Somebody explain the artistic merit of this painting to me please

[Zebra]

@bump

So, at it’s core, the Modern Art crowd revolves around snobbery and snootiness then. I figured as much, but it’s nice to hear it confirmed.

I think for the most part, the outrage about paintings like Newman’s selling for so much is that technically (as in painting, line, shadow, light, etc…) they don’t seem to be very demanding, as opposed to say… a Caravaggio or some other more conventional painter, and people say, rightly so, that “their kid could do it”, because they probably could.

Whether or not your kid has the purported vision to paint a blue canvas with a kind of uneven white stripe down the middle is a different story, and I suspect that even if thousands of kids did it in elementary school first, theirs would only be refrigerator fodder, while this Newman guy’s are worth millions, because some snooty art crowd is willing to pay that for them.

’
’
You call the art crowd snooty but there sure seems to a tone of superiority in your post.

As in you are convinced that you are superior to ‘them’.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Zebra

You call the art crowd snooty but there sure seems to a tone of superiority in your post.

One of the things that’s always amusing about these debates is that smuggest proclamations about what constitutes real art always arise from the people who don’t like abstract paintings.

“My aesthetic standards are superior to yours! Only things that I like are good art! No one really likes abstract art, it’s just a big scam! If you say you like abstract art you’re either pretentious or deluded!”
It’s okay to not like things … .

[WordMan]

Hold the phone: snobs can be snobs. News at eleven. That overlaps with, but is NOT the same as, caring passionately about art and artists that contribute to the Ongoing Conversation about Art…

[pulykamell]

@Zebra

’
’
You call the art crowd snooty but there sure seems to a tone of superiority in your post.

As in you are convinced that you are superior to ‘them’.

I swear, we have the same goddamned stupid conversation every couple of months. “Emperor has no clothes” and all that bullshit. Look, if you don’t like it (and I’m not responding to you, Zebra, of course), that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean others don’t legitimately like it for non-“snob appeal” reasons. I mean, seriously, who is impressed by the fact that I like Newman and Rothko and Kandinsky and Pollack? Nobody gives a shit. But I love all those artists. If I had an extra $44 mil lying around to do whatever I want with, fuck yeah I’d buy that Newman painting.

[CarnalK]

@bienville

Kimstu provided an excellent link that addresses the artist’s legacy in layman’s terms. It’s brief and yet it is a fairly rich summary providing a foundation for any curious reader who wants to build a fuller understanding. Still, you place no value on the information provided nor any appreciation for Kimstu’s effort.

I looked at the link and what I got was that he was basically “breaking the rules”, “we don’t need no stinking figures or ground”. OK, great. White line in a field of blue, speaks to you, also great. Personally I dont see how you can ascribe talent or insight into it and it makes me think it’s simply a matter of drinking the kool-aid or not. And as always, the only reason it’s worth that much is because there are enough rich kool-aid drinkers willing to pay.

[Little_Nemo]

@The_Hamster_King

What does a symphony mean?

Art doesn’t have to be interpretable. Sometimes, it can just be a thing you experience. If I stand in front of a Rothko, I experience something. It makes me feel interesting things. Whether or not these things are the same things you experience doesn’t make my experience any less valid.

There’s this weird idea floating around that works of art are just mechanisms for passing messages in secret code. This has a couple of corollaries:

1. That there’s a correct way to decode a work of art.
2. That a work of art is reducible to its encoded message.

But this way of thinking about art misses the point entirely. If you want to send someone a message, you write a memo. You don’t paint a painting. You paint a painting to structure an experience for the people who will later stand in front of it.

Music is an inherently abstract art form. Music is generally appreciated for its aesthetic merit rather than its meaning.

And I have no problems with that. Art is perfectly valid is its only purpose is to be enjoyed. But to me, Newman’s work is almost as lacking in aesthetic value as it is in meaning.

You could go out and pick up a pebble up off the ground and experience an epiphany while starting at it. But that doesn’t mean there was meaning in that pebble.

[Little_Nemo]

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

[pulykamell]

@Little_Nemo

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

And who is saying that? That’s all in your head.

[WordMan]

@Little_Nemo

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

Who is saying this? Of course you are welcome to not like it, deny its effectiveness on whatever level you please. Jeez, be happy. :rolleyes:

Please acknowledge that other folks feel differently, and that’s allowed, too.

Sheesh.

[pulykamell]

I’m sorry, but this line of discussion positively infuriates me. I have never ever ever in my life looked down on someone because they didn’t “get” Rothko or Pollock or Newman. Who does shit like that? It’s all subjective.

Yet I hear crap like “I can do that” or “my kid can draw that” all the time (mostly on these boards, my friends tend not to be assholes.) Why? I don’t piss all over your tastes and what you like? Why is it so hard to understand that people can enjoy the aesthetic? I love Pollock. I think he is the greatest artist humanity has produced to this day. But that’s my opinion. But he resonates with me. Do you really think all of us are faking it for some unknown reason?

At the end of the day, it’s about beauty to me. And Pollock, Rothko, Newman, Kandinsky, etc., all are beautiful.

[colander]

@Little_Nemo

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

I got no dog in the visual arts fight, but from where I’m standing, the “I like it okay” crowd seems to be doing an awful lot less judging than the “see, I told you modern art is totally stupid” crowd.

Certainly I can’t recall anyone ever having started a thread titled “Everyone Who Doesn’t Appreciate Mondrian: What the Fuck Are You Thinking??” The converse, on the other hand, happens about once every three months.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Little_Nemo

Music is an inherently abstract art form. Music is generally appreciated for its aesthetic merit rather than its meaning.

And I have no problems with that. Art is perfectly valid is its only purpose is to be enjoyed. But to me, Newman’s work is almost as lacking in aesthetic value as it is in meaning.

To you. To others, maybe not, hmmmm?

You could go out and pick up a pebble up off the ground and experience an epiphany while starting at it. But that doesn’t mean there was meaning in that pebble.

Where is the meaning in a Bach cantata? All that’s there is a sequence of sounds.

ALL art takes place inside the viewer’s head. There is no inherent meaning in either a Rembrandt or a Rothko. The only meaning is what we arrive at in the process of looking at it.

[Maeglin]

I don’t quite see why looking for “merit” in art takes on such a life of its own in the first place. It seems that artistic merit is some sort of shorthand: in order for an object to have merit, it must generate a feeling in the beholder that neither he (nor his 5-year old, apparently) could not have done it himself. If this were true, then for an artist with some technical skill, nothing would actually qualify as “merit” anymore. Only someone with a peculiarly cultivated disinterest in art could feel this way.

I am not an artist. I am probably no more knowledgeable about visual arts than any other educated person in my city. But I know there is no fucking way that I, my 3-year old, or any person on the street could get colors and lines to look like real, color field art in a lifetime of trying. I kind of wonder if this way of viewing artistic merit is distinctly American or whether people have this sort of reaction elsewhere in the world.

[Steophan]

@Little_Nemo

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

No-one’s saying that. You are not a philistine because you don’t get it, you are a philistine because you believe that, because you don’t get it, there is nothing to get. If even one person appreciates a piece of art, there is something there to get. You simply can’t claim that people do not in fact have the experiences they think they do when viewing these works.

You are the one displaying the arrogance and judgement that you claim to find offensive in others.

[Steophan]

@Maeglin

I kind of wonder if this way of viewing artistic merit is distinctly American or whether people have this sort of reaction elsewhere in the world.

It’s just as common, and just as annoying, here in the UK.

[Maeglin]

@Steophan

It’s just as common, and just as annoying, here in the UK.

Whew.

I wonder when this way of looking at the visual arts began. There is a strange feedback here with elitism and our strange expectations of artists in general. On one hand, we love to point out when THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES! But on the other, why do we desperately want artists to be emperors in the first place? Why do they have to dazzle us with genius to justify their existence as artists?

Just look at the picture. Wait a few seconds to see if anything happens. If nothing, look at the next one. Read the blurbs every so often, because sometimes knowing things helps to stimulate experience. This does not seem to be very complicated.

[tim314]

@Little_Nemo

To those who are saying we are Philistines who don’t appreciate artists like Newman or Rothko or Pollack because we don’t “get it” you should consider that maybe we are getting it. Maybe our judgement is superior to yours and we’re able to see a lack of artistic merit that you’re missing.

Maybe different people like different things, and that’s ok.

[tim314]

@bump

people say, rightly"their kid could do it", because they probably could.

Just once I’d like to see someone post this great art there kids are supposedly making.

I have two preschool age kids who each bring home a backpack full of their art every day. I haven’t seen a Rothko or a Newman yet.

[SCAdian]

Kindergarten-style art by some guy I never heard of. I’d maybe be willing to pay five bucks for it (a couple dollars more if it had a frame), but I’d have to trim off at least a foot off each side to fit it into my house…

[The_Hamster_King]

@SCAdian

Kindergarten-style art by some guy I never heard of.

I’m sure it’s frustrating to go through like with such high standards.