http://www.lichtensteiger.de/mondrian.html
Broadway Boogie-Woogie. This is, I believe, the piece used in the cartoon in my first post, or a similar one. This, I find funny as heck. It amuses me, it makes me laugh, in that I truthfully can see the energy of Broadway and the streets of New York, in the artificial squares.
I guess my quest is for objective value, whereas aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. When you say it focuses attention on form and composition over specific subjects, does that translate roughly to ‘All style, no substance’? That’s how I’m reading that, and I wonder if you’d like to clarify.
But would it be funny in absence of the title? Representational art can be. It doesn’t need the English language as a “crutch”.
You can take almost any image and give it the right caption and make it funny, unless it’s something obviously tragic.
But thanks for a specific choice, and an explanation. 
You’re looking for objective value in art? Then I think you’re doomed to disappointment. Art is almost entirely subjective.
No, it means all FORM, no REPRESENTATION.
Paintings aren’t just collections of randomly arranged images. The various elements of a picture are assigned particular locations on the canvas to convey particular impressions. Composition is a major part of the “language” of painting. Abstract art arose out of the realization that interesting works of art could be created by focusing entirely on color and composition and ignoring representation entirely. By eliminating the “crutch” of representation the power of the raw composition becomes more directly accessable.
In fact there are some artists and critics who have argued that abstract art is more “pure” because ultimately all painting is just color and composition – any representation is merely an illusion. Hence “This is not a pipe.”, which, despite being representational, is a statement of non-representational principles.
What did you think of “The Bay of Naples”?
I don’t know that this is true, though I suppose it’s certainly *more * true in recent decades. For most of it’s history, has not art needed to demonstrate some sort of skill level, in addition to the vision of the artist, to justify itself? I might not like all of the masters’ works, but I can’t deny the level of skill needed to produce them. Same with other mediums- song, sculpture, etc.
Modern (and post-modern) art has made a real departure from this paradigm, to the point where what is actually on the canvas, shaped on the pedestal, or put to music, doesn’t actually matter- or, if it does, it still runs a distant second to the artist’s explanation of it. And we have only the artist’s word that his motivations are genuine, and not simply feeding us what we want to hear, or what sounds ‘deep.’ I think I’m too much a cynic for that.
I agree that there are SOME objective standards in art. In figure drawing for example there is a right way and a wrong way for muscles to attach to bones. If an artist is attempting a realistic nude and can’t get the muscle attachments right I think it’s fair to say that objectively he’s produced an inferior work.
However art is more than just accurate draftsmanship. Great works of art convey emotional nuances that transcend the technical skill of their execution. There’s a reason the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece and it’s not because it’s such a perfect likeness of its subject.
I think it’s a mistake to write off abstract art as lacking in skill. Yes, if you’re not accustomed to looking at paintings in terms of their underlying structure it may SEEM as though nothing is going on. But that doesn’t mean that nothing is.
My favorite citation when one suspects that abstract artists do so because they simply can’t paint well: Picasso, 1895
Born in 1881. Do the math. He apparently got bored.
Based on the stylized look of the taxt, I’m gonna guess they’re displayed side-by-side in the work itself.
Just say it really loud and hard, as if Batman has just socked you one in the gut: OOF
I’d guess so, but I couldn’t be sure.
Ah. In the school of writing the name of a font in that font, or the name of a color in text of that color. Sure, I can see that as chuckle-worthy. And Oof is a silly word to begin with, so that helps.
I did look at that one… did I not respond? Hm. I couldn’t see anything funny in it, but it’s definitely non-representational. Care to… pardon the pun… illustrate the humor?
What amused me about Twombly’s work is that he’s clearly playing with the conventions of traditional Romantic landscape painting. Pictures like this. He’s extracted the underlying structure of the work and replaced it with these silly little dollops of color. The effect is even more pronounced when you see the actual canvases.
It’s always hard to convey exactly why something might strike you as funny. Maybe because it was so clearly a landscape painting even though there were no natural elements anywhere on the canvas? All I can say is that I caught myself laughing when I was in the gallery.
So, in the absence of the title, you’d be able to spot it as a landscape “parody” for lack of a better word?
I don’t know about this particular painting. I don’t remember the order that I saw them in the gallery. As I recall there were others that were more obvious. But I do know that I picked up that he was having a goof on Romantic landscapes before I read the titles of the paintings.
Part of what gives “The Bay of Naples” away is that little blue blob on the lefthand side. It’s hard not to read that as water. And once you think of it as water, the rest of the “landscape” assembles itself.
Well, it’s a limited but promising lead, at least.
Toward what? Personally I find some abstract works amusing. You may not. So what? Different people are amused by different things. I’ll readily concede that abstract art isn’t a great medium for conveying humor. But I don’t think that implies anything significant.
Humor seems to arise out of surprise. You’re expecting one thing and you get another. Your expectations are thwarted, but in an illuminating and unusual way. Haha!
But if you’re not used to looking at pictures in a particular way, it unlikely that you’re going to get any “jokes” that abstract art may contain. It’s like an engineer who knows an esoteric subject telling a joke to his colleagues: “… you thought I said ‘scanner’? I said ‘SPANNER’! Hahahahah!” A joke only works if you know the context.
Do you find P.D.Q. Bach funny? My wife’s a music history professor and when she listens to it she laughs far more than I do. It’s clear that she’s getting all sort of little musical jokes that just go completely over my head because I don’t know enough about classical composition.
Eh. Your definition of humor is a bit limited. A picture can be funny without much more context than being a human being who lives in a society… a snapshot of a person making a silly face, for instance. There’s a context, but it’s ingrained into everyone. And there can be humor without surprise, too - consider a snapshot of a man with his back to another man, whose foot is drawn back in preparation to kick the first man. One sees the pictures and has an expectation or anticipation of the slapstick that may have followed the shot.
I’ve heard of PDQ Bach, but never heard PDQ Bach.
I actually didn’t find the title funny. But I found the piece funny, for a few reasons:
- After seeing all those cold, angular, ordered pieces that didn’t do much for me, this one was round, floppy, and tangled. It took me by surprise.
- It reminded me of a big plate of spaghetti, of coming home at the end of a long day and collapsing on the couch, of working on a project where I’m way over my head and everything goes out of control, of a bean bag. Those are some weird juxtapositions, and I found them appealing.
- Felt as high art? Cool.
Daniel
Hm. I don’t know if this qualifies. I think I’m looking for something that deliberately communicates humor, since it’s possible for an individual to find anything at all funny for his own reasons. Is there something about the piece with a specific comic appeal? Even if it’s limited to “modern art enthusiasts”…
Though if Pochacco can help me see more clearly how the whole landscape parody works, I’d be willing to concede that one…
Peter Schickele created PDQ Bach. Basically it’s joke classical music. The more you know about classical music, the funnier it gets. Lots of the jokes go over my head.
My point is that if you’re not that into art, you’re not going to get jokes that play off artististic conventions.
It’s not abstract, but I find Jeff Koons’ work extremely funny. A lot of the humor in his works come from how he thwarts your expectation of what art is. Do you find his stuff funny?
Allow me to point out that dissected jokes are NEVER funny.
Basically it has a bunch of elements of a landscape painting without actually being a landscape painting. The blue on the left with the horizontal bar looks like water. Many of the forms on the right look like foliage or buildings. The empty space of the “sky” balances nicely with the dense detail of the terrain.
Laying it out mechanistically like this makes it seem trivial. But there’s an underlying sense of balance and proportion that’s hard to put into words. Things are where they should be – even though they aren’t “things” at all…
I don’t really see what there is to concede. I find certain abstract works funny. You clearly don’t. I don’t see much point in WORKING to find something funny. Maybe if you tried to really LOOK at abstract art and understand what its trying to communicate instead of approaching it so adversarially?
But ultimately it doesn’t matter if you don’t “get” abstract art. I don’t “get” twelve tone music, although it does appeal to lots of people. Probably if I worked really hard I could learn to listen to Schonberg and enjoy it, but life is short and there are other ways I’d rather spend my time.
No. Visually interesting though.
Oh, I’m well aware - however, that doesn’t mean you can’t dissect a joke to explain why it is funny.
You’d be able to conclusively identify it as a landscape painting without the title, you feel?
I’m not approaching it adversarially. I’m approaching it analytically.
How can you simultaneously not see much point in WORKING to find something funny, but also recommend trying to really LOOK. Sounds like you’re CONTRADICTING yourself.
Any object, any random pattern, any picture - someone can find it funny. But can it be intentionally funny? That’s the question. I can laugh my head off at someone reading the phone book - maybe he’s got exaggerated speech mannerisms. Maybe he’s making faces. Maybe he’s just reading unusual names. None of that changes the fact that the phone book really isn’t funny, in and of itself.