For all those asking for cites, I’ll have to do some looking - I don’t have anything off the top of my head, so give me a couple of hours, please. I will get back to you all on that, or eat my words if that proves to be necessary.
I sort of understand the feeling you get, but I’ve only encountered that with high school and college students who are maybe a little bit too excited about the possibilties modern art affords them that they slag off representational art as being somehow “beneath” them or “uncool” or something. It’s as annoying an attitude to dismiss classic art in favor of modern art as vice versa. There’s something to learn throughout the whole of art history, and a true artist, I believe, should embrace and respect his/her tradition.
But I chalk that attitude up to the exuberance of youth. Most of us thought we had all the answers in college–it’s part of growing up. I really don’t encounter that condescending attitude of “well, you’re an idiot or a square if you don’t like modern art” with people my age or older (early 30s). People can be just as condescendingly dismissive of modern art, and you can see hints of that in this thread.
I alaways got the impression that some of the stufff that seems so simple or such was in fact an attempt by the artist to make the viewer of his or her artwork to ask the very questions being asked here: Is this art? or what is the nature of art? So you see a cnvas with a couple of black brushhstrokes and think, “That doesn’t seem to be art, why is it here?.” and you could do the same, but does that make you an artist. So maybe, not actively, you start to wonder, well what is art and the arist has done his job. Then you see a piece of art like Mondrian and think, “That is simple and isn’t really anything.” and the artist is not concerned with his or her technique, necessarily, but an examinattion of whether painting needs to be about “something” tangible. And you explore these ideas the way the artist intended.
Great art is not necessarily beautiful or realistic or difficult, it is thought provoking, but it takes some work sometimes. Next time you see a piece of art and wonder what the hell it is about really ask yourself the question and not some rhetorical question in your mind. It makes it so much more interesting. Now that isn’t to say that every peice of art is good or worthwhile, but whether or not a child could do it is not a basis on which it should be judged, IMO.
pulykamell, that’s certainly part of it - I’d known a couple of Fine Arts majors while in school who did, in retrospect, shape a lot of my impression of art critics.
What I’m hoping to find, however, are some of the statements made by art council members who are defending works of art that were chosen to be funded, in part, because they weren’t commercial, and were therefore more worthy of support than a work that the general population would be find accessable.
Specifically not not a cite:
I’m also wishing I could review an article I’d read in the local paper from last summer about an art show consisting of works from RIT. I seem to recall that the critic said something along the lines of, ‘in spite of the utility of these items they actually do qualify as art…’ While that sentence I am remembering (Even if it is accurate, and I make no claims for that!) is fairly neutral in itself, I believe that the writer of the article kept harping on the need to prove that each item in the show had merit in spite of its pragmatic nature. It really got to me. I don’t want to use that as a cite without being able to view the article, but the D&C only has the past week searchable for free, alas. (And thinking back, it may well have been written for the paper by another student at RIT, which would leave it under the sort of general exclusion that pulykamell is talking about.
Here is a cite (Warning: pdf) that lends credence to the attitude I’d referenced, and that it exists, even if they aren’t examples of that, itself. From pg. 24:
What I will concede, right now, is that the attitude I’d referenced does not seem to be a current aspect of fine art criticism. My apologies for going with that idea.
Without seeing the specific quote in context, that sounds perfectly sensible to me. You don’t need to fund commercial art, because commercial art pays for itself. Hence, “commercial.” I don’t see much point in having the government fund art that’s already being perfectly well funded by the private sector. I’d rather see that money go to help out a worthy artist who hasn’t found a lot of success yet.
Miller, I don’t disagree with the sentiment you’ve expressed.
But it does seem, to me, to be a sentiment that, unless carefully explained, can be misunderstood to be about the relative merits of some of the different kinds of art.
Do we need an “Ask the [pretentious ivory tower dwelling] art historian” thread, btw? I’m this close [pinches microbes between fingers] to starting one up for hoots.
But…what about illustrators? They were not considered artists, early on, were they? I remember them not being considered such. Folks like Wyeth and yes, Rockwell. Now there is more blurring of the lines, but I don’t think that was true in the past. I think they made amazing art-the illustrations in Treasure Island are wonderful.
And I am getting mixed up with the commercial art term-I think of commercial art as the mass produced stuff for those “Starving Artist” sales advertised on TV. I realize that logos are a type of commercial art, but what is the correct term for the stuff a lot of people want hanging over their sofas?
I freely admit to having generalized (I was going to say painted with a broad brush, but that pun is just too awful)–but there is some truth to the exclusivity stereotype; there is also a lingering intimidation factor that many people have re art or any highbrow culture. I think those attitudes are underscoring this discussion.
When I said “pretty” i mean appealing. I like Heironymous Bosch. I mean, you like what you like. There is no good or bad art, it’s what you find appealing. I may not like much abstract art, but plenty of people do. I’m cool with that. I don’t agree that they should get the high praise, high price tag, and the elitist attitude towards some of it, that’s all.
Art Historians, Art Experts, Art Galleries, Art Salespeople. You name it, they’ll tell you what’s good and what’s bad and why one artist deserves to be considered a genius while another is not. It’s what the Art Appreciation world is all about.
HA! I laugh at this claim in disbelief. I blame the artists themselves for trying to tap into the current trands of art deliberately to sell, and not because the scribbles actually mean anything.
That’s not the art we’re talking about. I love most commercial art, a lot of comic art, and computer art. There are plenty of pieces of recent art that I think are wonderful, but probably wouldn’t ever get a gallery showing.
But what the OP and others are linking to are the weird kinds of art that appear to be coloured shapes in the middle of blankness, in the mindnumbing expectation that this is supposed to tap into the consciousness of the viewer so that they understand it, when most people will say “I think it’s nice, I like the colours” or “I don’t get it, my kid could’ve drawn that”. This is what modern pretentious art elicits in most people. Then they look at the praise the artist gets, and the price tag of the work, and think “What the fucking fuck? The whole art world is insane if they think anyone would pay $45,000 for three pieces of string and a wooden block painted orange!”
If most “Modern Art” (of the gallery display variety) wasn’t so avant garde and deliberately fucking weird shit designed to please the Art World, and instead was more accessible and had something people can actually recognise in it, plus didn’t charge an abusrd amount of money to own a print of it, then maybe this OP would never have needed to be written.
If people like what they see, then it doesn’t matter what the art is. But if it is held up as an example of something special as though it’s the greatest piece of sculpture ever committed to baked beans mixed in cement entitles “Man’s Inhumanity To Beans” then it can get fucked.
Well, hang on a second. I agree with you on the “no good or bad art, it’s what you find appealing,” thing, but the last sentence there seems to be arguing for a double standard. You like Bosch. I like Picasso. But I can’t say that Picasso was a genius, one of the great painters of all time, and that I’d be willing to pay millions for one of his paintings. Do the same restrictions apply to Bosch? Should people not give him high praise and high price tags? And if they can do that with art you like, why can’t they do that with art I like?
As for the elitism, I’d like to see some first hand evidence of this. There seems to be two arguments in play here. One if that the professional art critics are all elitist snobs who look down on regular art, and the other is that the same critics are rubes who are regularly suckered into calling any old random pile of crap “art.” It strikes me that these are two mutually exclusive positions.
So, you’re saying these positions and institutions should… what? Not exist? What’s the point of an art historian if he’s not going to give you his opinion on what makes good art? Do you feel the same way about other critics? Movie critics? Book critics? Should people just not talk about what they like, or what?
Weren’t you the one who was just criticizing other people for their elitist attitudes towards art? What happened to, “I may not like much abstract art, but plenty of people do. I’m cool with that.” It’s pretty clear you’re not cool with that, because you’re pretty freely accusing anyone who has different tastes in art of being suckers who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Okay, so you’ve got plenty of art that you like. Why do you begrudge the gallery owners the art that they like? Do you have trouble finding comic and computer art? No? Then why do you give a shit if they’re in galleries or not?
Sorry, no offence intended, but the only pretension I see here is coming from you. No one in the “professional art world” would treat the kind of art you like with the sort of contempt you’re showing to the kind of art they like. Seriously: it just doesn’t happen, except for the occasional crank. You’re welcome to prove me wrong on that score if you can, but I really doubt that you’ll be able to. At best, you’ll find critics slamming individual artists they don’t like, but you simply won’t find anyone saying, “All commercial art is crap for people who don’t have any taste.” No one who has spent any appreciable time seriously studying art would make such a ridiculous generalization.
In other words, if people didn’t make art you didn’t like, you wouldn’t complain about it.
Well, that’s quite the magnanimous concession.
So, people can like what they want. They just can’t like it too much.
Yes.
:dubious: 
Ooookay…
Not really, I just can’t seem to explain my points without you getting the wrong end of the stick, so I shall give up in frustration at my not being able to express my thoughts properly.
I’m gonna do a 180 and say I appreciate GuanoLad’s point, in re: deliberately inaccessible art. Some of it is “for” The Art World, there is a subset of artists (and critics) who want to operate in an elite stratosphere. There’s no way to appreciate that kind of work without understanding its history and context, and You’re right, SOME artists and critics really don’t want the public to understand, it’s part of their schtick.
Most of them do, though, and ARE trying to communicate something that “the masses” CAN get, if they’re willing to try.
Lee Tracy is one such artist. I took a painting course from her at the Art Institute of Chicago and have seen quite a bit of her work. Her paintings are amazing, she can take white house paint and Hefty bags (budget constraints) and create vivid, lively pieces full of joy. Her conceptual series are profound and difficult - check out “Red Trees” on her site. She’s an ardent environmentalist. “Red Trees” is about the wounds created via logging. She’s also an extremely unassuming person, completely without pretention.
The first thing I learned in art history (which I didn’t study anywhere NEAR enough, because I was put off by the attitude) is that art is not necessarily progressive. Just because something is new does NOT mean it’s better than its ancestors. Artists and critics know this. Artists know they’re never going to “replace” Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Picasso. That’s not the point, so don’t be thrown off by it.
Thank you for saying what I was also trying to say, but you said it so much better. I agree that the percentage of those who want Art to be elitist is small–but they are present.
I am glad to hear that art isn’t progressive–I had never heard that before; it’s very refreshing and helps me understand modern art better. Thanks!
I’m amused by this thread-- it’s the most of a sense of what my chosen profession suggests to some people than I’ve gotten before-- I feel so villainous (simultaneously pretentious AND a gullible fool). Even the artists think we have attitude. This all smacks of anti-intellectualism; if I made these kind of pronouncements about how new developments in higher math were bullshit conspiracy, people would write me off as a timecube-style crank (God help me should I start talking about computer programming), but with art everyone’s an expert, except the experts and they’re just deluded snobs. Now I know to a degree how the lawyers on the board feel-- this is my first experience having my vocation talked about in the third person. I feel so important!
To get back on topic, though, I think that part of the issue is the relative paucity of-- but disproportionate attention given to-- high avante garde works. In truth, a vast majority of work in “galleries” worldwide is quite accessible, frequently figurative, pleasant, requiring training and technical skill and all that. Try going to an actual gallery in the world, just for hoots. Impressionistic pictures of sailboats. And that’s fine. That’s what people like. However, because the only thing that gets mentioned in USA Today is something conspicuous and shocking like Damien Hirst, people who don’t generally give a damn about art come to the conclusion that that it what the current atmosphere in art is all about. No one mistakes haute couture for what even fashionable people on the street are wearing this season. The reason Hirst is notable is because his work ISN’T typical, within the art world. The same reason that many people ranting about 'contemporary art" and all its evils are so quick to invoke Pollock, circa nineteen hundred and fifty three. That’s not even close to contemporary art. Have you BEEN to a typical gallery in your hometown? Was it selling a piece of brick with three orange strings for 45,000? Truthfully, someone WILL pay that for that, somewhere, but not in Alice Springs or Couer d’Alene. Why obsess over the bogeyman of 5 avant garde galleries in Manhattan? Some people are interested in it; you’re not. That’s fine. No one’s foisting it on you. If your high school forced you to visit MOMA Manhattan and it was traumatizing, I’m sorry. There’s the “art world” that exists, and a small subset of that which deals with high avante garde. Don’t confuse the two.
I’ll quibble with this. It’s not that they don’t WANT the public to understand. More likely they don’t CARE if the public understands.
As someone paraphrased Frankenfurter earlier in this thread, “They didn’t make it for YOU!”
Every artist has a community that he works within – a set of other artists, and galleries, and potential viewers. He makes art for that community. If you’re not a part of that community, what he’s doing may seem cryptic and forbidding. But no one sets out to create something just for the purpose of confounding the rubes.
I beg to differ. Some people create something exactly for that reason. I’ll give you an example from theater rather than studio art, because it’s an example I have on hand:
I was hugely into theater in high school (and my original major in college was theater) and I remember my junior year we were trying to decide what one-act play to put on at the state competition that was coming up. In past years we’d always rolled our eyes because the play that would win first place would invariably be some impenetrable, artsy-fartsy, pseudo-deep piece of crap. We decided that if that’s what they wanted, that’s what they’d get. So we wrote our own completely meaningless play, full of the artsy-fartsiest bullshit we could think of. Almost no dialogue, lots of music… Scenes like this one: two people sitting in chairs on stage, each with a pad of paper. One is a pad of black and white sheets, the other is colors. Each person is going through tearing out pages one by one and dropping them on the floor. Halfway through they stop, look at each other, and then hold out their pads to each other, offering to trade. Blackout. See what I mean? Totally pointless. There was also lots of “interpretive dance” stuff in it. The whole purpose WAS to be confusing and meaningless, and it WAS designed just to poke fun at the pretentious judges.
We won first place. Swear to god. 100% true story.
Actually, that illustrates my point perfectly. You created a satirical piece that made sense within your community. Your target was the judges, as you say, not the general public. But to someone outside the community who didn’t get the joke it would have been just another example of how exclusionary avant garde theater is. You weren’t trying to confound the rubes … you probably weren’t taking the rubes into consideration at all.
I linked to a Jeff Koons piece earlier in this thread. Virtually his entire career has been about archly fellating high-end collectors. It’s very dry and clever. But if you don’t know the context for his art your response will probably be “how did this crap wind up in a museum?”