I KNEW I was walking into a trap, yet I blundered right in.
I stand by my opinion though. If it was done by an elephant (I remain dubious) then it was a particularly talented elephant. It Does look good.
And I just had the weirdest case of deja-vu. (irrelevant, yes. But there you go)
Darn, zee have been getting zit wrong all zeese years. Zee should not be using monkeys and typewriters, zee should use de elefants instead! :smack:
Um, there is such a thing as abstract music by musicians like SunRa and John Cage.
Just because some of abstract art is crap and exists to separate the rich and pretentious from their money doesn’t mean all of it is shit.
Elephant at work, probably not the one responsible for the painting in the previous link though.
I trust I don’t need to explain my point.
This, of course, raises the issue of whether a work or art needs to be “explained,” or placed within the artist’s oeuvre, in order to be properly appreciated. Or should the artwork be sufficient, in and of itself, and without any explanatory notice or historical framework?
Where you stand on this might depend, i guess, on your relative stance regarding the notion of art as “mere” aesthetics versus, for example, a notion of art as political and historical document or story. Very few people take an abolutist position on this issue, one way or the other, but different people give different weight to the various possible functions of artwork in society.
An elephant can produce something interesting. So can a child. I don’t deny that. My initial reaction to the article was prices of the paintings and the way they were made out to be masterpieces, and the child a genius.
Personally, I think her work is quite amazing. Maybe she consciously doesn’t know what she’s doing, but the paintings are beautiful and show an innate understanding of form, color, composition, and balance.
I love modern art, and while this work is more imitative than anything groundbreaking, it is definitely something special. I happen to have a particular interest in children’s art and this is very different than what a typical four-year-old produces. It is quite exceptional.
Wow, pulykamell, your work is gorgeous.
I call bullshit on this being the kid’s work, especially the one with the heavy black stroke. It’s far too good for that (as abstract art goes, for you philistines out there ;)). Beyond that, her arms are long enough and controlled enough at the age of four to do a smooth swirl like that. Plus the father’s an amateur artist who hasn’t been too successful in his own right. The kid doesn’t talk about how she does her art. All adds up to fraud.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode with the patriotic essay-writing contest. Backstage, you see a father berating his kid - ’ “We the purple?” What the hell was that?’
I totally forgot I have a link to my homepage on here. Thanks for the compliments. I really do need to update that page, though.
So, you agree it’s art, it’s just art you don’t like. This is rant-worthy?
Strictly speaking, the word “masterpiece” shouldn’t be applied here, unless the person using it is convinced the kid is already at the peak of her artistic prowess. At best, these would be journeyman works. Still, as hyperbole goes, that’s still pretty mild, and hardly worth getting your panties in a twist.
Genius is a relative term, and I think it could very well apply to this girl, based on a comparison of her work and the work of other four year olds.
And who gives a shit if someone wants to pay ten grand for one of these paintings? It’s not your money. Why do you give a shit how other people choose to spend their own money?
Actually, this was going through my mind too when I saw those paintings. Like I said, if she did the work herself, she is incredibly exceptional. But the possibility of fraud is not unlikely, methinks. The resemblence to Pollacks and Kandinskys seem to be pretty incredible for a four-year-old to do. Then again, perhaps she just has been exposed to a lot of this type of art in her few years and is simply imitating them. I don’t know.
And for those attempting to bollock abstract art, here’s one for you. Can you see the beauty and the skill in this one, Klee’s Ancient Sound?
I just clicked on that link, and I swear to God, looking at that painting, I could literally hear jazz music.
Oh, wait, that was just iTunes.
Still, I love that painting.
As I’ve said. I don’t care about people spending the money, I am just baffled by the whole modern/abstract art thing. The whole thing is the height of snobbery. Stupid crap being passed off as brilliance. I find a lot of skillfully done abstract/modern art quite impressive and interesting, but some artsy tosser comes along and piles up some cans of poo, or another arranges some bricks and custard in a certain way, and suddenly it’s brilliant. Some more artsy tossers come along and talk utter meaningless nonsense about how it faciltates the expression of modern anti post historic superbalism with it’s fruelatic morphing of sausageism and glass qualities. It just makes me want to post a thousand rolleyes smileys.
Ugh! I recognise too much of myself in the pushy/doting/speculating father.
(Crawls away in embarrassment)
Actually, you said precisely the opposite of that, but whatever.
What I find ironic is that the attitude you’re expressing is far more “snobbish” than the art critics who defend the stuff you don’t like. A snob is someone who is exclusionary, and you’re the one who wants to exclude certain works based on arbitrary and poorly expressed criteria. The critic’s you complain about, on the other hand, are open-minded enough to not get hung up on traditional (and frequently out-moded) ideas of what art “should” look like, which is precisely the opposite of snobbery.
By way of example: the cans of poo you’re complaining about are pretty clearly an attempt at making exactly the same point you’re trying to make right now. Which is why I don’t care for that work, because it’s making a statement I disagree with on a fundamental level. Of course, I’d never claim it’s not “art,” or doesn’t belong in a museum, or shouldn’t be sold for whatever price the market will bear.
I can’t comment on artistic value of the bricks and custard, as I’m not familiar with that particular work of art.
Art is a specialized field, and like all specialized fields, it has its own jargon. You probably would find the prose in a medical journal to be just as impenetrable as modern art criticism, but that doesn’t make it meaningless, and it doesn’t make doctors a bunch of tossers.
Although I have to admit that most art critics (like most lit. critics, with whom I have much more experience) can’t write for shit. That doesn’t discredit their ideas, it just makes it a pain in the ass to figure out what those ideas are.
No, I understand the prose in a medical journal to be real, and having a very well established meaning. I might well be wrong and uncultured, but I see art’s fancy words (often, but not always) as being fake, and used to make the critic sound clever. Therin lies the snobbery I percieve. I see art critics as making an afternoon’s idle work based on 2 minutes of idea-forming seem like more than it is.
You said I was getting my panties in a twist earlier. I think it is you that is doing that. I am just getting pulled in by it. I am defending my choices of words and getting deeper into the issue, when I should be explaning how I really don’t care all that much about the issue and posted the OP as a knee-jerk reaction to an article which on first impressions seemed way over the top. I saw an international news story about a toddler making a mess with paint and thought “how is that newsworthy” and my first thought was the pit.
However, I can see I am fighting a losing battle. Some people obviously see genuine quality in mess that I somehow don’t.
Er, second thought, even.
I guess I’m more like Martin Crane than Frasier Crane.
