6 ms·

> I'm inclined to think that the general public underestimate contemporary art and the art world overestimate its superiority over the more conventional works.

> I'm inclined to think that the general public underestimate contemporary art and the art world overestimate its superiority over the more conventional works. I really like your framing of this and agree wholeheartedly. I think it really comes from contemporary art’s focus on abstraction and meaning within context. The combination of focus on abstraction and meaning while requiring the viewer to understand the context in which a work was made makes it very inaccessible to all but those who have the time and knowledge to develop that understanding from. This makes it very inaccessible to general audiences. Alternatively, so often the depth of the meaning/context and the effectiveness of the abstraction are quite underwhelming in reality but overly celebrated by the art world.

guelo 8y ago
In that case accessibility would be enhanced by the artist writing down the meaning and context. But I take it that artists are loathe to do that because they fear that explaining it would make it lose it's mystique, kind of like how explaining a joke ruins it, so you basically end up with what amounts to elaborate inside jokes. OTOH, it probably helps drive up the price when the rich buyers feel like they're part of the secret in-group.
- crucialfelix 8y ago
  Artists almost always write an extensive explanation of what their work means. It's got to the point of satire: https://artybollocks.com/generator.html https://artybollocks.com/generator.html
  - sitkack 8y ago
    http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Err... the great majority of artists do no such thing. Do you have any idea of how many people do some sort of creative work as a hobby?
newswriter99 8y ago
I disagree. If you spent two minutes rolling some white paint on a white canvas because your "abstract message" was about the void of space, it's not profound, you're being an ass. Conversely if you spent at least five hours stippling black spots on a white canvas in the image of some obscure shape, because you had a concept in your head, and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. The art world isn't full of bohemians with time and knowledge who've developed understanding of abstractness. It's full of pretentious, bored, rich people. Huge difference.
- 2bitencryption 8y ago
  > if you spent at least five hours ... and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. Got it. work >= 5hrs == TRUE REAL PROFOUND ART, work < 5hrs == UTTER GARBAGE PRETENTIOUS BULLSHIT. Art is purely expression. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to express what you're expressing. Pollock may have just splattered painting on a canvas. But it was still a true expression. John Cage made a composition where the orchestra doesn't play any notes. But it's still an expression.
  - hobs 8y ago
    And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such. The fact that rich people are willing to pay for some bland expression does not confer anything but monetary value to it. It doesn't become less garbage.
    - justinator 8y ago
      "Art is what you can get away with" – Andy Warhol
    - dagw 8y ago
      And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such. Sure, but that in itself doesn't make it any less art. Saying "I find this art boring and trite and consider it garbage" is fine. Saying "I find this boring and trite and thus it's garbage and not art" is in my opinion not a valid argument.
dagw 8y ago
made makes it very inaccessible to all but those who have the time and knowledge to develop that understanding Most halfway decent art galleries and museums are pretty good at providing very readable summaries of the exhibits they're putting on. Spending just 10-15 minutes reading the introductory text the museum provides is often all the background knowledge you need to gain a much greater, if not appreciation, then at least understanding, of what you are looking at.

guelo 8y ago

In that case accessibility would be enhanced by the artist writing down the meaning and context. But I take it that artists are loathe to do that because they fear that explaining it would make it lose it's mystique, kind of like how explaining a joke ruins it, so you basically end up with what amounts to elaborate inside jokes. OTOH, it probably helps drive up the price when the rich buyers feel like they're part of the secret in-group.

crucialfelix 8y ago
Artists almost always write an extensive explanation of what their work means. It's got to the point of satire: https://artybollocks.com/generator.html https://artybollocks.com/generator.html
- sitkack 8y ago
  http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Err... the great majority of artists do no such thing. Do you have any idea of how many people do some sort of creative work as a hobby?

newswriter99 8y ago

I disagree. If you spent two minutes rolling some white paint on a white canvas because your "abstract message" was about the void of space, it's not profound, you're being an ass. Conversely if you spent at least five hours stippling black spots on a white canvas in the image of some obscure shape, because you had a concept in your head, and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. The art world isn't full of bohemians with time and knowledge who've developed understanding of abstractness. It's full of pretentious, bored, rich people. Huge difference.

2bitencryption 8y ago
> if you spent at least five hours ... and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. Got it. work >= 5hrs == TRUE REAL PROFOUND ART, work < 5hrs == UTTER GARBAGE PRETENTIOUS BULLSHIT. Art is purely expression. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to express what you're expressing. Pollock may have just splattered painting on a canvas. But it was still a true expression. John Cage made a composition where the orchestra doesn't play any notes. But it's still an expression.
- hobs 8y ago
  And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such. The fact that rich people are willing to pay for some bland expression does not confer anything but monetary value to it. It doesn't become less garbage.
  - justinator 8y ago
    "Art is what you can get away with" – Andy Warhol
  - dagw 8y ago
    And an expression can be boring and trite, and we can judge it for being such. Sure, but that in itself doesn't make it any less art. Saying "I find this art boring and trite and consider it garbage" is fine. Saying "I find this boring and trite and thus it's garbage and not art" is in my opinion not a valid argument.

dagw 8y ago

made makes it very inaccessible to all but those who have the time and knowledge to develop that understanding Most halfway decent art galleries and museums are pretty good at providing very readable summaries of the exhibits they're putting on. Spending just 10-15 minutes reading the introductory text the museum provides is often all the background knowledge you need to gain a much greater, if not appreciation, then at least understanding, of what you are looking at.