3 ms·

> Artists aren't that special Good artists are/aren't special in the same way that good programmers are/aren't special.

by isolate 11y ago

bane 11y ago
The problem with modern art is that there's no way to determine good or shitty artist. It's become some kind of weird money driven popularity contest, but skill of any sort has not been a component for decades.
- isolate 11y ago
  From what I've seen, it's more like there are too many people with great marketing and poor talent that make lots of money, and too many people with poor marketing and great talent that don't. You don't really see a lot of great talent at art galleries and shows because you need good marketing to get into them. But when you start to know artists personally, and you follow their process and techniques, you can witness the development of their talent, even for modern art, which I assume means anything developed post-war. We probably agree that most stuff is crap, but maybe just dig a little deeper and look a little longer?
- yk 11y ago
  You are confusing the money driven popularity contest with art. There is a modern art market, and you are right that it is just aesthetically pleasing objects made by famous guys, however that someone else pays a lot of money does not mean that you have to like it.
- pjbrunet 11y ago
  "There's no way to determine good or shitty artist." You need an expert opinion to see through the fake reviews and artificially inflated prices. There is a way. Among artists, it's generally accepted who has more raw talent, who's more prolific and so on. It's never absolutely clear but it's clear enough. As an artist, you work with these other artists and it becomes apparent after a while. Spoken or unspoken. Matisse respected Picasso. Picasso respected Cezanne. Cezanne respected Monet, and so on. Those aren't fake endorsements. It's not like a sport where you just follow a predetermined formula, add up some points and choose a winner. It's about perception, which is what artists really do. The painting is the end result of how that artist lives and perceives the world--that's the raw talent. But if you're not in that environment, you're not going to notice it. You get movements like Impressionism, where somebody like Monet earns respect from peers and that reputation spreads and it expands from there.
  - bane 11y ago
    A year ago I went to a museum that, among other works, prominently displayed several monumental-sized canvases each by different artists and each either painted a single solid color, or consisted of paint randomly thrown on the canvas. In a different section there was a large room filled with everyday objects wrapped in tin foil. In the room next door was an empty room, over which in the corner an "artist" had emptied an entire can of self-hardening foam and in an another corner an "artist" had welded together two large steel plates that looked to have come direct from the steel mill. Bored with this, I went to see the "special exhibit" which was a Mark Rothko exhibit split into two sections: one where he painted giant rectangles using different colors, and one where he painted giant rectangles using the same color on top of it self (red on red, black on black, etc.) How am I, as a viewer, supposed to know who's better? The steel plates at least took some logistics and welding skill to transport and make. But...meh? If that entire museum sunk into the river it was next to with all the works of art in it, would humanity be any poorer for it?
    - pjbrunet 11y ago
      It's possible the artist doesn't even care about the viewer at all. Many artists create work for their own reasons. Some people see art as entertainment, but I see it as a form of communication. It's not necessarily about communicating something pleasant either. So what you just said could be communicated by painting a museum sinking into a river, or to further abstract, a white square painted over by a blue field of color. As for that curator, that show, maybe they're trying to build up some emerging artists by connecting them to Rothko, who we recognize. Important questions are: Who was first (to wrap tinfoil objects) and how serious were they about it, and how does it fit in context with past work? Hypothetically, a wrapping of tinfoil might be more meaningful if you're familiar with that artist's body of work, maybe there's a certain "tinfoil" sensibility you would miss without familiarity with the artist's past work. Or is the tinfoil more a reaction or comment? Sculpture must be held accountable for choice of material, so the choice of tinfoil was deliberate for its properties or public connotations or both. Duchamp's urinal gets a lot of attention, but at that time in history it was a new idea and he had the respect of his peers already. So I think sculpture more requires you learn the history, they tend to get more conceptual than painters and it ends up involving philosophy sometimes. But also you get a feeling for materials and how they're put together, similar to the feelings you get when entering someone's home, you can't literally explain it, but you sense it's there. Writing this on my mobile btw. Just in terms of craftsmanship, that would impress an engineer, that's a whole different world and there's "craft" museums, where it's not about concepts as much as it's about the tools and the work and perfecting the work process, the engineering. Sculptors need some craftsmanship to be taken seriously, but it' primarily about the ideas and concepts. Personally, I appreciate craftsmanship so I might gravitate to work that's less philosophical and more about structure, space and craftsmanship. Last point about field paintings. It may just look like one boring color. I agree these are boring, but there's two areas to consider. First, there's a lot of choices involved. How was the canvas constructed, a flat color painting becomes a sculptural object, how are the corners wrapped, is it cotton or linen or oil or latex? Also there's different chemical pigments for different reds, so red isn't just a number on a color wheel. It might cost thousands of dollars to get that much of a certain pigment. Also what kind of oil was used? Is it glazed? How was the paint applied? How was the glaze applied? Endless decisions just to make a one color painting. Then you get into all the strange "color therapy" stuff that I never learned, but some people take colors and the physiological effects very seriously. Also hanging and lighting pieces like that in context with other work, maybe the curator has some ideas behind that, there could be a regional or historical connection. It's not for everybody and I usually rush past the really plain field paintings, but I definitely enjoy some of the abstract expressionist painters that incorporate fields of color.
- atomicfiredoll 11y ago
  It seems that as the the modern world has made it easier to produce art, the average person's mind commonly turns art into some sort of demarcation problem. More people appear to struggle in differentiating art from pseudo-art. Perhaps they think of pseudo-art as a simple attempt to rake in money from collectors, pieces made only to fill space in corporate office parks, or work they could "get from any art student." They become wary, as in their mind they don't want to be conned by a pseudo-artist or amateur. Of course, that mindset assumes that pseudo-art exists or at the very least acquiring it is prevalent threat. One popular and respected local artist (now owner of several galleries bearing his name) once told me, "I have to finish one painting a day to support myself as an artist." Are those paintings pseudo-art because he intended to make profit off something he knew would sell? I struggle to think of people who know his work and wouldn't consider it "art" or him an "artist." Is the corporate sculpture fake simply because of where it's displayed or who contracted the artist? Just because the student's name isn't popular or their skills are still lacking refinement, should they be denied the ability to become a master? If they do manage to make that transformation and their early work becomes more valuable than ever, why only then is it not pseudo-art? Obviously, I'm not asking you to answer these questions or even acknowledge their relevance. It's just sort of a train of thought your comment kicked off.

> Artists aren't that special Good artists are/aren't special in the same way that good programmers are/aren't special.

by isolate 11y ago

> Artists aren't that special Good artists are/aren't special in the same way that good programmers are/aren't special.

bane 11y ago

The problem with modern art is that there's no way to determine good or shitty artist. It's become some kind of weird money driven popularity contest, but skill of any sort has not been a component for decades.

isolate 11y ago
From what I've seen, it's more like there are too many people with great marketing and poor talent that make lots of money, and too many people with poor marketing and great talent that don't. You don't really see a lot of great talent at art galleries and shows because you need good marketing to get into them. But when you start to know artists personally, and you follow their process and techniques, you can witness the development of their talent, even for modern art, which I assume means anything developed post-war. We probably agree that most stuff is crap, but maybe just dig a little deeper and look a little longer?
yk 11y ago
You are confusing the money driven popularity contest with art. There is a modern art market, and you are right that it is just aesthetically pleasing objects made by famous guys, however that someone else pays a lot of money does not mean that you have to like it.
pjbrunet 11y ago
"There's no way to determine good or shitty artist." You need an expert opinion to see through the fake reviews and artificially inflated prices. There is a way. Among artists, it's generally accepted who has more raw talent, who's more prolific and so on. It's never absolutely clear but it's clear enough. As an artist, you work with these other artists and it becomes apparent after a while. Spoken or unspoken. Matisse respected Picasso. Picasso respected Cezanne. Cezanne respected Monet, and so on. Those aren't fake endorsements. It's not like a sport where you just follow a predetermined formula, add up some points and choose a winner. It's about perception, which is what artists really do. The painting is the end result of how that artist lives and perceives the world--that's the raw talent. But if you're not in that environment, you're not going to notice it. You get movements like Impressionism, where somebody like Monet earns respect from peers and that reputation spreads and it expands from there.
- bane 11y ago
  A year ago I went to a museum that, among other works, prominently displayed several monumental-sized canvases each by different artists and each either painted a single solid color, or consisted of paint randomly thrown on the canvas. In a different section there was a large room filled with everyday objects wrapped in tin foil. In the room next door was an empty room, over which in the corner an "artist" had emptied an entire can of self-hardening foam and in an another corner an "artist" had welded together two large steel plates that looked to have come direct from the steel mill. Bored with this, I went to see the "special exhibit" which was a Mark Rothko exhibit split into two sections: one where he painted giant rectangles using different colors, and one where he painted giant rectangles using the same color on top of it self (red on red, black on black, etc.) How am I, as a viewer, supposed to know who's better? The steel plates at least took some logistics and welding skill to transport and make. But...meh? If that entire museum sunk into the river it was next to with all the works of art in it, would humanity be any poorer for it?
  - pjbrunet 11y ago
    It's possible the artist doesn't even care about the viewer at all. Many artists create work for their own reasons. Some people see art as entertainment, but I see it as a form of communication. It's not necessarily about communicating something pleasant either. So what you just said could be communicated by painting a museum sinking into a river, or to further abstract, a white square painted over by a blue field of color. As for that curator, that show, maybe they're trying to build up some emerging artists by connecting them to Rothko, who we recognize. Important questions are: Who was first (to wrap tinfoil objects) and how serious were they about it, and how does it fit in context with past work? Hypothetically, a wrapping of tinfoil might be more meaningful if you're familiar with that artist's body of work, maybe there's a certain "tinfoil" sensibility you would miss without familiarity with the artist's past work. Or is the tinfoil more a reaction or comment? Sculpture must be held accountable for choice of material, so the choice of tinfoil was deliberate for its properties or public connotations or both. Duchamp's urinal gets a lot of attention, but at that time in history it was a new idea and he had the respect of his peers already. So I think sculpture more requires you learn the history, they tend to get more conceptual than painters and it ends up involving philosophy sometimes. But also you get a feeling for materials and how they're put together, similar to the feelings you get when entering someone's home, you can't literally explain it, but you sense it's there. Writing this on my mobile btw. Just in terms of craftsmanship, that would impress an engineer, that's a whole different world and there's "craft" museums, where it's not about concepts as much as it's about the tools and the work and perfecting the work process, the engineering. Sculptors need some craftsmanship to be taken seriously, but it' primarily about the ideas and concepts. Personally, I appreciate craftsmanship so I might gravitate to work that's less philosophical and more about structure, space and craftsmanship. Last point about field paintings. It may just look like one boring color. I agree these are boring, but there's two areas to consider. First, there's a lot of choices involved. How was the canvas constructed, a flat color painting becomes a sculptural object, how are the corners wrapped, is it cotton or linen or oil or latex? Also there's different chemical pigments for different reds, so red isn't just a number on a color wheel. It might cost thousands of dollars to get that much of a certain pigment. Also what kind of oil was used? Is it glazed? How was the paint applied? How was the glaze applied? Endless decisions just to make a one color painting. Then you get into all the strange "color therapy" stuff that I never learned, but some people take colors and the physiological effects very seriously. Also hanging and lighting pieces like that in context with other work, maybe the curator has some ideas behind that, there could be a regional or historical connection. It's not for everybody and I usually rush past the really plain field paintings, but I definitely enjoy some of the abstract expressionist painters that incorporate fields of color.
atomicfiredoll 11y ago
It seems that as the the modern world has made it easier to produce art, the average person's mind commonly turns art into some sort of demarcation problem. More people appear to struggle in differentiating art from pseudo-art. Perhaps they think of pseudo-art as a simple attempt to rake in money from collectors, pieces made only to fill space in corporate office parks, or work they could "get from any art student." They become wary, as in their mind they don't want to be conned by a pseudo-artist or amateur. Of course, that mindset assumes that pseudo-art exists or at the very least acquiring it is prevalent threat. One popular and respected local artist (now owner of several galleries bearing his name) once told me, "I have to finish one painting a day to support myself as an artist." Are those paintings pseudo-art because he intended to make profit off something he knew would sell? I struggle to think of people who know his work and wouldn't consider it "art" or him an "artist." Is the corporate sculpture fake simply because of where it's displayed or who contracted the artist? Just because the student's name isn't popular or their skills are still lacking refinement, should they be denied the ability to become a master? If they do manage to make that transformation and their early work becomes more valuable than ever, why only then is it not pseudo-art? Obviously, I'm not asking you to answer these questions or even acknowledge their relevance. It's just sort of a train of thought your comment kicked off.