Do you understand this art

I can't say that I can see the value in this art, although I love some of Kandinsky's more geometric work. The important thing about art, which is often ignored, is that the point of art is to creative an emotive response. It's sufficiently interesting for you to want to talk about it whether you like it or not, which means that it's serving its purpose. Also, I don't think artists tend to paint for their audiences; they paint for themselves.
 
It is personal preference, as I have already said.

For me works such as The Sistene Chapel, The Dali museum in Florida, some of the absolutely amazing tattoos that some people have, the contents of the Giger portfolio.

So on and so forth. All art created by people with skill and vision. Whilst I agree that it is very much a case of to each their own, I think a line has to be drawn between art such as the above, and those in the OP where a person has just made a mess on a canvass then created a story as to what it means so that gullible people who deep down think this is all bs but I need to fit in with the crowd can say aloud "wow what a visionary".

Just my opinion, like :)
 
dirtychinchilla said:
It's sufficiently interesting for you to want to talk about it whether you like it or not, which means that it's serving its purpose.
Click to expand...

It's not the "piece" itself which is interesting though, it's the fact someone has labelled it as art.

I could do a massive dump in the middle of the office floor and say it was art. I can guarantee you people would be talking about it - would that make it art?

BuffetSlayer said:
art created by people with skill and vision.
Click to expand...

I think this is key - I just don't see any skill or vision having gone into what essentially looks like a sheet of paper that's been used for mixing colours.
 
So let me get this straight.. According to BufferSlayer and Haggisman, works that belong to the Modern and Postmodern art movements are not actually art, they are massive dumps taken in the middle of the office which randomly became popular and valueble.

This, in example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_...wman-Who's_Afraid_of_Red,_Yellow_and_Blue.jpg

...is just 2 random lines on a red backround, correct? No skill, no vision.
 
Zethor said:
Art is an abstract representation that causes a burst of emotions while flappy bird is a popular meme so your comparison is quite poor. It's not about rich people with too much money either (hint: even if those rich people don't understand some pieces of art, they didn't get rich by spending money on trash).

These paintings may not have an emotional effect on you but they do on many other people. Add the fact that the author is dead which means his unique style is lost forever and you get to those prices.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean though, art is basically whatever people decide to call art. Even the **** stuff shown in the OP. If people like it, then they can call it art, and if enough of them do, then it acquires a higher value.

I'm not saying that flappy bird is art, but it's just a comparison of how something that's of low technical quality/complexity/skill can become popular because people like/enjoy it, or as you said, causes a burst of emotion.
 
Zethor said:
So let me get this straight.. According to BufferSlayer and Haggisman, works that belong to the Modern and Postmodern art movements are not actually art, they are massive dumps taken in the middle of the office which randomly became popular and valueble.

This, in example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_...wman-Who's_Afraid_of_Red,_Yellow_and_Blue.jpg

...is just 2 random lines on a red backround, correct? No skill, no vision.
Click to expand...

Basically. Yes. What does it do/say? What message does it convey? What emotion does it make you feel? Is it interesting to look at? Did it take any skill to do? Is it something "unique" that nobody else could do?

In my opinion: the answer to all of those questions is nothing/no
 
DAnDan said:
I'm not saying that flappy bird is art, but it's just a comparison of how something that's of low technical quality/complexity/skill can become popular because people like/enjoy it, or as you said, causes a burst of emotion.
Click to expand...

What makes you think those 3 pictures in the OP have a low technical quality/complexity/skill? Did you consider the possibility that you are unable to appreciate the quality, complexity and the skill involved and in creating them? Did you consider there are millions of modern/postmodern works of art yet only a handful have a value that exceeds $20m?
 
Some of these pieces need to be seen to be fully appreciated. I think that goes for a lot of art, even pieces by artists who are universally admired. Even so, art is subjective. We don't all like the same music so why do we expect to all like the same art?

The money that these paintings go for is silly though. Some people are genuine collectors, others just see art by famous painters as a status symbol.
 
I think the world would be a much better place if instead of people spending millions on pieces of art, they donated those millions to charity. The art could then be placed in museums for all to see for free, minus a small admittance fee.
 
Sliver said:
I think the world would be a much better place if instead of people spending millions on pieces of art, they donated those millions to charity. The art could then be placed in museums for all to see for free, minus a small admittance fee.
Click to expand...

What, so those profiteering museum curator *******s can enjoy their yachts and Monte Carlo penthouses?? No thanks, pal! :mad:
 
Theophany said:
What, so those profiteering museum curator *******s can enjoy their yachts and Monte Carlo penthouses?? No thanks, pal! :mad:
Click to expand...

lol. I'm pretty sure that being a museum curator does not equate to an opulent bank balance. Museums aren't there to make a profit, they're there to educate and house collections for the enjoyment of the public.
 
Zethor said:
What makes you think those 3 pictures in the OP have a low technical quality/complexity/skill? Did you consider the possibility that you are unable to appreciate the quality, complexity and the skill involved and in creating them? Did you consider there are millions of modern/postmodern works of art yet only a handful have a value that exceeds $20m?
Click to expand...

Would the pieces in the op have sold for anywhere near what they did if they were by a generic artist? Surely if they were truly as amazing as you're making out then yes, but really, I doubt it. I'm not disputing that some of the artist's other work is really good, I've had a look and really like some of his other pieces, but I reckon those in the op wouldn't have anywhere near the "recognition" they have without that artist's name on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom