Try to understand, in other words, that what you were saying at the beginning of this was, in fact, extremely insulting.
No, I really didn’t. I said something that you chose to take offense at. If I say “Oranges suck” - I am not implicitly insulting all those citrus fans out there.
An indisputable fact, because you say so. Hah.
I’ll just repeat it until you read it. Language isn’t abstract in the sense that I’m using it. If you have a term which better identifies my targets, by all means provide it. Or, hey, just keep ranting on this subject without reading. Your call.
The difference between someone running his eyes back and forth over text and actual reading comprehension can be tested. Hey, you’ve tried the first with my comments, why not try the second and get an insider’s POV? 
You know, I pondered this on the way home from work, and I just had to come back and address it specifically.
You’re dead wrong.
Relative difficulty of two actions - like the simple difficulty of a single action - varies with the individual, and is therefore, by definition, subjective.
For example - for me, football is hard. I’m not a fast runner and I have lung issues. For Joe Namath - Football may have been easy. (I imagine it’s a bit more difficult these days). Football is therefore neither hard nor easy, factually speaking.
To extend this to relative difficulty and address your comment - Calculus is easier than football for me. Does this mean it is factual to say Calculus is easier than football? No. It’s an opinion based on the difficulty of both actions as I perceive them.
For you too claim that ANY action being more difficult than ANY OTHER action* is indisputable fact is really, really silly.
*The only arguable exception would be two actions that are identical, save that one has extra conditions. Even then, the extra conditions might make the action easier for some random person out there who enjoys the more complex task to a greater degree, and thus finds himself more easily able to complete it.
Now, your statement may represent the consensus opinions of 100% of the art experts extant in the world today - but that does not make it fact.
Thank you.
Representing emotion is more difficult than representing a bowl of fruit because to represent emotion you have to invent a language where there was none; representing a bowl of fruit requires no such inventions.
Just because there are undoubtedly artists for whom is the former is easier than the latter doesn’t change the fact that one process requires more energy and invention than the other.
Well, once again, you’re just wrong. Because you don’t know shit about the subject.
Painting and drawing things that are right in front of you in a realistic manner is not difficult. It’s not easy, but it can be learned by the vast majority of the population. Painting and drawing in an interpretive manner is more difficult, and doing so abstractly more difficult still.
People who are interested in studying art start out working realistically, and go abstract from there. That’s how it’s done. In art school. As geometry precedes calculus. Most of us begin by copying photographs, because it’s fairly easy (that’s what I was doing as a teenager). Once those skills have been mastered, few people bother to do it anymore. Why? Because it’s boring.
This is much more rationally put, and I think I buy it.
But be careful throwing around that ‘indisputable fact’ tag in the future, eh?
While my knowledge of art may be lacking, yours is a more fundamental lack - logic and the English language.
Difficulty is subjective.
[take that]You, sir, are a bowl.[/take that]
This implies that emotion and thought are not present in representational art. I call bullshit.
But relative difficulty can be determined by observing how many people can learn how to succesfully execute a specific task. And the fact is that almost anyone can learn how to be a competent representational artist. It is, by no means, an uncommon skill. It used to be, back when only a teeny tiny priviledged minority had enough time in the day to devote to study and practice, but that’s not the case any more. Talented representational artists are a dime a dozen these days. Being a really good representational artist doesn’t get you a show in the Guggenheim. It get’s you on the front of a box of tampons. As a skill, it is common, and therefore lacks value. Being a talented abstract artist is still very uncommon. Not many people can do it, and that makes those that can do it, valuable.
Which is the point I was trying to get to with my Psycho analogy. The original movie is of greater “worth” than the shot-by-shot remake, because what made the first film great wasn’t that Alfred Hitchcock found really difficult places to set-up a camera, it was because he found places to set-up a camera that no one had ever thought of before. Any third-year art student could paint the Mona Lisa. What makes it one of the greatest paintings in the Western Canon is that no one had ever painted like that before. It’s the idea that makes great art great, not the mechanical details that go into creating it. Yeah, sure, anyone with MSPaint can look like Mondrian. So what? What makes Mondrian interesting is that he thought of it first. It’s the idea behind the paintings that make them interesting, not the skill. And, as lissener aptly put it, you’re not getting these painting because you don’t know how to read them, much as you wouldn’t get Icelandic poetry because you don’t know how to read Icelandic. You’re still looking at these painting try to figure out “how,” which is the dullest, least important aspect of art: you need to be asking “Why?” I’ve seen plenty of abstract art that I don’t find aesthetically pleasing, but which were created from an idea that was breath-taking.
Have you ever read Chaim Potok? I can’t recommend him highly enough. One of my favorite authors. He wrote a pair of books, My Name is Asher Lev and The Gift of Asher Lev, and a young man raised in the New York Hasidic community, who is an artistic prodigy, the equal of Picasso. Throughout the books, Potok makes direct comparisons between the study of abstract art and the study of the Torah. At one point, in The Gift, he’s making a speech to his daughter’s yeshiva on what abstract art means. It’s too long to quote here, but I recommend you check these books out. They’re wonderful stories in and of themselves, but they’re also the best explanation and defence of abstract art I’ve ever read.
You’re quite right. In fact, lissener and I have gotten in more than one argument on just this subject. But, you see, that’s not what you did in this thread. You didn’t comment on the art, you commented on everyone who enjoys the art. That is insulting. That is, in fact, more insulting than any of the cracks you’ve received in response, because at least the responses have been specific to you. Contrary to your beliefs, general insults are always worse than specific insults.
And if you don’t believe me, perhaps you can explain how you’ve managed to get so many people pissed at you, while Lobsang and This Year’s Model, both of whom have expressed sentiments similar to your own on the topic, have largely managed to post in this thread without angering anyone.
That is really brilliant.
What you don’t realize, CG, is that I’ve taught art to quite a few people, of different ages, educational levels, aptitude. From 6-yr-olds to 80-yr-olds. And they can execute the specific task of drawing what’s in front of them if shown how. It’s a typical bell curve, with the vast majority of people capable of mastering some skills and very, very few who can’t do it at all.
Face facts CG, we “don’t get it” and that’s all this thread will ever be at this point.
We’ve insulted every fan of abstract art because we said we didn’t like it and if this thread goes 80 more pages that’s all it will revolve around.
I like some abstract art. I think some of it is visually very cool. But I have a really hard time believing the idea of the painting came before the actual painting.
And for the record, I would just like to say that being first doesn’t always make something more worthwhile. Three and a half minutes of silence is completely ridiculous no matter how you explain it.
Dumbass.
Over and out.
Boo hoo, I said something you like is ridiculous, your life must be shattered.
I feel for you, I really do.
Well, you’re of course free to believe whatever you want, but it is worth noting that Cage’s “4:33” is often credited as one of the forerunners of modern electronic music. The idea that all sounds are music (which is what Cage’s piece was about) has really been picked up by the electronica scene (as well as other genres).
For instance, IIRC in Bjork’s “Dancer in the Dark” soundtrack there’s a track where the hiss of a record player is used as the basis for a beat- the idea of using mundane sounds in this way primarily originated from Cage.
I’ve got an analogy, and you abstract art defenders tell me if I’m off base or not. I play bass in a band. Some people who hear the music might say things like “That sounds like everything else.” or “That’s not really my genre.”. I think it’s the best music in world and a lot of other people think it’s pretty good too.
When I get the negative or panning comments, I just shrug my shoulders and think “That’s ok, some people get it, some don’t.” and just go on about my business. I don’t scream at them and call them ignorant, everybody gets off on different stuff. I could even sit them down and describe in detail what makes a song a “good song” but they’d never get it.
What’s the difference, am I missing something?
Here’s some more info about 4:33
One difference would be if the person criticizing you not only said you sucked, but that everyone who liked what you were playing was an idiot, that an ape could play guitar as well as you do, and then went on to ignore everyone who tried to point out that you play bass, not guitar.
What does this mean? Are you saying that abstract artists don’t approach their subject matter without preplanned notions of their paintings? While some artists do go for this spontaneous approach, I can show you pages and pages of Kandinsky’s sketches before he ever set down one drop of oil paint on any of his finished compositions. It’s clearly evident that he (and most other) abstract painters have a fairly firm idea of what the final painting will look like. Some abstract artists do go for “happy accidents,” but I would say the vast majority do not.
Um, no it doesn’t.