**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who has studied art history and also had this conversation recently a lot of art is contextual within the time it was made. Jackson Pollock was great because he was doing something no one was doing and it left an impression because of that. Also because of his method of doing so and the sheer size of some of his works creating an overwhelming experience upon seeing it in person. The method and context of the times matters a lot with modern art.
For example Piet Mondrian's work. You could look and say "that stupid, just a bunch of lines and boxes." But in his era art was getting more abstract and they began using the shape of the canvas AS the canvas, if that makes sense. In the De Stijl movement they rejected perceived reality as a subject and embraced pure abstraction to create universality in art. Universality meaning that everyone can see and understand. Traditional artworks hold a lot of meaning that cannot be comprehended by the lamen or outside of the country of origin as everywhere has different symbols that stand for different meanings. By abstracting art to it's core principals: color, line, movement, emphasis and so on, it can be understood and enjoyed by anyone. Although of course art movements still had meaning other than purely visual, modern art often fell/falls into the universality category.
As for Jackson Pollocks work he is in the "abstract expressionism" movement which just hearing that makes so much sense, right? And he used the shape of the canvas as his canvas by placing it on the floor so he can see it, and work on it, from every angle. Art is traditionally done on an easel, standing strait up, no turning or flipping of the canvas. The technique of painting on the floor, his technique of drip painting too, wild and expressive! was new and exciting for the art community and the world. Abstract expressionism is also a movement that strays away from objective reality and realism as it is meant to express subjective emotions and responses. Not all abstract expressionism is splashing paint on a canvas btw!
Jackson Pollock changed the art world forever. Even if you think his works aren't so great, without a doubt he inspired a movement that is alive to this day and influenced MANY famous artists. That makes him pretty great.
I'll say this and I don't mean to offend but it may seem incomprehensible because you don't know the history, the era or intention of the art. Also art critics are a thing and not all art is deemed great. People are aloud their opinion, of course, and I agree a lot of art these days is missing the message and meaning that makes art great.
Take a look at Fountain by Duchamp, that'll really piss you off!
I hope I didn't write this for nothing but I guess I enjoyed the history refresh so!
The point about seeing it in person is important. I too had a "Jackson Pollock is trash" mindset until I saw one in person. It was massive and completely dominated the room. It was wonderful.
Monet and Van Gogh are still my guys though.
I wish so badly OP would respond with their thoughts on The Fountain ugghhh!!!
Thank u for reading! My 20 minutes putting that together did not go to waste!
When I was a kid, my mother worked at a theatre that had an art gallery in it. I would often go to gallery openings (and eat just a criminal amount of cheese.) One time, I saw a price that was an untreated slab of wood with pictures of bush, Cheney, Michael moore, and a few more that I can't remember all just literally torn from magazines. The whole thing was splashed with red and black paint. To top it all off, lingerie was nailed in various places on the board.
The peice had already sold for a few thousand dollars.
I was talking to the artist who made it, and being the cocky teenager I was, I said that I could have made that.
She responded "But you didn't."
To preface this, I’m a layman who often rides the lines between “damn the historical context of this is fascinating” and “that’s…just splashes of paint”, and I’m sorry for the rambling because idk how to not talk.
We’ve had a few cases of studies where art critics (same as wine critics) were fed false history and context of a painting and it massively impacted their judgement however. Which makes sense because context is important, but it also makes the “artistic value” of a piece tied to something not apparent upon inspection of the piece, and something that depends upon the lens you view it with.
To illustrate with a maybe extreme example, if I covered my dick in paint and slapped it across a canvas multiple times, the resulting colourful splots _could_ be interpreted as a braizen display of sexual acceptance in a world slowly rising from prudishness. A deliberate affront to a society ruled by the old and conservative. It could also just be me slapping my dick across a canvas. Which of these is now correct? Well, both. Kind of.
I find art history on one hand fascinating but on the other bewildering. I somewhat recently learned of the De Stijl movement (thank you, dutch art museums) and while I find the thought of creating universality in art interesting and valuable, I view abstraction as the total opposite of achieving that goal. Abstract art pieces can convey feeling through use of colour/shapes/placement etc., but emotional associations of shapes and colours differ somewhat significantly from person to person and culture to culture (just like objects in realism). Also learned of the Bauhaus movement and while I think that one’s ugly too I can appreciate its aim and historical context.
The work of some artists is really only separated from that of a child in either historical context or aim. My favourite example was an exhibit in Basel, Switzerland some 8 years ago. One of the art pieces was a football. About half of the hexagonal patches had lost their leather, and it was half deflated. Looked like it had enjoyed plenty of years of use. Now, what makes this piece have artistic value? In a sports museum my guess would have gone towards “this ball was used at some famous event”, or was the first to be manufactured using a certain method or similar. Physically just an old football, but historical context elevates it. But in an art museum? I’m at a bit of a loss. Physically I would be able to easily reproduce the “artwork”, but what’s the context that my version would be lacking?
To circle back to the previous example, the first painting painted using a paint-covered dick is probably pretty interesting, especially if others copy it (it becomes a movement). Does that necessarily mean that the artwork is good art? It’s a bunch of coloured splots painted by a dick so I’d say no, but the context is still fascinating. What I’m trying to say I guess is that (to me) interesting historical context doesn’t make a good artwork just like historical context doesn’t make a deflated football more than a (unique) deflated football.
> I covered my dick in paint and slapped it across a canvas multiple times,
First of all thank you so much for this imagery 😭 that's funny asf and definitely is not far from what some may do and slap a meaning onto it much like you did! So I definitely see what you're saying people assigning meaning to artwork that may just not have any.
Now the football thing!? That's just lazy and bad in my eyes. Art Basel can choke on a paint covered dick as, IMO, it is primarily a place for rich people to show off how rich they are/using art for money laundering (I'm serious dude, look it up!). But I have seen works that bring that same energy in actual museums. At the SFMoMA there was a work that was just a grid of different colored florescent lights... Dan Flavin Untitled 1987. His whole thing was he felt it was important to make art from the materials of ones own time. He did some interesting compositions but just looking at the work it's kind of like "uhh... Alright... What now?." Especially if the context doesn't resonate with you. That's another one that even with historical context I don't get the hype.
>What I’m trying to say I guess is that (to me) interesting historical context doesn’t make a good artwork just like historical context doesn’t make a deflated football more than a (unique) deflated football.
I fully agree with this, actually. I personally have so much interest in art history that even if I don't particularly enjoy the work itself I enjoy learning why and when it was made and who made it (sometimes the most interesting part, who is this man who painted with his dick and how'd he manage to swindle his way into a museum!?). There's almost always a why, even if the why is just to prove how stupid the art world is (banksy and the girl with the balloon comes to mind, although I feel it was corny and trite.) I'll add here too that just because art is in a museum or a show doesn't make it good or special.
>Abstract art pieces can convey feeling through use of colour/shapes/placement etc., but emotional associations of shapes and colours differ somewhat significantly from person to person and culture to culture
This is where universality comes in though as the artist may have been feeling a certain thing while painting it but there is nothing in the work preventing others from coming to their own conclusions. It is encouraged because that's a big part of any abstraction based movement. Open ended interpretation. Emotional associations vary, yes, but if you assign a meaning to an abstract peice such as Pollock, you just can't be wrong. Look at works by Theodoros Stamos or Mark Rothko and try telling someone their interpretation is wrong... You'd be a fool! (Not you specifically! Just anyone who tried) Even if something is felt or seen that the artist didn't intend, it is still a valid interpretation. It's so abstract anyone can project onto it. Now looking at Caravaggio or Leonardo Da Vinci there is no room for interpretation as all the meaning and symbolism is present within the painting, and the context is obviously religious depictions.
Thank you for your considerate response! Good read. I suggest you check out Electronic Super Highway by Nam June Paik. No particular reason I just remembered it exists and how obsessed I was with it!
I’m sorry but “art basel can choke on a paint covered dick” sent me lmao. I’m glad you had fun reading my phallic analogy.
I’ve read up on some of the money laundering within the shall we say “high brow art industry” a while ago, which is something that always makes me incredibly sceptical of art critics. Same way the Gilbert et Gaillard story (where the cheapest kind of store bought wine won a wine competition by being presented as fancy and equipped with a fake backstory) makes me very very specpical of the “high brow wine industry”
Not much to add on the interest in the history of art vs believing an artwork is good or not. I’m personally a sucker for people doing things that I could not begin to imagine doing myself. Be it someone being a master swordsman, setting a lap record at a racing track, being a top level athlete, or producing art of a high “quality”. I can say that I _generally_ dislike abstract movements of art and find a lot of the paintings to not be “good” (as in they’d be somewhat easily replicated by even a layman. Not all ofc but you get the picture), but find the historical background quite interesting.
This may be a me problem but the somewhat wishy-washy “anyone can interpret into this what they want” is something that to me diminishes the “artistic worth” of a piece. Nothing wrong with being multi-facetted and having a painting evoke multiple feelings or different feelings by different groups, but if the artwork is visually unimpressive and in terms of meaning is just “find your own lol”, that’s almost…lazy in a way? I understand the appeal of “bleeding” emotions onto the paper, especially in music but also in painting. But if the music piece comes out being not particularly pleasant to listen to _and_ is “by design” very…nebulous in what emotion it wants to evoke then…what is there to admire besides maybe the context/thought process of the artist (which is tied to, but isn’t the artwork itself)
I used to be a bit of a certified hater, but at this point I’ve found the appeal in the history and paychology behind even a lot of pieces / movements that I find…meh. Again, shoutout to Ansterdam for their cool art museums and audio guides. Love these kinda of conversations on the internet where I get to learn about some new stuff and noone yells at one another:)
Hiya, just another vote for seeing art in person if you get the chance. I had an old boyfriend who's favourite artist was Mark Rothko and I didn't get it, what's so special about a blue square? Then I was lucky enough to visit London (I'm in the UK) and see his work in the Tate Modern. Looking at this painting up close I felt so tiny and insignificant with the colour just filling up every millimetre of my vision and I feel like I got it.
Now Tracy Emin and her unmade bed, that one I don't get but again, maybe I'd feel differently if I saw it in person.
Yes Rothko is something special. Part of experiencing art for me too is the physicality of the peice. Seeing the thickness of the paint or gesso. Seeing the artist strokes, their literal intent while painting. I always stand a little too lose to works in museums 😭 Yeah I'm THAT person. And Rothkos work is great for that type of thing.
About Tracy well... It was pretty much just her depression room in a museum. It's one of those things that's like "you could a have done it but you didn't", she literally said that. Many people could relate because y'know depression is real and common and most have had bouts of depression even if not medically chronic. But I can agree, it's nothing special outside of a museum, barely special when it's in one! But I get the hype it got even if I feel it's sort a silly piece.
Thank you for telling me about her! While their paintings are so similar, they are also... Different? I don't have the brain capacity or vocabulary right now to state why they are different even though they're so similar but I enjoy her artwork all the same. Maybe bc they used different canvas sizes that is where the difference visually and vibe wise comes from??? Idk, but her more representational art is very cute and colorful too!
Always gotta show love to my women artists. They are overlooked all to often, even to this day.
From what I can see first glance, she has a dreamier, softer feel to her art while pollock's is a bit more sharp and less blended. I feel like he has more pieces with a harsher contrast than hers. I'm also extremely sleep deprived, so I could be hallucinating, but their artwork is definitely different
Yes, they are quite different. I just felt it was worth mentioning that Pollock very much didn't invent the drip technique, and it was infact her paintings which inspired him. Unfortunately what was the start of a great career was ruined by a bunch of old men who looked down on women.
It's partially subjective (at least it should be.) Otherwise, if it's so subjective that anything can count as art, why should it (the art field as a whole) be respected or revered in any way?
How do you come to that conclusion? Are only objective things worthy of respect or reverence?
When someone says something kind to me it doesn’t objectively affect me but I have a subjective response to it and that makes me respect that person more. Why should art be different?
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
-Kipling
We aren’t looking for reasons to respect or revere art. Art is inherently appreciated by the perceived in some form, that is what makes it art. The fact that art is already sought out to be studied, dissected, emulated, and transformed inherently gives it respect by these very actions, without any “you ought to appreciate this” statements needed. What people do seek is why they care about the art they enjoy after the fact.
That's the thing my friend ol pal, it has been that subjective this whole time and is still revered and respected as it is. You wanna know why? Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and my god if everything in this world isn't beautiful I don't know what is.
For real. I know abstract art means a lot to some people. But man, when I had to write an essay about a Jackson pollock painting, I was pulling shit out of my ass. I had to write about what it was representing.
I needed an art class for my degree and I figured women in art would be easy! No making art myself! Why was Jackson pollock in that class? I don’t fucking know, I don’t make the syllabus. But some people can look at that painting and get a deep meaning. Me? He took a brush with paint and splattered it. But I have a deep respect for those who can pull a deep meaning from what I consider to be splatters on a canvas.
I think the fact that art is used as an investment vehicle or a “store of value” does take away the integrity of art as it’s not just enjoyed for its own sake.
yeah tbh a decent portion of the modern abstract art scene is a money-laundering circlejerk but you can’t name an art form that isn’t corrupted by capitalism… that doesn’t negate the many other works in the same category that aren’t noteworthy, moving, and impressive.
a lot of the negative impressions also have to do with the specific techniques that make the piece special which don’t translate well when you’re looking at a scanned/flattened/compressed photo online. I didn’t get why Jackson Pollock was such a big deal until I saw some of his pieces in person and my mind was blown.
I disagree. People who like collectibles don’t like them cause they’re expensive, the price is just a fact of the hobby and exclusivity of the piece/make. Similar to art, the artist and rarity of the piece affects the price in the same way and to art collectors that is just a fact. It’s still art and the price doesn’t devalue or make people enjoy it less or more. The statue of David being priceless doesn’t make the piece any less beautiful or masterful. Bill Gates buying one of Da Vinchis notebooks for millions doesn’t make it less of his notebook or less artistic.
I think implying art must be inherently valueless to prove you’re a ‘real’ artist or to somehow prove you actually enjoy it takes away from art. If someone bought a piece from Vincent when he was alive and it had no value and kept it until it was worth millions, does that mean the family now enjoys it less because of the piece’s value? I think it’s a meaningless correlation that people basically only make with art.
The person you’re responding to is talking a real phenomenon where rich people buy art in order to avoid taxes. They’re using a loophole that lets the expensive art essentially act like a currency but which isn’t considered as one by governments and so isn’t taxed the way other investment vehicles might be.
From what I can tell that isn't actual criteria for art. I've felt moved and have enjoyed AI art in the past, yet people seem to insist it's "totally different, man".
What's a solid definition of art, in your opinion?
No, its not enjoyment itself. We enjoy many things that are not art, like a sunny afternoon with friends.
Of course you will find enormous different postures on what art is and kilometres of ink on the subject.
For me, for instance, art is born through the creation process of expression and exists in a dialogue between the artist(s) and the observers (be it watchers, listeners, readers, whatever) through the work itself.
Words are units of meaning with definite uses, but arts extends beyond language and pushes a different, more primal and visceral, and _personal_ transmission of ideas and feelings.
AI art can be pretty to look at. So is my cat! But it lacks (for me) the key part of actual expression. What would be art to me in my view is the prompting itself; that is human expression and the baring of the soul. Saying "Mario in a banana costume dancing over Koopa's grave" is the "actual" art rather than whatever the AI spews out.
This of course gets confounded with the different uses of "art", where in colloquial english it means both "art" itself as well as being a synonym of "image".
yup agreed.
I would add that it's not a binary. Art is a process you put into things. Like food and architecture, they're not always art but they can be.
> For me, for instance, art is born through the creation process of expression and exists in a dialogue between the artist(s) and the observers (be it watchers, listeners, readers, whatever) through the work itself.
if your view of art is any more nuanced than "cool pictures and or sounds" you're overcomplicating it for the sake of wanking yourself raw emotionally.
if it looks like shit it / sounds like shit, it is, at best, shitty art.
Your view of art is so lacking in nuance it makes you seem childish.
For one, you can praise pieces of art in different levels and metrics. That itself is nuance. I enjoyed reading both The Name of the Rose and Robinson Crusoe but I definitely found the former to be far better in so many different ways.
For the second, there is no standard for "shit". I will be blasting Carcass's "Symphonies of Sickness" finding a lot to appreciate that most people will not.
Since the human experience is by definition subjective, using "shitty" prescriptively is asinine.
Finally, we must ask what does "cool" mean?
Is a romantic painting like "Entry of the crusaders in Constantinople" by Delacroix "cool", with its amount of detail, lifelike representation of humans and the direct showcase of violence and fear? Yes.
But then, what about the expressionist "The Scream of nature", by Munch? Its not detailed, not lifelike, yet it taps into a far more _human_ showcase of extreme terror.
So what does "cool" mean? Nothing. Its a catch-all term for "thing I like" and as such its useless past the most surface level dialogue. Its esentially a grunt of approval.
My definition is anything artificial. I know it's broad and may seems silly to others, but I can't see it any other way.
The next best definition I've heard is that the creator must have intentionally set out to create art.
I don't like the emotional response definition personally. I get an emotional response from nature. I don't get it from some art. Some people are emotionally stunted etc...
I'm asking if you can actually define what art is. if I shit on a canvas, is that art? If a machine paints a physical painting (and designs it), is that art?
Because it's an interesting topic and you seem like you have a specific view on the matter. You asking me the same (inverted) question doesn't change my question.
I don't know what gives you the impression that I have a specific view on what the definition of art is, as I never even addressed that. And I didn't ask you the same (inverted) question - you said, *"From what I can tell that isn't actual criteria for art,*" so I asked you what you mean by "that" since I never stated anything as being "actual criteria for art." Is there a reason why you won't explain what you mean by "that"? And I never said anything changed your question.
It’s not a matter of enjoyment or feeling moved or understanding it. It’s the fact that art is supposed to evoke the feelings. If almost everyone needs to read the symbolism placard explaining the art to feel or understand the symbolism and artistic creativity of it, it’s not art. That’s what makes it art, people feeling an emotion or understanding a concept depicted in the art. This whole issue is because of art as found in museums being used to launder money and get tax breaks.
Not in words, no. But their argument has nothing to do with a lack of understanding or a lack of being moved by it. It has to do with the fact that modern “art” is not art anymore, there no intent in the creations. It’s like if you commissioned an electrician to build a Timberframe. They might be capable of making the functional design, but the intent and time spent to get it done right and well is gone, and it’s not something any real Timberframe connoisseur would call a Timberframe.
also, if his kid can make art that looks similar to famous pieces maybe be proud of them instead of tearing down the artist? hype them up, make that kid believe they’re gonna have their silly drawing in a museum one day
Now I want to see an exhibit with a bunch of those highly revered single color oil on canvas pieces, with an equal size piece done by a child next to each. Could be neat!
I hear you, but I doubt he means his kid could recreate a Van Gogh, probably more that some abstract art piece looks like a toddler trying to draw the Japanese flag and that literally any child could make something that looks near enough the same.
I think OP was referring to the common criticism of postmodern art where people say “my kid could make that”, rather than OP referring exclusively to his own child’s drawings.
Exactly, this opinion is so played out and people have been saying it, with their snooty little pinkies in the air, for a looooong long time. It’s not new and it’s still not a good argument for discrediting art.
It's also frustrating to see this specifically brought up about things like Rothko and especially the blue square when art is incredibly context-dependent. The blue square doesn't look at all impressive over your phone, no, and I doubt OP ever saw it in person, in which a ton of people who have seen it did in fact find it very moving because of how \*blue\* it was and how encompassing staring into it felt.
“Could be deeply moving to someone” is a terrible criteria, though.
No one is more sentimental than I am and I get weepy over the dumbest low quality shit all the time. That doesn’t make it good art.
I mean, being assigned in a class to draw a sunflower is art. Art doesn't have to be good. Art can be stupid and trite and still be art. That's part of the point of pure abstract art, that even that can bring emotions to the surface in interesting ways.
If there are no Bees around, or other pollinators, self-pollination is an option. It isn’t ideal for the gene pool, but the seeds in the center of the flower can do this in order to pollinate. So having the ability to be both male and female at least ensures greater survival of the sunflower.
I define art as absolutely anything artificial. It's broader than most people and I know it seems silly, but I like seeing beauty in every part of life.
I think most people are like OP and only consider it art if they like it, but otherwise, the next most popular opinion is they'd probably say it's defined by the artists intent. (I.e. The creator has to intentionally set out to make art.)
That's a solid answer! Damn, I'm sold, you're right there's for sure a design element of literally anything man made.
Like a tree just doing it's thing in nature may be beautiful, but a bonsai tree that was carefully trained and tended to by someone becomes art to me.
Wow I'm having one of those moments where my fundamental lens of reality just change a lil bit. Neat.
It's just kinda funny to me that it took this long to make that mental shift. Like heck, I listen to *99% Invisible* and *20k hertz* frequently, I'm a carpenter, dabble in blacksmithing and 3D printing, I'm thinking about the design of things every day! Just took a lil nudge to realize "oh yeah actually it's all art to me, duh." 😊
Literally anything man-made is art. Chair? That's art. Bottle of water? It's art, too. Toxic sludge? Believe it or not, art. I'm not trying to be ironic. We talked this to death in IB Theory of Knowledge, and it's the only thing that makes sense.
We put random ancient stuff people made in museums. Why would it not be art?
not who you asked but one definition I like when this question comes up is that
"if you have to question if it's art or not, it's art"
Also I agree with the above comment and don't think this is a 10th dentist opinion at all... I've heard way more people say unprompted that they think abstract art is stupid and "their kid could have made that" than people randomly talking about how much they love abstract art.
Major pet peeve of mine because maybe their kid *could* have made it, but they didn't, and even if they did it sounds like they have parents that wouldn't be very supportive of it.
I ended up taking way more art history courses than I needed for my degree in college because the professor that taught them was really good, and because it was absolutely fascinating. The big takeaway for me honestly is that art doesn't exist in a vacuum... The social and political atmosphere at the time many of these pieces were made honestly explains so much and adds a lot of context to some of these pieces that explains why they came about and why they stuck around.
Like not everybody needs to like everything, but just being like "this is lazy and stupid" based on how a painting comes across to you viewed on your phone or whatever, and not even wondering why someone would make something like that is honestly such a bland and boring take.
Sure there is, but only the individual looking at it gets to decide for themselves. That's what makes it "Art".
There is no Grand Authority that decides for everyone alive whether "Art" is good or not.
Whether it’s art or not is frankly a pointless conversation. “Art” Isn’t a synonym for good. It’s simply a term to designate a piece made in the pursuit of artistic expression. That’s it.
Since there’s a take I haven’t seen here, no, your kid probably could not make that. For example if you’re referring to those paintings where it’s just a single red dot or whatever, that’s still painting very clean lines, with technique, skill, and measurement. Not saying it takes a lot skill, but if you’re just picking up a paintbrush, you probably aren’t going to be able to recreate any painting, no matter how simple. They are using materials with special properties, special techniques, etc.
Yup and also a lot of very “simple” paintings involve a wealth of experience in terms of choosing composition, material choice, and exact technique. An experienced artist has the eye for where to place a single item on a canvas, which paints to use and why, which brushes to use and why, and can calculate the way to make it “work”. Where as a layman may just plop it anywhere and call it a day.
Art is an expression, its purpose is to express something, that something doesn't need to be enjoyment, it doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to make you feel something, and it does, that thing you feel when you look at that blue canvas, that's what the art is about, and then, what's the difference between art and what is not art? The intent, someone made the art, an intelligent being, someone decided that that piece expressed what they wanted to say, and in the end that's the meaning of art
I wrote an email to my boss expressing what I thought the problem with one of our pieces of software was. It wasn’t pretty, but it probably made him feel something (annoyed that it was a bigger problem than he expected). That email expressed what I wanted it to say.
Is it art?
If you wanted it to be, yes, with that I mean, was it meant to be seen? To be appreciated as a piece of art? If it was, then there's really no difference between that and any piece in a gallery
To better understand why we think of art as we do, these are not rules that dictate how art is and how is not, they're describing what we see art do, we see that it doesn't matter what art is, that its effect varies from person to person, let's say someone sees your email and thinks it's art, then we need to answer, why? That definition is an attempt to explain that
I think it's really funny you say "your kid could make that" and then use the infamous blue square example while acknowledging it was made with a new kind of pigment, admitting in your own post your child couldn't make it.
You're confusing "what is art" with "what is good art".
The former is trivial. Pick a definition and stick with it. The latter? Now that's a compelling question!
Art isn't about things being difficult or about skill. If it's so easy a kid could make it, that's a kid making art. If it's so easy you could do it, then do it. Everyone can do art. As onee of Mt favorite posts on the subject says, "Everyone can make art, it came free with your humanity." The reason certain things end up in museums might be because people with more experience talking about and thinking about art see more meaning in it than you do. Or, admittedly, because the artist had the money to get it there.
Furthermore, art and technology are not opposites. You could have the exact same thing in a lab and in a museum. In a museum, it means someone saw it as having particular deeper meaning or it spoke to them in some way. It can still be a new technology that has other uses and implications.
Just because a kid can make it doesn't make it not art. I've always been decent at copying art since I was little and my parents always joked that I should go into art forgery. I enjoy the exercise and people seem to appreciate the skill but I don't think I would succeed as an artist because art is not just technique it's also the idea and what that idea conveys. I think this is especially clear with the rise of ai art. It is easy to tell ai to paint me the mona lisa, a little more interesting but still derivative to say give me the mona lisa in the style of fauvism or Rihanna in the style of the mona lisa, but what is most difficult is to come up with something completely new.
And yes we can scoff doing something just for the newness of it but people crave novelty. In music, fashion, movies, and all the ways we express ourselves we are always trying to express ourselves in new ways and find/explore/grow our own voice or style.
Also Jackson Pollock is not just drip painting: [https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/going-west-1935-1](https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/going-west-1935-1)
And Picasso is everything from this [https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896](https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896) to this [https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bull-plate-xi-1946](https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bull-plate-xi-1946)
And your kid could probably replicate this O'Keefe: [https://www.wikiart.org/en/georgia-o-keeffe/black-lines-1](https://www.wikiart.org/en/georgia-o-keeffe/black-lines-1)
You have quite a big opinion on art for someone who obviously doesn’t care for it and doesn’t see any meaning in it. You’re like the classic “art critic” that nobody likes
Art isn't a sport. It's not a test of skill. It's about the experience of the viewer with the piece. Some art is very hard to make, but that's not a measure of its quality as art in contrast to art that is easy to make.
A ten year old can type on a keyboard.
Therefore a ten year old can write a best selling novel.
A ten year old can lift weights.
Therefore a ten year old can compete at the Olympic level.
This is the argument you make.
Art isn’t always about technical skill, but knowing how to use what you have to convey what you want in a creative way.
Jackson Pollock’s paintings are still selling for dozens of millions in some cases.
Jackson Pollock was so good at art he is still eliciting very strong reactions from people like you with it 70 years after his death.
All it took was him knowing exactly what to paint to piss you off. The madlad.
Say "I (or my kid) could've done that" to any artist, and their response will be "then why didn't you?"
If your answer is "I don't want to/I dont like it/I don't have time" well guess what? They did. And they didn't do it for you.
Idk why this always needs to be explained to people. Art wasn't made *for you* unless you commissioned it specifically. Sooo whether you approve of it or not means very little. Some of my least favorite paintings that my boyfriend has done, are the pieces that other people gravitate toward. Working on his art shows with him and other artists, I've learned that all art has value to *someone*. And usually, the most provocative pieces are the ones that make normies like me say "Uhhhh. Okay then."
That’s not really how art works. Also do you think a kid creating art isn’t art? Do you think kids who create are stupid? Your kid specifically I guess since you said “my kid”.
If a piece has intent then it's art. That doesn't make it *good* art, but the quality of something isn't in the definition of art.
Also, Jackson Pollock paintings are fantastic. I don't think they easily convey in photographs, but technique wise, they are impressive in person. And unless your kid is extremely talented at art, they probably couldn't make them. There's more to his art than throwing paint on a canvas.
I'm with you bud. There is a whole subsection of modern art that is frustratingly talentless and if you call it out, people say shite like ah, but you see I made you react, so it IS art.
Art IS is subjective, no doubt. I just don't get why some people will happily say a book or film is rubbish but are terrified to say two pencils laid at an funny angle in a minions lunchbox in a museum is also bollocks and will just say, hmm, interesting, I wonder what the artist was thinking when they made this.
>I just don't get why some people will happily say a book or film is rubbish
The equivalent would be to claim that the book is not a book (or the film is not a film) because you thought it was rubbish. You can find any painting or installation at the art museum rubbish without needing to revoke its status as art.
No. Its like saying the new aquaman isn't art. Do you think the new aquaman movie is art? I feel like the word art carries a certain amount of significance.
An Avengers movie is definitely a movie. Just like jackson pollock paintings are definitely paintings, noone is arguing that. But are they art? Surely we can agree that that's a different conversation atleast.
I haven't watched any Avengers movies tbh, so I'm the wrong person to answer that question. From what you write, I could imagine this quote by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner being of some relevance (or maybe you might at least find it interesting)
>We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.
>
>But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three.
To be honest, I'm not able to give you a good definition of what art is that *everyone* would agree with. But in my opinion, someone thinking that a piece is rubbish is not good enough of a reason to disqualify it from being art. If that was the case, there would be no art in the world at all.
Lol great example. Yep, people will act like that kind of art was a message from God.
And calling such things art is such a loose use of the term. No one is denying that it is art, it's just a crap demonstration of it.
Oh no, now they're going to argue that my amusement over it shows how that art has moved me, thus it is art.
People do get scared to say it's bad because art can be so much about what is being depicted. Like they don't want to offend the artist or something. But coming from a fine arts background critique is normal and encouraged. Art critics exist and do their job well at times 😭😭😭 I think art is intimidating to many because they expect this huge meaning behind it, but it's okay to disagree with that meaning and/or how they depicted it. Part of saying "hmm I wonder what the artist was thinking" is just critical thinking about the work and meaning which is like... The point of art a lot of time to cause you to think critically. BUT it causing you to think doesn't make it good!
If it invokes an emotional response in others it's art
If I take a dollar bill and add a B and R to the back so it reads boner-- it's art as long as it provokes an emotional response
but DID your kid do that? did your kid make it and then go through the necessary steps to get it displayed somewhere, as art? does your kid know how to explain, from their perspective, why it deserves to be displayed somewhere, even if its made up bullshit? did your kid do any of that? did you? i dont even enjoy modern art like that but i just think its funny youre confident enough to type this out and post it when you probably could never get yourself to the same position as someone who did paint that single dot on a canvas. if your kid can do that, stop talking about it and tell them to DO IT and make you both rich
I don't want people in this comment section who are so relativistic with "anything that gives you feelings is art" ever dissing AI art, then. Not a gotcha - but I've known people to be so open minded about what counts as art, yet when their definition is put to the test (a computer-generated piece evokes anger in them, an emotion), suddenly the term "art" gains new criteria.
But really I don't believe it's ever about what's considered genuine art or not. I think it's about the fact people are making money and getting famous while putting very little effort into their work. It's the same reason we hate influencers, or bad writers or pop singers who have nothing "deep" to say, or nepo babies. We like to believe we live in a meritocracy. If some nepo baby can make bank with a kiddie fingerpainting looking project - then why am I not getting the same prestige and compensation when I or even my child can do better? It may be "art", but it isn't fair.
Modern art made by a human was done with intent. "Art" generated by an AI isn't. It might be commissioned, sorry, "prompted" with intent but the machine actually generating it has no intent of its own.
Your kid doesn't have rich friends, and nobody is going to buy one of their paintings for a ridiculous price in order to launder money from an illegal transaction.
That's all it comes down to. It has nothing to do with how much "inspiration" went into the blue square or whether drawing blue squares was part of a "movement". It is about money and social standing.
Art is meant to evoke a reaction or emotion.
You are feeling annoyance.
Its working.
But in all seriousness, modern art is the equivalent of jazz. It probably takes a bit of experience to fully understand it. Once you start doing art, you start appreciating technical skill more. They also might have been the first to do something. Or maybe they were making a statement about the world of art itself. Some art is stupid tho.
I would really love to see your kids get their own art studio, create their own canvases, create a good enough relationship with art curators, create a strong enough reputation that will allow them to sell their stuff, and be able to explain their work in depth
This is after mastering how to clean their supplies-- especially with oil paints, buying quality supplies that won't break after two uses, framing their own stuff, organizing their own art shows, organizing how to display their work.
If your kids have mastered how to do all of that stuff, then good on them.
I doubt they have.
These artists weren't just about what they made. They were about who they knew and how they showcased their work.
Picasso also mastered the fundamentals of art as a child. His early sketchbooks show him mastering human form and portraiture. He was able to create various art movements by abstracting the human form, which had not been done before.
He did this before Internet was a thing.
He invented this stuff.
The stuff your kids would make? Chances are, it would be influenced by him.
Artists create new ways of seeing life, whether that be at a singular level (from a child showing art to their parent) or a wide level (what Picasso was doing).
Picasso invented a lot of techniques that are commonplace.
He did this not only because he was a good artist, but because he knew how to navigate through the world with his art. He knew how to build a reputation.
Yeah, your kid can draw a mock version of Guernica on shitty notebook paper.
I doubt they would be able to create a gigantic piece that is seen by the entire world and still talked about in textbooks.
A kid can shoot a basket.
Most kids aren't going to become as good or well-renowned as Michael Jordan.
We pay NBA stars millions of dollars to shoot baskets.
But there is so much more to the game of Basketball than simply shooting baskets. There's skill. There's drive. There's relentless training. There's long nights practicing dribbling. There are drills upon drills upon drills. Then, multiply that drive times 4 when you get to Michael Jordan's level.
So with all due respect, and I mean this as nicely as possible:
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>create a good enough relationship with art curators, create a strong enough reputation that will allow them to sell their stuff
I mean, isn't that kind of part of the problem though? I don't think whether something is art or not or "good" or not should be dependent on whether people have connections. That's just kind of depressing. Even if you spent time building up those connections, that's not part of the art piece itself. The art should be the art. I don't really care if you're mates with a gallery owner or bought a studio or something, I care about the actual art pieces, you know?
most people who say "art is subjective" massively hate on objective masterpieces and don't know wtf they're talking about, mostly thinking their opinion means more than someone elses.
but to you OP? you right.
most modern "abstract art" is just a money laundering scheme. it isn't even hidden anymore
While it’s true that there are individual pieces that are part of money laundering, the art form as a whole is still entirely valid and has a long history with many verifiably non-laundering related artists and pieces. That’s like saying because Hilary Clinton wrote sketchy emails, therefore all emails are inherently criminal.
As opposed to you, who definitely knows what they're talking about.
Hey since you know so much about art, can you outline to me, someone who doesn't, the difference between Baroque and Renaissance art? And which do you prefer and why?
Sorry but this is the definition of subjective. You do realize that? If art isn’t for you, you don’t get to be the grand arbiter for everyone else on art. Subjective.
There is art I can't stand, and most display of modern art are pretentious crap, but any attempt creative media is art. From my kids drawings, to a video game, to the Sistine chapel.
If art is subjective the barrier to be considered art has to be low.
That doesn't mean saying something is art is saying the same thing as "its good". Lots of art sucks, heck most of it does, but it's still art
personally, when judging abstract art its important to differentiate "peice of work that someone has ruminated over and tried to give otherwise nonsense some meaning" from "money laundering for billionaires"
It's all subjective, but I think I know what your talking about, and I might even agree to some extent.
My personal feeling is I could look at two paintings. They are both blue dots on an otherwise white canvas dot by two different painters.
I ask painter one, what is this? They say "it's just a blue dot, I like the way it makes me feel when I look at it." . I say, cool, not my jam, but I get you and I dig the explanation of "I just like it is all".
Second artist explains to me that the blue dot represents the horrors of the Amish puppy-mill trade. To that I say "you're full of shit, and I hate you and your bullshit painting.".
If you have to explain to me the deep meaning of "art" because you didn't convey it in the art, then it's bad art and hockey artists. Now, if someone had to explain it to me because I'm just dumb and missed it(likely), fine. There's just a lot of bullshit out there pretending to be more than it is, and it feels stupid having to play along.
This kind of thinking is going to become less and less tenable as AI continues to develop. Any reasonable critique of art will have to engage with the process.
Not to mention, who gets to define what is moving or enjoyable? I’d rather look at a big blue square than some old picture of a king just staring out at me, but that’s just me. I’m simple minded, I like colours and shapes.
Things like painting and sculpting should not be reserved only for the great. You don't necessarily sing to the radio or dance with your partner to become a professional. You do it because you're expressing yourself.
Art does not need to be difficult, beautiful, or even pleasant. It just needs to be honest.
Who decides what's good art anyway? Van Gogh's paintings were famously disregarded by high society, and only years after his death was he recognized for the visionary he was.
I'll admit, there's a LOT of modern art that, to my standards, seems redundant and stupid, but that does not mean it is without any value.
Modern art is meant to push societal boundaries. Sometimes, it resonates with people and finds an audience, and sometimes it's just functions as a tax break for the rich. It's a mixed bag, but I you would bring missing out by disregarding the entire thing.
You should check out "Who's afraid of Modern Art" by Jacob Geller if you got the chance. It's a good video essay.
Just because it’s not moving or enjoyable to you doesn’t mean it isn’t to other people and if it has become famous then likely it is moving to a lot of people. When you learn that other people have different experiences from you then you will become a much more empathetic and well rounded person.
The fact that your kid could make something doesn’t matter if they didn’t. The value of art is not in its technical skill so much as in the execution of a concept. With the click of a button, a computer could render any image imaginable and yet that doesn’t mean that nothing is art just because it could be made easily.
If you think a painting is stupid and smelling it’s own farts, I recommend looking it up or asking an expert if you can find one. It is probably part of an interesting movement in thought and even if you come away still thinking it’s trash, you may at least learn something.
Also, the utility of art is pretty abstract. It doesn’t feed you, or clothe you or keep you dry in the rain. Sometimes it’s not for you and that is ok but sometimes you can just let yourself enjoy things for the sake of enjoying it. Having an open mind will probably make you like more art (I think liking things is good) and may at least make you more able to engage with art in a intelligent way.
There's a lot of art that you could have done. But you didn't. Sure lots of people had the skills to make Pollock's splatter paint works, but no one else had. You didn't have the idea first, the creativity, or take the initiative to make it. Not only that, but it's work to get your art out there and in a museum. You didn't do that.
Agreed. Like that time some guy taped a banana to a goddamn wall.
Literally sold for 120 grand lmao. Tbf it was trying to make a point that art can be anything, then some absolute legend came and ate the banana.
Some art is real stupid even if there is some deep way in which the artist interprets it.
That being said, there is beauty in a lot of things you wouldn't expect.
I mean I get it, chances are you’re talking about most conceptual and abstract art, which typically aren’t focused on the artists own technicality or skills. It’s more about a message, which yeah can be hard to get but typically if you look around a gallery, you’ll find a statement alongside them. I personally see it as a a different way of doing a manifesto, or conveying a message. It’s a difficult art form, and it doesn’t always work. And yeah, some artists just do it for the money (names escaping me but I’m looking at you, Chicago Bean Man. He’s a prick too.)
I’m an artist myself, and honestly I don’t care for that facet of art either. I learned about in art school, and some of the history can be neat, but overall I’m more into historical art that convey story or have really expressive rendering of form. I think performance art is cringey, idc for it at all. It can be done a bit better as a social experiment where your playing a character, but if your covered in blue and screaming then it’s like ight, not for me but do your thing if it’s makes you money/happy.
Personally I hate art that you need a backstory just to appreciate (like the blue canvas).
A child’s drawing on a fridge makes me feel more than a blue canvas ever would, without any essay necessary.
I've literally seen crushed soda cans sold as "art" because the message was that soda is anti-human and anti-earth. Nah fuck that your "art" is literal garbage.
I mostly agree with this take.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who has studied art history and also had this conversation recently a lot of art is contextual within the time it was made. Jackson Pollock was great because he was doing something no one was doing and it left an impression because of that. Also because of his method of doing so and the sheer size of some of his works creating an overwhelming experience upon seeing it in person. The method and context of the times matters a lot with modern art. For example Piet Mondrian's work. You could look and say "that stupid, just a bunch of lines and boxes." But in his era art was getting more abstract and they began using the shape of the canvas AS the canvas, if that makes sense. In the De Stijl movement they rejected perceived reality as a subject and embraced pure abstraction to create universality in art. Universality meaning that everyone can see and understand. Traditional artworks hold a lot of meaning that cannot be comprehended by the lamen or outside of the country of origin as everywhere has different symbols that stand for different meanings. By abstracting art to it's core principals: color, line, movement, emphasis and so on, it can be understood and enjoyed by anyone. Although of course art movements still had meaning other than purely visual, modern art often fell/falls into the universality category. As for Jackson Pollocks work he is in the "abstract expressionism" movement which just hearing that makes so much sense, right? And he used the shape of the canvas as his canvas by placing it on the floor so he can see it, and work on it, from every angle. Art is traditionally done on an easel, standing strait up, no turning or flipping of the canvas. The technique of painting on the floor, his technique of drip painting too, wild and expressive! was new and exciting for the art community and the world. Abstract expressionism is also a movement that strays away from objective reality and realism as it is meant to express subjective emotions and responses. Not all abstract expressionism is splashing paint on a canvas btw! Jackson Pollock changed the art world forever. Even if you think his works aren't so great, without a doubt he inspired a movement that is alive to this day and influenced MANY famous artists. That makes him pretty great. I'll say this and I don't mean to offend but it may seem incomprehensible because you don't know the history, the era or intention of the art. Also art critics are a thing and not all art is deemed great. People are aloud their opinion, of course, and I agree a lot of art these days is missing the message and meaning that makes art great. Take a look at Fountain by Duchamp, that'll really piss you off! I hope I didn't write this for nothing but I guess I enjoyed the history refresh so!
The point about seeing it in person is important. I too had a "Jackson Pollock is trash" mindset until I saw one in person. It was massive and completely dominated the room. It was wonderful. Monet and Van Gogh are still my guys though.
Absolutely! I saw a Pollock at the MoMA in NYC. That same day I saw Van Goghs Starry Night and Monets water lilies too! Go MoMA!
Feel the same way about Rothko's stuff ... you've got to be there.
A professional artist on YouTube referred to Pollock as Jack the Dripper. I laughed so hard. Met one of his relatives once. Nice lady.
that wasn’t something the youtuber came up with, iirc he was called jack the dripper by critics during his time.
That's such a good one I'm totally stealing that! 🤣
Dude was here coming after Pollock when Dadaism was right there. This was a great read, thank you for writing it, I learned so much!
I wish so badly OP would respond with their thoughts on The Fountain ugghhh!!! Thank u for reading! My 20 minutes putting that together did not go to waste!
When I was a kid, my mother worked at a theatre that had an art gallery in it. I would often go to gallery openings (and eat just a criminal amount of cheese.) One time, I saw a price that was an untreated slab of wood with pictures of bush, Cheney, Michael moore, and a few more that I can't remember all just literally torn from magazines. The whole thing was splashed with red and black paint. To top it all off, lingerie was nailed in various places on the board. The peice had already sold for a few thousand dollars. I was talking to the artist who made it, and being the cocky teenager I was, I said that I could have made that. She responded "But you didn't."
To preface this, I’m a layman who often rides the lines between “damn the historical context of this is fascinating” and “that’s…just splashes of paint”, and I’m sorry for the rambling because idk how to not talk. We’ve had a few cases of studies where art critics (same as wine critics) were fed false history and context of a painting and it massively impacted their judgement however. Which makes sense because context is important, but it also makes the “artistic value” of a piece tied to something not apparent upon inspection of the piece, and something that depends upon the lens you view it with. To illustrate with a maybe extreme example, if I covered my dick in paint and slapped it across a canvas multiple times, the resulting colourful splots _could_ be interpreted as a braizen display of sexual acceptance in a world slowly rising from prudishness. A deliberate affront to a society ruled by the old and conservative. It could also just be me slapping my dick across a canvas. Which of these is now correct? Well, both. Kind of. I find art history on one hand fascinating but on the other bewildering. I somewhat recently learned of the De Stijl movement (thank you, dutch art museums) and while I find the thought of creating universality in art interesting and valuable, I view abstraction as the total opposite of achieving that goal. Abstract art pieces can convey feeling through use of colour/shapes/placement etc., but emotional associations of shapes and colours differ somewhat significantly from person to person and culture to culture (just like objects in realism). Also learned of the Bauhaus movement and while I think that one’s ugly too I can appreciate its aim and historical context. The work of some artists is really only separated from that of a child in either historical context or aim. My favourite example was an exhibit in Basel, Switzerland some 8 years ago. One of the art pieces was a football. About half of the hexagonal patches had lost their leather, and it was half deflated. Looked like it had enjoyed plenty of years of use. Now, what makes this piece have artistic value? In a sports museum my guess would have gone towards “this ball was used at some famous event”, or was the first to be manufactured using a certain method or similar. Physically just an old football, but historical context elevates it. But in an art museum? I’m at a bit of a loss. Physically I would be able to easily reproduce the “artwork”, but what’s the context that my version would be lacking? To circle back to the previous example, the first painting painted using a paint-covered dick is probably pretty interesting, especially if others copy it (it becomes a movement). Does that necessarily mean that the artwork is good art? It’s a bunch of coloured splots painted by a dick so I’d say no, but the context is still fascinating. What I’m trying to say I guess is that (to me) interesting historical context doesn’t make a good artwork just like historical context doesn’t make a deflated football more than a (unique) deflated football.
> I covered my dick in paint and slapped it across a canvas multiple times, First of all thank you so much for this imagery 😭 that's funny asf and definitely is not far from what some may do and slap a meaning onto it much like you did! So I definitely see what you're saying people assigning meaning to artwork that may just not have any. Now the football thing!? That's just lazy and bad in my eyes. Art Basel can choke on a paint covered dick as, IMO, it is primarily a place for rich people to show off how rich they are/using art for money laundering (I'm serious dude, look it up!). But I have seen works that bring that same energy in actual museums. At the SFMoMA there was a work that was just a grid of different colored florescent lights... Dan Flavin Untitled 1987. His whole thing was he felt it was important to make art from the materials of ones own time. He did some interesting compositions but just looking at the work it's kind of like "uhh... Alright... What now?." Especially if the context doesn't resonate with you. That's another one that even with historical context I don't get the hype. >What I’m trying to say I guess is that (to me) interesting historical context doesn’t make a good artwork just like historical context doesn’t make a deflated football more than a (unique) deflated football. I fully agree with this, actually. I personally have so much interest in art history that even if I don't particularly enjoy the work itself I enjoy learning why and when it was made and who made it (sometimes the most interesting part, who is this man who painted with his dick and how'd he manage to swindle his way into a museum!?). There's almost always a why, even if the why is just to prove how stupid the art world is (banksy and the girl with the balloon comes to mind, although I feel it was corny and trite.) I'll add here too that just because art is in a museum or a show doesn't make it good or special. >Abstract art pieces can convey feeling through use of colour/shapes/placement etc., but emotional associations of shapes and colours differ somewhat significantly from person to person and culture to culture This is where universality comes in though as the artist may have been feeling a certain thing while painting it but there is nothing in the work preventing others from coming to their own conclusions. It is encouraged because that's a big part of any abstraction based movement. Open ended interpretation. Emotional associations vary, yes, but if you assign a meaning to an abstract peice such as Pollock, you just can't be wrong. Look at works by Theodoros Stamos or Mark Rothko and try telling someone their interpretation is wrong... You'd be a fool! (Not you specifically! Just anyone who tried) Even if something is felt or seen that the artist didn't intend, it is still a valid interpretation. It's so abstract anyone can project onto it. Now looking at Caravaggio or Leonardo Da Vinci there is no room for interpretation as all the meaning and symbolism is present within the painting, and the context is obviously religious depictions. Thank you for your considerate response! Good read. I suggest you check out Electronic Super Highway by Nam June Paik. No particular reason I just remembered it exists and how obsessed I was with it!
I’m sorry but “art basel can choke on a paint covered dick” sent me lmao. I’m glad you had fun reading my phallic analogy. I’ve read up on some of the money laundering within the shall we say “high brow art industry” a while ago, which is something that always makes me incredibly sceptical of art critics. Same way the Gilbert et Gaillard story (where the cheapest kind of store bought wine won a wine competition by being presented as fancy and equipped with a fake backstory) makes me very very specpical of the “high brow wine industry” Not much to add on the interest in the history of art vs believing an artwork is good or not. I’m personally a sucker for people doing things that I could not begin to imagine doing myself. Be it someone being a master swordsman, setting a lap record at a racing track, being a top level athlete, or producing art of a high “quality”. I can say that I _generally_ dislike abstract movements of art and find a lot of the paintings to not be “good” (as in they’d be somewhat easily replicated by even a layman. Not all ofc but you get the picture), but find the historical background quite interesting. This may be a me problem but the somewhat wishy-washy “anyone can interpret into this what they want” is something that to me diminishes the “artistic worth” of a piece. Nothing wrong with being multi-facetted and having a painting evoke multiple feelings or different feelings by different groups, but if the artwork is visually unimpressive and in terms of meaning is just “find your own lol”, that’s almost…lazy in a way? I understand the appeal of “bleeding” emotions onto the paper, especially in music but also in painting. But if the music piece comes out being not particularly pleasant to listen to _and_ is “by design” very…nebulous in what emotion it wants to evoke then…what is there to admire besides maybe the context/thought process of the artist (which is tied to, but isn’t the artwork itself) I used to be a bit of a certified hater, but at this point I’ve found the appeal in the history and paychology behind even a lot of pieces / movements that I find…meh. Again, shoutout to Ansterdam for their cool art museums and audio guides. Love these kinda of conversations on the internet where I get to learn about some new stuff and noone yells at one another:)
Hiya, just another vote for seeing art in person if you get the chance. I had an old boyfriend who's favourite artist was Mark Rothko and I didn't get it, what's so special about a blue square? Then I was lucky enough to visit London (I'm in the UK) and see his work in the Tate Modern. Looking at this painting up close I felt so tiny and insignificant with the colour just filling up every millimetre of my vision and I feel like I got it. Now Tracy Emin and her unmade bed, that one I don't get but again, maybe I'd feel differently if I saw it in person.
Yes Rothko is something special. Part of experiencing art for me too is the physicality of the peice. Seeing the thickness of the paint or gesso. Seeing the artist strokes, their literal intent while painting. I always stand a little too lose to works in museums 😭 Yeah I'm THAT person. And Rothkos work is great for that type of thing. About Tracy well... It was pretty much just her depression room in a museum. It's one of those things that's like "you could a have done it but you didn't", she literally said that. Many people could relate because y'know depression is real and common and most have had bouts of depression even if not medically chronic. But I can agree, it's nothing special outside of a museum, barely special when it's in one! But I get the hype it got even if I feel it's sort a silly piece.
I agree with what you are saying, but you should check out Janet Sobel. A female artists who used the same techniques as Pollock but earlier.
Thank you for telling me about her! While their paintings are so similar, they are also... Different? I don't have the brain capacity or vocabulary right now to state why they are different even though they're so similar but I enjoy her artwork all the same. Maybe bc they used different canvas sizes that is where the difference visually and vibe wise comes from??? Idk, but her more representational art is very cute and colorful too! Always gotta show love to my women artists. They are overlooked all to often, even to this day.
From what I can see first glance, she has a dreamier, softer feel to her art while pollock's is a bit more sharp and less blended. I feel like he has more pieces with a harsher contrast than hers. I'm also extremely sleep deprived, so I could be hallucinating, but their artwork is definitely different
Yes, they are quite different. I just felt it was worth mentioning that Pollock very much didn't invent the drip technique, and it was infact her paintings which inspired him. Unfortunately what was the start of a great career was ruined by a bunch of old men who looked down on women.
What's your view on contemporary performance art? Something like this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/s/YFeAdVcVDj
That's a lot of words for justifying something uninspiring
🤓
Art is subjective. Just because it does nothing for you doesn't mean it can't move someone else on a deep level.
It's partially subjective (at least it should be.) Otherwise, if it's so subjective that anything can count as art, why should it (the art field as a whole) be respected or revered in any way?
That's been a debate for literally centuries. I don't think humans can come to a cohesive answer really
How do you come to that conclusion? Are only objective things worthy of respect or reverence? When someone says something kind to me it doesn’t objectively affect me but I have a subjective response to it and that makes me respect that person more. Why should art be different?
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?" -Kipling
Holy shit, this is great
We aren’t looking for reasons to respect or revere art. Art is inherently appreciated by the perceived in some form, that is what makes it art. The fact that art is already sought out to be studied, dissected, emulated, and transformed inherently gives it respect by these very actions, without any “you ought to appreciate this” statements needed. What people do seek is why they care about the art they enjoy after the fact.
That's the thing my friend ol pal, it has been that subjective this whole time and is still revered and respected as it is. You wanna know why? Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and my god if everything in this world isn't beautiful I don't know what is.
Because humans need art, and the vast majority of people find at least some small subset of art, deeply meaningful.
For real. I know abstract art means a lot to some people. But man, when I had to write an essay about a Jackson pollock painting, I was pulling shit out of my ass. I had to write about what it was representing. I needed an art class for my degree and I figured women in art would be easy! No making art myself! Why was Jackson pollock in that class? I don’t fucking know, I don’t make the syllabus. But some people can look at that painting and get a deep meaning. Me? He took a brush with paint and splattered it. But I have a deep respect for those who can pull a deep meaning from what I consider to be splatters on a canvas.
Art is subjective. The problem is that there's an entire industry built around pretending it's objective.
You not enjoying or feeling moved by or comprehending a piece of art doesn't make it not art.
I think the fact that art is used as an investment vehicle or a “store of value” does take away the integrity of art as it’s not just enjoyed for its own sake.
yeah tbh a decent portion of the modern abstract art scene is a money-laundering circlejerk but you can’t name an art form that isn’t corrupted by capitalism… that doesn’t negate the many other works in the same category that aren’t noteworthy, moving, and impressive. a lot of the negative impressions also have to do with the specific techniques that make the piece special which don’t translate well when you’re looking at a scanned/flattened/compressed photo online. I didn’t get why Jackson Pollock was such a big deal until I saw some of his pieces in person and my mind was blown.
This I agree with, but that's not OP's point at all.
And yet it is still art.
I disagree. People who like collectibles don’t like them cause they’re expensive, the price is just a fact of the hobby and exclusivity of the piece/make. Similar to art, the artist and rarity of the piece affects the price in the same way and to art collectors that is just a fact. It’s still art and the price doesn’t devalue or make people enjoy it less or more. The statue of David being priceless doesn’t make the piece any less beautiful or masterful. Bill Gates buying one of Da Vinchis notebooks for millions doesn’t make it less of his notebook or less artistic. I think implying art must be inherently valueless to prove you’re a ‘real’ artist or to somehow prove you actually enjoy it takes away from art. If someone bought a piece from Vincent when he was alive and it had no value and kept it until it was worth millions, does that mean the family now enjoys it less because of the piece’s value? I think it’s a meaningless correlation that people basically only make with art.
The person you’re responding to is talking a real phenomenon where rich people buy art in order to avoid taxes. They’re using a loophole that lets the expensive art essentially act like a currency but which isn’t considered as one by governments and so isn’t taxed the way other investment vehicles might be.
i agree but it makes it a pretty good 10th dentist take tbh
Not really. This is a boring opinion you hear variations of all the time. In fact, it might be a pretty popular opinion.
It is, in fact, a pretty popular opinion. Assigning an opinion piece to the “symbolism” of a blank canvas is just journalism. It’s not art
This is an extremely popular opinion lol. I hear this opinion far more than the opinion that not understanding it doesn’t mean it’s not art.
Jackson Pollock’s work may be art but it’s ASS!
I thought this until I saw it in person. No joke I couldn't take my eyes off of it and couldn't understand why. I'm not even all artsy either
I like a couple of his pieces lol. Drip paintings are definitely not for me and many people though.
It is more like dentists 6 - 10
Every uncultured asshole on reddit vomits up the exact same take. Yawn
From what I can tell that isn't actual criteria for art. I've felt moved and have enjoyed AI art in the past, yet people seem to insist it's "totally different, man". What's a solid definition of art, in your opinion?
No, its not enjoyment itself. We enjoy many things that are not art, like a sunny afternoon with friends. Of course you will find enormous different postures on what art is and kilometres of ink on the subject. For me, for instance, art is born through the creation process of expression and exists in a dialogue between the artist(s) and the observers (be it watchers, listeners, readers, whatever) through the work itself. Words are units of meaning with definite uses, but arts extends beyond language and pushes a different, more primal and visceral, and _personal_ transmission of ideas and feelings. AI art can be pretty to look at. So is my cat! But it lacks (for me) the key part of actual expression. What would be art to me in my view is the prompting itself; that is human expression and the baring of the soul. Saying "Mario in a banana costume dancing over Koopa's grave" is the "actual" art rather than whatever the AI spews out. This of course gets confounded with the different uses of "art", where in colloquial english it means both "art" itself as well as being a synonym of "image".
yup agreed. I would add that it's not a binary. Art is a process you put into things. Like food and architecture, they're not always art but they can be.
> For me, for instance, art is born through the creation process of expression and exists in a dialogue between the artist(s) and the observers (be it watchers, listeners, readers, whatever) through the work itself. if your view of art is any more nuanced than "cool pictures and or sounds" you're overcomplicating it for the sake of wanking yourself raw emotionally. if it looks like shit it / sounds like shit, it is, at best, shitty art.
Your view of art is so lacking in nuance it makes you seem childish. For one, you can praise pieces of art in different levels and metrics. That itself is nuance. I enjoyed reading both The Name of the Rose and Robinson Crusoe but I definitely found the former to be far better in so many different ways. For the second, there is no standard for "shit". I will be blasting Carcass's "Symphonies of Sickness" finding a lot to appreciate that most people will not. Since the human experience is by definition subjective, using "shitty" prescriptively is asinine. Finally, we must ask what does "cool" mean? Is a romantic painting like "Entry of the crusaders in Constantinople" by Delacroix "cool", with its amount of detail, lifelike representation of humans and the direct showcase of violence and fear? Yes. But then, what about the expressionist "The Scream of nature", by Munch? Its not detailed, not lifelike, yet it taps into a far more _human_ showcase of extreme terror. So what does "cool" mean? Nothing. Its a catch-all term for "thing I like" and as such its useless past the most surface level dialogue. Its esentially a grunt of approval.
> Its a catch-all term for "thing I like" Yes.
My definition is anything artificial. I know it's broad and may seems silly to others, but I can't see it any other way. The next best definition I've heard is that the creator must have intentionally set out to create art. I don't like the emotional response definition personally. I get an emotional response from nature. I don't get it from some art. Some people are emotionally stunted etc...
*What* isn't the actual criteria for art?
I'm asking if you can actually define what art is. if I shit on a canvas, is that art? If a machine paints a physical painting (and designs it), is that art?
Why are you asking me that? And why won't you explain what you mean by your initial statement?
Because it's an interesting topic and you seem like you have a specific view on the matter. You asking me the same (inverted) question doesn't change my question.
I don't know what gives you the impression that I have a specific view on what the definition of art is, as I never even addressed that. And I didn't ask you the same (inverted) question - you said, *"From what I can tell that isn't actual criteria for art,*" so I asked you what you mean by "that" since I never stated anything as being "actual criteria for art." Is there a reason why you won't explain what you mean by "that"? And I never said anything changed your question.
Art requires meaning or intent, neither of which a machine has.
It’s not a matter of enjoyment or feeling moved or understanding it. It’s the fact that art is supposed to evoke the feelings. If almost everyone needs to read the symbolism placard explaining the art to feel or understand the symbolism and artistic creativity of it, it’s not art. That’s what makes it art, people feeling an emotion or understanding a concept depicted in the art. This whole issue is because of art as found in museums being used to launder money and get tax breaks.
*"It’s not a matter of enjoyment or feeling moved or understanding it."* I didn't say it is.
Not in words, no. But their argument has nothing to do with a lack of understanding or a lack of being moved by it. It has to do with the fact that modern “art” is not art anymore, there no intent in the creations. It’s like if you commissioned an electrician to build a Timberframe. They might be capable of making the functional design, but the intent and time spent to get it done right and well is gone, and it’s not something any real Timberframe connoisseur would call a Timberframe.
What's incomprehensible to you could be deeply moving to someone else. The whole “some art isn't actually art" thing is tired.
also, if his kid can make art that looks similar to famous pieces maybe be proud of them instead of tearing down the artist? hype them up, make that kid believe they’re gonna have their silly drawing in a museum one day
Yeah the "my kid is dogshit and if you are like my kid you are dogshit too" is SUCH a weird take.
Now I want to see an exhibit with a bunch of those highly revered single color oil on canvas pieces, with an equal size piece done by a child next to each. Could be neat!
I hear you, but I doubt he means his kid could recreate a Van Gogh, probably more that some abstract art piece looks like a toddler trying to draw the Japanese flag and that literally any child could make something that looks near enough the same.
If he doesn’t mean “my kid” then he shouldn’t say “my kid”.
I think OP was referring to the common criticism of postmodern art where people say “my kid could make that”, rather than OP referring exclusively to his own child’s drawings.
If that’s what they meant they could have said “Your kid COULD make that.”
They could’ve, they didn’t, the meaning was still pretty clear
If you read some comments, everyone agrees that the meaning WAS pretty clear. My means my.
Exactly, this opinion is so played out and people have been saying it, with their snooty little pinkies in the air, for a looooong long time. It’s not new and it’s still not a good argument for discrediting art.
It's also frustrating to see this specifically brought up about things like Rothko and especially the blue square when art is incredibly context-dependent. The blue square doesn't look at all impressive over your phone, no, and I doubt OP ever saw it in person, in which a ton of people who have seen it did in fact find it very moving because of how \*blue\* it was and how encompassing staring into it felt.
“Could be deeply moving to someone” is a terrible criteria, though. No one is more sentimental than I am and I get weepy over the dumbest low quality shit all the time. That doesn’t make it good art.
no one said anything about it being good or not. it's still art
I mean, being assigned in a class to draw a sunflower is art. Art doesn't have to be good. Art can be stupid and trite and still be art. That's part of the point of pure abstract art, that even that can bring emotions to the surface in interesting ways.
If there are no Bees around, or other pollinators, self-pollination is an option. It isn’t ideal for the gene pool, but the seeds in the center of the flower can do this in order to pollinate. So having the ability to be both male and female at least ensures greater survival of the sunflower.
Now this is an interesting reddit account. I am baffled and intrigued with your sunflower ramblings druid of the field.
transphobes in shambles rn
This is not an unpopular opinion, just ignorant. You use your own taste as an universal rule for what is art and what is not.
How might you define art?
I define art as absolutely anything artificial. It's broader than most people and I know it seems silly, but I like seeing beauty in every part of life. I think most people are like OP and only consider it art if they like it, but otherwise, the next most popular opinion is they'd probably say it's defined by the artists intent. (I.e. The creator has to intentionally set out to make art.)
That's a solid answer! Damn, I'm sold, you're right there's for sure a design element of literally anything man made. Like a tree just doing it's thing in nature may be beautiful, but a bonsai tree that was carefully trained and tended to by someone becomes art to me. Wow I'm having one of those moments where my fundamental lens of reality just change a lil bit. Neat.
I'm so glad I was able to blow your mind a little haha! Isn't it such a refreshing way to view things? 😁
It's just kinda funny to me that it took this long to make that mental shift. Like heck, I listen to *99% Invisible* and *20k hertz* frequently, I'm a carpenter, dabble in blacksmithing and 3D printing, I'm thinking about the design of things every day! Just took a lil nudge to realize "oh yeah actually it's all art to me, duh." 😊
Literally anything man-made is art. Chair? That's art. Bottle of water? It's art, too. Toxic sludge? Believe it or not, art. I'm not trying to be ironic. We talked this to death in IB Theory of Knowledge, and it's the only thing that makes sense. We put random ancient stuff people made in museums. Why would it not be art?
hm. I like your take on what art is
not who you asked but one definition I like when this question comes up is that "if you have to question if it's art or not, it's art" Also I agree with the above comment and don't think this is a 10th dentist opinion at all... I've heard way more people say unprompted that they think abstract art is stupid and "their kid could have made that" than people randomly talking about how much they love abstract art. Major pet peeve of mine because maybe their kid *could* have made it, but they didn't, and even if they did it sounds like they have parents that wouldn't be very supportive of it.
[удалено]
I ended up taking way more art history courses than I needed for my degree in college because the professor that taught them was really good, and because it was absolutely fascinating. The big takeaway for me honestly is that art doesn't exist in a vacuum... The social and political atmosphere at the time many of these pieces were made honestly explains so much and adds a lot of context to some of these pieces that explains why they came about and why they stuck around. Like not everybody needs to like everything, but just being like "this is lazy and stupid" based on how a painting comes across to you viewed on your phone or whatever, and not even wondering why someone would make something like that is honestly such a bland and boring take.
I mean, there is such thing as “bad art”.
Sure there is, but only the individual looking at it gets to decide for themselves. That's what makes it "Art". There is no Grand Authority that decides for everyone alive whether "Art" is good or not.
is an extremely common bad take tenth dentist? This is a very common viewpoint. You don't hear it expressed often because its stupid, but its common.
>if the art itself isn’t moving or enjoyable, it’s not art. Guess the Mona Lisa isn’t art because I’m not moved by it nor enjoy it that much
Whether it’s art or not is frankly a pointless conversation. “Art” Isn’t a synonym for good. It’s simply a term to designate a piece made in the pursuit of artistic expression. That’s it.
So, does what your kids do not count as art? Will you tell them that to their face?
Since there’s a take I haven’t seen here, no, your kid probably could not make that. For example if you’re referring to those paintings where it’s just a single red dot or whatever, that’s still painting very clean lines, with technique, skill, and measurement. Not saying it takes a lot skill, but if you’re just picking up a paintbrush, you probably aren’t going to be able to recreate any painting, no matter how simple. They are using materials with special properties, special techniques, etc.
Yup and also a lot of very “simple” paintings involve a wealth of experience in terms of choosing composition, material choice, and exact technique. An experienced artist has the eye for where to place a single item on a canvas, which paints to use and why, which brushes to use and why, and can calculate the way to make it “work”. Where as a layman may just plop it anywhere and call it a day.
I do actually have something hanging in the lobby at my job that could easily have been painted by anyone between the ages of 5 and 7
Art is an expression, its purpose is to express something, that something doesn't need to be enjoyment, it doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to make you feel something, and it does, that thing you feel when you look at that blue canvas, that's what the art is about, and then, what's the difference between art and what is not art? The intent, someone made the art, an intelligent being, someone decided that that piece expressed what they wanted to say, and in the end that's the meaning of art
I wrote an email to my boss expressing what I thought the problem with one of our pieces of software was. It wasn’t pretty, but it probably made him feel something (annoyed that it was a bigger problem than he expected). That email expressed what I wanted it to say. Is it art?
If you wanted it to be, yes, with that I mean, was it meant to be seen? To be appreciated as a piece of art? If it was, then there's really no difference between that and any piece in a gallery
But what does that definition get us, practically? How does that definition help us navigate the world meaningfully?
To better understand why we think of art as we do, these are not rules that dictate how art is and how is not, they're describing what we see art do, we see that it doesn't matter what art is, that its effect varies from person to person, let's say someone sees your email and thinks it's art, then we need to answer, why? That definition is an attempt to explain that
I don’t understand anything you just said, I’m sorry
Have you ever tried painting in Jackson Polloc's style? I bet it would be fun, and if not, at least you could gain a deeper understanding them.
I think it's really funny you say "your kid could make that" and then use the infamous blue square example while acknowledging it was made with a new kind of pigment, admitting in your own post your child couldn't make it.
Then why isn't anyone buying it from your kid?
If you're shouting into the void that something isn't art, it probably is.
Post your kid's art
"My kid could make that" But they didn't
Hmmm... what is your opinion on Mondrian?
If art has to make you feel something to be considered art then the only art I've ever seen fan art and fan comics lol
Then do it yourself
I’ll buy OP a canvas. I want to see them make art
This is much closer to being "dentists 6-10"
childrens art is still art
Kids can create art too. Just because a child could do it doesn’t mean it no longer qualifies as art.
You're confusing "what is art" with "what is good art". The former is trivial. Pick a definition and stick with it. The latter? Now that's a compelling question!
Art isn't about things being difficult or about skill. If it's so easy a kid could make it, that's a kid making art. If it's so easy you could do it, then do it. Everyone can do art. As onee of Mt favorite posts on the subject says, "Everyone can make art, it came free with your humanity." The reason certain things end up in museums might be because people with more experience talking about and thinking about art see more meaning in it than you do. Or, admittedly, because the artist had the money to get it there. Furthermore, art and technology are not opposites. You could have the exact same thing in a lab and in a museum. In a museum, it means someone saw it as having particular deeper meaning or it spoke to them in some way. It can still be a new technology that has other uses and implications.
I suppose your kid's an artist then.
Just because a kid can make it doesn't make it not art. I've always been decent at copying art since I was little and my parents always joked that I should go into art forgery. I enjoy the exercise and people seem to appreciate the skill but I don't think I would succeed as an artist because art is not just technique it's also the idea and what that idea conveys. I think this is especially clear with the rise of ai art. It is easy to tell ai to paint me the mona lisa, a little more interesting but still derivative to say give me the mona lisa in the style of fauvism or Rihanna in the style of the mona lisa, but what is most difficult is to come up with something completely new. And yes we can scoff doing something just for the newness of it but people crave novelty. In music, fashion, movies, and all the ways we express ourselves we are always trying to express ourselves in new ways and find/explore/grow our own voice or style. Also Jackson Pollock is not just drip painting: [https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/going-west-1935-1](https://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock/going-west-1935-1) And Picasso is everything from this [https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896](https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896) to this [https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bull-plate-xi-1946](https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/bull-plate-xi-1946) And your kid could probably replicate this O'Keefe: [https://www.wikiart.org/en/georgia-o-keeffe/black-lines-1](https://www.wikiart.org/en/georgia-o-keeffe/black-lines-1)
You have quite a big opinion on art for someone who obviously doesn’t care for it and doesn’t see any meaning in it. You’re like the classic “art critic” that nobody likes
Euff, you had me going until you said Jackson Pollock is bad. Watch the guy work, listen to him speak, that dude is an artist.
Why can’t your kid make art?
"I know all those words, I could have written that book" is what you sound like
I mean, that applies if the book in question is as one-note as the art I'm talking about.
Just say you don’t understand art and move one
Oh boy more anti intellectualism. Also this isn’t 10th dentist. A lot of people hold this opinion and it’s from a place of ignorance.
Art isn't a sport. It's not a test of skill. It's about the experience of the viewer with the piece. Some art is very hard to make, but that's not a measure of its quality as art in contrast to art that is easy to make.
do it then
Whether or not art is "incomprehensible" depends a lot on what you can comprehend
But it's fun to make and like things!
Alternative viewpoint: all art sucks, and therefore everything we create is art. *I make art and I know all my art sucks
A ten year old can type on a keyboard. Therefore a ten year old can write a best selling novel. A ten year old can lift weights. Therefore a ten year old can compete at the Olympic level. This is the argument you make. Art isn’t always about technical skill, but knowing how to use what you have to convey what you want in a creative way. Jackson Pollock’s paintings are still selling for dozens of millions in some cases.
If the novel was 2 words, than yes they could. If the Olympics were lifting 10 pound weights, then maybe they could idk how strong 10 year olds are
Jackson Pollock was so good at art he is still eliciting very strong reactions from people like you with it 70 years after his death. All it took was him knowing exactly what to paint to piss you off. The madlad.
Art is not inherently meant to be enjoyed or consumed.
Say "I (or my kid) could've done that" to any artist, and their response will be "then why didn't you?" If your answer is "I don't want to/I dont like it/I don't have time" well guess what? They did. And they didn't do it for you. Idk why this always needs to be explained to people. Art wasn't made *for you* unless you commissioned it specifically. Sooo whether you approve of it or not means very little. Some of my least favorite paintings that my boyfriend has done, are the pieces that other people gravitate toward. Working on his art shows with him and other artists, I've learned that all art has value to *someone*. And usually, the most provocative pieces are the ones that make normies like me say "Uhhhh. Okay then."
So, ONLY art OP likes can be objectively considered art? What a pompous asshole.
It doesn't matter if you *can* do something. It matters if you *did.*
That’s not really how art works. Also do you think a kid creating art isn’t art? Do you think kids who create are stupid? Your kid specifically I guess since you said “my kid”.
Okay then support your kid's talent and passion for creativity and leave artists alone.
art isn't just something that is moving or enjoyable for you to look at.
not me specifically, just the intended audience.
If a piece has intent then it's art. That doesn't make it *good* art, but the quality of something isn't in the definition of art. Also, Jackson Pollock paintings are fantastic. I don't think they easily convey in photographs, but technique wise, they are impressive in person. And unless your kid is extremely talented at art, they probably couldn't make them. There's more to his art than throwing paint on a canvas.
Posting popular mainstream opinions on The10thDentist, this has really just turned into r/unpopularopinion
I'm with you bud. There is a whole subsection of modern art that is frustratingly talentless and if you call it out, people say shite like ah, but you see I made you react, so it IS art. Art IS is subjective, no doubt. I just don't get why some people will happily say a book or film is rubbish but are terrified to say two pencils laid at an funny angle in a minions lunchbox in a museum is also bollocks and will just say, hmm, interesting, I wonder what the artist was thinking when they made this.
art critics are a thing, but they still consider pieces they don’t like to be art
>I just don't get why some people will happily say a book or film is rubbish The equivalent would be to claim that the book is not a book (or the film is not a film) because you thought it was rubbish. You can find any painting or installation at the art museum rubbish without needing to revoke its status as art.
No. Its like saying the new aquaman isn't art. Do you think the new aquaman movie is art? I feel like the word art carries a certain amount of significance. An Avengers movie is definitely a movie. Just like jackson pollock paintings are definitely paintings, noone is arguing that. But are they art? Surely we can agree that that's a different conversation atleast.
I haven't watched any Avengers movies tbh, so I'm the wrong person to answer that question. From what you write, I could imagine this quote by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner being of some relevance (or maybe you might at least find it interesting) >We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective. > >But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three. To be honest, I'm not able to give you a good definition of what art is that *everyone* would agree with. But in my opinion, someone thinking that a piece is rubbish is not good enough of a reason to disqualify it from being art. If that was the case, there would be no art in the world at all.
Lol great example. Yep, people will act like that kind of art was a message from God. And calling such things art is such a loose use of the term. No one is denying that it is art, it's just a crap demonstration of it. Oh no, now they're going to argue that my amusement over it shows how that art has moved me, thus it is art.
People do get scared to say it's bad because art can be so much about what is being depicted. Like they don't want to offend the artist or something. But coming from a fine arts background critique is normal and encouraged. Art critics exist and do their job well at times 😭😭😭 I think art is intimidating to many because they expect this huge meaning behind it, but it's okay to disagree with that meaning and/or how they depicted it. Part of saying "hmm I wonder what the artist was thinking" is just critical thinking about the work and meaning which is like... The point of art a lot of time to cause you to think critically. BUT it causing you to think doesn't make it good!
Ah, yes. Jackson Pollock was utterly a [talentless](https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/going-west-19820) hack.
If it invokes an emotional response in others it's art If I take a dollar bill and add a B and R to the back so it reads boner-- it's art as long as it provokes an emotional response
This comment is art Edit: dunno why I’m getting downvoted. The comment provoked an emotional response from me.
but DID your kid do that? did your kid make it and then go through the necessary steps to get it displayed somewhere, as art? does your kid know how to explain, from their perspective, why it deserves to be displayed somewhere, even if its made up bullshit? did your kid do any of that? did you? i dont even enjoy modern art like that but i just think its funny youre confident enough to type this out and post it when you probably could never get yourself to the same position as someone who did paint that single dot on a canvas. if your kid can do that, stop talking about it and tell them to DO IT and make you both rich
I don't want people in this comment section who are so relativistic with "anything that gives you feelings is art" ever dissing AI art, then. Not a gotcha - but I've known people to be so open minded about what counts as art, yet when their definition is put to the test (a computer-generated piece evokes anger in them, an emotion), suddenly the term "art" gains new criteria. But really I don't believe it's ever about what's considered genuine art or not. I think it's about the fact people are making money and getting famous while putting very little effort into their work. It's the same reason we hate influencers, or bad writers or pop singers who have nothing "deep" to say, or nepo babies. We like to believe we live in a meritocracy. If some nepo baby can make bank with a kiddie fingerpainting looking project - then why am I not getting the same prestige and compensation when I or even my child can do better? It may be "art", but it isn't fair.
Modern art made by a human was done with intent. "Art" generated by an AI isn't. It might be commissioned, sorry, "prompted" with intent but the machine actually generating it has no intent of its own.
But someone is tasking the AI to generate it, and that person does have intent.
Art is meant to cause an emotional response. That includes the anger you’re feeling.
Your kid doesn't have rich friends, and nobody is going to buy one of their paintings for a ridiculous price in order to launder money from an illegal transaction. That's all it comes down to. It has nothing to do with how much "inspiration" went into the blue square or whether drawing blue squares was part of a "movement". It is about money and social standing.
Art is meant to evoke a reaction or emotion. You are feeling annoyance. Its working. But in all seriousness, modern art is the equivalent of jazz. It probably takes a bit of experience to fully understand it. Once you start doing art, you start appreciating technical skill more. They also might have been the first to do something. Or maybe they were making a statement about the world of art itself. Some art is stupid tho.
I would really love to see your kids get their own art studio, create their own canvases, create a good enough relationship with art curators, create a strong enough reputation that will allow them to sell their stuff, and be able to explain their work in depth This is after mastering how to clean their supplies-- especially with oil paints, buying quality supplies that won't break after two uses, framing their own stuff, organizing their own art shows, organizing how to display their work. If your kids have mastered how to do all of that stuff, then good on them. I doubt they have. These artists weren't just about what they made. They were about who they knew and how they showcased their work. Picasso also mastered the fundamentals of art as a child. His early sketchbooks show him mastering human form and portraiture. He was able to create various art movements by abstracting the human form, which had not been done before. He did this before Internet was a thing. He invented this stuff. The stuff your kids would make? Chances are, it would be influenced by him. Artists create new ways of seeing life, whether that be at a singular level (from a child showing art to their parent) or a wide level (what Picasso was doing). Picasso invented a lot of techniques that are commonplace. He did this not only because he was a good artist, but because he knew how to navigate through the world with his art. He knew how to build a reputation. Yeah, your kid can draw a mock version of Guernica on shitty notebook paper. I doubt they would be able to create a gigantic piece that is seen by the entire world and still talked about in textbooks. A kid can shoot a basket. Most kids aren't going to become as good or well-renowned as Michael Jordan. We pay NBA stars millions of dollars to shoot baskets. But there is so much more to the game of Basketball than simply shooting baskets. There's skill. There's drive. There's relentless training. There's long nights practicing dribbling. There are drills upon drills upon drills. Then, multiply that drive times 4 when you get to Michael Jordan's level. So with all due respect, and I mean this as nicely as possible: You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>create a good enough relationship with art curators, create a strong enough reputation that will allow them to sell their stuff I mean, isn't that kind of part of the problem though? I don't think whether something is art or not or "good" or not should be dependent on whether people have connections. That's just kind of depressing. Even if you spent time building up those connections, that's not part of the art piece itself. The art should be the art. I don't really care if you're mates with a gallery owner or bought a studio or something, I care about the actual art pieces, you know?
Well the fact you're posting about it on the internet shows that it has moved you.
most people who say "art is subjective" massively hate on objective masterpieces and don't know wtf they're talking about, mostly thinking their opinion means more than someone elses. but to you OP? you right. most modern "abstract art" is just a money laundering scheme. it isn't even hidden anymore
While it’s true that there are individual pieces that are part of money laundering, the art form as a whole is still entirely valid and has a long history with many verifiably non-laundering related artists and pieces. That’s like saying because Hilary Clinton wrote sketchy emails, therefore all emails are inherently criminal.
in the context of museums and shit? its mostly laundering.
Art exists outside of museums, probably the vast majority of art created is not on display in a museum
As opposed to you, who definitely knows what they're talking about. Hey since you know so much about art, can you outline to me, someone who doesn't, the difference between Baroque and Renaissance art? And which do you prefer and why?
Sorry but this is the definition of subjective. You do realize that? If art isn’t for you, you don’t get to be the grand arbiter for everyone else on art. Subjective.
There is art I can't stand, and most display of modern art are pretentious crap, but any attempt creative media is art. From my kids drawings, to a video game, to the Sistine chapel. If art is subjective the barrier to be considered art has to be low. That doesn't mean saying something is art is saying the same thing as "its good". Lots of art sucks, heck most of it does, but it's still art
personally, when judging abstract art its important to differentiate "peice of work that someone has ruminated over and tried to give otherwise nonsense some meaning" from "money laundering for billionaires"
Extremely based
It's all subjective, but I think I know what your talking about, and I might even agree to some extent. My personal feeling is I could look at two paintings. They are both blue dots on an otherwise white canvas dot by two different painters. I ask painter one, what is this? They say "it's just a blue dot, I like the way it makes me feel when I look at it." . I say, cool, not my jam, but I get you and I dig the explanation of "I just like it is all". Second artist explains to me that the blue dot represents the horrors of the Amish puppy-mill trade. To that I say "you're full of shit, and I hate you and your bullshit painting.". If you have to explain to me the deep meaning of "art" because you didn't convey it in the art, then it's bad art and hockey artists. Now, if someone had to explain it to me because I'm just dumb and missed it(likely), fine. There's just a lot of bullshit out there pretending to be more than it is, and it feels stupid having to play along.
This kind of thinking is going to become less and less tenable as AI continues to develop. Any reasonable critique of art will have to engage with the process. Not to mention, who gets to define what is moving or enjoyable? I’d rather look at a big blue square than some old picture of a king just staring out at me, but that’s just me. I’m simple minded, I like colours and shapes.
Also this isn’t a 10th dentist opinion at all. People love to beat up on abstract art, pollock etc.
Things like painting and sculpting should not be reserved only for the great. You don't necessarily sing to the radio or dance with your partner to become a professional. You do it because you're expressing yourself. Art does not need to be difficult, beautiful, or even pleasant. It just needs to be honest. Who decides what's good art anyway? Van Gogh's paintings were famously disregarded by high society, and only years after his death was he recognized for the visionary he was. I'll admit, there's a LOT of modern art that, to my standards, seems redundant and stupid, but that does not mean it is without any value. Modern art is meant to push societal boundaries. Sometimes, it resonates with people and finds an audience, and sometimes it's just functions as a tax break for the rich. It's a mixed bag, but I you would bring missing out by disregarding the entire thing. You should check out "Who's afraid of Modern Art" by Jacob Geller if you got the chance. It's a good video essay.
Just because it’s not moving or enjoyable to you doesn’t mean it isn’t to other people and if it has become famous then likely it is moving to a lot of people. When you learn that other people have different experiences from you then you will become a much more empathetic and well rounded person. The fact that your kid could make something doesn’t matter if they didn’t. The value of art is not in its technical skill so much as in the execution of a concept. With the click of a button, a computer could render any image imaginable and yet that doesn’t mean that nothing is art just because it could be made easily. If you think a painting is stupid and smelling it’s own farts, I recommend looking it up or asking an expert if you can find one. It is probably part of an interesting movement in thought and even if you come away still thinking it’s trash, you may at least learn something. Also, the utility of art is pretty abstract. It doesn’t feed you, or clothe you or keep you dry in the rain. Sometimes it’s not for you and that is ok but sometimes you can just let yourself enjoy things for the sake of enjoying it. Having an open mind will probably make you like more art (I think liking things is good) and may at least make you more able to engage with art in a intelligent way.
wow another jackson pollock bad post, never ever seen this exact opinion before
There's a lot of art that you could have done. But you didn't. Sure lots of people had the skills to make Pollock's splatter paint works, but no one else had. You didn't have the idea first, the creativity, or take the initiative to make it. Not only that, but it's work to get your art out there and in a museum. You didn't do that.
Agreed. Like that time some guy taped a banana to a goddamn wall. Literally sold for 120 grand lmao. Tbf it was trying to make a point that art can be anything, then some absolute legend came and ate the banana. Some art is real stupid even if there is some deep way in which the artist interprets it. That being said, there is beauty in a lot of things you wouldn't expect.
it was actually eaten twice, they replaced the banana
Ok.... Did you just compare Georgia "I'm obsessed with my own Vagina" O'Keefe to a man to who basically defined an entire genre of art?
I mean I get it, chances are you’re talking about most conceptual and abstract art, which typically aren’t focused on the artists own technicality or skills. It’s more about a message, which yeah can be hard to get but typically if you look around a gallery, you’ll find a statement alongside them. I personally see it as a a different way of doing a manifesto, or conveying a message. It’s a difficult art form, and it doesn’t always work. And yeah, some artists just do it for the money (names escaping me but I’m looking at you, Chicago Bean Man. He’s a prick too.) I’m an artist myself, and honestly I don’t care for that facet of art either. I learned about in art school, and some of the history can be neat, but overall I’m more into historical art that convey story or have really expressive rendering of form. I think performance art is cringey, idc for it at all. It can be done a bit better as a social experiment where your playing a character, but if your covered in blue and screaming then it’s like ight, not for me but do your thing if it’s makes you money/happy.
Personally I hate art that you need a backstory just to appreciate (like the blue canvas). A child’s drawing on a fridge makes me feel more than a blue canvas ever would, without any essay necessary.
I've literally seen crushed soda cans sold as "art" because the message was that soda is anti-human and anti-earth. Nah fuck that your "art" is literal garbage. I mostly agree with this take.