You can’t draw any general conclusions about Art from the words of an individual artist. That passage doesn’t tell you anything about anyone but Malevich. To extrapolate judgments of that to judgments of “serious discourse in the art world” is like assuming all Jews like comics because my friend Avery, who’se Jewish, likes comics.
There’s no pattern here.
. . . um . . . well, then . . . maybe you should look at the pieces that DON’T look like coffeecups; you know the NON-REPRESENTATIONAL pieces. Which do you think are relevant to this thread? the coffee cups, or the NON-REPRESENTATIONAL pieces?
:rolleyes:
I also thought the text seemed pretty silly; it was so over-the-top, though, that I figured it might be satire.
My husband and I have commented to each other before that we have found certain pieces of music to be witty. Sometimes strange time signatures can do it. Jazz can be very whimsical and amusing. I think Brubeck’s Blue Rondo A La Turk is genuinely funny.
I’ve always thought that the theme from “The Pink Pather” was particularly well suited for its purpose. Ever notice the way it just falls apart at the end? I’m certain that I would have thought it funny even if I had never seen the movie or associated it with a cartoon character.
The first movement of Beethoven’s Eight Symphony was written to be funny. If you sit and pay close attention to it . . . it actually is. Googling randomly, I come across–[
and
[
and
[
It’s one of my alltime favorite pieces of music. It continuously sets you up for these very specific expectations, and then thumbs its nose at you by completely pulling the rug out from under you. If you follow along note for note and let it “tell a story,” the story is, bizarrely, a very funny one.
Ok, on Malevich, it’s even nuttier than run-of-the-mill art wankery-- he was a theosophist and such. 1940s. Give the guy as break. Back on track.
Can non-objective art be funny?
This was writing by Malevich about his personal philosophy. “Suprematist Construction: White on White” is a piece Malevich did in 1919, in Russia. We’re talking about an attempt at an entirely new art movement, which was ultimately Malevich from beginning to end, about 20 years until abstract expressionism became an art movement, and more than 40 years before the minimal art movement. And so in the teens and twenties, we had a lone Russian artist trying to express something in drawing and painting no one else had dealt with before, that was accepted as valid artistic expression.
Well, that’s true but wouldn’t anything “strange” be dependent on cultural context in that case? That would probably be a characteristic of “strange” but it seems unfair to me disqualify because of that. I think anything humorous will have to rely on some kind of cultural context but wasn’t all that was asked that it wasn’t to be representational?
Darling, based on our past discussions, I wasn’t sure if you were operating on the same definition of non-representational as I. The few non-representational pieces - the non coffee-cups - didn’t really seem humorous in any way, shape, form, or fashion, snookums.
True, true. I misinterpreted what you wrote - thought you were disagreeing that it was dependent on cultural context. Blame a hectic work day.
Of course not. But there should be some sense of “I can see how someone might find that funny.” For example, I find King of the Hill to be a tedious show. But I can understand how lobotomy patients might find it amusing. 
Whimsy - I don’t think I like the term in this discussion. It doesn’t mean funny or silly, exactly. Just ‘not serious or planned’.
In this case, the Title’s essential to the joke. Titles are going to have to be excluded, as they are words, and when coherently used, words are representational. I want something that stands on its own.
Which?
Both funny, both representational. The first clearly depicts an obelisk, the second relies on words. Can’t say much about non-representational art’s strength as a language if it has to rely on English to get the point across.
I find I must disagree with you there – it doesn’t depict an obelisk, it is an obelisk (albeit a broken one). Otherwise you’re denying the possibility of non-representational sculpture, by saying that any sculpture is a representation of itself.
Fair enough. It depicts a recognizable, common form, though. It’s not an amorphous blob of a thing. My terminology-fu is weak here.
Right. If it were a picture of a broken obelisk, it would be representational, because the picture is not an actual obelisk. But since it actually is a broken obelisk, it’s not depicting anything.
If sculpture can be representational, though, that one is. It is representative of traditional obelisks - and indeed, it’s subversion of that category is the source of the humor.
Damn. I sound like I’m a beret and a cappucino away from true self-loathing.
So nothing at all posted so far strikes you as anything that could conceivably even be considered ‘witty’? Well, ok. I think you’ve made your mind up and I’ve as much chance of showing you a non-objective work you find funny as you have showing me an episode of Family Guy that I find funny.
If basic geometric shapes are representational, then “non-objective” must be limited to amorphous blobs, I suppose. A cube on edge wouldn’t count because it depends on our notions of traditional cubes and is thus representational? Fine. And an amorphous oval would be disqualified as it might remind someone of mitochondria. We’ve defined ourselves out of the question, I suppose.
I think non-representational art can be “fun” but not “funny.” The funniest piece of abstract art I can think of offhand is Nude Descending A Staircase which attempts to capture the most fleeting, ephemeral of motions – t he sway of a woman’s body as she walks down stairs – in a series of frozen metallic shards. I smiled when I first saw it. And that’s about as much as any “funny” art has ever moved me. (Some of Kandinsky’s work also makes me smile.)
If you want to laugh AT non-representational art, I have just three words for you: The Painted Word.
Hardly. Several pieces were witty - but they were also representational. Which clearly non-representational pieces did you find funny, and why did you find them funny? I’m not insisting that I have to find them funny. If the work contains depictions of recognizable objects, or is dependent on words for the humor, though, then it says absolutely nothing in regards to non-representational art’s capacity to convey humor, though.
I’d also like to request that anyone posting examples give a direct link to a decent sized image of the picture, though - I don’t want to sort through fifty pages of Google Image Search just to have to throw my hands up in the air.
