To that I’d say, why worry about it? I doubt that a whole slew of artists akin to Creed are soon coming down the line (and for what it’s worth, I don’t find Work no. 867 conceptually engaging in the least). The point is, no one’s forcing you to accept it as good art - I certainly don’t think there’s some cabal of pompous critics just waiting to call you a rube the minute you say you think it’s silly and you’re not going to waste time on it. But why not accept it as art - again, not a value judgment, just as the fact that I believe Thomas Kinkade’s work to be art definitely doesn’t mean I think it’s good art - move on, and pay attention to work that actually interests you?
That’s like saying $100 a plate restaurants aren’t for the elite because the busboys are Hispanic. There are millions of artists in America, a lot of whom are very talented. There is a small number of self-appointed elite of critics, patrons, and gallery owners who get to decide which of those artists get to sit at the adult table and join in making snide remarks about the other guests.
It’s disappointing that those of you who see the importance of art in our culture defend the peculiar idea that the less comprehensible and enjoyable art is, the more value it has. Time and time again I have seen the excluded middle in this conversation; it’s either shit in a can or Thomas Kincaide. But in between there are thousands of artists producing art that is novel and provocative, yet still accessible and aesthetically pleasing. When those works are marginalized, and crappy conceptual art is lauded in its stead, we degrade art and restrict its potential impact on people’s lives.
Bizarre that you’re getting this from the discussion at hand. I don’t think anyone’s come near saying anything to that effect.
No one’s devoting undue attention to “crappy conceptual art” except you and its other detractors. The rest of us are willing to argue that it’s art (not necessarily good art, just art) and, as above, move on to stuff that interests us more.
It’s interesting that you are willing to judge what is good and bad art, but not what actually comprises art. I would not think you can do one without the other.
Since we’re in the pit, I can suggest that we all READ FUCKING POST #51!
(which I wrote)
Who’s making snide remarks, exactly? Other than you, I mean? Again, you have this bizarre fixation on the idea that people like modern art because it lets them exclude other people, but this idea has absolutely no basis in reality.
Not one single person in this thread, or in the other one, has said anything even remotely resembling this. I’d appreciate it if you’d retract it, because I’m starting to get a little concerned that you’re not actually reading anything anyone else is writing, and would like some sign that we’re not just shouting into the wind, here.
What excluded middle? What marginalization? I’m serious, here. The only people trying to exclude anything is yourself, and people on your side of the debate. No one over on this side is saying anything about what shouldn’t be art. Hell, I’m surprised you haven’t picked up on this yet, considering that’s one of the things you’re criticizing us for - having an overbroad definition of art.
Buddy, I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but you’ve got to pick a reason for thinking I’m wrong: is my definition of art too wide, or too narrow? You can’t have it both ways.
Well, these two threads should be ample proof that you were wrong.
But you told me not to take it personally.
All in the name of the pursuit of new idea, new concept, a new page in the art history book, and not so much to repetitions of what’s been done before, are what’s talked about the most and given the most importance.
It’s interesting that you are willing to judge what are good books and bad books, but not what actually comprises a book. I wouldn’t think you can do one without the other.
(and actually, now that my attention’s been discreetly drawn to it, capybara’s post #51 is a pretty nice summary of the way things are :))
No it fucking well hasn’t! This is ahistorical nonsense. Art has only been all about pushing boundaries since the since the modernist movement got going in the early 20th century (or, in certain respects, since Romanticism at the end of the 18th). Art was never about pushing boundaries and having no limits before that. It was about imitating nature (or earlier art) as faithfully as possible, and expressing and celebrating shared cultural values.
This jejune ideology that the aim of art is to be original and unique and different and shocking, or a savage critique of conventional values and beliefs, or that it must express the special insights of some uniquely gifted genius soul that most of us plebs can’t possibly hope to understand, is precisely what has led to the situation where the vast majority of what passes for art is meretricious and pretentious rubbish, much more concerned with being different than being worthwhile, and often deliberately obscure. It is a particularly insidious ideology because even artists who try to rebel against the cult of originality and ‘boundary pushing’ find they have been co-opted into it by the very fact of having rebelled against it.
cite?
Of course art has always been about pushing boundaries. That’s why modern art evolved in the first place: the boundaries of realism had been pushed as far as they could go, leaving no room for innovation.
Thank you for another strawman about how the art world thinks and acts. We were running low in this thread.
The fact that it is meant for the consideration only of this inbred little group playing their game of “more original, or more transgressive, than thou” is precisely why it deserves no more respect or consideration from the rest of us than activities like, say, collecting Beanie Babies, or fancy-pigeon breeding, or competitive sudoku.
And yes we do take it personally, and justifiably so, because, unlike the Beanie Baby collectors and and the pigeon breeders, those ‘artists’ and critics expect and demand that we respect them and take them very seriously indeed, and that we acknowledge that if we do not appreciate what they are doing then we are fools and philistines. Furthermore we take it personally because of the success this art world so often has in extracting huge amounts of money from the pockets both of individuals with more money than sense, and of governments and institutions, all anxious to show the world that they are not the fools and philistines that they secretly, in their hearts, fear themselves to be.
I’d have to agree with njtt on this one and agree that it hasn’t always been about pushing boundaries, but in the particular climate of the 19th century that is what it had become, but not in any teleological way. “Realism” was a contingent construction to begin with and had no essential connection to “art”, IMO, as was innovation.
Eh. I’m pretty ‘meh’ about baseball, and don’t see the point or sense and there’s a whole lot of money and concern wrapped in that for a lot of people but I don’t go on a rant when it comes up.
No. Realist artists feared their skills with the brush, or whatever, had been rendered obsolete by the invention of photography, so they needed to innovate to try to stay relevant. Before the 19th century, art was scarcely ever about innovation at all. Artists did not aim at being different from the the previous generation or from their peers, they just aimed at being better (which usually meant more true to life, or more true to the tradition). Sometimes the striving for improvement led to innovations, such as the use of perspective, but innovation was never, previously, the point.
Anyway, as I already implied, the corruption of art by the cult of originality did not begin with the replacement of realism by modernism. The seeds were planted by romanticism, a century earlier. Modernism wsa when they began to bear fruit.
I don’t care about baseball either, and I don’t particularly approve much of the vast sums of money spent on it either (although at least the money in baseball comes from the vast numbers of people to whom it apparently gives pleasure, rather than a tiny but hugely wealthy elite).
However, I have never had any sense that baseball fans think I should respect them, and acknowledge my intellectual and spiritual inferiority to them, just because they appreciate baseball and I don’t.
I’d like to hug you.
Well, I’ll back off that, as I’m not very conversant with art beyond the Romantic era, except in a superficial way.
Most stadium construction is funded by taxes, not ticket sales. Also, I’ve never been caught in traffic for two hours because a big art exhibition let out right at rush hour.
And for the record, the New York Museum of Modern art gets over two million visitors a year. The SFMoMA boasts an average of 4530 visitors a day. The idea of modern art as an elitist pursuit is one of the more common misconceptions among its detractors, but it has little basis in reality. Modern art is a popular, in every sense of the word, genre.
I’ve had people threaten to kick my ass because I don’t like their favorite sports team. While I’ve had some pretty shirty arguments about art, no one has ever actually threatened me with physical violence because I’m not a big fan of de Kooning.