natstan
Junior Member
Posts • 1,806
Likes • 1,127
March 2013
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by natstan on Nov 6, 2017 1:49:02 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by Rouen Cathedral on Nov 6, 2017 2:04:15 GMT 1, I think this was posted awhile ago.
He has some decent points and ideas that hold true to a lot of ‘modern art’.
But the fact that he finds comparing his smock to a Jackson pollock and that his students can’t tell the difference is more telling about him being a teacher and his students not the most astute then it is about proving his point.
I 100% agree with the shock argument though. Sadly it appears art stupids these days are taught that shock equal good.
I think this was posted awhile ago.
He has some decent points and ideas that hold true to a lot of ‘modern art’.
But the fact that he finds comparing his smock to a Jackson pollock and that his students can’t tell the difference is more telling about him being a teacher and his students not the most astute then it is about proving his point.
I 100% agree with the shock argument though. Sadly it appears art stupids these days are taught that shock equal good.
|
|
|
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by Daniel Silk on Nov 6, 2017 2:16:57 GMT 1, OPINION.
OPINION.
|
|
South Bound
Junior Member
Posts • 1,483
Likes • 1,125
May 2014
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by South Bound on Nov 6, 2017 2:18:35 GMT 1, Google “Prager University.”
Google “Prager University.”
|
|
hui
New Member
Posts • 289
Likes • 206
October 2017
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by hui on Nov 6, 2017 5:26:24 GMT 1,
|
|
hui
New Member
Posts • 289
Likes • 206
October 2017
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by hui on Nov 6, 2017 5:27:17 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
Posts • 2,027
Likes • 3,304
May 2014
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by mojo on Nov 6, 2017 5:56:19 GMT 1, I think he's missed the point? It's about the artist, their personality, body of work, skill and if they resonate with the masses.....innit? I know huge $$$'s are involved too but lets not be cynical most well known artists had to start somewhere and often don't have the cash that their work eventually generates. And as if for one second I thought his stupid apron was a Pollock.... I'll admit to thinking the painting behind him was by Martin Creed and not Rauschenberg, but hey.....?
I wouldn't want any art classes from him, very uninspiring and trashy.... although he's welcome to his opinion of course. I didn't find his opinion profound, inspiring or beautiful:D
I think he's missed the point? It's about the artist, their personality, body of work, skill and if they resonate with the masses.....innit? I know huge $$$'s are involved too but lets not be cynical most well known artists had to start somewhere and often don't have the cash that their work eventually generates. And as if for one second I thought his stupid apron was a Pollock.... I'll admit to thinking the painting behind him was by Martin Creed and not Rauschenberg, but hey.....?
I wouldn't want any art classes from him, very uninspiring and trashy.... although he's welcome to his opinion of course. I didn't find his opinion profound, inspiring or beautiful:D
|
|
louic
New Member
Posts • 185
Likes • 79
April 2017
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by louic on Nov 6, 2017 11:57:58 GMT 1, I think this was posted awhile ago. He has some decent points and ideas that hold true to a lot of ‘modern art’. But the fact that he finds comparing his smock to a Jackson pollock and that his students can’t tell the difference is more telling about him being a teacher and his students not the most astute then it is about proving his point. I 100% agree with the shock argument though. Sadly it appears art stupids these days are taught that shock equal good.
‘Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock’ is worth a watch. Even experts have problems with art being subjective while the art market is still massively influenced by artists, their legacy, and public opinion. Shines some light on some problems with authentication as well.
I think this was posted awhile ago. He has some decent points and ideas that hold true to a lot of ‘modern art’. But the fact that he finds comparing his smock to a Jackson pollock and that his students can’t tell the difference is more telling about him being a teacher and his students not the most astute then it is about proving his point. I 100% agree with the shock argument though. Sadly it appears art stupids these days are taught that shock equal good. ‘Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock’ is worth a watch. Even experts have problems with art being subjective while the art market is still massively influenced by artists, their legacy, and public opinion. Shines some light on some problems with authentication as well. |
|
adewilliams
Junior Member
Posts • 1,190
Likes • 321
May 2009
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by adewilliams on Nov 6, 2017 12:21:46 GMT 1, I really don't think this guy gets it. I laughed a lot
I really don't think this guy gets it. I laughed a lot
|
|
Guy Denning
Artist
New Member
Posts • 636
Likes • 1,281
July 2007
|
Modern art is thrash... oops, by Guy Denning on Nov 6, 2017 13:42:50 GMT 1, A couple of dictionary definitions…
ART: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
THEORY: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
If a thing needs explanation of its reasons for being and its creation then the common assumption is that the thing’s purpose may be difficult to comprehend without the intervention of the appropriately qualified expert to elucidate the unqualified. The expert will explain the intricacies and complications of the specialist language that has been developed to support understanding of the functioning of the thing. The expert will translate the language of the specific into the language of the general – which begs the question as to why as simpler language wasn’t possible in the first place.
The rarefied world of contemporary art theory must rank equally with contemporary economic theory in being culpable of the crime of being intentionally opaque in its mechanisms and justifications. And since of course both can only be understood by the appropriately qualified language experts in their relative fields, we further qualify them by refusing to deny the unnecessary complications of each respective specialist language.
We falsely assign higher qualities of expertise (which in the arts translates as talent) to those that can express themselves fluently (no matter how incomprehensibly) in a given specialist field of endeavour. If we do not understand that expression then we quietly step down to a position of comparative inferiority in the scale of understanding of that field of endeavour. We back down in the face of the ‘expert’ who clearly knows more about the subject than we do. But we are not deferring to the authority of the subject. We are deferring to the expert’s familiarity of the language about the subject. And that is a very different thing.
Interestingly both recent economic and art theory are treated by some of its most highly regarded practitioners of being nearer to fact than theory. And their respective specialist languages keep the critical general public at bay and the informed critics side-lined as reactionary throwbacks to a bad and wrong history.
A couple of dictionary definitions…
ART: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
THEORY: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
If a thing needs explanation of its reasons for being and its creation then the common assumption is that the thing’s purpose may be difficult to comprehend without the intervention of the appropriately qualified expert to elucidate the unqualified. The expert will explain the intricacies and complications of the specialist language that has been developed to support understanding of the functioning of the thing. The expert will translate the language of the specific into the language of the general – which begs the question as to why as simpler language wasn’t possible in the first place.
The rarefied world of contemporary art theory must rank equally with contemporary economic theory in being culpable of the crime of being intentionally opaque in its mechanisms and justifications. And since of course both can only be understood by the appropriately qualified language experts in their relative fields, we further qualify them by refusing to deny the unnecessary complications of each respective specialist language.
We falsely assign higher qualities of expertise (which in the arts translates as talent) to those that can express themselves fluently (no matter how incomprehensibly) in a given specialist field of endeavour. If we do not understand that expression then we quietly step down to a position of comparative inferiority in the scale of understanding of that field of endeavour. We back down in the face of the ‘expert’ who clearly knows more about the subject than we do. But we are not deferring to the authority of the subject. We are deferring to the expert’s familiarity of the language about the subject. And that is a very different thing.
Interestingly both recent economic and art theory are treated by some of its most highly regarded practitioners of being nearer to fact than theory. And their respective specialist languages keep the critical general public at bay and the informed critics side-lined as reactionary throwbacks to a bad and wrong history.
|
|
📸