Let’s stick to painted/sculpted “physical” art for the moment. The music is a fuzzy business - the Monty Python theme does have that end moment that contravenes expectations - but I think this is possible in music because it occurs over a span of time.
Also - defining “non-representational” in music is difficult.
As for design - the cups are pretty representational. They’re cups.
Art can be funny, sure. But non-representational art - there’s the question.
Those cups don’t do a thing for me. They don’t make me crack a smile, they don’t make me think, nothing. I just think “Er, square cups” and move on.
That thing about the bronze disks? That’s mildly amusing, but that sure isn’t non-representational, is it? It represents bronze disks, one of which has fallen over. Not funny, really, though.
From **CG’s ** last post, about the cups representing cups, I asumme he means a picture that literally represents nothing. But…is that picture even comprehensible? And if it isn’t, what’s there to laugh at? It may be pretty or soothing to the eye to see a certain array of colors together but I’m beginning to feel that amusement or laughter involves the brain more than that.
Hope that helps. I’m sensing you’re coming down as a ‘No’ on this, 'Mika, but again, I’m trying to find potential counterexamples.
Yes - I thought about it deeply, and really tried, but I’d have to say No. Thus, I’ll bow out of the thread. Hopefully someone can find counter- examples for you.
Sure there is. Listen to Spike Jones or the Bonzo Dog Band. Their instrumental music can be hilarious due to the strangeness of the sounds.
You don’t have to know anything about the context of the Bonzo’s “Jazz, Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold” in order to find it funny.
Dunno. The very “strangeness” of the sounds is dependent on our cultural context. Instruments we use, used in the common way, produce ‘normal’ sounds. Anything outside that set is ‘unusual’ or ‘strange.’
I find many of the paintings in The Cy Twombly Gallery funny.
Could you provide some links to specific Twombly works that might amuse? I didn’t see closeups on the site, and Google Image search provided an overabundance.
For a joke you need a set-up right? Or a situation that presumes a set-up as a kind of common knowledge.
You could consider artwork to set up and resolve an idea through placement of colors and shapes, to create visual tension and then resolve that tension. There are instances with artists creating abstract representations of comics from newspapers, but the problem is that the more non-representational the artwork is, that means the less coherent the ideas portrayed.
If you can’t identify that something is a set-up, you can’t identify a resolution to that set-up. The less representational, the more you, as the viewer, have to read into what you see. Which means you might see a kind of set-up, but the person next to you might not. So the problem becomes, if the viewers can’t all agree on what they see in the work, a set-up can’t even be established with which to resolve.
Finding humor in abstract art is very difficult and it’s going to rely heavily either on artist intent and viewer perception either working together or against each other.
Yes, abstract art can be funny.
It’s paintings of random things mashed together! Ho ho!
Which of these pieces are supposed to be funny?
Well, at least it’s concrete examples. I appreciate that. However, I’m not really getting any humor out of these - and many of them, though abstracts, are clearly representational, unlike, say, Mondrian’s work. I see coffee cups.
Do I really have to say that not all people will find the same things funny?
When I design my knitted things, I try to do so with a sense of humor, or “whimsy,” as people are more likely to say in such a context. They won’t make you laugh like an ethnic joke will, but most people understand when they see one that the intent was “whimsical.”
No, it consists of bronze discs; I suppose it could be argued that it represents falling over, but it needs to consist of something, otherwise, your definitionof non-represenational art is art which does not exist.
I loved that movie.
Picture a black canvas, now read the title underneath
Five naked nuns and an inexperienced priest, after sunset.
Here’s The Bay of Naples. I wouldn’t say it’s a knee-slapper, but then what great work of REPRESENTATIONAL art is? I would say it’s more amusingly whimsical. Specifically I was tickled by the way it plays off traditional landscapes of the same subject.
I do know that when I walked around his gallery I frequently found myself chuckling.
Ok, let’s try out some: these are things that made me smile as I flipped through books. Some are funny because they play with visual assumptions, other play with art historical ‘givens’, etc.
A poll: Any of these non-objective works amuse anyone in the slightest?
A: Barnett Newman, Broken Obelisk
B: Anthony Caro, Sculpture Two
E: Malevich, Composition in White on White
G: Bridget Riley or other early op-art.
I was on the side of those who answer “no” to the OP, but I concede defeat. I found the first two (especially the second) amusing. The Caro piece looks like it was intended to be something useful, but was built in a shop class by a pothead who eventually fell asleep while working on it.
A digression, though…
The text below the artwork is reminiscent of a lot of rambling, manifesto-like verbiage put out by “avant-garde” artists. Is this actually considered serious discourse in the art world, or is it glorified trolling, with artists writing out pages of bullshit and seeing if anyone takes it seriously?
What about using color associations to represent certain things?
Like Mondrian does Christmas: the typical squares and grids but with Christmas colors (all in red, green, and white), or Mondrian does Halloween (black and orange), or Mondrian does the lobby of your dentist’s office (pastels). These aren’t great examples, but I could see how these color associations could potentially be used as a punchline.
