The point that seems to be missed here is that a work of art should be judged within it's own type. That is, for example, a Jackson Pollack abstract piece cannot be directly compared with a Rembrandt as to it's relative worth. In music, that would be like trying to decide if John Coltrane ( the best improvistional Jazz artist ), was better than Artur Rubenstein ( perhaps the best classical pianist ).
whats curious to me is the fact that most people accept that music can be simple and good, but somehow with visual art, most people think only complicated work is valid. my theory is that most people respond to music, but very few respond to art, therefore have no emotional connection to it.
@victorisincamalot1 how so? both music and visual arts are ultimately subjective, can be created with varying levels of technical skill, and the debate of how relevant sheer technicality weighs in on quality is feverishly alive in both genres. I can't think of any two things in the world that are more intertwined and comparible than music and art. if you think its an irrelevant comparison, then you know absolutely nothing about either, and therefore not qualified to argue about it...
@NotNamedJones I don't know what are you referring to when you write about 'visual arts', but from the interview's context i'm assuming you refer to 'contemporary art'. That being established I disagree with your view. While contemp. visual art revolves around the notion of 'individuality' and ego, music, while doing the same in its own has mathemat. and objective (scientifically studied-verified) roots, unseen in contemporary art. I find your notion of art-music utterly romantic and amateurish.
@NotNamedJones for the sake of my own enlightenment and of our online acquaintances, may you illuminate us with the true unadulterated meaning of your words and expand on it? I shall offer you an apology for my crass mistake.
@Djnti I'm referring to the common understanding that "visual arts" is generally used in reference to inanimate 2d media, ie, drawing and painting, which is the topic here. Sculpture and film are technically visual arts, but they are usually specified as sculpture, or 3d media, or film, for the sake of expediency and clarity. This is something most people who have an understanding of art beyond Boris Vallejo and Bob Ross can usually grasp.
@NotNamedJones On the contrary, complicated work is uninteresting. The fact that contemporary visual arts relies on 'abstract' and downright complicated concepts to validate its existence is what alienates the average consumer from it, trying to disguise complicated as Complex. While 'simple art' and 'Plain Art' are both relatable for obvious different reasons, our response to art is given to the immediacy of its message, and so far, only representational art is successful at accomplishing it.
@Djnti now, you know damn good and well I'm referring to technically complicated work (ie, old master's paintings). trying to twist obvious meanings around makes you look Dorfy dumb. but anyways, have fun being toothless in your molly hatchet hell.
@NotNamedJones And yet what you refer to is still not clear. "my theory is that most people respond to music, but very few respond to art, therefore have no emotional connection to it." The connection is all about the immediacy. Once again, while complex (old masters paintings) message is denotative, complicated (modern art) messages are connotative, requiring further 'explaination' (what you surely call, sensitivity), hence, we 'common' folks cain't relate to.
@Djnti What I'm referring to about music is simply statistical. There is an entire industry for music, and most people will passionately defend or debate what they love or dislike. On the other hand, most people can name a few famous painters, but few can extrapolate beyond knowing Van Gogh or Monet. The average person's understanding of modern art is that "some fraud named Pollock made a a big shit stain on canvas and now that shit is real 'spensive". Their whole perception of art...
@Djnti is of hostility and suspicion, and if you dare to actually look at art, you're label an elitist snob, which you yourself have proven with your boring ad hominems directed at me. Also, your description of contemporary art is embarrassingly inaccurate. Contemporary art is merely the continued exploration of the holistic range of the human experience that modern art set forth, the only real difference being the inclusiveness of non-traditional materials found in the Duchampian tradition.
@Djnti What you're doing ultimately is confusing technique with narrative. the "point" of most contemporary/modern art is usually pretty straightforward. whats "hard" for people to get is how simple or otherwise unorthodox the technique was in creating the work. if it looks "too easy" to make, many people immediately put up a mental firewall and refuse to consider the work of art any further. The average person grades art by whether or not its representational, and the more realistic...
@Djnti ...a work seems, the higher they hold it in regard. But on a technical note, this opens its own can of worms, as their are many ways to create "realistic" work, some being more difficult than others.
i just love how at the end the manupulative way to bring this lie into a truth, man they learned well from the top people, all the evidance that this documenatary brought about and still it wouldnt convince others, but i guess u can make people believe anything. i just feel for the little girl i wish her a good and healthy life.
The idea that you can just become an experimental anything is the fraud. Picasso didn't just go into his blue period...he mastered the basics first. He was a portrait artist to start. James Joyce didn't just produce Ulysess or Finnegan's Wake...first he wrote the Dubliners a non experimental book of short stories. What you have here, in my humble opinion, is a lot of people who think they can just jump into the deep end of the pool without really knowing how to swim.
That's not entirely true. Jackson Pollock was a lousy draftsman, entirely lacking in traditional artistic skill. But, in William Rubin's phrase, he invented the manner in which he was the virtuoso. Picasso, to be sure, was an excellent draftsman; this is why his cubism is more powerful than Braque's. But he did not begin as a portrait artist nor is the blue period particularly experimental. Maybe you should know something before you make confident declarations.
in a nutshell, this video explains what is going on in the art world. nice post. "My Kid Could Paint That" was funny to watch. It captures the parents on the couch revealing that they are lying and they didn't realize it.
The point that seems to be missed here is that a work of art should be judged within it's own type. That is, for example, a Jackson Pollack abstract piece cannot be directly compared with a Rembrandt as to it's relative worth. In music, that would be like trying to decide if John Coltrane ( the best improvistional Jazz artist ), was better than Artur Rubenstein ( perhaps the best classical pianist ).
hermitcrabbot 5 months ago
whats curious to me is the fact that most people accept that music can be simple and good, but somehow with visual art, most people think only complicated work is valid. my theory is that most people respond to music, but very few respond to art, therefore have no emotional connection to it.
NotNamedJones 10 months ago
@NotNamedJones
Whats yout point ?
this is al invalid comparison.
victorisincamalot1 7 months ago
@victorisincamalot1 how so? both music and visual arts are ultimately subjective, can be created with varying levels of technical skill, and the debate of how relevant sheer technicality weighs in on quality is feverishly alive in both genres. I can't think of any two things in the world that are more intertwined and comparible than music and art. if you think its an irrelevant comparison, then you know absolutely nothing about either, and therefore not qualified to argue about it...
NotNamedJones 7 months ago
@NotNamedJones I don't know what are you referring to when you write about 'visual arts', but from the interview's context i'm assuming you refer to 'contemporary art'. That being established I disagree with your view. While contemp. visual art revolves around the notion of 'individuality' and ego, music, while doing the same in its own has mathemat. and objective (scientifically studied-verified) roots, unseen in contemporary art. I find your notion of art-music utterly romantic and amateurish.
Djnti 6 months ago
@Djnti your assumption is incorrect. thats not what I'm talking about at all, so, once again, you have no topics of merit to debate on the subject.
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@NotNamedJones for the sake of my own enlightenment and of our online acquaintances, may you illuminate us with the true unadulterated meaning of your words and expand on it? I shall offer you an apology for my crass mistake.
Djnti 6 months ago
@Djnti I'm referring to the common understanding that "visual arts" is generally used in reference to inanimate 2d media, ie, drawing and painting, which is the topic here. Sculpture and film are technically visual arts, but they are usually specified as sculpture, or 3d media, or film, for the sake of expediency and clarity. This is something most people who have an understanding of art beyond Boris Vallejo and Bob Ross can usually grasp.
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@NotNamedJones On the contrary, complicated work is uninteresting. The fact that contemporary visual arts relies on 'abstract' and downright complicated concepts to validate its existence is what alienates the average consumer from it, trying to disguise complicated as Complex. While 'simple art' and 'Plain Art' are both relatable for obvious different reasons, our response to art is given to the immediacy of its message, and so far, only representational art is successful at accomplishing it.
Djnti 6 months ago
@Djnti now, you know damn good and well I'm referring to technically complicated work (ie, old master's paintings). trying to twist obvious meanings around makes you look Dorfy dumb. but anyways, have fun being toothless in your molly hatchet hell.
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@NotNamedJones And yet what you refer to is still not clear. "my theory is that most people respond to music, but very few respond to art, therefore have no emotional connection to it." The connection is all about the immediacy. Once again, while complex (old masters paintings) message is denotative, complicated (modern art) messages are connotative, requiring further 'explaination' (what you surely call, sensitivity), hence, we 'common' folks cain't relate to.
You have yet a lot to learn, dear.
Djnti 6 months ago
@Djnti What I'm referring to about music is simply statistical. There is an entire industry for music, and most people will passionately defend or debate what they love or dislike. On the other hand, most people can name a few famous painters, but few can extrapolate beyond knowing Van Gogh or Monet. The average person's understanding of modern art is that "some fraud named Pollock made a a big shit stain on canvas and now that shit is real 'spensive". Their whole perception of art...
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@Djnti is of hostility and suspicion, and if you dare to actually look at art, you're label an elitist snob, which you yourself have proven with your boring ad hominems directed at me. Also, your description of contemporary art is embarrassingly inaccurate. Contemporary art is merely the continued exploration of the holistic range of the human experience that modern art set forth, the only real difference being the inclusiveness of non-traditional materials found in the Duchampian tradition.
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@Djnti What you're doing ultimately is confusing technique with narrative. the "point" of most contemporary/modern art is usually pretty straightforward. whats "hard" for people to get is how simple or otherwise unorthodox the technique was in creating the work. if it looks "too easy" to make, many people immediately put up a mental firewall and refuse to consider the work of art any further. The average person grades art by whether or not its representational, and the more realistic...
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
@Djnti ...a work seems, the higher they hold it in regard. But on a technical note, this opens its own can of worms, as their are many ways to create "realistic" work, some being more difficult than others.
NotNamedJones 6 months ago
Michael Kimmelman asshole
himalayan1977 1 year ago
i just love how at the end the manupulative way to bring this lie into a truth, man they learned well from the top people, all the evidance that this documenatary brought about and still it wouldnt convince others, but i guess u can make people believe anything. i just feel for the little girl i wish her a good and healthy life.
usaamerica1 2 years ago
So now we have pretenders to the art world as well as to the fiction world.
I thought TV, music and movies were bad enough.
KatanaGeldar 3 years ago
blah blah blah!
JBalbuze27 3 years ago
The same happens in music,sports
ashonpar3 3 years ago
The idea that you can just become an experimental anything is the fraud. Picasso didn't just go into his blue period...he mastered the basics first. He was a portrait artist to start. James Joyce didn't just produce Ulysess or Finnegan's Wake...first he wrote the Dubliners a non experimental book of short stories. What you have here, in my humble opinion, is a lot of people who think they can just jump into the deep end of the pool without really knowing how to swim.
redmrlove13 3 years ago 3
That's not entirely true. Jackson Pollock was a lousy draftsman, entirely lacking in traditional artistic skill. But, in William Rubin's phrase, he invented the manner in which he was the virtuoso. Picasso, to be sure, was an excellent draftsman; this is why his cubism is more powerful than Braque's. But he did not begin as a portrait artist nor is the blue period particularly experimental. Maybe you should know something before you make confident declarations.
skipper2379 2 years ago 4
in a nutshell, this video explains what is going on in the art world. nice post. "My Kid Could Paint That" was funny to watch. It captures the parents on the couch revealing that they are lying and they didn't realize it.
michaelmajero 3 years ago