3 ms·

> I actually just went to a modern art museum last weekend, and I came away thinking nothing more than "I should become a modern artist so I can bilk some rich

> I actually just went to a modern art museum last weekend, and I came away thinking nothing more than "I should become a modern artist so I can bilk some rich idiot out of their money, I could produce a lifetime worth of work this weekend." modern art = i could do that + yeah, but you didn't (credit to Craig Damrauer)

coldtea 11y ago
>modern art = i could do that + yeah, but you didn't So? The "yeah, but you didn't" about a lot of modern art is different than the "yeah, but you didn't" about someone saying "I could be a hollywood star", "I could win the Tour de France", etc. In the modern art's case, people could totally "do that", and that they didn't only proves that they didn't bother.
- yeahbutyoudidnt 11y ago
  No, not really. Al freír de los huevos, lo verá.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Sometimes los huevos are just a crappy omelette. And you got the parts wrong: it's the artist presenting some crap that's more like Quixote (although often an insincere Quixote who doesn't even himself believe in the crap he makes), and the critic that's more like Sancho. Are you implying that the artist is some kind of special person, whose training or inherent sense of aesthetics etc, make him produce stuff that laymen can't produce? Because if you are, then besides the obvious fact that lots of artists are even less training in the arts or aesthetics than some laymen, you also ignore that the whole point of 20th century art was that art is not some special "sphere" but it belonged to everyone and even kids could do it just as well as "artists". Down to snubbing traditional art education and history. Dadaism and surrealism were all anti-artist in that sense.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Abstract hard can be harder than it looks. (Buy some acrylics and try it if you don't believe me.) But the 'you didn't' part is more about self-promotion and networking than aesthetics. If you park your abstract canvas on the desk of Important Gallery and wait for them to offer you an exhibition, you'll be waiting a long time - unless you've already made a name for yourself through self-promotion, networking, and (cynical?) cultivation of galleries, patrons, and important collectors. Or you've been already been canonised by same as The Next Big Thing. So from the point of view of art-as-marketing, you couldn't do that. Put crudely, no one cares unless they can make money from your work (top tier galleries, collectors) or cultural capital (national galleries, museums.) And money isn't going to happen unless you're already on the inside having come up through art school and made the right connections, or you're enough of an edgy outsider to have a bankable story.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Abstract hard can be harder than it looks. (Buy some acrylics and try it if you don't believe me.) I have a fine arts background (design and painting lessons at an art school, etc.), so yes, I know that it can be hard to create some abstract art. But that's only the case if you have a specific hard visual end goal that you need to get to. In most modern cases the only difficulty is only "conceptual". That said, I don't think art is good only when it's "ealistic", or that art is good only when its hard to execute. Some modern pieces can still be both hard -- requiring a whole team to create -- and crap. So, I agree that conceptually challenging art can be good too. But for most of modern art I have the impression that the conceptual part is also a half-thought gesture to just make something to sell, often by an idiot who wouldn't understand a true concept if it bit them in the ass, and who just goes through the motions. Or by someone who thinks that he's creating some painful manifestation of his unique experience, but is just producing stale, cliched crap. >But the 'you didn't' part is more about self-promotion and networking than aesthetics. Exactly. Which I don't consider the important part of what art should be about. >So from the point of view of art-as-marketing, you couldn't do that. Well, except if I was cynical, devoted the same time, and was into ass-kissing and socializing. Which might be hard, but it's hardly laudable.
  - bane 11y ago
ansible 11y ago
modern art = i could do that + yeah, but you didn't To me, good art is the combination of a couple things: skill and vision. Vision, the intent to express some idea (hopefully interesting) is absolutely needed. Even if I don't understand it, I can respect that someone is trying to make a statement of some kind. Skill, of some sort is also needed for me to call it art. If there was no craft involved in the creation, no practice, no iteration... then I don't consider it worthy of my time. Show me something that you can do that I can't, basically. If your "art" consists of a couple common items that took all of ten minutes to put together, that is not art to me. You may be making a statement, which is great, but it is not great art.

coldtea 11y ago

>modern art = i could do that + yeah, but you didn't So? The "yeah, but you didn't" about a lot of modern art is different than the "yeah, but you didn't" about someone saying "I could be a hollywood star", "I could win the Tour de France", etc. In the modern art's case, people could totally "do that", and that they didn't only proves that they didn't bother.

yeahbutyoudidnt 11y ago
No, not really. Al freír de los huevos, lo verá.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Sometimes los huevos are just a crappy omelette. And you got the parts wrong: it's the artist presenting some crap that's more like Quixote (although often an insincere Quixote who doesn't even himself believe in the crap he makes), and the critic that's more like Sancho. Are you implying that the artist is some kind of special person, whose training or inherent sense of aesthetics etc, make him produce stuff that laymen can't produce? Because if you are, then besides the obvious fact that lots of artists are even less training in the arts or aesthetics than some laymen, you also ignore that the whole point of 20th century art was that art is not some special "sphere" but it belonged to everyone and even kids could do it just as well as "artists". Down to snubbing traditional art education and history. Dadaism and surrealism were all anti-artist in that sense.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Abstract hard can be harder than it looks. (Buy some acrylics and try it if you don't believe me.) But the 'you didn't' part is more about self-promotion and networking than aesthetics. If you park your abstract canvas on the desk of Important Gallery and wait for them to offer you an exhibition, you'll be waiting a long time - unless you've already made a name for yourself through self-promotion, networking, and (cynical?) cultivation of galleries, patrons, and important collectors. Or you've been already been canonised by same as The Next Big Thing. So from the point of view of art-as-marketing, you couldn't do that. Put crudely, no one cares unless they can make money from your work (top tier galleries, collectors) or cultural capital (national galleries, museums.) And money isn't going to happen unless you're already on the inside having come up through art school and made the right connections, or you're enough of an edgy outsider to have a bankable story.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Abstract hard can be harder than it looks. (Buy some acrylics and try it if you don't believe me.) I have a fine arts background (design and painting lessons at an art school, etc.), so yes, I know that it can be hard to create some abstract art. But that's only the case if you have a specific hard visual end goal that you need to get to. In most modern cases the only difficulty is only "conceptual". That said, I don't think art is good only when it's "ealistic", or that art is good only when its hard to execute. Some modern pieces can still be both hard -- requiring a whole team to create -- and crap. So, I agree that conceptually challenging art can be good too. But for most of modern art I have the impression that the conceptual part is also a half-thought gesture to just make something to sell, often by an idiot who wouldn't understand a true concept if it bit them in the ass, and who just goes through the motions. Or by someone who thinks that he's creating some painful manifestation of his unique experience, but is just producing stale, cliched crap. >But the 'you didn't' part is more about self-promotion and networking than aesthetics. Exactly. Which I don't consider the important part of what art should be about. >So from the point of view of art-as-marketing, you couldn't do that. Well, except if I was cynical, devoted the same time, and was into ass-kissing and socializing. Which might be hard, but it's hardly laudable.
- bane 11y ago

ansible 11y ago

modern art = i could do that + yeah, but you didn't To me, good art is the combination of a couple things: skill and vision. Vision, the intent to express some idea (hopefully interesting) is absolutely needed. Even if I don't understand it, I can respect that someone is trying to make a statement of some kind. Skill, of some sort is also needed for me to call it art. If there was no craft involved in the creation, no practice, no iteration... then I don't consider it worthy of my time. Show me something that you can do that I can't, basically. If your "art" consists of a couple common items that took all of ten minutes to put together, that is not art to me. You may be making a statement, which is great, but it is not great art.