I got 83% on artist vs ape but it wasn’t easy for me.
75% on true art vs fake.
I’m pretty proud of my scores because I don’t know much about art.
Sadly, my expertise lies in baseball cards made from 1982-1986.
Seems like I can pretty well tell human from animal artefacts—100% on Pollock vs. birds and artist vs. ape, 83% on abstract expressionists vs. animals—but I do less well on human-vs-human (I got 67% on true vs. fake, but I blame part of that on the fact that I knew a few of the fakes—I’d read an article on it before).
But I think that the premise of these tests is fundamentally flawed. It simply underscores that art is not (just) in the artefact—i.e. that it’s not the concrete physical object itself that determines the value of a piece of art (this is generally called ‘physicalism’ in the philosophy of art).
Consider the following thought experiment: take any object that you consider ‘good art’—let’s say the Mona Lisa. Then throw it out into space, and have it be found, lightyears away and millions of years in the future, by an alien race fundamentally different from us (i.e. not just a ‘bumpy forehead’-type—think something like the sentient ocean in Solaris, Hoyle’s black cloud, etc.). I think there’s a reasonable chance that it might be recognized as artificial, but would it be (assuming the aliens have such a concept) recognized as art? Or what about something only a little more abstract, like music (which is actually extremely abstract, something most denigrators of ‘abstract art’ seemingly fail to realize), the structure of which is pretty much dictated by how our auditory system is wired up? Contrast this with physical qualities like size, mass, composition, etc., all of which would be just as easily accessible to them as they are to us.
So, art—all art—really is uniquely rooted in the context of human nature and culture; without it, it simply ceases to be art in any meaningful way. But actually, that’s not where the contextuality of art ends: things can be art in one context, and not art in another. Whether something is art or not is not a static judgment, much less a property of the artefact. It’s in the relationship in which it stands with its environment—both the physical and the social environment (which includes both artist and viewer/recipient). That is what makes Duchamp’s urinal art, rather than something you piss in: its context is precisely the idea that the context is what makes art art, and thus, it is art because it is presented as art.
That’s why the quiz completely misses the mark: first of all, the distinction between ‘true’ and ‘fake’ is not a distinction that can be categorically drawn; and of course, the distinction between ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ artist does not necessarily impinge on the quality of the artwork. And chimps can create great masterpieces, if their work is put within the proper context. Conversely, Malewitsch’s black square may simply not be art within the context of a quiz, as it must be put in the context of his denial of the (visual) object, and so on.
That’s not to say that there isn’t some putative ‘art’ that’s not just basically rubbish, essentially a kind of memetic parasite, which mostly thrives because of the unfortunate tendencies of the art market to create empty fads and hypes—after all, you need to justify the (ridiculous!) price tags put onto works of Art™, so you create faux-objective criteria upheld by nouveau riche buyers attempting to purchase a social standing for themselves by furnishing their toilets with the latest up-and-coming posterchild’s masterpieces, but that such exists, and the ‘objective’ criteria crumble upon closer inspection, doesn’t mean that there’s no value to art whose merits don’t exhaust themselves in the merely technical that’s obvious to simple inspection. But that’s exactly the fallacy these quizzes are built on.
I’ve looked at the Museum of Bad Art online, and for the life of me I can’t declare (with some obvious exceptions) what is or isn’t ‘bad’. I’ve seen real art I wasn’t impressed by and I’ve seen ‘bad’ art I thought was as good as any. So I’ll check out the quiz and see what’s what.
Probably not. But if I take the test to find out, I’ll know I don’t.
I got 25% on Bulworth-Lytter v Dickens (the only one I’ve tried)
I also find the quiz flawed, but for a different reason than Half Man Half Wit. It’s that it expects us to find clear, obvious differences between works of art, prose, or whichever made by people of radially different backgrounds, the differences of which are completely irrelevant to the works in question. It’s like trying to tell the difference between a harmonica song done by the harmonica player in Blues Traveller and one done by my father. It’s frickin’ harmonica music. It’s not like one piece makes flowers grow and another makes mice dance.
Einstein or Hitler. Einstein was a famous scientist who formulated some of the most revolutionary theories the world has ever seen. Hitler was a crazed, bloodsoaked tyrant. Looking at these quotes, I see a bunch of really mundane stuff about “reading” and “women” and “pupils”, none of which is anywhere remotely close to what made either man famous. Hell, you could attribute any of them to George H.W. Bush and I’d find it plausible.
Michaelangelo Buonarotti/Arno Breker. If it’s a Panzer tank or the Roman Colloseum, yeah, easy tell. These are human figures. Thousands and thousands of artists going back to at least ancient Greece have done then.
Mozart/Salieri. Um, hate to burst your bubble, but there’s a reason most places can’t give away classical music. I haven’t a clue because I don’t listen to this stuff, not because I’m some unsophisticated Philistine caveman.
Great prose or not. Hell if I know. One load of tedious drivel sounds the same like any other to me. One of my favorite authors is Dave Barry. One of my favorite book series is the Emily the Strange novels. If this makes me a dirty barbarian, whatever, I’m a grownup and I’m going to read stuff I like.
Criminal or not. What the frack is this?? Okay, show a mug of, say, Bernie Madoff or Leona Helmsley and that’s a pretty clear “yes”. Otherwise, it’s just a question of whether you’re such an ignorant cretin that you make snap judgments based on looks. Well, no, I don’t. Forgive me if I don’t consider that any great accomplishment.
And as for anything involving famous artists, is the author of this quiz aware of concepts like “overrated”, “overpriced”, “herd mentality”, or “famous for being famous”? Yeah, it’s impossible to tell a blouse from Neiman Marcus from a blouse from K-Mart. That’s because it’s the exact same damn blouse, it’s just for some reason the former charges the cost of an X-Box 360 for it and the latter can’t. Heck, go to any music equipment board and you’ll find horror stories about places charging $3,000 for sound cable which has never been proven to be any better than what Best Buy or Radio Shack has. If you buy something like that, you’re not a fool for not being able to detect detect minute differences in photos, you’re a fool for wasting huge amounts of money.
Was this just for fun? Please tell me this was just for fun. I can’t see any other purpose.
9/12 right on true or fake art. But I really think I deserve 10/12 because I said the Paul Klee was fake. 
Fun!
I scored 100% on the visual art ones. But I scored 8 on the great-writer-hack quiz.
Apparently, I think King is a great writer and Joyce is a hack. Makes sense, I read everything King ever wrote, and I couldn’t for the life of me finish anything by Joyce. He annoys the shit out of me. Proust, another writer considered difficult, I love, especially because That is proof to me I’m not dumb. But Joyce, just no.
Let’s see, which have I done so far…
92% on Judd vs. cheap furniture – OK, my “cheat” on this one is based on whether it resembles anything I have actually seen on sale at the local outlet.
83% at knowns vs. unknowns, which would be more accurately as “recognized masters v. amateurs from other fields”.
83% Michaelangelo/Brecker - but once you took out the stupid-obvious the percentage is more like 70%
80% Vermeer/copycat - Had expected to be lower
67% Recognized art/not so - more like what I’d expect
On the writing segment, not so well:
67% Dickens v. Bulwer-Lytton - Ye gods, those Victorians were WORDY. But my fault that I haven’t touched Dickens beyond what I got in school.
67% Savage v. Simkin - I for one am happy I do not know that dude beter
60% Hitler v. Einstein - OK both these guys had their thing that they concentrated upon, and it was not this sort of writing; but the point of this particular quiz apparently is to see if in these sorts of generic “my opinion about things” writing youthink you see any sort of obvious “tell”, or if you have a particular expectations or prejudices (such as, who would you expect to complain about German knowledge of history; who would you expect to believe education is about finding out what the student already figured out).
33% on Lenin v. Sokal&Partner - Once I started it I realized I should not have bothered. Because, philosophy at this level reads to me like an alien language.
I will not bother with the criminal/not criminal because I’d have to do it pretty much randomly.
After you take the test you see that the Einstein quotes are from the book “Einstein said” which is a collection of his sayings on the subjects unrelated to physics. The aim of the book is to let people to draw on Einstein’s infinite wisdom. Now you say that George Bush could have said the same.
I read something earlier today that speaks to the importance of context in art.
Without context: A painting on black velvet of Wesley Crusher.
Context: A painting on black velvet of Wesley Crusher, commissioned by John Scalzi and sent to Wil Wheaton annonymously at a time when Wil was feeling a bit bummed out about his time with Star Trek.
The context may not make it art, but it totally changes what I feel when I look at the painting.
Do you consider these results high?
Or, may be, it is their fault that they put Dickens in school program? People can’t tell him from the worst writer in history of letters. Why should children read this junk?
Is Proust difficult? Not merely boring and tedious?
Do you think that Klee is fundamentally different from the other artists represented in the quiz?
The visual art quizzes don’t say much, simply because you can’t get the feeling of a work of art from a computer screen. On display at MOMA, there is a Picasso that I just don’t like. But, when I looked at a small part in detail, I was shocked by how absolutely perfect it was. I am not an artist, and know next to nothing about art. But I can tell you that Picasso is a Great Artist just by looking at a few brush strokes - and that was with one of his paintings that I just didn’t like. You can’t do that with a digital image, especially one so tiny as on these tests.
True Art: 75%
Dickens or fake: 58%
Pollack or bird droppings: 83%
Famous or unknown: 75%
You can’t actually think that test means anything, can you? They’re a nice bit of stupid fun, but you can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from any of them, and the Dickens quiz is the most egregious. Dickens is rightfully lauded as many things, but a prose stylist is generally not among them. He’s famous for his well-drawn characters, excellent plotting, and keen eye for the social intricacies of his day. None of which attributes can be particularly well displayed in a single paragraph quote.
Dickens and Bulwer-Lytton were both extremely prolific writers. Dicken’s has over a dozen novels to his name, and Bulwer-Lytton twice that number. In that vast output, even the best writer is going to come out with some clunkers, and even the worst is going to get something right. Did the guy writing that test take the best of both authors for comparison? The worst? Or, most misleading of all, the worst of Dickens, and the best of Bulwer-Lytton?
And, finally, the idea the Edward Bulwer-Lytton was the “worst writer ever” is ridiculous hyperbole, and not something anyone seriously believes. He was a popular writer at his time, whose works have not aged well. Basically, no different than a Clive Cussler or John Grisham.
The other quizzes that I looked at are all similar cock-eyed nonsense. A fun way to kill ten or fifteen minutes, but hardly an insight into the validity of any given artist or genre.
This question is actually addressed in one of the articles which you can read after taking the quiz
100% on true or fake. I think I will stop while I’m ahead.