The last line or two of your post sounded that way when read in my head.
I’m not reached by abstract art, to correct slightly. Representational art often manages the task. An image of something eye-catching, for instance, rarely fails to catch my eye, to speak circularly. Also, images that are unusual - by which I mean things I haven’t seen before. To make an example, strolling along trhe butter section of my local supermarket, I might be likely to spot a new brand - not because of its balanced use of color, but because I’ve never seen it before.
Of course, all that is simple attention-getting, which isn’t too hard to accomplish.
I think you’re mostly right in that. The educated person needs more to be just as impressed. But I also think when he gets more, he appreciates it. Conversely, when he gets flaws, he’s the first to notice.
It’s less about education than it is about effort. And yes, an interpretation that is the result of some effort is more valid than an interpretation that dismisses without effort.
But you’re not interpreting anything: you’ve thrown derisive glances at a handful of paintings, DARING them to hit you over the head with some kind of instant and effortless literal meaning, and when this approach doesn’t work (YOUR APPROACH DOESN’T WORK), you dismiss an entire century and a half of art as empty and worthless. Where in this thread have you indicated any of the effort that “interpreting a piece” would require?
See, this is the kind of thing that says to me that you’re utterly hopeless and militantly ignorant. I don’t even believe that gestures are innate, but I’m open to read any evidence someone might have to the contrary.
For you to set up, beforehand, the outrageously false litmus test that someone must PROVE that the middle finger gesture is, itself, totally innate, before you’ll even consider the possibility that other, more primitve gestures–like waving or nodding–could possibly be innate, is just dishonest and insulting and, frankly, stupid. You continue to present these kinds of false litmus tests–if an elephant has no aesthetic sense then ALL ABSTRACT ART IS MEANINGLESS–and expect us all to remain respectful and noncondescending to you. Well, someone who’s retarded enough to think that this represents a valid approach to debate is not likely to earn much respect from me, for one. Especially someone of enough apparent intelligence to create and maintain such intricately reasoned defenses of such stupid, retarded bullshit!
Everytime someone gets you anywhere near a point of logic and clarity, you spout something like “How can you say the sky is blue? Why, just last night, I saw parts of the sky that were purple and pink!” To so deliberately pretend you don’t know what people are saying just so you can make a dishonest point like that is nothing but smoke and perversity and is an explicit attempt to steer the discussion away from any sense or understanding. Dishonest asshole.
Monetary value has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
I’ve had aquarium clients who weren’t interested in a $2 fish, but would fight over the privilege of buying a $3,000 fish. Just because there are people like that out there is totally irrelevant to whether you can see meaning in a painting or not.
CG, you should knock it off and start apologizing. Your ass has been handed to you many times in the course of this thread; the only reason we stuck it out is that it’s clear you’re fairly intelligent. But your defensiveness is coloring your reason, and your stubbornness keeps you from listening. That was the point of my last posts - no reply was necessary. A snappy retort isn’t always the point. Sometimes you just need to sit with the question.
You can continue your stubborn belligerance if you like, but as was pointed out in an IMHO thread about not voting - what’s the point of joining a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance if you’re going to maintain a deathgrip on your own?
Ah, the difference in perspective from one side to the other. Please, feel no obligation to ‘stick it out’ if your only contribution is going to be to scream ignorance at me again and again. I thought we’d gotten past that particular point, but I was too optimistic. I think my position summary post makes it clear that ‘education’ in the arts will not increase my enjoyment of abstract art. The position summary wasn’t belligerant, and my only belligerant posts subsequent to it have been in response to belligerance.
No, the truth is I thought we’d reached a level of civility with our last exchanges. But you’ve dumped enough bile in this thread that people following it are still caught up in anger with you. Bad karma is a dangerous thing, it tends to follow you around.
If you’d opened a Cafe thread saying you didn’t understand and felt alienated by abstract art & could someone please explain, you’d’ve gotten a dozen posters glad to share their information and insights. People from this thread, plus others who don’t frequent the Pit. Instead we started here, but even so people have shared themselves with you, willingly and generously. Don’t crap on it.
If I’d wanted a dozen posters to share their info and insights, I would’ve posted a Cafe thread.
The ignorance charges can be taken, as I see it, in three ways, and I will address them all here, then just disregard any posts or parts of posts that bring up the issue.
First, it might mean ‘You’re ignorant of the techniques underlying art, so your position is flawed.’ Well, that’s BS. For the reasons outlined in my summary post, and some preceding it. One does not require art education to react (or not react) to art - even your side admits that.
Second, it might be meant as ‘You’re ignorant of the techniques underlying art, so your opinions relating to art aren’t worth a damn.’ Anybody thinking that way can go screw themselves, as my opinion’s just as worthwhile as theirs is, in an absolute sense (which is to say : all equally worthless), but they’re welcome to disregard my opinions if they feel they’re subjectively worthless. Of course, if they were really disregarding my opinions, they wouldn’t still be frothing at the mouth and shouting.
Thirdly, it may be meant as “You’re ignorant of art technique, and if you learned it, you’d enjoy it more.” I very much doubt that, and that’s not the point of the discussion in any case.
I really wish you’d give up on that tack. Nobody’s being an art snob here. But that doesn’t stop you from reading that into every single reply that you get. It’s almost like you want people to act like snobs just so you can call them on it. You remind me of a guy that goes around asking random strangers “You think you’re better than me?!?” just to goad them into starting a fight.
It’s arrogant to assume things about people. Such as that you know more than them, that you know what they really need or want, or that you can provide it.
Wow. The blind arrogance. Dude, this is exactly, point for point, what you’ve been doing in this thread from page one. The whole time the rest of us have been trying to show you that this is NOT our recommended approach to art. Your rage-colored glasses have completely warped your ability to understand even your own position, let alone others’.