"I can do that too" when looking at art in museums

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it’s a ridiculous thing to say. If you can do it, go do it. It shows you have no taste or understanding of art.

And you can certainly critique art that’s not my point- but that is an especially ridiculous critique.

+1 and it’s ok if you don’t like it or don’t get it. It’s ok to walk on by and say nothing. The artist is not trying to appeal to everyone.

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of when you write something and someone replies “couldn’t have said it better myself.” Yeah I know. Cause you didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a textile art exhibit up right now. Technique-wise, I can do a lot of what I saw there, because that's my job (though if you were to ask me to paint you a picture of it, I couldn't, even to save my life.)

The thing that makes it art isn't always the technique. It's the process (pollack), the environment in which the artist created the piece (ai weiwei), the narrative story behind the work (Mark Bradford's "Pickett's Charge" jumps to mind, but all art has a story), the time invested and what the artist missed to devote that time/energy to the work...

People saying "I can do that too" out loud in museums are probably either trying to sound important/cool, or having a tough time relating to the work(s) on display. Neither is a good look.

NP. If you need a BFA to understand certain art, then what does that say about the art? It becomes precious and intellectual. It also becomes separated from your visceral reaction and emotions.

I suppose we could debate whether art should elicit emotions. And whether accessibility is a valid criterion. We could have the same debate about some modern orchestral music.

As an aside, I don't believe that every piece of "art" comes with its own suitcase of process, narrative story, and/or the artist's blood, sweat and tears. Some art just seems...uninspired. I agree this is less true of art that makes it into a museum, but it does seem more true about some of the art on the walls of my local coffee shop.

On the other hand, I remember a lecture at Penn about the Philly art museum installing a Rocky statue on those grand front steps. The prof concluded that it spoke to people, so it was a good thing and might even bring more people into the museum. I guess I agree with that, especially if you take the statue as embodying all the (fictional) struggles and aspirations of the film.

Believing that it's "precious and intellectual" is a reaction based on your emotions/interpretation of the piece, the artist, and the concept of the value of art.

When the art seems "uninspired", it can be a reflection of the viewer.

By your logic, I should be inspired by every single art piece. I am not. No one does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD has done Mondrians for years, and people have asked me if it's real. So I had her do a couple Rothko's. . She's a phenomenal artist. Looks real. You wouldn't be able to tell.

A lot of people who are trained artists can replicate a lot of modern art pieces, so I don't see anything unusual if someone say that in the museum. I would assume they are artists and can paint the same or similar paining. You don't hear much of that near Mona Lisa or in Belvedere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of some "modern art" and do think most of us here could recreate the red splotch on the white background or the blue circle.

When you see a piece like this, that looks simple, try moving to the side and looking at the texture. Move to the other side of the room and look at it, then walk toward it. Get as close as you respectfully can (don't set off the sensors; that shouldn't be necessary). Read the info card and think about when and where it was made, and with what materials, and what the artist might've been doing if not making that piece. There are all sorts of subtleties in most pieces like this.

There’s a sucker born every minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD has done Mondrians for years, and people have asked me if it's real. So I had her do a couple Rothko's. . She's a phenomenal artist. Looks real. You wouldn't be able to tell.

This is my favorite Mondrian. His style evolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes you sound uneducated. Like you don't understand the history and concepts behind the art.

I’m fine with not being sufficiently educated in this area, the same way I’m fine with not being sufficiently educated as to the detailed history of Middle Earth.

Because Middle Earth is a fictional place in a series of books. You sound like you are not sufficiently educated in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: some modern art, it's understandable and likely true.

+1

Yup. I saw a news report about a preschool aged kid who is selling paintings for thousands each. They are no different than what any little kid can paint and I truly don't understand why people are shelling out thousands for a painting.

You don’t understand art history. It’s okay—a lot of people don’t.

I do find bragging about it odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: some modern art, it's understandable and likely true.

+1

Yup. I saw a news report about a preschool aged kid who is selling paintings for thousands each. They are no different than what any little kid can paint and I truly don't understand why people are shelling out thousands for a painting.

You don’t understand art history. It’s okay—a lot of people don’t.

I do find bragging about it odd.

That is okay. A lot of people brag about things they don't understand, especially in politics.

[Anonymous]

But you didn’t is the answer I always give. Because it’s factual.

Art from the renaissance to Impressionism is a completely different thing than a lot of art today because we are a different society. It’s fine to prefer the amazing physical talent of using your hands to create something realistic and lifelike or aesthetically beautiful with paint and brush or chisel and marble over conceptual work that primarily engages your mind. You value that skill over other things in art and there is nothing wrong with that.

No art is truly universal. But some people derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from conceptual art or art that makes statements about past art or society or whatnot.

I might not love some of contemporary art in terms of aesthetics. But I always find it interesting what it reflects about our society that artists are making what they do.

To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a textile art exhibit up right now. Technique-wise, I can do a lot of what I saw there, because that's my job (though if you were to ask me to paint you a picture of it, I couldn't, even to save my life.)

The thing that makes it art isn't always the technique. It's the process (pollack), the environment in which the artist created the piece (ai weiwei), the narrative story behind the work (Mark Bradford's "Pickett's Charge" jumps to mind, but all art has a story), the time invested and what the artist missed to devote that time/energy to the work...

People saying "I can do that too" out loud in museums are probably either trying to sound important/cool, or having a tough time relating to the work(s) on display. Neither is a good look.

NP. If you need a BFA to understand certain art, then what does that say about the art? It becomes precious and intellectual. It also becomes separated from your visceral reaction and emotions.

I suppose we could debate whether art should elicit emotions. And whether accessibility is a valid criterion. We could have the same debate about some modern orchestral music.

As an aside, I don't believe that every piece of "art" comes with its own suitcase of process, narrative story, and/or the artist's blood, sweat and tears. Some art just seems...uninspired. I agree this is less true of art that makes it into a museum, but it does seem more true about some of the art on the walls of my local coffee shop.

On the other hand, I remember a lecture at Penn about the Philly art museum installing a Rocky statue on those grand front steps. The prof concluded that it spoke to people, so it was a good thing and might even bring more people into the museum. I guess I agree with that, especially if you take the statue as embodying all the (fictional) struggles and aspirations of the film.

Believing that it's "precious and intellectual" is a reaction based on your emotions/interpretation of the piece, the artist, and the concept of the value of art.

When the art seems "uninspired", it can be a reflection of the viewer.

By your logic, I should be inspired by every single art piece. I am not. No one does.

No, you don't need to be inspired by it. But if you're reactive to it and feel a need to judge it and put it down, that's a whole response, and it's about you, not necessarily the art.

[Anonymous]

I’m highly educated and even studied the humanities more than the average person I come across.

There’s a lot of art and a lot of art commentary that is absolutely vapid. The people who fawn over this subculture and create an air of importance and prestige around this art should be ridiculed more than they are.

I like art, I like modern art, and I appreciate a wide array of art that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere and the breathless descriptions of the genius of a paint splatter or a black line across a canvas deserve nothing. It is a grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m highly educated and even studied the humanities more than the average person I come across.

There’s a lot of art and a lot of art commentary that is absolutely vapid. The people who fawn over this subculture and create an air of importance and prestige around this art should be ridiculed more than they are.

I like art, I like modern art, and I appreciate a wide array of art that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere and the breathless descriptions of the genius of a paint splatter or a black line across a canvas deserve nothing. It is a grift.

Where have you seen/heard this? (other than parodies of the art world)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends.

One time the “art” was baloney pinned to the walls. I think any of us could pin lunch meat to a wall.

Same with the room full of cardboard boxes (which the artist bought).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a textile art exhibit up right now. Technique-wise, I can do a lot of what I saw there, because that's my job (though if you were to ask me to paint you a picture of it, I couldn't, even to save my life.)

The thing that makes it art isn't always the technique. It's the process (pollack), the environment in which the artist created the piece (ai weiwei), the narrative story behind the work (Mark Bradford's "Pickett's Charge" jumps to mind, but all art has a story), the time invested and what the artist missed to devote that time/energy to the work...

People saying "I can do that too" out loud in museums are probably either trying to sound important/cool, or having a tough time relating to the work(s) on display. Neither is a good look.

NP. If you need a BFA to understand certain art, then what does that say about the art? It becomes precious and intellectual. It also becomes separated from your visceral reaction and emotions.

I suppose we could debate whether art should elicit emotions. And whether accessibility is a valid criterion. We could have the same debate about some modern orchestral music.

As an aside, I don't believe that every piece of "art" comes with its own suitcase of process, narrative story, and/or the artist's blood, sweat and tears. Some art just seems...uninspired. I agree this is less true of art that makes it into a museum, but it does seem more true about some of the art on the walls of my local coffee shop.

On the other hand, I remember a lecture at Penn about the Philly art museum installing a Rocky statue on those grand front steps. The prof concluded that it spoke to people, so it was a good thing and might even bring more people into the museum. I guess I agree with that, especially if you take the statue as embodying all the (fictional) struggles and aspirations of the film.

Believing that it's "precious and intellectual" is a reaction based on your emotions/interpretation of the piece, the artist, and the concept of the value of art.

When the art seems "uninspired", it can be a reflection of the viewer.

By your logic, I should be inspired by every single art piece. I am not. No one does.

No, you don't need to be inspired by it. But if you're reactive to it and feel a need to judge it and put it down, that's a whole response, and it's about you, not necessarily the art.

When is a response to art not about the individual?