these people who defend modern "art" tell us that we are ignorant. we just dont understand it. but they fail to explain the painting they admire so much... they talk a lot of shit to look smart, but in the and they know as we know that is bullshit!
I've had a talent for art and was going to major in art but decided fuck it. I'm not a fan of modern art nor the direction in which art is going. I will keep painting, drawing, sculpting and not care what the art world has to say about it.
You don't have to "get" or understand art to appreciate it or enjoy it. If you think it's so easy, then I challenge you to get your work into a well known museum like this. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Simple.
Crap is often justified as being "profound" and full of "feeling" and artistic expression and so on. No matter how many fancy jargons we use.......it is plain lack of talent that is exhibited here.
it's a lot easier to pass judgement than it is to make something that you feel is important. it's interesting how quick we are to accuse work we don't understand as "bad." its important to the person who made it, that's all that should matter.
I completely agree with you, nine9s. Postmodern "art" is absolute bullshit if this standard is anything to go by. Must take real talent and effort to put a black rectangle on the wall. And you know what I think of people who actually pay to see this crap? That they must stand and stare in awe at everything they see. "Oh but it's about how I as an individual see it, look at me, I am so MODERN and LIBERAL." What the fuck. I thought we were rewarded for hard work, not taking a shit on a canvas.
Even though it looks like a jumble of childish drool, it encourages the viewer to come close and ask themselves, "why is this so important?" Likely, it is not important at all. But the point is that it encourages people to engage the work with both brains: their conscious mind, and their sub-conscious one. It has less to do with what you see, than the processes that follow.
what is with the green squares. seriously. I wonder what the explanation for the piece is. the one at the end was kind of cool though. I like outer space stuff (I'm not sure if that's what it's supposed to be but whatev)
What r u so afraid of nine9s? Sometimes art does not relate to the world in a representational style. Sometimes artworks are just made out of sheer joy of the action undertaken. The joy and sensitivity of other human beings(artists or public) is not yours to judge, unless u r in for some terrible Tiranny of Mind. Overcome ur fears and u will find peace with the world. mayb even the
Yes, I do expect from art something more than what I can hear randomly. Birds are nice, and listening to the ocean is nice, but they have far less to offer than good art does. Putting random shapes and colors on a canvas and calling it art makes a mockery of the whole endeavor of art.
And I have to wonder about a person who gets a thrill out of three framed green squares. I don't think anyone can honestly see any value in that.
@nine9s I can't see any randomness at all. *rollsEyes*. It's how you configure space, format; how you compose an image. Ive seen amazing paintings of triangles with 2 colors. It's how you use color(the specific green you use) and how much space in that format is occupying. etc. It's a very very subtle thing.
I must ask you at this point what you believe any of the artists you have named might think of the several Morris Louis pieces you've denigrated in the above video? Or for that matter what they each might tell you they feel about someone like Jackson Pollock's work. Also, have you noted the abstract characteristics immediately obvious and essential in Larsen or Sander's compositions?
"I must ask you at this point what you believe any of the artists you have named might think of the several Morris Louis pieces you've denigrated in the above video?"
I have no idea, and it doesn't matter what they'd think of it anyway. I'd imagine and hope that they'd have contempt for it. And I'd love for you to point out any abstract aspects of Sanders or Larsen's work.
Imagination and hope. Yes! Take a look at Serenity, what are those ladies reclining on? (An abstract form) What is that in the background? (Many more abstract shapes) What is it that any human form is made up of? (Many abstract forms). Larsen's "Deliberation" is another great example. Look at the column behind the figure, the plane she rests herself on and the amorphous form behind it all. These are the essential abstract aspects I feel are of note.
None of those things you mention are "abstract." Everything in "Deliberation" and "Serenity" is a representation of something concrete; it's not just a bunch of shapes and splatters signifying nothing.
Art is not a matter of putting random crap down on a canvas. Art has to mean something, signify something, communicate something. Random shapes and splotches do none of that.
There is far more happening at and beneath the surface of any painting nine9s. Far more than our limited human perceptions may initially reveal. That's why art historians use xray technology for example to peer beneath the veil when seeking to learn more about a painting's history. I beg to disagree, each of those things I mentioned are indeed abstract characteristis. The column is one of the most abstract forms in art history. "Deliberation's" simplification of it has only made it more so.
You are an ignorant fool stay out of the Hirshhorn its not for you...Art doesn't HAVE to do anything, its people like you that ruin modern art for people. You are uneducated on what are is "SUPPOSED TO DO" so therefore any opinion you have comes off as stupid. Those Morris Lousi pieces are jubilant expressive works, but you missed it because you were to busy looking for a "message" to allow the work to affect you on a primal level. You are just awful.
@chandru1103 You are awful. This lady is honest and she is right. If you want to waste your time look at pretentious nonsense, Go ahead, i won't waste my time. Be fucking honest for Christ Sake. Like Nietzsche said, when religion dies, art replaces religion. Modern art is the new religion.
@nine9s maybe those shapes and splatters signified something to the person doing it. Why did they do it? What was the emotion behind it, the purpose? And why does it have to mean something? Art can have "no meaning" but even that is a meaning. Instead of rendering what they saw as "reality," artists began to turn art into a vehicle of their emotions (pollock). Art BECAME the experience. Art started to reflect the actual process. To me, that communicates a great deal.
and who cares abot abstract things in existence in nature not everything in this world is rooted in the concrete and the palpable to expect artists to reflect only a minor portion of reality by painting like Rembrandt is one sided and very YOU.
I fear that you are right. That everyone is quick to dismiss a thing b/c its meaning doesn't jump out and punch you or that it's not flashy enough. It's ok not to be moved, but why are people so quick to believe it's a hoax? Are we that suspicious? It's actually probably the thing you don't suspect as being insincere that is done ironically. AbEx people took risks to do what they did and saw their work as an earnest effort to reach the sublime through distilling painting down to its essentials.
LOL I know *exactly* how you feel! The first time I went to a modern art exhibit, and with very few exceptions, it's all a heap of shit not worth the materials they're made out of.
I don't really know what it really is you consider "crap" (abstract expressionism? dada? all art found in modern art museums?)
Well, I wasn't expecting any answer from you; I am no expert, just a poor amateur, but..
I'm not quite sure what I referred to with "contemporary theories", heh. One less contemporary philosopher whose aesthetics has, I believe, been influential is Schopenhauer.
"I don't really know what it really is you consider "crap" (abstract expressionism? dada? all art found in modern art museums?)"
Crap: abstract expressionism and anything whose only claim to being art is that someone has labeled it as such. Dada is like the cheap jabs of a college newspaper cartoon: crappy and juvenile, but still art. Not everything in a modern art museum sucks; note the reflecting light/metal circle thing at the end of this video.
Well, certainly, if one takes as aesthetic standards e.g. the skill expressed, classical standards of beauty etc. From these points of view I understand you.
I personally, though, view art differently: as play of signs - providing a rich variety of associations and mental images for the 'receiver'; as an explorable space to 'be lost into'.
What exactly makes this "crap". Why is it an opinion shared by (it appears to be) you objectivists? It can't be grounded in something as ambiguous as 'taste' (there can't be 'objectivist taste' or 'communist taste').
"It can't be grounded in something as ambiguous as 'taste'..."
Good point--it isn't just about taste. A created object isn't art just because someone proclaims it to be so. What makes it crap is that it lacks anything that could rightfully make it art. It has no purpose, conveys no meaning, signifies nothing, and any fool could produce it. If this stuff is art, then so is a pile of dirty laundry, a wad of chewed gum, or a squashed bug.
(cont.) In other words, if this stuff is art, then art has no identity; the word ceases to mean anything. This stuff is B.S. posing as art. And I think most people agree with me on this; it's just that people are intellectually intimidated by those who unabashedly assert that this is "art". And Objectivists aren't easily intimidated. :)
Well, I believe there is a philosophical/political disagreement here and we think about art in different frameworks; I won't say anything about contemporary theories on art, language, representation etc. because you would simply ignore them.
Schopenhauer saw art as the only means to escaping the power of "the Will" or of life-preserving desires by providing with the possibility to experiencing pure representation or mental imagery. His aesthetics was thus non-realistic and wasn't concerned with the qualities (normative) of art. "Art for art's sake" is a Schopenhauerian idea.
When it comes to actual theories, my mind goes blank here (a bit embarrasing). But if you want to try to understand, consider all you know about Nietzsche, Heidegger and the more contemporary continentals. They probably don't make any sense to you, though.
I love Nietzsche, actually. And Schopenhauer lived in the early 1800's, which was before art began to take its nosedive. (I love French painting from about 1800-1850, right before impressionism began to take hold). I don't know much about Schopenhauer's art theory, though.
:) Another question... how many hours of thought have *other* people spent on those green squares? "Oh yes, the symbiotic relationship of the three tends to manifest in solitary identicality."
Well, if I were a green square id be jealous at all the attention this particular green square is getting. I have perfectly good sqares arround my house that deserve just as much, and maybe even more attention than this square is getting.
"In art, and in literature, the end and the means, or the subject and the style, must be worthy of each other. That which is not worth contemplating in life is not worth re-creating in art."
lady, you've entered a modern art museum. God forbid if you paid to enter it's worse. Now you must repay your sin.
lysol5555 9 months ago
1.25 hey isnt that the flag of romania just backwards?
Serpico261 9 months ago
these people who defend modern "art" tell us that we are ignorant. we just dont understand it. but they fail to explain the painting they admire so much... they talk a lot of shit to look smart, but in the and they know as we know that is bullshit!
jeermarff 10 months ago
Art should be aesthetically pleasing rather than purely ideological.
electricalbananaa 11 months ago
I've had a talent for art and was going to major in art but decided fuck it. I'm not a fan of modern art nor the direction in which art is going. I will keep painting, drawing, sculpting and not care what the art world has to say about it.
electricalbananaa 11 months ago
I love Morris Louis
xeal1387 11 months ago
You don't have to "get" or understand art to appreciate it or enjoy it. If you think it's so easy, then I challenge you to get your work into a well known museum like this. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Simple.
flaggot1 1 year ago
Crap is often justified as being "profound" and full of "feeling" and artistic expression and so on. No matter how many fancy jargons we use.......it is plain lack of talent that is exhibited here.
v21anand 1 year ago
it's a lot easier to pass judgement than it is to make something that you feel is important. it's interesting how quick we are to accuse work we don't understand as "bad." its important to the person who made it, that's all that should matter.
miacase1 1 year ago
I completely agree with you, nine9s. Postmodern "art" is absolute bullshit if this standard is anything to go by. Must take real talent and effort to put a black rectangle on the wall. And you know what I think of people who actually pay to see this crap? That they must stand and stare in awe at everything they see. "Oh but it's about how I as an individual see it, look at me, I am so MODERN and LIBERAL." What the fuck. I thought we were rewarded for hard work, not taking a shit on a canvas.
sephylafudge 1 year ago
Even though it looks like a jumble of childish drool, it encourages the viewer to come close and ask themselves, "why is this so important?" Likely, it is not important at all. But the point is that it encourages people to engage the work with both brains: their conscious mind, and their sub-conscious one. It has less to do with what you see, than the processes that follow.
adognamedsally 1 year ago
Lol, another product of the American education system.
ArchhereticK 2 years ago 2
what is with the green squares. seriously. I wonder what the explanation for the piece is. the one at the end was kind of cool though. I like outer space stuff (I'm not sure if that's what it's supposed to be but whatev)
talya0724 2 years ago
theorist please.
ZiggybabyZ 2 years ago
and now ladies & gentleman, the reason why art sucks so much these days...
give me van gogh, soutine, rembrandt, chuck close, even pollock over that boring garbage that only tells me we live in the era of ego & lazyness!
(the one at the end with lights, was less sucky but nothing special as well)
trinitaterion 2 years ago
What r u so afraid of nine9s? Sometimes art does not relate to the world in a representational style. Sometimes artworks are just made out of sheer joy of the action undertaken. The joy and sensitivity of other human beings(artists or public) is not yours to judge, unless u r in for some terrible Tiranny of Mind. Overcome ur fears and u will find peace with the world. mayb even the
Artworld ;)
cybeavertoo 3 years ago 2
Yes, I do expect from art something more than what I can hear randomly. Birds are nice, and listening to the ocean is nice, but they have far less to offer than good art does. Putting random shapes and colors on a canvas and calling it art makes a mockery of the whole endeavor of art.
And I have to wonder about a person who gets a thrill out of three framed green squares. I don't think anyone can honestly see any value in that.
nine9s 3 years ago
@nine9s I can't see any randomness at all. *rollsEyes*. It's how you configure space, format; how you compose an image. Ive seen amazing paintings of triangles with 2 colors. It's how you use color(the specific green you use) and how much space in that format is occupying. etc. It's a very very subtle thing.
RAGdollROBOT1 2 months ago
Oh... and thanks for sharing your favs !! :-)
jspen2 3 years ago
Hi nine9s could you show us an example of Art you appreciate?
jspen2 3 years ago
"Hi nine9s could you show us an example of Art you appreciate?"
A short list of artists:
Peeter Neefs the Elder, "Interior of Antwerp Cathedral,"
Willem Claesz Heda's still lifes,
Horace Vernet, "Invalid Handing a Petition...", "Hunting in the Pontine Marshes,"
Pietro Magni, "Reading Girl,"
Bryan Larsen, just about everything he's done,
Ron Sanders, "Serenity,"
Tom Sierak, "Glass Cat"
nine9s 3 years ago
I must ask you at this point what you believe any of the artists you have named might think of the several Morris Louis pieces you've denigrated in the above video? Or for that matter what they each might tell you they feel about someone like Jackson Pollock's work. Also, have you noted the abstract characteristics immediately obvious and essential in Larsen or Sander's compositions?
jspen2 3 years ago
"I must ask you at this point what you believe any of the artists you have named might think of the several Morris Louis pieces you've denigrated in the above video?"
I have no idea, and it doesn't matter what they'd think of it anyway. I'd imagine and hope that they'd have contempt for it. And I'd love for you to point out any abstract aspects of Sanders or Larsen's work.
nine9s 3 years ago
Imagination and hope. Yes! Take a look at Serenity, what are those ladies reclining on? (An abstract form) What is that in the background? (Many more abstract shapes) What is it that any human form is made up of? (Many abstract forms). Larsen's "Deliberation" is another great example. Look at the column behind the figure, the plane she rests herself on and the amorphous form behind it all. These are the essential abstract aspects I feel are of note.
jspen2 3 years ago
None of those things you mention are "abstract." Everything in "Deliberation" and "Serenity" is a representation of something concrete; it's not just a bunch of shapes and splatters signifying nothing.
Art is not a matter of putting random crap down on a canvas. Art has to mean something, signify something, communicate something. Random shapes and splotches do none of that.
nine9s 3 years ago
There is far more happening at and beneath the surface of any painting nine9s. Far more than our limited human perceptions may initially reveal. That's why art historians use xray technology for example to peer beneath the veil when seeking to learn more about a painting's history. I beg to disagree, each of those things I mentioned are indeed abstract characteristis. The column is one of the most abstract forms in art history. "Deliberation's" simplification of it has only made it more so.
jspen2 3 years ago
You are an ignorant fool stay out of the Hirshhorn its not for you...Art doesn't HAVE to do anything, its people like you that ruin modern art for people. You are uneducated on what are is "SUPPOSED TO DO" so therefore any opinion you have comes off as stupid. Those Morris Lousi pieces are jubilant expressive works, but you missed it because you were to busy looking for a "message" to allow the work to affect you on a primal level. You are just awful.
chandru1103 2 years ago 2
@chandru1103 You are awful. This lady is honest and she is right. If you want to waste your time look at pretentious nonsense, Go ahead, i won't waste my time. Be fucking honest for Christ Sake. Like Nietzsche said, when religion dies, art replaces religion. Modern art is the new religion.
lysol5555 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lysol5555 "Modern art is the new religion" you mean modern art is bullshit?
i think you have to bring faith to see a meaning in modern art like presented in the video
Serpico261 3 months ago
@chandru1103 brilliant attack you pretentious douchebag.
quadristan 1 month ago
@nine9s maybe those shapes and splatters signified something to the person doing it. Why did they do it? What was the emotion behind it, the purpose? And why does it have to mean something? Art can have "no meaning" but even that is a meaning. Instead of rendering what they saw as "reality," artists began to turn art into a vehicle of their emotions (pollock). Art BECAME the experience. Art started to reflect the actual process. To me, that communicates a great deal.
cyber0punk 1 year ago
and who cares abot abstract things in existence in nature not everything in this world is rooted in the concrete and the palpable to expect artists to reflect only a minor portion of reality by painting like Rembrandt is one sided and very YOU.
chandru1103 2 years ago
technically this is classifies as modern art, not post. //j
slaytonj5 3 years ago
this exhibit was amazing I recommend all to go and see it
antisocialiting 3 years ago
I fear that you are right. That everyone is quick to dismiss a thing b/c its meaning doesn't jump out and punch you or that it's not flashy enough. It's ok not to be moved, but why are people so quick to believe it's a hoax? Are we that suspicious? It's actually probably the thing you don't suspect as being insincere that is done ironically. AbEx people took risks to do what they did and saw their work as an earnest effort to reach the sublime through distilling painting down to its essentials.
Hunomad 3 years ago
LOL I know *exactly* how you feel! The first time I went to a modern art exhibit, and with very few exceptions, it's all a heap of shit not worth the materials they're made out of.
nosavage25 3 years ago
I don't really know what it really is you consider "crap" (abstract expressionism? dada? all art found in modern art museums?)
Well, I wasn't expecting any answer from you; I am no expert, just a poor amateur, but..
I'm not quite sure what I referred to with "contemporary theories", heh. One less contemporary philosopher whose aesthetics has, I believe, been influential is Schopenhauer.
matowana 4 years ago
"I don't really know what it really is you consider "crap" (abstract expressionism? dada? all art found in modern art museums?)"
Crap: abstract expressionism and anything whose only claim to being art is that someone has labeled it as such. Dada is like the cheap jabs of a college newspaper cartoon: crappy and juvenile, but still art. Not everything in a modern art museum sucks; note the reflecting light/metal circle thing at the end of this video.
nine9s 4 years ago
Well, certainly, if one takes as aesthetic standards e.g. the skill expressed, classical standards of beauty etc. From these points of view I understand you.
I personally, though, view art differently: as play of signs - providing a rich variety of associations and mental images for the 'receiver'; as an explorable space to 'be lost into'.
matowana 4 years ago
See, that's where you lose me. What does all that mean? Can't this "exploration" be done with anything and everything we encounter?
nine9s 4 years ago
Certainly, but in art it is possible to juxtapose, create new combinations
matowana 4 years ago
What exactly makes this "crap". Why is it an opinion shared by (it appears to be) you objectivists? It can't be grounded in something as ambiguous as 'taste' (there can't be 'objectivist taste' or 'communist taste').
matowana 4 years ago
"It can't be grounded in something as ambiguous as 'taste'..."
Good point--it isn't just about taste. A created object isn't art just because someone proclaims it to be so. What makes it crap is that it lacks anything that could rightfully make it art. It has no purpose, conveys no meaning, signifies nothing, and any fool could produce it. If this stuff is art, then so is a pile of dirty laundry, a wad of chewed gum, or a squashed bug.
nine9s 4 years ago
(cont.) In other words, if this stuff is art, then art has no identity; the word ceases to mean anything. This stuff is B.S. posing as art. And I think most people agree with me on this; it's just that people are intellectually intimidated by those who unabashedly assert that this is "art". And Objectivists aren't easily intimidated. :)
nine9s 4 years ago
Well, I believe there is a philosophical/political disagreement here and we think about art in different frameworks; I won't say anything about contemporary theories on art, language, representation etc. because you would simply ignore them.
matowana 4 years ago
I'll listen to anything that makes sense. Give it a 500-character try.
nine9s 4 years ago
Schopenhauer saw art as the only means to escaping the power of "the Will" or of life-preserving desires by providing with the possibility to experiencing pure representation or mental imagery. His aesthetics was thus non-realistic and wasn't concerned with the qualities (normative) of art. "Art for art's sake" is a Schopenhauerian idea.
matowana 4 years ago
When it comes to actual theories, my mind goes blank here (a bit embarrasing). But if you want to try to understand, consider all you know about Nietzsche, Heidegger and the more contemporary continentals. They probably don't make any sense to you, though.
matowana 4 years ago
I love Nietzsche, actually. And Schopenhauer lived in the early 1800's, which was before art began to take its nosedive. (I love French painting from about 1800-1850, right before impressionism began to take hold). I don't know much about Schopenhauer's art theory, though.
nine9s 4 years ago
Wow, that's horrible.
PursuitOfReality 4 years ago
Who decides that this crap is art?
XOmniverse 4 years ago 2
How many hours of thought did they put into those green squares?
WarVideo 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
:) Another question... how many hours of thought have *other* people spent on those green squares? "Oh yes, the symbiotic relationship of the three tends to manifest in solitary identicality."
nine9s 4 years ago
Well, if I were a green square id be jealous at all the attention this particular green square is getting. I have perfectly good sqares arround my house that deserve just as much, and maybe even more attention than this square is getting.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Hours? I think it would be better to measure it in much smaller units. Say, miliseconds!
marneedear 4 years ago
"In art, and in literature, the end and the means, or the subject and the style, must be worthy of each other. That which is not worth contemplating in life is not worth re-creating in art."
(AynRand\TheRomanticManifesto)
AynRandOeuvre 4 years ago 4
How did I know the Oeuvre was going to chime in on this one? ;-)
qtronman 4 years ago 2
Heh.
marneedear 4 years ago