Con. Read The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe, which lays it all out very explicitly.
No work of art – even representational ones – “stands on its own”. They all acquire meaning and significance from the interpretive frame in which they are placed.
Every work has an intended frame. The artist makes assumptions about the knowledge and aesthetic sensibilities of the audience. The work is then structured to play off that knowledge and those sensibilities. In a way, the appropriate audience COMPLETES the work.
When we go to museums, we often encounter works that were created for an audience different from us. If we want to engage with them, we have to figure out how to shift our own internal aesthetic frame to compensate. Different “ways of seeing” will bring out different aspects of different works. What “way of seeing” is appropriate for the work before me right now?
None of this is mandatory. Sometimes we can never find our way into a work – we can never find a good frame that will lead to the work triggering an interesting aesthetic response. And that’s fine. We don’t have a responsibility to try to like everything. Each of us will always find works that don’t speak to us.
But, if we fail to recognize the role that our own default aesthetic frame plays in completing the work before us – if we assume that the reflexive sensibility that we bring to an experience is the only sensibility possible – then we close ourselves off to a wide range of interesting and entertaining experiences.
That’s the brass tacks, but the perceived value can be financial, not aesthetic.
As for the notions that “anyone can do it,” that’s a big Nope. When I was in art school 3/4s of the painters who did abstracts turned out junk --IMO-- and the skill of the good painters made me smile.
I do view abstract art as more of a financial pursuit than an artistic one. I’ve got a huge pseudo Pollack on my living room wall (produced by a respected local painter), but just because it was free and fills the space. Anything that abstract art says to me I can also get from a well turned brush stroke in a Calvin and Hobbs strip… which also comes with a funny punchline.
That’s a bit of a tautology, isn’t it? I enjoy art that’s good, too. Everyone enjoys art that is good. If it wasn’t good, they wouldn’t enjoy it. But a lot of the art I enjoy, you would deride as crap.
Classical art doesn’t have any objective value, either. Michelangelo’s David isn’t going to plow your field, or shelter you from the storm, or heal your wounds. It’s just a big hunk of rock. But a lot of people think it’s a particularly beautiful hunk of rock, and would be willing to pay incredible sums of money to own that hunk of rock, just because they like to look at it. That’s a purely subjective value.
The thing with contemporary art is that artists have to strive to create something that gets noticed, whether positively or negatively.
You could spend years producing the most technically brilliant oil painting, but it would be nothing that hadn’t already been done 500 years ago. Your work wouldn’t stand out, so no-one would take much notice of it, so you wouldn’t become well-known as an artist, and you wouldn’t make much money out of your art.
On the other hand, you could make something that takes no skill at all to physically produce, but if you can make people disgusted by it (e.g saying that their child could do it), then they will remember it and talk about it. If enough people talk about it, it will end up in the media, and eventually you will become infamous. Because your name has become famous, people will spend large amounts of money on your work, even if there is no physical skill involved.
The key is coming up with an idea for something that has never been done before in the history of art, something that will get you noticed and get people talking, and that in itself is a skill and takes hard work.
Exactly.
Not only that, but CandidGamera actually conceded the point in his own post:
What this boils down to, essentially, is: “All art’s value is subjective; I personally just happen to see less value in modern art.”
No naughty assumptions at all - you are telling me that you have enough context to understand and like some works of modern art. Cool. You are also saying that you don’t like some forms of modern art - you feel you understand their context, but still end up thinking it is worthless navel-gazing. Also cool; YMMV.
What about Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase? Also controversial and a bit of tweak-of-the-nose at the time because it had the titillating title but turned out to be barely-recognizable-as-human “modern art.” But, as modern art, it is actually pretty cool; it broke rules as non-representational, but makes a fascinating artistic statement to my mind.
Sometimes *artist provocateurs *get something I appreciate like Nude; other times they offer a urinal and I go “meh.”…but everybody’s idea of what art belongs on what side of the line is different…
It depends. I’m a trained, apprenticed, degreed, master sculptor. I don’t sell jack. Well, I take that back, I have a few pieces on ebay that are selling, but it doesn’t approach “pay the bills” status. The problem with a lot of junk art, assemblages, and abstract paintings is that they have little to no craftsmanship about them. They exist nearly purely in the realm of the the idea and not that of skill. Sure, there are certain design principles; but current work breaks those rules as often as it adheres to them. Really, most current popular art is more about the artist, and their story than the work itself. It has been that way for the last 15 years or so and is trending out of it, (thankfully). We are recently seeing a resurgence of art that incorporates craftsmanship again, and has managed to incorporate the intangible aspects that we so admired in the last half century. Alas, it is also based upon being the “first” to “do” something. This is authenticated by getting your work into a show or gallery where someone who “knows” art shows it off to their acolytes who then “make” you as an artist by purchasing your work. THAT is the hard part that is truly hard won when it is accomplished by the artists’ sweat and footwork.
I totally agree. My own work requires a great deal of craftsmanship . . . so much that if I make a mistake it’s rarely correctable, and I have to start all over. And I am indeed the first to do what I do. There’s no way that I could charge enough for my work to justify the amount of time spent creating it. I need to establish name recognition, and that’s happening damn slowly. But I’ll be having two pieces in a show this fall, and maybe things will turn around.
When people in this thread discuss “modern” art, do they mean modernist works or are they using it as a (potentially misleading) synonym for “contemporary art” (and if so, it’s funny that most of the discussion has been around Pollock, Rothko etc, who aren’t exactly contemporary).
Not according to RealityChuck it doesn’t. He was asked what made the bicycle wheel art, and he said it was because nobody had ever thought of putting such a thing in a museum, and therefore it was art.
Regards,
Shodan
Couldn’t they achieve the same result by painting some panels black?
Rothko’s paintings are difficult to conserve (they fade), mostly because he would use house paints (he would buy all the cans on the $1.00 shelf at the local hardware store).
What Rothko communicates to me is “cheap”.
Modern artists earn their money in much the same way as celebrities without unusual talents (like the Octomom) do. They both fulfill (rather base) human needs - in the latter case, common objects of gossip; in the former, status competition in an exclusive group that’s devoted a lot of energy into “interpreting” the art. Both have a winner-takes-all dynamic: there are a very few players that monopolize almost all the cash, and the size of the paycheck doesn’t scale with their talent.
As long as the art community pays for its art, and rich folks are willing to buy it to impress equally ignorant rich folks, I have no problem with it. I don’t think it makes sense, however, for governments to subsidize such art, including by purchasing expensive pieces. What that really means is that normal people are being forced to pay for art that elite snobs will look down on them for not understanding.
I suspect that book has deluded more people into thinking they understand something about art than any other. How about laying out your own argument?
Uh, the correct response is to refute the argument, not trying to lower the other person’s status through superior posturing. This is the SDMB, not the elite art world:p
There was no argument in that post to refute. I’d like to see Evil Captor’s argument if he has one.
When I use the term “modern art” I generally mean anything at around the time of Cezanne’s The Bather and beyond. So, we’re looking at about 115 years of “modern” art. I think for most people it refers to abstraction and non-representationalism in general.
I actually tried out for that show last October. I was in line for three hours with several hundred other people, showing our portfolios. We had a whopping two minutes (maybe) to make an impression. If they liked our personality and/or work, then the artist would move on for a video try-out.
As a metalsmith, I think I was dismissed after the initial interview because I didn’t have any two-dimensional work in my portfolio. At the time, I also didn’t think I was part of their demographic (young and hip), but they DID have an older woman artist as part of the cast.
I enjoyed watching the show and wished I could have been a part of it. I think I would have KICKED ASS.
And some people win the lottery. Doesn’t mean it’s a smart investment strategy.