3 ms·

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,

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.
- gowld 8y ago
  Pollack made beautifully balanced chaotic patterns, not merely spilled paint. Cage made a recording of an audience waiting for music. The audience was the work, not the orchestra.
dahart 8y ago
What part do you disagree with? It sounds like you're agreeing fervently with the parent & GP comments... That said, effort isn't generally what makes or breaks art, either in the gallery / collector world, nor among artists. Very, very few stippled paintings that took more than 5 hours of work are considered profound in any way. It's been done already. Maybe you meant to imply skill, but skill isn't that important to art history either. Somewhat important, perhaps, but not generally in the top 3. Concept and narrative and novelty and luck all outweigh effort and skill, even among unpretentious skilled poor artists. > The art world isn't full of bohemians... it's full of pretentious, bored, rich people. I'd be careful to qualify that statement. There are lots more poor artists than rich people. When you say "the art world", if you're talking about Christie's and Sotheby's, then yes there are rich people. My personal "art world" is full of artists, and I don't pay attention to the stuff the auction houses are auctioning.
boomlinde 8y ago
> 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. That's something one might conclude about the "art world" if their only impression of it is from hearing about high profile auctions of weird paintings sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, which fits nicely in the general "rich people do the darnedest things" category of trivial news. Sure, someone with the right name can probably spit in a napkin and buy a car for the money, but in my experience this is a minority overwhelmed by people that can't even support themselves with their art, much less justify the cost of enjoying expensive works of art anywhere but in a gallery. I know many artists with vastly different approaches to expression, none of which are rich, most of which also have to work day jobs to make ends meet. I don't think any of them would regard a white-painted canvas as particularly interesting.

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.
gowld 8y ago
Pollack made beautifully balanced chaotic patterns, not merely spilled paint. Cage made a recording of an audience waiting for music. The audience was the work, not the orchestra.

dahart 8y ago

What part do you disagree with? It sounds like you're agreeing fervently with the parent & GP comments... That said, effort isn't generally what makes or breaks art, either in the gallery / collector world, nor among artists. Very, very few stippled paintings that took more than 5 hours of work are considered profound in any way. It's been done already. Maybe you meant to imply skill, but skill isn't that important to art history either. Somewhat important, perhaps, but not generally in the top 3. Concept and narrative and novelty and luck all outweigh effort and skill, even among unpretentious skilled poor artists. > The art world isn't full of bohemians... it's full of pretentious, bored, rich people. I'd be careful to qualify that statement. There are lots more poor artists than rich people. When you say "the art world", if you're talking about Christie's and Sotheby's, then yes there are rich people. My personal "art world" is full of artists, and I don't pay attention to the stuff the auction houses are auctioning.

boomlinde 8y ago

> 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. That's something one might conclude about the "art world" if their only impression of it is from hearing about high profile auctions of weird paintings sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, which fits nicely in the general "rich people do the darnedest things" category of trivial news. Sure, someone with the right name can probably spit in a napkin and buy a car for the money, but in my experience this is a minority overwhelmed by people that can't even support themselves with their art, much less justify the cost of enjoying expensive works of art anywhere but in a gallery. I know many artists with vastly different approaches to expression, none of which are rich, most of which also have to work day jobs to make ends meet. I don't think any of them would regard a white-painted canvas as particularly interesting.