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

Cafe Society
121

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
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.
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why people think art critics are snobs that are being swindled by artists with no talent because a lot of people have similar stories.

Case in point:

I took an Intro to Visual Arts class in college (coincidentally at RIT) and part of the class required us to create our own art as well as study art history. Our first assignment was some “transformative collage” type thing that we then had to explain.

I took a picture from RIT’s website of a group of students and ran it through about six Photoshop filters until I had a completely unrecognizable glob of black ink. I wrote up some ridiculous paragraph about feelings of isolation on the campus and the dreary feeling most students get in winter. I then added that my use of Photoshop (and overuse of the filters) was a comment on the school’s technical bent. I finished up with something about how it made us all unrecognizable faces in the crowd. The whole thing took about 10 minutes.

My grade:

A+ Truly insightful. You GET IT!

122

Didn’t John Stossel or one of his ilk do a story wherein he took kid’s art and billed it as the work of up and coming abstract artists and had supposed art aficionados review it…with accolades? I suppose the art pieces could have been chosen for a certain level of sophistication, even if it was made so by chance.

123

I agree with you to a large extent, capybara, except for the pressure on art students to be the “next BIG thing”, a fresh page in the art history books. The fact that thousands of artists make a living selling accessible work to the public in places outside of NYC was never communicated to me. Our thrust was towards the critics, towards making Important art.

124

I know this is probably off topic by now but HubZilla asked in the OP

which linked to this picture.

I saw that and knew exactly where that is. It is a sculpture located on the campus of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, where I attended school (until I moved to Nevada, anyway).

An article regarding the sculpure states:

I personally think it is ugly, but that is just my opinion- a lot of people like it.

125

Now we can debate the actuall artistic value of these paintings relative to the rest of the world all we want. Apparently some afficionados of contemporary art think that the Taetzsch painting in the OP is derivative. I have no idea about that. I am not an art critic and I am not familiar with its history. All I know is the way a piece affects me. If it’s been done before, than I will not likely know about it or care. I find that painting to be amazing.

What I do know, is that a child could not paint that. A child could not think of that.

Contemporary art is my favorite form of art, because it is always so unexpected. I’m not saying I “get” it all. I’d say 75% of the time I look at a piece and think “waht the hell is that about”? A friend of mine and I spent 15 minutes contemplating a barometer in the room trying to figure out what the artist was getting at. I still don’t get that glass case of vacuum cleaners at the Chicago Museum of Modern Art, but I’m not going to say it’s a bad piece of art because I clearly don’t get it. I’m also not going to pay one red cent for it until I do.

[QUOTE = Gangster Octopus]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I think this is the start of an appreciation for modern art, but you have a long way to go. Sometimes the artists concept is simple. Sometimes it’s complex. Sometimes there is a message. Sometimes there is not. Don’t assume anything with modern art. Usually, it is more complex than you realize at first. Usually, it is more difficult than is immediately apparent. Usually.

126

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like they got it, proving perhaps they weren’t as “pretentious” as you thought.

127

[QUOTE=lissener]
Sounds like they got it, proving perhaps they weren’t as “pretentious” as you thought.
[/QUOTE]

I had a different reaction. I read this:

And thought to myself, “Well, that sounds like it might have been kind of cool…”

Maybe the judges got the joke, or maybe they thought something serious (as serious as any art is these days anyway) was going on. I can’t decide. Maybe there’s no decision to be made between the two choices, actually.

Anyway, the scene described is kind of funny, and makes you think. This is a characteristic common to plenty of good artworks.

To the person who described the incident: I believe there is a whole school of thought which discounts “artist’s intention” when evaluating the significance of a piece, and instead looks to the placement of the piece within the wide social framework of the art world or the culture at large. In other words, who cares what the artist was thinking, the question is, what does the piece say, given its actual form and its actual context? If that’s a plausible position to take, then it doesn’t matter what you guys were trying to do. You may have come up with something artistic, despite yourselves.

Also, it has been said that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. (Who said that?) I myself have also said the only people really doing the Philosophy of Art are other artists. Well, this would mean we could read what you guys did in the following way: You engaged in criticism of artistic conventions, by creating a piece of artwork yourselves. This happens all the time in the artworld. There is nothing (any longer, in the year 2007) mysterious about the question how something like this could itself be thought to have artistic merit.

-FrL-

128

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]

My grade:

A+ Truly insightful. You GET IT!
[/QUOTE]

You mentioned this was an intro class.

As a TA who grades for intro classes, I will offer my theory as to what happened. The person who graded your work was not offering A’s only to great artists with genius-level thoughts about their work. If someone sounded even halfway intelligent, and if they produced a project which was actually on assignment, then that student “got it” and was “insightful.”

People in intro classes are really, really stupid. If you’re smart, it takes almost no effort to impress your grader.

-FrL-

129

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Can I kinda restate what I said earlier?
One of my favorite stories of Isaac Asimov (I use it every chance I get) was when he was in college. (please correct me if I am wrong and some insight to the book I remember reading it in would be great.) The professor was expounding on one of his books. He was going a direction Isaac did not intend. Isaac mentioned it to the professor and the professor stated essentially WTF do you know you are just the author.

Your intentions in the play although notable and have interest. Stops at that. What the judges saw may have been completely different than your intentions. What the audience got out of it may have been unexpected to you. What you are getting out of it now and what the boards are getting out of it are something else entirely.
You made it with intention and thought. And probably a bit of skill. The viewers get to decide if they like it. Or if it is in fact theater or art or a or a mockery.

You don’t get to decide that.

You, and it appears many others got a lot out of that play.

Or the other plays could have just sucked real bad and the judges gave you the prize to make a statement. In a sense mocking the entire contest.

It goes the same in music, comedy, movies and other consumer items.

Take music for example.
Many think the crap teenagers are listing to these days is just bunch of racket.
It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t. Or if a third grader could do it. It is a statement. The fans are able to make a statement as well buy wearing the t-shirts and drawing the logos on their notebook covers and playing it loud.

It is the same thing with buying/viewing art. The work is not over after the artist puts the brush down. It is a tough go for artists. Some folks are gonna hate it no matter what. Smashing and ripping to shreds their artistic desires on a whim. Other may love it just for that very reason.

I still quickly thumb through my wifes “Art in America” and “Art Wold” magazines and gladly and loudly say, “This one sucks! this one sucks!” Over and over again. Maybe finding a few I like. my Wife and daughter on the other hand like almost every one and are appalled at my statements.

130

[QUOTE=fifty-six]
You made it with intention and thought. And probably a bit of skill. The viewers get to decide if they like it. Or if it is in fact theater or art or a or a mockery.

You don’t get to decide that.
[/QUOTE]

I can kinda agree with that. Just look at the movie Donnie Darko. I don’t give a shit what the director says about tangent universes and the theory of time travel. It’s all a lot of shit that isn’t on screen.

But I still like it because the story makes sense in a roundabout way that is at least recognizable on screen. I just don’t like the director’s take on it.

And then there’s Showgirls… :smiley: