Please explain to me how this is art

Cafe Society
1

In our office (which is mostly filled with innocuous abstract art designed to offend nobody) we have a picture from an artist named Miro. I couldn’t find a reproduction of it on Google, but here is a bad camera phone snapshot of it. Here is another offering from the same guy.

I don’t get it. How is it that these pieces, which look like they could be duplicated by a mildly talented three-year-old, are considered fine art? This guy is apparently famous. Some of his stuff isn’t bad, in a weird surreal colorful sort of way, but do artists at some point get famous enough that they can just churn out whatever garbage they want to create and somebody will hang it in a gallery and somebody else will buy it?

Before anybody picks on me about my artistic sensibilities (or lack thereof): I do like modern and abstract art. Even when I don’t like something, I can generally appreciate the talent it took to create it. But I sure as hell don’t see any talent in the examples I’ve posted above.

I have an open mind. Can someone explain to me why these are art? Maybe there’s something I’m missing.

2

Here, read this.

3

Artists, like anyone else, do get famous enough that they can churn out stuff, and this stuff can command high prices, particularly after the artist’s death.

But the “my 3-year-old could do that” phrase is thrown at abstract expressionists a lot, and in the case of the photos linked by the OP might actually be valid. Usually, though, this charge is leveled at someone whose art has journeyed through complexity in order to end up at simplicity.

Now I live with an AE and we’ve had all the arguments, including the one about where if you have to base your judgment on one work on the artist’s complete portfolio it isn’t really worthy. Or if you have to arrive at your appreciation intellectually then it’s different if it’s simply a visual appreciation. Okay, but something like Warhol’s Campbell’s soup can was something arrived at. Anybody could have painted it but until Warhol nobody did. In doing so he built upon a tradition where you could take a found object, say a snow shovel, and turn it into art.

The “my 3-year-old could do that” charge was also leveled at the likes of Jackson Pollock. Sure, your 3-year-old could, your cat could, you could yourself. Give it a try. See what results in terms of form and composition and color and see if you can sell it to the Met.

Now the Miro stuff, I have to say, I would not like to have it on my walls, particularly. (But then I wouldn’t want Guernica in my living room either, or anything by da Vinci.) There is a quote by Picasso that I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find where he says that he can fake a Picasso as well as anyone. Miro was coasting on his reputation. He was also (along with Picasso) one of the most-faked 20th century artists.

4

I’m not a big fan of modern art and that goes double for anything that contains the word abstract, especially when it is followed by expressionism. Art is representational in that it is a selective recreation of one aspect of the universe as seen through the artist’s own values. As a representational recreation of some aspect of the universe (real world) the only restrictions on style is intelligibility. If the work is not intellgible then it isn’t art.

Jackson Pollock and Robert Ryman, I’m looking at you. I see no intelligible subject in most of their work. If bright colorful prints are all that’s required of art then they might as well just hang up swatches of wallpaper in the museum.

I’m sure someone will come by an explain to me that modern art must be taken in context and that I simply lack the necessary knowledge to appreciate it. Perhaps, but that doesn’t make it art.

Marc

5

I, too, am not a big fan of modern art. I remember being in the Smithsonian, seeing the big, single-can painting by Warhol and thinking, “…Yup, that’s a can of soup. Hey! Can we go over to where they keep the religious oil paintings? Or the impressionist stuff?” I was also amazed that there was a pencil (a real one) sitting on a display. Apparently, a pencil is art and representitve of, like, ya know, the universe, and God, and stuff.

Needless to say, I don’t see the big whoopty-doo with the overly simplistic “modern art”, but to each is his own. That said, my dad bought a lithograph of a Picasso at an auction several years ago. It looks something like this (subject is a king, same style), but is slighty different.

At first, I thought it was the stupidest thing I’d ever seen (and a huge waste of money), but it grew on me. To me, there is just something really interesting in that in his old age, someone as tremendously talented as Picasso decided that this would be what he’d like his last effort to be. The same guy that made Guernica, wanted to go out with that. Honestly, that’s pretty damn cool :smiley: .

Anyway, it seems that perhaps Miro was the same way.

6

The distinction you’re attempting to draw, MGibson, is between what you see as “good art” or “bad art.” There’s not really any question that everything you mentioned is, in fact, art. Art isn’t defined by MGibson’s personal taste; you can only define what *you *like or don’t like.

Meanwhile, read this. It’s long and ugly, but there were some excellent points made along the way. Most of them several times.

7

I like them better than many other pictures I’ve seen, usually involving waterfalls, cottages or hot anime chicks in fantasy gear.

8

What makes you think Miro’s paintings don’t fall into that category?

Since everything about art comes down to personal taste, the question “Is this art?” is kinda nonsensical. Absolutely anything and everything can be viewed artistically. Similarly, there is no such thing as objectively good art or objectively bad art, because there is no objective standard by which to judge the quality of artistic works.

9

I have what I consider to be a very layperson’s aesthetic.

I’ve found that I’m most often drawn to the work of impressionists (Monet) and those who lean more toward realism who like to work with subject matter that I enjoy (Steve Hanks, Bev Doolittle).

I also have much broader and easier appreciation for photography than I do for paintings.

There are some abstract modern art pieces that I just like. I can’t explain it. I don’t really care whether or not I consciously or unconsciously interpret the use of lines or other facets of composition. I just like it.

Then there are times when I’m standing in a prestigeous museum, staring at a canvas painted a solid shade of red, titled, “Red”, with a $5000 pricetag, and a small crowd of people studying it closely, and I just don’t get it.

10

I just got through reading The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe, based on the recommendation of someone in one of the art threads on here. It was very enlightening, and should be required reading for anyone who doesn’t get modern art.

11

I recently saw a bedroom with Guernica hung over the headboard – that would definitely not put me in the mood!

12

Disclaimer: I’m no art historian or expert; just my personal opinion.

At the risk of making an unfair generalization, the average layperson believes art is only something made in one of several generally accepted media (representational painting, representational sculpture and, maybe, still or motion photography) and that the main measure of whether it is ‘good’ or not is technical virtuosity. Quite some time ago, however, the majority of working artists, and the people who teach art, came to a collective agreement that these criteria are too limiting, and that the real essence art can be found pretty much at the the conceptual stage.

It seems that much of the general thrust of art in the last century has been to strip away the layers of artifice and techniqe and display the basic concept in as direct a manner as possible. Some would say that such exploration pretty much ended when Marcel Duchamp exhibited his famous ‘fountain’ (a signed, otherwise unaltered urinal). I happen to like this sort of thing, myself; although I certainly feel there’s plenty of bogus crap in recent art, there has always been a lot of bogus crap in art. There are a lot of different ways to approach art as concept, and I would say that Miro’s deliberately childish efforts are his way of approaching this objective.

Now, I think Miro is something of a hack myself, so I’m not going to defend the linked works, except to say that if one doesn’t happen to ‘get’ the intent of a certain artist, don’t worry overmuch about it. I don’t think they’re particularly rich in content myself, and I think there is little reamining to be said in painting in general, but neither are they purely commercial snow jobs of the sort that many representational painters practice. So I don’t have any particular problem with them, except to say that I’m willing to bet that the person who selected them for hanging at the OP’s location chose them because they were a known ‘name brand’ rather than because of any specific content in the works.

13

There is a wonderful documentary - pretty much my all-time fave - about music. It is called Tom Dowd: The Language of Music. Tom Dowd was the engineer for Atlantic Records and was a principal innovator in many studio/recording developments of the modern era.

Anyway, at one point they are interviewing Ray Charles about Tom. Ray said "no matter what, Tom knew the that the main thing was what did the music SOUND like - in other words, for all the technical stuff, what ultimately matters is how good the music is at having the desired effect.

Well, the same holds true with art - and there are TWO actors involved: the artist and the observer. If the artist - in this case, like Miro - is going for a whimsical, primitive effect - using a limited palette of blacks, whites and reds - and trying to capture a feel not tied to more modern art innovations like perspective, true representation of figures, etc. - and you, the observer, aren’t open to that approach, then communication doesn’t occur.

Artists like Miro, Dubuffet, Pollock and other AE’s were all trying to get people to “let go” of the modern rules of art - “if it isn’t a clearly recognizable portrait of a person or a landscape, it isn’t art” and remind us that, for a majority of our history we have not relied on most of the rules that had come to dictate good art in the 20th Century. If you allow the art to speak to you from that place, it may be possible to see that Miro is simply trying to create interesting, pleasing, primitive blends of colors and shapes. If you think a 3-year-old would be pleased with the finished product, that in fact might be a compliment - he is trying to appeal to that part of us.

As for Warhol’s Soup Can, as DB mentioned, there is much more of a post-modern commentary going on. If you find yourself a little angry or feeling like you’ve been had, that could very likely be what they were going for. Think about it - what Warhol has done is taken an icon of commerciality in our modern age and portrayed it using the language of fine art - so our brains are saying "okay, I’m at a museum/art gallery, this is framed, etc. so it must be art - BUT, you say “hey, that’s just a soup can” - so there are a few forces at work:

  • the tension created by seeing an everyday thing portrayed with “fine art” language
  • a commentary by Warhol on our capitalist/corporate nature - we have elevated our commercial/consumer nature to the level of something we should revere the way we do art
  • a commentary on how a simple silk screen - easy compared to painting - can still be used to make an artistic statement. Warhol’s use of mass-production techniques was a further snubbing of his nose at the roles of fine art.

Again, anyone is welcome to not like this stuff. But until you are open to the effect that the artist is trying to have, you really can’t comment on whether or not they were effective at making their statement…

14

The only thing more obnoxious than bullshit “art” is bullshit apologism for said art.

I actually like some of the Miro paintings in ultrafilter’s link, though. But the one in the OP is a big piece of crap.

15

:rolleyes: Prove it.

16

OK. You’re obnoxious.

There. What do I win?

17

Hey now, let’s take a deep breath folks. friedo - what say you about my comments on Miro? About his desire to revisit primitivist art and tap into a part of us that started out making art in that way? I think George Kaplin’s point is that if, in fact, Miro was trying to do that, and if, to some folks at least, he was effective, can that work really be called “a big piece of crap”?

As I have said - one is welcome to not like any art - art is subjective - but there is a difference between “I don’t like it” and “I see what the artist is trying to accomplish and don’t think they succeeded (or don’t think that what they are trying to accomplish is worth pursuing)”…

18

If it has to be explained, it isn’t good art.

Regards,
Shodan

19

Does there ever come a point where a particular work, say something like Duchamp’s urinal or Warhol’s soup can, or that one artist up in New York with the decomposing cow, can no longer be considered to be art, as it is solely about the concept and no longer about the artist putting forth a visual, and hopefully beautiful, reflection of reality? Should we come up with a new name for this, something like “conceptualism”, to distinguish it from stuff like Michelangelo or Monet? I think people would be a lot more accepting of this kind of stuff if it were clear that the purpose isn’t to communicate a visual experience, but to create a concrete representation of a concept.

20

I like the paintings in the OP, and I love Miro’s work in general. He, along with Kandinsky, is my favorite artist of the early 20th century.

To be honest, I cannot really explain the appeal, and I don’t pay much attention to “artist statements.” All I know is that abstract art resonates with me in a way that realism does not. I’m a photographer by profession, so one might think my artistic leanings should be towards realism. Not at all. When I go to art museums, the first exhibits I visit are the 20th Century artists, because my visceral reactions are to color, shape, and shade. I love the romantic swashes of color and emotion in Kandinsky’s brushstrokes. I love the playful and whimsical shapes and colors of Miro.

People who like this type of art are not all pretentious bullshitters. A lot of us really do derive emotion from these pieces. For whatever reason, the only realist painter that inspires me is Rembrandt. The rest, to be honest, bore me. I don’t know why. I wish I could look at a Michaelangelo or da Vinci and experience the pleasure other people do, but I can’t. That doesn’t make me say their art is somehow invalid or emotionless–it’s just that it doesn’t effect me.

Of the Miros linked to, I prefer the second one. The composition is whimisical, perfectly balanced and just plain pretty. If a 3-year-old did it, I wouldn’t care. I still would say it’s a pretty picture. (Probably no surprise that I happen to be fascinated by children’s art in general. Kids under 5 or 6 have an amazing sense of composition that they seem to lose as they grow up. The picture in the link does not look like a typical child’s drawing to me. It has some similarities, but the use of color and careful placement of shapes suggest to me that it’s more deliberate.)