Modern art

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:52 am UTC

Did anyone actually read the article? The dispute arose from Mike Batt, the defendant, having credited the track to Batt/Cage. He essentially worte, right on the album sleeve, that this was John Cage's silence. Batt certainly had a case to answer, even if the court may have ruled in his favour. If not for copyright theft, at least for royalty payments.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:56 am UTC

Dream wrote:Did anyone actually read the article? The dispute arose from Mike Batt, the defendant, having credited the track to Batt/Cage. He essentially worte, right on the album sleeve, that this was John Cage's silence. Batt certainly had a case to answer, even if the court may have ruled in his favour. If not for copyright theft, at least for royalty payments.

it's not actually about the "music" -- it was a mere copyright shenanigans. no one gives a shit about john cage or his silence. it's a clever topic to bring up to sound sophisticated but outside of the philosophical argument about sound and what constitutes art, it's basically a copyright over a theory. it's stupid.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:38 am UTC

I just read this talk by Larry Wall about postmodernism, perl and linux, and thought it to be at least tangent to the current discussion.

Modern art (modern, not Modern(ism)) isn't so much about what you do/create as what you were trying to do/create. Fountain isn't an upside down urinal, it's a kick to the art world. An upside down urinal isn't art, but (through reverse-definitions, if there is such a thing) an unprovoking item becoming provoking by declaring it art must be art, since it's the only thing changed about it. Saying that modern art is crap can be both right and wrong, depending on what you mean by modern art. A broken urinal is crap, but the act of putting it on exhibition is art.
This is made confusing by the fact that traditionally things were switched around. A painting is art, but painting it is not vs broken pipes is not art, but making them is (again with the context).
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:28 am UTC

darwinwins wrote:no one gives a shit about john cage or his silence.

I know a lot of musicians (myself included) who would beg to differ.

if it went to court, the trust would have lost -- the claim was that the one minute of silence used was ripped off of the 4'33 (cage, i believe, was listed as co-writer of the song in question). the reason they would have lost is that they can't tell you what part of 4'33 was ripped off for a minute.

I don't know where you're getting this from. The article makes it look like a very straightforward issue: Batt credited a piece on his album as being co-written by Cage, the Cage Trust wanted to know why they weren't getting a cut from a commercial use of Cage's work. I can't see how there would have been difficulty proving infringement when the defendant pretty much admits to it in the album credits.

In short, what Dream said.

Cage didn't really come up with anything super original (it was mostly original, but silence isn't)

Yes he did. Who else had done it before him? This is somewhat related (I think) to the "My five year old could do this" family of arguments. Unless your five year old did it (and they didn't), shut up about it. And if your five year old did paint something like that, was it a statement about the nature of art, or was it a five year old throwing paint around?
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:55 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:Yes he did. Who else had done it before him?


I meant this in a purely legal/non-artistic sense. Also, that originality comment wasn't about composing silence, just silence in general.

Antimatter Spork wrote:This is somewhat related (I think) to the "My five year old could do this" family of arguments. Unless your five year old did it (and they didn't), shut up about it. And if your five year old did paint something like that, was it a statement about the nature of art, or was it a five year old throwing paint around?


Consider the five-year-old throwing paint around as a Readymade.
Okay

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Chocceh wrote:
Antimatter Spork wrote:Yes he did. Who else had done it before him?


I meant this in a purely legal/non-artistic sense. Also, that originality comment wasn't about composing silence, just silence in general.

Ok. I see your point, but since this case is about whether or not Batt's piece was artistically equivalent/similar enough to Cage's piece to warrant Batt having to give money to the Cage Trust, the fact that John Cage didn't invent silence isn't really relevant.

Frankly, if Batt really wanted to have his piece be original, he could have not credited it to Cage, and also made sure (in the liner notes or something) that the piece was about the actual silence, which would have made it artistically different from 4'33'', which is about the fact that there isn't silence.

Chocceh wrote:
Antimatter Spork wrote:This is somewhat related (I think) to the "My five year old could do this" family of arguments. Unless your five year old did it (and they didn't), shut up about it. And if your five year old did paint something like that, was it a statement about the nature of art, or was it a five year old throwing paint around?


Consider the five-year-old throwing paint around as a Readymade.

I'm not really sure exactly what your point is here.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:08 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:
darwinwins wrote:
if it went to court, the trust would have lost -- the claim was that the one minute of silence used was ripped off of the 4'33 (cage, i believe, was listed as co-writer of the song in question). the reason they would have lost is that they can't tell you what part of 4'33 was ripped off for a minute.

I don't know where you're getting this from. The article makes it look like a very straightforward issue: Batt credited a piece on his album as being co-written by Cage, the Cage Trust wanted to know why they weren't getting a cut from a commercial use of Cage's work. I can't see how there would have been difficulty proving infringement when the defendant pretty much admits to it in the album credits.

In short, what Dream said.

Cage didn't really come up with anything super original (it was mostly original, but silence isn't)

Yes he did. Who else had done it before him? This is somewhat related (I think) to the "My five year old could do this" family of arguments. Unless your five year old did it (and they didn't), shut up about it. And if your five year old did paint something like that, was it a statement about the nature of art, or was it a five year old throwing paint around?

you can't use silence as a legitimate form of sound as it is the absence of it. the minute of silence was attributed to cage as an homage -- because obviously cage didn't create or invent silence. it was clever when he introduced it, but that was it. it was clever. an no, case would not have been straight up -- i don't know where you got your law degree but from my understanding of it is that the trust couldn't say which part of the work was infringed so their case was dead from the start. if an author accuses another of infringing on their work, it's pretty obvious what was ripped off. and no, i don't have a law degree but i have enough law in my schooling to know better than to make stupid comments about a subject i don't have an understanding of.

and that segues into the five year old comment. so what if there's an idea behind a piece of art that a five year could have done but didn't. we would call artwork by most five year olds as pieces of shit upon first glance. but it doesn't mean there wasn't thought involved. on the contrary, there's a tremednous amount of energy invovled in being creative when you're that young as synapses pop left and right as more connections are made in the brain. it's a different and volume of work involved when you're that young. be that as it may, most five year olds improve, as opposed to the crowd of artists whose works can be described as "my five year old could have done that." it's pretty sad when people look at your work and dismiss it as crap but what's sadder is that these people get defensive about their work and then try to explain themselves which adds to my suspicion that their works really are pieces of crap.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:13 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:Ok. I see your point, but since this case is about whether or not Batt's piece was artistically equivalent/similar enough to Cage's piece to warrant Batt having to give money to the Cage Trust, the fact that John Cage didn't invent silence isn't really relevant.

Frankly, if Batt really wanted to have his piece be original, he could have not credited it to Cage, and also made sure (in the liner notes or something) that the piece was about the actual silence, which would have made it artistically different from 4'33'', which is about the fact that there isn't silence.


Right. Once I read the article a little more closely, it wasn't quite as funny as I had thought.

Antimatter Spork wrote:I'm not really sure exactly what your point is here.


You can't dismiss "My kindergartner can do that" because if Duchamp can see art in a urinal, you can see art in throwing colors around.
Okay

User avatar
AerialSteamCarriage
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:09 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby AerialSteamCarriage » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:35 am UTC

First thing that popped into my head after reading about 4'33"- "I should frame a blank piece of canvas and mail it to the Louvre."
Spoiler:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I read AerialSteamCarriage's username as "AnallySteamedCabbages".
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:36 am UTC

Someone's done it already. Probably. Except that someone else painted it black first, and that was considered smarter. Maybe.
Sometimes breaking convention becomes really predicable.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:37 am UTC

darwinwins wrote:you can't use silence as a legitimate form of sound as it is the absence of it.


So Zero is not a number.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:39 am UTC

More like vacuum isn't pressure.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:39 am UTC

Berengal wrote:Someone's done it already. Probably. Except that someone else painted it black first, and that was considered smarter. Maybe.
Sometimes breaking convention becomes really predicable.


They said they painted it black, but it was really red.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:41 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:They said they painted it black, but it was really red.


If you can title a light gray grid "Play," you can title a red canvas "Black."
Okay

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:41 am UTC

Berengal wrote:More like vacuum isn't pressure.
Perhaps you are unaware of the controversy that Zero as a number had.

Perhaps you are.

In any case, I stand by my statement. 4:33 of silence is as much of a song as Beethoven's Ninth or an Anal Cunt tune.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Oort
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 pm UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Oort » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:52 am UTC

Even if we agreed that it is a song, we could still argue that it sucks, couldn't we? At least as compared to Beethoven. The idea is clever, but it's not so great to listen to.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:58 am UTC

A roomful of midgets may seem like a clever idea in theory, but that doesn't mean it's good to fuck.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Chocceh wrote:
Antimatter Spork wrote:Ok. I see your point, but since this case is about whether or not Batt's piece was artistically equivalent/similar enough to Cage's piece to warrant Batt having to give money to the Cage Trust, the fact that John Cage didn't invent silence isn't really relevant.

Frankly, if Batt really wanted to have his piece be original, he could have not credited it to Cage, and also made sure (in the liner notes or something) that the piece was about the actual silence, which would have made it artistically different from 4'33'', which is about the fact that there isn't silence.


Right. Once I read the article a little more closely, it wasn't quite as funny as I had thought.

Antimatter Spork wrote:I'm not really sure exactly what your point is here.


You can't dismiss "My kindergartner can do that" because if Duchamp can see art in a urinal, you can see art in throwing colors around.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that a kindergartner can create art, I'm dismissing that argument as a reason to say that Jackson Pollock ISN'T art.

you can't use silence as a legitimate form of sound as it is the absence of it. the minute of silence was attributed to cage as an homage -- because obviously cage didn't create or invent silence. it was clever when he introduced it, but that was it. it was clever. an no, case would not have been straight up -- i don't know where you got your law degree but from my understanding of it is that the trust couldn't say which part of the work was infringed so their case was dead from the start. if an author accuses another of infringing on their work, it's pretty obvious what was ripped off. and no, i don't have a law degree but i have enough law in my schooling to know better than to make stupid comments about a subject i don't have an understanding of.

That's exactly it. Cage's 4'33'' isn't ABOUT silence. It's about the sounds that are constantly all around us anyway. Cage liked to talk about the anechoic chamber he went into once. It was a room specifically designed to remove all sound, and Cage talked about hearing two sounds, one high and one low. His music, especially 4'33'', is largely about this omnipresence of sound, and the musical qualities inherent in all sound. As for the case: no, I don't have a law degree. However, both sides in this case had lawyers, who presumably thought that there was a case and that the Cage trust was pretty much on the right side, since it was settled in their favor for a considerable amount of money, which Batt presumably wouldn't have paid if he could avoid it by going to trial and fighting it. Besides the aforementioned attribution on the album seems to make it pretty obvious (though as someone who isn't a lawyer, I suppose I should concede that it is possible that the courts require you to say which part of a work is being infringed. However, I offer a counterexample: Eric Satie's Vexations consists of 18 notes repeated 814 times. A complete performance takes something on the order of 20 hours. If I write a piece that consists of the same 18 notes repeated 12 times, should the people suing me for copyright infringement have to show which 12 times I'm infringing? How about if, on the album, the piece is credited to AntimatterSpork/Satie?)

and that segues into the five year old comment. so what if there's an idea behind a piece of art that a five year could have done but didn't. we would call artwork by most five year olds as pieces of shit upon first glance. but it doesn't mean there wasn't thought involved. on the contrary, there's a tremednous amount of energy invovled in being creative when you're that young as synapses pop left and right as more connections are made in the brain. it's a different and volume of work involved when you're that young. be that as it may, most five year olds improve, as opposed to the crowd of artists whose works can be described as "my five year old could have done that." it's pretty sad when people look at your work and dismiss it as crap but what's sadder is that these people get defensive about their work and then try to explain themselves which adds to my suspicion that their works really are pieces of crap.

If someone listens to Beethoven's 9th, says "that was too long and boring, and therefore crap", and I try to explain why it's a masterpiece, does my explanation confirm their original judgment that the work is crap? I don't think so. That person may not like Beethoven's 9th, but that doesn't detract from its artistic value.

As for the five year olds, what's to say that "modern" artists couldn't paint things that you would call "better" if they wanted to? Lots of them can. However, with the advent of photography, the purpose of painting (if there is one) has shifted away from photorealism (or any sort of realism at all). Art isn't (and arguably never has been) about describing the world.

Besides, art that's about stretching the boundaries of art is largely about being first anyway. The first person to paint "White on White" or to make a Readymade is redefining art, but the second one is being imitative. You don't see any other composers writing 4'33'' because Cage already did that (Batt aside, since his silent track was part of a larger whole, and most musical compositions include some silence, though usually not on that magnitude).

Frankly, I think we need to look at the people who attack modern art, since a lot of the attacks ("what's so special about that" and "my kindergartener could do that" included) seem to be motivated by an underlying sentiment of "darn! I wish I had thought of that first", and not always just because Jackson Pollock's paintings get sold for a lot of money. (It's also important to note that a lot of avant-garde experimentalists were established in their respective communities before they really started getting into pushing boundaries.)
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:I'm not dismissing the possibility that a kindergartner can create art, I'm dismissing that argument as a reason to say that Jackson Pollock ISN'T art.


I think his first piece like that was indeed a great artistic statement. After that, the statement had already been made, and it seems to me like he was just piggybacking off established work with little effort.

Antimatter Spork wrote:Frankly, I think we need to look at the people who attack modern art, since a lot of the attacks ("what's so special about that" and "my kindergartener could do that" included) seem to be motivated by an underlying sentiment of "darn! I wish I had thought of that first", and not always just because Jackson Pollock's paintings get sold for a lot of money. (It's also important to note that a lot of avant-garde experimentalists were established in their respective communities before they really started getting into pushing boundaries.)


I think it would be neat if I made that first. But that's not why I'm annoyed. I'm annoyed because Jackson Pollock's paintings get sold for a lot of money. I don't have a vendetta against modern art - I think the same thing about professional athletes.
Okay

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:17 am UTC

Doctors help keep us alive. Farmers provide us with food.

Artists remind us why it is good to be alive. They deserve everything.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby PictureSarah » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:21 am UTC

Yes. So you should all start bringing me everything now. Chop chop. Except piranhas. And anthrax. Don't bring me those.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
LoopQuantumGravity
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:19 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby LoopQuantumGravity » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:23 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
darwinwins wrote:you can't use silence as a legitimate form of sound as it is the absence of it.


So Zero is not a number.


The same logic that leads to these kinds of comments leads to "hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to take a crap on this sheet and call it art?"

Really, just because you can think of it doesn't make it good. People think stupid things all the time, and this kind of crap isn't any different, other than having that stupid Emo "let's be different just because we can be different" culture.
I study theoretical physics & strings, and am a recipient of the prestigious Jayne Cobb Hero of Canton award.

And the science gets done and you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive!

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:28 am UTC

You get to decide what's good and bad? Fuck. That. Shit. If I want to be different for the sake of being different, I'll damn well do it, and to hell with people like you.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:31 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:You get to decide what's good and bad? Fuck. That. Shit. If I want to be different for the sake of being different, I'll damn well do it, and to hell with people like you.


Warning: Picture of a possibly disturbing dog on this page.

I've been wanting to use this link since the thread began, so it had damn well be put to good use now.
Okay

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:32 am UTC

Chocceh wrote:I'm annoyed because Jackson Pollock's paintings get sold for a lot of money.

That doesn't make them any more or less artistically valid.

Also, I agree with everything in your post.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:39 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Doctors help keep us alive. Farmers provide us with food.

Artists remind us why it is good to be alive. They deserve everything.

While the statement about doctors and farmers is true to the extent that it's almost a definition, the statement about artists isn't as universally true. "Instead, it should be some* artists remind us why it is good to be alive. These deserve everything."
I'd also like to dispute this, as unlike farmers and doctors which I rely on for food and medical expertise, I'm quite able to remind myself why it is good to be alive. Yes, it's nice to be reminded more than I could do by myself, and they should be rewarded for that, but given a choice between farmers and artists, I'd choose farmers.

*This has mostly to do with skill. Yes, there might be doctors with a less than 100% cure ratio, but most artists have a less than 20% success ratio**.

**I base this on the fact that more than 80% of artists I've encountered have failed to induce some emotional experience. (This is counting after I seriously started appreciating art). In addition, more than 40% of my "art experiences" come from what I like to call random art. That is, random stuff lying around, like a pretty rock, stars or the curious frost forest on my roof.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:42 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:That doesn't make them any more or less artistically valid.

Also, I agree with everything in your post.


Right - I agree that as far as the definition of art goes, it's on par with The Last Supper. Things get different when we start talking about whether I think the artist is just bullshitting everyone or not, or at least if I like it or not.

Berengal: I have the feeling that TMT wasn't being totally serious (dunno, maybe he was), but otherwise, agreed.
Okay

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:44 am UTC

I don't know about you, but I don't see TMT's statement as being meant to be universally true about artists. In fact, it doesn't have to be.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:51 am UTC

Okay, maybe I just interpreted it that way because I wanted to use footnotes, but it was completely unintentional.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:55 am UTC

Berengal wrote:Okay, maybe I just interpreted it that way because I wanted to use footnotes, but it was completely unintentional.

Understandable. Footnotes are awesome*

*yes, they are**
**except in certain circumstances***
***not really.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Oort
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 pm UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Oort » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:11 am UTC

Of course we get to decide what's good and bad. If people put art up for public display or auction it, it deserves to be critiqued or criticized. That's why museums don't randomly select which pieces they'll show. Being different just for the sake of it is fine with me, but is it really good art?
In case it's not clear, I'm thinking of individual pieces, not any entire genre.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Chocceh » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:18 am UTC

Oort wrote:Of course we get to decide what's good and bad. If people put art up for public display or auction it, it deserves to be critiqued or criticized. That's why museums don't randomly select which pieces they'll show. Being different just for the sake of it is fine with me, but is it really good art?
In case it's not clear, I'm thinking of individual pieces, not any entire genre.


I would imagine that TMT had a problem with the idea that someone's opinion of what's good or bad was the end-all-be-all opinion, not someone's right to an opinion. Unless I'm wrong, in which case I don't agree with TMT.
Okay

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Khonsu » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:36 am UTC

Why is everyone being an ass about this? Seriously.

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, art (poetry, prose, visual art, music, or performance) is all about expression. Whether or not ANYONE ELSE gets anything out of it, the moment of having an idea and executing it with your hands...that's a very powerful, human experience. It doesn't matter if no one else likes it, or it's conventionally mediocre, or even nonsensical. Art is always for the artist first. We're naturally selfish creatures. We do what we love, and since other people are (at the very least) fascinated by what we do, we are paid to continue doing it. We, as a wide, varied demographic, are fascinated by the process of creating something that has a history and a sense of structure to it. The most monumentous moments of artistic expression are found while playing with that structure or destroying it or reinventing it to our own delight, to push our thoughts and feelings to the limit, to whip ourselves into a frenzy we may not understand, just for the hell of it!

The best part of art, period, however is to realize that another precious, amazing human being looks at our fervor--frozen in type on the page, the paint on the canvas, the spectre of a photograph--and feels what we felt an hour, two weeks, or fifteen years previous when we first executed that piece. That connection is the art--the medium isn't shit. THAT'S the real crux of modern art (including not just visual art, but poetry, prose, music, and film, too)--focusing on the viewer and what they feel, instead of sticking to rigid conventions--meter, composition, lighting, whatever. Some people dispise e e cummings. Some people dispise Picasso. Some people dispise James Joyce. I don't get it--maybe you don't like the emotional reactions you're driven to have, but you still feel. Isn't that the whole of the human experience? To feel?

Art is--and I AM pompous enough to say that art IS something--about saying "I thought this, I felt this. I was so compelled, I had to do something about it. Maybe you, the viewer, felt or thought something as you enjoyed this book/painting/photo/sculpture/musical piece, too. I wanted this relationship, my feelings and yours, to be known as a testament of my humanity. That I am capable of making any medium mean something. Thus I created this." Does it matter if the message is positive, negative, or up to interpretation? Not at all. The message isn't IN the medium, it IS the medium.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:41 am UTC

While I agree with just about everything Khonsu, I'm of the same opinion as one of the artists I used to hang out with: "It's not art until you say it is. I just do this because I like setting fire to canvases."
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby German Sausage » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:57 am UTC

Khonsu wrote:stuff

ma'am (?), i think i like you.
QuantumLoopGravity wrote:other stuff

person, just because you can find crappy examples of modern art doesn't mean that it is all crappy. sure, it is perhaps harder to find crappy examples of 17th century art, but that doesn't mean that the 17th century had better art, it just means that we have been told, as a society that that the 17th century produced what art is, as well as the fact most of the poor-average art of that period hasn't survived.

in the context of creativity, repetition is worse than innovation, even if the innovation falls on its face. sure, 99 of 100 new ideas will fail, but the one that makes it through (as with 0, talon, or perspective, for a more art-oriented example) makes those failures worthwhile.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:59 am UTC

German Sausage wrote:
Khonsu wrote:stuff

ma'am (?), i think i like you.
QuantumLoopGravity wrote:other stuff

person, just because you can find crappy examples of modern art doesn't mean that it is all crappy. sure, it is perhaps harder to find crappy examples of 17th century art, but that doesn't mean that the 17th century had better art, it just means that we have been told, as a society that that the 17th century produced what art is, as well as the fact most of the poor-average art of that period hasn't survived.

in the context of creativity, repetition is worse than innovation, even if the innovation falls on its face. sure, 99 of 100 new ideas will fail, but the one that makes it through (as with 0, talon, or perspective, for a more art-oriented example) makes those failures worthwhile.

i can assure everybody that crappy art has always existed. we were just spared most of it because deviant art didn't come along till the 1990's. imagine if it were around in the 1590's. eww.

but because there still exists a lot of artwork from the past few centuries, it all has to go somewhere -- and that somewhere is usually in storage in basements of museums. levels and levels of storage that will probably never again see again the light of day. and for the better.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
LoopQuantumGravity
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:19 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby LoopQuantumGravity » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:32 am UTC

Khonsu wrote:Why is everyone being an ass about this? Seriously.


Because my tax money / tuition pays for million dollar monstrosities that assault my eyes every day.

Whether it's your cup of tea or not, art (poetry, prose, visual art, music, or performance) is all about expression. Whether or not ANYONE ELSE gets anything out of it, the moment of having an idea and executing it with your hands...that's a very powerful, human experience.


I don't care if other people do it, I just don't want to have to look at it, pay for it, or be expected to appreciate it. Which I am, constantly, every time I go anywhere in this stupid city, which will remain nameless.

German Sausage wrote:person, just because you can find crappy examples of modern art doesn't mean that it is all crappy.


Person yourself. Crappy is an opinion.

sure, it is perhaps harder to find crappy examples of 17th century art, but that doesn't mean that the 17th century had better art


Actually, by definition, it would mean that on average it is better...

most of the poor-average art of that period hasn't survived.


Millions of years in the future, this will survive, aliens archeologists will see it and then kill themselves, knowing finally that their alien gods do not exist.

Image

in the context of creativity, repetition is worse than innovation, even if the innovation falls on its face. sure, 99 of 100 new ideas will fail, but the one that makes it through (as with 0, talon, or perspective, for a more art-oriented example) makes those failures worthwhile.


I shouldn't have to look at the 99 that fail every time I look out my window. Or pay for them.

Incidentally, I also find it ironic* that the same people who make this crap try to cut science funding because it can go to better things, like feeding the homeless.... Which, incidentally, are two reasons I am not getting paid for the research** I'm doing right now! So, no, I'm not at all bitter.

edit:
* no, wait, I mean moronic
** and every other department. Hope you enjoy your giant pile of $300 million dollar crap
Image
that doesn't even work right, is being sued over, will cost millions more in lawsuits, then millions more to fix!
That money couldn't have gone to anything good, like cancer research, no...
I study theoretical physics & strings, and am a recipient of the prestigious Jayne Cobb Hero of Canton award.

And the science gets done and you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive!

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Marbas » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:05 am UTC

My first thought when I saw that building was that we are gradually turning into Lovecraftian horrors.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:15 am UTC

architecture like the ones listed above would be referred to as functional art or functional sculptures.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:49 am UTC

Chocceh wrote:I would imagine that TMT had a problem with the idea that someone's opinion of what's good or bad was the end-all-be-all opinion, not someone's right to an opinion. Unless I'm wrong, in which case I don't agree with TMT.


That's exactly what I'm saying.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests