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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of contemporary art I could do, yes. The overly Complicated masterpieces and what not? No. I was in complete awe at the Vatican that someone had that kind of talent.

You might be able to physically construct it, yes. But would you have come up with the ideas behind it to have made it? If so - why not go for it and make some money on the side and to prove your point?

It's a hard shift to make between art that is valued today primarily because of the skill and craft behind manually making works that reproduce the view out the window, and art that is about concepts more than about manual construction by one person. It's totally valid to say you don't appreciate the latter at all, that you want nothing to do with art if it doesn't have high construction value (in your view). But you do have to admit that a lot of contemporary art is a different thing, with different intents and purposes altogether than a canvas painted 400 years ago. Most of today's art is not about reconstructing reality on a 2 dimensional surface. We have cameras for that and it's been done, so many artists have moved on. Not all, though. You can still find contemporary realist painters if that is what you love.

I love older art, by the way, so in no way denigrating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

See, I think this is where it’s revealing who is actually informed and who is not. That you’ve never encountered this just means you haven’t interacted with the “right” people.

The entire contemporary art world is so severely jargonized, their lexicon of critique so esoteric, and access so limited - that in fact, the value in some of these absurdly simple pieces is that it exists and has been accepted as valuable by this “secret” world. They place a high value on the normies and plebes not getting it. That is the point.

Which makes them unintentionally satirical and an art form in and of themselves. It’s meta.

But, art should be accessible to a broad set of people, it doesn’t meant it must be accepted or appreciated by “everyone” but when you draw a line on a canvas and then build an esoteric insular technical world around it to make it “special” and valuable it’s all just a farce and a grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But how does it hurt you? I mean, ignore it, don't buy it, don't go to exhibitions, you'll be fine. There are plenty of contemporary artists who work in conventional, traditional ways. Support them. Go to their gallery openings. Buy their art. Post about them on social media. Ignore what you don't like and we're all good. No need to artificially draw a line. Just choose what you like. No need to censor others because you don't like it.

Nobody's censoring anybody, PP.

+1

I would say the censoring is coming from the people who want to squelch all negative commentary about art.

Except when they say a line must be drawn?? What does that imply? Is that a personal drawing of the line for that poster alone, or are they implying something in a broader sense of what gets seen and what all people value? I can't tell.

Anyway, no one is trying to squelch all negative commentary. This thread is fantastic - as an artist I love that people are talking about and debating and feeling passionate about art! Would love to see more of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of contemporary art I could do, yes. The overly Complicated masterpieces and what not? No. I was in complete awe at the Vatican that someone had that kind of talent.

You might be able to physically construct it, yes. But would you have come up with the ideas behind it to have made it? If so - why not go for it and make some money on the side and to prove your point?

It's a hard shift to make between art that is valued today primarily because of the skill and craft behind manually making works that reproduce the view out the window, and art that is about concepts more than about manual construction by one person. It's totally valid to say you don't appreciate the latter at all, that you want nothing to do with art if it doesn't have high construction value (in your view). But you do have to admit that a lot of contemporary art is a different thing, with different intents and purposes altogether than a canvas painted 400 years ago. Most of today's art is not about reconstructing reality on a 2 dimensional surface. We have cameras for that and it's been done, so many artists have moved on. Not all, though. You can still find contemporary realist painters if that is what you love.

I love older art, by the way, so in no way denigrating it.

You mean like spanking a mound of butter with a chain? So sophisticated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

See, I think this is where it’s revealing who is actually informed and who is not. That you’ve never encountered this just means you haven’t interacted with the “right” people.

The entire contemporary art world is so severely jargonized, their lexicon of critique so esoteric, and access so limited - that in fact, the value in some of these absurdly simple pieces is that it exists and has been accepted as valuable by this “secret” world. They place a high value on the normies and plebes not getting it. That is the point.

Which makes them unintentionally satirical and an art form in and of themselves. It’s meta.

But, art should be accessible to a broad set of people, it doesn’t meant it must be accepted or appreciated by “everyone” but when you draw a line on a canvas and then build an esoteric insular technical world around it to make it “special” and valuable it’s all just a farce and a grift.

And no one is forcing you to read those things or participate in the contemporary art world that is like that. Stop reading and looking at things that you hate. Go to galleries and museums showing art you do like. Start your own online blog or journal about art. Buy contemporary art you like. That's what everyone should do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of contemporary art I could do, yes. The overly Complicated masterpieces and what not? No. I was in complete awe at the Vatican that someone had that kind of talent.

You might be able to physically construct it, yes. But would you have come up with the ideas behind it to have made it? If so - why not go for it and make some money on the side and to prove your point?

It's a hard shift to make between art that is valued today primarily because of the skill and craft behind manually making works that reproduce the view out the window, and art that is about concepts more than about manual construction by one person. It's totally valid to say you don't appreciate the latter at all, that you want nothing to do with art if it doesn't have high construction value (in your view). But you do have to admit that a lot of contemporary art is a different thing, with different intents and purposes altogether than a canvas painted 400 years ago. Most of today's art is not about reconstructing reality on a 2 dimensional surface. We have cameras for that and it's been done, so many artists have moved on. Not all, though. You can still find contemporary realist painters if that is what you love.

I love older art, by the way, so in no way denigrating it.

You mean like spanking a mound of butter with a chain? So sophisticated.

That sounds awesome. Who's the artist?

[Anonymous]

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

False. Modern art for the most part is quite complex. So your premise is incorrect. Now you also need to be able to get your art into a museum which is a pretty difficult task.

But yes carry on believing you can do it

Is that the reason the orange man won? We want to believe any idiot can be President?

[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.

\

But you didn't think of it first. That's the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But how does it hurt you? I mean, ignore it, don't buy it, don't go to exhibitions, you'll be fine. There are plenty of contemporary artists who work in conventional, traditional ways. Support them. Go to their gallery openings. Buy their art. Post about them on social media. Ignore what you don't like and we're all good. No need to artificially draw a line. Just choose what you like. No need to censor others because you don't like it.

Nobody's censoring anybody, PP.

+1

I would say the censoring is coming from the people who want to squelch all negative commentary about art.

Except when they say a line must be drawn?? What does that imply? Is that a personal drawing of the line for that poster alone, or are they implying something in a broader sense of what gets seen and what all people value? I can't tell.

Anyway, no one is trying to squelch all negative commentary. This thread is fantastic - as an artist I love that people are talking about and debating and feeling passionate about art! Would love to see more of it.

Well, quite obviously that PP has no ability to enforce anything broader so it must be personal. You on the other hand seem to be saying that the PP should just ignore what she thinks is ridiculous or a grift rather than commenting on it, although you also walked that back in the post above.

[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.

People used to want to learn and be educated. That is sad, pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

See, I think this is where it’s revealing who is actually informed and who is not. That you’ve never encountered this just means you haven’t interacted with the “right” people.

The entire contemporary art world is so severely jargonized, their lexicon of critique so esoteric, and access so limited - that in fact, the value in some of these absurdly simple pieces is that it exists and has been accepted as valuable by this “secret” world. They place a high value on the normies and plebes not getting it. That is the point.

Which makes them unintentionally satirical and an art form in and of themselves. It’s meta.

But, art should be accessible to a broad set of people, it doesn’t meant it must be accepted or appreciated by “everyone” but when you draw a line on a canvas and then build an esoteric insular technical world around it to make it “special” and valuable it’s all just a farce and a grift.

And no one is forcing you to read those things or participate in the contemporary art world that is like that. Stop reading and looking at things that you hate. Go to galleries and museums showing art you do like. Start your own online blog or journal about art. Buy contemporary art you like. That's what everyone should do.

I’m not the PP but I think this idea that artists should never face negative commentary is so absurd. Why should the PP stop looking at art she hates? So the feelings of artists are never hurt? So that an artist never has to accept that his or her art might not be universally praised?

This toxic positivity is so pervasive nowadays and I think we are as a society so much weaker for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Glenstone has several rooms right now filled with nothing but colored panels. A canvas painted red, another black, another green, etc. They're just titled that too, "red panel." Very little detail on what it's supposed to mean and no there isn't texture or anything besides just the application of paint on canvas. It's worth checking out. I'm not generally skeptical and like modern art but this felt like a joke.

I had a friend who spent several years working at Glenstone. She reported a backstabbing, ultra-condescending culture among her colleagues. It shows in the way they display the artwork and the restrictions placed on the public.

Dp I can assure you the halls of Exxon or any other corportation are filled with backstabbing, ultra-condescending culture. It's what humans do best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

See, I think this is where it’s revealing who is actually informed and who is not. That you’ve never encountered this just means you haven’t interacted with the “right” people.

The entire contemporary art world is so severely jargonized, their lexicon of critique so esoteric, and access so limited - that in fact, the value in some of these absurdly simple pieces is that it exists and has been accepted as valuable by this “secret” world. They place a high value on the normies and plebes not getting it. That is the point.

Which makes them unintentionally satirical and an art form in and of themselves. It’s meta.

But, art should be accessible to a broad set of people, it doesn’t meant it must be accepted or appreciated by “everyone” but when you draw a line on a canvas and then build an esoteric insular technical world around it to make it “special” and valuable it’s all just a farce and a grift.

PP here and my DH has spent his career working in art museums. I have a close family member who owns a contemporary art gallery. I’ve never heard breathless descriptions of paint splatters or black lines. No doubt there are bloviating grifters out there, but the art world can be very accessible to anyone who really wants to try to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You both got and missed the point at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

See, I think this is where it’s revealing who is actually informed and who is not. That you’ve never encountered this just means you haven’t interacted with the “right” people.

The entire contemporary art world is so severely jargonized, their lexicon of critique so esoteric, and access so limited - that in fact, the value in some of these absurdly simple pieces is that it exists and has been accepted as valuable by this “secret” world. They place a high value on the normies and plebes not getting it. That is the point.

Which makes them unintentionally satirical and an art form in and of themselves. It’s meta.

But, art should be accessible to a broad set of people, it doesn’t meant it must be accepted or appreciated by “everyone” but when you draw a line on a canvas and then build an esoteric insular technical world around it to make it “special” and valuable it’s all just a farce and a grift.

And no one is forcing you to read those things or participate in the contemporary art world that is like that. Stop reading and looking at things that you hate. Go to galleries and museums showing art you do like. Start your own online blog or journal about art. Buy contemporary art you like. That's what everyone should do.

I’m not the PP but I think this idea that artists should never face negative commentary is so absurd. Why should the PP stop looking at art she hates? So the feelings of artists are never hurt? So that an artist never has to accept that his or her art might not be universally praised?

This toxic positivity is so pervasive nowadays and I think we are as a society so much weaker for it.

Artists are rejected all the time. If your paintings do not sell...that's a real rejection. If no one wants to display them...rejection. Why should an artist care if you personally don't like it? You can't please everyone. Just like writers. Not everyone is going to like J.K. Rowling or Ron Chernow but, there is space for both!