"My kid sister could draw that!" Why in Art Museums?

Cafe Society
81

[QUOTE=mstay]
I can only imagine what sort of sensory overload occurs when they watch movies, listen to music, or play a video game.
[/QUOTE]

Music floors me, it really does. I cry at 90% of the performances we attend. And I’m not talking Fine Symphonic Works here - a good HS marching band does it. Street musicians, nearly always. The opening number in Go, Diego, Go (Live! On Stage!) got me, although that was partly because we were sharing it with our kids.

Visual art never affects me that way. My knees have gone weak a few times and I’ve felt breathless now and then. But never tears, the way it is with music.

82

[QUOTE=lissener]
The short–blunt–answer is because they’re not doing it for you. Or rather, to the extent that they *are * doing it for you, to that extent they’re not an artist.
[/QUOTE]

I was not asking for the artist to do his or her work for me. I was curious as to why so many artists don’t do representational work today. I am not sure what you meant by you’re last comment–do you mean that if an artist does a work for someone else, it is no longer pure art? That would surprise most Old Masters.

I fully grant that abstract art uses skills that non-artists don’t have. I like art that makes me think, for the most part. But fine brush work and the judicous use of light and shadow are also skills that non-artists don’t have. Surely we can agree that there are trends in art? IMO, the largest trend today is witty or ironic commentary on life–I love the mirrored loo. It’s fine, that trend. I just would like more than that.

83

[QUOTE=HubZilla]
What makes a curator look at a picture for 3 rectangles called “Untitled” and deem it worthy for inclusion?
[/QUOTE]

The signature?

84

When someone looks at a piece of non-representational art and says “I could do that!”, the first response that comes to mind is, “Yes, but you didn’t.” For much art, the idea behind it, not the technical prowess necessary to execute it, is its innovation.

85

I recycle an old post:

I can understand the OP. There are some modern art pieces that I don’t understand but I can see that the artist has invested a lot of intellectual and physical effort into creating them and I think, “I just don’t understand this.”

And there are other “modern art pieces” where I can see that no intellectual involvement is required and I could have thrown the whole thing together in 2 hours and I think, “This is bullshit. How could anyone pay money for this?”

My favourite examples:

In London someone won a competition with a pattern of housebricks, ten by twelve say. Two layers high with one corner brick missing from the top layer. I think I saw it at the Tate Gallery. Genius eh?

I took the guided tour through the Art Gallery of New South Wales and they had an award winning display. It consisted of a room with poorly daubed dark canvases with white crosses painted on them and bits of furniture with white crosses painted on them. The curator explained that they probably represented the artist’s feeling of being overwhelmed by his religous upbringing. I butted in to suggest that perhaps they meant nothing at all and were mearly designed to distract the viewer from the lack of graphic significance in the work. Although I had intended this as a smartarse joke the curator agreed and proffered it as an altenative “ironic” intention.

I go to the Museum of Contemporary Art pretty frequently. They usually have several exhibitions and sometimes I can walk through all the floors in 10 minutes but other times I am there for hours.

86

I think Kurt Vonnegut Jr. nailed in *Breakfast of Champions * when one of his characters said that modern art is a conspiracy to make poor people feel stupid.

87

[QUOTE=don’t ask]
I recycle an old post:

I can understand the OP. There are some modern art pieces that I don’t understand but I can see that the artist has invested a lot of intellectual and physical effort into creating them and I think, “I just don’t understand this.”

And there are other “modern art pieces” where I can see that no intellectual involvement is required and I could have thrown the whole thing together in 2 hours and I think, “This is bullshit. How could anyone pay money for this?”

My favourite examples:

In London someone won a competition with a pattern of housebricks, ten by twelve say. Two layers high with one corner brick missing from the top layer. I think I saw it at the Tate Gallery. Genius eh?

I took the guided tour through the Art Gallery of New South Wales and they had an award winning display. It consisted of a room with poorly daubed dark canvases with white crosses painted on them and bits of furniture with white crosses painted on them. The curator explained that they probably represented the artist’s feeling of being overwhelmed by his religous upbringing. I butted in to suggest that perhaps they meant nothing at all and were mearly designed to distract the viewer from the lack of graphic significance in the work. Although I had intended this as a smartarse joke the curator agreed and proffered it as an altenative “ironic” intention.

I go to the Museum of Contemporary Art pretty frequently. They usually have several exhibitions and sometimes I can walk through all the floors in 10 minutes but other times I am there for hours.
[/QUOTE]

Your attitude is more intelligent than those who get outraged.

Most of the bad art of yesteryear moldered away in obscurity. Or burned up after the bombers passed over because nobody cared enough to take it to the cellar. Big museums have warehouses full of canvases–indifferently painted Madonnas & solemn burghers proclaiming their wealth & piety. But they only display the best.

Some of today’s art will stand the test of time–some won’t. “Conceptual” art isn’t made for the future. Yes, you can put the bricks in a crate & add a diagram. But it’s harder to store & display than those dull old works on canvas. And art conservators are already concerned about, say, sculpture made of crushed auto bodies. Marble is much more durable.

But people who think of “modern art” as only the “shocking” stuff that makes it to the newspapers ought to look a bit farther. Or a bit closer to home.
Harris Gallery has a good sample of local & regional artists.

Lynn Randolph is a local favorite of mine. (The website is more confusing than her paintings.)

Texas artist Kermit Oliver displays impeccable technique.

Or head out to LA & let La Luz de Jesus blow your mind.

88

[QUOTE=Spiral Stairs]
For much art, the idea behind it, not the technical prowess necessary to execute it, is its innovation.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I wouldn’t say for much art. I’d say for some art. I think a lot of people are being delusional when they look at something like that Taetsche and say “I can do that.” No you can’t. You can do something that you may think looks like that, but probably looks like crap to the discerning eye.

I’m not saying there aren’t artists that could be easily copied. I think Mondrian, for instance, would be the prime example of the type of work pretty much everybody has the technical wherewithal to do. Same with Warhol (an artist I really don’t understand). Jackson Pollock, as much as so many people think it’s just a bunch of random splashes of paint on a canvas, I think would be much, much, much more difficult to duplicate convincingly.

A lot of times with modern art, people who never have tried painting or drawing semi-seriously don’t see the technique and control that goes into many of these works. I’m not going to say that all contemporary artists are highly skilled technicians, but almost all the canonical modern artists are. It’s easy to walk by a painting and look at a bunch of paint splashes and say “I can do that!” But a lot of times, you can’t, and you didn’t.

89

[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
When it comes down to it, art is all about pretty pictures. If you like it, fine. If you don’t like it, fine.
[/QUOTE]

That’s an astonishingly limited view of art. Art aspires to capture the whole of the human condition, and a good part of that is not pretty or pleasant to look at. Is Goya’s Saturn Devouring his Children not art? How about the hellscapes of Heironymous Bosch, or the plague paintings of his protege, Brueghal the Elder?

Which criteria would those be, and who is using them to put down other art?

Lucky for us, then, because that rarely happens.

I find this pretty funny, because on the whole, very little of art is “avant garde.” Our society is literally drenched in art. It’s everywhere you look, and 99.99% of it is representational, commercial art. Spend ten minutes in a city, and you will see hundreds of paintings, drawings, and photographs. That’s all art, and very little of it is abstract or avant garde.

Now, speaking personally, I prefer modern art, because it engages me on an intellectual level that most representational art does not. But if you want pictures that look like stuff, you don’t need to go to a museum. They’re giving it away for free on every street corner.

I play video games for a living, I listen to music almost constantly, and my movie collection checks in at around two hundred titles. Each of these mediums can affect me in different ways. A work of art packs its emotional punch not because of the volume of information it conveys, but the quality. Someone who is strongly affected by a Rothko painting of two contrasting colors is not going to be more strongly affected by a painting of two dozen contrasting colors. It’s not a matter of sensory overload, but of being receptive to the specific message being conveyed by a specific work of art.

90

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
I think Kurt Vonnegut Jr. nailed in *Breakfast of Champions * when one of his characters said that modern art is a conspiracy to make poor people feel stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Would that be the same Kurt Vonnegut who painted this?

91

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I was not asking for the artist to do his or her work for me. I was curious as to why so many artists don’t do representational work today.
[/QUOTE]

For some it’s what they enjoy. For others, it may be something they experimented with and it became popular, so they continue it because it’s selling. If they are represented by a gallery, it may be what the gallery is asking them to produce. I do think that you seem like you have a skewed sense of what art is being produced right now, though. There are a TON of artists doing representational work right now. It’s not some rare thing.

92

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
For some it’s what they enjoy. For others, it may be something they experimented with and it became popular, so they continue it because it’s selling. If they are represented by a gallery, it may be what the gallery is asking them to produce. I do think that you seem like you have a skewed sense of what art is being produced right now, though. There are a TON of artists doing representational work right now. It’s not some rare thing.
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re right! Somewhat tangential anecdote:

I usually go to this one gallery–it’s local and I believe in supporting local business and culure etc. They had a showing combined with some type of competition or honors ceremony. There was a lot of good art present-not just stuff I l was comfortable with, but stuff that challenged the viewer and disturbed the viewer. What won “first place” or whatever the award was was a painting with a hot pink background-very rough, very textured, with yellow skulls and an anorexic looking figure (in cream and pink) along one side.

It wasn’t disturbing. It wasn’t challenging–it was schlocky crap. I came away from that looking askance at art critics and at (some) artists. Ironically, I thought this “representational” art sucked. Some of the more abstract pieces were better executed. I don’t know what the criteria was for the awards, but it could not have been skill-seriously, this figure was one I could have drawn.

Not much point to this story, I suppose. I did recently(a year ago) go down to the MOCA downtown (Chicago)–I had never been there and it was great. I didn’t understand some of what I saw, but I enjoyed the experience.

But I truly don’t judge the whole art world on that one showing. I do need to get out more–I wish I had time.

93

Bridget–I really like the landscapes shown in your first link.

Here is the art gallery I normally go to:

unionstreetgallery
I don’t see either the pink/yellow skull monstrosity or the lovely forest as Gothic cathedral sketches. I can’t remember the artist names, either. :rolleyes:

94

Here’s a picture (doesn’t do it justice) of one of the “candy” installations by Gonzalez-Torres. There really is no skill or craftsmanship involved in taking a bunch of candy and piling it on the floor in a pattern or against a window in pile. It takes an “idea” (supposedly of impermanence since people are supposed to eat the candy and diminish the art).

But you know what? It’s really cool (the one we saw was a pile of shimmering golden and red colors) and my kids in particular loved it when we saw it at the Art Institute. It was subversive–they could touch it and “steal” a piece of it.

A lot of the resentment seems to come from hating the idea that an artist can get rich through this stuff. Assume for a moment that the artist did this for the kids and didn’t care about getting paid–is it then easier to like it just for looking cool?

95

That exhibit was at the MOCA when I went! It was great–it wasn’t the green candy, but individually wrapped, primary colored bits of hard candy. in a huge pile in the corner.
Everyone loved that exhibit–not just for the candy, but also the interaction, I think. I saw some kids come through–and there was very little greedy-grabbing going on. Most took one piece and sort of marveled at it. It was fantastic.

96

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Bah, I’m late to the thread…

To go back to the OP though, I’ll explain in a non-mystical way what abstract art is about.

If you don’t know what Graphic Design is, then that’s the first thing you need to understand. The basic idea is that, depending on how you arrange shapes on a paper, or in a space, can look good, or it can look like crap. You can also “force” the eye to look at certain places so as to highlight certain things. If you want an example, just try comparing a crappy MySpace page to a professional webpage. The people who make professional webpages are, essentially, just people who know how to lay stuff out in a way that looks good (i.e. graphic designers.)

Abstract art is, essentially, just graphic design. The main difference being that you’re getting rid of the text and pictures, and just leaving the layout. You’re arranging colors and shapes in a way that, if you’re good, will still look good. It won’t look like anything to be sure, but if you look at a page in a magazine, that doesn’t look like anything either. So if you look at it expecting a naked woman or something, then you’re going to think “That sucks.” But if you simple accept that the whole goal is to arrange shapes and colors in a way that looks nice, then you can appreciate the picture.

You’ll notice that a lot of abstract art ends up in business lobbies. The reason for that is because they, by definition, look good. And they are guaranteed to not have anything offensive, political, or intrusive.
[/QUOTE]

I really like this post and it was in line with what I was thinking.

I do fine are reproduction for artists. Often called Giclee prints. This by no means makes me an expert on fine are or graphic design but I see things and have started to get a better understanding on Color and design . Two distinct and separate things. Both of which most people use on a semi-regular basis when getting dressed or making dinner or painting a house or making a hand written card. but are also complicated and have great depth. You can make a lifelong carrier out of either one. Artists tend to use both.

Take the FedEx logo for example.
There are actually two arrows.
This piece of graphic design is amazing in its simplicity. Could anyone do it? No and if they could as another poster pointed out they didn’t. Could it be reproduced. Yes Quite easily for many. That does not not take away from it at all.

Now what if an artist took an artistic/modernistic/minimalistic/abstract approach to it? Lets say they just made the outlines of the arrows. It would look like nothing really and many would consider it lame. But that artist represented the essence of the design. Exemplified the underlining meaning of the Logo. And if done properly and with skill and forethought would be able to convey a sense of urgency and direction.
This is just one design this can be done with a facial expression or a flower or a sunset or a mood. Using just single color or a placement of objects or apparently ramdome splatter. Without all the lines and realism.

It takes skill and has an effect on the viewer. I also believe that that expression is up for interpretation. If I remember correctly Issac Asimov told a story once about being in a classroom. The the professor happened to be talking about one of his books and according to Issac made some wrong interpretations of the message he was trying to convey. The professor responded. “What do you know you are just the author.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, So is hate and disgust and all other emotion. And these things can change. And it is up for interpretation. Apparently every piece of art that was ever purchased struck someone. Even if it was solely the date it was created or the creator.

I do believe there has to be some skill involved. People don’t just take one guitar lesson and start playing in public and call what they are doing great music or get way with calling themselves musicians. It takes skill and practice. On the other hand is it not uncommon for folks to get a Bob Ross set and make a painting and hang it on the wall and call themselves artists. This is what muddies the waters. You can bet your ass though that if a museum or any person purchased a piece or elementary looking art for high dollar there is some background or meaning to it. Artist spend alot of time archiving their own work and writing bios and resumes and doing shows. And to get a piece hung on a wall of a good gallery or museum their history is considered almost as much as the piece or collective work itself.

Sometimes you may need some more story behind the art or artist to “get it.” Sometimes the back story doesn’t matter or may make you dislike it. And true sometimes there just isn’t anything to get.

I have enjoyed rambling about without any particular aim.
Art is interesting.

97

[QUOTE=Miller]
I find this pretty funny, because on the whole, very little of art is “avant garde.” Our society is literally drenched in art. It’s everywhere you look, and 99.99% of it is representational, commercial art. Spend ten minutes in a city, and you will see hundreds of paintings, drawings, and photographs. That’s all art, and very little of it is abstract or avant garde.

Now, speaking personally, I prefer modern art, because it engages me on an intellectual level that most representational art does not. But if you want pictures that look like stuff, you don’t need to go to a museum. They’re giving it away for free on every street corner.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with what you’ve said here, Miller, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s a cachet to avant garde art that often comes off as condescending towards those who don’t take the time or lack the insight to appreciate it. For example, while it’s 100% accurate to talk about the astonishing amount of art the average American, or European, will encounter on a daily basis, it’s also fair to say that those people who set themselves up as arbiters of what is and isn’t art will denigrate most of that commercial art…

Until it’s at least fifty years old, or so. :wink:

There’s a disconnect in the popular mind between commercial art, and what I’d call ‘high’ art, in a large part because many critics and artists insist on treating commercial art as some kind of three-headed bastard child. It’s not an attitude that’s grown in the general public because of simple ignorance or apathy, it’s an attitude that’s been fostered by the people I’d think would most want to see all art appreciated.

It’s the attitude of many of the various publically funded art councils that annoys me: they choose to fund and support artworks that often do require a greater understanding of art history, at least, than the general public has, and then they get defensive, and start talking about the need for art for art’s sake, and attacking the critics of their policies for not understanding the artist. When they chose, specifically, a piece that would present a challenge to the general public.

The attitude against commercial art really annoys me, especially when one considers just how much of the great works of the Rennaisance and Romantic eras seem to be either commercial, or political in nature. As an example, consider the number of variations on the theme of The Massacre of the Innocents done during the Dutch revolt. Many of these works were commissioned by the leaders of the revolt to emphasize the tyranny they felt they were experiencing under Spanish rule. As propaganda, many of them are pretty clumsy, even.

BTW, Miller, let me make it clear, I’m not trying to impute these behaviors to you, simply using your post as a springboard to ideas I wish to express.

On preview, fifty-six, I was thinking of the Fed-Ex logo, myself.

98

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
I agree with what you’ve said here, Miller, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s a cachet to avant garde art that often comes off as condescending towards those who don’t take the time or lack the insight to appreciate it. For example, while it’s 100% accurate to talk about the astonishing amount of art the average American, or European, will encounter on a daily basis, it’s also fair to say that those people who set themselves up as arbiters of what is and isn’t art will denigrate most of that commercial art…

Until it’s at least fifty years old, or so. :wink:

There’s a disconnect in the popular mind between commercial art, and what I’d call ‘high’ art, in a large part because many critics and artists insist on treating commercial art as some kind of three-headed bastard child. It’s not an attitude that’s grown in the general public because of simple ignorance or apathy, it’s an attitude that’s been fostered by the people I’d think would most want to see all art appreciated.
[/quote]

Do you have a cite for a critic dismissing commerical art like that? I just can’t imagine it happening in the post-Warhol art world.

99

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
. . . I think it’s fair to say that there’s a cachet to avant garde art that often comes off as condescending . . .
[/QUOTE]

This, not to put *too *fine a point on it, is bullshit. I hear this all the time, and it’s just not true; this imaginary snobbery is entirely in the mind of the offended.

Or, cite please.

100

[QUOTE=Miller]
Do you have a cite for a critic dismissing commerical art like that? I just can’t imagine it happening in the post-Warhol art world.
[/QUOTE]

Ditto.

I mean Paul Rand and Saul Bass, responsible for forging such strong corporate logos and identities as AT&T, IBM, Westinghouse, United, Bell, Mobil, NeXT, etc…, are hardly dismissed in the visual art world, and they’re about as commercial as you can get.