BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?!

[moriah]

I love abstract paintings. They make for great decoration.
No, wait, let me expess that in poetic form:

I
love abstract
                       paintings.
They   make
4
great deco
rat
i
on.

[lissener]

@Mr2001

My point is only that it’s foolish to attribute that emotion to the artist when it’s just as likely to be a figment of the viewer’s imagination.

Unfounded and unsupported assertion. In the first place. In the second place, why do you have a problem the participation of the audience imagagination? Reading requires imagination; language requires imagination; memory requires imagination. Why is it a problem with art?

@Mr2001

It seems likely to me, therefore, that any given painting actually has less inherent meaning than it appears to, and a painting whose meaning only becomes apparent after a lot of thought and examination probably has no inherent meaning at all.

FYI, and seriously, “meaning” has very little to do with it. You’re approaching it from a nonproductive angle.

@Mr2001

Someone who makes such paintings is relying on his audience to make up the meaning themselves;

Unfounded and unsupported assertion.

@Mr2001

I call that laziness,

Unfounded and unsupported assertion.

@Mr2001

I’m not saying some of them aren’t pleasing to the eye.

“Pleasing” isn’t relevant to this discussion; wrong angle again.

@Mr2001

Someone who can consistently make paintings that are more enjoyable to look at than random crap churned out by someone like me, even if he admits that they’re meaningless arrangements of shapes and lines, has talent. But I’m not convinced the paintings by the girl in the OP are any more enjoyable than the random crap I could churn out. (I don’t own any real paint, so we may never know.)

This discussion is not really about the little girl anymore; it’s become more about Mondrian and Kandinsky.

I think it’s been conceded that the work of the kid and the elephant require a manipulation of context to become art.

[moriah]

@pulykamell

Mondrian is one of the easier artists to imitate/pastiche/parody. Do a Kandinsky and I’ll be happy.

What most people don’t know is that it was Mondrian himself who painted the Partridge Family bus.

Peace.

[Ms2001]

@pulykamell

Personally, to me that doesn’t look particularly interesting. All the lines are of equal weight, the composition doesn’t move me like other Mondrians.

Clearly, the artist chose equal weight for the lines to symbolize how the bicycle makes men equal by allowing even the slowest runner to travel at a quick pace. The lifeless colors make perfect sense because bicycles themselves are lifeless.

[lissener]

@Mr2001

Clearly, the artist chose equal weight for the lines to symbolize how the bicycle makes men equal by allowing even the slowest runner to travel at a quick pace. The lifeless colors make perfect sense because bicycles themselves are lifeless.

I’m sure you’re amusing yourself. But tell me seriously: do you really think that just because it’s POSSIBLE to be dishonest about an artwork’s value, that this proves it’s IMPOSSIBLE for abstract art to have real value?

You’re not making any progress whatsoever in getting any real point across. You making up shit about your piece has nothing absolutely whatsoever to do with the fact that I have an emotional reaction to Mark Rothko’s paintings.

[The_Hamster_King]

@lissener

You’re not making any progress whatsoever in getting any real point across. You making up shit about your piece has nothing absolutely whatsoever to do with the fact that I have an emotional reaction to Mark Rothko’s paintings.

Last November my wife and I went to Houston on vacation.

We spent an afternoon at the Menil (an excellent collection of surrealist and primitive art) then walked over to the nearby Rothko Chapel. I’d been in the chapel before, but it was my wife’s first time.

When we walked into the space and she saw the pictures, it staggered her. Literally. Like in the sense she had to go outside and sit down to recover.

This wasn’t an “I’m overcome with his genius” drama queen thing. This was “the sadness in these paintings are so strong I can’t take it” thing. We’d looked at a lot of good art that day, both representational and abstract, but Rothko really got to her. It’s one of the strongest emotional responses I’ve ever seen anyone have to a work of art.

I’m sorry you guys don’t like abstract art. But when you say that it takes no talent and its just random scribbles you’re wrong. Some of us get quite a lot out of these paintings, and if you can’t see it, it’s because you really don’t know how to look at them.

(BTW, I find the little girl’s paintings pretty amazing too. My four-year-old daughter can’t do something like that.)

[lissener]

@Pochacco

When we walked into the space and she saw the pictures, it staggered her. Literally. Like in the sense she had to go outside and sit down to recover.

So CanGam, unless you want to call Pochacco’s wife a liar, it’s time to admit that there’s something in great abstract art that, for whatever incidentals of culture or history or makeup, you have not yet discovered a way to see. It’s not a personal judgment; I have chosen not to learn to read Icelandic.

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

Or maybe I am parsing: you seem to be suggesting that the two phrases–

“There’s nothing in it; you’ve all been fooled”
“I don’t get much out that painting”

–are completely interchangeable. They are not.

Not quite. I’m suggesting that when people see no evidence of something, they’re more likely to phrase it as ‘There’s nothing there’ than ‘There’s nothing there I can see.’

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

Not quite. I’m suggesting that when people see no evidence of something, they’re more likely to phrase it as ‘There’s nothing there’ than ‘There’s nothing there I can see.’

OK. And they’re likely to keep beating that particular drum no matter how complex the debate becomes?

In any case, you’re full of shit; that’s not what “you’ve all had the wool pulled over your eyes” means at all.

[CandidGamera]

@pulykamell

A more concrete example–let’s stay with music. Now, we both have ears. We both can hear. Now if I heard some Azerbaijani or Tajik music, I could tell you whether I like it or not. But am I qualified to have an opinion on it? About what makes good Azerbaijani or Tajik music? Or do I defer to someone who understands it and understands the culture of the music and where it comes from? Indian music sounds foreign to my ears. All the microtones and weird harmonies. It doesn’t conform to my Western expectations. It seems unstructured and cacophonic to me. But is it? Hell no.

And I don’t think I’m allowed to dismiss Indian, Tajik, or Azerbaijani music based on my musical biases. Because people who know what the fuck is going on can distinguish good music from bad music. It’s aesthetics, but there can be a difference between an informed value judgment and an uninformed one.

And the same applies to modern art.

Ah, here we go. Let’s say I hear a piece of Tajik music. I say ‘This sucks. It’s amelodic and grating.’ Pompous music snob comes along, turns up his nose, and says 'Nonsense. you just don’t know Tajik music. That’s how it’s supposed to sound." My reply would be : “Ah! So all Tajik music sucks. Thanks for the heads-up.”

I’m entitled to dismiss any artwork as unappealing to me, and if someone tells me that its traits that I abhor are how its supposed to be in whatever oeuvre it’s in, then I will happily write off that oeuvre.

My opinion of the piece isn’t less valid because I don’t know Tajik music - what I have done is judged that piece on its merits, which I have found lacking. Since I have heard that piece, I am entitled to do so. Anyone saying that my opinion is less valid for that piece because I haven’t heard its brethren is wrong. Period.

[andros]

what I have done is judged that piece on its merits

No, you’ve judged the piece on your perceptions and preconceptions. A subtle difference, but important. You admit to being entirely subjective in this.

I think the issue is simply that you are willing to dismiss Tajik music as crap, despite knowing that many others do not. You’re happy with not liking it an moving on. (Which is fine–I despair of teaching my SO to appreciate single malt Scotches.)

But your dismissing Tajik music as crap does not negate the fact that Tajik music is complex, rich, and enjoyable to many who have learned to appreciate it.

With me?

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

Ah, here we go. Let’s say I hear a piece of Tajik music. I say ‘This sucks. It’s amelodic and grating.’ Pompous music snob comes along, turns up his nose, and says 'Nonsense. you just don’t know Tajik music. That’s how it’s supposed to sound." My reply would be : “Ah! So all Tajik music sucks. Thanks for the heads-up.”

I’m entitled to dismiss any artwork as unappealing to me, and if someone tells me that its traits that I abhor are how its supposed to be in whatever oeuvre it’s in, then I will happily write off that oeuvre.

My opinion of the piece isn’t less valid because I don’t know Tajik music - what I have done is judged that piece on its merits, which I have found lacking. Since I have heard that piece, I am entitled to do so. Anyone saying that my opinion is less valid for that piece because I haven’t heard its brethren is wrong. Period.

So . . . someone saying “You might get more enjoyment out of the music if you had a better idea of what the musician is attempting to accomplish” is *more *pompous than “Chinese opera sucks. I could get better music out of a cat with with a sharp stick”?

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

So CanGam, unless you want to call Pochacco’s wife a liar, it’s time to admit that there’s something in great abstract art that, for whatever incidentals of culture or history or makeup, you have not yet discovered a way to see. It’s not a personal judgment; I have chosen not to learn to read Icelandic.

Wow - can you lift that Strawman? …cause that’s a big one.

I never EVER said people don’t have reactions to abstract paintings. I react to them with mild annoyance that they’re taking up wall space better used by something else, for instance.

But seriously. Some people react to odd things. Having not seen the works in question, I can’t really judge whether or not they, specifically, would convey anything to me. I doubt it. I remind you that people traditionally associate cold colors (mainly blue, grey, black) with sandess, and warm, vibrant colors with happiness - for whatever reason - so maybe it was just an oppressively gloomy color scheme?

I won’t say that a non-phony piece (by which I mean one produced with serious effort by the artist, whatever level of talent they may or may not have) can’t have some intrinsic emotion to display. I just firmly believe that similar pieces can be produced by the artist without them feeling anything, or having much talent.

It’s like acting - granted, there are a few deep-submersion types who really get into their character, but the bulk of actors and actresses fake the emotions they display. And some emotions are very very easy to fake.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@andros

(Which is fine–I despair of teaching my SO to appreciate single malt Scotches.)

NO! don’t do that, you’d have to share the good stuff with your SO then, what were you thinking andros

[lissener]

@CandidGamera

Wow - can you lift that Strawman? …cause that’s a big one.

No, that’s how I understand the crux of your entire position.

[lissener]

And you still have addressed your contention that we’re all fools taken in by manipulative critics.

[CandidGamera]

@andros

No, you’ve judged the piece on your perceptions and preconceptions. A subtle difference, but important. You admit to being entirely subjective in this.

I think the issue is simply that you are willing to dismiss Tajik music as crap, despite knowing that many others do not. You’re happy with not liking it an moving on. (Which is fine–I despair of teaching my SO to appreciate single malt Scotches.)

But your dismissing Tajik music as crap does not negate the fact that Tajik music is complex, rich, and enjoyable to many who have learned to appreciate it.

With me?

Kinda, but I think you’re not quite with me. The music to painting analogy is getting stretched here, and while it covers the ‘pleasantness’ aspect well, I’m not sure it covers the ‘stupidly easy to mass produce without skill’ aspect very well.

Let’s move over to a genre of music I know and loathe - rap. Or electronica/techno, take your pick. While I acknowledge that the artists have charisma, and some minimal level of skill in both these genres, 90% of the examples of each that I’ve heard sound like either some idiot talking in vague verse about how he’s gonna kill the guy across the street (rap), or a repetitive series of generic riffs played over and over and over again leading to a near insanity on my part as I try to get away. (techno.)

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

So . . . someone saying “You might get more enjoyment out of the music if you had a better idea of what the musician is attempting to accomplish” is *more *pompous than “Chinese opera sucks. I could get better music out of a cat with with a sharp stick”?

Absolutely. When it comes to the aesthetic half of this equation - I don’t care what the artist wants to accomplish. I care about the outcome.

[CandidGamera]

@lissener

No, that’s how I understand the crux of your entire position.

You understand poorly. I never said it, I never implied it.

@lissener

And you still have addressed your contention that we’re all fools taken in by manipulative critics.

Haven’t?

Well, that’s not quite what I said. I said that people being abstract art, as works of genius, are generally duped. I think at this point, the critics are duped as well, though.

[Ms2001]

@lissener

Unfounded and unsupported assertion. In the first place. In the second place, why do you have a problem the participation of the audience imagagination? Reading requires imagination; language requires imagination; memory requires imagination. Why is it a problem with art?

There’s a difference between requiring some imagination and leaving everything to the imagination. If I put a sequence of random words together, you might be able to form an impression of it by applying your imagination. You might even see some pattern in it that leads you to have an emotional reaction. That doesn’t make me a good writer, it makes you a good imaginer.

@lissener

I’m sure you’re amusing yourself. But tell me seriously: do you really think that just because it’s POSSIBLE to be dishonest about an artwork’s value, that this proves it’s IMPOSSIBLE for abstract art to have real value?

I think it’s pointless to try to distinguish “honest” and “dishonest” explanations about an artwork’s symbolism and meaning. If I happen to create a work that looks just like a Mondrian, it doesn’t matter if I do it as a gag and he does it as a serious endeavor - the paintings stand on their own. His isn’t any better just because of what was going through his head as he painted it.

You’re not making any progress whatsoever in getting any real point across. You making up shit about your piece has nothing absolutely whatsoever to do with the fact that I have an emotional reaction to Mark Rothko’s paintings.

Kudos to you, sir. Your imagination is rich enough to add meaning to meaningless blobs like this. That says more about you than it does about Mark Rothko.