the analogy painfully clear, “white” = “current critical consensus”, “black” = “contrary opinion”, “gray” = “partial movement of consensus”. Since I can’t draw a line showing the point where consensus starts moving, it obviously can’t move at all. :rolleyes:

Here’s an example of consensus moving from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. This famous ceiling of the Birth of Man is well over 400 years old, and hailed by critics as part of the general appreciation of Michelangelo’s work. Yet it wasn’t until the 1950’s that a doctor spotted the fact that the cloak surrounding the Almighty is not merely decorative, but a cross-section of the human brain. If this didn’t occur to you before reading that last sentence, I assure you it will always be on your mind whenever you spot a print of that painting. That one, objective observation–missed for centuries–substantially moved critical consensus on the painting’s meaning. If you look at the painting, it’s clearly not a subjective believe that “I think it looks like the brain”–it is clearly an outline of a human brain. No one could deny it on mere “subjective” grounds; the opinion was based on a clear understanding of the objective features of the work. Tie that fact in with some (objective) background knowledge that Renaissance painters were known to dissect corpses despite papal prohibitions, and a substantial, indisputable truth about the painting emerges to move prior critical consensus regarding the function of the cloak in the piece.

That is admittedly an unusual development, and I don’t mean to imply that a shift in critical consensus is always so seismic. But it can occur if there is a “something” objectively there to hang an opinion on.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=Miller]
If a person tells you he likes the vial of piss better… well, so what? Why would he lie about that?
[/quote]

I simply find it difficult to take total subjectivism at all seriously. Certainly, such people may exist. But why would one wish to have someone who preferred fecal art, or random noise, in charge of decisions as to what should be publicly displayed?

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?

I have nothing against those who wish to enjoy a little poo-eating as a private pleasure.

What I dislike is the fact that, for whatever reason, those who enjoy the art equivalent of coprophagia have seemingly taken over, so that in effect most modern high art is rendered worthless as far as I, and many other people, are concerned.

Simply put, if there is no difference in worth between shit and great art, then there is no reason to have art galleries. If that is the case, there is no reason for me to support funding of “art” either publicly through taxes or otherwise, by private donations or sales.

The only reason I care at all is that in fact I actually like art. I think a society bereft of art is one impoverished. It is a society lacking. I see our society heading in that direction as far as high art is concerned.

But this only applies where the art in question has some sort of worth greater than that of shit.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
I have never once said that the validity of any opinion of art can only be measured by how many people agree with it. I have consistently stated that art can and should be appreciated against criteria that can be shared with others, and I have called that criteria “objective”.
[/quote]

Is it, then, your argument that the validity of an opinion is determined by how well the person holding it can defend it? I agree entirely, except that I’d use the word “valuable” instead of “valid.” Any opinion on a work of art is valid, in the sense that it is true for the person holding that opinion. Not all opinions are equally valuable, in that someone saying, “Picasso sucks!” is not saying anything particularly interesting, whereas a ten page dissertation on why Picasso ultimatly failed as a painter can be intensely interesting, even if I don’t agree with it in the slightest.

Here’s an example of consensus moving from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. This famous ceiling of the Birth of Man is well over 400 years old, and hailed by critics as part of the general appreciation of Michelangelo’s work. Yet it wasn’t until the 1950’s that a doctor spotted the fact that the cloak surrounding the Almighty is not merely decorative, but a cross-section of the human brain. If this didn’t occur to you before reading that last sentence, I assure you it will always be on your mind whenever you spot a print of that painting. That one, objective observation–missed for centuries–substantially moved critical consensus on the painting’s meaning. If you look at the painting, it’s clearly not a subjective believe that “I think it looks like the brain”–it is clearly an outline of a human brain. No one could deny it on mere “subjective” grounds; the opinion was based on a clear understanding of the objective features of the work. Tie that fact in with some (objective) background knowledge that Renaissance painters were known to dissect corpses despite papal prohibitions, and a substantial, indisputable truth about the painting emerges to move prior critical consensus regarding the function of the cloak in the piece.

To be honest, I don’t really see it. It’s sort of there, the same way you can spot a face in the clouds, but it’s not really the slam-dunk you make it out to be, at least from where I’m sitting. Maybe it’s different in person, versus a scanned image. That said, I find the idea that the cloak is meant to be a human brain intellectually stimulating, and am happy to incorporate it into my interpretation of the painting on that basis. But, let’s say that it’s objectively “there,” in the same fashion that the guy with the big white beard and the naked buffed dude are objectively there. It still leaves the question of why it is there. What does having a brain in the painting mean? Does having a brain there improve the picture, or detract from it? There is no objective answer to any of those questions.

[Miller]

Malthus, I’m afraid you’ve stretched the coprophagia metaphor past the point where it’s making any sort of coherent sense to me.

[Blake]

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Blake, you’re focused on the idea that in order to be a good artist, you need to have good technical art skills.
[/quote]

Not only aren’t I focussed on that, I never even mentioned such a concept.

However, modern art is not about technical skills, it’s about conceptual skills. It’s about imagination and stretching the limits of what can be considered art, not ultra precise brush strokes and exact color matching. You want to judge it by a measure it is specifically not encouraging in its artists, you’re bound to find it lacking.

Once again I never said that, indeed I said precisely the opposite: I specifically said that I don’t expect the art to meet any objective standards whatsoever. I do expect the people claiming that the art can be appreciated by education to meet objective standards for that claim.

If that standard can’t be met then it is indeed a circle jerk.

You may loathe modern art, but ask yourself what art you’d have if it wasn’t for modern art. Would there even be anything to talk about?

What a silly question. You would have to be extremely insular with no interest or friends outside the art community to think that anybody in the real world ever discusses modern art? Jeez, I’m an ecologist and I sure wouldn’t pretend that people in the real world discuss ecology for more than 10 minutes in any given year. And I can assure you that modern art gets far less discussion time than ecology in the real world.

[QUOTE=fessie]
You mention televangelism, Blake - honestly, what I’m reading is a kind of Biblical literalism. Whatever YOU grew up thinking was “art” is all that can ever be.
[/quote]

I have no idea where you got that impression from. It certainly wasn’t from anything I actually posted.

Once again my point was not that any art is “right”.
My point was to point out the ignorance inherent in the claim that people educate din art appreciate it.
I don’t care what kind of art people like, I don’t pretend that any kind of art is right.
I do care about promulgation of ignorance by snake oil salesmen, and modern art as an industry/movement bears all the hallmarks of snake oil. Don’t care about the art any more than I care about religion. I do care about the objective claims made by the people involved.
If modern art simply said that it was all a matter of subjective taste and that everyone’s opinion is equally valid I’m sure we could all agree. Instead what is said is that true appreciation can only be achieved by the educated elite. Sure the majority of people think it it’s ugly and meaningless, but that’s not correct, they just don’t truly appreciate it.

At that point it make san objective claim, at that point it crosses the line to promulgating ignorance. When it asks for money to promulgate this ignorance it crosses the line to snake oil.

Never did I suggest that any form of art is best. Never did I suggest that art or even artist should be held to an objective standard. What I have said is that the objective claim that modern art rests on should be held to an objective standard.

…what’s left? A fucking blank wall.

And that’s all well and good. But when an industry that takes public money says that the money is justified base don the elite having special education in appreciating whether a blank wall is or is not good art you have crossed the line to snake oil. It is no different to an industry claiming public money because they clam they have special education in appreciating whether an action is or is not in keeping with the will of God.

No different at all.

Whether one is very diplomatic about it, like CJJ*, or more blunt like Blake, it boils down to “I don’t understand that. Therefore it’s a sham.”

Utter bollocks.

What it boils down to is “The people who claim they can understand it a deepr level thanks to education it show no evidence this is true. Therefore it’s a sham.”

On a board that’s suppose dot be about fighting ignorance that’s hardly an unreasonable position to take.

You’ve got one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans saying “Well, there’s this…and this…and this..”

But your reply is simply “No. If it’s not X, then it doesn’t count.”

Once again, a total strawman and not even close to anything I said.

What my position actually is:
You’ve got one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans saying “Well, what do you think.. no you fist.. no you first..” And so on until they manage to reach consensus.

If we put one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans in separate rooms they will reach totally different opinions of the worth of the art and what they appreciate it for or indeed whether they appreciate it at all. This is despite al of them having been educated to appreciate it. And if we put 6 people with no education in separate rooms the response will be no different.

Thus the idea that educated people can appreciate this art in some special way is revealed for what it is: a circle jerk, a prolonged emporer with no clothes scam.

[Blake]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Can you appreciate that Picasso created something new, for which the postcard only serves as a basis?
[/quote]

Of course I can. I like most of Picasso’s works and am willing to argue that he was a genius. That wasn’t my point.

My point was that modern art spent millions of words discussing how important the positioning of the figure was, and the deep meaning behind the squatting figure and how it related to female sexual freedom and so forth.

Then it was revealed that figures were positioned that way because that’s how a group of women working in a village were positioned when the photographer walked by. There was no deep meaning to the arrangement. Picasso didn’t even choose the arrangement. The figure wasn’t squatting to signify female sexual freedom, she was squatting to pound millet.

So where does that leave all those words written about the deep significance of the arrangement? It’s like the old sight gag of art critics talking about a sculpture and then the janitor comes and takes it away and it turns out it was just some garbage he left there. The “appreciation” of the educated elite for Picasso’s genius in arranging the composition can hardly have been accurate can it, when he didn’t; in fact arrange it at all.

Now it is conceivable that Picasso saw something wonderful in the original cheap mass produced postcard that he plagiarise, but that is a separate issue because nobody suggested he did that, everyone talked of his genius in arranging it. Similarly they didn’t talk of appreciating his genius in creating something different, they appreciated his decision to arrange the figures in that manner, especially the squatting figure.

The whole episode, and man others like it, highlight that the alleged ability of the educated to appreciate this art is just hot air. They appreciate things that clearly don’t exist.

Can you also appreciate that the criteria for appreciating art are not the same as appreciating science? Double-blinds and repeatability are pointless distractions in an experience that’s inherently subjective, a dialogue between the art and the viewer.

Once again, I don’t know where people get the idea that I ever suggested such a thing. I not only didn’t post such an idea I explicitely said exactly the opposite: art can not be held to objective standards. I don’t know how the heck so many people managed to interpret that as me saying that art should be held to the same standards as science.

However the claim that only the educated can appreciate art is not an appreciation of art. It is an objective claim. That claim can be and should be held to an objective standard. The people making such claims can and should be held to an objective standard. Otherwise this is no different at all to accepting the claims of religion or psychism or any other form of snake oil.

Can you also appreciate that the criteria for appreciating religion are not the same as appreciating science? Double-blinds and repeatability are pointless distractions in an experience that’s inherently subjective, a dialogue between the God and the worshipper? If you do understand that does that mean that you will give scientology a pass on all the claims they make? Of course not. Just because religion or art are themselves subjective and personal doesn’t mean that the claims made in reference to religion or art get pass on common sense.

Just because a bunch of critics get it spectacularly wrong doesn’t invalidate the art work. All it does is devalue their criticism.

And that was my soul point.
Modern art is based in large part upon the notion expressed repeatedly in this thread; that one needs education to appreciate the art, and the educated can appreciate the art.

When the appreciation of the most educated is spectacularly proved to be invalid then proves that such acclaim is false. Since that claim is the basis for modern art it devalues modern art as an entity. That does not mean that individual artworks aren’t valuable. It means that modern art as a movement and an industry have been proved to be largely worthless: a circle jerk, an emporer with no clothes, snake oil.

I must admit, as soon as someone makes the “Any six year old…” argument, as you did, Blake, I immediately discount everything they say thereafter. Six year olds splash paint about and draw stick figures because that’s all they can do. They don’t try and play clever clogs with blank canvases (which I cynically laugh at, but there you go) - that’s what adults do.

So you are saying that I couldn’t teach my six year old niece to NOT paint a canvas? I don’t; follow this. A six year old could produce a blank canvas. Whether they would is another issue, but they certainly could. That is my point. How can education train enable to distinguish an intentionally blank canvas from a canvas that just hasn’t been painted yet? And if it can’t then why should I trust the claims that education allows people to appreciate a blank canvas? Why should I pay money for a blank canvas on the grounds that someone told me they can appreciate it?

As Malthus says, it’s a blatant appeal to authority “'I’m an expert, so my views have more weight”, even though we have no evidence that an experts has any ability to distinguish that a layperson does not.

witness Blake’s opinion of Picasso.

Blake has never expressed any opinion of Picasso in these boards.

[Blake]

[QUOTE=Miller]
And this makes modern art different from classical art… how, exactly?
[/quote]

Because I have never heard anybody suggest that only the educated can appreciate classical art.

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?

And with the quacks of modern art there is also an objective way to measure their claims. If education allows appreciation then a significant majority of educated people should agree on which novel works they appreciate and the reason for that without any collusion.

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?

The claim made by a snake oil salesman is at its base “you’ll like my treatment”. If the claim is false no one’s going to buy the treatment. Do you really believe that. Or believe that snake oil isn’t a fraud?

So, Picasso used a postcard as a reference for one of his paintings. How does this invalidate his painting?

It doesn’t, nor did I claim that.

What it does invalidate are al those words written by educated people about how much they appreciated the meaning that Picasso imbued the paining with by the arrangement of the figures.

Again, I’m not sure why people have so much difficulty understanding this.

If I find out that “Star Wars” is plagiarised from a 16th century novel that does not in any way invalidate “Star Wars”. What it would invalidate is anyone who has written thousands of words stating that “Star Wars” was imbued with references to the Second World War. Do you understand my point now?

I have not and am not claiming anything whatsoever about the painting in question. What I am making claims about is the nonsense written by educated people concerning that painting. DO you understand that the words written about a painting are not the painting itself?

I assume you’re refering to the Todd Goldman incident? I’m passingly familiar with it myself. 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.

Yep, this is a classic tack too, and oh so typical for any snake oil scam. When somehting is shown to be trite r banal say that it is in fact still deep depsite that.

Something is praised for its artistic worth by educated people who say how much they appreciate it for creativity and so forth. When it is shown to be plagiarism of trite internet clipart and bumper stickers the educated then say that it worthy of appreciation al the same, despite being trite internet clipart and bumper stickers.

I have to ask the obvious question: how can we distinguish between a fraud that can not distinguish between trite bumper stickers and fine art, and the modern art movement?

It reminds of nothing so much as the Angry Penguins incident where a groups of hoaxers produced nonsense poetry that the educated praised highly. When it was revealed as hoax specifically designed to be meaningless drivel the claim was made that it still praiseworthy despite being a deliberate fraud.

Man, people keep using the term “masturbation” like it’s a bad thing. What’s up with that?

It’s bad when you ask people to pay for it by telling them that they’re having sex. That’s what’s so bad.

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.

In that case you aren’t actually addressing my argument at all.

Who are the people making the rules? What rules are they making?

Well museum directors who decide what should and should not be bought and displayed at public expense would be the obvious target. For more information address Pochacco. He was the one who said that there were rule sot modern art.

What sort of test do you suggest be used?

I already told you the test I propose.

Who would administer it?

Anyone reliable.

What do you do to people who don’t pass the test, but still insist on having opinions about art?

Nothing, that isn’t the point of the test.

Are you thinking prison terms, or just stiff fines?

Huh?

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.

Well let me once gain ask the obvious question:
How can we distinguish between a fraud that can not distinguish between trite bumper stickers and fine art, and the modern art movement?

What do you mean by “appreciate?” The way you’re using the word doesn’t make any sense to me.

I am using the word in the way that everyone else in this thread is using it. Try a dictionary.

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.

Once again, you are ducking the issue.
Nobody has a problem with an “art is subjective, everybody appreciates art in their own way” position.
The issue at hand is the belief that modern art simply can not be appreciated without education.

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?

No, because if you ask any people appropriately educated to appreciate quantum physics what their opinion is of the paper they will all agree to a very high level of congruence with no collusion. Thus we know this isn’t a fraud. The same can not be said of modern art.

Let me ask the obvious question: how do we distinguish between a fraud that pretends that the elite have a deeper understanding not available to the commoner but in fact have no such understanding, and modern art?

Once again modern art fails the duck test. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, yet we are supposed to believe it is a wheelbarrow.

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.

Yeah, and the fact that we had centuries of science before someone invented a the time cube indicates to me that it isn’t so simple after all. I’m astounded that anybody could believe such ‘reasoning’.

Modern art really isn’t that hard to understand…

That would seem to directly contradict al those who claim that it can’t be appreciated without being educated. You can’t possibly hold both positions simultaneously.

BTW: it’s spelled “emperor.”

Not by me it’s not.

[fessie]

Lovely piece in this month’s *Smithsonian. *

Two remarks in particular stood out:

Picasso also used photographs to paint his 1907 Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, with each figure seeming like a multiple exposure, seen from different angles at the same time—a decisive step into Cubism.

By the 1960s, conceptual artists—inspired by Marcel Duchamp and other Dadaists of the 1920s—adopted the view that art should aim at the mind, not the eye, turning out paintings in which the idea behind the work was more important than the work itself.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Blake]
Because I have never heard anybody suggest that only the educated can appreciate classical art.
[/quote]

Oh, classical art requires way more education to properly appreciate than does modern art. All that iconography? There’s reams of meaning to that shit, and most of it is entirely arbitrary to modern eyes. Bottom line is, there’s no way you can really appreciate classical art without a pretty firm grounding in Christian theology and Greco-Roman myth. Modern art, by comparison, is a breeze.

And with the quacks of modern art there is also an objective way to measure their claims. If education allows appreciation then a significant majority of educated people should agree on which novel works they appreciate and the reason for that without any collusion.

What you’re saying here is that art critics should be held to a higher standard of consensus than physicists. Because there’s no academic field in the world that could meet the standards laid out here. In fact, that’s pretty much the point of academia in the first place: to provide a forum to hash out the latest competing theories.

What it does invalidate are al those words written by educated people about how much they appreciated the meaning that Picasso imbued the paining with by the arrangement of the figures.

No, it doesn’t. Because the meaning attributed to the positions of the figures in the painting can just as easily be attributed to the positions of the figures in the postcard. The meaning does not have to be original to Picasso to be a valid interpretation of his artwork.

Again, I’m not sure why people have so much difficulty understanding this.

Well, this sentence from your last post may be throwing people:

But for the most part I loathe modern art (and I use the term modern art to encompass the artworks themselves, as well as the artists, the critics and the entire industry/movement that supports them)

Which casts the comments you made after that point as a general condemnation of all modern art in all its permutations, not simply an attack on modern art critics.

If I find out that “Star Wars” is plagiarised from a 16th century novel that does not in any way invalidate “Star Wars”. What it would invalidate is anyone who has written thousands of words stating that “Star Wars” was imbued with references to the Second World War. Do you understand my point now?

Yes, I understand your point, but not how it applies to Picasso’s painting and the attendent criticism. Maybe it would help if you could be more specific about what the critics were saying the positions of the character meant. For example, if they were saying, “The way these figures are positioned is a clear statement that Picasso never saw a postcard featuring African women,” then yes, the discovery of the postcard would most certainly discredit that statement.

I have not and am not claiming anything whatsoever about the painting in question. What I am making claims about is the nonsense written by educated people concerning that painting. DO you understand that the words written about a painting are not the painting itself?

I do now, yes. You had not made that point sufficiently clear in your earlier post.

Yep, this is a classic tack too, and oh so typical for any snake oil scam. When somehting is shown to be trite or banal say that it is in fact still deep depsite that.

Er… where was it shown to be trite or banal?

Something is praised for its artistic worth by educated people who say how much they appreciate it for creativity and so forth. When it is shown to be plagiarism of trite internet clipart and bumper stickers the educated then say that it worthy of appreciation al the same, despite being trite internet clipart and bumper stickers.

Oh, good lord. Do you even know what the critics were saying about Todd Goldman before the plagiarism scandal broke? He’s a pop artist. His artwork was already being criticized in terms of “clipart and bumperstickers.” Pointing out that he was, in fact, stealing his stuff directly from clipart and bumpstickers doesn’t disprove what the critics were saying about him, it re-enforces it!

I have to ask the obvious question: how can we distinguish between a fraud that can not distinguish between trite bumper stickers and fine art, and the modern art movement?

That’s not the question. The question is, “What’s the difference between trite bumperstickers and fine art?” Pop artists, at least, answer, “There is no difference.” Clearly, that’s not an opinion you agree with, but neither is it an opinion you have just disproven.

It reminds of nothing so much as the Angry Penguins incident where a groups of hoaxers produced nonsense poetry that the educated praised highly. When it was revealed as hoax specifically designed to be meaningless drivel the claim was made that it still praiseworthy despite being a deliberate fraud.

I’m not familiar with this, but I’m willing to bet that what actually happened is pretty much identical to your mischaracterization of the Goldman incident. The poem was originally criticized in the context of nonsense verse, and praised as such, before being revealed as… nonsense verse. Yeah, big fraud, there.

It’s bad when you ask people to pay for it by telling them that they’re having sex. That’s what’s so bad.

Okay, you officially suck at metaphor.

Well museum directors who decide what should and should not be bought and displayed at public expense would be the obvious target.

See, this is where I start getting confused as to who you’re complaining about: artists or art critics. I presume, if this test were initiated, that people who failed the test would be prohibited from becoming museum directors, right? And it’s your belief that this test would show that all modern art critics are frauds, right? So, there would be no moder art museum directors. Which means that there would be no modern art museums. Which means that there would be no way for the public to see modern art. Which, finally, seems to be advocating that modern art be done away with. I mean, you say you like Picasso. Where would you ever see him, if there’s no one left to say wether or not he should be in a museum?

Well let me once gain ask the obvious question:
How can we distinguish between a fraud that can not distinguish between trite bumper stickers and fine art, and the modern art movement?

Why do we need to make this distinction?

I am using the word in the way that everyone else in this thread is using it. Try a dictionary.

I just looked. There are five definitions for the word “appreciate” listed there. Which one were you using?

Once again, you are ducking the issue.
Nobody has a problem with an “art is subjective, everybody appreciates art in their own way” position.
The issue at hand is the belief that modern art simply can not be appreciated without education.

I do believe that the above is entirely incorrect.

No, because if you ask any people appropriately educated to appreciate quantum physics what their opinion is of the paper they will all agree to a very high level of congruence with no collusion. Thus we know this isn’t a fraud. The same can not be said of modern art.

Am I being whooshed here? I’m pretty sure I’m being whooshed.

Let me ask the obvious question: how do we distinguish between a fraud that pretends that the elite have a deeper understanding not available to the commoner but in fact have no such understanding, and modern art?

I don’t know. What are you trying to distinguish him from?

Once again modern art fails the duck test. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, yet we are supposed to believe it is a wheelbarrow.

Yeah, and the fact that we had centuries of science before someone invented a the time cube indicates to me that it isn’t so simple after all. I’m astounded that anybody could believe such ‘reasoning’.

I’m astounded that you think you can make a point by comparing an abstract aesthetic principle to a guy who thinks he’s invented a working time machine.

That would seem to directly contradict all those who claim that it can’t be appreciated without being educated.

Apocraphyl Art Critic: Only the highly educated can understand modern art!
Me: Anyone can understand modern art!

Yeah, sounds like a contradiction to me.

You can’t possibly hold both positions simultaneously.

Good eye.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=Miller]
Is it, then, your argument that the validity of an opinion is determined by how well the person holding it can defend it? I agree entirely, except that I’d use the word “valuable” instead of “valid.” Any opinion on a work of art is valid, in the sense that it is true for the person holding that opinion. Not all opinions are equally valuable, in that someone saying, “Picasso sucks!” is not saying anything particularly interesting, whereas a ten page dissertation on why Picasso ultimatly failed as a painter can be intensely interesting, even if I don’t agree with it in the slightest.
[/QUOTE]

It seems then we’ve been arguing over semantics, and I apologize for that. I might disagree slightly in that an opinion like “Picasso sucks” is not only valueless, but also invalid, but I don’t think it’s worth arguing about. I think we’re in agreement that the intellectual defense of an opinion is key to determining its value.

To be honest, I don’t really see it. It’s sort of there, the same way you can spot a face in the clouds, but it’s not really the slam-dunk you make it out to be, at least from where I’m sitting. Maybe it’s different in person, versus a scanned image. That said, I find the idea that the cloak is meant to be a human brain intellectually stimulating, and am happy to incorporate it into my interpretation of the painting on that basis. But, let’s say that it’s objectively “there,” in the same fashion that the guy with the big white beard and the naked buffed dude are objectively there. It still leaves the question of why it is there. What does having a brain in the painting mean? Does having a brain there improve the picture, or detract from it? There is no objective answer to any of those questions.

The “why it is there” question can be answered somewhat objectively; I’m thinking of the way, say, archaeologists make plausible conjectures about the past given certain incomplete evidence, even though there’s no way to ever prove them exactly right. Knowing that many of these Renaissance men dissected cadavers (Da Vinci unquestionably did this), and that human dissection was forbidden by the Church, it’s very reasonable to conclude that the design is there as a secret nod to other Renaissance men, and that in some way Michelangelo is equating God and the human brain. Going further than that is speculative.

The improve/detract question I’ll concede is more problematic, as it would necessarily also drag in questions of taste.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=Blake]

Now it is conceivable that Picasso saw something wonderful in the original cheap mass produced postcard that he plagiarise, but that is a separate issue because nobody suggested he did that, everyone talked of his genius in arranging it. Similarly they didn’t talk of appreciating his genius in creating something different, they appreciated his decision to arrange the figures in that manner, especially the squatting figure.
[/QUOTE]

While I think I now do see your point, I do think you are over-generalising. “Everyone” doesn’t talk about the genius of the arrangement. There are other things at work in the painting besides the arrangement (which, BTW, I’d like a cite for? AFAIK, there is a whole set off preliminary sketches for the work that show that the setup changed over time - for instance, the men who were there originally). There’s the Cubist elements which have squat to do with the arrangement and everything to do with the individual figures. That’s what most criticism I’ve read treats, and what makes the work groundbreaking.

I think you’re extrapolating from one thread of interpretation that’s been shown to be misguided, to “It’s all bunk”. That’s not logical, IMO.

[QUOTE=Blake]

The whole episode, and man others like it, highlight that the alleged ability of the educated to appreciate this art is just hot air. They appreciate things that clearly don’t exist.

[/QUOTE]

But they do exist - the provenance doesn’t, and that’s why I don’t hold with analysing artistic intent. But Picasso did choose that photo (I suppose - need cite), so the arrangement must have resonated with him. Not that it matters to my enjoyment of it.

[QUOTE=Blake]

Once again, I don’t know where people get the idea that I ever suggested such a thing. I not only didn’t post such an idea I explicitely said exactly the opposite: art can not be held to objective standards. I don’t know how the heck so many people managed to interpret that as me saying that art should be held to the same standards as science.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe it was your line about “independent confirmation”? Sounds like you want a per review system for art criticism to me.
[QUOTE=Blake]

Modern art is based in large part upon the notion expressed repeatedly in this thread; that one needs education to appreciate the art, and the educated can appreciate the art.

[/QUOTE]

I’ve certainly not made that claim. I believe education can enhance appreciation, sure, but I don’t deem it necessary.

[QUOTE=Blake]

So you are saying that I couldn’t teach my six year old niece to NOT paint a canvas?
[/QUOTE]

Then the concept would be yours, not hers, wouldn’t it?

[QUOTE=Blake]
I don’t; follow this. A six year old could produce a blank canvas. Whether they would is another issue, but they certainly could.
But it is definitely the “would” that is the issue.
That is my point. How can education train enable to distinguish an intentionally blank canvas from a canvas that just hasn’t been painted yet?
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t. But it might inform the critic as to the artist’s intent, I guess.

I’m not a huge fan of concept art, but it does usually go hand-in-hand with the artistic statement, where you can read the artist’s own words. I don’t give those a lot of mileage myself, but they are a data point.

[QUOTE=Blake]
And if it can’t then why should I trust the claims that education allows people to appreciate a blank canvas? Why should I pay money for a blank canvas on the grounds that someone told me they can appreciate it?

[/QUOTE]

No-one’s saying you should. What I’m saying is, don’t judge those who choose to. Different strokes etc. Utter subjectivity.

[QUOTE=Blake]

As Malthus says, it’s a blatant appeal to authority “'I’m an expert, so my views have more weight”, even though we have no evidence that an experts has any ability to distinguish that a layperson does not.

[/QUOTE]

I’ve never stood by that appeal. I think everyone has the capability to judge Art, by virtue of being human.

What I don’t cotton to, is the jump from “I don’t appreciate this” to “You mustn’t appreciate this” - I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying, but such overly broad statements as “It’s all snake oil” are just patent bullshit that it is effectively what you’re saying. I’ve written art criticism, and verbally discussed shows, and none of it was the snake oil you think I was selling - I did my research, I spoke to the artists, I looked at what they’d done. Could I have gotten some details wrong? Sure! But there’s a difference between “mistake” and “fraud”. And neither of those have any bearing on the most important aspect of art appreciation - “aesthetics”

[QUOTE=Blake]

Blake has never expressed any opinion of Picasso in these boards.
[/QUOTE]

Let me rephrase that - Blake’s opinion of Picasso criticism. My point was that you weren’t going on about *recent *art criticism, like Malthus was referencing.

Plus you have evinced an opinion now

[The_Hamster_King]

[QUOTE=Blake]
Once again modern art fails the duck test. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, yet we are supposed to believe it is a wheelbarrow.
[/QUOTE]
Not ALL modern art. Just Dada.

And, actually … you’re supposed to believe that it’s three wheelbarrows and a cut-glass doorknob. But why quibble?